| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"John" |
| Date: |
17 Oct 2004 08:28:56 PM |
| Object: |
To Pastor dave |
Hello;
This is done in love despite the names you have called my translation.
But anyways please address these points:
"The 1611 KJV translators also recognized the importance of a
translation that was understandable. For us today, the archaic words in
the KJV are a major hindrance in understanding God's eternal message. A
few examples are:
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen,
kab, knob, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled,
rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood,
trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent,
purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban,
talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable,
sanctum sanctorum, carriage, let, pityful (for full of pity), wot, trow,
sod, and swaddling clothes."
The KJV has the word unicorn in it.
"The present editions of the KJV contain words for mythical non-existent
animals. For example: unicorn(s) and satyr. See Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt.
33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7,14."
And this
"The 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha, which contained various heresies
in it. For example, in Tobit 12:8,9, 1611 KJV we read:
For almes doth deliuer from death, and shall purge away all sinne. Those
that exercise almes, and righteousness, shall be filled with life."
John
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: To Pastor dave |
18 Oct 2004 08:13:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:28:56 -0700, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, John <johnw_94020@yahoo.com>
yodeled:
Hello;
This is done in love despite the names you have called my translation.
But anyways please address these points:
YOUR translation? You own it?
And let's not pretend. It isn't done in love, but
rather, in anger and hatred. We had this discussion
what, two months ago? And here you are, still upset
and trying to attack the KJV any way you can and you
didn't even research the information you read.
Enough of this.
--
± Pastor Dave ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor to follow thee: neither
have I desired the woeful day; thou knowest: that which came out of my lips
was right before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
/}
@#####{]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: To Pastor dave |
18 Oct 2004 06:56:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:28:56 -0700, while wondering if
all people love cupcakes, John <johnw_94020@yahoo.com>
yodeled:
Hello;
This is done in love despite the names you have called my translation.
But anyways please address these points:
YOUR translation? You own it?
And let's not pretend. It isn't done in love, but
rather, in anger and hatred. We had this discussion
what, two months ago? And here you are, still upset
and trying to attack the KJV any way you can and you
didn't even research the information you read. For
example, anyone who spent at least five minutes doing
actual research, would have known that the Apocrypha
was never included in the KJV as inspired text, but
only for historical purposes. It's clearly stated.
You're still up set because you love the NIV so much.
You don't care whether it's accurate or reliable. It
suits YOUR needs and it doesn't matter to you if it's a
trustworthy translation, nor does it bother you that
it's based on corrupt texts. Face it, you were not
able to refute one single point I made and that son,
should tell you something about your precious NIV.
So instead, you looked for ammo to shoot at me and the
at the KJV with. The sad part of your argument is,
that I never claimed to be "KJV only". I merely use it
because it is a trustworthy translation. Not perfect,
but trustworthy and based on proper texts.
"The 1611 KJV translators also recognized the importance of a
translation that was understandable. For us today, the archaic words in
the KJV are a major hindrance in understanding God's eternal message. A
few examples are:
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen,
kab, knob, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled,
rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood,
trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent,
purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban,
talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable,
sanctum sanctorum, carriage, let, pityful (for full of pity), wot, trow,
sod, and swaddling clothes."
I have no problem understanding those words. That's
because I'd rather raise my level of education to be
able to read a Bible based on good texts, than to dumb
the Bible down and read one based on corrupt texts.
The KJV has the word unicorn in it.
"The present editions of the KJV contain words for mythical non-existent
animals. For example: unicorn(s) and satyr. See Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt.
33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7,14."
So you base your claims on the fact that you don't
like Elizabethan English? Tell your children not to
learn Shakespeare then (Middle English, I believe, but
similar), since only modern English is acceptable to
you. Will you do that? If not, why not?
And this
"The 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha, which contained various heresies
in it. For example, in Tobit 12:8,9, 1611 KJV we read:
For almes doth deliuer from death, and shall purge away all sinne. Those
that exercise almes, and righteousness, shall be filled with life."
You are in error. The Apocrypha was included as a
historical set of documents, not as inspired.
