Are the 3 KJV the same?

Page 2 of 4 (74 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next >
This post has 73 Replies | 3 Followers

Posts 653
Alex Scott | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 23 2009 10:19 AM

Those of you (us) who really want to get an accurate account of God's word need to get back to the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.  There is NO such thing as an accurate or literal translation in any language by anyone - that is an impossibility for no other reason than there are few if any words in any one language that correspond to a given word in another.

Even doing that, however, you will soon discover additional difficulties in determining what was the original text, although this will be far less a problem than determining what is a good translation.  

As to the problem of learning Greek and Hebrew, it can be done by anyone if you are serious and are willing to put forth the effort.  If you prefer to be spoon-fed that's another problem but you'll spend the rest of your life trying to figure out and argue about which is the best translation, a useless exercise if ever there was one.

Longtime Logos user (more than $30,000 in purchases) - now a second class user because I won't pay them more every month or year.

Posts 352
Batman | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:06 PM

Apparently.
But, it's too bad people tend to not even understand the language they fight so hard for.

Posts 352
Batman | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:14 PM

"... but, does that mean the actual Hebrew & Greek or the English?"

Well, English of course.
Everyone knows that Adam and Eve were 20th century Americans, who spoke English.
There may be a few who actually believe they spoke Hebrew.
(Come to think of it, I wonder what language they did speak; pretty confident it wasn't 1611 English, or Hebrew, for that matter ).

Posts 172
Chris Ease | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:34 PM

The calvinists teach the same dogma regardless of whether they use KJV, NKJV, ESV, or NASB.  I think all 4 bibles are the best as far as conservitive English scholarship is concerned.  I prefer ESV or NASB, mainly for readability.  One thing you will battle is the fact that there are 2 main lines of Greek.  The Textus Receptus and the Alexandrian Text (Greek).  Which is more correct?  Even if you study Greek, you have to solve that battle.  I say don't let the devil lead you astray and don't follow doctrines of men.  There is truly no "perfect" literal version, but God's word will never change and I believe you will find that doctrine wise that all 4 bibles I mentioned will be 95% in agreement.  JM2cents!

Posts 26515
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:30 PM

RIchard K Ross:
From what I have learned through reading many books on the King James Bible, and through my Pastor, is that they believe the 1611 as translated was the only pure Bible.

I think it was in this thread that Bob P. indicated that the 1811 Bible was a dead end - that the KJV crowd use a later text as their base.  Which makes sense given the treatment of the Deuterocanonical.s

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 44
Sam Shaw | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 9:54 AM

Sam Shaw:

Okay, I'm still confused. Which version, exactly, is the "King James Version"/"King James Version Apocrypha" provided in Logos 4?

Again. Help, please.

Posts 5613
Todd Phillips | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 10:11 AM

Sam Shaw:

Sam Shaw:

Okay, I'm still confused. Which version, exactly, is the "King James Version"/"King James Version Apocrypha" provided in Logos 4?

Again. Help, please.

It's the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition (Check the info panel in the Library for this info).

Wiki Links: Enabling Logging / Detailed Search Help - MacBook Pro (2014), ThinkPad E570

Posts 569
J. Morris | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 10:53 AM

The purpose of a translation should be...

1) It should communicate the AUTHOR/authors intentions...  (therefore should strive to be a "literal" translation)

2) It should be readable by the MASSES..(Not just by a select few or group who then tell you what it means)

(Doing 1&2 well together is sometimes a difficult thing to accomplish)

 

If  #1 is NOT true, then the version will contain errors/heresies/opinions.... 

If #1 IS true but #2 Is NOT, then the person has to find someone/Church that will interpret.

-The intent of the early translations 1500s-1600s was to get the Scriptures to the People (masses) so they could read it for themselves...

-If people can't understand/comprehend the Bible they have at home, they are MUCH less likely to read it... 

-If a people have a hard time understanding but want to be "good" Christians, then the only choice is to find a Church that will explain it...

