Posted on 02/19/2006 9:39:32 PM PST by Creationist
I have always believed in Jesus as Lord and Savior. I have not always believed that one version of the Bible is better until the last 10 years or so. I have always read from the Authorized King James Version. Most likely because the Lord did not want me to get my understanding from any other source.
As I have gotten closer to God over the years I have learned why the KJV is the best of the translations of the original Greek and Hebrew text. Some of the reasons are that the words of the Old English which seam difficult to read and understand at first are really the most descriptive and least confusing to understand as you read. Words like Longsuffering from the KJV have been translated into patience in the NIV. Now the word are pretty similar in the definitions, but the word longsuffering shows an inflection of pain while you endure. Patience does not imply this at all. You may be patient with the guy at the counter of the DMV, but you are long suffering with a loved one while you hope they change their ways. There are many more examples of the pitfalls of the NIV, NKJV, KJ21, NASB to numerous to get into. And if you are not willing to examine and ask the Lord to help you discern the Truth of the matter then my post is falling upon deaf ears.
There is a good book called The Language of the King James Bible , Discover its Hidden Built in Dictionary, by Gail Riplinger. It is very informative on how to understand the Old English of the KJV Bible.
But on to why I posted in the first place if you go to these links you will learn how the publishers of the NIV are also the publisher of the Satanic Bible. Their Teen study Bible is very disturbing and worldly, even mocks the Bible in a hidden way.
LOL! My county library had the DVD. Bernadette Peters as Circe ... absolutely hysterical.
You absolutely cannot know if King James was a practicing homosexual but if that is where you faith is, so be it. I think homosexuals will find a way to say Jesus was a homosexual, but that doesn't make it true.
I could see her as Circe...But I could also see a number of other women clamouring for the secret of turning men to pigs....a lot of them see men that way already....
Why read it in hebrew? Most editions of Christ time were greek. Even the aromaic would more likely be the scripture the apostles, and Christ preached from than would the hebrew one.
Is there any likelyhood that homosexual or no, King James penned the text himself? This is so irrelevant.
Further FR is the last place I'd expect to find the usuall 'oh so and so wore comfortable shoes everyone knows it' crowd.
Short of finding sordid same sex photos of historical figures it is stupid to go aledging whether they were or were not light in their loafers.
The connection between perception and reality is one of life's mysteries...
Sorry - you lost me. Don't understand the point you are trying to make.
"As I have gotten closer to God over the years I have learned why the KJV is the best of the translations of the original Greek and Hebrew text. Some of the reasons are that the words of the Old English which seam difficult to read and understand at first are really the most descriptive and least confusing to understand as you read."
Exactly...
True. Just like this thread is in reality an argument about which standardized set of New Testament texts are best, and about translation techniques. If people knew how scholars make a standardized text to begin with, they would probably argue even more. The scholars certainly do...mostly about philosophy of how to choose, and which texts meet their criteria.
Of course, some people have a perception that there was a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the scholars that translated the KJV...that hadn't happened before or since (ignoring the political decisions involved in some of it, the reliance on earlier translations, especially the Geneval Bible, and such. They were well intentioned men, and they did a good job, but they were men doing things the way scholars do.)
Perception trumps reality a lot of the time.
I think asserting that historical figures were homosexual is juvenille and leftist regardless of whether they were or weren't.
Absolutly correct. None of us are readine the 1611 version of the KJV. We are ready the revised 1850s version. Most all of us could not read the 1611 version.
This is not a statement against the KJV, but a statement saying we aren't reading the 1611 KJV.
Can anyone get a copy of the 1611 in print or electronically?
wasn't the Queen of heaven in this context the goddess istar?
I agree. The whole point was that it is just as juvenile to assert that because "x" is associated with "y" who is associated with "z", therefore "x" must be associated with "z". It's lazy thought and fallacious logic. That was my whole point.
Astarte, but pretty close.
I am always perplexed by the KJV only crowd. Why did God give us the Bible in Hebrew and Greek if He intended us to use the KJV? If you want a truly accurate understanding of what God said you have to read the Bible in the original. All translations, even the KJV, are based on human choices about how to interpret what God said into another language, and since English has different words and different grammar than the original languages something is lost in the translation. Why do you think that the KJV is special? It was not the first "authorized" English translation and it is largely based on a prior translation done by Tyndale. Tyndale's Bible was "authorized" for use in Scotland decades before the KJV was authorized in England, and Henry VIII "authorized" an English Bible in all churches decades before the KJV was written, and even these were not the first Bibles in English. Why is the KJV so special? Since I am able to read Greek and Hebrew and am familiar with the shortcomings of all translations the insistence on the KJV translation seems to me to be less than astute. As others have pointed out, the KJV is NOT in Old English, and at least 80% of it is based on the work of earlier translations. If it is somehow "inspired" then you would have to conclude that the earlier translations were also inspired since the KJV is mostly a copy and edit job on the earlier translations. By the way, can you point to any Biblical support for the idea that the KJV is inspired in any way? How about Luther's German translation? Or the Reina Valera? Is English the only language that God chose to give an "inspired" translation to? I happen to have a photostatic copy of the 1611 KJV and any casual glance at it will reveal that what passes today for the "authorized" KJV has had thousands of changes to it in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Was God sloppy when He "inspired" the KJV?
I hvae been looking for a 1611 copy. Is there any place that made one for electronic use?
See the link in post #107
You can get a photostatic copy of the original from Christian Book Distributors (www.christianbook.com) - ISBN: 1565638085. As far as online versions, as someone already posted, go to www.e-sword.com and look for a download of King James Bible, 1611 (w/ Apocrypha)
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.