-
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.
C
i think you guys taking strips of each other does more damage than good for His name, brothers in Christ?? a little bit of respect and honor for all goes a long way with Jesus, the way you guys bash each other around over it doesnt show much honor for each other, we can all agree that we disagree on what we are trying to have agreed without personal statements in life, wounded pride does that though,makes it personal
Pride=fifthy unclean deaf spiritual condition lol
"I AM" that "I AM"
Pride=fifthy unclean deaf spiritual condition lol
"I AM" that "I AM"
K
i think you guys taking strips of each other does more damage than good for His name, brothers in Christ?? a little bit of respect and honor for all goes a long way with Jesus, the way you guys bash each other around over it doesnt show much honor for each other, we can all agree that we disagree on what we are trying to have agreed without personal statements in life, wounded pride does that though,makes it personal
Pride=fifthy unclean deaf spiritual condition lol
"I AM" that "I AM"
Pride=fifthy unclean deaf spiritual condition lol
"I AM" that "I AM"
K
Re: To Karuna
as I understood it, that was not a stand alone argument, just a comment to let us know the choice of translators for this project (NIV). Naming it gay panic is overly exaggerated.
I don't agree that there is only one perfect translation. For one, think outside English - we're not all native English speakers, so you can hardly expect someone who does not know English to read the KJV.
I personally prefer reading the Amplified Bible, because it captures the meaning of the origianal Hebrew and Greek.
I do agree that we should be wise in our choice of Bible version to read and study, and indeed, some translations are watered down to the extend that we can better leave them at the store.
as I understood it, that was not a stand alone argument, just a comment to let us know the choice of translators for this project (NIV). Naming it gay panic is overly exaggerated.
I don't agree that there is only one perfect translation. For one, think outside English - we're not all native English speakers, so you can hardly expect someone who does not know English to read the KJV.
I personally prefer reading the Amplified Bible, because it captures the meaning of the origianal Hebrew and Greek.
I do agree that we should be wise in our choice of Bible version to read and study, and indeed, some translations are watered down to the extend that we can better leave them at the store.
K
Re: To Karuna
Actually, I'll have to change my comment, because thinking of it, the only Bible translation I would never buy would be... the KJV ... when I said we can better leave some at the store, I had books like Jehovah's witnesses' bible in mind, but that can't really be called a bible... imo.
Actually, I'll have to change my comment, because thinking of it, the only Bible translation I would never buy would be... the KJV
... when I said we can better leave some at the store, I had books like Jehovah's witnesses' bible in mind, but that can't really be called a bible... imo.
Hey guys this thread was closed by a moderator and in their defense I guess it was because it seemed to have gotten unfriendly and I guess because there's concern about how such "arguing over words" may do more harm than good for people who come here seeking (2 Tim 2:14).................
However I'm reopening it because there seems to be plenty of interest/participation so I'd like to just ask you all to keep it friendly and constructive if anyone cares to continue it.
However I'm reopening it because there seems to be plenty of interest/participation so I'd like to just ask you all to keep it friendly and constructive if anyone cares to continue it.
K
Re: To Karuna
Kyng's original statement wasn't merely informative. Let's look at it directly:
If this were something like "in addition, I would have you know that two homosexuals were involved in the translation" ... then I might agree with you. However, what we actually read is the statement that the mere involvement of two homosexuals is an additional reason to throw it out. This is not merely informative - it's an argument.
Now, I agree that it wasn't meant to be a stand-alone argument, as it was in the context of a huge effort to discredit the translation. However, since Kyng made no effort to show why homosexual involvement, but not, say, involvement of the lustful or liars was a problem, I stand by my original statement.
Kyng's original statement wasn't merely informative. Let's look at it directly:
If this were something like "in addition, I would have you know that two homosexuals were involved in the translation" ... then I might agree with you. However, what we actually read is the statement that the mere involvement of two homosexuals is an additional reason to throw it out. This is not merely informative - it's an argument.
Now, I agree that it wasn't meant to be a stand-alone argument, as it was in the context of a huge effort to discredit the translation. However, since Kyng made no effort to show why homosexual involvement, but not, say, involvement of the lustful or liars was a problem, I stand by my original statement.
M
There has been an ongoing argument for hundreds or even over a thousand years as to which of the ancient manuscripts to use. The difference between the KJV and the NIV is which ones the translators choose to use. When in bible studies, I encourage having both of them because there are clearly some differences between them that need to be discussed.
However, the New Living Translation is not a translation but a commentary. It will leave out scripture or completely change it to get their point across. If we are going to move that way, then I would recommend the Stubby translation because it only uses words of six letters or less. Or maybe the Free translation because it never includes the word not. Or how about the Rap the translation that only includes verses that rhyme.
However, the New Living Translation is not a translation but a commentary. It will leave out scripture or completely change it to get their point across. If we are going to move that way, then I would recommend the Stubby translation because it only uses words of six letters or less. Or maybe the Free translation because it never includes the word not. Or how about the Rap the translation that only includes verses that rhyme.
In addition to rules of textual criticism which would indicate that the older reliable manuscripts be given more weight than the newer ones, and the obvious changes in the English language over the last 400 years, (for example the verb "let" then meant to hinder or restrain, whereas now it means to allow), there are other reasons that the KJV might not be the best translation. Let me explore one of them now.
The KJV was one of the earliest English language translations, (the Geneva Bible gave it a run for the money). As with any work of this magnitude, mistakes are going to be made. Part of the reason for subsequent versions is to correct those mistakes. Also, improvements can be made to insure that those reading it are not misled by a complex sentence structure.
For example: Many people have used 1 Cor. 11:27 translated thus from the KJV:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
to say that we must be worthy to participate in the communion.
Now technically there is nothing wrong with this translation. Unfortunately, many people are weak on grammer. The word "unworthily" is an adverb. As such, it cannot modify the noun "whosoever". Instead, it modifies the verb "shall eat". This fits perfectly with the context of verses 20-34 where Paul makes it plain that he is talking about the way in which the communion is done, and not about those participating. The NIV properly translates it "in an unworthy manner".
How many people have used this verse improperly to not participate in the communion as a result of the KJV translation? The NIV translators anticipated that some would take this verse in an ungrammatically correct way, and phrased it so it would be understood correctly.
Let me throw this one out to the once saved always saved crowd before you argue this one. How can we be in a saved condition, and not be able to commune with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
M
Hi Dave,
I hope you don't think I am a KJV only person. The main reason I use it is that I have the Strongs numbers tied to KJV and that KJV tends to use the same words most of the time. This way I can usually guess what the original Greek word is. My point is that the KJV and the NIV together do a better job than separate. And that the later more "readable" versions are taking the liberty to inject their commentary into their translations.
Take Col 2:17 for example:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. KJV
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's. ASV
Col 2:17 All such things are only a shadow of things in the future; the reality is Christ. GNB
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. NIV
Col 2:17 For these rules were only shadows of the real thing, Christ himself. NLT
One cannot look at these translations and not see the bias built into them. Especially the word shadow. In our English way of looking at it, a shadow was something left over. But to a Hebraic thinking individual, it was better translated foreshadow, which is something yet to happen.
I hope you don't think I am a KJV only person. The main reason I use it is that I have the Strongs numbers tied to KJV and that KJV tends to use the same words most of the time. This way I can usually guess what the original Greek word is. My point is that the KJV and the NIV together do a better job than separate. And that the later more "readable" versions are taking the liberty to inject their commentary into their translations.
Take Col 2:17 for example:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. KJV
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's. ASV
Col 2:17 All such things are only a shadow of things in the future; the reality is Christ. GNB
Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. NIV
Col 2:17 For these rules were only shadows of the real thing, Christ himself. NLT
One cannot look at these translations and not see the bias built into them. Especially the word shadow. In our English way of looking at it, a shadow was something left over. But to a Hebraic thinking individual, it was better translated foreshadow, which is something yet to happen.
Hi Superdave,
This was a great post, that is until your last point, instead of sticking to the topic at hand, you deviated from the well written post ''maybe from a book?'' , to your illogical thought on once saved always saved, here you have mistakingly or intentionally lumped the ''King James only club'' and all others to try and prove your theological bent. And it is this that spoils your well written post.
I do not use the King James, and I know there are differences between versions, But I am also a believer of once saved always saved. So your logic does not hold sway, since it is easy to see that you are straining to prove a point whilst trying to prove something else.
Although, I would say that if you have something against a brother or vice versa, it would be better to sort it out before taking communion/Lordsupper. Just my conviction.
Phil
Hey Phil,
You read something into the text that was not intended. I was just trying to avert beforehand those who might argue against my point about the Lord's supper. I really don't have that much of a problem with the KJV, (I am not lumping anyone in here). It won't lead anyone astray on major doctrinal issues, and for those who are studying the "finer points" of the Gospel, a proper use of hermenutics and exegesis will avert wrong turns on most issues. One must not be careless when using any translation. As to your offense, taken above, there is nothing illogical about the connection between "once saved, always saved" beliefs, and the idea that if one is in a saved state, which according to that logic is always the case after the intitial saving belief, would make one worthy for communion.
I sense a competitive spirit in you that would cause you to insinuate that I can only think logically, and intelligently, when borrowing someone elses thoughts from a book. I assure you that is not the case. However, it makes no difference to me. Any wisdom or powers of logic that I have, was given to me as a free gift from God. All worldly wisdom and intelligence is foolishness to God, (1 Cor. 1). However, all wisdom that is gained as a result of His revelations (as found in Holy Scriptures), and the promptings of the Holy Spirit is NOT foolishness. And thus, all the glory is His. Perhaps you should consider such insinuations, and the spirit behind them, before your next communion?
By the way, I have always had much respect for your opinions on this board, although I don't always agree. That will not change.
You read something into the text that was not intended. I was just trying to avert beforehand those who might argue against my point about the Lord's supper. I really don't have that much of a problem with the KJV, (I am not lumping anyone in here). It won't lead anyone astray on major doctrinal issues, and for those who are studying the "finer points" of the Gospel, a proper use of hermenutics and exegesis will avert wrong turns on most issues. One must not be careless when using any translation. As to your offense, taken above, there is nothing illogical about the connection between "once saved, always saved" beliefs, and the idea that if one is in a saved state, which according to that logic is always the case after the intitial saving belief, would make one worthy for communion.
I sense a competitive spirit in you that would cause you to insinuate that I can only think logically, and intelligently, when borrowing someone elses thoughts from a book. I assure you that is not the case. However, it makes no difference to me. Any wisdom or powers of logic that I have, was given to me as a free gift from God. All worldly wisdom and intelligence is foolishness to God, (1 Cor. 1). However, all wisdom that is gained as a result of His revelations (as found in Holy Scriptures), and the promptings of the Holy Spirit is NOT foolishness. And thus, all the glory is His. Perhaps you should consider such insinuations, and the spirit behind them, before your next communion?
By the way, I have always had much respect for your opinions on this board, although I don't always agree. That will not change.
Last edited: