|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 2/20/2006 11:58:25 AM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 191
Status: offline
|
The hundreds of years old KJV Only debate rages on!!!
Is it the only true Bible?
Is it the most accurate tanslation?
How is the Byzantine text of any real value?
What about the Textus Receptus, Wescott and Hort, Nestle-Aland?
Why are other modern translations invalid or inaccurate?
What about all the KJV updates?
Post your thoughts here!
Have fun and be nice!
< Message edited by Fritzpw_Admin -- 2/21/2006 10:08:48 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/20/2006 12:35:48 PM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 191
Status: offline
|
This is an UNOFFICIAL UNAUTHROIZED ONE STOP THREAD. Try to keep the issues here.
_____________________________
Zephaniah 3:17 reads, "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/20/2006 2:53:49 PM
|
|
|
Daylights_56
Posts: 33
Joined: 1/14/2006
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
|
Are there a lot of KJVO members on this forum? I have talked with a few but I get the sense that most on here have several different bibles they read from..... I know there is a thread in Relationships where someone is having major troubles with his girlfriend's father, who is a KJVO, because he doesnt read, "from the right Bible".
Anyways I am not familar with the KJVO debate and am interested in hearing what people have to say in defending their stances.
God Bless
_____________________________
“It is no use walking anywhere to preach unless our walking is our preaching.” - St. Francis of Assisi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/20/2006 3:35:31 PM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 2414
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: online
|
The KJV did not come directly from the original texts. They were translated from one language to another. Then from that new one, translated back, and from this third one translated into the KJV.
I don't see how any bible can be considered the only true Bible, especially one that is a translation of what was actually originally written. If we follow this logic, the only true Bible is the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts (the originals, not the copies that were made). These are the only ones that have what the author said perfectly.
And still then, the Bible, although infallible, is not inerrant. So is there really any true Bible?
_____________________________
love.ben
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/20/2006 5:16:58 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1825
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way
The KJV did not come directly from the original texts. They were translated from one language to another. Then from that new one, translated back, and from this third one translated into the KJV.
1love1God1way,
That's not entirely true. 99% of the KJV was translated from original text. The NT was translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek text compiled and published from Greek manuscripts. The final several verses of Revelation were from Greek taken from Latin. That's the only part that wasn't directly translated from Greek.
The OT was translated from Hebrew basically. But I am not familiar with the manuscripts they used.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/20/2006 10:26:43 PM
|
|
|
gracewalk
Posts: 22
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
You have to ask which version of the KJV the Chinese or Japanese would read.. Would the KJV only folks insist those be translations from the KJV English version rather than from the earliest manuscripts in their original language.. sometimes the KJV arguments come from a world view that only Britts or thier offspring read the word of God.. Do non english speaking nations switch to thees and thous when they pray.. must not be able to impress the Lord the way we can.. sometimes I really don't think folks listen to what they are really saying..
oh well..
later
_____________________________
Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GraceRest/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/20/2006 10:32:06 PM
|
|
|
died4meNu
Posts: 18
Joined: 10/5/2005
Status: offline
|
Oh, how I know about the KJV only debate....I suggest any one who is involved read "The King James Only Controversy" by James R. White
The whole stance/issue is quite confusing to me. There are many hypocritical arguments made, and many judgements on other people who disagree with them.
Without getting into specifics or Biblical arguments, I just thought I'd put in my 2 cents about this....check out my thread in relationships entitled "GF's father is KJV Only"
It's a shame that this causes so much division, confusion, and anger amongst Christians....very sad
_____________________________
Sometimes it is hard to remember that there is a plank in my eye, do you have that problem too?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/20/2006 10:48:11 PM
|
|
|
37818
Posts: 371
Joined: 4/24/2005
From: Mira Loma, California
Status: offline
|
I use the KJV as my principle Bible. But the KJVO debate is off base as to what the real issues are. It is the Devil's tool to discredit the KJV valid arguments. (The KJVO position being a lie.)
