Translator Question

While I am as fascinated (or even more so) as everyone else about the minutia, significa, and even the trivia of Biblical translational differences, we should not forget that, regardless of version, the basic message of the Bible (salvation) remains infalliable. And that is pretty neat.

--Ralph

 

6 pages to date on this thread without one person being persuaded from their stand on bible versions. I've said it before and I will say it again. It is not about preservation or translators. All of the material produced on either side bounces off like a rubber ball.The KING JAMES BIBLE issue is a HEART issue not resolved with educated responses.
Why not take some of that energy and direct it toward leading someone to Jesus Christ.You probably have someone lost within 1 mile of your home and have never told them how to be saved.
Just a thought: The new versions claim when they came out was to make the KJV easier to understand. Now that they are on the market they claim to be superior. To say that they are even the same is a lie. If you want scripture differences I will give them to you. Plenty of them.However I realize that it will not change your HEART .

 

Actually Steve, it is not about a heart issue. Consider Jesus ... he had a perfect heart. Yet he was not King James Only. The Apostle Paul who wrote over half the NT disagreed with you in print when he called something other than the KJV the Holy Scriptures. The Apostle Peter did the same thing. Rather than being a heart issue, it is an issue of honesty and common sense. It has already been solved long ago. Those of us who use the Bible as our final authority are prevented from saying that the KJV is the only word of God becuase our authority doesn't say that. I would challenge you as to your authority. What is it really? If your authority is the Bible, then you will not be KJOnly because the Bible does not teach that ... unless you have a passage that someone has not yet brought up.

 

Steve just said that the issue is a heart issue, implying that if everyone's heart was right they would be KJOnly. That assertion is not one that you made, it is one that he made and it is one that is demonstrably false.

I do not believe, as I have said before that you have reckoned through the implications of this statement. If you admit that the Bible was in existence before 1611 then you cannot assert that things that are different than the KJV are not the word of God. That is the bottom line. For us, we can assert that things that are different than the KJV are the word of God because we are not bound to the KJV as others are.

The position you have cited for Jesus is the one that the vast majority of evangelicals hold. Yet your side routinely accuses us of not believing the Bible. It shouldn't be hard to understand, you are right. I wonder why it is. The implications of your statements are perhaps things your side have not thought through. I really wonder how anyone can hold a KJVOnly position with a straight face. Something tells me they are laughing inside as they carry on this conversation. Something else tells me they honestly believe this.

Then why does your side keep telling us that we are unbiblical, influenced by Satan, blind to the truth, when not one verse can be offered to substantiate your position. You believe that the KVJ is "the English translation that most accurately reflects the originals" yet you have not seen the originals. Truth be told, you are dependent on others to tell you this, evidence that your final authority is not Scripture. That is fine in this case; just realize the implications of your position.

All through Scripture, differing texts and translations are used. Therefore, the historical evidence shows your statement to be inaccurate.

 

Larry, I see that you have made yourself the final authority.All your talk about the bible is false. You don't have one. Your reasoning is pathetic. Jesus or Paul never said a Chevrolet was a car so it must not be. If you feel you have any chance of causing me to doubt my KING JAMES BIBLE forget it.All of the people I have met over the years that prefer some other version cannot stand the idea of anyone trusting to the KING JAMES BIBLE. What is it with you? Is it that you do not have any peace about it? What drives you to undermine the KING JAMES BIBLE?
If you want to use something else go ahead but get off everyone that believes the KING JAMES BIBLE is the very words of God.

 

Where did you see that? It certainly wasn't from my post above. The Bible is my final authority. If the Bible is your final authority, then show me where the KJV is identified as the only word of God.

I do have a Bible. My reasoning is not pathetic which you would know if you considered it and tried to interact with it. All I have demonstrated is that history and Scripture is against you and when you say that the KJV is the only word of God, you must of necessity support it from outside Scripture. That is another authority. God didn't tell you to be KJOnly; someone else did.

[quyote]If you feel you have any chance of causing me to doubt my KING JAMES BIBLE forget it.All of the people I have met over the years that prefer some other version cannot stand the idea of anyone trusting to the KING JAMES BIBLE. What is it with you? Is it that you do not have any peace about it? What drives you to undermine the KING JAMES BIBLE?[/quote]I am not trying to get you to doubt the KJV. I am not trying to undermine. I have great peace about the KJV being the very word of God. But I also understand the biblical doctrine of Scripture which is utterly incompatible with KJOnlyism. I believe in honesty and integrity. Therefore, when I post, it is to present the truth in refutation of error and to encourage people to study God's word (not man's).

I sense some hostility in you Steve. I don't know why you are so worked up against people have the Bible in their own language. It is disappointing to see someone undermine Scripture. I would encourage you not to.

 

Larry,
I can see your problem at a glance. It is authority.You have to belittle other religions to make yours better. Your constant reference to "man told you" rings with I am the authority noone else.Look at whatever bible you want and tell me how God works and speaks to people. How many times does he use a man? If the KING JAMES BIBLE is the very word of God as you said and I know that it is not only the word of God but the words of God than other versions cannot be! They do not agree it is as simple as that. Don't start crying about being a martyr when for 6 pages you have tried to shake peoples confidence in th KING JAMES BIBLE ,THE WORDS OF GOD, THE SCRIPTURE,one in the same.

 

What??? My authority is Scripture. I have said that many times and demonstrated it by my doctrine.

