Times Posted April 14, 2006 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 157 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/23/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1946 Share Posted April 14, 2006 Several years ago I switched from using KJV to a New King James Version in my writing and public speaking. There is a beauty to the KJV verbage and flow. It fact it has become so identified as special and worshipful that people are very tempted and often succomb to praying in Old English. It has a holy sound they think. It changes the way the preachers pronounces words when they speak. It is eloquent. The reason I switch to the New King James, was because of my familiarity with the old the other translations just seemed to loose and it wasn't the way I had memorized it. So bottom line, I like the compromise I have made because the NKJV eliminates some of the awkward language and the overabundance of "thee" and "thou" and "shew" and "verily, verily". But the sentence structure pretty much stays in place. That is my practical answer Here is my intellectual issues regarding version preference. The KJV is not the oldest translation, Paul didn't carry one. Jesus didn't speak "old English." A lot of people are going to be dissapointed when they get to Heaven and Jesus doesn't have an English accent. That was one aspect of the movie "The Passion" that was refreshing, we freed Jesus from the European trappings of previous dramatizations. I believe the original manuscripts are without error and not necessarily the authorized King James Version. Just because the NIV (not one of my favorites) left out some verses and the KJV included them does automatically mean that the KJV is right. You will notice the verses in questions are the ones we tangle with the most in trying to determine where they fit it hermaneutically. Shoot because of these verses we've got some people introducing rattle snakes to worship A fellow asked his Pastor "What is the best translation of the Bible to use?" The pastor answered "I don't know, but I know which one is the worst>" "Which one?" the fellow asked in anticipation. "THE UNREAD ONE." The pastor answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David from New Bern Posted April 14, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 527 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/21/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1964 Share Posted April 14, 2006 A fellow asked his Pastor "What is the best translation of the Bible to use?" The pastor answered "I don't know, but I know which one is the worst>" "Which one?" the fellow asked in anticipation. "THE UNREAD ONE." The pastor answered. I will have to disagree with this statement. To me the worst one is the Bible that someone puts their confidence in that is in reality not in the truth. It is kind of like the argument concerning Christian radio and TV. There was a time where I thought it was better to listen to Christian radio all the time because it kept our minds on God. That is no longer the case. Christian radio or TV is only good so long as the message being proclaimed is in the truth. If it is in error, it is more dangerous than listening or watch secular programing because we accept these people for men and women of God and believe they are leading us in the right pathway. When we see or hear secular programing, we make no such assumptions and are more ready to reject the evil. The worst Bibles are the many counterfeit translations. Again, the only one worth our trust is the King James Version. I noticed someone had provided a link in support of new versions so I felt it was only right to provide a link opposing them. http://av1611.org/kjv/counterfeit.html. Let me also add this one additional comment. Age of something in no wise means most accurate. I don't know where that rationale came from. Right now people are debating the value of a so-called lost gospel of Judas because of it's age, yet it is pure heresy. There are many books being written today with more value than that piece of garbage. In addition, there are many books that are older than anything in our New Testament that were left out of the cannon. Portions of the Apocrypha were written before the New Testament books, but are they more reliable and more valuable? I think not. Age of something doesn't make it more reliable, and the manuscripts in which the NIV as well as all the new translations were written from are not as reliable as the TR in which the KJV was translated. How proficient are you in Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Koine Greek? Now, not just able to transliterate but able to think in these ancient languages. You need to be conscious of culture relevant to the passage. Because the rule of interpretation is, "it can never mean what it never meant!" The only way possible is with the Holy Spirit as its interpreter, that is not limited to confines of the scholarship of 1611 team employed by an English Monarch who wanted his name on the cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David from New Bern Posted April 15, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 527 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/21/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1964 Share Posted April 15, 2006 It doesn't matter if I am completely illiterate in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. Since I don't have a copy of the original TR and neither does anyone else fluency in the original languages makes no difference. My argument is that the KJV was translated from the TR, the most reliable manuscripts. The other translations were not, though they claim their manuscripts older and more reliable. That is their claim, and I disagree. It wouldn't matter who was responsible for the translation. If it came from faulty manuscripts, as I believe all new translations did, they are counterfeits. I don't agree with you at all...but I appreciate your willingness to own your belief. But without the original languages and without the original manuscripts we are all trusting someone else's scholarship and not God's word. I'm guessing but you probably adhere to the dictation theory don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David from New Bern Posted April 15, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 527 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/21/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1964 Share Posted April 15, 2006 Dictation theory holds that God dictated the writers of Scripture the very words he wanted on paper. Another theory has it that He communicated thoughts and allowed men to use their personalities and style to accomplish the truth that made paper and God managed it complilation by inspiration. The preachers you hear saying that they prefer a certain translation are claiming a knowledge of the original language. Word studies are a very effective method of Biblical exposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David from New Bern Posted April 15, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 527 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/21/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1964 Share Posted April 15, 2006 (edited) Dictation theory holds that God dictated the writers of Scripture the very words he wanted on paper. Another theory has it that He communicated thoughts and allowed men to use their personalities and style to accomplish the truth that made paper and God managed it complilation by inspiration. The preachers you hear saying that they prefer a certain translation are claiming a knowledge of the original language. Word studies are a very effective method of Biblical exposition. I had never heard of this term but would go along with the dictation theory. While preachers may be doing as you say, they don't have the original manuscripts, so even if they understand the original language, it still doesn't change the fact that each translation says something slightly different from the others, and that they are left to discern which one is right from one to the other. That could be quite a task considering how many are available. On the other hand, even if they had the originals and understood the language, they wouldn't need to read from any translation but could simply interpret the originals to English as they read them out loud. Then they could say something like, I believe this scroll said it best in John 3:16, but prefer another scroll for Romans 8:28. You're good Butero...in theory the reason translations need to be updated is that our contemporary language has evolved. The manuscripts haven't changed but how to communicate it to a new audience might. The best way to grasp it it is to step away from our interpreting everything through the filter of our American presuposition. When translators want to translate the Scripture into a new language of an unreached people group in a third world country they not have to learn the language but colloquialisms and customs to make sure that they don't miscommunicate or weaken the truth by not choosing the strongest word or phrase or sentence structure. I'm told that the Wycliff translators were working on communicating the passage that says, "with the whole heart" but it was better translated to a specific people in Africa "with my whole liver". The idea of with my whole being was the truth of Scripture whether "heart or liver" it does not matter. There are a couple things to weigh in when it comes to the Dictation Theory. If this were the method, you are right to say we need to pick the exact word no matter how ignorant it sounds transcribed. But why did some OT passage delineate certain quotes, "Thus says the Lord" or in the NT, "The Spirit said to write" if all of it were dictated. Trust me this is tongue in cheek...Then there are some dictation errors in scripture no matter how minor, mistakes none the less. In the accounting of the exiles returning from captivity, the census numbers don't jive between Ezra account and Nehemiah's account. The bottom line does but the vocations of those returning do not match. This don't bother me, no spiritual truth lost. One of the gospels says the robe placed on Christ was scarlet and another gospel account says that it was purple. If it was dictated there is a big difference between the word "purple" and the word "scarlet" but practically as a man I couldn't tell the difference between scarlet or purple. But there is no spiritual truth lost here. I think you see my point or at least know what I am hinting. Edited April 15, 2006 by David from New Bern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David from New Bern Posted April 15, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 527 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/21/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/03/1964 Share Posted April 15, 2006 God speed but don't speed ...I have enjoyed it...I feel like I made a friend today...Don't forget to take your 1611 edition with you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts