Why so down on Peaceful KJVO?

[Tom Butler]

Folks, I want to make sure you know that Brad is having a little fun at your expense. Anybody whose pastor is named Pastor Deacon Fred, has a great sense of humor.

I wouldn't call him a troll, but if you don't know about Landover Baptist, you might think he is.

All you need to know about Brad is Landover's slogan: "Where the Worthwhile Worship; Unsaved Are Not Welcome."

 

[Mississippi John]

That post got my new friend Brad banned ? What's up with that ? Seriously ???

 

[Tom Butler]

Gee, that didn't take long.

Just in case you didn't know, Landover Baptist Church is a fictional IFBX church. The Landover website is a satire, sometimes crossing the lines of good taste.

Maybe he was banned because he took too many liberties with the truth in his intro post.

Brad said he was a pastor at one of John Osteen's churches when John was a Baptist. John quit being a Baptist in 1959 when he founded Lakewood Church along the Assemblies of God style. John died 10 years ago and son Joel took his place. Brad wasn't even born until the 1970s.

Nice try Brad. You had a few folks really bent out of shape for a while.

Bye, now.

 

[saturneptune]

The Lord doeth saith that he ist verily pleased! YAY for the KJV 1611!

Behold, and verily verily, doeth not letteth the gate hitteth you on the way out.

 

[RAdam]

That is a complete falsehood. No mere translation is 100% error-free whether it's one of the KJV family or any other translation.

Then you might as well throw them all in the trash.

 

[DHK]

Then you might as well throw them all in the trash.

God inspired the original manuscripts. He preserved His Word in the original languages: Greek and Hebrew from which we are able to make accurate translations. No translation is error free. Any one who knows more than one language knows this very well. There are idioms, colloquialisms and odd phrases unique to each and every language that are untranslatable. We just do the best we can, "study to show ourselves approved," to get the full sense of the meaning behind the word or phrase.

Consider the English language. It is one of the most confusing languages in the world.
Why do we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?
What is a "traffic jam" when "jam" is something you put on bread?
Have you ever been "in" a pickle?

The list is endless. Those are just a few that are in my head, or is it in my mind?

 

[RAdam]

God inspired the original manuscripts. He preserved His Word in the original languages: Greek and Hebrew from which we are able to make accurate translations. No translation is error free. Any one who knows more than one language knows this very well. There are idioms, colloquialisms and odd phrases unique to each and every language that are untranslatable. We just do the best we can, "study to show ourselves approved," to get the full sense of the meaning behind the word or phrase.

Consider the English language. It is one of the most confusing languages in the world.
Why do we park on a driveway and drive on a parkway?
What is a "traffic jam" when "jam" is something you put on bread?
Have you ever been "in" a pickle?

The list is endless. Those are just a few that are in my head, or is it in my mind?

Well then quit reading the english bibles, preaching from the english bibles, etc. Use only what you term accurate, the originals.

 

[DHK]

Well then quit reading the english bibles, preaching from the english bibles, etc. Use only what you term accurate, the originals.

I do study from the originals. Every person should. With all the reference books, helps, good Biblical material to help one study, there is no excuse for any student of the Bible to ignore the original languages.
If you look at my profile you will note that I am a missionary. Not only do I use an English Bible, I use Bibles in other languages. I memorize Scripture in another language. I know what I am talking about when I say that it is impossible to have an error free translation.

 

[steaver]

I do study from the originals. Every person should. With all the reference books, helps, good Biblical material to help one study, there is no excuse for any student of the Bible to ignore the original languages.
If you look at my profile you will note that I am a missionary. Not only do I use an English Bible, I use Bibles in other languages. I memorize Scripture in another language. I know what I am talking about when I say that it is impossible to have an error free translation.

I think we have to define what we mean by "error". To me when one says this passage or word in this translation is an "error" they are saying that it is absolutely wrong in any way shape or form to translate this in this way.

I have been studying scripture now for thirtteen years and i use all the helps and the Greek and the Hebrew and such, and I honestly have not come accross one verse in the KJV that could be considered an absolute failure.

Now I have heard all the knitpicking like Easter is an error or the Spirit should not have been called an "it". Gooffy things like this, but flat out "absolute errors" I have not seen in the KJV. I am talking about a so called "error" that is leading people astray into all kinds of false doctrinal positions.

So just what are we calling an "error"? And what would be a good example of this?