My point is that Scripture is the authority. What man says is authoritative if it corresponds to Scripture. Where it does not, we must reject what man says. Scripture is clear that translations and copies of the word of God other than the KJV are indeed the word of God. Therefore, there is biblical support for my position that translations and copies other than the KJV can be called the word of God. The KJV translators said this themselves.

Actually they do agree. You have been mislead on this point. The doctrines of Scripture, the teachings of Scripture are the same. There are some minor variations due to following different copies. When Erasmus compiled his text (that became known as the TR), he followed about 8 manuscripts. It took him 5 tries to "get it right." The KJV has been changed substantively in many places in the years following its production. This fact of change undermines your claim that the KJV is the perfect word of God (as you use the word perfect). It clearly is not or it would not have had to be changed.

Why would I cry martyr? Martyrs die because they are in the minority. I am in the majority of evangelical and fundamental Christianity and I hold the position that church history has always held. I have not tried in the least to shake people's confidence in the KJV. To the contrary, I affirm their confidence in that translation. I, like the translators of the KJV, affirm that the word of God is any faithful translation and that a variety of translations should be used.

If you would like to interact with some actual substance here, that would be helpful and might serve to clear up some misunderstandings. Rantings against me are not productive in furthering the discussion however.

 

When was the majority ever right about anything?
I am not interested in discussing anything with you. Your post do not even agree with themselves. I am sorry for you and every other deceived person who does not have a bible. I have one a perfect preserved inspired one . It is none other than the KING JAMES.I thank God for the MEN and WOMEN who will stand by it regardless of people like yourself

 

Ooops, I feel like I started a flurry of debate with my very first posting on this board earlier today<g>.

I know, however, that I merely stepped in the middle of an ongoing debate and, in truth, one I've engaged in for years myself. In my case, I've been a member of the same Baptist church for over 50 years (almost all my life). I was born and raised on the KJV ... BUT ... I much prefer a Bible in my own native tongue (contemporary American English, or what passes for it on these shores). For years, I've loved and used the American Standard of 1901 (which is hardly "standard" English either). Now, however, I like the World English Bible a lot (which came from the ASV anyway). More on it at eBible.org.

Yet... let me say again, it's the message that matters, not the translation. The message is wonderful, no matter in what language or version of God's Holy Word you read it.

--Ralph

[ December 22, 2002, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Author ]

 

Oh, you mean that the Alexandrian bibles are exempt from the rule? they introduce a new version of the the same worn out text every other year;these so called "changes" in the KJV you speak of were nothing more than puctuation & spelling corrections.

Show me where Alexandrian bibles are the word of God from scripture.

Who told you to use Alexandrian bibles??

Does this bother you?? give me scripture to support the Alexandrian bibles;your side makes like KJV supportors are ignorant,unlearned dolts who could not find a bowling ball in a bathtub because we dont know Greek or Hebrew or have not read all of the available texts.

Have you??

Again,who told you different??

 

Author what is it about the AV1611 you don't understand?
As for the message:it is not the same in other versions.

 

Steve and JYD: It appears neither of you understand Pastor Larry's points. Maybe this will help: what was the "final authority" in 1605? Think carefully before answering.

 

Steve, I didn't say I did not understand it, just that I preferred more modern English for reading and study. If I was German, I would want it in German or, if Vietnamese, in Vietnamese. Is the message in those Bibles different as well? I think not. The message comes through Bibles in all languages, even those modes of communication not yet invented. Take for example the year 3003. How many different worlds will Mankind have expanded to then? How different will be the languages? What about sentient alien races? What versions of the gospel will they peruse?

Yet I am confident the message of salvation will still exist. It is this message that is infalliable, not necessarily the translations themselves. And that's the wonder and the glory of it.

--Ralph

 

Larry, I agree with your thinking !

 

Well what is the final authority in 2002? I know what mine is;just answer the questions,Who told you to use a Alexandrian bible?? give me scipture to justify using bibles that omits the blood,virgin birth ect.

 

You are willing to let a certain few tell you that the KJV is teh best translation without checking it out for yourself by comparing it against Scripture. When someone, such as Steve as such timely illustrated, says that the KJV is the perfect translation, they did not get that from Scripture; they got it from a man. It is demonstrably inaccurate as has been shown many times, Steve's protestations to the contrary. If someone is going to claim thier Bible is a perfect translation, then they must have the originals to compare it by. If they do not, then it is a matter of probability and reasonability as to the choices between textual variants.

Could you expound on this. I'm not sure I understand your point.</font>[/QUOTE]Sure. For those who say the KJV is the only translation we should use, their argument is refuted by documented Scriptural practice. No one in Scripture had the KJV and yet they all quoted Scripture with authority. No one had the originals or a perfect copy of the originals yet they all quoted it with authority. The point is that it is biblical to use the name Scripture or Bible for things that are not the KJV. It is also clear that things that differ from the KJV can rightly be called the inspired, inerrant, word of God. That is why I am urging Steve and others to get back to a biblical doctrine of inspiration rather than the man made one.

 

Then don't post here. This is a "discussion board" so named because people discuss things.

Sure they do. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate what you mean by this.

I have a Bible. In a little while I will stand and use it to call people to repentance to the virgin born Son of God who is the Savior of those who believe. Don't feel sorry for me. I love having God's word in my language.

Then why did it take so many tries to get it right and why does it still contain demonstrable errors? There is no need to get upset with me. The truth is at issue. If you would like to discuss it, then feel free. IF not, just read along.