Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 4:17 AM
24 online now:
(24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Only one version?
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 106 (16619)
09-05-2002 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Philip
09-05-2002 2:29 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Philip, posted 09-05-2002 2:29 AM Philip has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Philip, posted 09-07-2002 1:39 AM nos482 has responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2896 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 32 of 106 (16828)
09-07-2002 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by nos482
09-05-2002 7:47 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nos482, posted 09-05-2002 7:47 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nos482, posted 09-07-2002 3:02 AM Philip has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-07-2002 2:36 PM Philip has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 106 (16834)
09-07-2002 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Philip
09-07-2002 1:39 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Philip, posted 09-07-2002 1:39 AM Philip has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 5750 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 34 of 106 (16861)
09-07-2002 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Philip
09-07-2002 1:39 AM


[B][QUOTE]NIV psalms make me want to puke, as if they were written by those who don't have heterosexual preferences,[/B][/QUOTE]

Examples? How would you identify the sexual preferences of an author through thier translation of the psalms? Remember, if you think that Shakespeare (who had little Latin and no Greek according to his friend) influenced the translation, his own work is rather rich in homosexual overtones.
[B][QUOTE]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.[/B][/QUOTE]

Perhaps you mean the way it flattens out the tone, diction and rhythm of every passage until it all appears much the same - to the extent that one cannot easily distinguish stylistically between a 1st century AD letter written in Greek from classical Hebrew panegyric.[B][QUOTE]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.[/B][/QUOTE]

My my - quite the polyglot aren't we? You are in a position to evaluate the subtle distinctions of translations from Hebrew and Greek into these languages, and have enough knowledge of them to distinguish between the different linguistic phases they have passed through? Please, please post more on this - as a mere amateur in this field I would be fascinated to know more.
[B][QUOTE]Those versions, like the KJV, inexplicably utilize inspired (if you will) translational liberties to impart additional redemptive excellencies of Jesus Christ in both testaments.[/B][/QUOTE]

I think you mean, "these versions make inexplicable errors in translation which happen to fit my view of Christianity." If they include "additional redemptive excellencies" then they are heretical: adding to the Word of God and presenting it as the Word of God - unadulterated in your phrase - is just about as heretical as you can get!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Philip, posted 09-07-2002 1:39 AM Philip has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Philip, posted 09-13-2002 12:50 AM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2896 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 35 of 106 (17321)
09-13-2002 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Mister Pamboli
09-07-2002 2:36 PM


...And bigotted no doubt. That's why I stated I would be blunt.

My wife is Chinese; I'm familiar with their Union version and the fact that I teach Chinese Gospel Songs (E.g., "Washed in the Blood", "Trust and Obey", "There's Power in the Blood", etc.); not that my Chinese is great, but good enough to discern their watered down versions (modernistic ones).

As for Luther: He wrote such potent and competent songs (like "A Mighty Fortress is my God", "Away in a Manger", etc.) and commentaries of such spiritual bluntness, that without even knowing German (which I don't), it's obvious his version would be powerful enough and currently is the prefered German version. When's the last time you read a commentary by Luther, i.e., on Galatians, which is universally translated almost to the extent of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress (who John Bunyan himself revered).

As for Shakespeare, his cleverness appears total frolic compared to the potency of any of the poet books. Put Romeo and Juliet beside the Song of Solomon: Those Canticles blow away R&J into the gutters of England from whence they came. Put poor Hamlet beside the books of the Kings, etc. and see who triumphs. And that's just the O.T. How much more does the N.T. Gospel of a Christ-Crucified-Buried-Risen-At-the-Right-Hand-of-the-Majesty-on-High for wretches like you and me ... blow Shakespeare out of his cleverly polluted frolics.

Meagerly speaking, I hope to be bigottedly found (if you will) for the truest Christ assessible, thus, the KJV, Chinese Union, and Lutherian German Bibles, work for me.

Notwithstanding, the MODERN Haitian Creole Bible, which is the only circulating version at present (besides their obselete French versions), was quite erroneously translated from the original texts. Yet THIS Creole version is so extremely blunt, potent, and Gospel-filled, it totally superceded their obselete French version(s). Why? Because Creole is so simple and blunt a tongue; these dear souls cannot tolerate flowery French similes nor clinically precise translations at present:

Let's illustrate: Roman's 3.23, is wisely translated in Haitian Creole as: "Tout moun fe peche, nou tout vire do bay Bondye ki gen pouvwa-a." which literally means: "All men are sinners, we all turn our back on God who has the power". This is nothing like our KJV nor Received Texts which state: "All men have sinned and come short of the glory of God".

