-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"valid" versions
- Thread starter small fry
- Start date
- Status
Steaver,
I would encourage you to tell your daughter that at age 23 she is not too young for the KJV. I was forced to read Shakespeare at about half that age. My wife uses a KJV/NIV Parallel BIble and likes it.
My testimony (and opinion) is similar to you and Amy's.
I actually think the NIV is harder to understand than the KJV because of some incorrect interpretations. My biggest beef with the NIV is the use of "sinful nature" for the Greek word sarx in Romans. After I was saved I was reading the NIV and Romans made no sense and I think it was mostly because of the use of sinful nature instead of "flesh".
I lead a Bible study in our house and people use different versions. I like to have different them read from their versions because it often helps discuss the passages being looked at. I don't belittle "their" versions in any way because it would not edify anybody.
I would encourage you to tell your daughter that at age 23 she is not too young for the KJV. I was forced to read Shakespeare at about half that age. My wife uses a KJV/NIV Parallel BIble and likes it.
My testimony (and opinion) is similar to you and Amy's.
I actually think the NIV is harder to understand than the KJV because of some incorrect interpretations. My biggest beef with the NIV is the use of "sinful nature" for the Greek word sarx in Romans. After I was saved I was reading the NIV and Romans made no sense and I think it was mostly because of the use of sinful nature instead of "flesh".
I lead a Bible study in our house and people use different versions. I like to have different them read from their versions because it often helps discuss the passages being looked at. I don't belittle "their" versions in any way because it would not edify anybody.
steaver said:
This is not my normal suggestion for a translation -- but with your particular views on the matter,why don't you give her a NASBU?
"She says she just isn't mature enough for it [KJV]" No,it's not a matter of maturity.It is the fact that she is 23 and is living in the 21st century.That's why folks in the early 19th century were not reading Wycliffe's Translations.The language has changed considerably.The Lord doesn't want to impose those kind of restrictions on people -- why should you?
Last edited by a moderator:
trustitl said:
Should sarx be translated as "flesh" all the time in the NT,most of the time, or selectively?
A number of scholars do not agree with you.One Dr.Douglas Moo comes to mind.He has written what many regard as the best commentary on Romans.And of course that Epistle deals with this issue.
Does the word "flesh" sometimes not make sense in the KJV?Think about it.
I thought your post was a commentary on the US educational system ( :tear: ) until I read the last part.Rippon said:
I find the changes in the English language to be a good reason to use the KJV. I love to look up how words were used in the 16th-17th century. I find the KJV translators to have done a great job of choosing words based on how the words were used at that time. It really bugs me when "intellectuals" say the KJV translators chose the wrong word when they haven't stopped to look at how the word was used at the time the KJV was written. I lose respect for them instantly.
For examply look up the word "silly" sometime and see how it was a perfect choice for II Tim. 3:6.
My issue with using "flesh" in the NIV is that people begin to think that it is the body that is sinful and not our souls. That they are not responsible for their sin because it's not "them" doing it but their body (yeah, there are those who teach this including Michael Pearl of No Greater Joy Ministries - wrote To Train Up a Child, a very dangerous book IMO). In using "sinful nature", it is more clearly, in our language, referring not to our physical body with molecules but that which is inside of us - our soul. Our soul is sinful, not just our physical "flesh".
trustitl said:
Yeah,I corrected my "not not".Have you ever heard a 'not not joke'?
_____________________________________________________________
I find the changes in the English language to be a good reason to use the KJV. I love to look up how words were used in the 16th-17th century. I find the KJV translators to have done a great job of choosing words based on how the words were used at that time. It really bugs me when "intellectuals" say the KJV translators chose the wrong word when they haven't stopped to look at how the word was used at the time the KJV was written. I lose respect for them instantly.
[/quote]
I think intellectuals and those not as well-equipped understand that many words have changed meaning over time.
I also think that the 1611 revisors needlesly made things more Latinate and generally more complex instead of sticking to the tried and true Tyndale NT.Tyndale's version sounds more modern at times -- moreso than the KJV.
Sometimes the 1611 team made mistakes when revising.They had words at their disposal which could have been used to a better effect instead of their choices.
She is not patient enough to learn how to use the KJV with a dictionary and a Greek concordance. She just simply wants to read it without serious indepth study. Maybe not a great thing, but at least a good thing that she wants to read God's word.
We use a KJV/NIV parellel study in our SS class. I find it alarming how contrasting many passages are when placed side by side.
steaver said:
Why should she have to go through a double translation grid to understand God's Word?Not wishing to go through the trouble to understand an anciently worded version is not a sign of lacking desire to study in an in-depth manner.
We use a KJV/NIV parellel study in our SS class. I find it alarming how contrasting many passages are when placed side by side.[/quote]
Yeah,it is surprising how much clearly the NIV makes needlessly difficult KJV passages open up.
Try out Joshua 12:4 where "coast" is used.But it has nothing to do with water.
Nehemiah 1:5 "The great and terrible God" in the KJV really means the "great and awesome God" of the NIV.
Job 20:3 KJV :"I have heard the check of my reproach." NIV:"I hear a rebuke that dishonors me."
Acts 21:15 KJV :"we took up our carriages." NIV:"we got ready."
Acts 28:13 KJV:"And from there we fetched a compass." NIV:"From there we set sail."
2 Cor. 2:17 KJV :"For we are not as many,which corrupt the word of God." NIV:"Unlike so many,we do not peddle the word of God for profit."
Many more examples could be given for the clarity of the NIV (and other good modern versions) which are clearly better at communicating God's Word to people of today.
Why did Paul use it then. The are other Greek words that would have been better if that wasn't what he meant.annsni said:
Why wouldn't have Paul used "psuche" if that is what he meant?
