Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

[7seasrekeyed]

English is very different from many languages and uses tense differently and in fact does not have as many tenses as the languages in the original manuscripts

that is a fact but hey....what is a fact in the face of faith, right?

well, having faith in facts is truth. having faith in your own understanding is, well, not necessarily truth

 

[Endoscopy]

If I may sis. The way I see it there are some prety bad ones (New Living is one that I would never want anyone, especially someone who does not know God to use.. It may have better more updated english, but the transated words are awefull) as well as some others

Then there are great ones (KJV,NKJV,NASB, and many today like the ESV)

I personally use the NKJV for my studies and due to the fact most people in my home church use the NASB, I tend to try to use NASB for all my teaching) I have used the KJV/NKJV all my life, it is what I am used to and what I know.. so it is my prefered choice. I am sure many are this way.

I put NIV up there as well. Using my smartphone going to biblegateway.com I can look up book and chapter then I can switch between translations. I use mostly NIV, ESV, KJV, and AMPC. The nice thing about AMPC is it puts additional meanings of the original language word in parentheses.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The word baptize was around for hundreds of years before 1611. Did you know that?

The Oxford dictionary is an encyclopedia of the English language. It is so thorough and so authoritative that no other language has anything comparable. In this dictionary, there are quotations from English works using the words baptize, baptism, and other forms of the word from the following dates: 1200, 1297, 1300, 1325, 1382. The word is used throughout the English Bible translation of Wycliffe completed in 1382. This means that the word baptize and its forms were English words long before the 1611 translation.

Lol

Dude the bible was not written in English, The Oxford disctionary can not help you interpret greek words. All it can do is help you translate ENGLISH WORDS.

And the greek words from which the english word baptise was translated has FAR DEEPER meanings than the english word baptise and in ANY defenition any english dictionary has ever given


So as I thought. You can not explain why they transliterated a word. You will still deny truth at all cost.

 

[John146]

Same old story.. Been answered 1000 times

Lets look at facts and not delusions ok?

The fact is, You do not think God can work through minor errors in bibles which are written in a language that by itself brings some issues in translation.

No greek text written in Jesus day can ACCURATELY be translated in a WORD FOR WORD translation (which is what the KJV is) for the very reason. To many greek words does not have an exact englishj equivelant (IE the word Love has 4 greek varients, all which mean different things, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to correctly translate into the english text) and the greek has many variations of verb structure, tense and other things which the english does not have, so again, it is impossible to correctly translate these language issues which the english has no equivelent in place.

The only way to do it is to not make a word for word, which some have tried (NIV, NLT) but in many places made it worse than the word for word bibles.. Which can easily be looked at. And on questionable passages, the greek CAN be looked at and take care of the questionable issue.

God uses ALL THINNGS but you do not have faith in this..s you keep trusitng your fallible english bible is perfect.. and miss out on the alot of deep spiritual truths that can not be displayed in your english word for word bible

If God Himself were to come down today and speak to us using the English language and quote His word from Genesis to Revelation...God Himself would be stuck, speechless because He couldn't find the correct words to say in English. Is this your view?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Again, because a word used in 1611 is not used as much or at all today, does not make that word incorrect or void. And true science will always agree with the KJV.

Wrong. So wrong..

This is only true to those who refuse to see any error. And will never see it no matter how much proof is given

Again, the english language ALONE makes it an imperfect translation.

 

[John146]

Lol

Dude the bible was not written in English, The Oxford disctionary can not help you interpret greek words. All it can do is help you translate ENGLISH WORDS.

And the greek words from which the english word baptise was translated has FAR DEEPER meanings than the english word baptise and in ANY defenition any english dictionary has ever given


So as I thought. You can not explain why they transliterated a word. You will still deny truth at all cost.

They did not transliterate the word. They used a word already available in the English language. It has a far greater meaning than to immerse. Do we merely hold people under water, immerse, when we baptize? Nope, we resurrect them, bring them back up.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If God Himself were to come down today and speak to us using the English language and quote His word from Genesis to Revelation...God Himself would be stuck, speechless because He couldn't find the correct words to say in English. Is this your view?

