 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2466
Location: Charismatic
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Niall wrote: | | Its a shame the library of Alexandria was destroyed. It was unbelievable the amount of texts that were destroyed for political reasons. |
One is to consider an accident a political reason?
In that the library (or at least 40,000 documents according to Seneca) was destroyed in 48 BC one could hardly expect copies of the New Testament to be present.
Yehu |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6791
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yehushuan wrote: | | Niall wrote: | | Its a shame the library of Alexandria was destroyed. It was unbelievable the amount of texts that were destroyed for political reasons. |
One is to consider an accident a political reason?
In that the library (or at least 40,000 documents according to Seneca) was destroyed in 48 BC one could hardly expect copies of the New Testament to be present.
Yehu |
What makes you say that the library was destroyed in 48 B.C.?
As far as I know, it was destroyed on three separate occasions. It survived the Roman sacking largely intact. It was the Christian and Muslim burnings which did it in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5901
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | For example, I understand WHY the Bible includes the story of Abraham and Isaac: It at least partly has to do with making it clear that human sacrifice is not ok. I get it.
But that doesn't change the fact that the poor kid probably needed counseling for the rest of his life after his father tried to kill him, and that in the story, God caused that psychological trauma. |
And that there's good evidence that it was actually a combination of two stories, one in which Isaac is saved, and one in which he's sacrificed after all.
| P1234567890 wrote: | What makes you say that the library was destroyed in 48 B.C.?
As far as I know, it was destroyed on three separate occasions. It survived the Roman sacking largely intact. It was the Christian and Muslim burnings which did it in. |
Four, possibly. It didn't survive the Roman burning, the books were replaced later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2466
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | What makes you say that the library was destroyed in 48 B.C.? |
As I said, Seneca. And I shall add Plutarch to that as well ("Lives"), who describes a battle where Caesar was forced to burn his own ships inadvertently setting fire to the docks that spread to the library.
(The student can easily google......)
Yehu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | Are you asking if we know, or believe there to be no errors in scripture? Or are you asking about the true question as to whether the Bible is the infallible Word of God and contains His truth as He intended us to have it?
Once again I would refer readers to look at the THE CHICAGO STATEMENT
ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY which I feel explains the understanding of 'inerrancy' and 'inalliability' quite well as it pertains to the beliefs of the Christian world. |
Amen JP.
If we believe in the power and providence of God, and believe He went through the trouble of writing the Bible, then we must believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God and contains His truth as He intends us to have it.
Many of todays variations (versions) seem fine for instruction and understanding.......but.......the KJV stands as the hallmark. It was exclusively available and used to teach and spread the gospel around the world for hundreds of years. This exclusive distinction is shared by no other modern version, thus it is by recognition of divine providence, that the KJV bears the undisputed approval of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2466
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | It was exclusively available and used to teach and spread the gospel around the world for hundreds of years. This exclusive distinction is shared by no other modern version, thus it is by recognition of divine providence, that the KJV bears the undisputed approval of God. |
THAT's your argument?
Better said about the Vulgate. (You might wish to rethink your position, especially with the translation errors so rampant in the KJV.) The KJV has spawned 30,000 conflicting denominations. The Vulgate but two.
The Bible doesn't evangelize - the Spirit of God evangelizes.
Yehushuan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Howdy Yehushuan,
Due to the absence of printing press technology, not to mention the vernacular of the Vulgate, I'm going to deduce that the Vulgate was not accessable to common folk for private reading.
The rise of various denominations is a result of the protestant reformation along with the Bible being made available to common folk. Though on the surface having various denominations does not appear to be a good thing, in a manner of perfecting, I think it's predictable, if not necessary.
So yes, my argument is based on faith in the power and providence of God......and this is not a weak argument, as your tone suggests.
Translation errors? Translation from what? With what inerrent version are you able to present such a brash citation.
