|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
jonathonbyrd
|
05/08/2011 17:37 |
I never said I was going to burn it because it wasnt kjv. I said I'm going to burn it because it contains errors.
When the scribes copied the bibles, we all know that they would also audit their copies and burn the ones that had errors. Therefore... why not burn the bibles today that have errors? We don't want to be responsible for spreading errors do we?
:)
|
| |
Calico
|
05/08/2011 19:56 |
Hey Jonathon,
Have you read James White's book? Or seen him speak?
Nice to see you back! :-)
Praying with you,
Tom
|
| |
Calico
|
05/08/2011 19:57 |
Oh, p.s.: we can't and shouldn't discount the Douay Rheims; it was on the scene 20 years before the KJV, too...
|
| |
Kelley
|
05/08/2011 20:03 |
Rofl, this thread cracks me up. To say that the only Bible used to debate is the KJV because it doesn't have contradictions? ..... 0.0 You might want to do a little homework on that Jon. Kenneth Hovind, btw, is in jail for tax evasion, so all that "pure word" didn't seem to help him get a pure life.
|
| |
Bibleman
|
05/08/2011 20:05 |
LOL Kelley...
|
| |
Bibleman
|
05/08/2011 20:08 |
the KJV editors themselves, in the foreward to the bible, noted that readers should try to get a good perspective of the word of God by reading different translations - not just one. Clearly, the KJV translators were not KJV - only. It's just another stupid movement that has absolutely nothing to do with the saving love of Christ. Let the scribes fight over it, because we still have the greek manuscripts of the new testament within 90 to 270 years of the original dates of writing. And THAT, well, that is something possibly worthy of squabbling over.
|
| |
Kelley
|
05/08/2011 20:21 |
It's good to see ya back, Jon. I'm sorry I laughed. I have had lots of run-ins with KJV only people, and there is a wealth of information on the other side of that argument. I agree with James, this isn't worth fighting about. God is big enough to use His word in whatever version and return us to the saving love of Christ. I would like to extend that love to you, in simply being glad you are back. Welcome.
|
| |
TRWord
|
05/09/2011 05:23 |
Hi Jonathon
I agree with you here totally. I have only used the KJV and I believe it’s the most authentic version of the scriptures. In the case of the KJV translation was necessary to bring the scriptures into the english language. The argument that the newer versions were translated from older manuscripts and are therefore more accurate is a hoax. We all know that the introduction of denominational spins and making the scripture easier to read is the motivation and not accuracy. The scripture have been given to us in story form but there is a much deeper message in the story. Interfering with story in the slightest is madness. Now we have lost a common ground of understanding in many cases as the saying goes we are comparing apples and oranges.
|
| |
Peter
|
05/09/2011 06:52 |
Amen Kelley! Truer words could not be said.
TRWord, as for the KJV being "necessary to bring the scriptures into the english language" I am afraid you are mistaken. The translation authorized by King James of England was in response to the Geneva Bible (an older english translation) which the Church of England and the monarcy believed challenged their authority. The Geneva Bible was predated by the Bishop's bible (used in the Church of England), the Great Bible and Tyndale's translation of the New Testament (which I believe was the first English translation).
I am not trying to discredit the KJV, any more than I am the NIV, NASB, NLT or any of the other myriad of english translations that have been completed. I am merely want to point out that every translator brings his or her own perspective to the work of tranlsating. For a true purist, the only way to read the inspired word of God would be to learn to read the Greek and Hebrew. For the rest of us, we need to rely on the professional integrity of those who do the work of translation, and understand that even the most objective translator needs to make some judgement calls regarding which words to use in some difficult and obscure passages. I stand by my statement earlier that the best way to truly understand the scriptures is to read multiple translations, and I add here that one should so so prayerfully and meditatively...
|
| |
TRWord
|
05/09/2011 07:08 |
Hi Peter
“For a true purist, the only way to read the inspired word of God would be to learn to read the Greek and Hebrew.”
This is exactly how I see it, but since I don’t speak Greek or Hebrew I have decided to stand with one of the earliest english translations and discard the rest.
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5)
|
