King James Version question

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

it seems amazing to me that you are claiming that God can take a time period even in different languages, and inspire someone many years after the fact to record an infallible account. But in no wise can He inspire translators in 1600's to give us an infallible account of same time period, in a different language! truly amazed and that is amazed as confused not glorified amazed. and I guess by your standard of translations is when in scripture translation is giving example when Christ was on the cross was not inspired of God either then!!!!

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The translators were not inspired by God to write that translation.  They were commissioned by King James to write a new translation.

 

The 1599 Geneva Bible relied on the orginal languages.  The KJV is just an Oxford revision of the Geneva Bible.  The KJV was commissioned by King James because the Geneva Bible included notes that promoted Calvinism and were hostile to both the Roman Catholic Church and King James himself.

 

if you know Bible history as you state, you know yourself, your last post( The KJV is just an Oxford revision of the Geneva Bible) is false see post #42

 

No, it is it not false and post #42 doesn't addres the issue.

 

The fact remains that there were already six previous English translations of the Bible prior to the KJV.    So tell me this:   How come God couldn't preserve the truth in English until 1611???    Why was their no English translation that preserved the truth prior to the KJV?

[His_disciple3]

 

 

 

it seems amazing to me that you are claiming that God can take a time period even in different languages, and inspire someone many years after the fact to record an infallible account. But in no wise can He inspire translators in 1600's to give us an infallible account of same time period, in a different language! truly amazed and that is amazed as confused not glorified amazed. and I guess by your standard of translations is when in scripture translation is giving example when Christ was on the cross was not inspired of God either then!!!!

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

The translators were not inspired by God to write that translation.  They were commissioned by King James to write a new translation.

 

The 1599 Geneva Bible relied on the orginal languages.  The KJV is just an Oxford revision of the Geneva Bible.  The KJV was commissioned by King James because the Geneva Bible included notes that promoted Calvinism and were hostile to both the Roman Catholic Church and King James himself.

 

if you know Bible history as you state, you know yourself, your last post( The KJV is just an Oxford revision of the Geneva Bible) is false see post #42

 

No, it is it not false and post #42 doesn't addres the issue.

 

The fact remains that there were already six previous English translations of the Bible prior to the KJV.    So tell me this:   How come God couldn't preserve the truth in English until 1611???    Why was their no English translation that preserved the truth prior to the KJV?

 

silver when first found has dirt and grit from it's natural state such as the English translations, but silver is put through the purifying seven times and is what man calls pure silver, the best it can be, thank you for confirming six times the English Bible was put through the process and on the seventh time we have the best that it can be. also we will note here that the KJB itself has been revised seven times( PTL) tried as silver and brought forth as pure silver!!!!!

Ps 12:6

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

KJV

 

A Brief History of the King James Bible

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.

One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

The king rejoined that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."

Accordingly, a resolution came forth:

"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."

 

why would your false statement be true that the king James Bible was taken from the Geneva if the Geneva was the one they were trying to get away from. I thimk you have been misinformed.

[Guest shiloh357]

silver when first found has dirt and grit from it's natural state such as the English translations, but silver is put through the purifying seven times and is what man calls pure silver, the best it can be, thank you for confirming six times the English Bible was put through the process and on the seventh time we have the best that it can be. also we will note here that the KJB itself has been revised seven times( PTL) tried as silver and brought forth as pure silver!!!!!

 

But you are missing the point.   You are claiming that the KJV is the truth and is the only version that contains the truth of God.

 

My question is, where was the truth of God prior to the KJV? Was God unable to communicate the truth prior to 1611??  Why couldn't God produce a perfect Enlglish version the first time? 

[His_disciple3]

Willamina in response to your post:

Sir, even your rambling does not make a lot of sense. But I am dyslexic and have difficulty making sense of KJV as well. When I was saved around the 8th grade I started searching for a bible to read, but was fouled by all of the eths, thees and thous till I lost the train of thought. Shakespere in the 12th grade eluded me as well, even though I graduated in the top 10% of my class. It is easier for me to read Tyndale today than KJV because I read phoenically. But when conservative pastors would preach from KJV, they found that the necessary clarifications were already made in the newer versions.
At the time of its translation other translators criticised KJV 1611 for sacrificing a litteral translation for the sake of poetry. In any case, if KJV 1611 enriches your life, I am blessed. Most people prefer later revisions such as Oxford in 1769 or Cambridge in 1885. But they don't do a thing for me, even today. I prefer the 1985 version.

