Al, I am not militant KJV only. However there are many issues at play in
this debate. Not the least of which is the quality and quantity of Greek
manuscripts.
"Al Patrick" wrote in message
...
My point was, and is, that the KJV IS a translation itself. Also, those
who translated it stated that they USED MANY DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS
(sources) in order to get the best understanding of the Word. ...Or
haven't you ever bothered to read the preface to your 1611 KJV?
I have, and have fully researched the subject.
Why would not the same apply today?
We read many different translations in order to get the best understanding
of the situation. Check with Wycliffe to learn some of the problems of
translation. There are often NO WORDS in a given language to perfectly
describe some passages. I'm sure you must have heard of the word "love"
in the KJV that is derived from three different Hebrew or Greek words.
There is no way that just the word "love" can fully describe / define the
real meaning of all three.
This is very true. I have studied biblical Greek, and the Greek language is
MUCH more descriptive and complicated than English.
Now, If God can so perfectly provide, protect, and promote His Word in the
KJV why can He not do the same with some other version? Also, if
He certainly can. The question is if He did, or wanted to.
the KJV is the alpha and omega of God's Word why not tell the Wycliffe
translators to get their butts back home and save all that mission /
translation money. If the heathen want to come to God bad enough
Ah....money. I think you are on to something here.
they'll learn the English language of 1611 (almost 400 years old) so they
can read it. Never mind that some of them don't even have THEIR OWN
language in written form!
That is really the only translation work that is still needed. Translation
of the Textus Receptus into other languages. It is my understanding that the
KJV has been translated into 100's of languages already. I don't think we
need to translate Wescott and Hort or Nestle Aland into the same languages.
Please re-read my previous post, God is clear about how His wisdom is
understood. Before God pulled me out of my rutt, I did not understand much
of the bible no matter what version I read. After He saved me by His grace,
I instantly understood most of it. His word is spiritually discerned. I do
not view it as an intellectual pursuit. I have been down the road of the
scollars. It leads to self-righteous nosense. Much the way that the newer
versions have led to confusion and division within the body of Christ. Why
do we need more than 100 versions? How will our students memorize scripture?
I read the KJV (duh...). I have spent hours with my son (11) studying God's
word in the KJ version. My son goes to a Lutheran school and is required to
learn verses in the NIV. It is confusing for a kid to go through that. I
would suggest we leave the extra translations for the people who have
already built a solid foundation of biblical understanding.
I also believe that part of man's arrogance is rooted in the thought that
newer is better. Perhaps in a secular way it is, I won't argue that my
746pro runs rings around the old Kenwood twins. ;-). However, I do not
believe in spiritual evolution. God's truth does not change. Further, I
think that the men that put the KJV together were perfectly qualified to
understand the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages properly. I do not
subscribe to the idea that our "modern understanding" is better in the 21st
century. I think that the further we get from the facts of history, the more
blurry it becomes. Ask the people who were closest to the action for the
most accurate account of what words meant then.
..
I find it interesting to note that our dictionary evolves to suit the times.
I was amazed when I learned this. Meanings of words change.
Now, one can certainly say that when partaking in word studies and the like,
that additional translations can be helpful. But they certainly are not
mandatory for understanding, and there are enough subtle differences that
justify giving one pause. Every time that I have compared a newer
translation to the KJV (where I noticed an apparent differnce in meaning) I
have looked up the passage in my Greek bible and found the KJV to be more
accurate both linguistically and spiritualy. Of course it depends on which
Greek manuscript you are using.
The 1611 still contains some antiquated words. I still think it's all
right to spell cows C-O-W-S instead of K-I-N-E. I still think it is all
right to use the word urinate instead of **** which the KJV uses. I hope
you'll get in the pulpit, or in your Sunday school class and read one of
the several passages that uses the above word next Sunday. :-) You can
start looking about I or II Kings chapter 18 - unless you prefer a
concordance.
Certainly there are many antiquated words, and yes it is allright to
modernize a word like Kine. It is entertaining in itself to look those words
up to see what they meant. I have found that for the most part, the language
difference is not significant enough to cloud the understanding.
What troubles me is the REMOVAL of words and entire passages, in addition
to the items of Greek translation I mention above, and the way the KJV is
demeaned in the preface of some translations. The fact that in just the NIV
alone, there are many different versions. Some omitting this and some
qualifying that.
I am sad to say this truth about modern versions. There is always a "better,
more understandable" version on the bookstore shelf. Why? Because if we
copyright it, we can sell it. I can add a tweak here and a tweak there, and
make myself some money. There is no copyright on the KJV. Nor should there
be on the word of God.
I could go on and on and on, but think I've made my point -- for now. :-)
Yes, we both could. I think it is good enough to say that these things are
best left for mature Christians to discuss in a pleasant and thoughtful way.
If I can get someone to open their bible and pour over it for information, I
have done my job. :-)
Oh, for the guy who said the kid that started this thread probably
wouldn't jump back in. This "kid" is retired. :-) Also, I sometimes
start threads to make people think - before they get Alzheimer's and can't
think. ;-)
Al
============
Pilotbutteradio wrote:
Why would God need to "control" other versions when He His word is here
in the KJV ? He promised to preserve His word and He did just that. He
did not promise, nor is it necessary to ensure that all versions are
pure.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---