Posted on 06/27/2017 4:25:56 PM PDT by Pilgrim's Progress
We are going to go through this book in a very slow fashion - no hurry.
This subject is completely a matter of faith. Those that reject or do not possess a particular preference for the King James Bible are welcome to visit and participate - but this is not an argument thread. I am not responsible to convince anyone against his or her will.
Either you have faith in a God that is able to preserve His Word or you do not - but you are not going to convince us to reject our faith that the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that God is blessing for the English Speaking people. And He has been doing it for the past 406 years
If you want on or off the PING list please Freepmail me, thanks.
Oh, good grief. At the time of Jesus' conception. I specifically used those words, "Jesus' conception."
First an inept reading of Arthur Westcott on the Ghostlie Guild, and now this. I'm seriously beginning to doubt your relationship with the English language. Perhaps you are not the most qualified person to be evaluating Bible translations.
As I said, I called no one stupid. I said someone else thought they were stupid. The fact that you apparently think this deliberate twisting of my words is persuasive, only proves my point, so thanks for that.
“NKJV footnote ‘NU And His parents.’ What makes these versions much worse is the way that they deal with verse 33 where they truly show their cards and actually translate father in place of Joseph.”
You misrepresent NKJV.
33 And Joseph and His mother[h] marveled at those things which were spoken of Him. [in NKJV]
The doctrine of inherency does not at all depend on following one particular translation for a given language. God’s ability to preserve His word is also not contingent on men never making mistakes. Rather it is the correction of these mistakes that is important.
The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV and NKJV are translated, is the body of texts that God preserved and blessed.
The purpose of providing references to the Alexandrian (NU) and Majority texts (M) in the footnotes of the NKJV is so that those who study the Bible can be aware of why the other (per)versions of the Bible [which we know to be derived from the Wescott and Hort corruptions] may say something different.
In discussions with others about Bible topics, especially cults, it is helpful to be aware why they have Bibles that read differently. The NKJV does not make value judgments on these but simply share that information in the footnotes. This makes the NKJV a valuable study tool.
The NKJV is easier for most English-speakers to read and understand than the KJV. The whole point of providing an English translation was to give people the Word of God in their own language.
When people can not understand something, it is like a foreign language to them. If it is not wrong to translate the meaning of the original scriptures into another language, how is it wrong to provide an updated translation that is more easily understood to modern speakers of that language? That logic makes no sense at all.
The NKJV also provides an English version of the Word of God that follows correct rules of modern spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
The Bible itself contains a pattern for us to follow when it comes to translating the Word of God into other languages. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew originally. It was translated into Greek in the Septuagint. The New Testament authors, when quoting the Old Testament, usually defer to the exact Greek translation contained in the Septuagint. However, they did not exclusively do so. This illustrates that a translation does NOT share equal authority with the original scriptures. There are times when consulting the original texts provides clarity of meaning. Generally, we can learn nearly everything useful from the translated Word of God in our own language, if it is translated precisely. However, there may be nuances of meaning that can not be conveyed in another language.
A good example of this is translating currency. We may relate to dollars. They did not use dollars in the Bible. We may relate to feet and inches. Others may relate in metric. But the original scriptures used neither. If we translate the numeric values literally, some of the meaning is lost without the student doing more study as to how these measure relate to what they are familiar with. Some translations might simply call a certain piece of money “a silver coin” which is technically correct.
There is a benefit to having a relatable, accurate translation of the Bible in everyday English in reaching the lost with the message and equipping new believers with a solid foundation of biblical knowledge as quickly as possible.
For the believer, it will always be necessary to go beyond mere reading. We must study, memorize, and meditate on the Word of God.
When you demand that every English speaker conform to your preferred version of the Bible, without an honest assessment of the value, benefit, and purpose of another one (such as the NKJV), then you are ignoring what the scripture teaches:
1 Corinthians 14:11 (KJV)
Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
Indeed the KJV translators included this very reference as the reason their translation was useful and necessary. You can read the full text of it in many KJV Bibles or online in places such as this one I randomly picked:
https://ebible.org/kjv/FRT01.htm
This part is noteworthy:
“TRANSLATION NECESSARY
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, ‘Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me.’ [1 Cor 14] The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous...”
