SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : The King James or a Newer Version?

Print Thread (PDF)

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



Joined: 2007/6/25
Posts: 764


 Re:

[url=http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/islam/2Geisler(5)-The-Bible-Has-It-Been-Translated-Correctly.htm]Norman Geisler on bible translation[/url]

When they translate the bible into another language, how do they do that? Basically isn't that the same debate...therefore their bible in their language is now corrupt...so where does it end?

 2009/2/23 6:49Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1131
Kentucky

 Re:

Quote:
To JaySaved: This is exactly the kind of response I would expect from a “scholar”, from one of the elite. In other words, you are saying that everyone who wants to really understand and know the Bible, must have a total understanding of Greek and Hebrew, as well as a little "Textural Criticism" thrown in to boot. This is a necessity, you say, because only “scholars” can understand and teach God’s Word. Only "scholars" know the real deal.



Walter, I am confused by your response. I am not saying that everyone who wants to really understand and know the Bible must know Greek and Hebrew. I am not saying that you must be a "scholar" to understand the Bible. My wife is not a scholar and my explanation made sense to her.

Simply put there are two options for Mark 1:2. Either Mark wrote:
1. In Isaiah the prophet or
2. In the prophets

Does it make more sense for a scribe to change "In the prophets" (which makes more sense because Malachi and Isaiah are quoted) to "In Isaiah the prophet" (being a more difficult reading)?

or

Does it make more sense for a scribe to change the (more difficult) "In Isaiah the prophet" to "In the prophets" thus make it more easy for the quotation.

But don't be afraid that by saying "In Isaiah the prophet" that somehow you are calling God a liar and His word untrustworthy. God's word is true and inerrant, without fault or blemish!

Blessings

 2009/2/23 7:08Profile
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re: The King James or a Newer Version?

I prefer myself the bibles translated from TR
mainly because, if those manuscripts are not "pure" and nott trustworty, then it meens there was no Word of god that could be read and trusted in english until 1881 or whenever it was WH translated their version from the new manuscripts. And i dont think God would alow the church to be decived by a "faulty" text and that had been corrupted for about 1800 years. So that is one of many reason i prefer the TR, and the versions we have today is KJV and NKJV, in some cases i think kjv does a better job, in others nkjv does it better.

I dont like many of the newer versions since they are from the other manuscripts and many of them translate the greek in some very vital places wrong.

ALL english and other translations have their weaknesses since it is hard to translate greek exactly and get everything translated as closley to the original and still being able to understannd what is being read.

I for one has come to the conclusion the importance is not so much what version you read, but how much you obey of what you read, its better to read the living bible and obey it then being able to read the original greek and not obey it.

But if i was asked to recomend a direct translation that is the closest to the original in modern english it would be nkjv, and kjv for those who can understand it.

Its difficult to teach regenaration from any other bible just from reading the text, if using esv,nasb or some other you must explain things and comment upon the text, with kjv and nkjv you get it as it says in the greek. sadly the newer translations have put their own interpretation and own comments into the text and how they translated the greek.

But ill leave you on your own for studying this matter :-) i spent much time myself on it and my conclusion is TR is the preserved word of God and the two versions we have in english are the kjv and nkjv.

just obey the one you read no matter what version it is, this issue tend to divide much among belivers, and it is sad. one of my problems with many different transations has been when meeting muslims, even tho they have the samme thing with the quran, one muslim asked me :

"but since there are so many different bibles, and they say different things and different verses in all of them, which one is the word of God?"


its a good question....


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2009/2/23 7:45Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Actually, Walter, the "tree" of the KJV is not pure. It's a state Bible that had alterior motives behind it, and many Puritans knew that. The Geneva Bible was the people's Bible



Thank you for posting this brother (and thank you for your original post Walter). The Lord has really been convicting me to get away from the newer translations lately. I was wondering though, how my KJV only brethren treat the other older translations. I am no scholar, so please don't pounce on me if I am wrong, but I thought the Geneva, Wycliff, and Youngs Literal Translation all came from the same source text as the KJV. (IF there are more could someone clue me in).

Are these considered corrupt by KJV only people too?

-Jim

 2009/2/23 8:12









 Re:

Quote:
Actually, Walter, the "tree" of the KJV is not pure. It's a state Bible that had alterior motives behind it, and many Puritans knew that. The Geneva Bible was the people's Bible



Would you care to elaborate what the "alterior motives" were? You cant just throw that out on the table without giving some proof. And please refrain from just making general statements... document your sources.

Krispy

 2009/2/23 9:00
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re: The King James or a Newer Version?

