Are the 3 KJV the same?
Comments
-
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 said: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"...
0 -
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 said: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
0 -
RIchard K Ross said:
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.
0 -
LegendsOfBatman said:
(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
0 -
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.
0 -
RIchard K Ross said:
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)
0 -
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.
0 -
LegendsOfBatman said:
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 said: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.
0 -
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 said:LegendsOfBatman said:(NWLT, for example).
What is NWLT, and from another poster what is DR? Thanks for the help in advance.
Ted
0 -
LegendsOfBatman said:
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 said:LegendsOfBatman said:(NWLT, for example).
What is NWLT, and from another poster what is DR? Thanks for the help in advance.
Ted
Thanks for the info.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Unfortunately, I am not proficient in either Greek or Hebrew; yet. Im hoping by the time I die, I will have learned both languages (as well as Aramaic) well enough to at least be on a 3rd grade level.
Almost as important as the language itself, is learning how it works. While I'm still learning this, I do think I have learned this quite well. But, again, much to be learned still. So, even if you don't have the time to learn the languages, I would suggest at least learning how the languages work. Once I figured out that mystery, it revolutionized my interpretations.
The argument for learning the original languages is, it helps one to get a better understanding. And, if one is a pastor, it helps to know what one is talking about. My pastor, I love him, and I love his love for the Lord; but, he is one who has to rely on what others have said. So, he uses commentaries, and takes their word for things. If they are wrong, he has gotten himself into a bit of a bind. As an example, he uses the NKJV, which is fine. I tend to use the NIV and the TNIV, and the Greek/Hebrew texts. I believe I mentioned this the other night, how the NKJV uses the word "joy" in one verse. Interestingly, I could not find it. But, where he got into a bit of trouble is, he started saying what the Greek word used means. If it isn't there, well, you can see the issue that arises. Of course, now I'm curious, because the KJ and NKJ adds joy; but, Darby and a few other older translations do not. So, I am perplexed right now, as to why it's in the KJ and NKJ and not other older translations. If it were only newer translations, then I could say the manuscripts used by the KJ probably added it in. But, since other older translations don't, I have to find the time to see what happened. Anyway, I think you can see the point I am making. But, you are right, that there are other things that are more important. I just hope you make use of several translations, and can learn how the languages work; if not find the time to learn the languages (beyond a one or two year class).
Btw, I would not disagree that every Christian should learn the original languages. I hope I'm not violating any TOS, but, if you are at all interested in learning the original languages, the school I am learning through is theology.edu While I am fortunate enough to be able to attend the actual classes, they do offer "home schooling" courses, at a reasonable rate. Free, if you do not wish to earn the credit. I have purchased the Logos version of the textbook, The First Hebrew Primer, which is really cool. (Will be better when L4 gets fixed to use the audio clips; but, L3 still works).
Oh, and I would not say too many are proficient in the languages. Even my professor, who is very knowledgeable in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic (and Summerian, Akkadian, Ugaritic) says, "Just realize, no matter how much you learn, you'll never know the language more than a 5 year old native speaker. lol. Nothing like a little lesson in humility.
TimJeremiah Daniel Morris said: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.
0 -
It is; at least that is what I intended; without using the name, to negate my point.
Sadly, you are correct about peoploe arguing over semantics and words. If precision were paramount to God, I suppose there would need be only one Gospel, not four, and if it were, they'd all agree word for word on the same stories. As an example, Jesus' baptism. One passage says "You are..." The other "This is..." The only people who have issue with this are purists and antagonists. Apparently God did not care whether it was recorded as him having said "You are my son..." Or "This is my son..." I find that very telling.
You are very correct here: "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".Chris said: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.
0 -
Love that book Exegetical Fallacies.
The KJ translators saw the word "monogenes" and translated it literally, "only begotten". They had no other understanding, at the time, apparently. But, it doesn't make it any less incorrect. But, today, I would agree, it probably would not be translating "literally" (although, I'm sure many KJ-only people would beg to differ).I'm not so sure the higher ups in the Jehovah Witness clan are so altruistic in their mission. While at the lower levels, I might agree, it seems hard to believe those at the top, those who know, wouldn't know what they are doing. But, for sake of not being outcasts, or whatever, they continue on. But, that is a judgment on my part, and perhaps unfair. But, I don't think it is too off.