From Wikipedia...
| Quote: | | The Authorized Version was translated by 47 scholars (although 54 were originally approved)(Daniell 2003, p. 436) working in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. All except one - Sir Henry Savile - were ordained priests of the Church of England (Bobrick 2001, p. 223) , but the panels included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as High Churchmen. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee could be recorded in the margins (Daniell 2003, p. 442). They worked on certain parts separately; then the drafts produced by each committee were compared and revised for harmony with each other (Daniell 2003, p. 444) . |
As you can see, the dynamics of the KJV translating process can not possibly be reproduced. Also The KJV translators consulted multiple bible versions written in various languages. Therefore there is no legitimate comparison for which to make such errancy claims.
The basis for my claim seems to be the only reasonable method of discernment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2466
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Due to the absence of printing press technology, not to mention the vernacular of the Vulgate, I'm going to deduce that the Vulgate was not accessable to common folk for private reading. |
In that most could not read, so what? You would hold that evangelism is not possible but for the printing press? I wonder what Paul would have said to that!
The Vulgate was translated into Latin by Jerome precisely to have a version in the common tongue for people to both read and be read to. As I’ve said, your arguments for support of the KJV are more so for the Vulgate.
| Dust wrote: | | The rise of various denominations is a result of the protestant reformation along with the Bible being made available to common folk. |
Yes, those common (uneducated) folk who think their opinions should have equal weight in equal standing among those who are studied.
| Dust wrote: | | I think it's predictable, if not necessary. |
You think it necessary that truth be obfuscated by the muddled thinking of the moron?
| Dust wrote: | | So yes, my argument is based on faith in the power and providence of God...... |
So why then did this very same "power and providence of God" FAIL to ensure an accurate comprehension of salvation by the VERY SAME people whom you claim were kept by God to correctly shepherd Holy Writ?
Your God is more interested in publishing a book than in saving people?
Such a position only makes sense if you are Anglican or Catholic. Or do you believe that the Anglican and Catholic Churches are correct in their doctrine of salvation? (Pardon if I presume that you don’t.)
| Dust wrote: | | As you can see, the dynamics of the KJV translating process can not possibly be reproduced. |
And Glory to God in the Highest for THAT.
| Dust wrote: | | Translation errors? Translation from what? With what inerrent version are you able to present such a brash citation. |
So you admit your “power and providence of God” has been unable to maintain an “inerrent (sic) version”?
| About the KJV, Zondervan (Link) wrote: | | …three panels of scholars drew upon the work of early translators and versions of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available at that time… The Bishops’ Bible was used as the basis for this revision/translation, but it was also examined in the light of Hebrew and Greek documents. … Despite its merits, however, the KJV would not remain unchallenged forever. Not only did the English language continue to develop, but early manuscripts of the Bible were discovered that have led to great improvement of the Biblical texts, especially in the Greek New Testament. |
The Greek text they used is now commonly called the Textus Receptus. Only in light of the discovery of the Koine dialect in 1898 with subsequent archeological finds can we realize just how much of the KJV is twisted in its translation.
| Dust wrote: | | The basis for my claim seems to be the only reasonable method of discernment. |
Perhaps “reasonable” only to you.
Yehushuan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Tiger
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 843
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I certainly wouldn't want to get into a KJV-only debate with anyone here. I love the KJV and have no argument with those who wish to use it alone. While I think that using any translation by itself is iffy, one can get by with only one translation.
However, regardless of whether you like the textus receptus and whether you think Erasmus did a good or lousy job preparing it in readiness for the KJV scholars, there is another issue. Translating from Greek to English or from Hebrew to English cannot be a perfect match. An excellent example of this is the word "hesed" in Hebrew which has no simple perfect translation into English with less than (probably) a paragraph of text of the latter. It works the opposite way also. As far as I know, it is hard to translate the word "funky" into koine Greek or classical Hebrew.
The point is that if words do not map easily, then it is important to use several translations. I use the NASB, the GNB/TEV and the Message but each for different reasons. I occasionally use the KJV. But I consider none of them to be the last word in the translation process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2466
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plotinus wrote: | | As far as I know, it is hard to translate the word "funky" into koine Greek. |
Plotinus, forget Greek, it is hard to translate the word “funky” into English (although ‘smells of dead carcass’ might suffice).
If nothing else, one should at least progress into using an interlinear, and then become conversant with Greek idiom and expression as one learns. Bart Ehrman describes using Greek as like reading the New Testament in color.
