Posted on 04/19/2003 5:47:25 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
My Plea For the Old Sword
My Plea For The Old Sword book online ^ | 1997 | Ian Paisley
Maranatha!
(Romans 10:17)
Only if you think King James was God.
You've got that right Appy! If Jesus spoke perfect Elizabethian English and the King James Bible was good enough for Him, then it's good enough for me! #:)
Thanks for clarifying this. You know this because God told you I suppose. Anything else you'd like to share with us?
Shakespeare's plays modernized would leave me just as cold.
Same sentiments here, and same disclaimer.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Lk.22:34)
You can find those words in English, in the King James.
The other versions are missing some.
Anymore information you would like?
And what does Hebrew have to do with anything?
According to Hebrew scholars, the Old Testament of the King James is one of the best translatons made of the Masoratic text.
No, I think God used the King James translators to give us the translation He wanted.
Funny, how our first permanent colony was called Jamestown
Enjoy the book, it is a great read!
What does 'liking' it have to do with anything?
It is 'good' because it is God's words, not because you or I 'like it'
However, it is not the only version that one can use. The ASV, RSV, NRSV, and the NIV are all good translations of the Bible.
No, they are from a corrupt Greek text.
The major problem with the KVJ is that folks who did not grow up with it find it almost impossible to understand. In addition, new manuscript discoveries and translation methods are superior to those of the KJV.
First, I did not grow up with the King James and can understand it fine.
Does it take some effort?
Yes, it does, but anything worthwhile takes effort!
As for 'new manuscripts' discoveries, the recent ones support the TR readings which underly the King James.
The Nestle Greek text had to make some 300 changes back to the correct TR readings because of recent discoveries.
If you want to use the KVJ, fine, that is your privilege.
Thank you!
However, do not condemn those who use other translations.
I do not condemn them, I condemn the translations!
In fact, one should use several different translations together in order to see some of the nuances of the passages. Even better, learn Greek and Hebrew and study in the original languages.
So, first the King James is too hard to read, but now we are learn Greek and Hebrew instead!
All translations eventually become old and outdated due to changes in the language of the people. It is incumbent upon translators to constantly work to keep the Bible translations in the current language. Do not change the truth or the meaning, but keep it in modern language.
Well, I would agree with that.
The last update by the King James in the 18th century has sufficed pretty well.
The modern versions do change the truth and meaning of what the Bible.
I agree that many passages in the KJV are more beautiful than one can find in any other translation. However, I am far more concerned that people who read the Bible can understand what the original writers intended rather than just the beauty of the wording.
They can because the King James, as well as being beautiful writing, is also the most accurate of the versions.
So, you get the best of both worlds!
I will not impugn the intelligence of those who use the KVJ. I will, however, argue that those who do so have no right to question the motives or spirituality of those who use other translations.
What is impugned is the motives and spiritually of those who make and sell these other translations, deluding people into thinking they have a Bible when they do not have.
I could give many examples of areas where the KVJ has some mistakes in translation and where some words have changed their meaning so much since the KVJ that they are almost unintelligible to present day speakers of English.
I will grant that there are archaic words in the King James.
Not as many as most think, but some (See how many so-called archaic words are still being used in Archaic Words and the AV by Laurance Vance).
As for mistakes in translation, since you only plan to post once, I simply disagree with you there and leave it at that. (unless you want to post some of those mistranslations and show that they cannot be translated as they are.
In addition, the present KVJ is different than the original KVJ. If you ever have an opportunity to read an original KVJ you will see the differences.
My friend, I have an exact facsimile of the original 1611 (from Great Books, not the one Thomas Nelson puts out) and I read it while listening to the King James on tape.
The King James of 1611 reads exactly as the 'modern' King James sounds.
Only the spelling and grammer has changed.
I have no intention or desire to fight over this. I simply believe someone should defend the use of newer translations. I have two master's degrees in Bible and Ministry, so I approach this with some expertise. I have studied under some great Greek and Hebrew scholars who are very conservative about the inspiration and inerrancy of the Word of God. I love the Lord with all my heart, so please do not question my motives.
I do not question your motives, only your facts.
I've never seen any evidence of that. The KJV is unreadable text in an ancient language.
I'll answer that question for you - YES. And anyone who has any respect for this perverted child abductor is lower than the beast Paisley.
Amen!
Genesis 1:2 Reads from my KJV "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Sounds ok but it is not accurate. The first "was" should be the word "became". Who made it "was" and why I don't know. But the word was makes it sound as if that is the way the earth was created and that is not correct. Genesis 1:2 is describing an event and with the changes made it takes away from what that event is, and leaves the reader missing why it is placed there and the ability to see that this very verse is spoken about again latter in the Old Testment and again in the New Testment.
First, let me say as one who supports the GAP view it would be easy to agree with you.
However, every major translation (NASB, NIV, ASV, RV, Geneva 1599, Darby, Webster, NKJ) all have was not became
Now, when you think of it, it makes sense.
God creates everything perfect, then the Angelic revolt leaves everything a mess.
God is beginning at where the GAP ends and showing the recreation of the Earth, not giving a history of its transition.
and starting over, thus, 'was' fits in very nicely.
was - other places use the same word rendered came to pass, or be, (in the sense of become) no Hebrew word for the verb "to be"
Because it is translated that way in other passages doesn't mean it cannot be translated this way in Gen.1:2.
As for the Hebrew word itself Hayah, you will find it in the exact same form in Genesis 1:2 translated as 'was'.
See Genesis 3:20 and 29:17 for example.
The "without form" = waste why "without form" was used instead of "waste", I don't know or why, what I do know that it is not correct.
Well, the TANKAH has 'unformed' not waste,
The Geneva, NIV, NASB, Amplified, RSV, NRS, NKJ, and WEB also have 'without form'(formless) and not waste.
The second "was" is in italic type, because no verb "to be" in Heb.
Well, you know that word are constantly put in to 'smooth' out the translation.
The 'was' was used by the Geneva,(italics) and in the RSV,NRS, NKJ, WEB, NASB, NIV (no italics)
V2. And the earth "became" "waste" and void; and darkness "was" (verb "to be") upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The Hebrew scholars that tell you it is one of the best translations made of the Masoratic text are not being honest with you if they did not point this, little but oh so very important change of words.
It would seem that you have a private intepretation of Genesis 1:2, that goes against most Hebrew scholars.
I haven't seen one major translation translate 'was' as became.
As for without form vs waste some do translate it as 'waste' and some do not.
Thus, the word can be translated as without form .
Funny, millions of people are still reading that 'ancient language'!
There is your evidence!
perverted child abductor?
Well, we all know what the RC does with children under its care don't we?
Wouldn't be the first Protestant expositor to do so, nor will he be the last.
I'll answer that question for you - YES. And anyone who has any respect for this perverted child abductor is lower than the beast Paisley.
What? Is there something I should know about Ian Paisley?
Every Reformation Bible had Easter not Passover.
The Roman Catholic Douey Rheims has Passover instead of Easter.
Now, do you think that none of the Reformers knew what pascha meant?
The old Strongs does in fact aide one in the Hebrew - Greek. The latest and greatest I agree are more of a hinderance. Christians need know who does their translating. Names mean things and without an understanding of what names used and their meanings leaves out a part of the picture. Especially when our Heavenly Father himself named some.
That is correct, and the right men with the right heart translated the King James.
Yeah - and he was given a court order never to go near the teenager or her family ever again.
BTW - I'm not Catholic, so your attempt at changing the subject is futile.
The King James is the perfect Bible for English speaking people.
Other, non-English speaking people have the Bible in their own languages, either from translations of the King James or from the TR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.