They believed it was The Word of God. Not the exact words God used.
That doesn't mean they believed The Word of God was limited to the KJV.
It was the current translation they were using, that is all.
KJV translators weren't KJV only!
- 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.
They believed it was The Word of God. Not the exact words God used.
That doesn't mean they believed The Word of God was limited to the KJV.
It was the current translation they were using, that is all.
You're narrowing the focus of "condemned" to make it mean what you want it to mean, but that's clearly not the meaning intended. It can also mean "to be sharply scolded." It comes from "condemn" which can mean blame, strongly criticize, denounce or excoriate.
This is what's so frustrating for me about KJV onlyists; that is, you refuse to see clearly what's right in front of you.
That's my preference. I started with NIV but I haven't used it for some time.
As we grow in Christ it becomes easier to know what the scriptures mean.
My wife and I have recently completed an entire bible reading with the NIV. Our current project is reading in its entirety the NRSV. We previously read the NKJV. Years ago when I was single I read the entire RSV.
Peter simply was to be blamed, according to the kjv.
But if the ESV is correct, then he "stood condemned"...
And I am not trying to make that say something other than what it plainly says.
Condemned, means, condemned.
And the point that I am making is that there is a difference in doctrine when you go from translation to translation.
So according to the ESV, Peter had lost his salvation at that point? Am I understanding you correctly?
I dont see anyone gunning for LOLCAT translation
I personally think everyone ought to read Da Jesus Bible.
English as an imperfect language at the best of times, its rather a mongrel, motley langauge, but here we are, speaking and writing in it rather than Latin.
I personally think everyone ought to read Da Jesus Bible.
English as an imperfect language at the best of times, its rather a mongrel, motley langauge, but here we are, speaking and writing in it rather than Latin.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
And of course, that is not according to sound doctrine from my understanding.
But again, the point that I am making is that doctrine is affected by changes in what the scriptures say from translation to translation.
So by one act of imprudence, by not eating with Gentiles on this one occasion, by one "sin" if you will, he fell out of grace, according to the ESV? Galatians 2:12 says he formerly ate with Gentiles, so it wasn't an ongoing thing.
I believe a person can fall out of grace, but even I don't believe a person can fall from grace by one sin, or one indiscretion. It's ridiculous.
Is it just the translations that say "condemned," or is every translation that doesn't agree with the KJV wrong? For example, the NLT says:
"But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong."
Is this misleading too?
Not in my opinion; for it agrees in essence with the kjv; which says that he "was to be blamed".
Not misleading but inaccurate. Both the Received Text and the Critical Text have the word κατεγνωσμένος (kategnōsmenos) which means condemned or blamed. So it was not a matter of right or wrong but whether he was blameworthy or not. So "stood condemned" accurately represents what is in the text. But the KJV has "was to be blamed" which is the alternative.
Strong's Concordance
kataginóskó: to blame
Original Word: καταγινώσκω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: kataginóskó
Phonetic Spelling: (kat-ag-in-o'-sko)
Definition: to blame
Usage: I condemn, blame.
Thus, in the ESV, there is a contradiction between Galatians 2:11 and John 5:24.
Only for thi
This simply isn’t the case… not in every speech, and not in biblical translation.
Only for those who insist that every instance of a word must mean the same thing.
This simply isn’t the case… not in every speech, and not in biblical translation.
Obviously, "stood condemned" means something other than "stood condemned".
I can agree with you on that; and therefore it should be clear that it is expedient for us to reject the ESV's rendering.
But, again, the point is that there can be a change in doctrine as we go from translation to translation.
I disagree. Doctrine is a summary of scriptural teaching on a subject. Generally, one should not be building a doctrine on a single translation anyway. However, in this case, that isn’t the issue. Rather, it appears to me that you’re being stubborn in your unwillingness to accept any explanation other than your own.
Believe what you want to believe.
I don't think that I am being stubborn...
I just think that any other point of view has not been shown to me to be superior to my own.
Because if that were to occur, I would change my point of view.