“foundation of the world” becomes “hurtling of the stars through the skies”
“In the beginning was the Word” becomes “The Logos was effused within the cosmic protoplasm.”
Yehu
(I don’t do Hebrew) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Tiger
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 843
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yehushuan wrote: | If nothing else, one should at least progress into using an interlinear, and then become conversant with Greek idiom and expression as one learns. Bart Ehrman describes using Greek as like reading the New Testament in color.
|
I agree. Although almost all scholars of NT Greek that I know have good collections of bible translations and use them. Even when you have a PhD in Greek (like my wife) you still respect translations and refer to them occasionally because it is like having a colleague looking over your shoulder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
As with most any extreme, the KJV-only-extremist are a bit whack, as they say.
Personally, I do not have a problem with modren-day versions. I like the Amplified myself. I am not of the KJV-only-crowd.
As I have said, it is by faith in the power of God to deliver His word to His people, and by faith in His providence, even working through the most mundane of situations and circumstances, that in-the-case of any disputable matter between versions, the KJV should hold precedence due to it's unique position of being available and given to the masses, almost exclusively for hundreds of years. Also during these years The Great Commission took off like wildfire and has not stopped since. This unique position, held only by the KJV, is a povidential manifestation of God's will being done on earth. How could it not be?
How can one who claims the bible has errors, have faith in anything other than themselves?
It's these claims that led me to delve into the subject, and search out the matter. Every claim I have investigated is reasonably disputed. I found that the only reliable determination that can be made on this subject, is by looking at the situation, having trust in God, and applying faith (not blind faith).
btw....the Vulgate is great I suppose, but I can't read it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2466
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | This unique position, held only by the KJV… |
And in this you are categorically wrong. Such criteria applies much more so to the Vulgate, and this would be self-evident were you to have a more intimate knowledge of church history.
| Dust wrote: | | As I have said, it is by faith in the power of God to deliver His word to His people, |
And I would without hesitation or qualification endorse these very words wholeheartedly. The difference between us is that while you say “His word,” in the back of your mind you mean “Bible” while I know the Bible itself has a rather different definition for the meaning of the phrase “His word.”
| Dust wrote: | | the KJV should hold precedence due to it's (sic) unique position of being available and given to the masses, almost exclusively for hundreds of years. |
How can you say that historical tradition should take precedence over accurate translation? This is like saying that we must believe the mountain in the Sinai peninsula IS Mount Sinai because Constantine, by tradition, decreed it to be so, even when we NOW know that THAT particular mountain does NOT conform to the geography described in the Old Testament while another mountain in Saudi Arabia (the real Mt. Sinai) DOES.
And should we now also burn the constitution of America in favor of a King “due to its unique position” of having been the style of government “available and given to the masses, almost exclusively for hundreds of years”?
Let me catch my breath. (So much for a worship in Truth.)
Mar 7:13 KJV Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
| Dust wrote: | | How can one who claims the bible has errors, have faith in anything other than themselves? |
My faith is not in an inerrant Bible, it is in an inerrant God.
| Dust wrote: | | It's these claims that led me to delve into the subject, and search out the matter. |
Well which ever “matter” this might be, it would seem you haven’t done a good job at it.
| Dust wrote: | | btw....the Vulgate is great I suppose, but I can't read it. |
Blame the King. Or blame Luther. Or blame yourself. Whichever.
Yehushuan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2466
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plotinus wrote: | | Even when you have a PhD in Greek (like my wife) you still respect translations and refer to them occasionally because it is like having a colleague looking over your shoulder. |
Along with all their other traditions of men.
Plotinus, with all due respect, the only one I need looking over my shoulder is Jesus.
And with that said, I become intrigued. Has your wife ever been involved in New Testament translation? Perhaps she could lend some expertise here. I'm about to become more involved with gang negotiations between the Crips and the Bloods and shall find my time here rather restricted.
Yehu |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 883
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, a Vulgate extremist.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | My faith is not in an inerrant Bible, it is in an inerrant God. |
And how do you know who this inerrant God is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
