Posted on 01/28/2005 3:15:12 AM PST by paudio
LOL
I can read it without any difficulty as can countless others and I am not even close to being Pentecostal. Have you ever read any of it or are your view just based on ignorance? I have read many versions and the KJV is by far the best translation (this is backed up by the evidence) and the language is beautiful.
http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/holland.htm
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/
http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/index.html
Mt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Mt 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Mt 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
Mt 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Mt 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Mt 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Very true! and also in the Hebrew and Greek which is why the faithful translators of the KJV used these English equivalents. (thee, thy, thou, etc.)
What gender of "human being" was Jesus? Well as we all know the answer is a MAN So why does the tniv seem fit to introduce the gender neutral term "human being" Answer: to blur the lines.
Philippians 2:5-8, TNIV
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!
Plenty more to be found here;
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_jesus.html
Plenty here about the tniv and its poor translation here.
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/tniv_jesus.html
"Changes that clarify the meaning of language for today’s reader. For example Mary is said to be “pregnant” rather than “with child.”"
There is a change that will have the full backing of the pro abortionists.
You don't speak Jacobbean English. The KJV isn't a translation in your dialect.
As to my background, if you're interested, check my profile and my web page. I'm quite conversant with the KJV; more importantly, I've been studying the Hebrew and Greek texts for over thirty years. The KJV is far from the best translation for a 21st century American.
Dan
Your studies seem to have done you little good except inflate your pride. There is plenty of good scholarly work on the KJV which comes to the opposite conclusion that you have.
Oh well. If you can't deal with the facts, attack the messenger.
Funny thing, parenthetically. Christianity is about the only place where folks actually attack others for knowing what they're talking about.
Sorry to have threatened your traditionalism, but not effectively enough to persuade you to break off the affair.
Dan
***What gender of "human being" was Jesus? Well as we
all know the answer is a MAN So why does the tniv
seem fit to introduce the gender neutral term "human
being" Answer: to blur the lines.***
Presumably, you are commenting on a change from the words "men/man" in vs 7 and 8 of the KJV. Since "men/man" can be a reference to either humanity or maleness, this begs the question as to whether the the KJV intends to emphasize the humanity of Christ or his maleness.
If we read that passage in context, in verse 6 we see the declaration of the divine nature of Christ.
Now, if we are to understand that verse 7 and 8 intends to emphasize the "maleness" of Christ, we then have Christ's divine nature set up with his "maleness".
If we are to understand that verse 7 and 8 intends to emphasize his "humanity", then we have Christs divine nature set up with his "human" nature.
I think you will find that this passage is properly understood as a declaration that Christ has both a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.
But let's look at some other translations of that passage:
***Philippians 2:5-8, TNIV***
(TNIV*) 7 rather he made himself nothing by taking the
very nature of a servant, being made in
***human likeness***.
(NIV) 7 rather he made himself nothing by taking the
very nature of a servant, being made in
***human likeness***.
What you have highlighted as an example of something in the TNIV* that "blurs the lines", reads IDENTICAL to the NIV. I understand the NIV has received its fair share of criticism, but I don't ever recall the NIV being charged with being "gender neutral".
Now lets look at verse 8:
(TNIV*) 8 And being found in appearance as a ***human
being***, he humbled himself by becoming
obedient to death—even death on a cross!
(ESV) 8 And being found in ***human form***, he
humbled himself by becoming obedient to the
point of death, even death on a cross.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that the ESV (English Standard Version), which was intended to be a conservative correction of the RSV, is NOT considered to be a "gender neutral" translation.
Now, lets check the Greek. In Galatians 3:28, a passage making reference to "male" and to "female", we find the Greek word "Arrhen" used to denote "male". (Note: the TNIV* does read "...neither male nor female..." in Gal 3:28)
According to www.crosswalk.com ( http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=730&version=kjv ) "Arrhen" literally means "a male".
However, the terms you highlighted ("human likeness" and "human being") in the TNIV* version of Philippians 2:5-8 have the Greek word "Anthropos".
According to www.crosswalk.com ( http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=444&version=kjv ) "Anthropos" literally means "a human being, whether male or female".
It seems to me that the TNIV* accurately translates "Anthropos" to be a refernce to "humanity". In the KJV we do know that "men/man" also can be a reference to "humanity", so I don't know what all the fuss is about using the term "humanity" or "human" as opposed to "men/man".
Furthermore, any charge that the TNIV* "blurs the lines" between male and female in Philippians 2:5-8 is removed by noting that even though the TNIV* uses the term "human being" in verse 8, it is immediately followed by the male pronoun "he" and followed shortly after that by the male pronoun "himself". That is hardly "blurring the lines".
One further comment. The Greek term "Arrhen" which literally means "a male" is used only 7 times in the entire New Testament. In EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, the TNIV* translates "Arrhen" as reference to a male -whether it be a "man" as opposed to a "woman" or a "male child".
***"Changes that clarify the meaning of language for today’s reader. For example Mary is said to be “pregnant” rather than “with child.”"
There is a change that will have the full backing of the pro abortionists.***
First the Greek terms which the KJV translate "with child" do not LITERALLY translate "with child". For example, in German, we might hear "mit kind" which literally translates "with child" -"mit" means "with" and "kind" means "child".
