-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Yes,the KJV has mistakes too
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
'It is unfortunate that most of it [KJV] is no longer intelligible,even to churchgoers. A modern congregation often listens to a reading of one of the Old Testament prophets or of an Epistle of st Paul with almost no comprehension,and it is possible that the [preacher] is sometimes as mystified as his hearers. What hope can evangelists have,with such a translation,of converyingthe truths of the Bible to the pagan or to the half-educated outside the church doors?" (9)
If you actually BELIEVE that as of 1957 (when this was written) that that is an accurate representation of the general situation in most Churches than you have frankly deluded yourself.
'It is unfortunate that most of it [KJV] is no longer intelligible,even to churchgoers. A modern congregation often listens to a reading of one of the Old Testament prophets or of an Epistle of st Paul with almost no comprehension,and it is possible that the [preacher] is sometimes as mystified as his hearers. What hope can evangelists have,with such a translation,of converyingthe truths of the Bible to the pagan or to the half-educated outside the church doors?" (9)
^^^^^^To that I say......BUNK!!!! :laugh:
The Four Gospels by E.V. Rieu 1953
"Unlike the Greek,it [KJV] was not firmly based on the normal speech of its own or any other period. It was too literal a translation and its authors mistook fidelity to the idiom of the Greek for fidelity to its meaning."
He refers to the KJV rendering of Luke 17:8 where it says :'Make ready wherewith I may sup.' "I contend that no Englishman alive in 1611 or at any other date would have used such an expression;that though the words follow the Greek with some exactitude they do not represent its spirit;and that the point of the parable is blunted by their use." (x)
"The spirit of the Greek is not quite the same as that of the Authorized Version." (xxxi)
"Unlike the Greek,it [KJV] was not firmly based on the normal speech of its own or any other period. It was too literal a translation and its authors mistook fidelity to the idiom of the Greek for fidelity to its meaning."
He refers to the KJV rendering of Luke 17:8 where it says :'Make ready wherewith I may sup.' "I contend that no Englishman alive in 1611 or at any other date would have used such an expression;that though the words follow the Greek with some exactitude they do not represent its spirit;and that the point of the parable is blunted by their use." (x)
"The spirit of the Greek is not quite the same as that of the Authorized Version." (xxxi)
Oh it goes back farther than 1957. Even in the late 19th century people were complaining that the KJV was not so understandable.If you actually BELIEVE that as of 1957 (when this was written) that that is an accurate representation of the general situation in most Churches than you have frankly deluded yourself.
^^^^^^To that I say......BUNK!!!! :laugh:
Thanks for your fine pieces of concise,intelligent entries that you are noted for over the years. :laugh:
Thanks for your fine pieces of concise,intelligent entries that you are noted for over the years. :laugh:
Here's a quicklist of some unintelligible archaicisms found in the NIV which my blessedly current KJV makes more readable for the modern seeker.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html
LOL :laugh:
You DO realize that you are quoting from an abandoned and never actually PUBLISHED source right?
His "Four Gospels" (from which you are quoting) never made it into permanent print apparently, or at least the greedy attempt at yet ONE MORE translation of the Bible (critically necessary) for a Publishing company of which he was actually the editor and FOUNDER OF :laugh:
Dude....we can "GOOGLE" things now.
Your man was reaching to an extreme, and you are reaching to quote him.
You DO realize that you are quoting from an abandoned and never actually PUBLISHED source right?
His "Four Gospels" (from which you are quoting) never made it into permanent print apparently, or at least the greedy attempt at yet ONE MORE translation of the Bible (critically necessary) for a Publishing company of which he was actually the editor and FOUNDER OF :laugh:
Dude....we can "GOOGLE" things now.
Your man was reaching to an extreme, and you are reaching to quote him.
"Unlike the Greek,it [KJV] was not firmly based on the normal speech of its own or any other period. It was too literal a translation and its authors mistook fidelity to the idiom of the Greek for fidelity to its meaning."
