| Poster | Thread | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Please -- sources, sources, sources...!!! | | Hi Stever...
I really didn't want to get involved in this again -- or any of the threads that you start or consistently participate in concerning the [i]KJV-only[/i] position. However, I believe that something once again needs to be "cleared up:" Quote:
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the name above all names. [b]It was not necessary to delete Jesus name from the verse[/b]. If they would of only deleted it once or twice, then of course there would be no problem. The problem is they have systematically deleted it throughout the New Testament.
That is the problem. Maybe not for the mature believer, because he knows that Jesus Christ is the name, but to the non-believer or new believer that picks up the NIV or newer versions to read for the first time, it is a great problem.
Many of your posts often [u]accuse[/u] the translators of the NIV, NASB, etc... of "deleting" words from the KJV.
This allegation has been stated again and again in these KJV-only threads. However, [b]the NIV did not [u]delete[/u] [i]any[/i] of these words[/b]. The NIV is taken from completely [i]different[/i] sets of source materials. As a result, the "Hebrew" and the "Greek" is different in the Received Text compared with the sources used for other versions. While verses may differ between the two versions -- this is because it differs in the two sets of source material. Thus to make such an allegation about "deleting" words is both [i]incorrect[/i] and [i]misleading[/i]. Yet this argument continues to circulate throughout these forums, often resulting in the use of "circular reasoning."
As a long time user of the NIV (even though I [u]prefer[/u] using both the NIV and the KJV), I have not had a problem with doctrine. I believe the fundamental truths of the faith -- and they are provided in both the KJV and the NIV (as a previous post listed in a seperate thread). In fact, I actually learned these fundamentals while the NIV was my primary Bible.
After having researched this matter, I have found [u]nothing[/u] that would make me believe in any type of "conspiracy" to pervert the Word of God (except with obvious, non-academic translations like the [i]New World Translation[/i] or "[i]gender-neutral[/i]" translations). I have written and received correspondance from translators, Bible and language scholars, several professors specializing in manuscripts -- and even the publisher of the NIV. All of these men and women seem very credible, and they have adequately dispelled many of the myths made by [i]KJV-only[/i] books, rumors and websites. Besides, if there was a "conspiracy," it was very poorly orchestrated. The NIV has always pointed to the divinity of Christ, the trinity, the need of salvation by Christ's sacrifice, the importance of baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, etc... In fact, I gave my heart to the Lord after reading a passage in the NIV (Matthew 11:28-30).
If someone really wanted to "[u]prove[/u]" that the NIV was corrupt, they would need to provide credible and undeniable [i]first-hand source material[/i] that shows that all of the sources used for the NIV (such as the "Alexandrian Texts") were [u]corrupt[/u]. Instead, this argument seems consistently polluted with verse-by-verse comparisons, allegations made about two long-dead language scholars (Wescott and Hort -- who were [u]not[/u] even involved with the translation of the NIV), or strange arguments that claim that the KJV is the "perfect" and "preserved Word of God" (even though the KJV was revised several times due to mistakes in translation).
I hope that, if someone truly researches this matter and still holds to [i]KJV-only[/i], that they can provide credible first-hand source material to substantiate their claim that the Received Text is much more reliable than all other source texts and manuscripts.
:-)
_________________
Christopher
|
|  2006/1/19 13:28 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Stever's Quote:
The King James is idiomatically correct. New versions give a very poor translation of the linear.
I have seldom read a post-er who is so consistently inaccurate in the statements made. It is an indisputable fact that almost all modern versions are more accurate in their translation of 'tenses' than in the KJV. The early translators eg Tyndale et al learned their Greek through the medium of Latin and Latin just does not have a tense which corresponds to the Greek present tense in the sense of its continuity or of the Aorist in its punctiliar function.
I will give an important example. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Rom. 6:6, KJVS) This is my beloved KJV which gives the impression of a present event; is_crucified. This makes it sound as though the crucifixion were still in progress and has been the source of much confusion. If we compare it with the ASV we have:knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; (Rom. 6:6, ASV)which puts the event very clearly in the past as a completed event. As far as I know, every time that the NT refers to "our old man's" co-crucifixion with Christ it used the Aorist tense. The NKJV has followed the better example of the ASV here and has knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. (Rom. 6:6, NKJV) The co-crucifixion of 'our old man' was accomplished in the dying of Christ and does not go on being crucified; it is done and over.
When Paul speaks of "I" rather than "our old man" in 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, KJVS) the "I am crucified" is again a poor translation. The verb is in the Perfect tense, a tense which means "having been and remaining" crucified. Paul the man "had been and still was co-crucified with Christ" but "our old man was crucified" in the past and it is over and done with. The ASV and the NKJV correct it I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. (Gal. 2:20, ASV)
I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which 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, NKJV)
It would not be difficult to quote many examples where the poor grasp of the Greek tenses led the earliest translators into some confusion. To support the KJV as a champion of more accurate translation of the tenses is another example of your ignorance and prejudice.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/1/19 14:39 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: Please -- sources, sources, sources...!!! | | Chrrissss' Quote:
I hope that, if someone truly researches this matter and still holds to KJV-only, that they can provide credible first-hand source material to substantiate their claim that the Received Text is much more reliable than all other source texts and manuscripts.
Have you had an opportunity to read any of Robinson's work on this topic. I would heartily recommend [url=http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html]The Case for Byzantine Priority.[/url] Even if you disagree with the conclusions you will see what a solid argument Robinson has. If you want to see the other side of the coin Michael Marlowe's [url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html]What about the Majority Text?[/url] is a good place to begin. Marlowe is a very partisan debater and I have crossed swords with him on a number of occasions.
The simple point that Robinson makes is that there is actually no evidence for the theory of transmission which lies behind the Textual Critical methodology of Westcott and Hort and others of the same mind. The whole theory is built upon a premise for which there is no direct proof.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/1/19 14:50 | Profile | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Re: | | Hi philologos...
Thank you for the source. I will look it up at my University library (or through inter-library loan). If I find it, I will definitely give it a look. And hopefully, it will include a good bibliography of the book's sources. Thanks!
:-)
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2006/1/20 0:02 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Hi Chris
The Byzantine Priority document is online. Just click the title in the previous post and then save it to you own computer. Read it at your leisure, it is faily high-level academic format.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2006/1/20 4:35 | Profile | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Oops...! | | Hi philologos...!
Thanks! I didn't realize that you had included "working links" in that post. :P I'm very pleased that it includes its sources -- which I will search after I study the article!
Thanks!
:-)
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2006/1/20 9:32 | Profile |
| | Re: Is the word "fornication" or is it "immorality"? | | Stever responds to the varios posts from the pro-new version group:
How do you respond to something like this? We have the educated Greek scholar who seemingly knows what he is talking about. We have others that are convinced there is not one lick of difference between the King James Version and all of the Newer versions- the NIV, etc. etc. etc. etc.
I guess the way to respond is with a simple example. I am a simple man, that can understand simple things. As my example, I have chosen the word "porn" and how it has been translated- by the King James on one side, and all of the newer versions on the other side.
In the battle between man's mores and God's laws, the new versions have opted for the 'popular' morals of the day. They have substituted the relativistic word 'immorality' for the word 'fornication'. The word 'immorality' carries with it no description of WHAT is forbidden. Webster elaborates:
Immorality: State or quality of being immoral
Immoral: Not moral
Fornication: Illicit sexual intercourse on the part of an unmarried person.
The New Testament Greek word is porneau, porne, pornos, porneia.
Now, lets look at what the NASB has done, and compare it to the King James:
Romans 1:29NASB- Omit KJV-fornication
1 Cor 5:1NASB- immorality KJV-fornication
1 Cor 6:13NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
1 Cor. 6:18NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
2 Cor. 12:21NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Eph 5:3 NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Col 3:5 NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Rev 2:14 NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Rev 2:20NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Rev 9:21NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Rev 14:8NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Rev 17:2NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Rev 18:3NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Rev 18:9NASB-immorality KJV-fornication
Heb 12:16NASB-immoral KJV-fornication
1 Cor 10:8NASB-act immorallyKJV-commit fornication
1 Cor 5:9NASB-immoral peopleKJV-fornicators
1 Cor 5:10NASB-immoral peopleKJV-fornicators
1 Cor. 5:11NASB-immoral peopleKJV-fornicator
Gal 5:19NASB-immorality KJV-adultery, fornication
The NASB calls 'natural' what God calls sin:
James 3:15 NASB-natural KJV-sensual
James 5:17 NASB-nature KNV-passions
Every young person knows the meaning of the word 'whore'. (Webster's Whore: to have unlawful sexual intercourse; whoremonger; lecher, a man given to whoring.)
Eph 5:5 NASB-immorality KJV-whoremonger
1 Tim 1:10 NASB-immoral men KJV-whoremonger
Rev 21:8 NASB-immoral personKJV-whoremonger
Rev 22:15 NASB-immoral personsKJV-whoremongers
The NASB's non-judgmental translations echo the policy statements of many mainline denominations.
1 Tim 1:10 NASB-homosexual
KJV-them that defile themselves with mankind
What is "immorality"? Could it be "pollution"?, could it be "political issues"?, could it be "the lack of morals in Government leadership"? What does that word "immorality" actually mean. Have you noticed Christian's that are having pre-marital sex and seem to think that they are doing nothing wrong (because they are in love and planning on getting married in the future), and even attend Church? How can that be? Because they do not know that they are committing sin by fornicating, that is why.The words in God's Bible have been washed down and neutralized to the point that they have no meaning.
