The Bible debate
- Thread starter atomiku
- 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.
S
What dark imagery? That has to do more with the passage in question than the translation.
There are a subset of the conspiracy theorists who are Christian, and out of that subset, the only ones I know who are KJV only are the ones who claim that new translations are a satanic Illuminati plot to destroy the bible. The rest of them from what I've seen use pretty much whatever version of the bible they want to use, much like most Christians.
I bet you we could go to the conspiracy subforum right here on CC and find someone using a non-KJV translation.
Conjuring up dark images because of gargoyles on a church sounds... kind of silly.
There are a subset of the conspiracy theorists who are Christian, and out of that subset, the only ones I know who are KJV only are the ones who claim that new translations are a satanic Illuminati plot to destroy the bible. The rest of them from what I've seen use pretty much whatever version of the bible they want to use, much like most Christians.
I bet you we could go to the conspiracy subforum right here on CC and find someone using a non-KJV translation.
Conjuring up dark images because of gargoyles on a church sounds... kind of silly.
Until some of you understand the passage below, you will never understand why some of us stand on the KJV. You my friends are the Israelites, you are in the wilderness, you loathe the manna and you are being bitten by the serpents. There are multiple stories like this in the bible... God's word verses the serpents word and most of you don't appear to be able to see that.
Num 21:5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
Num 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
Num 21:5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.
Num 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
S
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? More to the point, what does this?
That's probably because when people think bible, they think King James - you know the oldest translation in active use.
And a movie about exorcism like say, the exorcist, would be using the NAB or the Douay Rheims if it was actually accurate, since hollywood always assumes that exorcisms are a Catholic ritual. The NRSV if it's a more modern movie.
I'd hardly use holywood as a reason for why conspiracy theorists prefer the KJV bible though. If you're going to use the holywood argument, when people hear thee and thou they probably think Shakespeare.
That's probably because when people think bible, they think King James - you know the oldest translation in active use.
And a movie about exorcism like say, the exorcist, would be using the NAB or the Douay Rheims if it was actually accurate, since hollywood always assumes that exorcisms are a Catholic ritual. The NRSV if it's a more modern movie.
I'd hardly use holywood as a reason for why conspiracy theorists prefer the KJV bible though. If you're going to use the holywood argument, when people hear thee and thou they probably think Shakespeare.
And that's fine, if you don't care about doctrine or being a student of the bible. Look at the thread "letter to the Romans", by verse 1:4, I saw the total loss of the doctrine of God, and by verse 1:17, the doctrine of grace was gone. All because of a couple minor changes, unbeknownst to multi-translational users. When you understand the importance of words for curriculum doctrine, you will understand the excellency in the kjv.
S
Please don't..
We don't need two KJV only threads going at the same time. This is having the opposite effect to what a KJV only wants any ways, people are mocking it quite a bit on this board as of late. Just count the number of straw man arguments. I'm finding it quite distressing how much scorn is being directed towards the bible I read, and I'm KJV preferred as in I'm not telling people they can't enjoy their new bible.
You'd think I was reading a copy of the message or something.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
I think I covered that fairly well, though possibly not in this thread (sweet mercy there are a lot of these threads floating around).
It's the most uber protestant translation out there alongside the Geneva, and I don't place as much faith in the Nestle-Aland (and thus UBS) Greek New Testaments as the majority of modern scholars do. That's just me as a layman making the most informed decision I can, as I don't actually read Greek. A handful of complete manuscripts don't compare to thousands. Stastically I think you're going to get a much more accurate reading if you poll across thousands of data points instead of five. Yes, they added in bits from the dead sea scrolls etc, but the Nestle's text still started out as a compilation of the translation of several unical codices (including work by Westcott and Hort). Unless the source documents have changed completely in newer versions of the Nestle-Aland text some of that influence is still there.
I also greatly prefer the method earlier translators used to the critical method in use today, even if it might be considered less scholarly. The protestant reformation was in full swing, and the emphasis was on the divinity of Christ, and the casting aside of paganism. Any verse that could be translated as a reference to the deity of Christ was translated that way. I greatly prefer that. There are a few places where they missed it, but they got it right quite a bit.
If someone came along with a new bible based upon the majority of texts, I'd probably consider it. The NKJV tried to do that and failed to captivate my attention. There is no greek majority text though, and 100 years of scholarship favors a different mode of translation than I'd prefer.
Like I said though, I have an NASB, and an NIV, and several other translations. I'm not condemning people who use them, nor am I demanding everyone learn English to be saved, or several other arguments I see the KJV only crowd sometimes using. It's not helping the case for why the KJV is still a good translation.
It's the most uber protestant translation out there alongside the Geneva, and I don't place as much faith in the Nestle-Aland (and thus UBS) Greek New Testaments as the majority of modern scholars do. That's just me as a layman making the most informed decision I can, as I don't actually read Greek. A handful of complete manuscripts don't compare to thousands. Stastically I think you're going to get a much more accurate reading if you poll across thousands of data points instead of five. Yes, they added in bits from the dead sea scrolls etc, but the Nestle's text still started out as a compilation of the translation of several unical codices (including work by Westcott and Hort). Unless the source documents have changed completely in newer versions of the Nestle-Aland text some of that influence is still there.
I also greatly prefer the method earlier translators used to the critical method in use today, even if it might be considered less scholarly. The protestant reformation was in full swing, and the emphasis was on the divinity of Christ, and the casting aside of paganism. Any verse that could be translated as a reference to the deity of Christ was translated that way. I greatly prefer that. There are a few places where they missed it, but they got it right quite a bit.
If someone came along with a new bible based upon the majority of texts, I'd probably consider it. The NKJV tried to do that and failed to captivate my attention. There is no greek majority text though, and 100 years of scholarship favors a different mode of translation than I'd prefer.
Like I said though, I have an NASB, and an NIV, and several other translations. I'm not condemning people who use them, nor am I demanding everyone learn English to be saved, or several other arguments I see the KJV only crowd sometimes using. It's not helping the case for why the KJV is still a good translation.
S
It was originally to have been majority text based, but the man who was to edit it died shortly after the undertaking of the project.
The only majority text I know of in it is when it contains a footnote with a reading from the majority text (which of course doesn't actually exist - they use a note from the Textus Receptus).
The NKJV is the only majority text based English translation in the past 100 years. It's Textus Receptus with footnotes from critical texts.
The only majority text I know of in it is when it contains a footnote with a reading from the majority text (which of course doesn't actually exist - they use a note from the Textus Receptus).
The NKJV is the only majority text based English translation in the past 100 years. It's Textus Receptus with footnotes from critical texts.