_____________________________
Jesus Christ God's only-begotten Son. Incarnate, both fully God and fully man and one and the same God with His Father. God is neither begotten nor made. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three Persons who are one God. This is not negotiable - no discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/20/2006 11:15:00 PM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2066
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: online
|
It strikes me that holding to a KJV only position defeats the entire purpose of translating the Bible into English: making the word of God avaliable to the common man. Unless you've grown up in a church that uses the KJV, are a fan of Shakespeare or otherwise are familiar with older forms of English, it's highly likely you're going to have a difficult time understanding the KJV. If we didn't want people to easily understand the Bible, why not just leave it in Latin?
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/20/2006 11:31:16 PM
|
|
|
neuronstatic
Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2005
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
The KJV has done much to create a popularized and common English Bible text for the world for about 400 years. It has served a great purpose. Yet it seems to have been overcome by events. Better and older original language manuscripts have been found, newer translation to modern English convey more clearly the intent of the original words, and other effects of the accumulation of years have demonstrated that the KJV is showing its age. Yet it still is a good translation, if one keeps in mind the way it was translated and the language it was translated into.
The problem I have with the KJVO crowd is basically these 3 assertions of their membership:
[1] The KJV is the only word of God, all other translations are "of the devil" or "filthy"
[2] The KJV never contained any errors
[3] The KJV translated words are the only accurate translations of the original language words
#1 is simply wrong. The word of God was as delivered to the original authors in the original tongues. All translations are but an instrument for us to access the word of God. And in reality, the original KJV of 1611 is quite different than the KJV common today. And the KJVO debate simply denies the correctness of translation of the original manuscripts to other human languages.
#2 is simply wrong. The KJV itself had many revisions in its history and used some source texts that have subsequently been proven to be less reliable than manuscripts that were discovered long after the original translation work of the KJV.
#3 is simply wrong. The original KJV of 1611 had margin notes to offer alternative definitions/translations of words, but those margin notes were subsequently removed. I suppose this was so that the reader would have a false sense of certainty rather than an honest confession of doubt.
I have no issues with anyone that regularly reads the KJV. My issues are with those who will not accept Scriptural proof from any other translation. This has led to numerous debates revolving around errors in exegesis propagated by the KJVO crowd.
_____________________________
Click here for an example of God blessing a man with a second chance at marriage in a new wife.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/21/2006 2:19:51 AM
|
|
|
nazaroo
Posts: 1
Joined: 2/15/2006
Status: offline
|
My own approach as a Christian:
Many good points have been made in this thread, but I still have to favour the KJV and similar translations for the following reasons:
There are several distinquishable issues, and they are not insignificant. I believe all faithful, open-minded Christians must eventually investigate them and make some decisions, while still holding the door of fellowship open:
(1) The question of the OT and NT pose two different sets of problems both for the accuracy of various 'bibles' and the instructional and devotional needs of Christians in worship and service. For Christians at least, the New Testament issues are far more pressing and urgent, and require attention.
(2) The New Testament portion of the debate breaks into two separate questions, (a) the Quality of the Translation, and (b) the Greek Text chosen to translate from.
(3) As regards the Quality of Translation issue, it surely *does* matter what the worldview, philosophy and evangelical position of the translators is, regarding key issues: The New Testament is a Theological Book, and needs to be translated in sympathy and harmony with the theology of its author(s) (God and the Evangelists), and its audience (Christians, God-seekers, Jewish messianists).
(4) As regards the choice of New Testament Greek Text to base a translation upon, it also matters what people constructed the text and for what purpose, and what methods were used to handle the question of variations in manuscripts and witnesses to the text as it was known and used by other Christians throughout history.
(5) The issue of the 'best' translation in a given language remains an important one, since there are obviously significant differences in clarity and content between versions. At one extreme we can note the poorest of translations such as the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation and contrast that with for instance the New King James NT, to see just how big a spread is possible and how much the doctrines and methods of the Greek Text Editors and English Text translators can actually affect the quality of the resultant 'Word of God' for an ordinary English speaker.
(6) We should not let errors made by all sides in these discussions to cloud the very real and important issues at stake: At the very least, "If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will heed the call?".
(7) We should not let differences cause needless or knee-jerk overreactions which divide the Body of Christ more than necessary over these issues. But ultimately, we must take our stand as honesty (not pride) dictates to us through conscience (and openess to receive instruction).
From these opening considerations we can arrive at a few tentative results:
(1) It is surely important to have clear and modern translations that are edifying and useful for worship and evangelization.