How can that be? None of the mainline denominations use the KJV anymore. They have all been replaced in the last 45 years by the newer versions- NASB, NIV, etc. etc. etc.
The harvest from the seeds planted in the sixties (NASB) and seventies (NIV) is ripe and rotting on the vine. A survey performed in the early 1990's by researchers at Indiana University and Marion County Health department revealed sexual activity is beginning at an earlier age than ever. One survey, reported by Dr. Donald P. Orr reported 555 of 677 middle-class students, aged 12-14 have engaged in fornication. Another survey, done by 8 denominations, polled 1438 "evangelical" teens (those who regularily attend a conservative church) and nearly half of them has committed fornication; only one-third "declined to brand sex outside of marriage as morally unacceptable."
Bibles which omit a clear mandate against "sexual intercourse on the part of unmarried persons" (Websters 'fornication') leave parents and pastors defenseless in their battle for children's chastity.
As for me and my house, we will read, study & memorize the KJV.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
God bless,
Stever
P.S.
In regards to the use of the ambiguous word 'immorality' by new versions, I would like to offer the statement of the owner of the NIV, international publishing magnate Rupert Murdock (New Age Bulletin, England, Vol V, No. 1, p.2, June 1993): "After all, we are in the entertainment business."
Pressure from mainline denominations, representing large markets, prompts their use of wording which allows the greatest variety of interpretations. The 1991 national committee report from the Presbyterian Church (USA) represents the reins pulling from religious and 'ethical' markets: "A REFORMED Christian ETHIC of sexuality will not condemn..any sexual relationship in which there is genuine equality and mutual respect. What is ruled out...are relations in which persons are abused, exploited or violated." Again, by the PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A.
[u][i][b]"A REFORMED Christian ETHIC of sexuality will not condemn..any sexual relationship in which there is genuine equality and mutual respect. What is ruled out...are relations in which persons are abused, exploited or violated." Again, by the PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. ?[/b][/i][/u] |
| | 2006/1/22 1:48 | | Thump3r
Member
Joined: 2005/12/27
Posts: 6
| | Re: Your Bible- which one? | | I used to be staunchly KJV only, but in recent years have started using the ESV and the NASB. I have read all of the evidence against using a modern translation, but I really think that is the tradition of man. The best new resource that I have found is the NET Bible at Bible.org. It is a superior translation with excellent notes for the greek and hebrew interpretations and they even have a free module for E-Sword! I find that it helps my sermon and study prep to know as closely as possible what the authors were trying to say. Before anyone asks, let me assure you that I do believe that the Bible is the inerrant, and infalliable word of the living God in the autographs. So, there.
Anyway, I know it's a lot of fun arguing about which translation is superior, but I have bigger fish to fry just getting out the gospel. God bless and I hope this was edifying.... for what it's worth.
_________________
bs
|
| | 2006/1/22 8:21 | Profile | ccchhhrrriiisss
Member
Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779
| | Two sources = different hebrew and greek | | Hi Stever...
This concept really borders on ridiculous. Even if you will never be open to the possibility that there are other [u]legitimate[/u] translations, you still don't have to label this as a pseudo-conspiracy.
As has been stated many times before: the "Hebrew and Greek" (from the Received Text) used by the translators of the KJV (in 1611, as well as the changes and improvements made over the next 158 years) is [u]not[/u] the same as those used in the other sources. Thus, to compare the translation of greek or hebrew words between the KJV and the NIV is both incorrect and misleading. Quote:
In regards to the use of the ambiguous word 'immorality' by new versions, I would like to offer the statement of the owner of the NIV, international publishing magnate Rupert Murdock (New Age Bulletin, England, Vol V, No. 1, p.2, June 1993): "After all, we are in the entertainment business."
This quote is also very misleading. Rupert Murdoch does not own the NIV. He runs a corporation that recently purchased the major publisher, Harper Collins. The publisher does not own the NIV. The publisher is simply licensed to print them (interestingly, they also print KJVs too). The copyright for the NIV is owned by the [i]International Bible Society[/i], and the Committee on Bible Translation at the IBS has control over the content (with the hope of dispelling any IBS corporate conspiracies).
It appears that much of the [i]KJV-only[/i] argument sometimes borders on simple urban-legends and modern myths.
:-)
_________________
Christopher
|
| | 2006/1/22 10:40 | Profile |
| | Re: Your Bible- which one? | | I would like to answer the first question that was asked at the beginning of this thread and that is "Your Bible, Which One?
My first and foremost bible that I read is the KJV, my second bible which I use as a reference is called the Lamsa, translated by George Lamsa.
|
| | 2006/1/22 11:10 | |
|