And here, where they commented how the Septuagint was used, as I described, by the apostles when quoting from the Hebrew scriptures:
“The Seventy [who wrote the Septuagint] were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament.”
Did the translators consider their translation the only viable English translation, or that others were also valuable? Was further translation and correction anticipated?
“we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.”
“we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft... If we be sons of the Truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way an hindrance to it.”
The translators of the KJV would be among the first to fully support and endorse the update and translation of the scriptures into modern English today.
To treat the words, symbols, and very ink of the KJV Bible as sacrosanct is to treat it as a book of incantations, a book of sorcery, rather than as a means by which we understand the mind and message of God.
There is no magic in the combination of these symbols with ink on paper. Uttering them will produce no magic spells. It is the UNDERSTANDING that is conveyed through them that transforms hearts and lives, that has the authority to shake kingdoms, and to bring the dead to life.
I can not believe that the Lord Jesus is pleased with your snippy attitude . . .
I fully understand that you are not a KJB-onlyist - so why you believe it is necessary for you to post on our thread is rather beyond my understanding.
I demand nothing of anyone.
Ultimately you are the final authority on what you will or will not believe. I’m willing to stake my claim that at the judgment seat of Christ there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth on the part of those blood-bought believers that attempted to add to and take away from God’s eternal, preserved Word.
And there will be much reward for those that believed that God was able to do exactly said He would do . . . even exceeding abundantly above all we ask or think.
My faith shall remain in the Bible that God has blessed in it’s use for the past 406 years - (truly, even before that because His Word has been extant ever since pen and ink were set to paper to write the letters through faithful copyists).
As I said, your opinion makes no difference to me.
I fully understand that you are not a KJB-onlyist - so why you believe it is necessary for you to post on our thread is rather beyond my understanding.
You said yourself it was an open thread, so don't get your nose out of joint because you don't like what other participants have to say. Don't like opposing views? Go start a blog.
Remind me where I said it was open? I certainly do not hope people stay away - but if they are only here to argue, I’m not having it - and that was stated.
Colossians 2:9 ... in the New American Standard Bible:
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form
Strongest statement of the deity of Christ in ANY translation ... way stronger than the KJV.
And there it is ...
A real Ruckmanite ... it was just a matter of time ...
Except that Colossians 2:9 in the KJB says that the fullness of the trinity abides in Christ - that’s certainly stronger than simply saying that Deity (godness) dwells - that is not much stronger than saying that he is ‘a’ god as the NWT puts it.
I’ll stick with the Authorized version.
Is Dr. Peter Sturgiss Ruckman the only Bible believer to utter such a sentiment?
Not a caucused thread, and as someone without "a particular preference for the King James Bible," I am accepting your welcome and participating. By definition, an open thread.
Since it was you who introduced the fairy story about Westcott and Hort being "Satan-worshipers," you yourself moved the thread from the realm of complete faith into the realm of supposed facts. "This is not an argument thread"? Fine, don't tell whoppers, and I won't argue with 'em.
10 points for your attentiveness ... well done
By stating that the fullness of deity dwells in Him ... your assertion that modern versions attack the deity of Christ is proven false.
Only one counterexample is needed ...
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”
(Colossians 2:9).
You work with what God gives you . . . and Godhead represents the whole trinity, not just one facet.
The "-head" suffix is an old equivalent to "-hood." (The only other English word I am aware of that still uses this archaism is "maidenhead.")
Since both "-hood" and "-ness" denote a quality or state, "Godhead" (which you approve) and "godness" (which you disapprove) are, in fact, synonyms.
And while we are on the topic of Bible verses in the NASB that affirm the deity of Christ, here are several unambiguous ones.