(2) This does not mean we should compromise quality, concern, or accuracy in the interests of 'ease of use', or 'unity through ambiguity'.
(3) The work must be recognized as always 'ongoing'. No translation can ever be 'finished', and all translation must be adjusted to change in language and culture while preserving the utmost fidelity to the literal and spiritual meaning of the Word of God and its message for all mankind in every age.
(4) Translations into other languages besides English must be granted their due authority, when the quality and fidelity of the translation has been confirmed.
(5) Sincerity cannot be mistaken for accuracy and integrity to the message of God. We can not interpret the message of the New Testament in a way to favour our own position without objective grounds to do so.
This having been said, I am happy to tell my Christian brothers and sisters that the KJV or NKJV is a Godly and reliable translation and I believe firmly that it outranks other English translations generally and very significantly. While not holding to the 'perfection' of its translation, or minimizing the difficulties created by archaic or 'out of date' language, I strongly believe it should not be abandoned as an ultimate authority in most cases except where it can be convincingly shown that the language has become obselete or distorted in meaning from modern usage.
I am quite willing to explain and defend this position based upon arguments of reason, plausibility and specific historical evidence that I think is clinching. But I am willing to hold fellowship with any Christian who is willing to affirm sound orthodox doctrine, whatever bible they prefer to use.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/21/2006 8:38:13 AM
|
|
|
ter
Posts: 155
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline
|
Kjv is good because of the beautiful english but NAS is the best translation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/23/2006 12:44:49 AM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 191
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ter
Kjv is good because of the beautiful english
This seems to be one of the only real reason people prefer the KJV, they think it reads like shakespere.
_____________________________
Zephaniah 3:17 reads, "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/23/2006 3:44:38 AM
|
|
|
Goober_JIL
Posts: 1407
Joined: 11/26/2005
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
|
crazy as this may sound....
i find that reading the KJV to be the most understandable to me, when i read other versions and run into a verse that i can't quite seem to grasp, i grab the old KJV and it comes into focus and i have better retention. maybe, it's because i have to slow down and absorb/read/translate the text in a more thoughtful, detailed way.
_____________________________
God understands me; why don't you?!
Jesus is Lord forum
If, guns kill people, then my keyboard spelz wrong - Larry the Cable Guy
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/23/2006 10:55:50 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4106
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
This seems to be one of the only real reason people prefer the KJV, they think it reads like shakespere.
He was one of the translators.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/23/2006 11:15:02 AM
|
|
|
Saved34
Posts: 122
Joined: 1/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: manwe
quote:
ORIGINAL: ter
Kjv is good because of the beautiful english
This seems to be one of the only real reason people prefer the KJV, they think it reads like shakespere.
No it's not. Alot of us prefer the KJV because we were raised up with it, those of us who were forunate to have Godly parents, that's the Bible they used.
That's the Bible that was used to lead me to Christ. And that's the Bible I'll stick with till the day I die. I occassionally refer to other translations when I want to get a full understanding of SOME particular verses, but I could never trust those other translations as my sole Bible.
New translations sometimes lose the entire meaning of a passage simply by adding or taking away certain words. IMHO the KJV is the premiere english language Bible. The translators took particular care on this monumental task. even going so far as to let us know when they supplied their OWN words in the text.
I occassionally like the RSV though, but I despise the NIV. Do a little research on it, and I guarantee you'll be shocked.
_____________________________
"My friend, there is danger of just wanting the information and knowledge from the Bible but failing to translate it into shoe leather, not letting it become part of our lives" - J Vernon Mcgee
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/23/2006 10:59:27 PM
|
|
|
died4meNu
Posts: 18
Joined: 10/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I occassionally like the RSV though, but I despise the NIV. Do a little research on it, and I guarantee you'll be shocked.
I've done a lot of research on the NIV, and the differences between the KJV and the NIV. I'd like to know what you mean that would be so shocking?
God Bless...
_____________________________
Sometimes it is hard to remember that there is a plank in my eye, do you have that problem too?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/23/2006 11:16:47 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2788
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
My question to those who hold the KJV as the sole authorized standard is do they hold the Apocrypha as cannon-worthy since it books were included in the 1611 version of the KJV.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/23/2006 11:31:01 PM
|
|
|
Saved34
Posts: 122
Joined: 1/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: died4meNu
quote:
I occassionally like the RSV though, but I despise the NIV. Do a little research on it, and I guarantee you'll be shocked.