But, yes, all translation is biased by doctrinal persuasion; which is why I prefer the NIV or TNIV to help alleviate doctrinal biases.Jon Rumble said:LegendsOfBatman said: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 said: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.
0 -
Did not anyone notice these two postings in this thread? They will be seen on page 1 of this thread ---- for instance, Jack Caviness writes, "I believe there is a very old dictionary (Greene?) that makes an issue of the difference between "thoroughly" and "throughly" in the KJV."
Then Rosie Perera writes and quotes Jack Caviness, "I believe there is a very old dictionary (Greene?) that makes an issue of the difference between ""thoroughly" and "thoroughly" in the KJV.
Hmmm....that would be quite an amazing dictionary indeed, as I see absolutely no difference between those two words, even if I examine the fonts carefully to see if you used a different character for the 'l' in each one. Did you mean "throughly" for one of them? If so, that is just an archaic English word that means precisely the same as "thoroughly." (End quote)
I'm reading this quickly, but Jack has used the words "thoroughly" and "throughly" --- Rosie obviously takes it that Jack has used the word "thoroughly" two times, and in her quote of Jack's posting, it also says "thoroughly" two times (not throughly) --- but if you look at Jack's original posting just before Rosie's response, it is indeed two different words he uses, "thoroughly and "throughly" ---
What happened there - or what am I missing??? :-}
0 -
Bootjack said:
What happened there
I'm not Jack, but I believe he made an edit to his post to correct the error that Rosie pointed out. But Rosie posted his remark before it was edited. You can edit your posts within a time limit by clicking on more and choosing to edit it.
"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"
Wiki Table of Contents0 -
OK - got ya Jerry. Appreciate the clarification. I'll sleep better tonight!!??? :-}
0 -
I'm weighing in very late on this, as I wasn't around here when this thread originally started.
In my another Bible software, I purchased a commentary series from a Baptist pastor named Rod Matoon. In it, I saw something he had that intrigued me. It's quite interesting. I don't submit it as absolute fact, as I have never actually purchased a copy of or have seen a copy of the original 1611. I welcome comments if any of this is another Christian version of "Whisper down the Valley."/Internet exageration/Urban legend.
BTW, love discussions like this, point counter point ( The gracious, loving kind anyway). I learn so much, especially the side issues. And I'm challenged to dig deeper on so many things. Anyway, here is a copy and paste of what Dr. Matoon said. The highlighting & underlining are not mine. Sorry, it's kind of long, but I think you'll find it very interesting. There are some recommmendations of things to buy, I didn't remove them ( As I am posting this hurriedly, minutes before I have to leave for work), but I assure you I'm not selling anything. But if any of it violates board policy, I'll remove them when I get home tonight. Or they may be removed by an administrator.
Questions and Answers on Bible Translations
What did the King James Translators Believe About their Translation of Scripture?
In the midst of so much turmoil today over Bible versions, I decided to find out for myself what the KJV translators believed about the 1611 King James Version Bible. I went out and purchased one for $100. At the time of this writing (Sept., 2003), you can get them for around $25 through Christian Book Distributors. The website is: www.christianbooks.com. I HIGHLY recommend that you purchase a 1611 King James version. Some may ask, "I thought I had a 1611 edition?" No, most of us are using the 1769 edition which is definitely not the same as the 1611. One big difference is the 1611 has the Apocrypha and references to holy days for the worship of the Virgin Mary.
You will find that a lot of things being taught or preached today about the KJV just ain't so. There is a whole lot of misinformation being spread among our ranks as Fundamental Baptists. The King James translators did not believe any of what is preached today about their own version. I love and use the King James Version of the Bible, but I am not in agreement with the false teaching and doctrine that is being propagated today about the King James Version and other good versions of the Bible. The translators stated very clearly what they believed. They have already answered the controversies that are raging today about the issue of Bible translations. Remember, truth invites inspection. We are to know the truth about this matter and these men told us what they believed. Please get a 1611 and see it for yourself! Here is what they said.
