Where did King James only originate?
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- 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.
Nope...
Westcott and Horte had other fish to fry.
Westcott was originally a translator of Sifre, Midrash, and Talmud. He was fully fluent in all the "commentaries" that the Jews pulled their theologies from.
Horte was the "financier" of Westcott's work and promoted it.
Where the trouble for these two guys came was when Westcott accurately spoke to the truth of what the scriptures meant when referencing these writings...and there are a LOT of references. Westcott was approached many times about translating scriptures but figured that he was in enough trouble as things currently stood. His commentaries in Geneva and (trying to remember the other theological center but drawing a blank) were extremely not well received. Because the region was mostly Calvinistic...and Westcott had plenty of ammunition to denounce the systematic theology. Hence, any and every false accusation possible was thrown at him. They wanted him dead! There was in essence a theological war in Europe at the time...it later translated into the cold war in America between the denominations.
To this day the Westcott and Horte commentary on the book of Hebrews is the definitive commentary that has not been usurped. (As well as some really good insights into many other books using such references and allusions)
Westcott and Horte had other fish to fry.
Westcott was originally a translator of Sifre, Midrash, and Talmud. He was fully fluent in all the "commentaries" that the Jews pulled their theologies from.
Horte was the "financier" of Westcott's work and promoted it.
Where the trouble for these two guys came was when Westcott accurately spoke to the truth of what the scriptures meant when referencing these writings...and there are a LOT of references. Westcott was approached many times about translating scriptures but figured that he was in enough trouble as things currently stood. His commentaries in Geneva and (trying to remember the other theological center but drawing a blank) were extremely not well received. Because the region was mostly Calvinistic...and Westcott had plenty of ammunition to denounce the systematic theology. Hence, any and every false accusation possible was thrown at him. They wanted him dead! There was in essence a theological war in Europe at the time...it later translated into the cold war in America between the denominations.
To this day the Westcott and Horte commentary on the book of Hebrews is the definitive commentary that has not been usurped. (As well as some really good insights into many other books using such references and allusions)
-
2
- Show all
So what do you proposes to do because the original has been lost to us? We could throw up our hands screaming at the Lord that all is lost or we can trust the Lord when we do the best we can. Most certainly, our best is not to completely trust one translation by men with the understanding of scripture present in 1600 just as our best would not be to ignore it.
As for me, I look to the explanation I find of the meaning of the most original language I find and I use prayer and the holy spirit.
As for me, I look to the explanation I find of the meaning of the most original language I find and I use prayer and the holy spirit.
-
1
- Show all
And the fear that is involved in being kjv-only is not irrational but is based on the evidence of the facts.
(of course, a person has to know the evidence if they are going to be fully convinced of the kjv-only or -superior position; and most who reject that position want to remain ignorant of the facts).
(of course, a person has to know the evidence if they are going to be fully convinced of the kjv-only or -superior position; and most who reject that position want to remain ignorant of the facts).
I would say that it is expedient for us to adhere to the Textus Receptus; since it is a manuscript tradition that keeps within it much scripture that is rejected by the opposing tradition.
This would be only for those who don't want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to minister to them in something that is removed in texts that abide by the opposing tradition.
This would be only for those who don't want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to minister to them in something that is removed in texts that abide by the opposing tradition.
If I read words that are contrary to the Holy Spirit in a modern translation, how would the Holy Spirit minister to me the truth?
Would it not be in that He would testify to me that His message is different from what I have read in that modern translation?
I might say to you that He has done this and has also testified to me that I can find the words as He dictated them in the King James Version of the Holy Bible; so that when I read the kjv, I do not read words that are contrary to the message of the Holy Spriit.
While in all reality, what I find in modern translations is not a message that is contrary to the Holy Spirit; but a message that is missing key elements in the doctrines of holy scripture.
Would it not be in that He would testify to me that His message is different from what I have read in that modern translation?
I might say to you that He has done this and has also testified to me that I can find the words as He dictated them in the King James Version of the Holy Bible; so that when I read the kjv, I do not read words that are contrary to the message of the Holy Spriit.
While in all reality, what I find in modern translations is not a message that is contrary to the Holy Spirit; but a message that is missing key elements in the doctrines of holy scripture.
That's the dumbest statement I've seen in a long time.
You have NOT given valid evidence; you have given YOUR OPINION as to what "could" happen. You have not provided anything in the way of objective hard evidence that reading another translation actually results in spiritual anemia. I suspect you haven't presented any real evidence because none exists, and this "anemia" that you tout exists solely inside your head.
You have NOT given valid evidence; you have given YOUR OPINION as to what "could" happen. You have not provided anything in the way of objective hard evidence that reading another translation actually results in spiritual anemia. I suspect you haven't presented any real evidence because none exists, and this "anemia" that you tout exists solely inside your head.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
While I believe that to be possible, I am uncertain of the validity of that statement.
Because if modern translations deliberately take out the statement in Romans 13:9 that it is according to love that we do not "bear false witness", how can the translators be trusted not to bear false witness in the way that they translated the rest of it. It is almost as if they took that out of there because it convicted them.
Because if modern translations deliberately take out the statement in Romans 13:9 that it is according to love that we do not "bear false witness", how can the translators be trusted not to bear false witness in the way that they translated the rest of it. It is almost as if they took that out of there because it convicted them.