"With child" is actually an English "idiom" and it most certainly IS "archaic". Other than in Scripture, I have never heard "with child" used in reference to someone who is pregnant. When my sister informed the family she was "expecting", the word she used was "pregnant" -not "with child".
Since "pregnant" is far more literal, I suspect that is the reason why the translators of the TNIV* use that term.
Second, I would suspect that "with child" has absolutely NO influence one way or another on the pro-abortionists.
I don't recall using the fact that Bibles had used "with child" as an argument against abortion.
I would suspect that pro-arbotionists would care less as to what the Bible said PERIOD!
Epiphany is a strange word to use when trading the Solid Authorized version for the NASB, a house built on sand.
Modern man does not have difficulty with the AV because the language is so different but precisely because it is a faithful translation.
The natural mind of modern man does not easily lend itself to understanding spiritual truths---That is the problem.
Newer versions don't faithfllly convey the spiritual truths and are dry husks for the child of God to feed upon.
Smell test?
I'll take the, "Lily of the Valley," and, "The Sweet Rose of Sharon," called the King James Bible.
Regards.
I know enough Greek to know that this is no more true for the AV than the NASB.
The KJV may sound all nice and majestic, but the NT wasn't written to be that way. It didn't use the beautiful prose of Attic Greek, but the simple common Greek used every day in the marketplace. Our translations should not introduce "majesty" not found in the original.
The KJV may sound all nice and majestic, but the NT wasn't written to be that way.
The AV certainly has a finish and poetry in prose that no other English version after it exhibits.
It was written in the finest hour of the English language.
But this is simply one aspect of why it is a superior Version.
It really is a better translation. One of the chief reasons being that the men who worked on it were in love with God and His Word and walked with Him daily. They really knew the Word from cover to cover.
Didn't know much about the latest movie, soap opera, rock group, or fashion fad, but they knew God and His Word.
They compared Scripture with Scripture and Approached the whole as coming from the mind of a unified Being.
They translated from the known to the unknown and let Scripture comment upon itself.
Most modern versions try too hard to come up with some new thing. And they have been oft translated by fair linguists who are bad theologians.
Why did the 1903 version of the NASB distort the doctrine of inspiration in 2 Tm. 3:16?
Luke's writing is in beautiful classical Greek.
Even Ecclesiates tells us that in the Word of the king there is power---We have the King of English versions in the AV.
Grace and Peace.
So does the NASB
The New American Standard Bible has been produced with the conviction that the words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired by God. Since they are the eternal Word of God, the Holy Scriptures speak with fresh power to each generation, to give wisdom that leads to salvation, that men may serve Christ to the glory of God.Why did the 1903 version of the NASB distort the doctrine of inspiration in 2 Tm. 3:16?
The purpose of the Editorial Board in making this translation was to adhere as closely as possible to the original languages of the Holy Scriptures, and to make the translation in a fluent and readable style according to current English usage.
Well, the NASB wasn't even in existence in 1903, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Luke's writing is in beautiful classical Greek.
No, it isn't. Classical Greek had all but faded by the time Luke was around. Alexander's Hellanization of the world led to a simplification of the Greek language. Common Greek (that's what koine means) had less precision, but was easier to learn as a second language.
Even Ecclesiates tells us that in the Word of the king there is power---We have the King of English versions in the AV.
Thats nothing more than eisegesis, reading your presuppositions into the text. "In the word of the king there is power" is speaking to the authority he has by virtue of his position. It's downright irresponsible to try to use that verse to justify the KJV-only position.
Even Ecclesiates tells us that in the Word of the king there is power---We have the King of English versions in the AV.
Thats nothing more than eisegesis, reading your presuppositions into the text. "In the word of the king there is power" is speaking to the authority he has by virtue of his position. It's downright irresponsible to try to use that verse to justify the KJV-only position.
In addition to a soft stand on the faith, "Once (for all) delivered unto the saints," You lack a sense of humor. :)
1. The NASB "translators" aside from being merely revisionists, did not have the same knowledge of Scripture that the AV translators did. It is a serious doctrinal error to translate ek ouranos in Ephesians 6:12 as, "in heavenly places" Demonic forces don not reside in nor operate from the realm of heaven. The KJV caught the change in doctrinal thrust (even though the same phrase is used as thrice before in Ephesians) and translated, "in high places." This glaring failure by the ASV/NASB is sophomoric to a student of Scripture.
2. Well, the NASB wasn't even in existence in 1903, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry 1901---You may not be aware as the preface to the 1964 edition of the NASB intimates that it is the continuation and child of the ASV. The Lockman foundation have since distanced themselves more from that version rights to which were bought by what became the National Council of Churches. And they have identified themselves more with the KJV---actually deigning to mention it in the 1977 preface to the NASB.
Neither the principles nor the product of the NASB compilers leave us with a trustworthy translation of Scripture.
Stick with the AV. It is the only trustworthy Sword. Don't buy the Devil's lie that ordinary people cannot understand it.
THE NASB is easy to understand because it completely bypasses many spiritual verities. It speaks to the natural man who duly receives it.
Grace and Peace.
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.