Yuku free message boards
Username or E-mail:
Password:
Forgot
Password?
Sign Up
Grab the Yuku app
Search:
RSS
Email
Who's your Final Authority
>
Which Bible
>
The KJV accepts multiple versions
0 Points
Search this Topic:
Remove this ad
«Prev
1
2
Next»
Jump
Forum Jump
Bible Rejecters and More
Bible School by the "Book"
Welcome to the King James Bible School
Our Statement of Faith and Our Forum Guidelines
Welcome to all New Members
Prayers and Prayer Request
New Forum
Bible School on Line for Free
General Discussion
Roman Catholicism, its Doctrines, and Church Teachings Debated here.
End Times Prophecies ; Eschatology
Which Bible
Daily Bible Verse Comparison
Reading Room
Cults
Christian only Bible Study Forum With great Sermons to listen to
For Non Christians and Non Believers
General Forum I
Bible Dictionary
Bible DictionaryII
General ForumII
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Re: The KJV accepts multiple versions
Author
Comment
steelmaker
#1
[-]
Posts
: 7270
Jun 26 08 9:26 AM
Reply
Quote
More
My Recent Posts
Bro. Tim:you can count on Will K to be very strong. [/i]
Very strongly WRONG, quite often.
Dr. Ruckman has nothing on him other than age.
I dunno about that! Ruckie has this lunacy run. Ever read about his 10-foot tall alien Antichrist with the huge black lips who's to land a spaceship on the Mt. of Olives & impart the "marka da beest" with a kiss from those huge black lips? read all about it in Ruckman's
Mark Of The Beast
! [/b]
They both are fierce KJBOs.
And both as wrong as a panel of contestants on
celebrity Jeopardy.
A bit of advice. Don't waste your time with steelmaker - he's a broken record.
You cannot prove me wrong. YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT! So, I'm gonna be a broken record just to show ya wrong, long as you persist in this KJVO silliness. [/b]
I must compliment him on his improved vocabulary, however.
I can "improve" my vocabulary any time I jolly well please. I just don't wanna go too far over the headsa the RC, JWs, LDSs, or KJVOs.
First, I am not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch. That's one of the benefits of trusting that the KJB is perfect. I don't need to be tri-lingual.
Actually, one doesn't reap any REAL benefits unless he reads several valid versions, given the multiple correct English meanings of many Hebrew or Greek terms.
That said, the Kings/Chronicles both appear to have the identical Hebrew word, based on my Jay Green Interlinear. Therefore it is the English wording that varies here, not the Hebrew. Now that may bother some, but I agree with Will, the message is unaltered. The Hebrew can be translated either way. Of course, I expect steelmaker to back me up here. By the way, the KJB is not the only English Bible that changes wording here.
I asked a local rabbi, A Hebrew reader, about this. He said that actually, 2 Kings reads "shemoneh"(eight) "asar"(ten) which is eighteen, while 2 Chron. reads just "shemoneh". Obviously, some scribe omitted a word in Chronicles. my purpose in pointing this out is to show that even the ancient texts have an occasional booboo, and, since we have no known originals, nor were we there when the copies we do have were made, we have no right to declare this ms correct & that one corrupt.
Direct Quotes: As you can certainly notice, there are no quotation marks in the KJB. The quotes may not be explicitly direct as we use the term today.
The explanation is a lot simpler...quotation marks were not widely used in English at the time. Plus, the translators wanted to make it as easy as possible for the AV to be read aloud. remember, it was "appointed to be read in churches" by KJ, the titular head of the Anglican church.
As I posted earlier, I accept this as the Holy Spirit's divine guidance of the translators for the purpose of deeper understanding. Sorry if that doesn't work for you.
No, it doesn't, long as you wishta try to limit his guidance to the KJV alone. You cannot prove He didn't likewise guide any other translators of any other valid English version.
A note about the translators and their comments. I believe that it is likely that they did not at all comprehend the scope of their work. Though their scholarship was impeccable, this is not the reason why their product is what it is. God chose to use them. That said, could you comment on the following excerpt in their Dedication? (underlining and bold mine)
Once again, you cannot even begin to prove the HOLY SPIRIT guided them whatsoever, or that He didn't guide translators of other English versions. You're only GUESSING. But then, KJVO is mostly guesswork anyway.
For when Your Highness had once, out of deep judgement, apprehended how convenient it was, that, out of the Original sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the Work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.
Notice they said "ONE MORE..." They did NOT say "an exact...". Therefore they musta considered at least one already-existing translation to be "exact".
These same translators also wrote,"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that Variety of Translations Is Profitable for the Finding Out of the Sense of the Scriptures: so Diversity of Signification and Sense in the Margin, where the Text is not so clear, must need do Good, yea, is Necessary, as we are persuaded."
They also wrote,"5 For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously? "
It appears to me that they considered their work to be a completion of work that had begun long before them, and that they were not viewing the work as inaccurate. As for the "blemishes" in the "Translators to the Reader", I am not sure that they were speaking of their own present work, but rather the earlier versions. I may be wrong about this. Perhaps you have a modern version update that would be easier to read.
Sorry, Sir, but if you read their preface CAREFULLY, you'll see that they both believed it was the hand of the Lord that enabled them to complete their work, but they also believed earlier translations were also the word of God, and that they did NOT believe their work was perfect nor that it was the be-all, end-all English version.
Here's a version pf the preface, with only some of the spellings updated. I've compared it with the preface as foind in my repro AV1611, & those spellings are the only changes I've seen. (But I'm not perfect. I mighta missed one, but I don't think so.)
http://watch.pair.com/preface-kjv.html#adversaries
<< Previous Topic
Next Topic >>
Forum Jump
Bible Rejecters and More
Bible School by the "Book"
Welcome to the King James Bible School
Our Statement of Faith and Our Forum Guidelines
Welcome to all New Members
Prayers and Prayer Request
New Forum
Bible School on Line for Free
General Discussion
Roman Catholicism, its Doctrines, and Church Teachings Debated here.
End Times Prophecies ; Eschatology
Which Bible
Daily Bible Verse Comparison
Reading Room
Cults
Christian only Bible Study Forum With great Sermons to listen to
For Non Christians and Non Believers
General Forum I
Bible Dictionary
Bible DictionaryII
General ForumII
Share This
Email to Friend
del.icio.us
Digg it
Facebook
Blogger
Yahoo MyWeb
«Prev
1
2
Next»
Jump
Who's your Final Authority
>
Which Bible
>
The KJV accepts multiple versions
Click to subscribe by RSS
Click to receive E-mail notifications of replies