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.
T
Cheers. I do know that the books that were chosen, were included because Jesus referred to them. He didn't refer to the books found in the Apocrypha, but they do make for interesting historical reading - I'm currently reading through them myself. And books like the Gospel of Thomas were Gnostic gospels written long after Jesus time and the message they contained was contrary to God's Word, as revealed in the other books that make up the Bible.
Anyone able to provide help with this query?
Anyone able to provide help with this query?
R
The KJV IS suitable - everyone CAN read and understand it -- if they will only apply themselves to understanding it...
Understanding the KJV is not nearly as difficult as most people think. Many simply give up on it too quickly.
Understanding the KJV is not nearly as difficult as most people think. Many simply give up on it too quickly.
the problem is that the english of the KJV is different from modern english...but close enough that in some places people will incorrectly assume the words mean the same thing that they mean in common speech today...
whenever anyone tells you they 'understand the KJV'...you already have cause to question their claim...
Probably the biggest reason for not reading it in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is because God said not to do that. He told us that he would interpret it. (Yes, that's exactly what 1Co 14:27 is talking about.)
1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
Secondly we don't have the original documents and no one alive today understands any of those languages nayway. Those languages have been dead for years.
Nobody knows what best approximates the original language... the original documents don't exist. No one has a clue what if any of the copies we have today even come close to the originals.
1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
Secondly we don't have the original documents and no one alive today understands any of those languages nayway. Those languages have been dead for years.
Nobody knows what best approximates the original language... the original documents don't exist. No one has a clue what if any of the copies we have today even come close to the originals.
The criteria, such as they were, pertained to when the article was written (so its antiquity and provenance), who it was by (i.e by an apostle or with apostolic oversight), whether there was widespread attestation to the genuineness of the article amongst the churches, and that there existed no teaching that contradicted that already in Scripture, first in the long established Hebrew canon, and then with the New Testament writings. The first two seemed to have been the most important in what written discussions we have available to us.
But the thing to remember is that, for the most part, the 'canon' was not formed by committee, per se. In fact, when you get to the likes of Marcion, there is obviously already an awareness of what books are commonly read amongst the churches and are accepted as authoritative - what made Marcion so controversial was that he was rejecting writings that were already accepted as authoritative, including the entire Old Testament and everything in the New Testament that didn't have a clear Pauline connection. In other words, the whole Marcionite controversy makes no sense unless there was already an established sense of canon, at least generally, without reference to a council or even an explicit written discourse. Any formal discussions of canon, which were many, were most often in response to specific controversies, such as this one. However, that does not at all entail there was not any canon prior to these controversies - quite the opposite.
But the thing to remember is that, for the most part, the 'canon' was not formed by committee, per se. In fact, when you get to the likes of Marcion, there is obviously already an awareness of what books are commonly read amongst the churches and are accepted as authoritative - what made Marcion so controversial was that he was rejecting writings that were already accepted as authoritative, including the entire Old Testament and everything in the New Testament that didn't have a clear Pauline connection. In other words, the whole Marcionite controversy makes no sense unless there was already an established sense of canon, at least generally, without reference to a council or even an explicit written discourse. Any formal discussions of canon, which were many, were most often in response to specific controversies, such as this one. However, that does not at all entail there was not any canon prior to these controversies - quite the opposite.
R
here are some examples...
ezekiel 45:21..."In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten."
matthew 26:13..."Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?"
mark 14:1..."After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death."
mark 14:12..."And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"
luke 22:1..."Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."
luke 22:7..."Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed."
ezekiel 45:21..."In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten."
matthew 26:13..."Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?"
mark 14:1..."After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death."
mark 14:12..."And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"
luke 22:1..."Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover."
luke 22:7..."Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed."
Nope. Everything but your first par is completely wrong.
I think 1 Cor 14:27 provides good reasoning for why we should be concerned enough to translate God's word into words that can be understood. But that could easily apply to Early Modern English as well. I mean, if someone spoke to me in Pidgin English, I might need to ask for a translator. The point is not so much the fairly arbitrary lines between languages. Paul's point is that whatever is said must be intelligible. As he says immediately before "All things must be done for edification"
However, in regards to your second point while we don't have the 'originals', we have copies in the original languages, and there are many, MANY, people today who have learned, and can fluently read, write, and even speak, Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. They are dead languages, but no deader than Latin, which many people still learn today.