Philip

[This message has been edited by Philip, 09-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Mister Pamboli, posted 09-07-2002 2:36 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-13-2002 4:55 AM Philip has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 106 (17334)
09-13-2002 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Philip
09-13-2002 12:50 AM


...see, this is what happens if a large religion cannot keep its original texts. Poor you!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Philip, posted 09-13-2002 12:50 AM Philip has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Philip, posted 10-02-2002 1:34 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded
 Message 38 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 7:57 AM Andya Primanda has responded
 Message 48 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-07-2002 6:42 PM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2896 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 37 of 106 (18799)
10-02-2002 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Andya Primanda
09-13-2002 4:55 AM


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

Admittedly, I carry the treasure in earthen vessels so that I must cry out:
"Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom 7--End of chapter); ... (yet) "I thank God, through our Lord Jesus Christ". "So then, with the mind I serve the law of God and with the flesh the law of sin" ... (like you Muslims) but my Redeemer lives so I do rejoice:
..."There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
(The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Ro 8:1-2). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)

In my meager words:
The poorer I am (in my spirit and flesh), the richer I know I've become in the Redeemer's Spirit.

For the Redeemer's glory,
Philip


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-13-2002 4:55 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 106 (18825)
10-02-2002 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Andya Primanda
09-13-2002 4:55 AM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-13-2002 4:55 AM Andya Primanda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 11:04 AM nos482 has responded

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 106 (18844)
10-02-2002 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by nos482
10-02-2002 7:57 AM


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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 7:57 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by nos482, posted 10-02-2002 11:30 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 106 (18850)
10-02-2002 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Andya Primanda
10-02-2002 11:04 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 11:04 AM Andya Primanda has not yet responded

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 106 (19145)
10-05-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by nos482
09-02-2002 8:03 AM


Nos said
quote:
-------------------
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.
-------------------

WS: Where might we find that news, sticking to credible sources? By credible I mean a source that is undeniably backed up by sources regarded as trustworthy, such as respected historians, encyclopedias, etc. The style of writing was certainly of the high quality employed by Shakespeare, but where the proof of his hand in the KJV?

WHICH "translations" in the KJV were politically motivated, and what is the basis for that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by nos482, posted 09-02-2002 8:03 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nos482, posted 10-05-2002 9:20 PM Wordswordsman has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 106 (19147)
10-05-2002 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Wordswordsman
10-05-2002 9:10 PM


Too little too late.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-05-2002 9:10 PM Wordswordsman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-06-2002 11:51 PM nos482 has responded

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 106 (19185)
10-06-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nos482
10-05-2002 9:20 PM


Nos has made some claims about the KJV that are not supportable. It is pure speculation, fantasy, folly until proven with some credible support. Meanwhile such accusations stand as lies against the truth. The truth is well documented, such that men can't delete it from the earth. It's the responsibility of anyone objecting to that to find the evidence. Most reasonable people accept the record. The agenda is obvious to me, that people who hate God and the Bible will say and do whatever they can, regardless the rules or laws, to damage things they don't understand or outright hate. I came here to defend the truth, but find the accuser unwilling to face the truth or his own lies. Why are such "debaters" tolerated?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nos482, posted 10-05-2002 9:20 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 7:52 AM Wordswordsman has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 106 (19204)
10-07-2002 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Wordswordsman
10-06-2002 11:51 PM


People who live in glass houses....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-06-2002 11:51 PM Wordswordsman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-07-2002 11:06 AM nos482 has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Admin, posted 10-07-2002 11:31 AM nos482 has responded

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 106 (19222)
10-07-2002 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by nos482
10-07-2002 7:52 AM


Once again it appears typical that when faced with actual resistance the skeptics retreat into a sea of denial. Denial of reality is all they really have, rarely offering actual evidence, howevr weak it has been, to back up their claims. That is NOT debate, but pure argument with no substance. If you have something to say about what you believe, then offer the supportive information we can go check out. There are rules in this website, apparently brazenly ignored, again typical of skeptics armed with a virtual chest of ignorance. They MUST ignore the rules and present their case in the most pitiful of manners.

No person will handle the poetic language style of the KJV without first being able to handle modern english versions of the Bible. That style is quite archaic, though absolutely perfect in grammar and quality, well understood by those accustomed to it. There is another principle at work concerning the Bible, whichever version selected. Secular scholars mastering language, reason and logic are easily put aside when they approach the Bible with intent to criticize. The Spirit of God has often failed critics, disallowing spiritual knowledge gained apart from the leading of the Spirit. He is merciful in not allowing men to become excessively accountable for revelations of holiness, leaving the ultimate charge of unbelief, original imputed sin, and personal sins on their record sufficient for corroboration of their eternal judgment and eventual delivery to hell. In other words, no man will attain to the spiritual knowledge of the bible apart from God's help. Those who gain that knowledge by His help, who then abandon it turning against the Savior denying His blood, accounting the works of the Spirit as ungodly, will find there is no more sacrifice for their unforgiveable state of apostasy.

