You obviously know nothing of him.
Getting your information from cult propaganda sources again I suspect.
BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV
- Thread starter chess-player
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You obviously know nothing of him.
Getting your information from cult propaganda sources again I suspect.
This is more FAKE NEWS from the anti-KJV crowd. The King James Bible was a word-for-word translation (as much as was possible) while rendering the Hebrew and Greek into idiomatic English. When the exact equivalent was not available the translators did insert their own words IN ITALICS. Which clearly showed the reader what was not word-for-word.
Let's take an example from Psalm 5:3 where "my prayer" is in italics because it is not in the Hebrew but completes the sense in English. Also YHWH is translated as "LORD" (small capitals):
KJB: My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O LORD; in the morning will I direct [my prayer] unto thee, and will look up.
Hebrew: יְֽהוָ֗ה בֹּ֖קֶר תִּשְׁמַ֣ע קֹולִ֑י בֹּ֥קֶר אֶֽעֱרָךְ־לְ֝ךָ֗ וַאֲצַפֶּֽה׃ (reading from right to left).
Literal translation: Yahweh in the morning you shall hear my voice. In the morning I will direct [it] to you, and I will look up.
I'm glad you think I'm a nice guy
That is to misunderstand the argument. You say yourself that the 2 words are necessary in order to properly translate the one, the grammar is also arrange to suit the english language. The meaning is conveyed word for word.
Dynamic equivalence is to interpret the whole thought ... it is in effect a paraphrase.
Now I am a lover of the Living bible which still is very modern, but it doesn't hide the fact that it is a paraphrase. In fact although it is a paraphrase it still follows the Tynedale tradition
Still same point. It has been translated candlestick. If they thought that oil fed lamps were also called candles then that would be fine. Did they? I don't know. If they though that Candles were wax then they would be wrong.
That is an oil fed lamp with branches and bulbs to hold oil.
RUBBISH
I am not "anti KJV Crowd"
When I first joined this site YOU INTRODUCED ME to KJVO sectarianism. I had never experienced it in real life.
And still have not. You gave me my first experience of seething hatred against the Bible I was reading.
My recent post was factual.
The KJV is not word for word. You have simply ignored my point so I will make it again for all to see.
"God forbid"
Two words the KJV uses many times to express the meaning of the Greek μή which cannot be translated exactly.
μή (mē) is not the word for God ( θεός theos ) nor is it the word for forbid. ( κωλύω kōlýō)
The KJV is not word for word. It is no better than other translations. That was the whole point of the OP.
To address the false claims "fake news" surrounding the KJV.
Latin, Syriac, Spanish, French, or German Bibles were saying the same thing as the English KJB.
That does not make sense. They don't use the same words as English.
Upon consideration of the different translations concerning John 21:15-17 I believe the KJV verses are consistent with Peter being told to feed sheep (2 verses) and lambs (1 verse). Whereas some of the other translations modify feeding with tending to sheep. Why is this relevant? Because the scripture references parallel what Peter actually did concerning feeding. Peter fed both sheep and lambs spiritual food. Sheep are mature and can easily be seen as Jewish, whereas as lambs are young; such as Gentiles who were later given the opportunity to become sons of God. Feeding and tending sheep are entirely different.
Peter fed the Jewish population (sheep) in Acts 2:1-38
Peter was also involved in feeding the Samaritans who were 1/2 Jewish (sheep) in Acts 8
Peter fed Gentiles (lambs) in Acts 10
"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep." KJV
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16 Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. NIV
So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?"
He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You."
He said to him, "Feed My lambs."
16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?"
He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You."
He said to him, "Tend My sheep."
17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?"
And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You."
Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. NKJV
I'm glad you think I'm a nice guy
That is to misunderstand the argument. You say yourself that the 2 words are necessary in order to properly translate the one, the grammar is also arrange to suit the english language. The meaning is conveyed word for word.
Dynamic equivalence is to interpret the whole thought ... it is in effect a paraphrase.
