OT: Some thoughts on the KJV
Comments
-
Jack Caviness said:
Yes, but I did not post the rest of what I was thinking.
Commandment 11: Thou shalt not post the rest of what you are thinking, for that which develops beyond "yes" and "no" is usually nothing but fog and snow.
0 -
Schezic said:
This is the first commentary I consulted. I believe there are others who would agree that Jesus reprimanded them for revering Scripture over Him.
I believe we are in danger of talking past each other here. They studied the Scriptures diligently, but they missed the correct meaning. They missed καὶ ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ And they are the ones testifying concerning Me. I do not disagree that these Jewish religious leaders worshipped the letter of the Scripture, but they also did not understand what they read.
That is the great danger of those who worship a translation today. They put more emphasis on carrying the correct book than on worshiping the correct Savior. [:(]
0 -
Philip Spitzer said:Jack Caviness said:
Yes, but I did not post the rest of what I was thinking.
Commandment 11: Thou shalt not post the rest of what you are thinking, for that which develops beyond "yes" and "no" is usually nothing but fog and snow.
Hey, it was 85°F here yesterday with bright sunshine—No fog, no snow. Then, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina sent in the rain. Now it is 30° cooler, but now the sun is out again—still no fog and no snow. [8-|]
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
That is the great danger of those who worship a translation today. They put more emphasis on carrying the correct book than on worshiping the correct Savior.
Thank You Jack, You made my point better than I ever could.[:D] And by the way...You did end up posting what you resisted earlier.[:P] At least some of it.
0 -
Schezic said:
Thank You Jack, You made my point better than I ever could.
In another thread, you said you like those who agree with you, so does this make us friends? [:D]
Schezic said:And by the way...You did end up posting what you resisted earlier.
At least some of it.Complete lack of self-control. The fruit of the Spirit is … temperance… Since I haven't used beverage alcohol in almost 40 years, I'm good here. [:D] However, if I read it in a more modern version, I come up short. [:$]
Actually, I prefer the NKJV, but I teach from the KJV because many folks in this area still carry that version, and this gives me an opportunity to correct certain misconceptions caused by the archaic language and even—dare I say it—mistranslations. [:O]
0 -
Jack Caviness said:Rosie Perera said:
KJV-only folks are probably a diminishing breed
Unfortunately, that is not true in Piedmont North Carolina. In fact, it is a growing and very militant movement among the Independent Baptist Churches here. I think this is a tragic development, but I won't say more as I don't want to offend anyone.
It is just that they reject what they see as the false god of textual criticism. They rejected the DRV sometime after 1611. They rejected the RV (an update of the DRV (not an update of the KJV) in 1885). They rejected the ASV (an other update of the DRV in 1901). And they reject the RSV, NIV (etc) as all are seen as just reedited updates of the DRV. And as for more Bibles in Logos why not the original DRV as in 1609 DOUAY / 1582 RHEIMS? (With all the extra notes (a main part of one of my current studies))
0 -
Rosie Perera said:Matthew C Jones said:
i just don't think we need to retire the KJV just yet.
I totally agree, and I think students should be exposed to its language since it has shaped so many authors in the past 400 years. I don't think most people who publish and read the newer translations would ever say any of these should entirely wipe out all usage of the KJV. Yes, KJV-only folks are probably a diminishing breed, which might make them feel entrenched and feel the need to be more defensive than necessary, but thank God for those who preserve this wonderful heritage for the rest of us. Incidentally, the KJV is in no danger of dying out. It is the #2 best seller based on dollar sales, and #3 based on number of unit sales, according to April 2011 data from the Christian Booksellers' Association.
Watch what you say about The Message, because Eugene Peterson is a friend of mine.