I say all that because the KJV language presentation captures the profound truths of God's Word far more deeply than modern versions which take the approach of an encyclopedia or newspaper text, often dropping the element of human emotion and the art of communication through poetic means. One may view the entirity of the Greek texts of Bible manuscripts and discover that without a working, excellent proficiency in Greek it is difficult to connect the actual original words into sentences easily understood in any other language. That applies to students of Greek, unless that is your primary language and all grammatical rules are adhered to. All others face the difficulty of mastering that language artificially. One can learn much about any spoken language, but until living with speakers of a language, the true knowledge of it is lacking.

Enough scholars have come and gone in past generations that have solved all the problems of communicating the original messages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek origin, later Latin substitutes. The sources of the KJV are not outside that net of confidence awarded to mankind by selfless masters devoted to the truth, each checking the works of the others, maintianing a constant vigil of integrity of the truth in the written record. To say the KJV is faulty is to simply admit ignorance of the language. If it offends, find another version you can understand.

I would suggest, however, the reader investigate the other versions and translations, considering actual errors captured through changes in language that in effect change the message of the original texts.
A good place to start is here:
http://www.scionofzion.com/translations.htm

As to why some Christians stick to the various KJV editions (no actual new versions, just changes like with editions of other books)
consider visiting some of the following websites that do a splendid job of demonstrating the efficacy of the KJV Bible:

A Brief History of the King James Bible
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

The King James Bible Page
http://staggs.pair.com/kjbp/

King James Bible Authority
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/kj_bible.htm
Excerpt:
"Can we call the KJB the Word of God, authentic, perfect, Holy Scriptures which are divinely inspired and infallible in doctrine, our canon and standard of faith and practice because of the witness of the Holy Spirit of Truth?
Turretin combines the witness of the Scriptures and of the Spirit together saying, "We prove the Scriptures by the Spirit as the efficient cause by which we believe. But we prove the Spirit from the Scriptures as the object and argument on account of which we believe." As Turretin said, ""the word must never be separated from the Spirit (Is. 59:21). The former works objectively, the latter efficiently; the former strikes the ears from without, the latter opens the heart within. The Spirit is the teacher; Scripture is the doctrine which he teaches us." Our Baptist forefathers said in the London Confession of Faith under Article #5 "...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." Does the Spirit of Truth use the perfect KJB as authentic Holy Scriptures, which are divine and infallible in doctrine to lead us into all truth?

For centuries English believers have held up their KJB and called it the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. Even liberals in the early 1900s held up the KJB and said it merely "contains" the inspired word of God. Bible-believing scholars have held up the same KJB and said it "is" the inspired Word of God, while referring in their minds only to the lost original autographs. Other Bible-believing scholars have said the same thing often referring in their own minds only to the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek text. Some Bible-believers have said the same thing believing only in the inspiration of the KJB. Because of the growing confusion caused by these misunderstandings, I believe that when we use the term inspiration it is wise as Dr. D. A. Waite suggests to clarify our position with qualifiers. Each of us may choose to use different adjectives to describe the authority of the KJB. We may choose to call the KJB God's perfect, authentic, Holy Scriptures in English because of the divine, infallible doctrinal truth therein, derived by translation from God's inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek underlying text.

The great problem arises when we attempt to apply any of these authoritative terms to our English words and not to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words God gave by inspiration. God wrote only one Bible. It was in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. These are the only inspired words of Holy Scripture from God we have ever received, or will receive. We need to always make that distinction very clear to promote truth and preserve our doctrinal integrity. I agree fully with Dr. D. A. Waite that when using these authoritative words for the KJB, we must carefully qualify them and connect them to their divine source in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. When we use any of these terms of authority concerning the KJB alone without qualifications we only weaken the doctrinal authority in our KJB, and our own intended Bible defense.

Most of our differences in the use of authoritative terms regarding the KJB are a matter of semantics rather than doctrinal differences. We understand why the Dean Burgon Society has held the position it holds on the use of the term inspiration these many years. While modern theologians are attempting to remove all authority from the Bible we hold in our hands, we must defend and declare all the divine authority possible to our traditional Bible texts, including the original autographs, apographs, and accurate translations like our authorized King James Bible."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nos482, posted 10-07-2002 7:52 AM nos482 has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019