SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Where Did the King James Bible Come From?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:
It seems somewhat disingenuous to include such a statement as if to contend that Dr. Mollenkott's lifestyle somehow became engrained or even reflected into the NIV.



Did I say this? No. I was responding to the accusation that King James was gay, therefore the implying that the KJV was somehow inferior. There is no proof that he was, we've shown that. I have shown that there were, in fact, two homosexuals involved with the translating committee of the NIV.

However, I would not be as concerned about that, if I was you, as I am about the fact that not everyone on the translating committee comes from a back ground of sound doctrinal teaching. Not all were evangelicals.

As for providing you with every little bit of information about where I get my resources... I'm not going to do that. It's all right out there, and if I spent all my time documenting every single assertion I make on this forum it's all I would do. I suppose I could make myself look smarter and more intimidating too if I demanded documentation everytime someone disagreed with me. :-)

If you think I'm posting bogus info, proove me wrong. I dont have a problem with that.

Krispy

 2007/9/5 15:55









 Re:

Quote:

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi Blazed...
Quote:
I will say again, God's Word is inspired in every language so that ALL people could have it-The Hebrew & Greek are NOT the only "inspired" . The Holy Bible KJV version in Spanish is inspired, in German, it's inspired, in Korean.etc....

Forgive me for the confusion, but are you saying that the KJV is the "preserved Word of God?"

Remember, however, that the KJV is [u]NOT[/u] available in any language other than its 17th Century form (well, it has been revised several times -- the version we now have was completed in 1850). Even a word by word translation from 17th Century King James English would be impossible to understand by today's Spanish speakers. An eclectic approach would have to be implemented in order to prevent confusion from the changed English to English venacular when attempting to create a Spanish or French KJV.

:-)



good point!!

 2007/9/5 16:17









 Re:

Quote:
I was responding to the accusation that King James was gay, therefore the implying that the KJV was somehow inferior. There is no proof that he was, we've shown that.



Not implying that the KJV is somehow inferior, because of this. He didn't translate it. I haven't seen any proof that he was or wasn't gay, it all as been assumptions and opinions on ALL parties. Know one can show proof, because as you and others have stated there has not been solid evidence to disprove or prove this.

Now if you will excuse me I am going to read my NIV.

:-P

 2007/9/5 16:28









 Re:

Quote:
Now if you will excuse me I am going to read my NIV.



Nice... let me know if you need anything explained to you.

;-)

Krispy

 2007/9/5 16:35
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Quote:

reformer wrote:
Do you have this in an audio format!! that is pretty impressive. Now I feel pretty dumb, thanks!! LOL




If you're talking to me, no I don't have that article in audio, but here's the website I got it from.

http://www.kjvonly.org/

Jordan


_________________
Jordan

 2007/9/5 20:11Profile









 Re:

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Quote:
Now if you will excuse me I am going to read my NIV.



Nice... let me know if you need anything explained to you.

;-)

Krispy



I was wondering if you could tell me where the book of Hezekiah is in the NIV, I can't find it? :-P

Your pretty funny by the way!! :-D

 2007/9/5 22:16
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi Krispy…

Quote:
Did I say this? No. I was responding to the accusation that King James was gay, therefore the implying that the KJV was somehow inferior. There is no proof that he was, we've shown that. I have shown that there were, in fact, two homosexuals involved with the translating committee of the NIV.

I agree that there is little evidence that would even remotely convince me that King James was, in fact, a homosexual. While there are individuals that recorded King James’ fondness for “attractive” male court and attendees, as well as a tendency to “lean” upon some of his male friends, this is hardly an adequate basis for allegations of homosexuality.

As for the “proof” concerning two supposed homosexual members of the translating committee, you haven’t provided any evidence other than a quote without citation. I have only heard of the one homosexual woman (Dr. Mollenkott) who was at all involved with the NIV – and she was actually married and raising children during her early, brief and limited involvement. She was not at all involved in the translation process, but was merely consulted about English language grammatical structure during the mid 1960s. I provided [url=http://www.ibs.org/niv/accuracy/NIV_AccuracyDefined.pdf]this documentation[/url] that refutes your allegation. As for your claim about a “Dr. Marten Woudstra “, I have never found any evidence of this ANYWHERE except within the many extreme [i]KJV-only[/i] websites (which tend to cite one another or other secondhand, [i]KJV-only[/i] books). In fact, your statement reads that Dr. Woudstra was a “professed” homosexual -- a statement that the International Bible Society completely refutes. The IBS acknowledges only that Dr. Mollenkott was briefly consulted during the early days of the NIV – and limited to some English language style consultation. At the time, Dr. Mollenkott was a married (she married her college sweetheart from Bob Jones University), self-professed evangelical who was known academically as an expert in English idiom style and usage. During that brief time, she had never “professed” any homosexual tendencies. The IBS further states that, had they known that this wife and mother was a closet homosexual, she would have been immediately dismissed. As it is, she was not a TRANSLATOR. Dr. Mollenkott’s work was extremely brief, minor and played no role in the actual translation of the book. As for the claims about Dr. Woudstra – nothing can be found. The IBS stated in their email that these claims are simply not true (LIES). The reason that I asked for citation is to remedy between what is truth and what is mere “intelligent sounding” gossip.

Quote:
However, I would not be as concerned about that, if I was you, as I am about the fact that not everyone on the translating committee comes from a back ground of sound doctrinal teaching. Not all were evangelicals.