God himself would not be relegated to offering a word for word translation of what he was trying to say, He could use language in a way that it would be impossible to be confused about what he says.

Example.

God would not come to earth and say,, My second command is for you to love your neighbor

He would say, My second command is for you to love your neighbor with the love that is unconditional. Un self serving and completely sacrificial. (He would have to spell out or interpret in detail what the word “AGAPE” actually means since there is no equivelent WORD in the english language to properly and completely interpret it. The closest is the english word “Love” which is incapable of correctly and completely translating the meaning of the greek text)

Doing this in a bible CEASES that bible from being a word for word translation. Because you are not translating words, word for word, you are translating meanings.

Somethine you evidently do not understand .

Nice try, But no cigar dude..

 

[John146]

God himself would not be relegated to offering a word for word translation of what he was trying to say, He could use language in a way that it would be impossible to be confused about what he says.

Example.

God would not come to earth and say,, My second command is for you to love your neighbor

He would say, My second command is for you to love your neighbor with the love that is unconditional. Un self serving and completely sacrificial. (He would have to spell out or interpret in detail what the word “AGAPE” actually means since there is no equivelent WORD in the english language to properly and completely interpret it. The closest is the english word “Love” which is incapable of correctly and completely translating the meaning of the greek text)

Doing this in a bible CEASES that bible from being a word for word translation. Because you are not translating words, word for word, you are translating meanings.

Somethine you evidently do not understand .

Nice try, But no cigar dude..

Is that a yes, God could not find the exact words in English to speak His word? God Himself could not perfectly translate His original words in to English and those words He spoke in English would be the exact words of God in English? Yes or No

 

[eternally-gratefull]

They did not transliterate the word. They used a word already available in the English language. It has a far greater meaning than to immerse. Do we merely hold people under water, immerse, when we baptize? Nope, we resurrect them, bring them back up.

It does not matter, they still USED A TRANSLITERATED WORD.

You the ONLY person I have ever met who said baptize is an origional english word not a transliterated word because there was no english equivilent This hurts your cause man, it hurts you, it does not help you.

In the english meaning, Water is assumed (jus tlook at th emany baptise thread in cc, how many times do people insist EVERY time you see the word, you atuomatically assume water? )

In the greek it is not in every case.


So when we see the term in Romans 6 Being baptised into his death. 50% of the people assume this automatically means baptised into water SYMBOLISING being baptised into his death.

Where as if the word was actually TRANSLATED and not transliterated, it would actually say that we are IMMERSED into his death, or PLACED into his death, or UNITED in his death, (As the people of Isreal was placed into vital union with moses in the cloud and the sea) and NO WATER is involved. Because people made it a religious word, and took it out of context of what it REALLY MEANS

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Is that a yes, God could not find the exact words in English to speak His word? God Himself could not perfectly translate His original words in to English and those words He spoke in English would be the exact words of God in English? Yes or No

It would not be like the KJV if thats what you begging for. It would be much more deeper. Much more concise, and about twice as large as the KJV is even by using the Olde English

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Can someone explain to john what a “word for word” translation of the bible is, and what makes it different from other types of bibles? And what are the inherent flaws from going from one language to another?

I tried, but he still does not get it. Maybe someone else can help

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I just really really would like to know what John here considers true science

what is he calling true science?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Can someone explain to john what a “word for word” translation of the bible is, and what makes it different from other types of bibles? And what are the inherent flaws from going from one language to another?

I tried, but he still does not get it. Maybe someone else can help

prob equivalent to trying to explain string theory

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I just really really would like to know what John here considers true science

what is he calling true science?

I wonder why he thinks science proved one verion over another. Would not science prove all scripture right?

 

[John146]

It does not matter, they still USED A TRANSLITERATED WORD.

You the ONLY person I have ever met who said baptize is an origional english word not a transliterated word because there was no english equivilent This hurts your cause man, it hurts you, it does not help you.

