SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Charisma House Announces 'Most Modern Version' of KJV

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )
PosterThread
sonofthunder
Member



Joined: 2005/3/31
Posts: 419
Son Of Thunder i come from a land down under, due south at the bottom of your work globes

 Re:

Oh. Does anyting stir the pot more than bible translation?

A problem the 1st century church didnt have to deal with (not like us)

Well us 21st (centurions) anyhow:

I dont race out to test/ try/ purchase some New hot off the press bible.

The king james version is anti quainted and non contemporary (now)

So does that mean the Niv and nkjv will be ...if the Lord tarries another 20 years?

What is the answer???

We keep bible hopping ( like a lot of church goers)** smile ** i suppose:


_________________
Bro Stephen

 2013/2/6 7:51Profile
sonofthunder
Member



Joined: 2005/3/31
Posts: 419
Son Of Thunder i come from a land down under, due south at the bottom of your work globes

 Re:

But keep the argument going:

After all thats what bible translation does

Hots up debate.

Dont let me interefere. ( God forbid)


_________________
Bro Stephen

 2013/2/6 7:56Profile
jimur
Member



Joined: 2012/6/26
Posts: 88


 Re:

I use and promote the use of the older edition KJV, so I'm a little biased to that translation. I don't consider myself a member of the KJV only group yet in essence I suppose I am. I do however own a half dozen or so modern translations and at times refer to them in difficult passages or simple comparisons. Still, I accept the KJV as final authority among translations. In all my study I refer to the original languages as best as my ability allows. I place more emphasis on word meaning at the time of the writing than on today's meaning and utilize older dictionaries and traditional word meanings. I prefer the 1769 KJV edition over others more readily available. Though the KJV has undergone very few actual revisions, editors have continually changed words for the sake of ease of reading, page format, today's more modern word usage and also apply electronic (digital) spell editing. As someone stated the NKJV is not a revision, but a new translation.
Those who use today's KJV should be very much alert to such changes.

Bearmaster stated "many do not read their bible today". I agree with that statement and think one reason for this is brought about because of the various translations used from the pulpit. It's difficult to follow along with the preacher quoting or reading from the NIV when one has a different translation in his hand so in turn many even leave their bible at home and rely entirely upon what the preacher says, whom now has become their bible. The same holds true in many Sunday school and bible study classes. There are those who use a different translation with every other sermon or message, dependant upon which more easily reinforces his sermon. IMHO all this brings confusion into the church and we all know what the bible says about confusion. Thus Satan uses these translations as a tool to discourage both believer and would be believer. How often have we heard, "Which bible should I use, there are so many which one is the correct one", or some similar statement.

Another brother mentioned in this thread, the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts. The far greater majority of professing Christians have little or no awareness of the two and even fewer have any understanding of the history, background, and difference between them. The publishing houses capitalize on this with catch phrases such as "translated from older writings" or "new information", which is very misleading in that the fact is the majority text contains many partial manuscripts and documents which are much older than these "Dead Sea Scrolls" which are actually the oldest MOST COMPLETE COPIES" we have, not categorically the oldest. The history and origin of the minority and majority texts become extremely pertinent as well. We should all learn more of the theology of such men as Origen, Westcott, and Hort, before so readily adopting their teachings and these minority texts. At times we all seem lead of a different "Holy Spirit".

Praise God the jux of the matter is He came, He died according to scripture, He resurrected, ascended in to Heaven and now sits at the right hand of God the Father making intercession for ALL those who call upon His name.

 2013/2/6 9:00Profile
proudpapa
Member



Joined: 2012/5/13
Posts: 2936


 Re:Heydave

Hi Heydave

Heydave wrote /// We have hundreds of reliable manuscripts. Unfortunately for you and me God decided not to have them written in English!///

Which manuscripts are reliable??
If my memory serves me right their are more varients within the existing manuscripts than their are words in the new testament.

I believe that God has blessed the martyrdom of William Tyndale and opened the eyes of the King and has supernaturally inspired the exact words that He wanted for the English speaking people, so that even a plow boy like myself can have the Word of God.

2 tim 3:16 is not reffering to the originals, Paul wrote 2 timothy some 1500 years after the giving of the originals to Moses, The originals where well gone and passed away, the word scripture is never in reference to some long lost originals as Christodom would have us to believe today.

the issue is not one of translation prefrence it is an issue of inspiration,
Oh that God would save the church from the carnal mind from its sight from its rational reasoning from its pagan rooted worship of Scholasticism.

 2013/2/6 9:09Profile
hulsey
Moderator



Joined: 2006/7/5
Posts: 640
Missouri

 Re: Translations and the Text of the Greek New Testament

http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/Translations%20and%20the%20Text%20of%20the%20Greek%20New%20Testament.pdf

Excellent article


_________________
SI Moderator - Jeremy Hulsey

 2013/2/6 9:44Profile
Heydave
Member



Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK

 Re:

a-servant,

You asked a straight forward question, I gave a straight forward answer! I have been around this forum long enough not to want to get into the KJ only debate. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

You take a faith position on the KJV being inspired. I don't see anywhere that I am to place my faith in a particular translation as being 100% perfect. Even the translators of the KJV did not claim their work to be inspired in this way. I won't change your view and that is your right to believe what you want.

In Acts 12:4 the KJV translates the 'Pesach' (passover) as 'Easter'. Is this correct? Easter was a pagan festival pre-dating Christianity and 'Christianised' by the church around 2nd century. Everywhere else the KJV translates Pesach as 'Passover'. Surely this is the correct translation and Easter is clearly a wrong translation put in to appease the established English church at the time of King James.


_________________
Dave

 2013/2/6 10:11Profile
jimur
Member



Joined: 2012/6/26
Posts: 88


 Re:

Heydave

Quote:


In Acts 12:4 the KJV translates the 'Pesach' (passover) as 'Easter'. Is this correct? Easter was a pagan festival pre-dating Christianity and 'Christianised' by the church around 2nd century. Everywhere else the KJV translates Pesach as 'Passover'. Surely this is the correct translation and Easter is clearly a wrong translation put in to appease the established English church at the time of King James. [end quote]

While the premise of your statement is perhaps correct, I'm not so sure we could factually claim this to be a mistranslation or an appeasement, but a purposeful, intentional attempt to distinguish between the "Pesach" given to the Jews, and the now [then] accepted gentile's "Easter". Just a thought, but the very statement would seem to indicate a misperception of one other than the translators. If in fact it is a mistranslation, how/why would the same scholars interpret the same word correctly every place except this one instance? Forgive my ignorance, certainly it pleased the church at the time but I can make no sense of the idea of a mistranslation of the same word by the same translators once out of 29 times. Obviously the verse is not promoting but referencing an easily recognized day. Inspired or non inspired? I could not presently teach either boldly and I readily confess it to be a troubling verse for me. There have been times when I almost wished the word "Easter" was not there.

 2013/2/6 12:30Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5638
NC, USA

 Re:

People don't speak or read KJ english anymore. You have to face facts.

I read the KJV from time to time but the language is very stilted for today's reader. Today's youth have no reference for a lot of the language in the KJV. What's an emrod?

Pick up any Shakespeare work and you can get an idea of the difficulty. That's why HS students, at least the great majority of them, hate reading shakespeare. To be quite honest, I am not a big fan myself. Love the stories and plots, but the language is a hindrance.

Similarly, I believe the language of the old KJV is a hindrance to the modern reader. It is no one's fault; it is just that the passage of time has rendered KJ language obsolete.

Newer translations attempt to remove this hindrance so that people will actually be able to read their Bible and understand it without having to have an Old English Dictionary opened by their side.

I would rather have my kids read a Bible they can understand than one they can't understand.

To say that only the old KJV is "inspired" is a little out there. The only writings that are inspired are the original ink marks that went on to the original parchments by the pen of the original authors/scribes. Thank goodness we have good grounds to believe that, for the most part, the scripture we have today is faithful to those original ink marks.


_________________
Todd

 2013/2/6 12:49Profile
Heydave
Member



Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK

 Re:

Hi jmur,

Thank you for your honest thoughts on this. I agree that it would be improbable to think the translators of the KJV could have mis-translated pesach here, so that leaves us with the fact that they deliberately translated it that way. So we now must see that this particular verse is no longer a word for word translation, but an interpretive translation of that word. Again we ask why? If as some suggest they wanted to distinguish a different event from the Jewish passover, then why is it not in the original language? Do some (not you) seriously expect us to believe that the KJV translators were more correct/inspired/perfect than that which was written inspiration of the Holy Spirit by Luke?

Once people go down that road of treating the KJV as THE perfect inspired word of God that all others, including the majority text must be jusge by, they have gone too far to reason with. It's like talking to JWs who cannot accept anything that contradicts the NWT.


_________________
Dave

 2013/2/6 13:39Profile
SkepticGuy
Member



Joined: 2012/8/8
Posts: 259


 Re:

if the kjv was good enuf for the apostle paul then its good enuf for me!

 2013/2/6 14:12Profile





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