SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Why KJV Only?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
I know this has been said a million times but for people that use anything but KJV or NKJV (translations from the TR) where is Matthew 18:11?



It is in Luke 19:10, "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."
What we have here is that the early manuscripts do not have this sentence in Matthew. The modern translations did not include it because it isn't there. Apparently, a scribe inserted it when copying and it has been included. Now, what you want me to believe is that there is a conspiracy in the newer translations to remove the reference to Jesus coming to 'seek and save the lost'. BUT, if this was the case...why not remove it from Luke as well?

Christinyou wrote:
Quote:
[20] I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.(Gal 2:20 KJV)

[20] I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal 2:20 ESV)

Very subtle.

Changing the faith of the Son of God that now lives in me, to my faith in the Son of God by which I live in Him, instead of His Faith in me by which I now have faith in Him. Not my faith, but His Faith making my faith as His.

In Christ: Phillip



UWR wrote:
Quote:
Wow!

Very subtle indeed.

If it were my faith, instead of His, I wouldn't be headed for heaven, for I cannot rely on myself. I know me too well.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Forrest



Ron (Philologos) has already spoken about this verse [url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=14639&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]here.[/url] There is no conspiracy in the newer versions. I am including what he wrote.

εν πιστει ζω τη του υιου του Θεου, (Gal 2:20 GNT-TRS)

The literal translation of this phrase would be something like in/by faith I live the of the Son of the God so its one of those places where an interlinear struggles to get to the real meaning. Let’s unpack it

εν πιστει ζω This would give something like ‘I live by faith’ The Greek preposition ‘en’ means ‘in’ or ‘within’ but it is sometimes used ‘instrumentally’ (bet you wished you hadn’t asked now!) When Biblical Greek want to say ‘kill with the sword’ it would use ‘en’ in the sense of ‘by the sword’; the sword being the ‘instrument’ of the killing. We have to take note of the context to see which is most appropriate. In this instance my judgement would be that it means ‘by faith’. It should be noted that there is no definite article here and those Cambridge Bibles that we have been hearing about should have put the word ‘the’ into italics so that it read “I now live in the flesh” (Gal 2:20 KJVS) More modern versions have sometimes corrected this eg

“I now live in the flesh I live in faith” (Gal 2:20 ASV)
“I live by faith” (Gal 2:20 NKJV)

So it is not ‘the faith’ of the Son of God but ‘faith’.

Next we have the bit τη του υιου του Θεου where
τη is ‘the definite article’ and is Dative, Singular, Feminine. It is referring backwards to the feminine gender word ‘faith’. I think it could best be translated as ‘that’. So that the sentence now reads “I live by faith, that (faith)”
του υιου is the definite article and is Genitive, Singular, Masculine followed by the word ‘son’. This is the Greek way of saying ‘belonging to the son’.
του Θεου the definite article and is Genitive, Singular, Masculine followed by the word ‘God’. This is the Greek way of saying ‘belonging to God’.

So we have a reference to God’s Son’s faith. The question then is does this mean ‘faith in him’ or ‘faith from him’? I think it means the kind of faith that he had, which was the faith of a son. In Roman’s Paul refers to Abraham’s faith

“And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.” (Rom 4:12 KJVS)

Again the word 'faith' is without the definite article. It is literally ‘in the steps of our father Abraham’s faith’; this is the same kind of construction as Galatians 2:20.

It is referring to ‘Abrahamic faith’, the kind of faith that Abraham had; we sometimes call this 'justifying faith'. Jews had to have both circumcision AND Abrahamic faith. The point I am making is that Abraham did not give them this faith, it was faith like Abraham's. If we carry through this idea of a ‘kind of faith’ into Galatians it seems that Paul is referring to the ‘kind of faith’ that the Son had. This would be significant because Paul later goes on to point out that ‘faith’ has now arrived (Gal 3:25) and is part of the way in which we become ‘sons’ of God, God giving us the Spirit of his Son.