What do you mean when you say our "souls" are sinful? Do you have any scripture to back that up?
Also, To Train up a Child can be a very useful book IMO.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Antiaging as quoted in post 209:
// Chick calls them closet catholics in his online tract "The Attack"
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp //
Yes credibility is harmed. Comic Books are not good sources of Doctrines.
Maybe the Lord will call you or I to write that book?
Amen, Brother C4K -- Preach it! :thumbs:
// Chick calls them closet catholics in his online tract "The Attack"
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp //
C4K in post 209 said:
Yes credibility is harmed. Comic Books are not good sources of Doctrines.
Maybe the Lord will call you or I to write that book?
C4K in post 209 said:
Amen, Brother C4K -- Preach it! :thumbs:
I haue beene shewed and herde many thynges this daye, but "this one takes the cake."trustitl said:
Doeth myne eares deceiue me? Doest thou daily speaketh (and spelleth) as dyddestt a citesyn of "England" 400-500 yeares whereupon preuentest this tyme, in thine dayly doings and walke? Or, peraduenture yee perceiued (or demed) these folisshe questions as too 'laden', 'simple' or 'silly'?
Of course you don't speak or write in this manner, although FTR, every word in my response, prior to this sentence (excepting the words in quotations marks) is from either Tyndale's NT, Coverdale's, Bishop's, Geneva or the KJV 1611 spelling, all of which were done in the 16th and early 17th centuries, which makes my usage of such entirely "Modern English." (Language Cop says the syntax and grammar that I have used here, are also correct, as well!)
While I might find this an enjoyable intellectual exercise, what would be the point, as to the question asked by steaver in the thread? I am fully aware of some of the reasons one might prefer another version, over that of the KJV. The dated language would be one of the best reasons I can think of for not using the KJV, but that is not to say that 'the KJV translators' often chose any wrong word, in this, per se, at that time.
However, I do believe they chose some few, incorrectly, the most obvious being "Easter", following Tyndale and Rogers in place of "Passover," in Acts 12:4. The Geneva had this one right for 25 years, and Wycliffe had it right with "Pask" for two centuries prior to this, for the reference is not to any Druid or other pagan feast day, at all.
Your repect or lack of the same for me, will obviously remain your decision.
I do assure you, I have never laid any claim to being an intellectual.
And I am very seldom accused of being one, either.
:laugh: :laugh:Ed
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Are doctrinal manuals a good source of doctrine? Are theology books a good source of doctrines? Are tracts a good source of doctrines? Is it not the truth that is portrayed and not the means by which is employed that determine whether or not the media by which truth and doctrines are portrayed are viable and trustworthy?
I have not read the comic book you are referring to, but none the less, your comments cause me to think. Are you inferring that the means or media by which truth is employed determines the credibility of the topic or doctrine taught? What does the particular media or means have to do with the credibility of the topic being addressed?
Tracts are not especially great ways to demonstrate truth especially to some audiences, unless it is in a form that catches their attention. I personally would think that truth by way of comics might be effective for the demonstration of some truths to some people, most likely far more effective than say a stale, sanitized doctrinal manual.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I believe we should start calling those such as yourself AOVTKJV “Any Other Version Than King James Version.”
Are you going to tell us that if one is KJVO everything they have to offer is in error?? How about the simple counting of how many times the word repent (or other words as well) is omitted, or the numerous changes of certain words for others that do not make reading the least bit easier or the truth one whit clearer in meaning?
Your statement simply lacks any notion of fairness or objectivity Amy. You exhibit an unusual bias that obviously destroys your ability to reason fairly. That may be true in the case of those that claim to be KJVO as well, but that still does not excuse us for acting the same does it?
trustitl said:
I don't know. Ask Paul
What do you mean when you say our "souls" are sinful? Do you have any scripture to back that up?[/quote]
If our physical flesh is the thing that's sinful and our souls are not, then when we die, that's good enough. Our souls are fine and can go to heaven.
You've got to be kidding. This book makes me want to vomit. This man has a VERY sick view of children and God. God placed the tree in the middle of the garden to tempt Adam and Eve so we should do the same? I don't think so. God tells us to not provoke our children to anger and that is just what TTUAC promotes. Oh - and did you also know that Michael Pearl lives in sinless perfection? Yes he does. He calls God a liar by doing so. I think this is one of the most damaging books on child rearing I have ever read. Michael Pearl and his wife Debi are dangerous false teachers. I feel that strongly about them.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Heavenly Pilgrim: // Tracts are not especially great ways to demonstrate truth especially to some audiences, unless it is in a form that catches their attention. I personally would think that truth by way of comics might be effective for the demonstration of some truths to some people, most likely far more effective than say a stale, sanitized doctrinal manual. //
Yes, there might be some merit to that. However, all propagandists (of what ever sort) use these methods (tracts & comic books) to deceive and trick people. By contrast, quoting sources and other techniques of academia lead to verifiable statements. But they need to be checked.
What the second Bush forgot: TRUST BUT VERIFY.
People who want to debate on this BB will use academic standards of quotation, especially Bible quotation. It is NOT safe to assume we are all fools in this matter. The majority of posters have enough sense to know I'm right about using academic levels of source material usage.
Yes, there might be some merit to that. However, all propagandists (of what ever sort) use these methods (tracts & comic books) to deceive and trick people. By contrast, quoting sources and other techniques of academia lead to verifiable statements. But they need to be checked.
What the second Bush forgot: TRUST BUT VERIFY.
People who want to debate on this BB will use academic standards of quotation, especially Bible quotation. It is NOT safe to assume we are all fools in this matter. The majority of posters have enough sense to know I'm right about using academic levels of source material usage.
- Status