He refers to the KJV rendering of Luke 17:8 where it says :'Make ready wherewith I may sup.' "I contend that no Englishman alive in 1611 or at any other date would have used such an expression;that though the words follow the Greek with some exactitude they do not represent its spirit;and that the point of the parable is blunted by their use." (x)
"The spirit of the Greek is not quite the same as that of the Authorized Version." (xxxi)
This is true....but, then again, the KJV translators understood that though written in Greek....it was a distinctively HEBREW Spirit that the writers (who were Jews) were trying to preserve......
DUH!!!
I note your man was a non-Christian when he began this failed and un-published work.
LOL :laugh:
You DO realize that you are quoting from an abandoned and never actually PUBLISHED source right?
His "Four Gospels" (from which you are quoting) never made it into permanent print apparently...
Dead wrong son! I have them in my hand. They were both published by Penguin books.
Your man was reaching to an extreme, and you are reaching to quote him.
You don't read very carefully. It wasn't one man I quoted but two --father and son.
I don't see how either was reaching for any extreme. The only extremists here are the KJVO faction.
saturneptune
New Member
Actually, he is correct. They never did go into publication. So you quoted a father and son. You are still wrong. Your quote "I don't see how" is the only accurate part of your post.Dead wrong son! I have them in my hand. They were both published by Penguin books.
You don't read very carefully. It wasn't one man I quoted but two --father and son.
I don't see how either was reaching for any extreme. The only extremists here are the KJVO faction.
Actually, he is correct. They never did go into publication.
Of course they went into publication. They are right in front of me. They are library books. They were published by Penquin books as I said. Why do I have to point out the obvious to you?
So you quoted a father and son.
The other poster thought I was quoting from one man. I pointed out his mistake.
So what's your problem?
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Mark 10:18
Things that are different are not the same?
See a 1611 for yourself at website below (you will have to 'flip' back about 7 pages) --
http://www.bibles-online.net/1611/NewTestament/2-Mark/
Things that are different are not the same?
And Jesus sayd unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is no man good but one, [that is] God. (original AV1611)
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. (modern KJBs)
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God. (modern KJBs)
See a 1611 for yourself at website below (you will have to 'flip' back about 7 pages) --
http://www.bibles-online.net/1611/NewTestament/2-Mark/
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Maybe your "google" thing is broken. It was not the "Four Gospels", he quoted from "Acts of the Apostles". You can buy the actual Penguin publication from 1958 here --LOL :laugh:
You DO realize that you are quoting from an abandoned and never actually PUBLISHED source right?
His "Four Gospels" (from which you are quoting) never made it into permanent print apparently, or at least the greedy attempt at yet ONE MORE translation of the Bible (critically necessary) for a Publishing company of which he was actually the editor and FOUNDER OF :laugh:
Dude....we can "GOOGLE" things now. ...
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000YB94RA/?tag=baptis04-20
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you not read carefully the posts of KJV-only advocates or do you apply a different standard [divers measures] to their posts? It seems that KJV-only advocates think that they are entitled to attack believers who disagree with a man-made KJV-only view.
What is kind, right, consistent, and scriptural about accusing believers of attacking the word of God because they disagree with opinions of men about a translation--the KJV?
Rick, I have read carefully, both here and in a number of other places words written by advocates on BOTH sides of this issue. What you fail to acknowledge is that BOTH sides often present well thought out and respectful commentary on their positions. And there are instances when BOTH sides attack the word of God in their efforts to prove themselves to be the only source of the truth.
It is a distortion to claim "that KJV-only advocates think that they are entitled to attack believers who disagree with a man-made KJV-only view." A distortion, if you do not also actively condem the use of the word "cult" that is used as a wide paintbrush against ALL who hold the KJB only viewpoint. (Just one example of many similar tactics.)
As a well educated man, you should realize what the connotation of "cult" implies when associated with a person professing to be a member of the body of Christ. Do you apply a different standard with regards to attacks by MV advocates? My apologies if I've missed your posts defending the KJB when MV advocates "think they are entitled to attack believers who" agree "with" a "KJV-only view".
It seems to be the pattern here, and elsewhere, to lump all KJB only supporters with
Written by Yeshua1:
Do you hold that the modern versions are still bibles, just that there are inferior to the kjv?
that would be KJVP, NOT KJVO!