The fact is that almost all modern versions of the
Bible are based on the Alexandrian Texts and they are
worthy of your time and research, if you're going to
read a version based on them. And modern English
versions are NOT based on the same texts as the KJV and
a few others (which is based on the Majority Texts), so
don't let anyone tell you that they are. I would
suggest that you carefully investigate these texts for
yourself.
The biggest argument that these "pro-Alexandrian"
people use, is that they are older. Their next
statement (and you have to watch carefully), is that
they are "more reliable". Why? They answer, "because
they are older". That's right, that's all there is to
the "older and more reliable" argument that they use.
There is NO other basis for their "more reliable"
statement. None. It is a circular argument.
The fact remains, that in the way old days, copies were
made by hand (quite a process of copy and error
checking, which took years) and you had some "master
copies", for lack of a better term. More copies were
made off of these, etc., etc., until you had many
copies floating around. The problem is, that you can
only roll and unroll a scroll just so many times,
before it wears out and you can't use it anymore. But
that's ok, because you have EXACT copies. But even
these wear out, after a while, due to being opened and
read, or more copies being made from them.
Now while people like to make the claim that textual
errors crept into these copies, the fact is, that they
were checked by many and if even one little error was
found, the whole thing was thrown away and they would
have to start again. Once again, you should really
look into this process and how careful they actually
were. I'm not saying every scribe was perfect, but the
fact remains, that the Majority Texts have over 5,000
copies in existence and all agree 98% of the time and
as for the other two percent, it is a matter of the
spelling of a word, or the name of a town changed,
etc.. No doctrinal changes.
Anyway, it is the texts that were used, that would keep
wearing out and therefore, you would have newer copies
in existence, not way ancient ones. If you have a very
old copy, such as the Alexandrian Texts, that doesn't
tell you that it is a more reliable set of texts, but
rather, that they weren't being used. Therefore, they
still exist. Bear in mind, at that point in history,
they did not have the same excitement about
"originals", as we do today (probably because they had
no way to mass produce and retain them). Scribes were
so meticulous, that a certified copy was considered the
same as the original. When an original would wear out,
it was destroyed. Is it a surprise then, that the most
used texts would have copies that are for the most part
newer (although there are a few very ancient fragments
around and they do agree with the Majority Texts).
As for the Alexandrian Texts in question, they are NOT
many, but ONLY TWO texts.
The Vaticanus: Found in the Vatican Library, in 1481.
Omits Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106
through 138; Matthew 16:2-3; the Pauline Pastoral
Epistles, Hebrews 9:14 through 13:35 and the whole book
of Revelation. The Vaticanus does contain the
Apocrypha (red flag).
The Sinaiticus: This manuscript from which your NIV,
NASB, PHILLIPS, and almost every other modern version
you can think of besides the King James, the New King
James (for the most part), the LITV, the MKJV and the
ALT Bibles, was found in St. Catherine's Monastery near
Mt. Sinai in 1844 by Tischendorf. It was in a trash
pile and was about to be used to light the fireplace.
It contained nearly all the New Testament plus the
"Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas".
Red flag! Hello? :)
I won't even get into the erasure marks and changes
over the years, by different hands, even as late as the
12th century. Let us remember though, that these two
texts differ from each other in about 3,000 places in
the Gospels alone and I am not discussing spelling
errors and one of them (the Vaticanus) agrees with the
Majority Texts, instead of the other text (the
Sinaiticus), yet they use the Sinaiticus text.
The reality is, out of the available texts, almost all
modern versions are based almost completely on one
text, which is the one that disagrees most with the
Majority Texts and even other Alexandrian Texts.
Wescott and Hort promoted these Alexandrian Texts and
Hort worked on them. It is wise to examine what they
believed.
Hort:
"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue.
There are, I fear, still more serious differences
between us on the subject of authority, and especially
the authority of the Bible."
"But the book that has most engaged me is Darwin. My
feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship
and Jesus-worship have very much in common."
"But you know that I am a staunch sacerdotalist."
"I am inclined to think that such a state as Eden (I
mean the popular notion) never existed."
