Only one version?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Although a KJV-YEC I am; I've grown more tolerant of other versions, i.e., primarily as commentaries of the Bible. Now to each his own, don't get me wrong; but, the ASV and especially the NIV (in my less-than-meager opinion) seem like they've been translated by uninspired adulterers and/or adulteresses. Albeit, they read like a newspaper.

​

Reasons I cleave to the KJV:
It's extremely coherent and powerful English.
It speaks to my soul like an oracle. (Can't explain that well to Evo's)
It sings with pureness and high-level orchestration, especially in poetic and prophetic books.
It seems less biases with Weslyan and/or Calvinistic perversions of the Gospel

---

Please, many of the "translations" in it were politically motivated.King James had gotten the playwright William Shakespeare to do much of the work in his "version" of the bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
And one not need be inspired to translate.

​

---

Apparently since they are all full of contradictions and errors thus proving that none of them are actually the inspired word of your god. The so-called "original" texts and manuscripts are irrelevant since they are not what is being taught from to hundreds of millions of Christians as the literal and inerrant word of their god.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-03-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:How does that "prove" that none of them are inspired by God?If they were truly inspired by god than there wouldn't be any errors and there would only be one version."We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly"And who desides if it is actully the "correct" translation?The moral of this story: don't shoehorn all of Christianity in with the fundamentalists. It's no better than when a YEC strawmans evolution.Either you accept your bible as the literal word of your god or you don't, unless you are one of those Cut&Paste Christians. The vast majority of Christians are not taught from the "original" texts and manuscripts. And I didn't say all. I had said humdreds of millions of Christians. So, your point is moot.BTW, most Christians in the world don't concider Mormons to be real Christians.

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:What a shock. The Bible is the word of... Shakespeare? That means Shakespeare is God?

​

You truly must be incredibly thick headed. I had said that he had gotten WS to do much of the work, as in translating, on his version of the bible. BTW, in biblical times they didn't say Thous and Thes.Like I keep saying, I'm constantly amazed at the ignorace most Christians have on the actual history of they own belief system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JJboy:
Uh, ya. Where exactly did you, Nos, find that little bit of wishful thinking? (About Shakespere)

​

---

A docuementary on A&E, one on the Discovery Channel.But what can I expect, you're only a teenager and don't know a great many things, only what you've been told by your clergy. You're no different than the majority of Christians when it comes to the actual history of Christianity.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Buddy, you're quoting the Discovery Channel without even looking for better information on the Internet. How is that much better than the average Christian?

---

I would think that the Discovery (Canadian version) Channel would be far more reliable a source than "Puff, god did it!"

Originally posted by John:I do not think the Shakespeare hypothesis is accurate. I looked it up. It seems to be myth.[/B]From where did you look it up?

Originally posted by gene90:That would be true--immediately after it was written. But since it was written over the centuries parts of it would actually have time to degrade while other parts were being written. And since it was not dictated in English it is inevitable that there are multiple versions. Factor in opportunistic publishers and you get lots more versions, most of which probably aren't needed anyway.Language and time are irrelevant.On the personal level we have the spirit, on the church level we have the prophet and extra-Biblical sources.The first two are extermely biased and suspect and the last is limited and doesn't actually prove the existence of god only that the story tellers used current peoples and places in their stories.That doesn't bother me. It should if you end up being burned at the stake as a heretic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Remember I gave you my meager opinion only:
The KJV is not for everyone; especially in the historical books. I just happen to be madly in love with it in the prophetic and poetic books and NT books.

​

(I believe you have Shakespear and King James confused by some jokester.)

​

--Philip

---

I think that it was suppressed. BTW, it IS the KING JAMES bible. And you can see some influence of Shakespeare in it.You like the literature in it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
OK, I'll be blunt, no politics in the following:

​

I loath other translations; NIV psalms make me want to puke, as if they were written by those who don't have heterosexual preferences, or by scholars who'd sooner translate the Koran after finishing their biblical grants. Bubble-gum translations they all are, adulterers and slanderers of the redemptive glories of the Christ they unknowingly demean (in my less-than-meager wretchedly biased opinion).

​

Now which version do you ascribe?:
Darby's slick intellectual but clinically dead version,
RV, RSV's watered-down KJV sequals,
Bishop's pre-KJV pre-English jargon.
NIV's tortuously twisted narrative version,
Stale Catholic Dewy and RA versions, with their perverse apocryphias
Mormon and other so-called cult bibles with their wanton additions.
Living, New Living and/or English Bibles that are merely cute commentaries.
Received texts: word for word matches of Hebrew and Greek.
Expanded/amplified Bibles translated by modern (liberated?) women? (Not to down-play women who are actually more attuned to redemptive sufferings than men, but the Bible was written via men's hands)

​

But despite the translational errors that occur in all translations: the KJV has a no really proven transcriptional glitches. It's translation suits our frolic-driven adulterous generation, being most pure, unadulterated, grave, poetic, and abruptly to the point while taking translational liberties insofar as redemptive poetry becomes enhanced.

​

The same is true of the "Chinese Union Version", "Luther's German Version", etc. Every major language is blessed with a peculiarly powerful version, usually in an older tongue of that language. Those versions, like the KJV, inexplicably utilize inspired (if you will) translational liberties to impart additional redemptive excellencies of Jesus Christ in both testaments.

---

The first post in this thread proves that you are incorrect on it being free from translation errors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
...see, this is what happens if a large religion cannot keep its original texts. Poor you!

---

Islam came along later enough so that it could keep better control over what was written than Christianity could. Also, its scope and range is much smaller than Christianity as well. Maybe it would have been a different story if the Roman Empire had been able to adopt Islam instead?[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-02-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Indeed something like that might have happened. I read somewhere (a book about a global plague in the early years of Islam) that if the plague did not stop Islam's advance northwards, we might have Muslim Vikings!

---

That sounds like a book called "The Years of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson. It is a "what if" novel where the Black Death had killed 99% of Europe's population and looks at the last 700 years when Buddhism and Islam are the main religions and the New World is colonized by China.

Too little too late.

People who live in glass houses....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Admin:
Hi Nos!

​

Nos writes:

---

Too little too late.
...
People who live in glass houses....

---

​

Normally a couple non-sequitur replies like this would be no problem, but your past conduct here is also a factor. Please follow the Forum Guidelines, particularly rules 1 and 2. Note the part about enforcement at the bottom, and please realize that you're at the limit of the warning stage. Thanks!

​

---

What I had meant was that that discussion was long over and I didn't want to start banging my head against his wall again, plus I don't want to attend his circus either.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-07-2002]