whoa there
| Posted On: 12/15/07 12:40:33 AM |
Age 40, MD |
dude, I like your attitude. you're a real warrior, but I'm not so sure you've got all your facts straight when it comes to the English Bibles, King James and others. An interesting book on the subject is called "Wide as the Waters." Now to all you King James only types, how did a man get saved back in 1610?
|
Re: Re: THE PHARISEES READ THE ORIGINAL HEBREW
| Posted On: 08/28/07 02:46:59 PM |
Age 49, TX |
The GREEK Septuagent existed in the day of Jesus and was the most used and cited version of the Old Testament at the time. The KJV is based on texts that are much further removed from the time of writing than many modern translations and has been PROVEN to have additions and errors that arose through the copying process. The NIV is based on texts that are much closer to the orginal time of writing and therefore much more reliable.
|
Re: THE PHARISEES READ THE ORIGINAL HEBREW
| Posted On: 08/27/07 11:46:22 AM |
Age 43, NH |
Dear Sir, The Phar did not study the greek Scriptures since they had not been written yet! I think it is sad that you would compare me to them since you do nopt know me. I am simply telling the facts, if you do not like the facts, that is up to you. Blessings,
Dr. Berman
|
Re: Jerome 1546
| Posted On: 08/27/07 11:35:43 AM |
Age 43, NY |
Dear Brother,
As I stated, I am not a "King James only" person. I am simply stating the facts concerning the modern translations. The Influance of Wescott and Hort in on their "revision" of the greek text and their rejection of the Textus Receptus. Every modern translation uses their "revision" as its basis. That is a huge problem. I think you would agree that if people hold the views that they held and are major contributors to a translation of the bible into english, that would be suspect to say the least. That is all I am saying and It is interesting to see how many people get angry with me over it (not talking about you). Other translations that come from the received Text are also good. Also it is important to remember what I said about the modern "dynamic equiv" method that is used. It is not the job of the translator to preach his ideas, it is the job of the translator to translate.
Blessings!
Dr. Berman
|
Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/23/07 06:01:13 PM |
Age 57, NC |
Sir: I grew up on the King James Bible and have put to memory so many verses that I could never get comfortable with any of the new translations when it comes to quotation. (its beauty is unequaled also) However I have found that my faith has only been strengthened by variety! I have not been plagued with doubts about Christs deity or anything else. My view is that all of the major issues of The Christian Faith have only been reinforced, at least from all the ones I have read. I still use an old Scofield Bible KJV, even though my church does not. Right now I'm reading thru The Christian Standard Bible and find it to be a fine compliment to the King James. Your research I found interesting though. I would hope that what ever Christian Bible one uses they would live what God teaches, and maybe we could have revival once again in this country. In Him, D.J.Davis
|
THE PHARISEES READ THE ORIGINAL HEBREW
| Posted On: 08/21/07 02:31:54 PM |
Age 63, OH |
There are countless people who read the original Hebrew and Greek languages of the scriptures and most of them are probably in hell. The pharisees read the Hebrew and when the Author appeared before them they called Him Satan. It is far more important that we seek the Author of the scriptures than what translation we use. I had a King James given to me and i could not understand it and did not commune with the Lord Jesus when I read it. I bought a New American Standard and had the same results. I finally asked The Lord Jesus about what one I should read and He told me the Tyndale Living Bible. I resisted because of the criticism toward it. But I was finally obedient and I read it and found myself in communion with the Lord Jesus Christ. He walked with me and talked with me and called me His own. The Lord put me on a foundation of SAVED BY GRACE AND NOTHING BUT GRACE by reading the TLB. Then I read the NIV and found it was strong where the TLB was weak. I have over 30 translations now and use most of them. The Wuest NT I find very useful. The KJB translators had many conflicts of interest also. They are the ones who burnt Tyndale's Bibles. King James himself was a tyrant. They also copied much of Tyndale's language and then did not even mention Tyndale's name. That is called stealing and even our worldly universities exspell students yet today for that. I have not found any translation that is even close to perfect but that causes me to seek the Author even harder when I read it for I am lost without the Author who is the Lord Jesus Christ who is the Word of God. I can forget my Bible but the Author is always with me everywhere I go. I can forget where a scripture is but He can tell me a exact chapter and verse if he desires to. I am so thankful for my Bibles and spend much time reading them. But I do not have to fear if they are all taken from me for the Word of God dwells within me. Me and Him share the same tent. Lou
|
Re: Re: Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/21/07 12:01:43 AM |
Age 41, CA |
As one of my college professors said once during a lecture: "Throw your English Bibles in the TRASH--that's exactly where they belong. Now start learning Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic and gain an understanding of textual criticism."
I finally took his advice, although I didn't get to around to it for about 20 years! Best thing I ever did. Avoids all of the nonsense of this article.
|
Jerome 1546
| Posted On: 08/20/07 03:55:14 PM |
Age 40, TX |
Dr. Berman,
You stated that Jerome revised the Latin Vulgate in 1546. Is this a different Jerome than the one that produced the Latin Vulgate in the 5th century? This is a little confusing.
I am also having trouble following how Westcott and Hort had so much influence over every translation after 1881. I am not denying your evidence of their views, but I do not see where for example they had such influence over the 50 or so folks who produced the NASB.
You wrote, "The King James says: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer (note this is speaking of the devil’s rebellion against God as he was cast out of heaven.)"
My King James says Isaiah 14:12 is: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Quoting part of the verse on your part leaves out a very important element, namely the reference to "morning." What does the original Hebrew say? Is it "Star of the Morning."
For the record, I think the KJV is a great translation, and I would not use "The Message" in my church. But your article makes it seem that the NASB or RSV for example are corrupt.
My point is that the KJV has its own problems.
|
Re: Re: Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/16/07 06:50:36 AM |
Age 39, MN |
In a lot of cases words like gnostic or preterist are used to call a person names rather then to tell the truth. Also when a person starts making charts the way the author did doing comparisons, it is fairly clear that they have decided that KJV is the standard.
|
Re: Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/15/07 03:26:46 PM |
Age 30, IA |
Would you elaborate on your first post, please? I'd never heard of that. What translation do you recommend?
|
Re: Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/15/07 03:24:50 PM |
Age 30, IA |
He said he wasn't KJV-only; what is this KJV=Divine Inspiration thing? Where is the name-calling? Just because you don't agree with the article doesn't mean you can give these false accusations.
|
Re: Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/15/07 01:42:25 PM |
Age 43, NH |
Dear Sir, I have no problem with people making money for their work. I do however have a problem with those secular companies who are willing to make money off the Scripture by watering the word of God down. If you think that my arguments are weak on this matter then you must either not care or be a believer in the same things as Wescott and Hort. That is your choice but I will call it what it is, Heretical doctrine!
-Dr. David M. Berman
|
Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/15/07 06:47:57 AM |
Age 39, MN |
Sir: A lot of your reasoning is circular because of the equation KJV=Divinly inspired word of God. Thus making the KJV the standard, who made it the standard? The author did, not God. As a result, since the argumets are weak name calling has to be used in order to convince people. This serves no purpose but to undermine the writer's credibility as a preacher and teacher. The purpose of a committe is to make sure that theological bias doesn't get into the text. Money is the weakest arguemnt of all, remember KJV was in copyright at one time. What do you expect people to work for years on a project of this sort for nothing? What about all the passages that the NIV and ESV have right about doctrine that the KJV has confusing?
|
Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/15/07 06:08:33 AM |
Age 44, PA |
The KJV is one of the major contributor to the unbiblicle hierchy of the clergy. Translators kept in the Roman idea of the elevated clergy and we've been cursed with it ever since. Seek and you will find.
|
Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/14/07 07:26:41 PM |
Age 50, AUSTRALIA |
1 John 5:7(denies the Trinity)
I love the KJV but it is unfair to say that the ASV denies the Trinity because of this one particular, much disputed, passage. The NASB is also of great value because it is so literal. I would recommend for people to get a hold of the E-Sword program on the Internet and download all the Bible and commentaries. Barnes' notes on this passage are helpful. I would have liked to have posted them here but the commentary is too long. People should remember that it isn't the translation that is holy but the original word and it's intention.
|
Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/14/07 01:21:46 PM |
Age 42, NY |
I'm not convinced and I will continue to use the NIV in my daily Bible reading and study. Your opinion is well taken, though.
|
Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/14/07 09:25:18 AM |
Age 60, MO |
Thank you for the discussion. I am not particularly a "King James Bible only" person. I have often used the The New Living Translation, and others to help with contemporary grammatical usage; but I always cross reference those verses back to the King James version. You have chosen verses that are important for correct doctrine, and how the other translations have aberrated that doctrine. I am more comfortable with the traslators of the King James Bible, than I am with more contemporary translators who are apt to be driven by money and big business. George Cancilla
|
Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/14/07 09:01:12 AM |
Age 48, VA |
Dr. Berman: Thank you for this thoughtful article, although I would hope you could expand your recommendation to the Geneva Bible, which is back in print. As you mentioned in your article, it uses the same texts as does the KJV, and was the original Bible used by the Reformers. I received a copy for Christmas and have been blessed by it, not only for the language, but also the footnotes, written by the Reformers themselves, which offer excellent teaching on the Reformed faith. Since the Reformed faith is under fire by many, this is an excellent resource for those of us who want to be able to defend our views. Blessings, Mary M.
|
Re: To King James or Not To King
| Posted On: 08/14/07 12:06:01 AM |
Age 56, OR |
You are CORRECT Sir!!! Thank you so much. PGW
|
|
|
|
|
