What's with all the new Bible versions? - Page 26

Evang.Benincasa · #**251** 07-06-2015, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowas

I'm curious how much you teach from the Apocrypha? You do teach from it, right?

The KJV or the Authorized Version was never authorized by anyone other than England's King James I. The original KJV had a calendar of annual holy days which all believers were expected to follow and that these days included such notable Roman Catholic examples as the Purification of the Virgin Mary, The Annunciation of Our Lady and Innocent's Day.

You adhere to that, right?

Bowas, of course Sean does.

I have posted to Sean numerous times if he used the Deuterocanonical books. He never said no, and never said yes. So, I would guess he uses them because if he didn't he would say something.

Evang.Benincasa · #**252** 07-06-2015, 06:52 PM

Sean, if they KJV is translated into Japanese is it still the KJV?

Bowas · #**253** 07-06-2015, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sean, if they KJV is translated into Japanese is it still the KJV?

LOL. The Japanese better getter a grasp of English if they want to get saved, Ummm..1611 English, that is.

TK Burk · #**254** 07-06-2015, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowas

I'm really not going to involve in all this, but for you to claim, we 400 years removed from the KJV 1611 version cannot come close to the translators work because too many years have gone by, if that be the case, the 1500 years they were removed from the original, brings their work into an impossibility of accuracy. Using your logic(?) and reasoning(?). That is totally inconsistent and destroys your argument.

If every generation, words and opinions change to the point of unreliability after the passing of a mere 400 years or 10 generations, how much more unreliable would it be after the passing of 1500 years or 37.5 generations?

It seems some of this you are arguing just for arguments sake. I've seen so many try to get a following by trying to show how they have a special insight that others do not see. Yours is KJV-only (and other ones, for that matter, like sinners still under the Old Testament law) which to the unlearned, may seem as if thou art some great scholar, but as has been mentioned, everyone of the versions you have railed against can still lead any sinner to salvation. Agreed?

Have your preference, that's fine, but as I said some days ago, why would you start out from the very beginning in a slight contentious manner, with a new prospective convert and try to prove their beloved, studied, marked up and highlighted Bible is not really the REAL word of God. I prefer to show them the truth I teach from the Bible they bring. (All this has been my opinion)

Evang.Benincasa · #**255** 07-06-2015, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowas

LOL. The Japanese better getter a grasp of English if they want to get saved, Ummm..1611 English, that is.

What about the Geneva Bible? Sean, do you like the Bible of the Pilgrims? They wouldn't touch a KJV, it was too modern for them.

Sean · #**256** 07-06-2015, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowas

I'm curious how much you teach from the Apocrypha? You do teach from it, right?

No

The KJV or the Authorized Version was never authorized by anyone other than England's King James I. The original KJV had a calendar of annual holy days which all believers were expected to follow and that these days included such notable Roman Catholic examples as the Purification of the Virgin Mary, The Annunciation of Our Lady and Innocent's Day.

You adhere to that, right?

No

Oh. One more thing:
"The texts relied on are founded, for the most part, on MSS. [manuscripts] of late date, few in number, and used with little critical skill . . . "

As an example of that last point we may note that during the translation of the KJV disputed points about a given text were settled by a vote of the translators, which, in the case of a deadlock, meant that "God's infallible word" often depended on the deciding vote of the chairman of the translating committee—and his vote depended entirely upon his own religious views (Forlong's Encyclopedia of Religions, vol. 1, p.300)

Sure better than one mans' opinion right?

Bowas, the King James had no idea whether the Apocrypha was the Word of God or not...He ordered it all to be translated to be safe and made it illegal to change or delete ANY of it(including the Apocryphal books). The Apocryphal books were not 'blended" into the rest.

Martin Luther said, "Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read." .....https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...O6LjQsDEpe-Lcg

The King James had seen first hand the aftermath of murderous recent religious atrocities over the translation issue and decreed that the Bible must be legally translated in the English Language, and to be safe, every word of all of the various books was preserved.....The Apocrypha was removed much later(1885), when the king was long dead.

I dont think the king was "annointed by God" to do this, but that he was an unwitting vessel to get the ancient translation of the Old and New Testaments into our hands today.

TK Burk · #**257** 07-06-2015, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

Bowas, I am trying to show us how far we have drifted from the translation of the KJV group in 1611.

We are out of range now, being so far away.

The very first large scale "concensus" group(not a single individual translating) to translate the Bible into our language were the KJV translators....

This is the group that was the best, and will ever be the best in existence for the English language translation work.

I simply trust, that 400 years ago, because we finally got a King that did not "forbid" the public to own a Bible, the Almighty God arranged this endeavor and gave us His word(in our language) for these last days.(then later came the counterfeits in the 1900s)

Simply put, if the KJV is wrong, we can tell God, "dont blame us"

You evidently never read their translators' notes to the readers.

Sean, how could you possibly know these translators were "the best, and will ever be the best in existence for the English language translation work"?

The same argument you use claiming today's translators are too far away from the original languages to know what's scripturally correct would also nullify you from knowing how accurate these translators were.

It is pure arrogance for you to say otherwise...