We have a great many of copies, some dating to within a century of the originals, and spread out of a great many years. There are changes, but given the time frames and the amount of text, the changes between copies are remarkably minor. The reality is that we can have a very, VERY, good idea of what the originals said. And we can still read the original languages. I, for one, can read enough Greek to get the main chunk of what's being said in a given passage. Doesn't mean I'd trade in my English translation (too hard!), but it's straight up wrong to say no one can learn the original languages. They can, and there are many who do, and not just those training in seminaries (most seminaries for full time ministry will at least make you learn Greek).
I think 1 Cor 14:27 provides good reasoning for why we should be concerned enough to translate God's word into words that can be understood. But that could easily apply to Early Modern English as well. I mean, if someone spoke to me in Pidgin English, I might need to ask for a translator. The point is not so much the fairly arbitrary lines between languages. Paul's point is that whatever is said must be intelligible. As he says immediately before "All things must be done for edification"
However, in regards to your second point while we don't have the 'originals', we have copies in the original languages, and there are many, MANY, people today who have learned, and can fluently read, write, and even speak, Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. They are dead languages, but no deader than Latin, which many people still learn today.
We have a great many of copies, some dating to within a century of the originals, and spread out of a great many years. There are changes, but given the time frames and the amount of text, the changes between copies are remarkably minor. The reality is that we can have a very, VERY, good idea of what the originals said. And we can still read the original languages. I, for one, can read enough Greek to get the main chunk of what's being said in a given passage. Doesn't mean I'd trade in my English translation (too hard!), but it's straight up wrong to say no one can learn the original languages. They can, and there are many who do, and not just those training in seminaries (most seminaries for full time ministry will at least make you learn Greek).
Last edited:
S
Well, I'm officially on feathers ruffled status.
I have no trouble understanding the KJV. Please don't paint the intelligence of everyone reading the KJV as not being up to the task of understanding it. That is an underhanded insult, and is uncalled for.
You might as well tell people they can't understand Shakespeare, or Dickens, or the founding fathers of the United States when they wrote the constitution - or heck, Abe Lincoln when he wrote the Gettysburg address (seriously, when was the last time you heard someone refer to a score meaning 20)?
I don't know of a single bible translation where the reader won't have to stop occasionally and re-read a verse, possibly multiple times. The reaction of "no way, it says that" is universal to any translation of the bible. You're never going to make that bit easier.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
In your zeal to win people over to your favorite translations, you have cast aside a large number of people and a work that has borne a tremendous amount of spiritual fruit over the past 400 years. The KJV is still number 2 for a reason. It's beautiful.
I have no trouble understanding the KJV. Please don't paint the intelligence of everyone reading the KJV as not being up to the task of understanding it. That is an underhanded insult, and is uncalled for.
You might as well tell people they can't understand Shakespeare, or Dickens, or the founding fathers of the United States when they wrote the constitution - or heck, Abe Lincoln when he wrote the Gettysburg address (seriously, when was the last time you heard someone refer to a score meaning 20)?
I don't know of a single bible translation where the reader won't have to stop occasionally and re-read a verse, possibly multiple times. The reaction of "no way, it says that" is universal to any translation of the bible. You're never going to make that bit easier.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
In your zeal to win people over to your favorite translations, you have cast aside a large number of people and a work that has borne a tremendous amount of spiritual fruit over the past 400 years. The KJV is still number 2 for a reason. It's beautiful.
3
Um, you just spanned a lot of time there ^. I believe Rachel is right. And that just means that you Servantstrike are above the norm, so feel good about that. Seriously. Most people don't understand Shakespeare and require serious deconstruction to grasp his works, and I say this as one who teaches a bunch of sonnets and at least one major work every year. We go line by line, breaking it down...it's tedious. The sonnets are typically more difficult for people to understand, and these to a degree parallel the some of the KJV style more as it is Shakespeare's voice, versus his plays.
...the language of the KJV is contrary to our modern language and has been for some time. Unless you think, speak, and write in the same manner, studying the KJV has no relevance, and I say this because it is oppositional to the brain, and even our modern consciousness. Seriously, the KJV is actually equivalent to being a foreign language in 2014--in the same way that 400+ year ago nobody would know understand our 2014 speak.