John Wesley was questioned about his claims that before his ‘warm heart’ experience he did not have ‘faith’. His questioners reminded him that he was Anglican priest and had been a missionary to the American colonies. His answer was that the faith he had then was the faith of a slave not that of a son.

I don’t think Galatians 2:20 is talking about Christ’s own personal faith being given to us, but of Paul’s experience of a Son-like faith. Slaves obeyed God because they had to; sons because they chose to. Slaves were kept in check by a law; sons walk in the Spirit. Personally I would rather take both broad interpretations than an either/or choice. This is Christwards and Sonlike faith, but it is not, I think, Christ’ faith instead of Paul’s faith.

 2007/4/13 9:07Profile
iansmith
Member



Joined: 2006/3/22
Posts: 963
Wheaton, IL

 Re:

I have a copy of the KJV that I read personally. (3 copies: nelson reference, cambridge concord reference, cambridge pitt minion)
I have a copy of the NIV that I use in church. (4 copies: zondervan study, life application, thinline and cambridge pitt minion)
I have a copy of the NASB that I use when preparing to teach sunday school or for deeper studies. (cambridge pitt minion)

I also have copies of NKJV, The Living Bible and The Message (which I recieved as a raffle prize) that rest on my shelf.

Frankly I'd love to learn greek and hebrew and throw all my bibles away... I just realized I have a lot of bibles.


_________________
Ian Smith

 2007/4/13 10:57Profile









 Re:

Quote:
The modern translations did not include it because it isn't there. Apparently, a scribe inserted it when copying and it has been included.



Thats conjecture.

Krispy

 2007/4/13 11:04









 Re:

Quote:
Frankly I'd love to learn greek and hebrew and throw all my bibles away...



Well, Ian... praise the Lord He preserved His Word for us in English so that we all wouldnt have to learn Greek and Hebrew. He is truly a faithful God, isnt He?

Now all you have to do is decide which one is right. I tell you, if you do an [b]honest[/b] comparison between the NIV and the KJV you can only come to one of two conclusions: either one is correct and the other wrong, or they are both wrong... but they cant both be right.

Krispy

 2007/4/13 11:07
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

I wrote:

Quote:

The modern translations did not include it because it isn't there. Apparently, a scribe inserted it when copying and it has been included.




Krispy wrote:
Quote:
Thats conjecture.



If that is conjecture then please be intellectually honest enough to say that the 'conspiracy' to downgrade or eliminate certain doctrines in the newer translations is conjecture as well.

 2007/4/13 11:38Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Using the logic of Krispy and others we see a problem with the KJV as follows:

1. The KJV downgrades the Deity of Jesus.
John 1:18, KJV, says:
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

But the NRSV reads:
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known.

2. The KJV does not tell us that we can pray to Jesus
John 14:14 NASB reads:
“If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.”

But look at the KJV:
“If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.”

3. Another instance of the KJV downgrading the Deity of Jesus
Compare the KJV at Rev. 1:8:
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

But the NASB:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

4. The KJV downgrades the adoption we have as sons

1 John 3:1 NASB:
“See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be called children of God; and such we are.”

But Look at the KJV!
“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God:”

According to the logic presented by Krispy and others, we should all avoid the KJV because it downgrades or eliminates certain fundamental doctrines of the faith.

Now, I am having a little fun here, but I hope I have made a point. It is easy to cry conspiracy over certain translations but in fact there is no conspiracy at all. The KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV are all great translations, but are simply that…translations. There are certain variations over the years in the manuscripts but the fact that so many manuscripts in so many different parts of the world over so many years agree to such an amazing degree, proves that what we have is the inspired and preserved word of God.


Note: Information taken from KJV Only powerpoint slide by James White.

 2007/4/13 11:55Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi Krispy...

Quote:
Now all you have to do is decide which one is right. I tell you, if you do an [b]honest[/b] comparison between the NIV and the KJV you can only come to one of two conclusions: either one is correct and the other wrong, or they are both wrong... but they cant both be right.