Besides, old hippies need to hear the gospel, too. Actually, most everyone I know who likes The Message uses it only as an alternative translation alongside a familiar favorite, just to jostle them from time to time out of their complacency in reading Scripture passages that they have grown complacent about through familiarity. When you hear them in a new idiom, you sometimes sit up and go "Wow! I'd never thought of that before, but of course that's in the text!" That doesn't happen all the time, by a long shot. I didn't particularly like how he rendered the Psalms, for example. But some of the Gospels and Pauline letters have some particularly good passages in them. I love "the word became flesh and moved into the neighborhood" (John 1:14). I think of The Message very much the way I think of J.B. Phillips' paraphrase of the NT. There are a few verses that really pack a punch and are quite memorable, and for that I'm grateful for the whole thing. My favorite turn of words of Phillips's is "don't let the world squeeze you into its mold" (Rom 12:2).Peace, Rosie! *smile*
And! I totally agree with you -- this is a very good post!
Just thought you might like to refine your J.B. Phillips paraprase quote a bit -- so, if you indeed do desire precision, well -- to be precise it is:
"Don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within, so that you may prove in practice that the plan of God for you is good, meets all his demands and moves towards the goal of true maturity."
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:Rosie Perera said:
My favorite turn of words of Phillips's is "don't let the world squeeze you into its mold" (Rom 12:2).
Peace, Rosie! *smile*
And! I totally agree with you -- this is a very good post!
Just thought you might like to refine your J.B. Phillips paraprase quote a bit -- so, if you indeed do desire precision, well -- to be precise it is:
"Don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within, so that you may prove in practice that the plan of God for you is good, meets all his demands and moves towards the goal of true maturity."
As you can tell, I'm quite free with paraphrases. I was paraphrasing a paraphrase. [:)] Actually, I was quoting it exactly but left out the ellipses due to carelessness or laziness or poor memory or a combination thereof. I should have written "don't let the world...squeeze you into its...mold..." And I did wonder for a moment whether it was spelled mold or mould, so I googled it and found it nearly 10x mores frequently quoted with "mold" than "mould" so I picked that spelling (the American spelling). But I guess he was British and spelled it mould. Oh well. I guess Americans quote him more often (incorrectly, from memory) than Brits do. The phrase as I googled it was the shortened version, without the ellipses. If you google it with the correct phrase "Don't let the world around you squeeze you into its own mo(u)ld" then the British spelling wins out by about 20%.
0 -
David Ames said:
It is just that they reject what they see as the false god of textual criticism.
There is more to it than that. I had a senior staff member of the second largest IFB in this county sit in my living room and state, "I believe that we can use the KJV to correct the Greek and Hebrew". He did not limit that claim to W-H or UBS.
David Ames said:They rejected the RV (an update of the DRV (not an update of the KJV) in 1885).
Interesting claim. Is there any historical evidence to support that claim?
0 -
Rosie! *smile*
You are very special --- and most thorough indeed! Seems like you don't like "loose ends," eh?
Peace always! And the Great Joy of Christ in your life!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Jack Caviness said:Schezic said:
Thank You Jack, You made my point better than I ever could.
In another thread, you said you like those who agree with you, so does this make us friends?
Sure !! I have unconditional love for you ... As long as you agree with me.[:P]
0 -
Jack Caviness said:David Ames said:
It is just that they reject what they see as the false god of textual criticism.
There is more to it than that. I had a senior staff member of the second largest IFB in this county sit in my living room and state, "I believe that we can use the KJV to correct the Greek and Hebrew". He did not limit that claim to W-H or UBS.
[[dave reply - show him that it has already been done - KJV-1900 reverse interlinear !
]]David Ames said:They rejected the RV (an update of the DRV (not an update of the KJV) in 1885).
Interesting claim. Is there any historical evidence to support that claim? [[dave note: does he accept that the others are updates of the DRV?]]
All you have to do is as follows:
Set up a collection of the AV, NIV, NIV84, DRV (English Vulgate), RSV
Open all five versions
Open text compare to the collection
Compare every verse in the New Testament
Log in an excel file your findings
Publish your findings; in Logos format please
Have not yet finished but in Matthew I found that when the NIV84 and the AV did not match [5% of the readings] to a Dynamic Equivalence level that 95% of the time the NIV matched the DRV reading. QED to a 95% level the NIV and the DRV are one and the same [using Dynamic Equivalence]. The RV is not in my Logos library (and I did not include it in my study) but it is based on the same N-U / Westcott-Hort text as the other modern Bibles
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
this gives me an opportunity to correct certain misconceptions caused by the archaic language and even—dare I say it—mistranslations.
