PDA

View Full Version : Bible versions



gilgal
08-09-2007, 03:34 PM
I've heard and read about the King James Bible being an honest translation as opposed to the modern versions where they chop off verses that carry important doctrines like the Trinity, Salvation, blood of the Lamb...

Why is it that people still prefer to use the modern versions?

shalag
08-09-2007, 09:30 PM
I've heard and read about the King James Bible being an honest translation as opposed to the modern versions where they chop off verses that carry important doctrines like the Trinity, Salvation, blood of the Lamb...

Why is it that people still prefer to use the modern versions?

I believe it is because they are looking for truth, but in a language that brings it clearly - that can be readily understood.

gilgal
08-10-2007, 02:36 AM
But even the NIV has words that are difficult to understand.

From what I had read on why the KJ translators had left the THEEs THYs THOUs is to differentiate with the second person in pural YE, YOU...This form of speaking was outdated back in the 14th century.

Geoffrey
08-10-2007, 03:30 AM
With thee and thou the English language is much stronger as a means of communication. You is ambiguous.

In Afrikaans, we have two versions: the Ou Vertaling and the Nuwe Vertaling. In the Nuwe Vertaling, some words that appear in the Ou Vertaling are left out.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-10-2007, 01:13 PM
I believe it is because they are looking for truth, but in a language that brings it clearly - that can be readily understood.
I think everyone should just learn Greek and Hebrew and be done with it!

:lol:

This is an old issue that never goes away. If people have trouble with the old "thees" and "thous" they should use the NKJV. Most of the other new versions really do have problems, but the problems are not so much because of translational issues, but because of underlying textual issues. The modern scholastic attitude is to prefer any variant reading with a lower Christology. This is because they assume that the Bible evolved over time as its human authors busied themselves inventing such ideas as the divinity of Christ, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and so forth. It all stems from the modern atheistic methodology that is taught in almost all seminaries and certainly all colleges, and that treats the Bible like any other human book that evolved over a century or so as people made it up like so much pulp fiction.

That's the real problem with modern Bible versions ... or so it seems to me.

Richard

gilgal
08-11-2007, 04:59 PM
Another issue which relates to authors who wish to include passages from the bible is the copyright laws. The modern versions I think allow 200 verses maximum to be used in a book. Whereas the King James was written before the copyright laws even existed.

gilgal
08-11-2007, 05:10 PM
Another challenge is doctrinal view ( on many issues but especially salvation ).


Romans 8
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Check to see if your version has the text in bold.

also


Acts 17
22Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

Some of the modern versions say You are religious with all respect! What a contrast in attitude in Paul.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-12-2007, 10:53 AM
Another issue which relates to authors who wish to include passages from the bible is the copyright laws. The modern versions I think allow 200 verses maximum to be used in a book. Whereas the King James was written before the copyright laws even existed.
Yeah .... that's true. There's something about those copyrights that bugs me. But I understand that they want to retain rights so they can be the ones to profit from the work they put into them. But on the other hand, I can't think of their versions as real "Bibles" if I can't freely quote from them.

If I had my druthers, my Bible would have the imprint

(C) Eternity, by GOD ALMIGHTY.

But somehow I don't think I'll find one like that ...

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-12-2007, 11:07 AM
Another challenge is doctrinal view ( on many issues but especially salvation ).
It is true that doctrine has crept into translation, but unfortunately that's probably always been the case, including the KJV.


Check to see if your version has the text in bold.

Some of the modern versions say You are religious with all respect! What a contrast in attitude in Paul.

Are you sure that is a problem? Here is how Strong's defines the word:


δεισιδαιμονεστερος deisidaimonesteros {dice-ee-dahee-mon-es'-ter-os} the compound of a derivative of the base of 1169 and 1142; TDNT - 2:20,*; adj
AV - too superstitious 1;
1 1) in a good sense 1a) reverencing god or the gods, pious, religious 2) in a bad sense 2a) superstitiousSo the word has both a good and a bad sense, and we see that the KJV translators chose the "bad" sense, and some modern translators chose the "good" sense. The question now is "Which sense did Paul intend when he used it?" There is nothing in the context that settles it as far as I can tell, except that I know Paul always went out of his way to reach people, and he would not have added any unnecessary offense to the preaching of the Gospel. Remember he said


1 Corinthians 10:31-33 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
So if I had to guess, I would assume that Paul was true to his word, and would not have intentionally offended the pagans that he was trying to reach with the Gospel.

Richard

gilgal
08-12-2007, 11:34 AM
So the word has both a good and a bad sense, and we see that the KJV translators chose the "bad" sense


This is not against you personally Richard, but often when people take a stand on an issue they believe is right they face the frustration that everything is not as clear as black and white. What I mean is that if you say thou shalt not kill you would face people saying AH but why did Joshua kill and Israel at the time and Samuel the prophet?

Well the text in Acts 17, it's true that he was trying to reach the gospel to the idolaters. Curiously though Paul did see Athens full of idols but that one plaque or memorial had no idol ( I doubt ) dedicated to the Unknown god. It seems to me that he criticized them for their idols but when he saw the inscription with no idol he related it to the gospel. Don't you think?

Concerning the concordance how reliable can they be?

Can you give me some examples of KJV errors or deception? As I research I find that in the past some have greatly contributed on to the things of God, yet they've been double minded and have been part of the conspiracy as well. That's strange, because the work that they've done for God like the Bible, the Word of God testifies against them when they turn to evil.
Like Charles Thompson who I believe formed the Thompson's Chain reference bible and yet he designed the seal of the United States of the pyramid and the all-seeing eye which is occultic.