I've done a lot of research on the NIV, and the differences between the KJV and the NIV. I'd like to know what you mean that would be so shocking?
God Bless...
Virginia Mollenkott This is just one of many.
_____________________________
"My friend, there is danger of just wanting the information and knowledge from the Bible but failing to translate it into shoe leather, not letting it become part of our lives" - J Vernon Mcgee
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/23/2006 11:57:03 PM
|
|
|
skipjax
Posts: 8
Joined: 10/5/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Saved34
quote:
ORIGINAL: died4meNu
quote:
I occassionally like the RSV though, but I despise the NIV. Do a little research on it, and I guarantee you'll be shocked.
I've done a lot of research on the NIV, and the differences between the KJV and the NIV. I'd like to know what you mean that would be so shocking?
God Bless...
Virginia Mollenkott This is just one of many.
I don't mean to sound argumentative, but this is hardly a reason to discredit a translation of the Bible. If we discredit based on the logic that a person involved in the translation was a wicked sinner, then we had better stop reading all translations. In fact, old King James himself wasn't exactly a stellar guy (but neither are the rest of us) and many of the known literary authors he had translate the KJV were known to have been some of the most rampant sexual sinners around.
_____________________________
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/24/2006 12:23:05 AM
|
|
|
died4meNu
Posts: 18
Joined: 10/5/2005
Status: offline
|
Oh, the old case of Dr. Mollenkott being a lesbian.
Well from what I read and looked into, she was an English professor who was on the team in order to help with the flow of the English language, and to help overlook how sentences were structured etc.
When they found out that she was an admitted Lesbian (they did not know from the start), she was immeadiately dismissed from the project. She had no say or factor in the translating or downplaying anything, including homosexuality. The NIV can only "downgrade" homosexuality when you compare it to the KJV which isn't the standard anyways....I'd like to hear more on why it waters down this issue.
If you really want to dig into this, then you should look into King James. Isn't true that he was bisexual? From my knowledge he was....just a thought here: If he was, then you should definitely avoid that Bible as well, considering he had everything to do with what it said, they even made a dedication to him in the opening of the original Bible's. Don't you think he would have more power than an English professor?
God Bless
_____________________________
Sometimes it is hard to remember that there is a plank in my eye, do you have that problem too?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/24/2006 10:57:25 AM
|
|
|
Saved34
Posts: 122
Joined: 1/5/2006
Status: offline
|
lol, I'm not trying to argue or ruffle any feathers. I just gave one of the MANY reasons why I (me and me only) do not support the NIV.
And wow! I didn't know King James was a consultant or a translator on the KJV.  GUESS YOU LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY.
Here's what I'm saying, do I believe you can lead a person to Christ with the NIV? Certainly. John3:16 ; Romans 10:9,10 and many other wonderful verses in the NIV ,even though worded differently still carry the same exact meaning. And if a person can grasp the fundamental truth of Christ's death burial and resurrection they can be saved.
But I believe the NIV fails to deliver doctrinaly. In some instances like 1Timothy 3:16, which in the NIV loses it's entire meaning. If you've never read that same verse in the King James, you would have no idea that the NIV basically BUTCHERS the deity of Christ in this verse.
I personally trust and rest in the KJV as the premiere english language Bible. If you don't, that's fine. I'm not against ALL other english translations, but a great many of them are simply inferior to the KJV, and others were created simply to please this modernist, toe tickling, back scratching, lovey dovey, non hell fire preaching, sermonette delivering crowd.
_____________________________
"My friend, there is danger of just wanting the information and knowledge from the Bible but failing to translate it into shoe leather, not letting it become part of our lives" - J Vernon Mcgee
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/25/2006 12:06:09 AM
|
|
|
mushhead
Posts: 515
Joined: 5/29/2005
From: Kearns
Status: offline
|
quote:
But I believe the NIV fails to deliver doctrinaly. In some instances like 1Timothy 3:16, which in the NIV loses it's entire meaning. If you've never read that same verse in the King James, you would have no idea that the NIV basically BUTCHERS the deity of Christ in this verse.
quote:
16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. 1Timothy 3:16
The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.
quote:
16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
I don't see what you mean.
quote:
IMHO the KJV is the premiere english language Bible. The translators took particular care on this monumental task. even going so far as to let us know when they supplied their OWN words in the text.
