I think there is a difference between your description of difficult passages, and taking a sentence which is clear in its original language and translating it into a sentence which is unclear English.
1. Translators sometimes have difficulty with passages in the original languages (e.g. Isaiah 18).
2. Some translations are deliberately obscuring the sense, but the KJB is not one of those translations.
3. Some translations, as well-meaning as they might be, have confused the sense, but the KJB is not one of those translations.
4. Since the Reformation was all about getting the Word into our language, we should be able to rely upon the Scripture in English. Why then go to the "original languages"?
5. Studying the Scripture means to compare Scripture with Scripture, this means:
a. Using the KJB, not going to the original languages.
b. Using the KJB, not going to other translations.
6. The truth is not "more clear" in modern versions, nor will it be helpful to go to them, because altering even one word alters the sense.
7. Scripture study has been hijacked by some, who think that the truth is not wholly present in the King James Bible, but must find the truth in other sources. They may compromise on anything to reject the King James Bible as it stands.
Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. (2 Cor. 8:1-2)
According to bible"protector," this isn't merely a bad translation, it's a "test" put in here by God to see how hard we study.
So I did study it. To be precise, I went and looked it up in the NIV (hey, bible"protector" said that "study" doesn't mean looking it up in the original languages):
And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity.
Wow, that's much easier to understand! Good thing I decided to do a little extra homework and find out what it meant.
Here's another hard one:
O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. (2 Cor. 6:11-13)
Huh?
Now, I'd naturally be inclined to think that the translators of 2 Corinthians were having a bad day. But thanks to bible"protector," I know that's not really true; it's just God testing my diligence to study his Word. So, again, I looked it up in the NIV:
We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also.
Wow, this studying God's Word is great!
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. (1 Cor. 16:22)
Let him be what? Time to rise to God's challenge and study this obscure and difficult passage again!
If anyone does not love the Lord - a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!
That's so clear, it's like it was written in plain English! I'm glad bible"protector" gave us this wise advice to study God's Word and find out what it really means.
__________________
Take care,
Scott >>>Minion of BASSENCO<<< as outed by Shiloh
"In the heat of composition I find that I have inadvertently allowed myself to assume the form of a large centipede. I am accordingly dictating the rest to my secretary." - C. S. Lewis
5. Studying the Scripture means to compare Scripture with Scripture, this means:
a. Using the KJB, not going to the original languages.
b. Using the KJB, not going to other translations.
Does your statement mean that you are claiming that the original language texts from which the KJV was translated are not the Scriptures?
Where do the Scriptures actually state and teach your opinions?
Does your statement mean that you are claiming that the original language texts from which the KJV was translated are not the Scriptures?
Where do the Scriptures actually state and teach your opinions?
How can the Scripture in the original languages be Scripture to us who know not those tongues? "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." (1 Cor. 14:11).
Are you denying the principles of the Reformation, which were to bring the Scripture into a language which we can study? How else could we fulfil commandments like, "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Romans 15:4).
Again, how can it be right to study the truth of the Scripture from the originals, when we do not even know which words belong to the correct texts there, or the meanings of all the words, or even how to read all of the letters with the proper sounds: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Pet. 1:20).
Surely, the Holy Ghost would have us look to one translation, not many interpretations (cf. 1 Cor. 14:27).
Actually I have a lady in our church who brings me words when she reads her Bible. I gave her a KJV - Easy read...she loves it. It helps her immensely with her Bible reading.
__________________
"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson
Disclaimer:
The views expressed here are in my humble opinion.
Does your statement mean that you are claiming that the original language texts from which the KJV was translated are not the Scriptures?
One difference is that the King James Bible (and Geneva Bible) can be held in our hand and read, one attribute of Scripture. Scripture is writing that can be read by the seeker and believer.
The other texts that you refer to are not extant in one book, thus if they are "Scripture" it is only in an ethereal sense.
Thus you have spoken fallaciously.
There is no such thing as Scriptures in the current tense that are not a specific text. Any purported identification of those source language texts will have some significant gaps and questions.
Riplinger does not actually prove her misleading and incorrect accusations.
Gail Riplinger does give many strong arguments as to problems with this version. You have not included those arguments in your presentation.
btw, I would not use her terms like sleazzzy reading Bibles. A bit sensationalist and unfair, writers of books often look for little catch phrases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
not valid evidence for claiming that another Greek text was supposedly used.
This was not a Gail Riplinger claim. What she says is that this version departs from the Greek Textus Receptus cursive tradition and she gives examples where this is true, such as changing the NT names and capitalizing pronouns. While her position can be critiqued, such points are essentially sound.
Rick has deliberately misrepresented the words of Gail Ripilnger - she never said another Greek text was used "supposedly".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
Her misleading attacks on any edition that updates archaic spelling or words forms would seem to conflict with her own statement that “synonyms can be substituted”
Rick does not give the context of this quote, which is not about revising the King James Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
and her acceptance of the pre-1611 English Bibles.
Gail Riplinger does not advocate replacing the King James Bible with pre-1611 Bibles, so your point is very muddy.
We have discussed her statements about the Bishop's Bible on another thread, so that does not need repeating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
In the November, 2007, BFT Update, it was reported that D. A. Waite’s oldest son, who was the footnote author and editor for Waite’s Defined KJB, had helped in the making of the King James Easy-Reading Bible. That indicates that the sources for many of the updated spellings and the definitions in the KJV-ER were likely the same ones used for Waite’s Defined KJB
Possibly, but D. A. Waite distanced himself from the Easy-Reading Bible, with no personal involvement with the words (his wife writing) that he "does not see any reason to 'update' the King James Bible."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
If those same words excellently and accurately translated into understandable English
This opinion is of course contested strongly by many, and is not given by you as even your opinion, since you use your normal ambiguous I don't know what is true style "if".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
are put in the text instead of in footnotes or marginal notes, do they become wrong?
Even Donald A. Waite says these notes should not be in the text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
cost less to print the updated, accurate. understandable English
Once again, you are stating an opinion that you do not even claim to hold. You have not remotely proven that there is anything more accurate in this version, but then again, you write in such a way that most everything is couched with the ambiguous "if" and "would".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
in the text instead of in hundreds or thousands of footnotes or marginal notes.
It also may cost less to buy a Reader's Digest condensed version of the Bible.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-15-2009 at 03:20 AM.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Linear Mode