-OR  they are already going to a Chruch that says ONLY a certain version of Bible (the more difficult kind to understand/comprehend) is the ONLY one that should be used/read

Then because that Version is more difficult to read... It gets read LESS and the Christian has to rely Solely/Mostly on the interpretation that is given by their pastor.

-Bible learning should happen MOSTLY at HOME not Church.  Certainly we should all learn from the Scriptures at Church, but a Christian should be "searching the Scriptures daily"...  "Church" is something that is to be PERFORMED (EX. Worship, ALSO:by the body of Christ AKA CHURCH exercising their spiritual gifts with one another)

-My criteria, as far as suggesting a Bible version, follows my 2 points above.

Blessings,

Jeremiah

Independent Fundamental (by Webster's def) Baptist Pastor

P.S.  God's Word CAN be understood (to a VERY high degree) without knowing Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew.... (esp thanks to Logos!)  Just because I don't know those other  languages doesn't mean I'm being "spoon-fed"... Stick out tongue

Posts 10548
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 11:56 AM

RIchard K Ross:
From what I have learned through reading many books on the King James Bible, and through my Pastor, is that they believe the 1611 as translated was the only pure Bible.

I won't quote your entire post, but you did not answer the question. I attended a Fundamentalist college and served as Pastor of 2 Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches, but I reject the entire premise upon which the KJB error is built. Did Paul, Peter and even Jesus not have a pure Word of God? After all, they lived and ministered prior to 1611 or any other date cited by KJB partisans. There are people in this world who could not understand any portion of the KJB. Do they, therefore, have no access to the Word of God?

Posts 10548
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 11:58 AM

Alex Scott:
Those of you (us) who really want to get an accurate account of God's word need to get back to the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

Alex

I only quoted the first sentence, but the entire post is superb.Yes

Posts 197
Rick Ross | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 12:36 PM

Not sure if I can add anything else to what you said, except, our congregation uses the KJV, mostly Scofield as you might imagine, which is supposed to be the 1769 text, not a later textual update.  If you, as a former Pastor can substantiate that, please do.  But, I don't much care about the Bible Version debate as it just seems to serve the purpose of dividing and distracting us from the work in which Christ has called us.  I dare state that I could take the NKJV, ASV, DR or ESV and witness to someone to plant the seed.  We don't have the original greek/hebrew the translators used, so we have to make due with what the good Lord has given us.

Rick Ross

Posts 352
Batman | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 12:46 PM

I agree with you on the purposes of a translation except for "therefore should strive to be a "literal" translation". Yes, we want as much of the literal words as possible; just sometimes it does not work. Ex. is the erroneously translated word "monogenes" which literally (and therefore inaccurately) translated is "only begotten". But, "monogenes" mean "only begotten" about as much as "butterfly" is referring to Land of Lakes having sprouted wings. We know this is not the intended rendering, because in hebrews it speaks of Abraham's "monogenes" Isaac, who was neither Abraham's "only begotten" nor his "firstborn"; but, rather, he was special, unique, even precious; being the only one of Abraham's many children who was to receive the promise from God to be his heir. So, literal is not always good. Communicating the intended author(s) intent, however, is.
My theology and Hebrew professor constantly states how the Bible should be a book that is readable, not a law book. Which is then, what you say in point 2; which is correct, I do believe.
Your last comment is also true. However, even with using tools such as Logos, it can be very dangerous, if we are not aware of our limitations; this is seen when using something like the Amplified Bible, which can cause certain theologians to create false senses of a word's meaning. One person, whom I won't mention by name, because he is huge, but apparently does not seem to understand how the Greek works, but, makes huge arguments over different meanings, tends to over-indulge his knowledge of words, but misses the simplest points. In one example, he uses the aorist verb to demontsrate how that "tongues will cease in and of themselves" and makes a great big to do over nothing. Paul was simply breaking up the monotony. In another case, he makes a big deal over how the one leper comes back and thanks Jesus for healing him. Jesus says, "Your faith has healed you", noting that the word used can include "salvation", thus saying Jesus was implying spiritual salvation. I don't see it. Since "salvation" hadn't even been discussed to this point in Scripture, even if jesus intended this, the man would not have.
Another example is how we tend to make "Agape" out to be "God's love". Yet, in the Greek translation of the OT, when Tamara (If memory serves me correctly) was incestously raped by her half brother, the word "agape" is used. I don't think that was implying God's love.
I did hear this example once. A Jewish man, wanting to impress his visiting friends by using "big English words", ordered "Difficult boiled eggs". His dictionary defined difficult as hard. So, he thought the words were interchangeable. Sometimes they are; sometimes they are not. Knowing how and when is important. (Which is why I say the Amplified Bible is a dangerous version, because people who don't know can come up with some bad interpretations.
So, my point here is, while we don't need to know Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek to get a "deeper understanding", it helps if we know what we are talking about. If we can't learn the language, it helps to learn how the language works.

