Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Which translation and why?
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
T
ttg
Guest
The Catholic Church has used Latin as its official language since Apostolic times. It was a universal tongue spoken by scholars throughout the Western world. Since Latin is still the official language of the Church, it only follows that the Vulgate is the official Bible.
But that does not invalidate others. In fact the Lectionaries in the pews contain text from the New American Bible with revised Psalms and New Testament.
T
thessalonian
Guest
Most certainly you are kidding JM. You know better than this! While the Vulgate is the official translation this does not invalidate other translations or make them against Catholic dogma. That's silly. The issue is with regard to translations. They don't capture all that is in the original language. This does not make them false. It simply means that some of the truth may be lost or more difficult to grasp. They may not contain the completeness of the word of God (think of my red rubber ball example I explained yesterday). This lossing of info in the translation makes interpretation more error prone. The Church has alway allowed translation of scripture and has always had approved versions in vernacular languages (though not in all languages due to difficulty in translation, and lack of demand for a particular translation (i.e. English)).
S
Solo
Guest
AV KJV
I use the King James Bible and I also believe it to be inspired and without error down to the italicized words and punctuation marks.JM said:
The King James Bible I have in my hands is my final authority for everything.
The KJV I believe can be bought at any Wal-Mart for $5.95 or less.
JM also asked why so I will post the "why" Monday AM.
BTW - the above statement "But, the extremely obtuse ones, such as the Ruckmanites and Riplinger-followers actually believe the KJV should correct the Greek." is a misrepresentation of what Dr. Ruckman believes. :roll:
The "Greek" Dr. Ruckman is referring to is the corrupt Alexandrian text that all the new versions are based upon so I believe he is right - the KJV always corrects "the Greek" (corrupt Alexandrian text) when they differ.
May God bless 8-)
Why I Believe the King James Bible
Why I Believe the King James Bible
1. The internal evidence of the KJB tells me I am reading the pure words of God – why should I not believe it?
2. The Holy Spirit obviously put its stamp of approval upon this work. The miraculous success and fruit since 1611 proves that God has blessed this book everywhere it has gone. Every where this book goes and is read and believed there is spiritual fruit.
3. The fact that the majority of modern “Christianity†rejects the KJV tells me that most likely they are wrong for the majority of “Christianity†today is apostate.
4. The preeminence that the KJB gives to the Lord Jesus Christ, his deity, and the written word tells me the KJB is God’s pure words. The other versions attack the doctrines associated with the Lord Jesus Christ: Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33; Blood Atonement in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5; Bodily Resurrection in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24; Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16; Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and many other truths surrounding Christ. Should this not be sufficient?
5. The perfection of its English language tells me that it is superior to all modern watered down English slang versions. Dr. EF Hills calls the English of the AV, “a divine Englishâ€Â. Just compare the language of the preface with the actual text.
6. The ability to cross reference in a KJB shows a providential, guiding hand of a sovereign God. Because of the inconsistencies in modern versions cross referencing is much more difficult and unreliable.
7. The KJB translators in 1611 were far more capable of taking on such a work than modern translators – just study and compare the lives of the men of both eras.
8. The extensive use of the KJB as a textbook in the average home in the past centuries for every use tells me this book is different.
9. There is no copyright on the text. The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. All modern versions were meant too make money thus they have a copy write. That’s why every new version changes I Tim. 6:10 to “a†root of all evil – how convenient.
10. Nobody yet has proven any errors in a KJB – they just think they are errors because: 1) They do not understand the passages 2) They are using corrupt manuscripts so of course they will say the KJB is wrong. 3) They are unregenerate men who hate God’s authority.
11. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. Why would I believe 5% that came from a heathen philosopher from Egypt?
12. The ease of the KJB when it comes to flow and ease of memorization.
13. The Providential approach to history tells me that God runs things and was behind the scenes in the 1604 committee.
14. Would God inspire and text and then lose it?
Why I and Many Others Do Not Believe the Modern Versions to Be the Word of God
1. All modern versions are based upon the corrupt manuscripts and theories of Wescott/Hort that are based upon Origen’s work in Egypt in the 3rd century. This has been documented by Dean Burgon, Dr. Ruckman, David O Fuller, Dr. E. F. Hills, and many more. BTW, Origen was a lost heathen philosopher - why would anyone trust this man’s work?
2. God would not bless a “bible†that slights his Son’s deity and work at Calvary in any way. Luke 2:33, Mic. 5:2, and Col. 1:14 should be more than enough. This has been documented over and over again and cannot be refuted unless one is truly ignorant of the issue or still unregenerate.
3. The inconsistencies in the modern versions are ridiculous. All modern versions since 1881 conflict with one another time after time. See the extensive and documented work by bro Will Kinney and others – don’t take my word for it. And I’m sure you will reject their word and documentation.
4. The modern versions have aided in producing the most carnal, fleshly, worldly and doctrinally ignorant saints ever.
5. All liberal religious bodies endorse the modern versions while rejecting the AV1611 as the final authority.
Why I Believe the King James Bible
1. The internal evidence of the KJB tells me I am reading the pure words of God – why should I not believe it?
2. The Holy Spirit obviously put its stamp of approval upon this work. The miraculous success and fruit since 1611 proves that God has blessed this book everywhere it has gone. Every where this book goes and is read and believed there is spiritual fruit.