Say it Jack, Say it. Shout it from the rooftops. The folks who hold to the KJV only concept are an understanding lot. They won't be offended.
0 -
David Ames said:
Have not yet finished but in Matthew I found that when the NIV84 and the AV did not match [5% of the readings] to a Dynamic Equivalence level that 95% of the time the NIV matched the DRV reading. QED to a 95% level the NIV and the DRV are one and the same [using Dynamic Equivalence]. The RV is not in my Logos library (and I did not include it in my study) but it is based on the same N-U / Westcott-Hort text as the other modern Bibles
Who really cares which versions compare with others? Compare each to the original. Open the NA27 and compare it with a version. Open BHS and compare it with a version. Better yet, just read the original.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Now, That was diplomatic.[:)]George Somsel said:Who really cares which versions compare with others? Compare each to the original. Open the NA27 and compare it with a version. Open BHS and compare it with a version. Better yet, just read the original.
0 -
Schezic said:
Now, That was diplomatic.
Sometimes I am amazed that George became so mellow in only 39 years. [:D]
0 -
0
-
Philip Spitzer said:
That's the NA27 and BHS. I naturally meant the original language texts and not the autographs.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Philip Spitzer said:
That's the NA27 and BHS. I naturally meant the original language texts and not the autographs.
I know. Just felt like being a brat. Sorry for doing it at your expense :-)
0 -
George Somsel said:David Ames said:
Have not yet finished but in Matthew I found that when the NIV84 and the AV did not match [5% of the readings] to a Dynamic Equivalence level that 95% of the time the NIV matched the DRV reading. QED to a 95% level the NIV and the DRV are one and the same [using Dynamic Equivalence]. The RV is not in my Logos library (and I did not include it in my study) but it is based on the same N-U / Westcott-Hort text as the other modern Bibles
Who really cares which versions compare with others? Compare each to the original. Open the NA27 and compare it with a version. Open BHS and compare it with a version. Better yet, just read the original.
Sorry, let me re try - To the best of my knowledge the NIV, DRV, RSV, etc. all agree with the NA27 and the BHS. The KJO group rejects the NA27. And this discussion has been going on since about 300 BC. How heated has the discussion gotten? There were times when the loser was burned at the stake - now thats hot.
On the other hand the KJO group goofed - they should have gone with the LXX instead of the BHS. [[Oh by the way - The KJO group think it is the original - I don't]]
0 -
David Ames said:
Sorry, let me re try - To the best of my knowledge the NIV, DRV, RSV, etc. all agree with the NA27 and the BHS. The KJO group rejects the NA27. And this discussion has been going on since about 300 BC. How heated has the discussion gotten? There were times when the loser was burned at the stake - now thats hot.
On the other hand the KJO group goofed - they should have gone with the LXX instead of the BHS. [[Oh by the way - The KJO group think it is the original - I don't]]
OK, what's the KJO group? I know of an Alexandrian text type, a Byzantine text type, a Western text type, but what's a KJO group?
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
0
-
Maybe we should keep our tyrant. He breathes a little fire but I don't know of anyone being consumed by it.[:)]David Ames said:How heated has the discussion gotten? There were times when the loser was burned at the stake - now thats hot.
