[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: The Origins of the King James Bible Source: Smithsonian URL Source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart ... -james-bible-180956949/?no-ist Published: Oct 17, 2015 Author: Erin Blakemore Post Date: 2015-10-17 05:19:05 by Willie Green Keywords: None Views: 23150 Comments: 83 A handwritten draft of the world's most famous bible has been discovered in England When an archive yields an unexpected discovery, it's usually cause for celebration. But when that discovery involves the world's most famous bible, scholarly excitement mounts to ecstastic levels. The earliest known draft of the King James Bible has been unearthed at the University of Cambridge, writes Jennifer Schuessler for The New York Times, and it’s being lauded as a critical find for historians. The draft was discovered by Jeffrey Alan Miller, an American scholar conduct in the Cambridge archives. It contains the handwriting of dozens of authors, dating from 1604 to 1608. That handwriting is a crucial find, Schuessler writes, because it reveals how they translated and assembled the text. "There's a strong desire to see the King James Bible as a uniform object, and a belief that it's great because of its collaborative nature," Miller tells Schuessler. "It was incredibly collaborative, but it was done in a much more complicated, nuanced, and at times individualistic way than we've ever really had good evidence to believe." Forty-seven translators and scholars produced the King James Bible, which was first published in 1611. The project dates back to 1604, when King James I decided a new version could help consolidate political power, writes NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagartay. A popular Puritan bible had downplayed the divine right of kings — greatly offending James — and James manipulated different Christian sects until they agreed to produce a different translation. The result became an incredible, long-lasting success. The King James Bible has influenced language, literature and culture for more than 400 years. In the Times Literary Supplement, Miller writes that his discovery suggests that the text may be "far more a patchwork of individual translations — the product of individual translators and individual companies working in individual ways — than has ever been properly recognized." Perhaps there is always more to discover after all. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: Willie Green (#0) (Edited) This doesn't surprise me. The myth the KJB as a work done equally by committee (companies) always seemed shaky to me, even going so far as to dub the committee as The Translators. In real life, you more often have individual contributors to committee work doing a lot more of the work. And dominant personalities tend to leave their marks on committee work. And that is what these notes indicate. Not all KJB translators were created equal. And some were more motivated to do the work. A popular Puritan bible had downplayed the divine right of kings — greatly offending James — and James manipulated different Christian sects until they agreed to produce a different translation. They downplay the popularity and ubiquity of the Calvin's Geneva Bible. It contained footnotes about tyrant kings who lose their divine right to rule (as it was considered in the monarchical era). Our Founders, many of them subversive Presbyterian Puritan types, overwhelmingly used the Geneva Bible. And you read echoes of this tyrant-loses-divine-mandate-to-rule in period pieces like the Declaration of Independence and other writings. King James produced his bible with one requirement: no (subversive) footnotes. He was too late and revolutionary fervor in America continued to be stoked until the American Revolution during the reign of George III. The KJB had a deliberate political motive behind it. So did the footnotes attached to the Geneva Bible. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-17   8:45:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: TooConservative (#1) And all of the well-known earlier English translations of the Bible: Douay-Rheims, Geneva, Bishops', KJV, relied very heavily on Tyndale as the guts of their work. The later translators all used Tyndale as the base, and then compared their work to his. A massive percentage of the Geneva, KJV and the other Bibles is really Tyndale. It would be far more truthful to say that Tyndale is the source of the English Bible, and the Geneva, King James, Bishops and others were editors who amended and embellished 10 or 15% of it. Because that's really the truth. At Douay, and at Geneva, and in the committees, they did not really translate the Bible. What they really did was take Tyndale's translation and compare it to their own work, and then emend and edit Tyndale. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-17   9:48:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Vicomte13 (#2) A massive percentage of the Geneva, KJV and the other Bibles is really Tyndale. Even NIV and NKJV borrow readings from the Tyndale. This is especially true of foundational verses, the ones that people often memorize. It is interesting to trace the readings of the various versions. For all that they brag about their pedigree from the Alexandrian texts, they often rely on quotes of English translations of the Vulgate using Byzantine manuscripts in support. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-17   17:25:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: TooConservative (#3) (Edited) It's true of the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles too. Bishop Challoner, in the mid-1700s, carefully edited the Douai-Rheims Bible to reflect the KJV language as close as theology would bear...which is almost entirely, and the KJV itself is about 80% Tyndale. As for the Orthodox, they have used Protestant and Catholic English Bibles for most of their history. Only recently have "Orthodox" Bibles been translated. The biggest seller is the "Orthodox Study Bible", the New Testament of which is the NKJV, which is about 75% Tyndale. If you pick up a Bible in English, between 75% and 95% of the words you read are Tyndale's translation. The Bible in English is really the Bible of Tyndale, as edited by later committees. The supermajority of every English Bible translation of any importance is Tyndale. That's just a fact. And considering that Tyndale died at the orders of Henry VIII for having made the translation, there is a certain authority to be had from the seal of a martyr's blood. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-18   14:11:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Vicomte13 (#4) So Vic, which Bible do you personally use? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Stoner  posted on  2015-10-18   20:05:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Vicomte13 (#4) If you pick up a Bible in English, between 75% and 95% of the words you read are Tyndale's translation. The Bible in English is really the Bible of Tyndale, as edited by later committees. The supermajority of every English Bible translation of any importance is Tyndale. That's just a fact. Nevertheless, it isn't a fact widely recognized when we debate the merits of various translations. A key question is how often the dead hand of Tyndale still affects the text when it finally gets written into a particular bible translation. In a religious text, we expect certain qualities to endure. We are fond of certain familiar phrases. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-18   22:47:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Stoner (#5) So Vic, which Bible do you personally use? I personally use several, for different purposes. When I am, myself, trying to study the Law of God - something that I think is important because God lavished so much attention to it, I use a mechanical translation of the Hebrew Massoretic Text. I also take a lot of time with the Hebrew pictographs, which I have to mostly decode myself, because there does not exist a translation based on the pictographs. For the English of the Old Testament, I use a mechanical translation and I look at the pictographs - when I am reading for my own purposes, to know and to understand (as opposed to the purpose of trying to discuss things with others). When it comes to the New Testament, my preference is to place three things side by side: the Greek text (in either the Alexandrine, Byzantine or Texts Receipts format, as long as there is an indication where they differ). I want to actually see the Greek, because I am very untrusting of the bias of translators. Then I look at the Vulgate Latin side by side with the Greek. I don't speak Greek, so I have to rely on translations. I don't speak Latin either, but I do speak French, and can read Spanish, and had four years of Latin. I can't read Latin like a novel, but when side-by-side with the Greek, or ANY English translation, I can read the Latin almost like French. I like the Latin because it is only partly a translation. It was a living language of half of the Christian world at the time of Christ. The Scriptural documents are written in Greek (at least probably they were - some things might have been written in Latin), but they were all written within the Roman Empire, and the Greco-Roman culture was a culture. Latin was not some faraway distant-future language to Greek, in the way that Greek, Latin and English all are to Old Testament Hebrew, or English is to New Testament Greek. Bilingualism between Latin and Greek was the norm among educated people of the Empire, and Christianity was spread all over the Latin half of the Empire during the lives of the Apostles also. So, while the New Testament was (probably) originally composed in Greek in the Greek-speaking East, parts of it were composed in Greek, or perhaps even in Latin, from Rome. And while WE see Greek and Latin as very different, a closer read by a discerning mind familiar with the languages realizes that much of the differences appear to be from differences in spelling - that at the roots of pronunciation some letters shift, but that the languages are closer than they appear. Zeus, deus, and theos appear to be three every different words, but three people speaking the same letters with a speech impediment or an accent could produce any of those words. They're not really different words - they're different pronunciations of the same root word. Greek and Latin are cousin languages. So when Jerome, a Roman in the Greek-speaking Roman East, was translating the Greek Scriptures into Latin, he was doing so as a native speaker of both languages, both of which were the languages of one empire, of which he was a very well-educated citizen, and it was the