 

[RAdam]

I do study from the originals. Every person should. With all the reference books, helps, good Biblical material to help one study, there is no excuse for any student of the Bible to ignore the original languages.
If you look at my profile you will note that I am a missionary. Not only do I use an English Bible, I use Bibles in other languages. I memorize Scripture in another language. I know what I am talking about when I say that it is impossible to have an error free translation.

You limit God's ability to preserve scripture to your own knowledge.

 

[steaver]

I was raised a heathen and did not meet the Lord until I was 22. I am a bit more than of moderate intelligence (just plain old truth and not bragging) but I had a very hard time understanding the KJV. I don't talk like that, nor does anyone else that I know of today. The preacher didn't talk like that, nor did he preach like that.

The first bible I read with complete understanding was a NIV. Here was the bible is my own language! I then was introduced to the NASB and NKJV and I was in hog heaven. I am now using the ESV quite a bit and am really enjoying it. Why? Because it is translated into the language that I speak here and now... not what some people spoke over 400 years ago.

.

It is comical to read all of these different comments about "understanding and readability".

I am personally of the "C" category English student. I put together some pretty goofy sentences at times and I must use a spell check quite often. So I am not the brightest bulb in the pack, dim maybe, but not close to out.

Did you ever notice some posters like to correct others spelling and grammer? Doesn't that make you respect them so much more? (They're special :smilewinkgrin: )

Anyways, i am happy to be of a lower intellect, I like it that way, keeps me humble.

Back to what I was saying about all these different comments of not being able to understand the KJV and all the testimonies of loving the NIV or whatever versions, my testimony is just the opposite.

I began with the NIV, studied from it for two years, I could easily read it ok, but I just could not seem to grasp differing doctrinal points of view from the text. Now I was not using any Greek or Hebrew at this point, only the NIV. After two years my brother suggested I try the KJV. I did and the Word just came alive for me. Different passages from different books seemed to flow together very nicely.

Like I said, I am a "C" English student and I love the KJV. With that said, I have no problem with anyone using whatever version they so please. I just thought it was comical how we all give our testimonies of our experiences with bible versions and there all somewhat different or even exact opposites.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I like Shakespear. I like the KJB. But that doesn't mean its a superior translation. In fact it isn't. Its a good translaton. Not superior. In that it is a translation it may be misleading on certain aspects when compared to the original languages (unicorn for instance). In that the vernacular is 400 + years old translation into modern english may also be misleading in the modern context of the words used.

 

[DHK]

I like Shakespear. I like the KJB. But that doesn't mean its a superior translation. In fact it isn't. Its a good translaton. Not superior. In that it is a translation it may be misleading on certain aspects when compared to the original languages (unicorn for instance). In that the vernacular is 400 + years old translation into modern english may also be misleading in the modern context of the words used.

Unicorn is a very good example. One could possibly say that it is an error, or mistranslation.
First, a unicorn is a mythological Greek creature--far from Hebrew belief.
Second, the Hebrew word Rheem, doesn't even remotely refer to anything that would be like a unicorn in the 17th century.
Third, if you check most other translations you will find it more accurately translated a wild bull or ox. There is no unicorn. It is fiction.

 

[steaver]

I like Shakespear. I like the KJB. But that doesn't mean its a superior translation. In fact it isn't. Its a good translaton. Not superior. In that it is a translation it may be misleading on certain aspects when compared to the original languages (unicorn for instance). In that the vernacular is 400 + years old translation into modern english may also be misleading in the modern context of the words used.

How does the KJV's "unicorn" mislead readers? If they are confused it is not because "unicorn" is an error, but rather because they have come to believe in the fairytale book's definition of a unicorn. There is no error in the KJV's unicorn and any misleading is caused by fairytales and lack of understanding the orgins of such terms.

The scriptures clearly define what a unicorn is. This cannot be considered an "error".

 

[steaver]

Unicorn is a very good example. One could possibly say that it is an error, or mistranslation.
First, a unicorn is a mythological Greek creature--far from Hebrew belief.
Second, the Hebrew word Rheem, doesn't even remotely refer to anything that would be like a unicorn in the 17th century.
Third, if you check most other translations you will find it more accurately translated a wild bull or ox. There is no unicorn. It is fiction.

To call this an "error" is to say that all the KJV translators had in mind a horse with a horn sticking out of it's head when they did there translation work. Do you believe that these Hebrew and Greek scholars really thought that this biblical unicorn was a horse with a horn?

You would have to believe that these translators having read all the discriptions given of this beast then turned around and said to themselves "oh, that is a horse with a horn in it's head, a unicorn, I've read about them in Greek mythology".

The KJV translators used this term six times to describe this creature. Do you really think they had a fairytale horse in mind? Are you saying that these Christian translators believed in the fairytale unicorn?

There is no way this can be an "error". They knew exactly what they were saying when they said "unicorn" and they knew it was not a horse with a horn.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How does the KJV's "unicorn" mislead readers? If they are confused it is not because "unicorn" is an error, but rather because they have come to believe in the fairytale book's definition of a unicorn. There is no error in the KJV's unicorn and any misleading is caused by fairytales and lack of understanding the orgins of such terms.

The scriptures clearly define what a unicorn is. This cannot be considered an "error".

Unicorn as a goat is no longer in the english vernacular. Therefore its misleading. That's the problem. Note the TR is based on a 6th century text that was corrupted to favor fluidity. In order for the Byzantine empire to assure its use in their liturgy and being powerful it made many copies but there was never a full entire Byzantine text of the NT. Later these corrupted copies were translated into miniscule script as well. Once this corrupted 6th century text got to Erasmus he used futher corrupted 12th century text to fill in the missing part of the NT. Finally he added the Vulgate back into Greek to complete the NT TR. The KJV used this corrupted text therefore there are transcription errors in the text. Compound that with english that is no longer in use you can confuse people. Period.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

To call this an "error" is to say that all the KJV translators had in mind a horse with a horn sticking out of it's head when they did there translation work. Do you believe that these Hebrew and Greek scholars really thought that this biblical unicorn was a horse with a horn?

You would have to believe that these translators having read all the discriptions given of this beast then turned around and said to themselves "oh, that is a horse with a horn in it's head, a unicorn, I've read about them in Greek mythology".

The KJV translators used this term six times to describe this creature. Do you really think they had a fairytale horse in mind? Are you saying that these Christian translators believed in the fairytale unicorn?

There is no way this can be an "error". They knew exactly what they were saying when they said "unicorn" and they knew it was not a horse with a horn.

Why dont you ask them? I'm pretty sure People still believed in Fairies in England back then. Or maybe they chalked up like Leviathan. They had no idea what scripture could have been talking about.

 

[RAdam]

Unicorn as a goat is no longer in the english vernacular. Therefore its misleading. That's the problem. Note the TR is based on a 6th century text that was corrupted to favor fluidity. In order for the Byzantine empire to assure its use in their liturgy and being powerful it made many copies but there was never a full entire Byzantine text of the NT. Later these corrupted copies were translated into miniscule script as well. Once this corrupted 6th century text got to Erasmus he used futher corrupted 12th century text to fill in the missing part of the NT. Finally he added the Vulgate back into Greek to complete the NT TR. The KJV used this corrupted text therefore there are transcription errors in the text. Compound that with english that is no longer in use you can confuse people. Period.

What a bunch of hogwash.

 

[DHK]

To call this an "error" is to say that all the KJV translators had in mind a horse with a horn sticking out of it's head when they did there translation work. Do you believe that these Hebrew and Greek scholars really thought that this biblical unicorn was a horse with a horn?

You would have to believe that these translators having read all the discriptions given of this beast then turned around and said to themselves "oh, that is a horse with a horn in it's head, a unicorn, I've read about them in Greek mythology".

The KJV translators used this term six times to describe this creature. Do you really think they had a fairytale horse in mind? Are you saying that these Christian translators believed in the fairytale unicorn?

There is no way this can be an "error". They knew exactly what they were saying when they said "unicorn" and they knew it was not a horse with a horn.

There is nothing in the KJV that would lead people into doctrinal error. I believe it is a very accurate translation, perhaps the best in the English language. But no translation is perfect. Only the originals are perfect, and entirely free from error. Every translation, by virtue of it being a translation, will lose meaning in the translation, simply because it is a translation. We do not worship a language. Neither do we worship a Bible that comes from any certain language, leaving the rest of the non-English speaking world in darkness. That position is untenable. English is not the only language in the world, and the KJV is not the only Bible in the world.

 

[steaver]

There is nothing in the KJV that would lead people into doctrinal error. I believe it is a very accurate translation, perhaps the best in the English language. But no translation is perfect. Only the originals are perfect, and entirely free from error. Every translation, by virtue of it being a translation, will lose meaning in the translation, simply because it is a translation. We do not worship a language. Neither do we worship a Bible that comes from any certain language, leaving the rest of the non-English speaking world in darkness. That position is untenable. English is not the only language in the world, and the KJV is not the only Bible in the world.

Amen! I am with you on every point. There is a difference between calling something an "error" and calling something less than perfect.