"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and
material counterfeit."
"The Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to
lead to the truth than the Evangelical. We dare not
forsake the sacraments, or God will forsake us."
Wescott:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry
bears witness."
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three
chapters of Genesis, for example, gives a literal
history."
Hmmmm.... Interesting comments, huh?
So, I guess it all comes down to asking when God told
us to go to Egypt for His word. Egypt has always been
represented in Scripture as being evil, never of God.
Yes folks, the people have been deceived by these
texts, but it is no wonder. After all.....
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into
an angel of light." - 2 Corinthians 11:14
The argument of many people translating from them into
Bibles today, isn't valid at all. Many churches teach
false doctrine. Should we imitate them?
Now some may not agree with the Bible. But you must
admit that those who claim to be Christian should agree
with the Bible and therefore, when someone who
disagrees strongly with the Bible and is obviously
biased, is doing the translation, that should send up a
red flag. And when those who are biased against the
Bible and disagree with it, are actually promoting a
set of texts, that should send up a huge red flag. I
won't claim that any translation is 100% perfect and
without any translation errors at all, but the KJV has
stood the test of time and has withstood all attacks.
This is why I trust the KJV . It was a translation
done from the Majority Texts ((there are other good
ones based on the Majority Texts) and accomplished by
47 scholars, who fluently spoke, read and wrote an
average of 11 languages each. Remember, they didn't
have a TV in those days, to take up their time and warp
their minds. :) They actually spent their time
studying and learning. And their work is impeachable
to this day. Even though many attack it, they do so
using the corrupt Alexandrian Texts and I'm sorry, but
that just doesn't cut it.
What you must do, is stop looking at this issue as
someone who understands the doctrines of Christianity
and imagine that you had never read the Bible at all
and were by yourself, reading it. What would your
image of Jesus be, considering that many of these
modern translations, based on the Alexandrian Texts,
omit words. For example, where the KJV used, "Lord
Jesus Christ" (which is in the Majority Texts, which
are over 5,000 copies strong), the Alexandrian version
will just say, "Jesus". Now that could change the
picture in the person's mind from the Lord which we
worship, to just a way cool teacher, could it not?
Look at the following example, in Matthew 1:25:
The KJV states that Mary gave birth to "her firstborn",
which tells you that she had other children.
The NIV simply says that she gave birth to "a son".
There's quite a difference there, since that leaves the
door open to a different belief regarding what the
Catholics call the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and
you might be influenced by a Roman Catholic priest
telling you that Mary was a "perpetual virgin". Again,
don't consider what you already know, but rather,
pretend that you don't know anything yet and are just
learning.
Remember, that if someone wants to make a counterfeit
copy of the texts, it has to be very close to the
original, or everyone will know right away that it is a
counterfeit. Why the omissions of the words, "Lord"
and "Christ" in many of these versions?
Remember, rat poison isn't all poison. It's mostly
good food (99% or more), with a very small percentage
of poison. Otherwise, the rat wouldn't eat it. Think
about that.
I guess what it boils down to for me, is that I would
rather take the time to learn the Elizabethan English
and go with what I know is a trustworthy version, based
on trustworthy texts and raise my level of education,
than to dumb down the Bible, to my current level of
education. After all, don't we applaud our children,
if they learn Shakespeare, saying it is a beautiful
English? Yet, when it comes to the Bible, older
English is a bad thing? That's hypocrisy.
Also, let us understand that with Elizabethan English,
the text of the original is more clear for us. For
example, in the KJV, you know when someone is speaking
to one person, or more than one. If it starts with a
"T" (thee, thou, thine), they are speaking to one
person. A "Y" means that more than one person is being
addressed (ye). Also, modern English can't carry over
the inflections in the original language, as well as
the Elizabethan English can.
There are other options though. I would research
different modern English translations and see what
they're based on, if a modern English version is what I
wanted.
I am not a "KJV only" person. I just haven't found
many modern English versions that I would consider
trustworthy and when dealing with God's word, I think
we had all better be very careful about which version
we choose to read. After all, this is God's written
word to mankind we are dealing with. It is of the
utmost importance!
I'm also not into beating anyone over the head, to try
to force them to see it as I do. But I do provide the
information, when someone discusses Bible versions.
You know what amazes me? We wouldn't let a preacher
get up and preach, who doesn't believe the Bible, or
teaches that evolution, as Darwin stated it, is how we
got here, or teaches against the deity of Christ, yet,
we line up and can't wait to get our copy of the Bible,
that was translated by Wescott and Hort, or from the
Nestle/Aland Greek Texts (which are based on the
Alexandrian Texts), or the UBS texts, or other people
and texts of this type and many words are left out,
including references to the deity of Christ and the
translators even reword the Creation account, to say,
"a day", instead of "the first day", or put notes at
the bottom, claiming it doesn't mean an actual day and
claim that it actually means "a span of time". Since
when is it a good thing to promote anti-Biblical
philosophy, within the Bible itself and reword it to
suit our own purposes? The fact that this is done, is
exactly that... a fact and yet, not only do these
Bibles sell like crazy, but Christians actually defend
them.
The fact that most people use them, these days, is
irrelevant. After all, look at how many were deceived
by Satan, even in the first century church. Most
people follow him. According to the logic of most
people being supportive of these texts (or supporting
the modern English versions translated from them), if I
were to follow him, I should be able to ask you why
you're not, since most people are.
Now, if you want proof of the influence of these
"modern day" Bibles, then start to question people on
what they believe (not stemming from this topic, so
you'll get an honest and unguarded response). I think
you will find that the majority of KJV users believe in
a literal Creation and believe the Bible to be the word
of God. I think you'll also find that most of the
"modern day" Bible users, question the Creation account
and hold a belief in evolution and that it was started
by God and don't think of a number of things in the
Bible as literally true. You see, the word of God has
been watered down enough, to where you could come to
that conclusion, in those versions. Now if that
doesn't tell you what you need to know, then what will?
As for me, I'll stick with what I know I can trust.
To put a final nail in the coffin of these modern
translations, let us have a look see at a couple of
verses that have been claimed to be contradictions by
many, using the KJV and the NIV as an example for
comparison. The argument is over whether Solomon had
forty thousands stalls, or four thousand stalls. You
see, the editors of the NIV decided that since they
believed that there was a scribal error there, that the
wording should be changed and so they "corrected" and
reworded it (as many modern translations have done).
They admitted this, so there is no dispute about that.
The reality is, that there was no contradiction to
begin with and careful reading of the KJV shows that to
be the case.
While at first it does appear to be a contradiction, it
isn't and the KJV is an accurate, literal translation
from the original Hebrew and not a "correct the Hebrew
version", in which translators sought to correct the
supposed scribal errors for them, as did the NIV.
Let's look at the relevant verses first, in the KJV.
"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for
his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
- 1 Kings 4:26 KJV
"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he
bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at
Jerusalem." - 2 Chronicles 9:25 KJV
Note the wording of 1 Kings 4:26. It says that Solomon
had (read carefully now and pay attention to the caps),
"forty thousand stalls of horses FOR his chariots".
Now, that means that he had forty thousand stalls that
would each hold one horse. It doesn't say how many
stalls he had total, nor does it say how many chariots
he had. He did have for each horse a stall though.
And he had forty thousand horses, it appears. Okay,
let's move on.
Now we read 2 Chronicles 9:25. It says that Solomon
had, "four thousands stalls for horses AND chariots".
Note that this is an entirely different statement. It
doesn't talk about stalls for his horses, but rather,
stalls for his horses when tied to a chariot.
Now when we think of a chariot, we think of one horse,
one chariot. In reality, larger chariots were used to
go into battle, each of which held ten men and was
pulled by ten horses. That means that four thousand
chariots had ten horses each, which is forty thousand
horses tied to four thousand chariots, requiring four
thousand stalls for the time in which the horses were
connected to the chariots. Since you have forty
thousand horses, when they were not connected to the
chariots, you would need forty thousand smaller stalls
for them, which would mean "forty thousand stalls of
horses FOR his chariots". That is a total of forty
four thousand stalls (forty thousand smaller stalls for
just horses and four thousand larger stalls for when
his horses were tied to his chariots), not a total of
forty thousand and not a total of four thousand and it
makes perfect sense, is logical and no contradiction is
found in the text.