3. The fact that the majority of modern “Christianity†rejects the KJV tells me that most likely they are wrong for the majority of “Christianity†today is apostate.
4. The preeminence that the KJB gives to the Lord Jesus Christ, his deity, and the written word tells me the KJB is God’s pure words. The other versions attack the doctrines associated with the Lord Jesus Christ: Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:34, and Luke 2:33; Blood Atonement in Colossians 1:14, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 1:7, and Revelation 1:5; Bodily Resurrection in Acts 1:3, Luke chapter 24; Deity is under attack in Acts 10:28, John 9:35, and I Timothy 3:16; Second Coming in Revelation 11:15, and Titus 2:13, and many other truths surrounding Christ. Should this not be sufficient?
5. The perfection of its English language tells me that it is superior to all modern watered down English slang versions. Dr. EF Hills calls the English of the AV, “a divine Englishâ€Â. Just compare the language of the preface with the actual text.
6. The ability to cross reference in a KJB shows a providential, guiding hand of a sovereign God. Because of the inconsistencies in modern versions cross referencing is much more difficult and unreliable.
7. The KJB translators in 1611 were far more capable of taking on such a work than modern translators – just study and compare the lives of the men of both eras.
8. The extensive use of the KJB as a textbook in the average home in the past centuries for every use tells me this book is different.
9. There is no copyright on the text. The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. All modern versions were meant too make money thus they have a copy write. That’s why every new version changes I Tim. 6:10 to “a†root of all evil – how convenient.
10. Nobody yet has proven any errors in a KJB – they just think they are errors because: 1) They do not understand the passages 2) They are using corrupt manuscripts so of course they will say the KJB is wrong. 3) They are unregenerate men who hate God’s authority.
11. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. Why would I believe 5% that came from a heathen philosopher from Egypt?
12. The ease of the KJB when it comes to flow and ease of memorization.
13. The Providential approach to history tells me that God runs things and was behind the scenes in the 1604 committee.
14. Would God inspire and text and then lose it?
Why I and Many Others Do Not Believe the Modern Versions to Be the Word of God
1. All modern versions are based upon the corrupt manuscripts and theories of Wescott/Hort that are based upon Origen’s work in Egypt in the 3rd century. This has been documented by Dean Burgon, Dr. Ruckman, David O Fuller, Dr. E. F. Hills, and many more. BTW, Origen was a lost heathen philosopher - why would anyone trust this man’s work?
2. God would not bless a “bible†that slights his Son’s deity and work at Calvary in any way. Luke 2:33, Mic. 5:2, and Col. 1:14 should be more than enough. This has been documented over and over again and cannot be refuted unless one is truly ignorant of the issue or still unregenerate.
3. The inconsistencies in the modern versions are ridiculous. All modern versions since 1881 conflict with one another time after time. See the extensive and documented work by bro Will Kinney and others – don’t take my word for it. And I’m sure you will reject their word and documentation.
4. The modern versions have aided in producing the most carnal, fleshly, worldly and doctrinally ignorant saints ever.
5. All liberal religious bodies endorse the modern versions while rejecting the AV1611 as the final authority.
T
thessalonian
Guest
I find this AV1611 theory quite interesting. So there are hundreds of different languages in the world. Are there true transaltoins for them as well or is this AV1611 translation the only true transaltion and the rest of the translations in the rest of the worlds languages false? I truly am interested in the answer to this by the KJV only crowd.
Good to see you here again av.
Good to see you here again av.
T
thessalonian
Guest
AVBunyan said:
I was just asking a question.
So there are perfect translations in all the languages?
So, let's cover this foreign translation now.thessalonian said:
Many a missionary from the past has taken an English KJV and used it or the Greek/Hebrew texts the AV came from to produce a foreign translation – These would be considered reliable and God has obviously blessed these foreign translations based upon the AV.
Bottom line – the foreign translation should be based upon the English text of the AV or the Greek/Hebrew the AV came from – not the corrupt modern English versions or the corrupt Greek/Hebrew they come from – these are unreliable.
God bless
T
thessalonian
Guest
So why did this infallible translation doctrine wait around till 1611 to kick in? (I probably know where this will head).
Lewis
Member
I use KJV and the Amplified only had a lot of versions and I started giving them away. Got some of them left. I have seen a lot of bad stuff in some translations, like the Living Bible, and the NIV, I still have a NIV though, but I don't use it anymore at all and have not for years. Same goes with the American Standard and many more.
D
Dalen Naskiel
Guest
Like alot of of people here I use the KJV of the bible myself, because I just like it, I guess. But, i'm starting to like the DN version also...
I have really started using the E-sword electronic Bible and using the compare option in it, which allows me to see each translation next to each other and compare the different translations. I think I have every translation available for the E-Sword Bible and I don't really find that much of a difference between the different translations, maybe I'm not looking at the right verses though. I usually tend to go with the LITV version though just for ease of reading and understanding compared to the old english in the KJV.