In the original 1611 KJV there are eleven pages in the front called, THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. In this introduction, the translators explained their philosophy and beliefs about Bible translations and their translation of Scripture. I want to use their own words and show you that they disagreed with much of what some are preaching today about the 1611 KJV. Get a 1611, and read this letter for yourself! I want you to check it! Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free from deception, lies, heretical teachings, and misinformation.
They Believed the Authority for Truth was in the Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts, not in the English translation of the King James Version.
On page 3 of THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER, the King James translators said, "The original there being from heaven, not from the earth, the author's being God, not man, the editor, the Holy Spirit not the wit of the apostles." Also on the bottom of page 9 and on the top of page 10 they said that all truth must be tried by the original tongues, the Hebrew and Greek.
The King James translators said the authority was in the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts. This is the position Christians have taken throughout Church history. Disputes about translation or the meaning of a verse must be settled by studying the Greek or Hebrew text. The Greek or Hebrew always precedes the English translation or any other language. Get a good Strong's Concordance and look up the meaning of the words yourself. Better yet, spend $300 and get the Bible Works 6 computer software. It's worth every dollar. Look at www.bibleworks.com.
They Did Not Believe they were Inspired Men, but Simply Revised the Translation of the Scriptures.
On page 4, the KJV translators said the Septuagint translators were interpreters. They were not prophets. They did many things as learned men but yet as men they stumbled and fell. So the King James translators believed that translation was a purely human work. They made mistakes.
The KJV translators said on page 9, "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or vet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one." In other words, they said that the translations that England already had by William Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible and others were good508 translations. They said that their purpose was never to make a new translation. Their purpose was to build on the labors and works of others and try to improve them. The KJV translators said the others were good translations and they tried to make them better so England could have a common Bible. They certainly accomplished this. Thank God for the way the King James Version has been used in so many wonderful ways, but remember, the translators did not set out to make a new inspired version. All they did was revise and update. They took the Tyndale, Vulgate, Coverdale, Geneva Bible, the Rheims, the Bishops Bible, and updated them to make a composite Bible called the 1611 King James version. That was their purpose all along.
Some people think they were inspired to make a perfect translation which would be "God's preserved word for the English speaking people." This belief contradicts the King James translators. Their purpose was "to make good ones better or to make one principal good one." There is no hint the translators thought they were inspired or anything but human translators trying to do their best. They said, "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators... neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered?" (page 10)
They Did Not Believe in Attacking or Condemning Other Versions of Scripture.
The KJV translators said on page 11, "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar." They had just said how they avoided language that "darken the sense." The translators were clear, they wanted to put the Scriptures in the vernacular of the person on the street. They wanted the language to be so simple and up to date it could be understood by "even the very vulgar" (common, simple or uneducated). They would certainly be supportive of the good, modern, accurate English versions today. On page 6, the King James Translators refer to all the other English versions they had in that day. They say, "Do we condemn the ancient?... We are so far from condemning any of their labors, that translated before us, either in this land or beyond the sea. We acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of His church."
So the King James translators did not believe in condemning other translations. We dare not condemn any translation, they say, unlike many509 people today. The Wycliff English Bible came out in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1525, the Coverdale in 1535, the Rogers Bible in 1537, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva in 1560 and the Bishops in 1568. So when the King James Bible came out in 1611 there were many English translations just as there are today, but the King James translators did not condemn any. They did not consider other versions to be a curse but said "they had been raised up by God for the furnishing of His church." They did not believe in belittling other versions of the Bible. This applied to English Translations and "those beyond the sea" or those of other languages. They would be totally against attacking other English or foreign translations, like many people are doing today. If this is what you believe is right, you would find yourself on opposite sides of the King James translators.