So do other translations. One thing the KJV translators did that they don't let the readers know about is editorialize some of the text. For instance in Daniel 3:25 the KJV says:
quote:
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
In this passage the original actually says, "...is like a son of the gods." Old King Neb was a pantheist who believed in many gods, this statement is in keeping with his understanding of what or who the other person in the furnice was. The KJV translators knew that it was Jesus in the furnice, so they editorialized the verse.
This is not the only place they did this, and I don't think it is a problem, but the KJVO crowd use these passages to prove that modern translations don't respect the Diety of Jesus.
_____________________________
MUSHHEAD
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. Matt. 7:6
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/25/2006 1:36:30 PM
|
|
|
GoodME_II
Posts: 364
Joined: 12/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
#1 is simply wrong. The word of God was as delivered to the original authors in the original tongues. All translations are but an instrument for us to access the word of God. And in reality, the original KJV of 1611 is quite different than the KJV common today. And the KJVO debate simply denies the correctness of translation of the original manuscripts to other human languages.
#2 is simply wrong. The KJV itself had many revisions in its history and used some source texts that have subsequently been proven to be less reliable than manuscripts that were discovered long after the original translation work of the KJV.
#3 is simply wrong. The original KJV of 1611 had margin notes to offer alternative definitions/translations of words, but those margin notes were subsequently removed. I suppose this was so that the reader would have a false sense of certainty rather than an honest confession of doubt.
I have no issues with anyone that regularly reads the KJV. My issues are with those who will not accept Scriptural proof from any other translation. This has led to numerous debates revolving around errors in exegesis propagated by the KJVO crowd.
To add further to these excellent observations:
- The KJV originally contained a (the) 73 Book Canon, not the current 66 Book Canon. The KJV was standardized to 66 Books about the time of the Catholic Emanicipation Act in Great Britain in 1829 (the Catholic Emanicpation Act decreed that only Anglicans may hold public office in Great Britain).
- The original KJV was compiled by Erasmus, a life-long Roman Catholic
- The original Scripts are translations - they are in Greek, being written by Aramaic speakers, in order to capitalize on the "language of trade" to assure that the message of Christianity could be most widely spread. The difference being that these Scripts (and in theory, the translations) are inspired; some of the translations henceforth, who knows? This is why many Faithful believe that Faith is revealed and continuing to be revealed through the institution of Church, and rely on the resources of Church and the Body of Christ to assist them with their "interpretations" (discernment) of Scripture.
< Message edited by GoodME_II -- 2/25/2006 1:39:22 PM >
_____________________________
"For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice. But the wisdom from above is...peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of...good fruits...And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 2/25/2006 2:37:23 PM
|
|
|
Saved34
Posts: 122
Joined: 1/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mushhead
quote:
But I believe the NIV fails to deliver doctrinaly. In some instances like 1Timothy 3:16, which in the NIV loses it's entire meaning. If you've never read that same verse in the King James, you would have no idea that the NIV basically BUTCHERS the deity of Christ in this verse.
quote:
16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. 1Timothy 3:16
The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House) 1984.
quote:
16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3:16
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
I don't see what you mean.
quote:
IMHO the KJV is the premiere english language Bible. The translators took particular care on this monumental task. even going so far as to let us know when they supplied their OWN words in the text.
So do other translations. One thing the KJV translators did that they don't let the readers know about is editorialize some of the text. For instance in Daniel 3:25 the KJV says:
quote:
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
In this passage the original actually says, "...is like a son of the gods." Old King Neb was a pantheist who believed in many gods, this statement is in keeping with his understanding of what or who the other person in the furnice was. The KJV translators knew that it was Jesus in the furnice, so they editorialized the verse.
This is not the only place they did this, and I don't think it is a problem, but the KJVO crowd use these passages to prove that modern translations don't respect the Diety of Jesus.
"GOD was manifest in the flesh" is a world of difference from "HE appeared in a body"
_____________________________
"My friend, there is danger of just wanting the information and knowledge from the Bible but failing to translate it into shoe leather, not letting it become part of our lives" - J Vernon Mcgee
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