Jeremiah Daniel Morris:

The purpose of a translation should be...

1) It should communicate the AUTHOR/authors intentions...  (therefore should strive to be a "literal" translation)

2) It should be readable by the MASSES..(Not just by a select few or group who then tell you what it means)

(Doing 1&2 well together is sometimes a difficult thing to accomplish)

 

If  #1 is NOT true, then the version will contain errors/heresies/opinions.... 

If #1 IS true but #2 Is NOT, then the person has to find someone/Church that will interpret.

-The intent of the early translations 1500s-1600s was to get the Scriptures to the People (masses) so they could read it for themselves...

-If people can't understand/comprehend the Bible they have at home, they are MUCH less likely to read it... 

-If a people have a hard time understanding but want to be "good" Christians, then the only choice is to find a Church that will explain it...

-OR  they are already going to a Chruch that says ONLY a certain version of Bible (the more difficult kind to understand/comprehend) is the ONLY one that should be used/read

Then because that Version is more difficult to read... It gets read LESS and the Christian has to rely Solely/Mostly on the interpretation that is given by their pastor.

-Bible learning should happen MOSTLY at HOME not Church.  Certainly we should all learn from the Scriptures at Church, but a Christian should be "searching the Scriptures daily"...  "Church" is something that is to be PERFORMED (EX. Worship, ALSO:by the body of Christ AKA CHURCH exercising their spiritual gifts with one another)

-My criteria, as far as suggesting a Bible version, follows my 2 points above.

Blessings,

Jeremiah

Independent Fundamental (by Webster's def) Baptist Pastor

P.S.  God's Word CAN be understood (to a VERY high degree) without knowing Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew.... (esp thanks to Logos!)  Just because I don't know those other  languages doesn't mean I'm being "spoon-fed"... Stick out tongue

Posts 352
Batman | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 12:51 PM

Personally, I try hard to stay clear of the KJV. It was great for its' time; but, we have found manuscripts that clear up many errors in the KJV. But, that aside, you have made the best statement I have heard from anyone in this debate, in many many years. This debate does nothing more than divide.
You get a huge "Amen" from me on that one.  And, to go alongside with that, I would say as a reminder, "Even if we don't like a particular version, we should be ever so careful in trampling over it, as it is based on the Words of our Lord; even the ones that are intentionally flawed or skewed (NWLT, for example).
So, "Amen, brother"

RIchard K Ross:

Not sure if I can add anything else to what you said, except, our congregation uses the KJV, mostly Scofield as you might imagine, which is supposed to be the 1769 text, not a later textual update.  If you, as a former Pastor can substantiate that, please do.  But, I don't much care about the Bible Version debate as it just seems to serve the purpose of dividing and distracting us from the work in which Christ has called us.  I dare state that I could take the NKJV, ASV, DR or ESV and witness to someone to plant the seed.  We don't have the original greek/hebrew the translators used, so we have to make due with what the good Lord has given us.

Rick Ross

Posts 10548
Forum MVP
Jack Caviness | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 12:57 PM

RIchard K Ross:
Not sure if I can add anything else to what you said, except, our congregation uses the KJV, mostly Scofield as you might imagine, which is supposed to be the 1769 text, not a later textual update.  If you, as a former Pastor can substantiate that, please do. 