And MOSt of the Kjvo, if not all of them , do hold to teachings of the cult of rucerism or gail R!
even though many KJVO advocates have discredited much of what Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger have written on this subject.
:null:
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe your "google" thing is broken. It was not the "Four Gospels", he quoted from "Acts of the Apostles". You can buy the actual Penguin publication from 1958 here --
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000YB94RA/?tag=baptis04-20
The initial intent was to create an entirely new Translation of the Bible which was an (abandoned and unfinished/un-published) project....That is what I was referring to....perhaps I should have made myself more clear. NO, my "google" thing was spot-on about that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wherever You Go
New Member
It is time for me to state my exact position.
Textually, I am not enough of a scholar to know for sure which group of texts is better (if one is better than the other). I do know that many good men I know and love take one position, and many take the other position, including some very knowledgeable scholars on both sides of the issue. Therefore my official stance on the text is that it is unresolved to me, and I do not at this point in my life, care which text a translation is made from.
As far as the KJ itself is concerned, my position is that it is a good translation, and there is nothing wrong with using it. It is the universal standard officially understood and accepted in the United States. I have quite a few copies of it, and it is the version preached from the pulpit of my church. I also have copies of at least two other translations, and I generally do my personal Bible reading from the ESV, NKJ, or KJV, whichever I usually happen to pick up. I also like the NAS though I don't have a copy of it.
When asked, "Is such and such a translation, an actual Bible, or is it a translation?" It is both, but you have to define terms. We use the term Bible today, idiomatically, to refer to a mass-printed copy of a translation of copies of manuscripts that were themselves multiple generation copies of the original manuscripts penned by men of God writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I believe that the Bible, that is to say, the original manuscripts, (which we no longer seem to have), is the entire officially revealed message of God to mankind. I believe that any serious question we have can be answered within the original writings. The original writings do not make any mention of how copying or translating is to be done, therefore we have no official word on the subject. Since we have no official word on it from God, that means we must use our best Spirit-led judgment on the matter, which is a matter of individual responsibility. If God had thought it was imperative that people use a specific translation, I believe He would have said so within His word, and yet He was entirely silent on the issue.
People in the English-speaking parts of the world have gotten too conceited in their thinking. It is as if the English-speaking people of the world are "God's chosen people, the most important people on earth, and so God gave them their own special Bible that is better than all others" Also they think that they are the main part of the church.
Christianity started with Christ, the God-man, a Jew, living in the Roman Empire, in western Asia at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Christianity radiated out from Jerusalem. Its reaching England, and especially in a form where true salvation was taught, was a very late development.
There are 120 million or so born-again believers in China today. Where is China's special Chinese translation?
Why did God make us wait 1611 years to have the "perfect" Bible? What did people ever do before they had it?
I do not believed there is such a thing as an "inspired translation" that is unilaterally perfect. If there were one, there could be many. Even within English there are more than one way of saying exactly the same thing and still being accurate.
"Remove yourself from my presence" means exactly the same thing as "Get away from me" and if a Greek or Hebrew text said a phrase that meant that, then either one would be an acceptable phrase to use there, and both would be perfectly reflective of the original meaning.
There is no reason for us to think, that as English-speakers, God loved us more than other people, or found us more worthy than other people, and gave us our own perfect Bible in our own language. There is nothing in the Bible that says so or indicates that it could be so. There is a certain pride and arrogance in believing so, which is not becoming of saints.
Meanwhile, I try to avoid having pride or arrogance in any position I take, too. "A soft tongue shall break a bone" May God be glorified.
Textually, I am not enough of a scholar to know for sure which group of texts is better (if one is better than the other). I do know that many good men I know and love take one position, and many take the other position, including some very knowledgeable scholars on both sides of the issue. Therefore my official stance on the text is that it is unresolved to me, and I do not at this point in my life, care which text a translation is made from.