...the language of the KJV is contrary to our modern language and has been for some time. Unless you think, speak, and write in the same manner, studying the KJV has no relevance, and I say this because it is oppositional to the brain, and even our modern consciousness. Seriously, the KJV is actually equivalent to being a foreign language in 2014--in the same way that 400+ year ago nobody would know understand our 2014 speak.
To be fair:
1) Opinion is still divided on what exactly Paul is covering by speaking of unknown tongues, and whether it could be human languages or a non-human language with semantic meaning, or whether it is an unknown language where the words themselves have no particular meaning. I personally favour the second, but I'm willing to give people wiggle room on that issue unless I'm actually discussing that issue with them.
2) Regardless of what is meant by unknown tongues, a principle can still be derived - don't speak in the church meetings in ways that the congregation doesn't understand, because the operating principle from Paul is "All things must be done for edification". Given that, it's not unreasonable to argue from 1 Corinthians that there is a Scriptural basis for explaining God's word in ways that are understandable to whoever you speak to (i.e. it is better to use English than Greek with English speaking people). As I noted above, though, the verse doesn't actually help the KJV argument.
1) Opinion is still divided on what exactly Paul is covering by speaking of unknown tongues, and whether it could be human languages or a non-human language with semantic meaning, or whether it is an unknown language where the words themselves have no particular meaning. I personally favour the second, but I'm willing to give people wiggle room on that issue unless I'm actually discussing that issue with them.
2) Regardless of what is meant by unknown tongues, a principle can still be derived - don't speak in the church meetings in ways that the congregation doesn't understand, because the operating principle from Paul is "All things must be done for edification". Given that, it's not unreasonable to argue from 1 Corinthians that there is a Scriptural basis for explaining God's word in ways that are understandable to whoever you speak to (i.e. it is better to use English than Greek with English speaking people). As I noted above, though, the verse doesn't actually help the KJV argument.
R
I have many kjv's. Most of the time I choose not to read them. I prefer the nkjv to the kjv. Plus the nkjv has footnotes with the majority text and the nu text. The net bible is turning into my favorite. It has over 60,000. Translators notes. After reading the new versions I really don't care for the language of the kjv.
No, but it's saying what should be spoken in the church gathering should be understandable, in some sort of lingua franca. So it's not saying don't learn Greek. Equally, though, it would seem to work against forcing everyone to read the bible in Greek, a la Rome did with Latin.
As I said, though, it doesn't help the KJV argument either, so it's really a moot point.
As I said, though, it doesn't help the KJV argument either, so it's really a moot point.
P
You can read it whatever language you wish. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I have a problem with it. Some people pick and choose which words they want translate, and which ones they don't. Fine, I just think it should be done on your own time. To post one word in hebrew, one in greek, and the rest in english is not edifying to anyone. It is only confusing. Seems to me it demonstrates a desire for a person to appear to be someone/something in somebodies eye. It certainly has no spiritual benefit, nor will it make God favor that person over another. After all, we know God is no respecter of persons.
G
From my experience -- most - by far - of the false doctrine comes from people who read modern currupted bible versions and -think- that those versions are just as good [ to read and study from ] as the KJV -- when, in reality, they have.been misled by Satan's 'easier to read' program... ( Satan has deceived them into believing that they can get just as much truth from a currupted bible version simply because it is 'easier to read'. )
The insidious part is that the average corrupted-modern-bible-version reader refuses to be alerted to the fact that what they are indoctrinating themselves and others with is full of error. They have been so deceived by Satan that they will not even acknowledge that those bible versions are even corrupted at all - which is "proof on top of proof"...
And, it is generally someone --- who understands the KJV --- who is trying to alert those people...
Yes, but this can be corrected by learning how to understand the language of the KJV. And, you don't think this can happen with a modern bible version using words from a constantly-changing modern language?
[ * ] Whenever anyone tells you they 'understand the KJV' - they are not saying that they have a perfect understanding of every little nuance of every "jot and tittle" of every single word in the KJV. What they are saying is that they have an understanding of the "sense and tense" of the 'structure' and 'cadence' of the language -- which I like to collectively call the 'grammar of the language', including not only 'grammar' in the sentence-structure sense - but, the 'cadence' of the language as well.