Now I am a lover of the Living bible which still is very modern, but it doesn't hide the fact that it is a paraphrase. In fact although it is a paraphrase it still follows the Tynedale tradition
I don't think you understand the definition of a dynamic equivalent from the perspective of bible translators. Read that book I mentioned it explains it way different than what you keep saying.
The rewording of a sentence to maintain the Greek meaning is in effect a dynamic equivalent. A Paraphrase falls under the category of a Free translation and not a dynamic equivalent and you have them in the same box in your mind but they are not.
He is a self appointed Bible critic who claims to believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures and yet he criticizes ALL Bible versions that have ever been made tells us the following -
He says: “In Matthew 28:19 Jesus uses the word "Go". In English this word implies a command. But in the Greek this word is not a command. It is "as you are going" or "as you are being made to go". The translators made a mistake in the tense of this word. God is not commanding us in this verse to GO into all the world.”
End of comments by our “deep and knowledgeable budding scholar” who even admitted that he is no expert in biblical languages.
Not only does the King James Bible correctly translate this verb in the participle form as “GO” - a command, but so too do the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, the ASV 1901, the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, NKJV, Holman and an host of other Bible versions both in English and in foreign languages.
What our Bible critic apparently is ignorant of is the fact that participles can legitimately function in a wide variety of ways. They can serve as adjectives, adverbs, nouns and commands.
There are many examples of all of these in virtually every Bible translation made all through history.
The Greek word? How it is used in the Greek language particularly in the 1st Century when John wrote. It's not that difficult to find the supporting documents from other Greek writings to prove it was always about oil fed lamps and not wax candles.
True, The Luther Bibel has goldene Leuchter- which is golden lampstands in German.
That's a 1554 translation. So it can't be attributed to modern scholars.
Have you ever heard him "say" anything?
Or are you using your cult propaganda information ring?
But if that dynamic equivalent translator is of a different theology to the author [Author] and translates that thought according to his theology it then becomes a paraphrase.
I have said I usually read the ARV or the RSV knowing it's weakness when compared to the KJ. The obvious example of this is the fact that Westcott the main contributor to the RV did not really believe that Christ was God, you can be sure every scripture that deals with Christ's deity in the RV is extremely weak. John 1 v 1 is one scripture which even if he dared he could not get around.
I guarantee you the growth in doctrines denying Christ's deity have been fed by modern translations. If modern translators are of the opinion that salvation must be earned, or that salvation can be lost it will feed it's way into their translation.
Sentences which were cast in stone in the KJ become a little fuzzy at the edges.
He's probably right. I will let you know in about three years.
It doesn't really make any difference to me. I already knew that God was telling me "as I go" which is how I live. I don't feel that God is telling me that I am breaking a command because I am not booking a plane to another nation right now. So you should probably slow down on your false accusations, because the bible specifically says that God hates that. And that should concern you much more than what Bill Mounce thinks about how to translate "Go" in this instance.
I am only interested in reading those English translations that involved a large committee of expert scholars that followed strict documented rules in translating.
Read about how a translation like the NIV gets accomplished. The details will reveal that many of your concerns are not technically possible. Reality is different than what you are imagining.
Knowing what we do about the history of the middle ages I am much more suspect that the KJV would fear for their lives and obscure something like creating a word for Baptism rather than use the word Immersion knowing that the current King was in support of sprinkling. By creating the word Baptism and obscuring the Greek word that meant immersion they wiggled out of the controversy allowing people to refer to sprinkling as baptism.
Bet you didn't know that did you? The KJV invented a word rather than translate the Greek using the known English word immersion.
So there is strong evidence that the KJV scholars actually did what you are thinking others might do.
Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying that people should not trust the KJV as the word of God. It is a sufficient translation into English. I just think it is really dumb to say it is the source manuscript and no one else can do as good a job or better than they did at translating from the actual source manuscripts. Lets keep it sane or we will loose credibility with the people we are trying to reach with the Gospel.
it makes sense since they translated to have the same meaning as the English KJB. Your argument about the intended meaning gets sheds more light on these translations from Greek. This is an undeniable fact.