In the english meaning, Water is assumed (jus tlook at th emany baptise thread in cc, how many times do people insist EVERY time you see the word, you atuomatically assume water? )

In the greek it is not in every case.


So when we see the term in Romans 6 Being baptised into his death. 50% of the people assume this automatically means baptised into water SYMBOLISING being baptised into his death.

Where as if the word was actually TRANSLATED and not transliterated, it would actually say that we are IMMERSED into his death, or PLACED into his death, or UNITED in his death, (As the people of Isreal was placed into vital union with moses in the cloud and the sea) and NO WATER is involved. Because people made it a religious word, and took it out of context of what it REALLY MEANS

I'm glad you brought up Romans 6. Let's take a look.

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

"Immersion" is being submerged into water, - glug, glug, glug; whereas baptism is going under the water and coming back up again. This is the picture of our identification with the crucified and risen Christ.

 

[Dino246]

Nope, at least then we could have an honest discussion. The discussion with most on this board is between those who believe God has preserved His words in the English language through the KJV and those who believe God has not preserved His words in the English language, that no bible can be trusted.

I'm amazed at how consistently ridiculous your comments are lately.

God did not promised to preserve His words in English... at all. God did not promise to preserve His words in the way you think... because you refuse to acknowledge what Psalm 12 actually says. You have blinders on.

The debates here range across a wide range of subjects, and your narrow classification of contributors suggests that you hold this issue as all important. Again... it's simply ridiculous.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm glad you brought up Romans 6. Let's take a look.

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

"Immersion" is being submerged into water, - glug, glug, glug; whereas baptism is going under the water and coming back up again. This is the picture of our identification with the crucified and risen Christ.

See, You did exactly what I said. your using an ENGLISH defenition, and NOT A GREEK defeniton, and have totally mistranslated what Paul was trying to say.

Water is not used in romans 6. And should not be even inffered at all.

( it would be like saying, therefore we who were “baptized into water” in christ, were “baptzed into water “ In his death, therefore we were buried with him by “baptism into water) into his death

See how rediculous this sounds, yet thats the way youwish to translate it by adding the word WATER into the defentions. Where it is not FOUND.

The interpretors should have just interpreted the word. And written it as it was origionally stated.

If nothing else. It should say something like this,

4 as many of us as were immersed/placed into into jesus christ, where immersed or placed into vital union with his death, therefor we were buried with him by being united with his death, that just as he was raised from the dead, so we should also (or somethign like this)

Sorry, The english translators got this wrong, ALL of them, not just the KJV people

 

[Dino246]

Is it not the truth that the Sinaiticus was found in the dumb at St. Catherine's Cathederal and the Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library (which I would consider garbage)?

Your opinion about such things is a long way from the facts.

The Vatican library may be controlled by apostates and unbelievers, but that doesn't mean that its contents are inherently suspect. That would be a fallacy of guilt by association. Of course, I've come to be unsurprised by your use of fallacies.

If you want truth, you're going to have to read material from non-KJV-only sources.

 

[Endoscopy]

English is very different from many languages and uses tense differently and in fact does not have as many tenses as the languages in the original manuscripts

that is a fact but hey....what is a fact in the face of faith, right?

well, having faith in facts is truth. having faith in your own understanding is, well, not necessarily truth

The reason English has all of the contradictory rules with exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, etc. is in Britain there were the Celts. Along came Rome and Latin was added to the Celtish language. The Saxons then invaded with German added to mix. Last the Angles invaded bringing French. Thus the mixture ended up becoming present day English over the centuries. Liturature from Choucer through Shakespeare down to today you can see this transition. Try reading Choucer in its original form. Almost indecipherable.

 

[Dino246]

If God Himself were to come down today and speak to us using the English language and quote His word from Genesis to Revelation...God Himself would be stuck, speechless because He couldn't find the correct words to say in English. Is this your view?

Once again you're resorting to hypotheticals instead of reality. As God Himself isn't planning on coming down and speaking to us all in English, your scenario is irrelevant. Plus, your conclusion is ridiculous.