I think those versions you mention Jim is also from the TR and same as KJV, and brother taylor has a point in the state and some of the principles behind the kjv translation, one example is the phrase "the office of"

i think it is 40 something times in the kjv, and not one time either in hebrew or greek is that word there. It has to do with the political issues of those days i guess and that king James wanted to keep the peace and unity within his kingdom. So some things in kjv is not good, but i still prefer this version and it is an excellent word for word translation in english from TR.


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2009/2/23 9:03Profile









 Re:

Everyone here does realize that King James had nothing to do with the actual translation, right? The only thing that King James did was authorize the translation of it, in other words he gave it the "crown copyright". The record, and the writings of the actual translators, shows that King James was basically "hands off" when it comes to the actual translators. He did not stack the deck, he did not influence the translators.

Some of the things being said on this thread about King James and his role in the translation is simply not true (otherwise known as lies... intentional or not) and is easily refutable by doing a little bit of studying and reading at your local library. A lot of times tho Christians dont study it themselves, they simply parrot what they've heard from others... who are parroting what they heard from others... who are parroting what they heard from others... etc etc.

Krispy

 2009/2/23 9:11
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991
Sweden

 Re: The King James or a Newer Version?

herre is a shirt i would conncider buying for you krispy for your next birthday ;-)

[url=http://www.zazzle.com/real_men_use_a_king_james_version_bible_tshirt-235405396505132764]Real men use KJV[/url]

here are some of the "directions" that if i am not mistaken the king James ordered should be taken as "guidence" for the translators while translating the Kjv.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2009/2/23 9:25Profile









 Re:

Yes... exactly. When I refer to "influence" I mean KJ did not tell the translators "translate this to mean... etc." There are many false accusations of such influence when in fact there is no proof of such in any of the writings of the translators.

As for the guidelines of the translation you listed... there is much wisdom.

Krispy

 2009/2/23 9:30









 Re:



QUESTION: The Textus Receptus didn't appear until 1633 so how can the King James Bible, which was translated in 1611, be translated from it?

ANSWER: Wrong.

EXPLANATION: The Greek text which was used for the translation of the King James Bible extends back through history to the pens of Moses, David, Paul, John and the other inspired writers. Throughout history it has been known by a variety of names. Over the years the Greek text of the New Testament was collated by a number of different editors. The most famous of these being Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Stephanus and the Elzevir brothers, Abraham and Bonaventure.

Erasmus published five editions of the New Testament. The first in 1516 was followed by another in 1519 which was used by Martin Luther for his historic and earth shaking German translation. His third, fourth, and fifth followed in 1522, 1527 and 1535. Erasmus' work was magnificent and set the standard for centuries (sic) to come.

Robert Stephanus published four editions, dating from 1546 through 1549, 1550 and lastly 1551.

Theodore Beza published several editions of the Greek New Testament. Four were published in 1565, 1582, 1588 and 1598. These were printed in folio, meaning a sheet of paper was folded over once, thus producing four separate pages of the book. He also published five octavo editions, these dates being; 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590 and 1604. "Octavo" means that one printed sheet folded in such a way as to produce eight separate pages of the text. Books printed in this manner tended to have a smaller page size than folio works, but sometimes led to the need of a work being printed in two or more volumes.

[b]It is Beza's edition of 1598 and Stephanus edition of 1550 and 1551 which were used as the primary sources by the King James translators. [/b]

Some years later, the Elzevir brothers published three editions of the Greek New Testament. The dates being; 1624, 1633 and 1641. They followed closely the work of Beza, who in turn had followed the standard set by Erasmus. In the preface to their edition of 1633 they coined a phrase which was to become so popular as to be retrofitted to texts which preceded it by many years.[b] They stated in Latin "textum ergo babes, nunc ab omnibus receptum..." ei "According to the text now held from the volume received..." Thus the title "Textus Receptus" or "Received Text" was born.[/b]

So we see that, even though the name [b]"Textus Receptus" was coined twenty-two years after the Authorized Version was translated, it has become synonymous with the the true Greek Text originating in Antioch, passed down from the Believing Church. [/b]

Sincerely,

Walter






Quote:

jimdied2sin wrote:
Quote:
Actually, Walter, the "tree" of the KJV is not pure. It's a state Bible that had alterior motives behind it, and many Puritans knew that. The Geneva Bible was the people's Bible



Thank you for posting this brother (and thank you for your original post Walter). The Lord has really been convicting me to get away from the newer translations lately. I was wondering though, how my KJV only brethren treat the other older translations. I am no scholar, so please don't pounce on me if I am wrong, but I thought the Geneva, Wycliff, and Youngs Literal Translation all came from the same source text as the KJV. (IF there are more could someone clue me in).

Are these considered corrupt by KJV only people too?

-Jim

 2009/2/23 11:20





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