0 -
George Somsel said:
On the other hand the KJO group goofed - they should have gone with the LXX instead of the BHS. [[Oh by the way - The KJO group think it is the original - I don't]]
Rosie explained that by KJO group you meant the King James Only adherents though that is what I assumed you meant. Why would they think the LXX is original? The AV follows the Massoretic text. If they think the LXX is original, I would think they are rather inconsistent. Actually, the AV uses Stephanus which is similar to the Byz Maj text. Obviously they know nothing about judging which text tradition is older and how it developed. Stephanus and the Byz Maj texts are somewhat corrupt. I believe that Bart Ehrman in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture speaks regarding some of these corruptions -- being ever careful to portray them in the worst possible light. As regards the LXX / MT choice, there are texts in the DSS which have different text types -- MT, LXX, Sam Pent. I really think the KJO group has gotten ahold of the wrong end of the stick. They first choose what they want the text to say (AV version) then decide what text they prefer when they should first investigate what text has the greater claim to reliability and then choose an English version which represents that.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Would you look at that...Even George agrees with me. [:P]
0 -
Hey, just to be clear about something. I do not want the KJV retired. I actually prefer it for Psalms. There is something quaint and poetic about 17th century English.
I just think it is a mistake to preach from it regularly because it's archaic language is an obstacle to communicating God's Word. But if someone wants to preach from it, that's fine with me. There are some congregations to whom I would preach from the KJV. Of course, it would probably be the nursing home congregation.
The fact is that the KJV is an inferior translation compared to many modern English translations (such as NASV, ESV, NIV, NRSV.) For example, just consider the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4. I think that God put that in the KJV because He has such a sense of humor. It is God's joke on the KJV only folks.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Michael Childs said:
For example, just consider the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4. I think that God put that in the KJV because He has such a sense of humor. It is God's joke on the KJV only folks.
Oh, a little anachronism never hurt Paul. If it was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me. ;-) He was talking about the KJV, you know, when he said "All Scripture is inspired by God..." [;)]
0 -
David Ames said:
It is just that they reject what they see as the false god of textual criticism. They rejected the DRV sometime after 1611. They rejected the RV (an update of the DRV (not an update of the KJV) in 1885). They rejected the ASV (an other update of the DRV in 1901). And they reject the RSV, NIV (etc) as all are seen as just reedited updates
Very good summation yet incomplete. They also reject Wescott & Hort as spiritually qualified, they reject the Alexandrian manuscripts, they reject the change of doctrine that results from modern versions. I do not defend all of these but list them to show it is much more than a language issue.
We have had 78 posts & 17 unique posters:
- Floyd Johnson
- George Somsel
- Michael Childs
- Matthew C Jones
- Robert M. Warren
- Philip Spitzer
- Denise Barnhart
- Milford Charles Murray
- Giovanni Baggio
- MJ. Smith
- J Hale
- Paul Golder
- Rosie Perera
- Schezic
- Keep Smiling 4 Jesus
- Jack Caviness
- David Ames
(Sorry if I left anyone out.)
My point is there is not one KJV-Only post. I'm sure glad this thread was not about foot-washing. We might actually offend someone. [:O]Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I'm sure glad this thread was not about foot-washing. We might actually offend someone.
Yeah, I believe in washing my feet -- along with everything else. [;)]
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Michael Childs said:
I actually prefer it for Psalms.
But doesn't the Book of Common Prayer use the Coverdale Psalms? They're classy too.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
C'mon Matthew. How many KJO'ers do you think own Logos or prowl these forums? Why would someone spend big bucks for software designed to compare Bible versions (and other enlightening resources) If all they ever intend to read is the sacred KJV? There are sites you could go to if you want a debate.[:)] Try some of the Independent Baptist sites[:P]Matthew C Jones said:My point is there is not one KJV-Only post.
0 -
Schezic said:
How many KJOers do you think own Logos or prowl these forums? Why would someone spend big bucks for software designed to compare Bible versions (and other enlightening resources) If all they ever intend to read is the sacred KJV?
This made me wonder if Ruckman has a list of suggested resources like MacArthur's 850 Books for Biblical Expositors ...[^o)]
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
0 -
Schezic said:
C'mon Matthew. How many KJOers do you think own Logos or prowl these forums? Why would someone spend big bucks for software designed to compare Bible versions (and other enlightening resources) If all they ever intend to read is the sacred KJV? There are sites you could go to if you want a debate.Matthew C Jones said:My point is there is not one KJV-Only post.
Try some of the independent Baptist sites
Now who is the testy, intolerant one?
We once had a Catholic MVP who resigned his star because of narrow-mined Logos forum posters who thought no self-respecting Catholic would own Bible software so dominated by non-Catholic resources.
We also had a Calvinist who fanned the flames of dissension because in his estimation Logos was Pro-Calvinist & anti-Arminian.
I'm married to a godly woman who uses KJV only. She has her own license. She rarely posts. She thinks Christians should get along and treat each other with respect. She allowed me to buy Portfolio Edition and for Christmas she gave her blessing on my purchase of the 2010 Master Collection
Don't ask me to choose between my wife & my Logos software.
And finally (as if anyone is paying attention this time) I am not KJV-Only. I just figure I can accept them since Jesus can overlook their faults.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Very interesting thread, thank you all for posting. I wanted to add my two cents to the conversation (it's probably not worth 2 cents). I am a lay person with no formal biblical training. I am not college educated, but my IQ is relatively high, and I scored a 1390 on the SATs back in the early 80's, so I don't consider myself uneducated. Before I became a child of the King, I was searching. During my search I read the KJV and recieved nothing from it. The archaic language was a barrier that I probably could have worked through, but as someone looking for answers it was too much work and the effort seemed pointless. Eventually, I was introduced to the NIV and found that the "complicated" Bible really wasn't so complicated. The ease of reading the NIV helped me to grasp concepts and basic theology that I would have missed or struggled with using the KJV.
Long story short, I currently have a KJV, NIV, RSV, and NET on my bookshelf (plus all the versions in Logos [:D]). The ability to read a version such as the NIV helped lead me to Christ, so it served a purpose in my life that the KJV couldn't at that time. Each translation has a purpose in God's plan for believers (Jer 29:11) and the NIV just happened to be the translation that he used in my life. For others it may be the KJV, ESV, RSV, HCSB or any of the other translations out there. If a particluar translation is what helps you get closer to the King of kings, then by all means that's the translation you should use.
JMHO.
Be blessed!
Mike
0 -
I think it is worth mentioning that not everybody that uses "only"
the KJV could be termed a KJV-Onlyist (Onlyer? Onlyite?) For a long
time, the KJV was the only Bible I used...for various reasons...but I
never got on board with most of the "doctrines" that characterize many
of the KJV-Only groups.Matthew C Jones said:they reject the change of doctrine that results from modern versions.
Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point? Despite my having done some fairly extensive reading on both sides of the KJV-Only debate, I don't remember coming across this argument...though I could be wrong. Thanks!
0 -
I,too, am waiting for clarification on this point.Ron Keyston Jr said:Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point? Despite my having done some fairly extensive reading on both sides of the KJV-Only debate, I don't remember coming across this argument...though I could be wrong. Thanks!
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
I had a senior staff member of the second largest IFB in this county sit in my living room and state, "I believe that we can use the KJV to correct the Greek and Hebrew". He did not limit that claim to W-H or UBS.
[
Found an interesting comment on the Vulgate – “”it was also commonly admitted that the text was purer than in any manuscripts at that time extant in the original languages””
[[I found it on the web so it must be true [6]
]]0 -
Hi George, [while we are all waiting for Matthew to reply to a couple of questions]
George Somsel Replied: Tue Apr 5, 2011 5:33 PM
David Ames: On the other hand the KJO group goofed - they should have gone with the LXX instead of the BHS.
GEORGE -> The AV follows the Massoretic text. If they think the LXX is original,
DAVE -> I said “KJO group goofed” The early Christen church seems to have used the LXX not the Hebrew and yes, the AV uses the Massoretic in the Old Testament. IMHO a big fatal error in the arguments of the KJO group of accepting a bible not using the Greek OT.
GEORGE -> Obviously they know nothing about judging which text tradition is older and how it developed. Stephanus and the Byz Maj texts are somewhat corrupt.
DAVE -> [they would say that] “”That just shows that you are a convert to Textual Criticism”” and they would follow up with the statement that the TR is perfect [except of course where it needs to be corrected by the KJV]
GEORGE -> I believe that Bart Ehrman in his The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture speaks regarding some of these corruptions
DAVE -> interesting Book – will have to re read it – it has been a few years
GEORGE -> I really think the KJO group has gotten ahold of the wrong end of the stick. They first choose what they want the text to say (AV version) then decide what text they prefer when they should first investigate what text has the greater claim to reliability and then choose an English version which represents that.
DAVE -> I, Dave, agree (for the most part if we are talking about textual criticism - BUT check out the comments on Matthew 27:49 where Jesus is speared and then cried out and died in some BIG NAME manuscripts but it is ignored because it does not follow the accepted doctrine of the Textual Critics – therefor it must be a scribal error.
As in EMPH | Mt 27:49 but the rest said— Stay! let us see whether Elijah is coming? and will save him. But another taking a spear pierced his side, and there came forth water and blood. [it is verse 50 where he cries and dies]
The KJO groups reply would again be “”That just shows that you are a convert to Textual Criticism”” and they would follow up with the statement that the TR is perfect [except of course where it needs to be corrected by the KJV]
But as Matthew will tell us it is not completely about textual criticism [I.E. there is a big part of the story that we have not yet told – I will let Matthew handle that part]
0 -
David Ames said:
Found an interesting comment on the Vulgate – “”it was also commonly admitted that the text was purer than in any manuscripts at that time extant in the original languages””
Hey, good old Jerome used the best textual criticism available in his day. It's not his fault his access to manuscripts was severely limited by the available technology. Let's get a time machine and give him a second shot.[;)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
UPDATE !!!!Ron Keyston Jr said:Matthew C Jones said:they reject the change of doctrine that results from modern versions.
Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point? Despite my having done some fairly extensive reading on both sides of the KJV-Only debate, I don't remember coming across this argument...though I could be wrong. Thanks!
Matthew is still alive. He was not abducted by aliens. He is responding to other threads. I assume he is still compiling an answer for us. Be Patient !!!
0 -
Schezic said:Matthew C Jones said:
they reject the change of doctrine that results from modern versions.
Ron Keyston Jr said:Matthew, would you mind elaborating on this point? Despite my having done some fairly extensive reading on both sides of the KJV-Only debate, I don't remember coming across this argument...though I could be wrong. Thanks!
From this it would seem that they do not ascribe to the primacy of scripture. What comes first for them is their doctrine so they choose the version which they think supports their doctrine.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
Then they distorted the truth, long before the modern versions existed. We can't blame the modern versions for their blindness. If a modern version is closer to the original meaning, It is not establishing new doctrine, but attempting to return to the original "doctrine".George Somsel said:From this it would seem that they do not ascribe to the primacy of scripture. What comes first for them is their doctrine so they choose the version which they think supports their doctrine.
Gal 1:8
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."
0 -
George Somsel said:
From this it would seem that they do not ascribe to the primacy of scripture. What comes first for them is their doctrine so they choose the version which they think supports their doctrine.
They do ascribe to the primacy of scripture [most of them anyway] they just reject the current findings of the 'science of textual criticism' [since say 1800]
They fully accept the textual criticism as accepted by the protestant world of say 1600. [they accept the KJV -- they reject the DRV -- most of them have no clue what the DRV is but that is what they reject]
0 -
David Ames said:George Somsel said:
From this it would seem that they do not ascribe to the primacy of scripture. What comes first for them is their doctrine so they choose the version which they think supports their doctrine.
They do ascribe to the primacy of scripture [most of them anyway] they just reject the current findings of the 'science of textual criticism' [since say 1800]
They fully accept the textual criticism as accepted by the protestant world of say 1600. [they accept the KJV -- they reject the DRV -- most of them have no clue what the DRV is but that is what they reject]
In other words, they hold to the primacy of [their] tradition.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
In other words, they hold to the primacy of [their] tradition.
Mark 7:7-8
"in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.
8 You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."
As a side note...The KJV ads the following which is not even hinted at in the original.
Mark 7:8
"as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do."
KJV
0 -
Schezic said:
As a side note...The KJV ads the following which is not even hinted at in the original.