Believe me, with  all my heart as a Christian, if the thee's and the thou's was all they changed I would not be here in defense of the truth. For we would still have the truth

[His_disciple3]

No Shiloh, I am trying avoiding the fact that you are claiming claims that I have never said ( putting words into my mouth). Where did I say that the KJB was the only Bible that contain the truth, they all have some truth( however scripture is the one that said "a little leaven will leaven the whole lump"), but as I have said I am referring to the KJB verses the new modern day translations ( any version, which includes all versions after the dead sea scrolls were found), I am not, nor have I ever referred to it being superior over any Hebrew and Greek manuscript, nor any translation prior to the KJB, I have only referenced the Bishop and Geneva Translation, to show why the KJB came about and to dispute some false claims given in here. Nor have I ever referred to the KJB as the only English translation. But what I have said is I believe it is the best, and if we are to feed the flock as Jesus told Peter to feed His flock, Then His flock deserves the best and not the second or even third best! also I have said that if we do not have an infallible word of God in English then who determines what is fallible and what is infallible? I have tried not to make my comments about translation, but about truth, but I will defend to truth that they should be no schism in the Body of Christ, and believe with all my heart as they did shortly after the KJB, they(Church leaders and scholars and yes King James) agreed that only one Bible should be used in the churches. to avoid strife, division and confusion in the Church. which neither Strife, Division or confusion is of God, I Thank God that our Spiritual Forefather's had enough spiritual discernment to see where two or more translations( that don't agree) used in the Church  could cause such problems, just too bad our spiritual leaders can't see that today!

[His_disciple3]

lookinhforanswers, I was not present in the Gospel days, so all I can do is go by what most Bible scholars and historians say. Hebrew and Aramaic, was the languages Jesus used. if there was some more I either forgot them or haven't heard of them. Here is an article, that does not mention Aramaic but note it says that greek was the language for the non-Jewish people, which I believe would imply that the Jewish people would not use greek, thus we would have to fall back on their original language being Hebrew, so this would imply that John the disciple. being a devout Jew, 1st,2nd,3rd John, the Gospel according to John and revelations would have been recorded in Hebrew then translated later to greek manucripts( or from Hebrew to Latin then to Greek) . which would thus mean according the to Kjb critics that a translation can not be inspired, would also have to agree that the greek manuscripts would not be inspired, but wouldn't that mean that God has not preserved His Word as he promised,( and this just could not be), seeing that there is no Hebrew manuscripts from the New Testament times. if this is true then we may all be in trouble!!!!
 

http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2551/

:Spoken Languages in the Time of Jesus" by: Shmuel Safrai

The land of Israel was under the influence of Greek culture from the time of its conquest by Alexander the Great at the end of the fourth century B.C.E. Although scholars have divergent views regarding the influence of Hellenism on religious works, literature and everyday life in first-century Israel, it is generally accepted that the Greek language was used by many of the inhabitants.

Latin was also used to some extent in the land of Israel in the time of Jesus. For example, John 19:20 and a few manuscripts of Luke 23:38 record that the sign above the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, and the names of the Roman legions which served in the land were sometimes inscribed in Latin over wells and on garrison buildings. Apparently, however, Latin was used only by the Romans for matters of army administration. Civil administration was conducted entirely in Greek, and inscriptions written by non-Jews that have been found in Israel are all in Greek.

 

this would also be my counter to your website. note here that Hellenism ( Greek influence or the "Greek only' on religious works or writings) that your website would suggest is open to debate among scholars, and I believe scripture telling us, Jesus was speaking Hebrew while on the Cross or either the disciples recording what he said in Hebrew, would make your website a little less believable!!!!!

[LookingForAnswers]

lookinhforanswers, I was not present in the Gospel days, so all I can do is go by what most Bible scholars and historians say. Hebrew and Aramaic, was the languages Jesus used. if there was some more I either forgot them or haven't heard of them.

 

 

Then my first challenge to you would be to find even a single historian that states the New Testament was written in either Hebrew and Aramaic. Then if you have any luck in finding even one, I would ask you to find enough of them that you can show that "MOST" Bible scholars and historians say that the New Testament was not written in Greek.

 

 

Here is an article, that does not mention Aramaic but note it says that greek was the language for the non-Jewish people, which I believe would imply that the Jewish people would not use greek, thus we would have to fall back on their original language being Hebrew, so this would imply that John the disciple. being a devout Jew, 1st,2nd,3rd John, the Gospel according to John and revelations would have been recorded in Hebrew then translated later to greek manucripts( or from Hebrew to Latin then to Greek)

 

 

You might notice the title of your article, SPOKEN Languages..."  Do you suppose there was a reason they made the differentiation between spoken and written?

 

 

But in the end, you gave the best answer when you made this statement...go by what most Bible scholars and historians say.  The answer is that the vast majority (which would equate to "most") Bible scholars and historians say the New Testament was written in Greek.    Since you have stated that you will go by what most Bible scholars and historians, I assume you will soon acknowledge that the New Testament was written in Greek, as that is what virtually all of them say, not just most.

[His_disciple3]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Aramaic of Jesus)

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic,[1] the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem.[2] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.

See also: Cultural and historical background of Jesus

Aramaic was the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean during and after the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid Empires (722–330 BC) and remained a common language of the region in the first century AD. In spite of the increasing importance of Greek, the use of Aramaic was also expanding, and it would eventually be dominant among Jews both in the Holy Land and elsewhere in the Middle East around 200 AD[3] and would remain so until the Arab conquest in the seventh century.

According to Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist, Yigael Yadin, Aramaic was the spoken language of Jews until Simon Bar Kokhba tried to revive Hebrew and make it the official language of Jews during the revolt that he led (132-135 AD). Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew during the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. In his book "Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome" Yigael Yadin notes, "It is interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew. Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state"(page 181).

In the book "A Roadmap to the Heavens: An Anthropological Study of Hegemony among Priests, Sages, and Laymen (Judaism and Jewish Life)" by Sigalit Ben-Zion (page 155), Yadin said: "it seems that this change came as a result of the order that was given by Bar Kokhba, who wanted to revive the Hebrew language and make it the official language of the state."

According to Jewish historian Josephus, Greek wasn't spoken in first century Israel. Josephus also points out the extreme rarity of a Jew knowing Greek

 

.

Josephus wrote:


I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.

—Antiquities of Jews XX, XI

.

In the first century AD, Aramaic was a widespread language. This is supported by the testimony of Josephus.

[His_disciple3]

http://www.gotquestions.org/language-Jesus-speak.html

Question: "What language did Jesus speak?"

Answer: While Jesus very likely spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, Aramaic was likely the language Jesus spoke the most. The Gospels record Jesus speaking numerous Aramaic words: talitha koum (Mark 5:41); ephphatha (Mark 7:34); eloi eloi lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34); abba (Mark 14:36). Historians, archaeologists, and cultural anthropologists are almost universally agreed that Aramaic was the common or colloquial language in Israel during Jesus’ time. Aramaic was very similar to Hebrew, but with many words and phrases that were borrowed from other languages and cultures, especially Babylonian.

Hebrew was spoken primarily by the scribes, teachers of the law, Pharisees, and Sadducees, the “religious elite.” Hebrew was likely often read in the synagogues, so most people were probably able to speak and understand some Hebrew. Since Greek was the language of the Romans, who had power over Israel during Jesus’ time, Greek was the language of the political class and anyone who wanted to do business with the Romans. Greek was the universal language at that time, so, the ability to speak Greek was a highly desirable skill. Some, however, refused to speak Greek out of resentment toward their Roman oppressors. When Jesus spoke with Pontius Pilate, it is possible that He spoke to him in Greek, although Pilate, as the governor, likely would have been able to speak Aramaic as well.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/language-Jesus-speak.html#ixzz2xWNQROvz

[His_disciple3]

What Language Did Jesus Speak?

Why Does It Matter?

by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts

I am not an expert in the study of ancient languages. I’m not a historian of the languages in the Ancient Near East. Nor am I a sociolinguist (who studies the relationship of languages and societies). Nor am I an expert in the cultures of first-century Judea, where Jesus lived and spoke. In what I write in this series on the language of Jesus, I am standing on the shoulders of many fine scholars. I am also, therefore, open to correction from those who are experts in the academic disciplines that help us to determine the language or languages spoken by Jesus. In several ways, these experts have helped my thinking to mature since I first wrote about the language of Jesus six years ago.

During and before the time of Jesus, there wasn’t just one version of Aramaic being used in Judea and beyond. Some Aramaic was official and formal. This is preserved, as you would expect, in official documents and inscriptions. Some was informal and common. This was spoken and has mostly been lost to modern scholars. The fact that Aramaic was used by Jews in Judea is supported by its use in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are mostly in Hebrew, however), and in some ancient documents and inscriptions. Even many grave inscriptions around Jerusalem are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. It’s most likely that in Galilee, where Jesus was raised and where he began his ministry, Aramaic was the most common language of the people, though many would have been able to understand Hebrew and to get along in Greek as well.

During and before the time of Jesus, there wasn’t just one version of Aramaic being used in Judea and beyond. Some Aramaic was official and formal. This is preserved, as you would expect, in official documents and inscriptions.

please take note that this says Written as well !!!!!!!  also that this guy said: I am standing on the shoulders of many fine scholars,