I disagree. Both the KJV and the NIV are taken from sources that were taken from sources that were also probably taken from sources (etc...). Somewhere along the line, either [u]one[/u] or [u]both[/u] mistranslated or added/deleted words, phrases and/or sentences. Translation from one language into another is a very difficult process. For instance, there are several translations of [i]Don Quixote[/i] available in English -- yet these translations do not always say [u]exactly[/u] the same thing. We are not talking about the possibility of examining one completely original work (such as Bunyan's [i]Pilgrim's Progress[/i]) against the various editions translated into Spanish. We are talking about translations that were poured into many different languages by flawed (but well meaning) men who relied upon tranlations that were taken from other sources. Thus in my opinion, it is unwise to state that only one is [u]absolutely[/u] "right" or both are absolutely wrong. It is possible that both of them (and their sources) were gramatically flawed in one way or another.

Does God have the power to "preserve" His Word? Of course! But does it mean that one particular translation or set of sources is absolutely perfect compared with another? Not necessarily.

There is a famous painting called [i]"The Last Supper[/i]" by Leonardo da Vinci. However, did you know that EVERY copy of this painting is incorrect? The painting, finished in 1498, faded, peeled and detoriated. There are remnants of the painting left, but even some of that was painted over in attempts to preserve the original. No one knows for sure which copy best depicts the original. However, most of them present a nearly accurate view of the work.

While the Word of God is far more important than the mere work of a man, we must remember that the individuals who attempted to "preserve" the Word are unknown. What is the lineage of the Textus Receptus? No one knows for sure. What is the lineage of the older Alexandrian manuscripts? No one really knows for sure. What is the lineage of the Dead Sea Scrolls? We aren't even sure of that! We must be very careful about what he consider perfect and what we consider mortally flawed. I often worry in these discussions that individuals (including myself) might be in danger of "bearing false witness" against what might in fact be the very Words of God.

We know that the KJV was revised at least five times over a period of 350 years. The NIV was also revised during the translation process and before its publication. Does the fact that there might be imperfections in the KJV or NIV take away the power of Christ to bring LIFE through these translations of men? I don't think so. The power is with God's Word -- and not the translations or script of His Word by men.

Like I have said before, I rely mostly upon the KJV when studying. It isn't because I am CERTAIN that it is better or more accurate than the NIV, but because of the plethora of sources available. I feel that it is a faithful tranlation of the Textus Receptus. On the other hand, I also consult the NIV (1978) because I feel that it is probably the most faithful translation of the other sources.

I know that Krispy and I share a much more similar view on this issue than it might seem. However, I simply feel that it is time to not speak with absolutes about an issue that is not absolutely clear. Honest and well-meaning individuals have arrived at different conclusions, and many of their arguments are worth noting.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2007/4/13 12:03Profile
nadine
Member



Joined: 2004/1/17
Posts: 18


 Re:

JaySaved:

Quote:
I agree...can you provide any examples?



Versions that leave the blood of Jesus out:

Variations of Revelation 1:5

"and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn Son who was raised from death, who is also the ruler of the kings of the earth. He loves us, and by his death he has freed us from our sins" -Good News for Modern Man

"and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first to be raised from death and who is also the ruler of the kings of the world. He loves us, and by his sacrificial death he has freed us from our sins" -Today's English Version

Now for the accurate version:

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," King James

 2007/4/13 12:24Profile









 Re:

Quote:
If that is conjecture then please be intellectually honest enough to say that the 'conspiracy' to downgrade or eliminate certain doctrines in the newer translations is conjecture as well.



I'm not of the opinion that it was a conspiracy of humans... but I will say that I believe it was a demonic conspiracy. What else could it be?

If you know anything of the history of Wescott and Hort and how their greek translation was introduced to the translators of the Revised Version of 1881, you cant mistake that on their behalf (W&H) there was indeed deception involved (i.e. conspiracy).

I greatly respect philologos... however on this fine point he and I may disagree.

Krispy

 2007/4/13 13:09
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

nadine,

Do you like CEV, NASB, NLT, and ESV? They "leave in the blood".

 2007/4/13 13:10Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy