I Thes 5:22

[Guest Butero]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:38 AM, Running Gator said:

I do not translate shop, I use one translation, the ESV.  I reject this charge against me from you.

Please provide proof that the T.R. was "perfect".  

By "the church" you are of course talking about the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.  You do not seem to be a big fan of the RCC.

And the translators of the KJV were given instructions by King James that the translation had to conform to the views of the Church of England. 

 

 

In the OP, you didn't state that the ESV differed from the KJV.  You stated that the KJV was at odds with most translations.  How would you know that if you didn't translation shop?  

I don't care if you believe the T.R. is perfect.  I don't feel any need to prove to you something I know you don't believe.  My position is that the scriptures are inerrant.  The T.R. was the known manuscripts in use and regarded as scripture, therefore they were perfect.  I hold to this by faith.  I know that you don't.  You hold to the idea that the scriptures are not perfect, and all have some degree of errors.  That is the point I have been making.  Those of us who stand on the KJV Bible as the perfect Word of God believe the original manuscripts the KJV Bible was translated from were perfect.  Even if you were to claim a belief in inerrancy, it is of no value, because nobody can come up with the manuscripts that you believe are precise copies of the originals.  

The Roman Catholic Church did do one thing I am thankful for.  They did preserve the Word of God.  I will give them credit for that.

The translators of the KJV Bible were not given instructions by King James that the translation must conform to the view of the Church of England.  You like to demand proof of things.  How about you proving that claim is true.  I know for a fact the KJV Bible didn't conform to the views of the RCC, because they felt the need to come up with a modern English Bible that does reflect their biases.  It is the Bible they use today.  The RCC has abandoned the KJV Bible.  

[Guest Butero]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:27 AM, Running Gator said:

Well, then we have another problem.  If appearance is the only correct translation for this word, as you are claiming, then why when the word is used 5 times in the New Testament did the KJV folks only translate it as appearance once out of those 5?   Did they get it wrong the other 4 times?

I never made the claim it was the only definition for that word.  I said it was a definition of the word, meaning that the translators didn't make an error.  If they used the correct word in the definition, they got it right.  You are claiming they made a mistake.  The KJV translators got it right in each instance.  They used the best corresponding English word in each and every situation.  Can I prove that to your satisfaction?  Of course not, but neither can you prove I am wrong.  It is in the definition, so you are only giving an opinion, certainly no more valid than mine.  Not only that, but I am the one who has faith to trust the Bible to be 100 percent reliable, while you are over there admitting by your defense of modern English translations all contain some degree of error.  That means your ESV must contain some error by your own admission because all translations have some mistakes because man was involved in them.  If that is true, your ESV could well be the one that is wrong.  

[Running Gator]

10 minutes ago, Butero said:

In the OP, you didn't state that the ESV differed from the KJV.  You stated that the KJV was at odds with most translations.  How would you know that if you didn't translation shop?  

 

It is called biblehub.com.  Type in a verse and you get 20 (or thereabouts) different translations.  Great tool in discussions like this one. 

[Guest shiloh357]

On 11/10/2017 at 7:48 AM, Running Gator said:

It comes down to whether you believe for God's message is tied to individual words or to the ideas that they are presenting. 

God inspired words, not ideas or concepts.   Words are containers of ideas.

Quote

If as you are saying it is that God has to control word for word and letter for letter the reproduction of His word for it to be "valid" then we have problem as the first KJV version had over 400 printing errors.  Why did God allow those to happen? 

That demonstrates a lack of understanding of how inspiration and inerrancy works.  Printing errors don't create errors in theology.  There are over 150,000 variants in the Greek NT.  None of those problems affect what the Bible teaches.   Same with the printing errors you speak of in the KJV.  That only demonstrates the human errors did stop God from preserving the stated doctrinal purity and integrity of the text.

Quote

I do have a question for you and the other KJV only folks, is it your position that the Holy Spirit guided the translators of the KJV giving them the correct translation for each and every word?

God preserved His Word and guided the translators in translation.   God is sovereign and he sovereignly preserves His word.  The translators chose the best word and made every effort to choose the correct words in English to convey what God said in the original languages.   God had to be involved in preserving Scripture.   Otherwise, what good would it be if God didn't preserve what the Bible says?   How could we ever trust what we read?

[Running Gator]

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

God preserved His Word and guided the translators in translation.   God is sovereign and he sovereignly preserves His word.  The translators chose the best word and made every effort to choose the correct words in English to convey what God said in the original languages.   God had to be involved in preserving Scripture.   Otherwise, what good would it be if God didn't preserve what the Bible says?   How could we ever trust what we read?

If all of this is true, then there is no reason it cannot all apply to the ESV as well as the KJV.  Or was God not capable of doing so for more than one English Bible?

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, Running Gator said:

If all of this is true, then there is no reason it cannot all apply to the ESV as well as the KJV.  Or was God not capable of doing so for more than one English Bible?

If you apply that logic, then you run into a huge problem because the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NLT, etc.  don't agree with each other in various places and then you have the problem with missing verses, as I have pointed out before.  God is not the author of confusion.  God is not behind various translations that don't say the same thing because that leads to confusion.  