Now let's read the "corrected" version in the NIV.
"Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses,
and twelve thousand horses." - 1 Kings 4:26 NIV
"Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and
chariots, and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in
the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem."
- 2 Chronicles 9:25 NIV
Now take careful note of the wording. First of all,
they changed it so both (1 Kings 4:26 & 2 Chr 9:25)
read, "four thousand", calling it a scribal error.
That change is the due to the translators of the NIV.
And notice that it reads, "twelve thousand horses",
instead of, "twelve thousand horsemen". That item is
due to the corruption of the Alexandrian Texts.
Also note that the word in 2 Chr 9:25 was changed from
"horsemen", to "horses". Also, the part about, "and
with the king" is omitted. These items are due to the
corruption of the Alexandrian Texts.
In the NIV, for example, it is obvious that there are
indeed contradictions and when you have people reading
a Bible with contradictions, due to corruption and
intentional word changing on the part of the
translators, it is no surprise that they would begin to
doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible and we all know
where that eventually leads. They are forced to make
excuses for the text and come up with crazy
explanations, that atheists know better than to accept
and it eats away at the believer, little by little.
Doubt festers, unless PROPERLY dealt with and that can
only be done with truth and not with crazy
explanations, or by stating that there are "scribal
errors", etc. If there's a scribal error there, where
else is there one?
So as you can see, it is versions like this (along with
translators who don't believe in the faithfulness of
the word of God and who think that somehow, for the
almost two thousand years before the discovery of these
Alexandrian Texts, that man did not have the true word
of God), that cause much of the divisions that you hear
of and see today.
Ever notice that now, instead of hearing, "Well, my
understanding of this passage is as follows...", that
instead, what you hear is...
"Well, my Bible says..."
"Oh really? Well, my Bible says..."
"Oh, really? Gee, my Bible doesn't say that at all."
"Hey, my Bible doesn't even have that verse."
How are Christian Bible students supposed to deal with
different Bibles, in the same Bible study,
contradicting each other? Maybe this doesn't seem like
a big deal to you, but who is to decide what is
important and what is not? How much corruption and
contradiction is okay with you, if any is? Let me tell
you something, if there is even one error in the Bible,
then I give up. I'm throwing it away. A God who
cannot keep His word straight and is subject to the
whimsies of man, is no God at all. He can create the
heaven and the Earth and raise His Son from the dead
and cannot keep His word straight? Please! Think
about it. I, for one, cannot believe in a set of
texts, calling them God's word, while they contradict
themselves. Either His word is true, period, or it is
not, period. I believe it is pure and using the KJV, I
have not run across one single supposed contradiction
that I have not been able to resolve, with proper
study. In the example I gave above, from the NIV,
there is an unresolvable contradiction.
And do you now think that no corruption of God's word
is contained in these modern versions? If you still
do, go into your NIV (if you use one, or have one) and
post here for me, Acts 8:37. Go ahead, I dare ya. :)
These are but a couple of examples. The list goes on
and on, believe me. And it isn't just the NIV, it's
many. I use the NIV as an example, because it is
probably the most popular of the modern English
versions.
So there are my arguments, based both on scientific
data and on theological thought. Hope this helps. As
for me, I'll stick with my trustworthy KJV, which has
always served me well and has never contradicted
itself, nor left out a verse. As I said, there are
modern English versions based on the Majority Texts. I
simply have not read those versions cover to cover and
can't speak for every verse, but they appear to be very
well done.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/1stcentury/
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditation." - Psalm 119:99
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works." - 2 Timothy 3:16-17
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology
and biology is thus in the peculiar position of
being a science founded on an unproved theory.
Is it then science, or faith? Belief in the
theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to
belief in special creation. Both are concepts
which believers know to be true, but neither,
up to the present, has been capable of proof.
- L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to
the 1971 edition of Charles Darwin's Origin
of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