John Quincy Adams was the president of the Swiss ( correct me if I got the names wrong because I'm writing off the top of my head ) bihble society and the 6th president of the United States and head of the anti-masonic party later known as the Whig party and yet he is a Druid!

Richard Amiel McGough
08-12-2007, 12:35 PM
This is not against you personally Richard, but often when people take a stand on an issue they believe is right they face the frustration that everything is not as clear as black and white. What I mean is that if you say thou shalt not kill you would face people saying AH but why did Joshua kill and Israel at the time and Samuel the prophet?

Well the text in Acts 17, it's true that he was trying to reach the gospel to the idolaters. Curiously though Paul did see Athens full of idols but that one plaque or memorial had no idol ( I doubt ) dedicated to the Unknown god. It seems to me that he criticized them for their idols but when he saw the inscription with no idol he related it to the gospel. Don't you think?
Hey there my friend,

Paul certainly could have been being critical, but it didn't seem that way at my first reading. To really get the sense, I will have to take a little time to see how his whole presentation reads. I'll get back to you with what I find.


Concerning the concordance how reliable can they be?
I think they are much more reliable than what we get if we just "guessed" at what the Greek and Hebrew words mean!


Can you give me some examples of KJV errors or deception?

I do not know of a single example of willful deception in the KJV, but I also can not claim that the humans who God used to produce His Word did not get some of the dirt from their hands on its pages.

Concerning the KJV in general: I believe God had a "special providential hand" in its design. But that doesn't mean it is "perfect" in the way a lot of folks would want it to be. There are parts of it that I definitely believe could be improved, but I have never seen an English translation that I thought was superior.


As I research I find that in the past some have greatly contributed on to the things of God, yet they've been double minded and have been part of the conspiracy as well.
I am not convinced that there is a "conspiracy" - it would be interesting to dig into the facts with you, since you have mentioned that idea many times.


That's strange, because the work that they've done for God like the Bible, the Word of God testifies against them when they turn to evil.

Like Charles Thompson who I believe formed the Thompson's Chain reference bible and yet he designed the seal of the United States of the pyramid and the all-seeing eye which is occultic.
Why do you think the all-seeing eye is occultic? How do you know that the occultic folks didn't steal it from the Christians? God describes Himself as seeing "all things":


Hebrews 4:12-13 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.


And recall the many mentions of God's Eyes:


Zechariah 4:10 For who hath despised the day of small things? for they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel with those seven; they are the eyes of the LORD, which run to and fro through the whole earth.


John Quincy Adams was the president of the Swiss ( correct me if I got the names wrong because I'm writing off the top of my head ) bihble society and the 6th president of the United States and head of the anti-masonic party later known as the Whig party and yet he is a Druid!

Could you cite some evidence for that? I never heard he was a druid. But even if that's true, it only goes to show that we shouldn't put our trust in men.

Richard

gilgal
08-12-2007, 03:00 PM
I am not convinced that there is a "conspiracy" - it would be interesting to dig into the facts with you, since you have mentioned that idea many times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces

Richard Amiel McGough
08-12-2007, 04:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces
I watched the video. He didn't mention any specific "conspiracy" in the entire speech, and when he did get more specific, it sounded like he was talking about the threat of Communism.

In any case, even if Kennedy did believe in some sort of conspiracy, you have no idea which conspiracy theory he was talking about. Was it a "Da Vinci" style conspiracy of rogue Catholics like the much maligned "Opus Dei"? Or a Satanic conspiracy? Or was it a space alien conspiracy? Or a mutant conspiracy like in the X-Men?Or an "Illuminati conspiracy of conspiracies nested one within another?"

If you want to support this point, you will need to 1) state which conspiracy theory you believe in, and 2) give real evidence for it.

Richard

Stephen
08-13-2007, 05:33 PM
Hi gilgal,

In response to post #10, I never knew the Thompson's Chain Reference Bible was attributed to Charles Thomson, the chief collator and designer of the Great Seal. Their surnames are spelt differently for starters! So I checked, and they are two different men who lived a century apart! Where did you get your information from? I think you need to check out what you hear far more carefully, otherwise you leave yourself prone to conspiracy theorists.

I believe you are thoroughly mistaken in your view of the Great Seal being occultic. The devil's trick is to try and manipulate the things of God, and dupe those who don't pay careful attention to what God is saying. This is one such instance. If you really believe those lies that have been written about the Great Seal, you really need to produce conclusive evidence. Mere hearsay and hyperbole are useless, which is all the opponents of the Great Seal have ever produced. I implore you to rethink your position, and to be far more thorough in your research. I presume you are an American. Your nation is the greatest single nation that has ever existed so far in human history. You are the evangelists of the world. This is the story that is deeply encoded in your Great Seal. Check out Richard's article on the Great Seal for an introduction.

Stephen

shalag
08-14-2007, 11:48 AM
"And the watchman told, saying, 'The driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi; for he driveth furiously' :attention:http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/illus/ill/000f0efb.gif

Richard Amiel McGough
08-14-2007, 01:37 PM
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/illus/ill/000f0efb.gif


Uh oh! It looks like shalag has figured out how to use the software!

EVERYBODY RUN!

http://images.inmagine.com/img/photodisc/pdre026/pdre026392.jpg

shalag
08-14-2007, 03:23 PM
Well - - I must say - - it appears that THAT is the only thing I have figured out so far.