The men who translated the KJV were devout Christians and some of the greatest scholars in Christianity, even by our modern standards.   Modern Bible scholars are not necessarily so.  Not all Bible scholars believe the Bible.  They make a career out of studying it and translating it, but don't believe a word it says and that makes a difference.  Even the NIV, which is arguable the most popular modern translation, had two homosexuals on their paid staff.

[Running Gator]

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

If you apply that logic, then you run into a huge problem because the ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NLT, etc.  don't agree with each other in various places and then you have the problem with missing verses, as I have pointed out before.  God is not the author of confusion.  God is not behind various translations that don't say the same thing because that leads to confusion.  

Assuming all of that is true, it still does not follow that the KJV is God's choice. 

Quote

They make a career out of studying it and translating it, but don't believe a word it says and that makes a difference. 

Why does that make a difference?   If the goal of biblical translation is to choose the best English word for the word that was used, then all that matters is the skill to do that.  A "devout" person translating the Bible has an already preconceived notion of what it should say, which could cloud their judgement, they are only human after all. 

[simplejeff]

6 hours ago, Running Gator said:

was God not capable of doing so for more than one English Bible?

Without disagreeing with the previous posts/ good reasons for KJV,

remember where a person LOOKS, who a person TRUSTS, and who they RELY ON (who they have FAITH IN,

is most important.

IF a person is taught by JESUS,  they can use any translation and JESUS will still tell them the TRUTH: (ALWAYS) ,  YAHWEH is the ONE WHO IS ABLE to remove the veil (the veil that prevents understanding), 

ONE WHO IS ABLE to GRANT UNDERSTANDING and with GREAT PLEASURE DOES for little children.

ONE WHO IS ABLE to hide the TRUTH, to hide everything concerning SALVATION, and with GREAT PLEASURE DOES, for those HE says HE does in HIS WORD.

[Running Gator]

1 hour ago, simplejeff said:

Without disagreeing with the previous posts/ good reasons for KJV,

remember where a person LOOKS, who a person TRUSTS, and who they RELY ON (who they have FAITH IN,

is most important.

IF a person is taught by JESUS,  they can use any translation and JESUS will still tell them the TRUTH: (ALWAYS) ,  YAHWEH is the ONE WHO IS ABLE to remove the veil (the veil that prevents understanding), 

ONE WHO IS ABLE to GRANT UNDERSTANDING and with GREAT PLEASURE DOES for little children.

ONE WHO IS ABLE to hide the TRUTH, to hide everything concerning SALVATION, and with GREAT PLEASURE DOES, for those HE says HE does in HIS WORD.

I agree 100%.  There is nothing in the ESV that changes or removes or adds any theology that is also in the KJV.

[Guest shiloh357]

9 hours ago, Running Gator said:

Assuming all of that is true, it still does not follow that the KJV is God's choice.

Who said it was "God's choice?"   That is an inaccurate and rather dumbed down approach to what was actually said.

Quote

Why does that make a difference?   If the goal of biblical translation is to choose the best English word for the word that was used, then all that matters is the skill to do that.  A "devout" person translating the Bible has an already preconceived notion of what it should say, which could cloud their judgement, they are only human after all. 

It makes a huge difference.  It makes a difference because of not all translations are based on finding the correct word.   There is a concept known as dynamic equivalence that is used a lot.  Dynamic equivalence is not about choosing the correct word, but rather communicating the "idea" or "concept" of a passage.   Depending on your theology, the idea or concept can vary, and thus whether one is a believer or not  will definitely impact the text.

And again, the very fact that the modern translations don't agree with each other is problematic for the assumption that modern translations are more accurate.  If they have points of variance, then which one is right?    This is not just some book; it's God's Word and words are containers of thought and in this case, theology.  That won't matter for people who don't really have a high view of the Bible and don't really care.   But for those who reverence the Bible as God's Word, it matters a lot.   When you view the Bible as God's Word and God's words, then you realize you are communicating HIS thoughts and not merely words on a page.

The theology of Westcott and Hort had a big impact on the Greek manuscript they created.   And not only that, but there are a plethora of modern translations made by a single person like Moffat, Webster, Weymouth, David Stern's "Complete Jewish Bible" that pretty much reflect their own theology.

The difference between modern translations and the KJV translators is seen first in the methods used, and in the integrity of the text.  The 54 men who translated the KJV were working in Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster and were the preeminent Christian scholars of their day.    Each school assigned different a third  of the Bible to translate.   And in each school, each man was given his portion of that section.   His work was critiqued by his colleagues in his school until that school's section  was complete and then each school critiqued the work of the other three schools.  It was a very complicated process. But it was designed to prevent, as much as possible, a person's theology from impacting their translation.

When you look at the KJV you notice things like the italicized words.  Those words are put there in italics to communicate the fact that they are meant to help smooth out the translation and to help give the sense of the verse where there is not exact translation possible.  It would have been easy to not italicize those words, but the KJV translators were demonstrating their integrity by indicating to the reader that those words  were their best and most honest attempt to communicate the verse when an exact translation was not possible.    They avoided inserting their theology into the text in order to preserve the purity of the text.