This is utter nonsense...
Rachel:
A lot of the things you have mentioned - that "can happen" - have certainly happened. About that, there is no dispute. It is also 'beside the point'...
The argument for the KJV is that - a proper understanding of the KJV is preferable to any understanding of the modern corrupted versions -- because, they are currupted...
It does not matter how easy it is to read bad doctrine -- it is still bad doctrine.
It is well worth the effort to learn to understand the KJV -- because, it is good doctrine.
ALL:
What people don't understand about the KJV... <<<<< Click
I know how to "think, speak, and write" the language of the KJV. ( I say this with regard to "internal mental process" - I do not actually speak or write the language of the KJV that much... ) Why do I know how to do this? Because I have spent my entire life doing it. I grew up with the KJV. It is possible. It can happen. Anyone can achieve it IF they apply themselves to it. The good news is -- we have the most wonderful and best "resource" available to help us to achieve it -- the Holy Spirit of God.
And, this is not "just as true" with regard to corrupted bible versions - because, the Holy Spirit cannot "use" bad / corrupted / false doctrine -- because, the Holy Spirit cannot LIE...
For this reason, people who read and study the modern currupted bible versions effectively limit the "ability" of the Holy Spirit to teach them the scriptures.
You may not think this is true -- but - "I promise you..." - if you will swallow your PRIDE and "forsake" the easy-to-read modern corrupted bible versions and put forth the effort to learn to understand the KJV - you WILL discover that this is true...
It does not have to be "oppositional to the brain" --- and, the real problem is with modern consciousness - which Satan has deceived into thinking that it cannot understand the KJV...
The insidious part is that the average corrupted-modern-bible-version reader refuses to be alerted to the fact that what they are indoctrinating themselves and others with is full of error. They have been so deceived by Satan that they will not even acknowledge that those bible versions are even corrupted at all - which is "proof on top of proof"...
And, it is generally someone --- who understands the KJV --- who is trying to alert those people...
Yes, but this can be corrected by learning how to understand the language of the KJV. And, you don't think this can happen with a modern bible version using words from a constantly-changing modern language?
[ * ] Whenever anyone tells you they 'understand the KJV' - they are not saying that they have a perfect understanding of every little nuance of every "jot and tittle" of every single word in the KJV. What they are saying is that they have an understanding of the "sense and tense" of the 'structure' and 'cadence' of the language -- which I like to collectively call the 'grammar of the language', including not only 'grammar' in the sentence-structure sense - but, the 'cadence' of the language as well.
This is utter nonsense...
Rachel:
A lot of the things you have mentioned - that "can happen" - have certainly happened. About that, there is no dispute. It is also 'beside the point'...
The argument for the KJV is that - a proper understanding of the KJV is preferable to any understanding of the modern corrupted versions -- because, they are currupted...
It does not matter how easy it is to read bad doctrine -- it is still bad doctrine.
It is well worth the effort to learn to understand the KJV -- because, it is good doctrine.
ALL:
What people don't understand about the KJV... <<<<< Click
I know how to "think, speak, and write" the language of the KJV. ( I say this with regard to "internal mental process" - I do not actually speak or write the language of the KJV that much...
) Why do I know how to do this? Because I have spent my entire life doing it. I grew up with the KJV. It is possible. It can happen. Anyone can achieve it IF they apply themselves to it. The good news is -- we have the most wonderful and best "resource" available to help us to achieve it -- the Holy Spirit of God.And, this is not "just as true" with regard to corrupted bible versions - because, the Holy Spirit cannot "use" bad / corrupted / false doctrine -- because, the Holy Spirit cannot LIE...
For this reason, people who read and study the modern currupted bible versions effectively limit the "ability" of the Holy Spirit to teach them the scriptures.
You may not think this is true -- but - "I promise you..." - if you will swallow your PRIDE and "forsake" the easy-to-read modern corrupted bible versions and put forth the effort to learn to understand the KJV - you WILL discover that this is true...
It does not have to be "oppositional to the brain" --- and, the real problem is with modern consciousness - which Satan has deceived into thinking that it cannot understand the KJV...