They Believed AH Translations of Scripture Were the Word of God
On page 7, the King James translators say, "Nay, we affirm and avow that the meanest translation of the Bible in English is the word of God." When they say "meanest" they mean the poorest, the worst. So they believed that every translation was the Word of God, no matter how many mistakes it had. This is the exact opposite of those who believe the King James is the only Bible for the English-speaking people. Those who revere the King James translators so much, believe just the opposite of what the translators themselves believed. The translators gave several illustrations to make their point. They said the king's speech translated into another language is still the king's speech. A person can be a good person and yet have some imperfections. Someone can be a nice looking person and yet have warts or freckles. And so, likewise, a translation of the Bible may have mistakes, but it is still the Word of God.
They never said that God had promised us a perfect translation in English. This is a very serious point because if the poorest translation is the Word of God, then if we attack it, we are attacking God's Word. Many people are doing this today. They are blaspheming God's Word. The King James translators would not belittle and attack other good translations of Scripture. They had more sense. You may not like this or agree with this, but brethren, this is what they believed. This is the purpose of this research. Get a 1611 translation and read it for yourself.
Very Poor Translations Were Not Attacked by Jesus and the Apostles
On page 7, the King James translators said that the Septuagint, or the Seventy, "was faulty in many places. It descended from the original and did not come near it in grandeur or majesty." In other words, the Greek translation which Jesus and the apostles used was not a good translation, but they did not try to tear down people's confidence in it. "Yet which of the apostles did condemn it? Condemn it! Nay! They used it." (page 7 & 8) The point is that Jesus and the apostles had a faulty translation but they never put it down. They used it and quoted from it. They did not go around tearing down bad translations as some people do today. Do not blaspheme and attack God's Word just because the translators made some mistakes. Jesus and the apostles did not believe in attacking other translations. The King James translators did not believe in doing that either. Let me add here that bringing out the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word is not attacking the Bible. It clarifies what has already been written or translated. It is a good and helpful practice in the exposition of Scripture.
They Believed in the Importance of Making New Translations Often and Getting the Word of God in the Language of the People.
On page 8, the King James translators talk about making new translations. They ask, "Who would have ever thought that was a fault? To amend it where he saw cause?" Then they say, "That is our business. The difference that appears between our translation and our often correcting of them is the thing that we are especially charged with." It is the translator's business to continually update the language, not because God's Word is outdated, but because English changes.
The English language has changed some in our lifetime. Translators are not supposed to make one translation and go into retirement. It is their business to make new translations and keep them updated. That is the reason the King James translators immediately started to revise the 1611 edition and came out with another in 1613 and another in 1629 (when they left out the Apocrypha.) These men would be in favor of getting the Bible in the language that people used and understood. They said the Bible should be in the common vernacular of the people (Page 11). The KJV translators said on page 11, "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar." They had just said how they511 avoided language that "darken the sense." The translators were clear, they wanted to put the scripture in the vernacular of the person on the street. They wanted the language to be so simple and up to date it could be understood by "even the very vulgar" (common, simple or uneducated). They would certainly be supportive of the good, accurate, modern English versions today.
We should not have to keep looking up archaic words in a dictionary to find out what they mean to understand our Bible. This is why good, accurate, modern translations are valuable. If you read a verse in the King James that is difficult to understand, consult the Greek or Hebrew or another good translation of Scripture. Most Fundamentalist recommend the New King James Version or the New American Standard Version. Spurgeon used the Revised English Version. (See Appendix 2)
They Believed in the Importance of Putting Various Interpretations of a Word or Verse in the Notes of the Margin
On page 10 we read, "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scripture for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point."
Critics object to the marginal readings in modern versions. The KJV translators included them in the 1611 version. They said a person's judgment was not sound on this point if they disagreed. The King James translators acknowledged the fact that there is more than one way to translate a word or a verse and they indicated this in the margin notes. There are over 8000 marginal notes in the 1611 edition that give various readings. There are 84 marginal readings in the book of Romans. Get a 1611 King James Version and see for yourself! Check all this information for yourself. You will see what these men believed and that there is nothing wrong in bringing out various translations of a Greek or Hebrew word.
They Did Not Believe that Varying Translations Would Affect the Cardinal Doctrines of Scripture
The KJV translators said on page 10, "It hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment."
Because every Bible doctrine is mentioned over and over, it is not possible for a mistranslation in one place to change the teaching of Scripture. No Bible doctrine is dependent on one passage. For example, the Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in over 300 places. If a passage or two were incorrectly translated or left out, still the Bible is clear, Jesus is coming again. The same holds true for the atonement of the blood of Christ or salvation by grace through faith in Christ. The KJV translators understood this truth and said the various readings did not affect "doctrinal points but in matters of less moment." The King James translators said on page 10 that a "Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures... must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
This is exactly what Dr. John R. Rice taught us in his book Our God Breathed Book, the Bible. Dr. Rice said on page 355," Well, there are many, many translations. The differences in the translations are so minor, so insignificant, that we can be sure not a single doctrine, not a single statement of fact, not a single command or exhortation, has been missed in our translations. And where the Word of God is not perfectly translated in one instance, it is corrected in another translation. And if the Word of God is not perfectly portrayed in one translation, it is portrayed, surely, in the winnowed sum of them all." Dr. Rice was right. This is a very good method of studying Scripture. I have personally found in my own study the truth of his statement. In fact it was Dr. Jack Hyles and Dr. John R. Rice that first taught me about using modern translations in the study of the Bible in 1973, when I attended Hyles-Anderson College. I'm glad they shared with me this method of Bible study. It has helped me immensely in the study of the Word of God.
Some of the attacks that are being made against some of the good, word-for-word modern translations of today are inaccurate, invalid, irreverent, and ignorant. These translations, even though different from the KJV, are still the Word of God and deserve our respect and reverence. Use them to help you in your study of Scripture beloved. You will be amazed of how much you will learn and understand and the new insights you will find in Scripture. Your heart will be blessed.
There is value at looking at several translations of Scripture. This is what Dr. John R. Rice, the founder and editor of the Sword of the Lord, believed and tried to teach us in his books and his preaching. In fact, when he preached, he would read a verse from the King James Version and also the New American Standard Version. Some of you may have513 not known this, but it is true. In his revival meetings, he even had a Catholic night where he preached from the Catholic Bible for the purpose of trying to get them saved, using their own translation.
Many of you may not have known that Dr. Jack Hyles use to have his devotions from the New American Standard Version. He told us this in October, 1973, on Sunday night at the 6:00 p.m. question and answer service at First Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana. If you want verification of this, I know one of the Bible professors that taught at Hyles-Anderson College who was there that night and heard the same thing. If you'll check Br. Hyles' book Let's Study the Revelation, you will also find that many of the Greek word studies in this book come from the New American Standard Version. Dr. Hyles told us that he would read the NASV because it opened up new insights in Scripture for him and helped him in his Bible study. That counsel was good, sound, balanced counsel and has helped me immensely in my Bible study.
Beloved, God did not confine His Word to one translation in one language of the world. This would make Him a respecter of persons. The Word of God is not bound to these limitations. God has preserved His Word and message in many languages, not just the King James Version which was the authorized version of the Anglican Church that hated and persecuted Baptists for their stand against infant baptism and a state church.
Study the Greek and Hebrew of the Scriptures and the history of Bible translations for yourself. I want you to check these things out because it will open your eyes to the fact that a lot of stuff being preached today about King James Issue is false and inaccurate. Truth invites inspection.
Be sure to purchase a 1611 edition of the King James Version and see for yourself what the translators believed about their own translation of Scripture. Don't take my word for it. You will find that a lot of things being spread today about the KJV issue are inaccurate and misleading and have been based upon the writings of a Seventh Day Adventist preacher named Benjamin Wilkinson. Several KJV-only authors have based their teachings on this man. Did you know that? You will also see the influence of Roman Catholicism in the 1611 which contains the Apocrypha and days set aside to worship the Virgin Mary in the front pages. The Apocrypha was considered Scripture; marginal notes in the 1611 referred the reader to the Apocrypha books.