"as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." KJV
Mark 7:8 [DRV of 1582 follows the KJV here. [Jerome included it in the Vulgate (380 AD)] Some words (see below) are added in the BYZ text or deleted from the N-U text]
8 ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg, Kurt Aland and Institute for New Testament Textual Research (U.S.), vol. 1, Analytical Greek New Testament : Greek Text Analysis, Baker's Greek New Testament library, Mk 7:8 (Cedar Hill, Texas: Silver Mountain Software, 2001).
8αφεντες γαρ την εντολην του θεου κρατειτε την παραδοσιν των ανθρωπων βαπτισμους ξεστων και ποτηριων και αλλα παρομοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιειτε
William G. Pierpont and Maurice A. Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek : According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, Mk 7:8 (Roswell, GA: The Original Word Publishers, 1995).
0 -
David Ames said:Schezic said:
As a side note...The KJV ads the following which is not even hinted at in the original.
"as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." KJV
Mark 7:8 [DRV follows the KJV here. (the DRV of 1582) Some words (see below) are added in the BYZ text or deleted from the N-U text]
8 ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg, Kurt Aland and Institute for New Testament Textual Research (U.S.), vol. 1, Analytical Greek New Testament : Greek Text Analysis, Baker's Greek New Testament library, Mk 7:8 (Cedar Hill, Texas: Silver Mountain Software, 2001).
8αφεντες γαρ την εντολην του θεου κρατειτε την παραδοσιν των ανθρωπων βαπτισμους ξεστων και ποτηριων και αλλα παρομοια τοιαυτα πολλα ποιειτε
William G. Pierpont and Maurice A. Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek : According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, Mk 7:8 (Roswell, GA: The Original Word Publishers, 1995).
That, of course, derives from v 4.
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
That, of course, derives from v 4.
So this is seen a being copied from Mark 7:4 (and by the rules of Textual Criticism it was most likely not in the original) By the way Jerome added it to the the Vulgate so its history goes back to before 380 BC. [Just padding my post count]
0 -
Hi Matthew
Thanks for your patient and respectful contributions in the exchange of views on this issue. I often read the forums and have followed this discussion closely. I've noticed in different forums out there (and in some churches) that those who particularly honour the KJV (and I understand you are not a KJV-Only" advocate) come in for criticism and are usually unfairly called to defend themselves.
I use the KJV as my primary Bible - for worship, prayer and study. If I really want to know what God is saying to me, to find support, comfort etc this is the Bible to which I will turn. This Bible is sacred and in the English language it really has no peer. I've used the NIV, Jerusalem, NRSV etc, but cannot regard any of them as coming close. Naturally, people will have their own views - and I've become used to being called a dinosaur!
I also bought the Logos Portfolio Edition and from time to time invested in additional Bibles - why would I do that if I am satisfied with the KJV? The reason is that there is wonderful scholarship out there and writers who enrich us whether or not we agree with them. I may read with horror what Hort and Westcott did in the 19th century or worry about the rationale for accepting particular Greek manuscripts over others as authoritative or squirm in my seat at church as "The Message" is read in place of Scripture etc, but the point is that with the Logos tools I and many others are now empowered to look more closely at these things.
Take care
Paul
0 -
Welcome, Paul. Matthew seems to be AWOL on this thread. I will respond. Two of your statements seem to be at odds with each other.
Paul said:I often read the forums and have followed this discussion closely.
If you will indeed read this thread closely, I think you will see that even the folks most vocal in pointing out the errors found in the KJV still see the value of the version, and many say they still consult it. They do not condemn anyone's choice of translations. The problem comes when the radical fringe element (I have not seen any here) attempt to claim the infallibility of the KJV and insist that all other versions are evil and that all who read them are the devil's minions. ... Do the research ... Those factions do exist. That is what is being discussed here. If you have chosen to be offended by that, I, for one, apologize.Paul said:I've noticed in different forums out there (and in some churches) that those who particularly honour the KJV (and I understand you are not a KJV-Only" advocate) come in for criticism and are usually unfairly called to defend themselves.
God Bless
0