So here is another KJV-only fable we can put to bed. You can hardly accuse a Bible translation of denying Christ's deity when it practically shouts it from the rooftops.
And of course, you have to ‘correct’ the KJB in order to make your point.
No thanks.
And, of course, you have to twist my words again to make yours.
I did not "correct" the KJV. The KJV's term is correct. I merely ensured that it was defined properly. It was your understanding of that term that required correction.
On the surface, it would appear that you are arguing that the KJV says all three divine persons of the Trinity were incarnate in Jesus Christ, rather than the Son only. Wouldn't it be ironic if you were straining at the gnat of Bible versions while swallowing the camel of a major Christological heresy...
This is from the article you are posting:
“the King James Bible is the ONLY Bible that God is blessing for the English Speaking people”
God has most certainly used the KJV and blessed it. He also blessed numerous other translations in numerous other languages.
The use of the word “ONLY” places the author and you squarely against God who is reserving to Himself a called out people from every language. And this includes modern English.
I had the privilege of leading someone to Christ not long ago by walking through the Gospel with him, primarily from the book of Romans, as contained in the NKJV Bible. This person left immorality and drugs. He is proclaiming Christ in lots of places. He has won his brother. He is sharing his testimony with his other family members who are all lost. Many are in false Christian churches. Many are irreligious or even atheistic. But God called him out of darkness into the light of Christ.
I bought him a Bible which he studies diligently and in which he is growing in understanding. I bought him a NKJV Bible for the reasons I’ve shared.
I myself grew up learning the KJV. I know it well. I’ve memorized large sections of scriptures in it. Whole books in fact. My father was a great man of God and evangelized everywhere he went. And he leaned pretty heavily to the KJV only camp. I did too for a while until I studied out the issue more thoroughly. He softened on this in his later years as he saw God working.
Yes, we know that Wescott and Hort did something divisive in the church. And God was not pleased. But the KJV only crowd can also be divisive when it commits sacrilege with the Bible. And God is not pleased with it either.
The current generation of unchurched people do not need to be given an extra obstacle to obscure the message of God with archaic and outdated words, spelling, pronunciations, etc. This is EXACTLY the problem the early English translators faced by the Vulgate-ONLY crowd who you are modeling. The KJV is an excellent translation and Christians who know how to read it with understanding can benefit greatly by it.
But Christians are called to spread the Gospel to more than just their immediate family. Yes, your children are important. By all means, if you prefer the KJV for them to memorize, that’s awesome. But make sure they learn the meaning and can explain it.
The very reason the Bible was translated into English is so that common, non-religious folks could understand it in their everyday language.
Men like William Tyndale died to bring you the version you hold dear. The KJV relies heavily on his translation. He died for his passion to serve God in this regard.
And he would strive with men such as yourself today to be sure that ghetto kids and unchurched folks who speak English around the world could read the Bible in a language they understand.
I’m not saying you would kill him the way the Catholics did for translating the Bible into English, but it was their religious fervor and zeal for preserving the Latin Bible, which is what they thought was sufficient, that they murdered him.
And while you may not be willing to murder those who want to spread God’s word in English in an updated form, you certainly are willing to be bold, brazen, hardened in unrepentance, and divisive among those who love the word of God by asserting the LIE that God ONLY blesses the KJV of His word in English.
The Spirit of God indwelling believers who I have personally seen come to Christ is credible and compelling evidence that your assertion is patently false. Does Satan cast out Satan?
And pardon my harshness for such a stern rebuke, but YOU are opposing the work of Christ by doing so. And God will hold YOU personally accountable for a grievous sin against His body which is fully contemplated in the book of 1 Corinthians if you care to explore the matter further.
1 Corinthians 11:18, 29
For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
The Lord’s body here refers to both His physical body which is symbolized in the bread AND His spiritual body which is the church. Those who are divisive of the body of Christ (i.e. the church) are in danger of severe judgment.
1 Corinthians 11:30-32
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
1 Corinthians 10:4-5, 16-17
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness...
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
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.