As far as the KJ itself is concerned, my position is that it is a good translation, and there is nothing wrong with using it. It is the universal standard officially understood and accepted in the United States. I have quite a few copies of it, and it is the version preached from the pulpit of my church. I also have copies of at least two other translations, and I generally do my personal Bible reading from the ESV, NKJ, or KJV, whichever I usually happen to pick up. I also like the NAS though I don't have a copy of it.
When asked, "Is such and such a translation, an actual Bible, or is it a translation?" It is both, but you have to define terms. We use the term Bible today, idiomatically, to refer to a mass-printed copy of a translation of copies of manuscripts that were themselves multiple generation copies of the original manuscripts penned by men of God writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
I believe that the Bible, that is to say, the original manuscripts, (which we no longer seem to have), is the entire officially revealed message of God to mankind. I believe that any serious question we have can be answered within the original writings. The original writings do not make any mention of how copying or translating is to be done, therefore we have no official word on the subject. Since we have no official word on it from God, that means we must use our best Spirit-led judgment on the matter, which is a matter of individual responsibility. If God had thought it was imperative that people use a specific translation, I believe He would have said so within His word, and yet He was entirely silent on the issue.
People in the English-speaking parts of the world have gotten too conceited in their thinking. It is as if the English-speaking people of the world are "God's chosen people, the most important people on earth, and so God gave them their own special Bible that is better than all others" Also they think that they are the main part of the church.
Christianity started with Christ, the God-man, a Jew, living in the Roman Empire, in western Asia at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Christianity radiated out from Jerusalem. Its reaching England, and especially in a form where true salvation was taught, was a very late development.
There are 120 million or so born-again believers in China today. Where is China's special Chinese translation?
Why did God make us wait 1611 years to have the "perfect" Bible? What did people ever do before they had it?
I do not believed there is such a thing as an "inspired translation" that is unilaterally perfect. If there were one, there could be many. Even within English there are more than one way of saying exactly the same thing and still being accurate.
"Remove yourself from my presence" means exactly the same thing as "Get away from me" and if a Greek or Hebrew text said a phrase that meant that, then either one would be an acceptable phrase to use there, and both would be perfectly reflective of the original meaning.
There is no reason for us to think, that as English-speakers, God loved us more than other people, or found us more worthy than other people, and gave us our own perfect Bible in our own language. There is nothing in the Bible that says so or indicates that it could be so. There is a certain pride and arrogance in believing so, which is not becoming of saints.
Meanwhile, I try to avoid having pride or arrogance in any position I take, too. "A soft tongue shall break a bone" May God be glorified.
That was a wonderful post! :thumbsup:It is time for me to state my exact position.
Rick, I have read carefully, both here and in a number of other places words written by advocates on BOTH sides of this issue. What you fail to acknowledge is that BOTH sides often present well thought out and respectful commentary on their positions. And there are instances when BOTH sides attack the word of God in their efforts to prove themselves to be the only source of the truth.
It is a distortion to claim "that KJV-only advocates think that they are entitled to attack believers who disagree with a man-made KJV-only view." A distortion, if you do not also actively condem the use of the word "cult" that is used as a wide paintbrush against ALL who hold the KJB only viewpoint. (Just one example of many similar tactics.)
As a well educated man, you should realize what the connotation of "cult" implies when associated with a person professing to be a member of the body of Christ. Do you apply a different standard with regards to attacks by MV advocates? My apologies if I've missed your posts defending the KJB when MV advocates "think they are entitled to attack believers who" agree "with" a "KJV-only view".
It seems to be the pattern here, and elsewhere, to lump all KJB only supporters with
even though many KJVO advocates have discredited much of what Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger have written on this subject.
:null:
Would you agree with me that there are 2 types of KJVO, one would be those whe want the kjv to be EXACTLY as the originals were when penned down, those would be the ones that give the group a bad name, and those who honestly believe the TR was the best greek source text available to use?
And that altter group also has KJVP, as they would allow for MV, just stae inferior to the KJV?
That was a wonderful post! :thumbsup:
Agreed! It was a great post....I don't think I would agree completely (I'm a little more KJV I suppose)....but I can dig that post :thumbsup: Very well-written!