same Empire that had killed Christ and persecuted the Apostles. So Jerome knew very well the idioms, and the mindset, and the structures and legal concepts of the Empire. He wasn't translating something distant and foreign. He was doing the equivalent of taking Washington's letters and translating them into modern English, as a modern American within the culture understanding the reference points. It's not a little deal to me. It means, to me, that Jerome's selections of idioms are certainly to be correct, and modern translators' choices that differ with Jerome are almost certain to be wrong...because Jerome was a Roman with native fluency of both languages, while any modern translator has only book knowledge of the Roman empire, culture, idiom or either the Latin or ancient Greek language. Jerome had access to much better manuscripts also. So, the Vulgate is the best source for translation issues. I've read the Bible so many times that I'm not going through trying to learn and understand what is in there. Rather, I focus on "hard sayings" and things I find difficult. And in almost all of those cases, I find that the difficulty arises in the English. The Latin, Greek or Hebrew make sense. In such cases, I simply dismiss all of the English translations and go with the Hebrew, Greek or Latin. Where the Latin conflicts with some translations from the Greek, this is because the modern English translator is using a different manuscript than Jerome. I consider Jerome to be far more authoritative than any modern, for the reasons I've already given, so where Jerome differs from, say, the Nesle Aland text or the Textus Receptus or the Alexandrine Texts, I assume that Jerome was working from the most authoritative sources, while moderns work from fragments and assorted artifacts. In other words, the Latin is definitive. Where the Greek LXX and the Massoretic Text differ, I generally assume that the issue is a matter of manuscript differences, but I find the LXX to be more persuasive than the Massoretic Text - HOWEVER, you can't use the LXX for pictographs, so the Massoretic Text cannot be ignored. Because the issues upon which I focus are very technical, I have several different texts open at once. If I'm just READING the Bible, just to read it, then I still use the Mechanical Translation for the Torah, The Orthodox Study Bible for the rest of the Old Testament, and the Eastern Orthodox Bible for the New Testament. I do this because the Mechanical Translation is the most precisely accurate, the Orthodox Study Bible is the only translation of the LXX for the rest of the Old Testament, and the Greek Orthodox translation of the Greek in the EOB is simply superior in terms of accuracy, in part because the Greek Orthodox simply don't have the long and complicated Reformation era bickering and tensions, and so don't have an English-language tradition to defend. Catholics and Protestants are partisans of particular translations for historical reasons, and I find no value in those historical reasons. The Greeks, I find, simply want to accurately convey the exact meanings in English, and the EOB does a better job of that for the New Testament than any other translation, IMHO. So, when I personally use the Bible, for my purposes, that's what I do. But when I am discussing the Bible with other people, the text I use is generally the KJV. That's because most of the people with whom I am discussing things are Protestants, and they automatically distrust me and anything I have to say because I'm a Catholic. I know this, so I use the KJV to discuss things using the text that some of them claim is inspired, but that none of them reject. It doesn't make any difference to me, really, because the discussions I have with other people are not about the details that fascinate me, but about politics and morality as presented in Scripture. And for that purpose, the KJV is superlative, given that it was written by extremely conservative people of a very Catholic tradition (though Protestants) in an age of faith, and is written in a style that sounds very authoritative to minds easily bent by archaic British English. I'm always happy to use the KJV, because the KJV is much less vague and more direct on the points I think are more important than more modern hedged versions. So in these arguments I'm always pleased to go "KJV Only". Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   1:03:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#4) If you pick up a Bible in English, between 75% and 95% of the words you read are Tyndale's translation. The Bible in English is really the Bible of Tyndale, as edited by later committees. The supermajority of every English Bible translation of any importance is Tyndale. That's just a fact. Oh nonsense. I have had dealings with translation committees, and know how some work. The Lockman Foundation is but one example. The NASB is a prime example of a fresh translation, with every member having a Ph.D.and proficent in multiple languages. To make one change in a passage in the NASB 1995 Update required the approval of 21 Ph.Ds on the committee. The very fact that the translators are reviewing numerous manuscripts in different languages destroys your argument. There are several one man translations to which your view would apply, but certainly not to all. "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity GarySpFC  posted on  2015-10-19   5:42:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Willie Green (#0) God translated the KJV as promised. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   8:35:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: A K A Stone (#9) (Edited) God translated the KJV as promised. You're a KJV-Onlyist? This is why I use the KJV for discussion purposes. I've never heard of an NIV-Onlyist, or an ESV-Onlyist, but KJV-Onlyism, KJV- inspired-translationism, is a thing. When you say "God translated the KJV", do you mean by that that the KJV-English is itself inspired, such that it, in the English, has the full authority of God behind it, that it is the "real" text of Scripture, in English, as inspired by God? There are KJV-Onlyists who are "inspired translationists" who believe that the KJV itself, is a direct revelation of the Scripture in God-inspired English. That among the manuscripts, God chose the TRUE manuscript, and that God inspired the translators to write the English that perfectly says in English the true inspired textual meaning of God. This is the strongest form of KJV-Onlyism, because it would mean that when one finds an ancient manuscript in Greek, one can compare that Greek manuscript to the English of the KJV and realize if that Greek manuscript is true Scripture or is a copy that was damaged in some uninspired way. Pure, full-strength KJV-Onlyism is my favorite kind, because it means that all of the various manuscripts in various languages that preceded it, with all of the gaps and confusion, were completely settled by God, for God provided a new, complete, perfect, inspired set of Scriptures, in English, in the age of the printing press, to REPLACE the confusion from the welter of ancient sources and languages. Inspired-KJVism means that one need not study Latin or Greek, or engage in any archaeology, to know PRECISELY what God intended Scripture to be, for he revealed the entirety of Scripture in English at the beginning of the 17th Century, in the age of the printing press. So, to fully know God's inspired Scripture, one must learn English, for the best, the most accurate and the most complete revelation of Scripture occurred in English, in 1611, with the publication of the KJV. The editorial choices of the KJV translators and publishers were all inspired by God, making the KJV 1611 version perfect - THE revealed word of God. Presumably you would accept an updating of spelling as acceptable, but not punctuation, because punctuation adds or subtracts meaning, so God conveyed the perfect punctuation. I do not believe KJV-Only Inspired-translationism myself, but I certainly prefer it as a basis for discussion, for it cuts through all of the fog and eliminates consultation of any other text. There was no standard dictionary of English in 1611, so a little bit of knowledge of archaic forms is necessary (thou vs. you vs. ye, for example, or "suffer the little children..."), but that's easily handled. KJV-Onlyism has the virtue of reductionist clarity. It establishes a set of rules, and a limitative text. It takes Hebrew, Greek and Latin off the table: the English was directly inspired by God. It takes all discussions about ancient manuscripts off the table: the English was inspired by God, so therefore ancient manuscripts can be compared to the English of the KJV to determine whether or not the ancient manuscripts are accurate or in error. It removes modern pedantism, because there was no dictionary in 1611, so the words mean what they meant in common usage then, not esoteric meanings that came later. There are no footnotes, which means that nothing was added. But there was versification, which means that God established the versification as part of the inspired scripture. Moreover, there are names to the books, so the NAMES are also inspired - by calling a Gospel "Mark" in the KJV, God has revealed that Mark was the author. Therefore, there is no need to waste time debating who wrote it: God revealed that with the KJV. Likewise, the canon was definitively revealed by God with the 1611 translation: the revealed texts, plus the apocrypha. Would you consider the original translators notes to be inspired also? What is the limit of inspiration? Is it everything that is within the cover of the original publication, first printing? I like that best of all, because now we have an authoritative set of texts, limited by direct divine inspiration, with specific words, punctuation and spelling. How far does your KJV-Onlyism go? As far as you go, I am eager to go farther. In its highest, best form, KJV-Onlyism gives us the only text certain to be complete and point perfect, right down to the period. The original printing of 1611 IS God's revealed word in the most perfect incarnation of KJV-Onlyism. And that means that all discussion shifts away from archaeology, manuscripts and translation to the literal words themselves, exactly as they appear on the page. This approach appeals very much to my lawyer's mind, because it closes the canon and gives a definitive text. And that takes away everybody's wiggle room, just like with the Constitution. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   9:29:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#10) Getting ready head out. So I will keep it short and simple. God said he would have his word translated. I'm paraphrasing. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   9:33:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: A K A Stone (#11) God said he would have his word translated. Yes, what I'm asking you is this: Do you think that the KJV translation itself is Scripture, inspired by God. Put differently, does the KJV have greater authority than an ancient manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus or the Massoretic Text, does it have the same authority, or does it have lesser authority? Your answer determines the degree to which I need to limit myself to the KJV EXCLUSIVELY when having discussions with you. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   10:00:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Vicomte13 (#10) In its highest, best form, KJV-Onlyism gives us the only text certain to be complete and point perfect, right down to the period. You really are LF's premiere KJV-Onlyist.     : ) Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-19   10:16:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: TooConservative (#13) You really are LF's premiere KJV-Onlyist. : ) I respect KJV-Onlyists for their devotion to a principle. I love the principle because it limits all religious discussion to one specific text as the sole source of authority. Obviously once things are limited to a single text, then the person with the strongest reading ability and best memory has the advantage. And that would be me. Of course I don't really believe in Sola Scriptura. Literacy is not a requirement for salvation. Still, as a tool for instruction and resolution of issues among literate, litigious moderns, there's nothing like a text. And KJV-Onlyism settles utterly the question of the Battle of the Texts, although it then opens up the problem of 17th Century upper-class British English versus 21st Century middle class American English. Permit me an example: I know that what John actually wrote, translated into English, is this: 'This is the way that God loved the world: he gave his only begotten son...". I know that the KJV says that too. "God so loved the word that he gave his only begotten son..." means just exactly that, in 17th Century English - he did it "just so". But I also know that 20th and 21st Century English speakers misread this and think it says "God loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son...", which is not what the Greek OR the KJV English really mean. I know that, but I also know that trying to use a translation that says "This is the way God loved the world: he gave his only begotten son..." would provoke howls of "Heresy!" from middle class American traditionalist Christians because the words are different from what they're used to, and so seem to be an attempt to "twist" Scripture. The real twisting has been done by the change of language and time and culture, but I know that the earnest, faithful, suspicious middle American will never accept that from a Catholic. He will smell sulfur. I'm pleased, then, to stay with the KJV text, for two reasons: It actually says, in its 17trh Century idiom: "This is the way God loved the world...", so by accepting the 17th Century "God so loved the world..." language I am not compromising anything on my side - what I wrote in 21st Century American English is exactly what that 17th Century British English says. But I also know that Americans who have invested "THIS MUCH" theology into that "so" aren't going to accept any change of the language. So by accepting the KJV text I can compromise and leave them their language intact, avoiding an unnecessary conflict, while still being correct. And then I can go find piles of Shakespeare and Marlowe and Bacon and others writing in that period to demonstrate that "so" means - "just so" - "in this way", and not "this much" - when written by a hand holding a pen in 1611. That, then, turns out to be an edifying discussion, for Shakespeare and Marlowe and Bacon have been invoked as contemporary demonstrations (as there was no dictionary in 1611), and then my interlocutor can keep his precious traditional language while coming away with a different point of view. KJV-Only Sola Scripturalism is a TOOL that makes a conversation possible between a Catholic and an evangelical Protestant. DOCTRINALLY he believes it, and I think it's nonsense, but I'm willing to use his text to avoid dispute. That's why I like it. As TRUTH? No. But as a medium of communication between hostile brothers and sisters that need to reconcile, it's a good tool. Incidentally, there's a Catholic form of KJV-Onlyism we might call "Vulgate- onlyism", and an Orthodox form of it we could call "LXX-Onlyism". And we should remember that the Massoretic Text tradition, which comes out the post- Christian revolution, post-Temple, Jewish "Council of Jamnia" is itself a "Hebrew-text-Onlyism" that stands directly opposed to LXX-Onlyism for the Old Testament. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   11:46:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: A K A Stone (#9) God translated the KJV as promised. So your God only loved the English speaking people on earth, and only those born after 1611 or better yet 1769? "A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity GarySpFC  posted on  2015-10-19   12:11:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Vicomte13 (#7) " I personally use several, for different purposes. " Thanks for the reply Vic. You are educated enough to use all the versions you discussed. I guess I will just stick with the KJV. I would guess that I cannot go wrong with that. I have considered acquiring a copy of The Torah. Just for curiosity. I assume it is available in english. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Stoner  posted on  2015-10-19   13:25:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: GarySpFC (#15) Do you think God wasn't behind the King James Bible? Psalm 37 Don  posted on  2015-10-19   13:31:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: GarySpFC (#15) So your God only loved the English speaking people on earth, and only those born after 1611 or better yet 1769? I don't see how you get that silly notion out of what I said. When was the first Bible? Did your god only love people born after whenever you say the first Bible was published? I don't think so and I doubt you do either. So why do you jump to silly conclusions based on what I said? Did or did not God say he would translate his word for I believe all tongues or something of that order without looking it up directly. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   14:14:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Vicomte13 (#12) Do you think that the KJV translation itself is Scripture, inspired by God. Put differently, does the KJV have greater authority than an ancient manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus or the Massoretic Text, does it have the same authority, or does it have lesser authority? I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. I think that the Holy Spirit worked behind the scenes as God promised and no matter what the King wanted Gods word came out. As it did in other languages for other people. If someone says that they are intrepreting the Bible from the ancient texts such as Codex Vaticanus or whatever. If they say the King James is wrong and their intrepretation is correct. I'll go with the King James and not some other fellow telling me something contrary. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   14:18:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Stoner (#16) I have considered acquiring a copy of The Torah. Just for curiosity. I assume it is available in english. You already have the Torah. The Torah is Genesis + Exodus + Leviticus + Numbers + Deuteronomy. The first five "books" of your KJV is the Torah. Perhaps you meant the Talmud. Don't bother. It's 26 volumes long - a veritable encyclopedia of Jewish law. And what it mostly consists of is endless detailed discussions and debates about stuff that is mostly in Leviticus. The oldest part of the Talmud, the Mishnah, was written closest in time to Jesus, but it's still hundreds of years later. To know what Judaism was in the First Century, the best source outside of the New Testament is Josephus. Get his complete works. You will find them tedious and boring, and very long. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   14:30:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Vicomte13 (#20) " You already have the Torah. " Thanks for the clarification! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Stoner  posted on  2015-10-19   14:41:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: A K A Stone (#19) I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. If someone says that they are intrepreting the Bible from the ancient texts such as Codex Vaticanus or whatever. If they say the King James is wrong and their intrepretation is correct. I'll go with the King James and not some other fellow telling me something contrary. Ok. "Equal" here means that you think that the KJV has the same authority as the particular ancient manuscripts upon which it was based. And because you think that the KJV translation was itself inspired, you think it has greater authority than any other English translation. Others will debate you on this, but I won't, because the debate will be fruitless. I'm fine using the KJV, alone. The original KJV translation included the Apocrypha, so I assume that you accept that the Apocrypha are good for reading and instruction, but that no new doctrine should be asserted from those books, yes? In effect, this means that for our discussions, we don't refer to the Apocrypha. That's fine by me, for discussion purposes. I see that you will not accept any argument that contradicts the KJV language if it is based on a different translation of the texts, so the KJV English text is definitive. Ok. This narrows the field to a single text we all can use. I can accept that for discussion purposes. My acceptance doesn't mean that I believe the things I accept them - it means that for our discussions I will only use the KJV as Scripture, I won't use the so-called "Apocrypha", and I won't resort to Greek or Latin or Hebrew. We've narrowed the field to one text, in English. This is why I like KJV-Onlyism: it greatly simplifies discussion. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   14:46:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Vicomte13 (#20) The Talmud is full of Jewish mysticism. I always liked the advice to walk half a mile after visiting the privy so you can shake off the privy demon. Almost like the burning of fish guts we see in Tobit to ward off evil spirits. There's a superstitious mystical side of Judaism many do not consider. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   16:32:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#23) (Edited) The Talmud is full of Jewish mysticism. There's a superstitious mystical side of Judaism many do not consider. I always thought superstitious and mystical were two different things. My view is that when Judaism lost the temple priesthood their religion fell into the caretaker hands of local holymen and some were smart educated men but others were barely literate country bumpkins who dealt with stuff like bathroom demons and what not. There was no one to say what was right or wrong. In fact Talmud Judaism is probably best classified as an offshoot religion from Judaism. Judaism ended when the temple was destroyed and in its place arose Rabbinic aka Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is in fact YOUNGER than Christianity. Pericles  posted on  2015-10-19   16:42:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Pericles (#24) In fact Talmud Judaism is probably best classified as an offshoot religion from Judaism. Judaism ended when the temple was destroyed and in its place arose Rabbinic aka Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is in fact YOUNGER than Christianity. I believe you have the historical context correct. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   16:46:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: A K A Stone (#18) My 2 cents. The KJV is an excellent translation given what manuscripts were available at the time. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   16:49:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: Vicomte13 (#22) you think it has greater authority than any other English translation. I never said that. I would say it has greater authority then the NIV. I can't speak for all translations. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   17:01:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: redleghunter (#23) I always liked the advice to walk half a mile after visiting the privy so you can shake off the privy demon. Almost like the burning of fish guts we see in Tobit to ward off evil spirits. Or the shedding of blood to atone for sin... Or the burning of animals on the altar to make a "sweet smell to the Lord"... Or the pouring out of libations onto the ground, or mixing of salt into grain. Or circumcision, for that matter. The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. Or consider the arduously detailed description of each and every implement, article, curtain and board in the Tabernacle, how God Himself, the Almighty, lavished time and energy giving explicit details on how the bells were to be sown on the ephod, with what sort of thread, or what sort of stones were to be on the ephod, in what order. It reads like the sort of minute description of things that a daydreaming teenager would write. There is so much in the Scriptures themselves that seems to be nonsensical superstition. Consider baptism. If baptism of faith is all that is really needed, why the insistence - without explanation - on this not-strictly- necessary water ritual? Or consider the brazen serpent. People get bitten by venimous snakes, they have to look at a brazen serpent in order to be saved. Then they begin to treat the brazen serpent as an idol, so one of the kings destroys it. Or the Ark of the Covenant with all of that ornament...to be hidden away unseen. Why is it necesssary to eat bread and drink wine for salvation? God's reasoning in Scripture is also very strange, and contradictory. In one place he warns that sin will be visited down the generations. In another he says that men are accountable only for their own sins. Scripture Alone, if that's all I had, would persuade me that the Judaeo- Christian God is a myth like all of the others. But of course Scripture was written by men. The miracles are what make me stand up and notice the Christian God in particular. Not the miracles that are written down, because those could just as well be myths - anybody can write anything, and all religions have - but the actual physical miracles that can be studied. But I'm not doing the examination of those things either, am I? All of that evidence could be falsified. I don't think that it is, but it COULD be. And the artifacts themselves are as baffling as any of the written things. Why would God do it this way? What is important? In the end, I know what I was shown. That those things happened is true, which means that there are indeed spirits and powers. The miracles tell me which one to look at as true. The sweeping changes to the world that the Church has done show the power of change. And then there are the Scriptures, which purport to tell us things unseen. There are problems and weaknesses in every one of these sources, which is why no two people have exactly the same beliefs. But there's still a "there" there. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:05:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: A K A Stone (#27) I never said that. I would say it has greater authority then the NIV. I can't speak for all translations. OK. I will stick to the KJV when writing to you. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:06:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Vicomte13 (#22) and I won't resort to Greek or Latin or Hebrew. If you know those languages then use them. Or if you trust the translations then use them. I just don't know those languages. So I can only know what people say those languages say. So I would have to accept that someone is telling me the truth when I don't know if they are or aren't. I understand English. No one has been able to show me anything in the King James that makes me think it is contradictory or incorrect. I have seen things in the NIV that seem to contradict other verses. So I just stick to the KJV because that is what I understand. So if someone quote A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   17:07:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Pericles (#24) In fact Talmud Judaism is probably best classified as an offshoot religion from Judaism. Judaism ended when the temple was destroyed and in its place arose Rabbinic aka Talmudic Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism is in fact YOUNGER than Christianity. You are correct. Modern rabbinical Judaism is a sort of "oral tradition alone" Judaism. The Church is the continuation of the Temple under a new covenant Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:10:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: A K A Stone (#30) (Edited) No one has been able to show me anything in the King James that makes me think it is contradictory or incorrect. I'll show you several things in the KJV that are contradictory, but those contradictions are in the Hebrew also, so the translation is not the issue, but the words of Scripture themselves. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   17:12:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: Vicomte13 (#32) I'll show you several things in the KJV that are contradictory, but those contradictions are in the Hebrew also, so the translation is not the issue, but the words of Scripture themselves. Do you speak Hebrew? Oh you don't. So someone told you it said something and you believed them. Or you read it somewhere and you believed it. I haven't seen any contradictons or incorrect things in the Bible. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   19:10:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: A K A Stone (#33) Oh you don't. So someone told you it said something and you believed them. Or you read it somewhere and you believed it. I haven't seen any contradictons or incorrect things in the Bible. I am going to show you plenty of contradictions in the KJV. That way we don't have to speak Hebrew. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   19:26:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Vicomte13 (#34) I am going to show you plenty of contradictions in the KJV. You are going to show me what you think are contradictions. But if you pray on it and seek the truth you will see that there aren't any contradictions. Just misunderstandings. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-19   19:27:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: A K A Stone (#35) You are going to show me what you think are contradictions. But if you pray on it and seek the truth you will see that there aren't any contradictions. Just misunderstandings. They are real contradictions. Some are glaring. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-19   19:40:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Vicomte13 (#28) Or the shedding of blood to atone for sin... Or the burning of animals on the altar to make a "sweet smell to the Lord"... Or the pouring out of libations onto the ground, or mixing of salt into grain. Or circumcision, for that matter. The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. Not even in the same ball park as privy demons. "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6 redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-19   22:54:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: redleghunter (#37) Cicumcision is a lot worse than a privy demon! Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-20   1:15:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: Vicomte13 (#34) I want to see these contradictions. ebonytwix  posted on  2015-11-08   15:34:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: redleghunter (#37) (Edited) The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. They are tribal traditions arising out of conjecture, ignorance, and fantasy in men's erroneous attempt at understanding the creation, lawfullness and tragedy of the physical world. Some cultures created multiple gods and even contests between Gods in their attempt to devise explanations. We attempt to dignify ours by calling it Scripture. rlk  posted on  2015-11-08   18:05:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: redleghunter (#37) The things that God is said to have told them to do, when one thinks about it, are just baffling things that would be dismissed as superstitious tribal traditions and nonsense if they didn't appear in black and white in Scripture. They are tribal traditions arising out of conjecture, ignorance, and fantasy in men's erroneous attempt at understanding the creation, lawfullness and tragedy of the physical world. Some cultures created multiple gods and even contests between Gods in their attempt to devise explanations. We attempt to dignify ours by calling it Scripture. rlk  posted on  2015-11-08   18:07:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (42 - 83) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com