One of the best books I have read on the history of the King James Version has been written by a fundamental, independent, Baptist who has a master's degree in religious education. His name is Rick Norris and he has spent twelve years studying the history of the King James Version and the inaccuracies of men today who claim that it is the only version of Scripture that is the Word of God. The book is extensively documented, well-researched, easy to read, and refutes much of the lies and misinformation that is being spread today. The name of the book is The Unbound Scriptures. At the time of this writing (November, 2003) you can order the book from Rick Norris, 3900 Lewisburg Court, Fayetteville, N.C., 28306. The cost and shipping are around $18 I think. Don't hold me to that price. The historic, fundamental Baptist position on Bible translations has never been limited to one English version of the Bible.
0 -
Don Jenkins said:
I'm weighing in very late on this
Me too. Your comments are appropriate for this thread, however most educated KJV only people would take the discussion to the next level and say it is not just the translation, but the Greek text that the KJV is based on which they feel is superior. The KJV/NKJV are the only popular translations that use that text, the textus receptus/majority text.
"For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power"
Wiki Table of Contents0 -
Alex Scott said:
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.
Getting to look at the Hebrew and Greek of the different manuscripts is a wonderful feature of Logos
But outside of the direct attack in her newest book, Gail Riplinger @ http://www.avpublications.com has done extensive research on this topic...
0 -
Ted Hans said:
what is DR?
What is the DR? [as this thread has been reopened]
The Holy Bible Translated from the Latin Vulgate [Also known as the Douay Rheims] We have the revised by Challoner version [Logos Version]
Originally the Rheims New Testament Of Anno Domini 1582 and the Douay Old Testament of 16090 -
That is a question that I have been asking for decades. No one responds.
0 -
Welcome to the forums - what question are you not getting an answer to ?
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 -
DR would likely be either the Darby (1890) or the Douay-Rheims (1610).
Logos 10 | Faithlife Connect Essentials
27" Intel i9-14900K 64GB DDR5 3x4TB SSD Win11Pro (23H2)
rMBP13" macOS 10.15.7 i7 (2.9GHz) 8GB DDR3 512SSD
11" iPadPro (2020) 17.5.1 | iPhone15 ProMax 17.5.10 -
Ira L. Hargis said:
That is a question that I have been asking for decades. No one responds.
Welcome [:D]
Noticed reply to => https://community.logos.com/forums/p/5359/43349.aspx#43349
Jack Caviness said:
DanCleghorn said:Interesting links below.
I will probably have to dodge fireballs for this, but I cannot resist. Do the authors of these documents actually believe that the pure Word of God did not exist prior to 1900 and that only English speakers have access to the unvarnished truth?
When Jack replied on 23 Nov 2009, Christian Discourse was not available. Apologetics has => King James only? discussion. News and Current Events has => Richard Dawkins on the KJV and the English langaugae
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Jack Caviness said:
DanCleghorn said:Interesting links below.
I will probably have to dodge fireballs for this, but I cannot resist. Do the authors of these documents actually believe that the pure Word of God did not exist prior to 1900 and that only English speakers have access to the unvarnished truth?
When Jack replied on 23 Nov 2009, Christian Discourse was not available.
I might have asked that question anyway [:P]
0 -
Yeah - I would like to see these 'so-called' - WORD DIFFERENCES myself.
If it is true that the New version of Logos does not allow you to have the older KJV Bible I would not buy it. It is an outrage that they are phasing it out. Sick spiritual leadership in my opinion.
0 -
If it is true that the New version of Logos does not allow you to have the older KJV Bible I would not buy it. It is an outrage that they are phasing it out. Sick spiritual leadership in my opinion.
0 -
Wayne levi Price said:
If it is true that the New version of Logos does not allow you to have the older KJV Bible I would not buy it.
Thankful for English Bible Collection that includes many older Bibles (albeit noticeably missing is the Bishop's Bible).
Personal Book is also an option. Logos wiki has => Personal Books with link => User Contributed Personal Books
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
DID you notice that the collection you suggested "DOES NOT HAVE THE KJV in it?
That is the ONLY one that I would want to make sure is absolutely included.
And it is MISSING
0