Wow – I am surprised! You defended allegations of King James alleged homosexuality with your own allegations of NIV homosexuality. Now you bring up an allegation that some of the translators were not (gasp!) EVANGELICALS! Krispy, I wonder how many “evangelicals” you could name from the committee that translated the King James Version? Do you know much about their lives? Can we judge them as so many do the translators of the NIV (whom few have ever corresponded with)? The fact is that little is known about the translating committee of the King James, other than a few names. The ones who are better known are not completely above the same sort of reproach displayed toward the translators of the NIV.

For instance, have you ever heard of Lancelot Andrewes? He was the Bishop from the Church of England who oversaw the translation of the King James. He was a close friend of many powerful Government officials, including King James I. He was so close to and highly esteemed by James that Andrewes actually assisted in the coronation of James. In fact, Lancelot Andrewes actually accompanied James on a trip to Scotland in order to convince the Scots of the supremacy of the Church of England over the Presbyterian teachings. As the lead translator and senior editor, Lancelot Andrewes headed the “First Westminster Company.” This company was responsible for translating the first portion of the King James Version – from Genesis through Kings. As a Bishop in the Church of England, Andrewes was far from what one would consider “evangelical.” He was a strong advocate of “High Church” practices, which included the adoration (of saints), the embracement of traditional feasts, liturgical prayers, penance and the “change in the elements” Eucharist. Lancelot Andrewes was a public advocate of the “Divine Rights of Kings,” the controversial teaching that argues that since God has risen up a king to the throne, “it is wrong to ever contradict or challenge his authority in any matter.” There is some criticism that Lancelot Andrewes was part of the reason that the King James Version retained some traditional terminology that had become part of Church practice (such as the retain of the name “Ecclesiastes”). Most of this information is compiled from both Paul Welsby’s biographical work entitled [i]Lancelot Andrewes, 1555-1626[/i] and Henry Isaacson’s 1650 work entitled [url=http://anglicanhistory.org/andrewes/isaacson1650.html][i]An Exact Narration of the Life and Death of the Late Reverend and learned Prelate, and painful Divine Lancelot Andrewes, Late Bishop of Winchester.[/i][/url]

Why did I bring up Lancelot Andrewes? I did so to display the speciousness from your statement about the possibility of non-Evangelicals on the committees responsible for translating the NIV between 1965 and 1978. We seemingly adhere to a double standard when we call into question the academic integrity of the translation because of the possibility of non-Evangelicals serving on the committee when one would be hard pressed to even find a single “evangelical” on the committee that translated the KJV. From all that I have read about the translators of the KJV, they all seem to have been faithful and sincere members of the established Church of England hierarchy.
Quote:
As for providing you with every little bit of information about where I get my resources... I'm not going to do that. It's all right out there, and if I spent all my time documenting every single assertion I make on this forum it's all I would do. I suppose I could make myself look smarter and more intimidating too if I demanded documentation everytime someone disagreed with me.

If you think I'm posting bogus info, proove me wrong. I dont have a problem with that.

I don’t think that you’re necessarily posting [i]bogus[/i] information. Rather, I think that you’re posting the same partial information that is found on most [i]KJV-only[/i] websites. When I spoke with several of the translators of the NIV, they expressed great sadness concerning the wild accusations that have been shouted from the mountaintop – which several of them said has increased since the advent of the internet. Yet they stand by their translation as the sincere academic work of a select group of honest scholars. They attempted to create a new scholarly translation using eclectic methods from what they sincerely felt were the best available sources.

Why did I ask for a source citation? It wasn’t to make anyone look “[i]smarter and more intimidating[/i].” You made a very damaging accusation about -- not only two individuals – but the academic integrity of a translation of the Scriptures. Your comments about supposed homosexual translators and possible non-evangelicals working on the translation seem to infer that the translation is filled with heavy bias. At the same time, you seem to have grown exceedingly frustrated when someone invoked the same sort of charges with the King James Version.

This long, ongoing argument about the supposed supremacy of one particular translation (or sets of sources) has grown quite tedious. Some individuals are so convinced one way or the other that there is no longer any need for discussion. Instead, the forums have become a means of opinion proselytization. Sadly, I must confess that I have sometimes been guilty of the “[i]my way or the highway[/i]” mind-set.

Krispy, you often provide great insight into the translation process, and you present a far more balanced look at the issue than the more extreme [i]KJV-only[/i] adherents. My position in the entire debate is quite different from an “either/or” position. Rather, I just can’t find enough evidence to completely embrace one set of sources over another set of sources. There are many compelling arguments for the Textus Receptus. However, there are many compelling arguments against the supremacy of the Textus Receptus. Likewise, there are many compelling arguments for and against the other text sources. Again, there are many strong arguments to validate the KJV as the best translation taken mostly from the TR. Yet I cannot deny the existence of compelling testimony that indicates the possibility of human interference with the translation process. And I find the argument that either the Textus Receptus –or- the King James Version to be the one and only “perfect, preserved Word of God” to be inherently flawed. The King James Version, of course, has gone through several revisions. But even the translators admitted to have sorted through various TR texts before deciding upon the “correct” idiomatic form.

Thus, after much study, there is only one conclusion that I can make in good faith. I hold the King James Version as an adequate translation taken from the TR (while also consulting other preexisting translations). I also deem the New International Version (1978) as the best translation using an eclectic method of textual criticism. While I prefer the King James Version because of the many free and useful study tools available, I also use the NIV and regard it as a faithful, scholarly translation that is far easier to understand for the common American.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2007/9/5 23:32Profile
Ben4christ
Member



Joined: 2007/10/8
Posts: 2


 Re:

Please how can you help me to grow in faith to God?

 2007/10/8 20:19Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy