Most "NEW" translations are mans attempt to make the scripture more easy to understand. Only God can give understanding of his word and so end up with many different translations and much confusion. God's word does not change, just mans attempt to understand the truth, which they cannot do without him and so we need the Spirit of God, not a "Translation" May God bless his elect as only he can do and he does and will. Run away from anything that takes your eyes off of him. God knows who are his and they know him and all is as it should be. We worship a GREAT savior, and his name is JESUS CHRIST the LORD. Praise him always and don't trust in your work, thinking, choice nor anything men do.
The Bible Has Been Translated Too Many Times to be Trusted?
- Thread starter Hyvent
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
One beef I have:
I acknowledge the KJV isn't the re-inspired Word of God.. that some churches similar to mine actually do believe..but then it is a common notion among todays christians to not read it because of something along the lines of 'its archaic'... 'the old English is too hard to read'
Now some of these christians probably studied Shakespeare at High School or College. They most likely took great attention to it and appreciated it.. and would never rip it up or stop reading it.
The KJV is THE SAME KIND OF ENGLISH AS SHAKESPEARE!!!
It's beautiful.. majestic.. classical English.
Once you get used to it.. it's very concise.. clear and easy to read.
So to all who would go to the point of poo pooing the KJV because it is old English.. you wouldn't do that with other classical literature your English teacher gave you at High School and College!
I acknowledge the KJV isn't the re-inspired Word of God.. that some churches similar to mine actually do believe..but then it is a common notion among todays christians to not read it because of something along the lines of 'its archaic'... 'the old English is too hard to read'
Now some of these christians probably studied Shakespeare at High School or College. They most likely took great attention to it and appreciated it.. and would never rip it up or stop reading it.
The KJV is THE SAME KIND OF ENGLISH AS SHAKESPEARE!!!
It's beautiful.. majestic.. classical English.
Once you get used to it.. it's very concise.. clear and easy to read.
So to all who would go to the point of poo pooing the KJV because it is old English.. you wouldn't do that with other classical literature your English teacher gave you at High School and College!
T
There are about 5200 to 5300 extant manuscript's (copies) of the Bible, there are three main manuscript's that the world use today. The Codex Vaticanus (Catholic), Codex Sianaicus (corrupted text of the modern versions), and the Textus Receiptus, the name koined by a Printer, that what the King James is based on and every Bible prior to the King James. Of those 5200 manuscripts we have to date 95% agree with the TR, while only 5% agree with the Catholic Bible and 5% agree with the revered Modern Bibles.
R
(Robin)
The new, easier to read (dynamic) translations have their place, but the more literal are best for more indepth study.
Each serves a purpose ... however, the dynamic readings are problematic, in that they often mislead. But you're right,
God's word does not change ... our English language does, however, so there will always be a need for new translations.
But, that we "get" God's word by osmosis has yet to be proven ... True, God graces us with hearing His word, and trusting
His word, but it does take some effort to best understand His word, expecially when some dynamic "translation" is going off track. That is, a person does, indeed, have to put some effort into reading His word, and a good literal translation is very
helpful ... more than one good literal translation is even better ... best, is to do your own translation, and that's not as hard
as some would make it out to be ... it just takes time and a lot of effort.
God has not only given us His Word, but has given the Church teachers, and expositors who have plumbed the depths of textual evidence, textual criticism, hermeneutics, apologetics etc. etc. that we each can be edified and not run around like a bunch of biblical Poindexters thinking we have all the right angles.
Good evening crossnote,
Have you seen this?
Swedish office staff offered implants to access facilities - BBC News
Have you seen this?
Swedish office staff offered implants to access facilities - BBC News
now i have.
I suppose you'll ask me if I believe it's a precursor to Rev. 13:16-17 to which I'd say yes...but not for opening doors and turning on copy machines
I suppose you'll ask me if I believe it's a precursor to Rev. 13:16-17 to which I'd say yes...but not for opening doors and turning on copy machines
K
Well that would not be quite right as if the way they have reworded the scriptures in some of the translations changes the integrity of the scriptures to make them say something else then in turn those who follow those changes are being taught another Jesus. Not the Jesus who is the true Son of God, and Apostle Paul shows this will happen in 2 Corinthians 11:4.
Many believe that just believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior is enough, they even throw in the dying on the cross and risen on the 3rd day and say that is enough as well. But the Word of God also says we have to continue in the sound doctrine of His teachings and commands to do them.
One beef I have:
I acknowledge the KJV isn't the re-inspired Word of God.. that some churches similar to mine actually do believe..but then it is a common notion among todays christians to not read it because of something along the lines of 'its archaic'... 'the old English is too hard to read'
Now some of these christians probably studied Shakespeare at High School or College. They most likely took great attention to it and appreciated it.. and would never rip it up or stop reading it.
The KJV is THE SAME KIND OF ENGLISH AS SHAKESPEARE!!!
It's beautiful.. majestic.. classical English.
Once you get used to it.. it's very concise.. clear and easy to read.
So to all who would go to the point of poo pooing the KJV because it is old English.. you wouldn't do that with other classical literature your English teacher gave you at High School and College!
I acknowledge the KJV isn't the re-inspired Word of God.. that some churches similar to mine actually do believe..but then it is a common notion among todays christians to not read it because of something along the lines of 'its archaic'... 'the old English is too hard to read'
Now some of these christians probably studied Shakespeare at High School or College. They most likely took great attention to it and appreciated it.. and would never rip it up or stop reading it.
The KJV is THE SAME KIND OF ENGLISH AS SHAKESPEARE!!!
It's beautiful.. majestic.. classical English.
Once you get used to it.. it's very concise.. clear and easy to read.
So to all who would go to the point of poo pooing the KJV because it is old English.. you wouldn't do that with other classical literature your English teacher gave you at High School and College!
[video=youtube;OxoUUbMii7Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxoUUbMii7Q[/video]
K
I did not say anything about works saving a person !!!
What saves is faith in the Lord Jesus that puts us under God's grace, and that faith in the Lord is shown all throughout the NT to be the sticking of sound doctrine of what the Lord Jesus taught and commanded us to do.
A person can not say they have faith and trust in the Lord yet deny to do what He said at the same time, that just does not work. Luke 6:46-49 and John 3:21 both show believers in Christ are those who does what He said !!!
It takes a true faith in the Lord that leads to salvation, not a false profession by mouth where actions show they are not !!!
What saves is faith in the Lord Jesus that puts us under God's grace, and that faith in the Lord is shown all throughout the NT to be the sticking of sound doctrine of what the Lord Jesus taught and commanded us to do.
A person can not say they have faith and trust in the Lord yet deny to do what He said at the same time, that just does not work. Luke 6:46-49 and John 3:21 both show believers in Christ are those who does what He said !!!
It takes a true faith in the Lord that leads to salvation, not a false profession by mouth where actions show they are not !!!
To clarify - The KJV actually uses more archaic English than Shakespeare in places, or has some strange idiosyncrasies that do not reflect the English of the Elizabethan/Jacobean eras. The use of thou, for instance, was usually a more common form of address, whereas 'you' was the plural second person, but also used as a polite form of address to an individual. Romance languages have something similar (for instance, French uses 'tu' as an informal address, and 'vous' is a plural and formal mode of address).
In Shakespeare, you see this usage reflected quite frequently. You is often used as a singular address, and occassionally, you'll also see characters addressing the same other individual, and switch between thou and you in the same paragraph, usually reflecting the contour of the conversation. If you read the first scene of Antony and Cleopatra, for instance, you can see this in action - you is by far the more common form of address between the two, with thou used more as informal asides (when flirting, for instance)
The KJV tends to only use thou in the singular, including when directed towards God. This reflects an older usage of the grammar that is not as evidence in Shakespeare.
And, of course, it goes without saying that it's silly to expect Christians to have to adhere to the same English as Shakespeare, especially if they don't like Shakespeare or don't teach English. I'm a lit major, I love shakespeare and quite like some of the phrasing in the KJV, but I don't care to read it as my regular Bible for linguistic reasons alone, and I certainly wouldn't dream of expecting others to use it as their preferred version.
Not saying people can't or shouldn't read the KJV if they want to. But neither is it acceptable, I think, to expect people for whom the language is a barrier to read it. Saying 'it's just like the English of Shakespeare' is neither helpful, nor entirely accurate.
Besides, most of the time people would need to read Shakespeare just to get around the vocabulary. This is at least as true of the KJV as it is of Shakespeare, because it will often transliterate words from the Hebrew in the OT when the translators didn't know what the words meant, or would insert anachronistic words from Old English that had no contemporary use and are not reflected anywhere in Shakespeare (for instance, harburgeon)
In Shakespeare, you see this usage reflected quite frequently. You is often used as a singular address, and occassionally, you'll also see characters addressing the same other individual, and switch between thou and you in the same paragraph, usually reflecting the contour of the conversation. If you read the first scene of Antony and Cleopatra, for instance, you can see this in action - you is by far the more common form of address between the two, with thou used more as informal asides (when flirting, for instance)
The KJV tends to only use thou in the singular, including when directed towards God. This reflects an older usage of the grammar that is not as evidence in Shakespeare.
And, of course, it goes without saying that it's silly to expect Christians to have to adhere to the same English as Shakespeare, especially if they don't like Shakespeare or don't teach English. I'm a lit major, I love shakespeare and quite like some of the phrasing in the KJV, but I don't care to read it as my regular Bible for linguistic reasons alone, and I certainly wouldn't dream of expecting others to use it as their preferred version.
Not saying people can't or shouldn't read the KJV if they want to. But neither is it acceptable, I think, to expect people for whom the language is a barrier to read it. Saying 'it's just like the English of Shakespeare' is neither helpful, nor entirely accurate.
Besides, most of the time people would need to read Shakespeare just to get around the vocabulary. This is at least as true of the KJV as it is of Shakespeare, because it will often transliterate words from the Hebrew in the OT when the translators didn't know what the words meant, or would insert anachronistic words from Old English that had no contemporary use and are not reflected anywhere in Shakespeare (for instance, harburgeon)