Rick

I honestly do not know which text the editors of the original Scofield used. I have always assumed it was the 1769, but I have never had enough curiosity to research the subject. One reason I feel so strongly about this error is its prevalence in the area in which I live. Much false "evidence" is presented as to the deliberate perversions of modern language translations. I had a leader from one of the local IFB Churches tell me that the KJV could be used to correct errors in the Greek and Hebrew! That is not Fundamentalism. It is idiocy—these people are crazy. 

BTW, just glanced again at your post. What is the DR? I personally prefer the NKJV, but that's just me.

Posts 2703
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 1:50 PM

LegendsOfBatman:
(NWLT, for example).

What is NWLT, and from another poster what is DR? Thanks for the help in advance.

Ted

 

 

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 569
J. Morris | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 2:14 PM

Batman, (that felt weird typing that lol)

Your Greek quotes of the O.T. are interesting examples.  They themselves are translations.  I do understand that if I did know Greek it would greatly help my study.  However, I have to decide what is most important for me & "my" congregation. 

Ex. I have to decide "should I spend a few years to become proficient with Greek (or the other Biblical languages) or should I spend that time in something else... like better understanding how to learn what I can and better apply what I do know (Ex. Counseling... Which I am currently in a Masters program for)...

(Please don't misunderstand me, I actually "envy" you and those that are proficient in Biblical languages)

If I believed that Greek was ESSENTIAL to understanding the Bible (that is me knowing it and not simply finding information, like from L4) then that WOULD also mean it should be essential for "my" congregation to also know it.  (because as I stated above, I believe reading and learning Scripture from home IS essential)

I wish I would have taken some Greek in my undergrad... but I didn't.  If I am not confident that I can learn/know/live the Scriptures by reading/studying my English Bible (and suplimenting with other Biblical works) then I am in the wrong job, and every Christian needs to learn the ancient languages.

Posts 569
J. Morris | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 2:16 PM

RIchard K Ross:

Not sure if I can add anything else to what you said, except, our congregation uses the KJV,

Rick Ross

You be persuaded in your OWN heart.  It is not my intention to undermine what your pastor has taught you.

As a side note:  I still use the KJV to preach/study from.  (I do open others in personal study)

Posts 172
Chris Ease | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 5:54 PM

I thought NWLT was the Jehovah witness bible.  As far as versions, you will always have good and bad versions and you will have people who argue over semantics.  Much of scripture is spiritually discerned, so I would assume that "cool" means I'm hip, as in "the in crowd" and I don't need a jacket!  To be born again and to be still and know I am God gives a born again person who can read the ability to understand the truths of God.  If only we spend the time and seek Him.

Posts 687
Jon | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 24 2009 8:28 PM

LegendsOfBatman:
Ex. is the erroneously translated word "monogenes" which literally (and therefore inaccurately) translated is "only begotten"

This translation is wrong because it is wrong, not because it is literal. μονογενης "literally" means only or unique as you suggest. "Only begotten" is an example of a root fallacy, I believe this specific example gets a mention in Carson's great little book Exegetical Fallacies...

LegendsOfBatman:
even the ones that are intentionally flawed or skewed (NWLT, for example).

This is probably a bit harsh; I agree with you that the New World Translation has its difficulties and that they arise from unorthodox doctrinal convictions; however their convictions about what the text means are genuine and they're not deliberately mistranslating texts - they just disagree about what it means. It would be naive not to realise that all translators and translations will be affected by theological conviction, since all translation is necessarily interpretive. The great thing about Logos for serious bible study is it makes it so easy to compare and contrast different translations and to see the underlying Greek and Hebrew text.

Posts 352
Batman | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Nov 25 2009 10:55 AM

I wrote that post at like 3am or some insane time, so, I may have the initials wrong. But, I was referring to the Bible the Jehovah Witnesses use.

DR? My guess Darby.

Ted Hans:

LegendsOfBatman:
(NWLT, for example).

What is NWLT, and from another poster what is DR? Thanks for the help in advance.

Ted

 

 

 

Page 2 of 4 (74 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS