Christian Forums

Quote from: Lively Stone on Sat Oct 20, 2012 - 21:38:17

He gets it right every time. He likes to administer His truth to generations whose dialect has become so far removed from the original. God is aware that language changes.

We don't speak like Shakespeare did anymore. Do you know what an Ebenezer is? Relevance is important to God.

Besides, how did God ordain the King James Version for the Chinese? Spaniards? Russians? We have to get real here, folks.

Id be careful to say he gets it right every time because not all translations are inspired by God.Alot of the changes are subtle but have huge implications in changing the meaning.Heres a example James 1:2-4

KJV 2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

NIV 2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

They substitute patience with perseverance.Patience implys humbly waiting on God to get you thru temptation.Perseverance implys you overcoming temptation by your own will power.

If i don't understand a word,the dictionary is a great tool to have with you as you read the Bible

Eb·en·e·zer
   [eb-uh-nee-zer] Show IPA
noun
a male given name: from a hebrew word meaning "stone of help."

Ebenezer
male proper name, sometimes also the name of a Protestant chapel or meeting house, from name of a stone raised by Samuel to commemorate a victory over the Philistines at Mizpeh (I Sam. vii.12), from Heb. ebhen ezar "stone of help," from ebhen "stone" + ezer "help."

As far as Chinese Spanish ect..Id suggest they go with what the original translation is.

The reason im so convicted about this is because i know how arrogant and prideful man can be and they always feel they have to improve on something and cant just humbly accept that maybe God got it right the first time.

As far as the other poster.To suggest being confident in your conviction that God conveyed his Word right the first time. is some how comparable to idolatry is disturbing.To be confident in the word of God is Faith,not idolatry.

Quote from: robert9712000 on Sun Oct 21, 2012 - 00:04:31

Quote from: Lively Stone on Sat Oct 20, 2012 - 21:38:17

He gets it right every time. He likes to administer His truth to generations whose dialect has become so far removed from the original. God is aware that language changes.

We don't speak like Shakespeare did anymore. Do you know what an Ebenezer is? Relevance is important to God.

Besides, how did God ordain the King James Version for the Chinese? Spaniards? Russians? We have to get real here, folks.

Id be careful to say he gets it right every time because not all translations are inspired by God.Alot of the changes are subtle but have huge implications in changing the meaning.Heres a example James 1:2-4

KJV 2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;
3 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience.
4 But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

NIV 2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters,[a] whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. 4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

They substitute patience with perseverance.Patience implys humbly waiting on God to get you thru temptation.Perseverance implys you overcoming temptation by your own will power.

A scholar you are not. It is best to get a bible you like and stick with it, but refrain from criticizing that which you know little about. That does not mean you cannot have an opinion, but be careful about impression you are giving. New believers who are being discipled in any other version can become confused and fearful and then you could be responsible for disharmony and division.

Patient endurance is perseverance.

ὑπομονή
hupomonē
hoop-om-on-ay'
From G5278; cheerful (or hopeful) endurance, constancy: - enduring, patience, patient continuance (waiting).

QuoteIf i don't understand a word, the dictionary is a great tool to have with you as you read the Bible

Eb·en·e·zer
   [eb-uh-nee-zer] Show IPA
noun
a male given name: from a hebrew word meaning "stone of help."

Ebenezer
male proper name, sometimes also the name of a Protestant chapel or meeting house, from name of a stone raised by Samuel to commemorate a victory over the Philistines at Mizpeh (I Sam. vii.12), from Heb. ebhen ezar "stone of help," from ebhen "stone" + ezer "help."

Well, then, I gather that when you are witnessing to the unsaved of this generation, you must carry a dictionary with your bible to aid in clarity? The unsaved are often put off with the archaic language of the KJV. It is always a better choice to show scriptural truths by the use of a modern day language translation. Relevance is a biggie.

QuoteAs far as Chinese Spanish ect..Id suggest they go with what the original translation is.

Which is? Oh no! Could it possibly be as anointed as the KJV? 

QuoteThe reason im so convicted about this is because i know how arrogant and prideful man can be and they always feel they have to improve on something and cant just humbly accept that maybe God got it right the first time.

I think it is arrogant and prideful to castigate good translations and lump them altogether as inferior to any other.

QuoteAs far as the other poster.To suggest being confident in your conviction that God conveyed his Word right the first time. is some how comparable to idolatry is disturbing.To be confident in the word of God is Faith,not idolatry.

Some people actually worship the KJV. It has become an idol to some people, and some of them have visited this forum.

I should have made mention that the dictionary's definition shows perseverance as similar too patience,because they are close to the same meaning, but from everything ive ever associated with perseverance its always been a self will mind set where as patience has been a faithful waiting.So on that ill let my opinion stand as mine alone and let others decide for themselves.

As far as your other comments,its ironic that you say be careful of the impression that you leave with new believers because i was thinking similarly about both of your responses.

If i wasn't firm in my faith i might be discouraged to consider further dialogue on this forum as a new poster after being met with subtle forms of mocking and ridicule.To stress your reasoning's  for why you believe something is one thing,but to add comments in your replys about carrying a dictionary if i witness or of the other poster too create a image that my opinion of what patience means is akin too "He'll serve you bisquits, burgers and beer while you wait.... " is only ment too try and belittle me.

You are right i am not a Scholar as far as being educated in seminary school.All i have is a passion for knowing the truth of God.I hope you don't feel that only a person who has attended Seminary school has anything too offer to the discussion.

You talk of arrogance ,but theres a difference between being arrogance and confident .The arrogant person tends too put down everyone else so as too feed his pride.The confident person is like a rock in what they believe and can't be shaken by any wave that crashes against them.

We will often read KJV and the amplified in service and also school to present a scriptural point, noting the subtle differences but in the end knowing the intent.

Quote from: robert9712000 on Sun Oct 21, 2012 - 07:51:02
I should have made mention that the dictionary's definition shows perseverance as similar too patience,because they are close to the same meaning, but from everything ive ever associated with perseverance its always been a self will mind set where as patience has been a faithful waiting.So on that ill let my opinion stand as mine alone and let others decide for themselves.

Yes, we can decide for ourselves.

Look at Revelation 3:10 in many versions. It is the same thing. Patient endurance and perseverance are used interchangeably. Same Greek word! God doesn't consider it a "self-will mindset". So...leaning on one's own understanding can get one's thoughts in a knot.

QuoteAs far as your other comments, its ironic that you say be careful of the impression that you leave with new believers because i was thinking similarly about both of your responses.

I don't think so. I care about the welfare of the young in Christ, and that is why I dislike people spouting off what they think are errors in scripture without knowing the first thing about language. It is called rushing to judgment and it is unwise, to say the least.

QuoteIf i wasn't firm in my faith i might be discouraged to consider further dialogue on this forum as a new poster after being met with subtle forms of mocking and ridicule.To stress your reasoning's  for why you believe something is one thing,but to add comments in your replys about carrying a dictionary if i witness or of the other poster too create a image that my opinion of what patience means is akin too "He'll serve you bisquits, burgers and beer while you wait.... " is only ment too try and belittle me.

I know nothing about you being mocked here. However, if one has to consult a dictionary to explain certain archaic terms that are not in our common vernacular to someone we are witnessing to, then one should always have one with him.

Personally, I find that the unsaved and unchurched respond well to the modern English versions as it brings the message home well. It is not that dry and intimidating bible they had always heard about after all!

QuoteYou are right i am not a Scholar as far as being educated in seminary school.All i have is a passion for knowing the truth of God.I hope you don't feel that only a person who has attended Seminary school has anything too offer to the discussion.

I don't think that, and neither have I ever said anything that would cause anyone to think it.

QuoteYou talk of arrogance ,but theres a difference between being arrogance and confident .The arrogant person tends too put down everyone else so as too feed his pride.The confident person is like a rock in what they believe and can't be shaken by any wave that crashes against them.

Arrogance carries an air of superiority, and it sure comes across when a person flatly rejects all versions of the scriptures but their own favourite one, criticizing them for reasons that they cannot support. Most often it is based on false information fed to them by internet sources. Naysayers. God is against them...even though He loves them.

I prefer the English Standard Version.

A translation is not a version.  You can easily trace the versions from the Apostles.    Hint; none came from Egypt or Rome.

There is only one modern English version - The KJV.     

"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
- Frank Logsdon

A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian
B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.
C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.
D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

IV. Origen (184-254 AD)
A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.
B. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.
C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).
D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid. i·bi·dem ( b -d m , -b d m). adv. Abbr. ib. or ibid. In the same place. Used in footnotes and bibliographies to refer to the book).
E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).
F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).
V. Eusebius (260-340 AD)
A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.
B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).
These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.
C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).
D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Quote from: Bro Sam on Sun Dec 30, 2012 - 11:07:22
A translation is not a version.  You can easily trace the versions from the Apostles.    Hint; none came from Egypt or Rome.

There is only one modern English version - The KJV.     

"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
- Frank Logsdon

A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian
B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.
C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.
D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

IV. Origen (184-254 AD)
A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.
B. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.
C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).
D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid. i·bi·dem ( b -d m , -b d m). adv. Abbr. ib. or ibid. In the same place. Used in footnotes and bibliographies to refer to the book).
E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).
F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).
V. Eusebius (260-340 AD)
A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.
B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).
These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.
C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).
D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Actually the KJV is a poor translation in comparision to the ESV.  Heck the New KJV is better than the KJV.  Your KJV is not even the version that was tranlsated in 1611.

For an English Bible the NASB and the NKJV are really the 2 that most closely resemble the Hebrew and Greek texts. 

The NASB is a very good literal translation but IMO it is inferior to the NKJV because the NASB is based on the Critical Text (NT).  Critical Text giving preference to the Alexandrian manuscripts.

The NKJV is an excellent translation and because it is based in the tradition of the KJV it gives preference to the TR (Textus Receptus) or Majority Text.  Thus the NKJV is more accurate than the NASB.

As far as the NIV (which is also based on the Critical Text - like the NASB) it is not a heretical translation.  However, it is what we call a Dynamic Equivalent.  It is not a literal translation.  The scholars that worked on the NIV have translated what they think the Hebrew and Greek texts are saying, but they translate what they think the meaning is in some places rather than what the text says.  So in some questionable passages you are at their mercy so to speak.  If they got the meaning correct then there is no problem.  If they got it wrong you dont know unless you have a working knowledge of Greek and/or Hebrew.  Since these scholars have their own biases and views I would rather decipher the meaning for myself and just know what the text says.

I want to know what God's Word says specifically, not what some other scholar thinks it means.  Let me study to see what it means.

All these other modern translations are similar to the NIV in that they are not good literal translations.  They are translations that were done to help the ignorant masses get a better understanding of the Scripture.  The problem is they stray from the literal and are rather liberal in doing so.

IMO. the NKJV is still the best there is for an English Bible.

One with all 73 books not one that has been cut up

A great one would be the douay-rhiems the first English bible from 1601

If the catholic church has such a "currupt" translation how come the douay- rhiems 1601 and the kjv 1611 is almost the same word for word including having all 73 books in the bible the niv is the bible with all the errors

Quote from: ccfromsc on Fri Aug 31, 2012 - 09:25:32
KJV (Exo 22:28)  Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

Seems like the KJV is espousing there are more than one God? How do you KJV Only do it?

It only exalts "One"~Your lacking of understanding by not comparing scriptures with scriptures, has you confused. 

John 10:35-36

"If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scriptures cannot be broken;  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest;  because I said, I am the Son of God?

Go and figure out what Jesus is saying, and then, you would not be mocking the holy scriptures, as you clearly are.

RB

RB 

 I have a few questions for the KJV only cult.  Which version of the KJV is the version we are to use? the original? It has been revised a few times.  Also if my native language is say Spanish must i learn English before i can have the "real word of God"? or is okay if the KJV is translated into my native tongue?

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 13:39:26
Years ago I had a landlord who gave me a Prince of Peace edition, which I found is similar to KJV. Several people I respect go by NIV and the study in application of life version. In my study of money, I prefer the KJV quotes typically but wonder if I am being lead by my own ideology.

Another poster here supporting Universalism referenced 1 Timothy 2:4, which in the KJV says what God will do but the NIV translates it to what God wants to do, a BIG difference. So, I'd like to know what you recommend and why. Also, what concordance would you recommend?

I think it is whichever of the accepted translations you are most comfortable with.  I, personally, don't deny any of the accepted translations, even the Catholic Bible, because I believe my Lord is powerful enough to keep them true to His Word.  Let the bashing begin.   

My perspective is somewhat paradoxical, so I will ask the readers' patience.  I value the "original" version of the bible -- the one given to the original authors.  Of course, that presents me with a problem, since, as far as I know, we only have copies (perhaps copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies...) of each of the original texts. 

But ultimately I have learned to trust God for every good thing -- even the ones I don't know God wants me to have.  So I use the translations that happen to be handy.  I own a copy of the NIV and a copy of the Inclusified Version of the NT.  But ultimately, when it comes to real study, I go to biblegateway.com, or the like, and search for what I need to know. 

The bible is God's way of welcoming our minds into a whole new way of thinking -- whatever version we use.  For intense study, I recommend a version (there are quite a few) whose translators are more than one person.  That means that the inevitable debates about which modern word is appropriate have already been aired to some extent.    

It really depends on what you are after.  If you want  the most literal 'word for word' translation, then the NASB [along with the NASC] is the best...period.

Chris

1

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 13:39:26
Years ago I had a landlord who gave me a Prince of Peace edition, which I found is similar to KJV. Several people I respect go by NIV and the study in application of life version. In my study of money, I prefer the KJV quotes typically but wonder if I am being lead by my own ideology.

Another poster here supporting Universalism referenced 1 Timothy 2:4, which in the KJV says what God will do but the NIV translates it to what God wants to do, a BIG difference. So, I'd like to know what you recommend and why. Also, what concordance would you recommend?

.

#1.  When an individual says  " the Bible "  that individual is speaking like a parrot or a deceiver.
(I say that with sincerity and love.) There are over 400 (Christian, Catholic, Cult) Greek, Syrian, Latin, German, English, French, Spanish, etc., Bibles which do not match in content, volume
or doctrine. Additionally, over 6 billion Bibles have been printed.


#2.  There are no original manuscripts nor was there ever an original bible with original manuscripts.


#3.  While the entire line of scripture are records, the outstanding record of scripture
and the scripture of final authority is the published text and form of the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bible.
All KJV Holy Bibles are editions of the AV 1611 KJV first edition.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved bibles of all time.

KJV Holy Bibles are the most published, read and loved books of all time.

Quote from: Grappler on Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 16:12:59
I have a few questions for the KJV only cult.  Which version of the KJV is the version we are to use? the original? It has been revised a few times.  Also if my native language is say Spanish must i learn English before i can have the "real word of God"? or is okay if the KJV is translated into my native tongue?

This whole post just left a sour taste in my mouth.Are you a Christian? You associate someone having strong convictions for using the KJV as the same thing as being a cult member? Thats making a pretty degrading judgement on someone just because they prefer the KJV Bible.

Then you go on further to mock them by insulting there intelligence, by asking if a person who speaks Spanish must learn English to to have the real word of God.Thats the kind of question a 10 year old would ask to make themselves feel like there being witty.

You finally top it all off with a smiley face to try to lighten the mocking and belittlement you've just layed out.

I find it sad that some Christians see having deeply held convictions of there beliefs as something that should be frowned upon.

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 13:39:26
Years ago I had a landlord who gave me a Prince of Peace edition, which I found is similar to KJV. Several people I respect go by NIV and the study in application of life version. In my study of money, I prefer the KJV quotes typically but wonder if I am being lead by my own ideology.

Another poster here supporting Universalism referenced 1 Timothy 2:4, which in the KJV says what God will do but the NIV translates it to what God wants to do, a BIG difference. So, I'd like to know what you recommend and why. Also, what concordance would you recommend?

Which version of the Bible has brought the most people to the Lord?
Which version of the Bible has many Brothers and Sisters have died protecting?
Which version of the Bible has satan many times tried to destroy?
Which version has God Himself protected?
The King Jame Version is the answer to those questions.

Tell me what is the #1 best tactic satan can use if he is unable to get rid of the King James Bible? Would he not create thousands of other translations to cause people to steer away from the KJV? Sure, and he does, and still does. New version are still popping up. And when there are millions of other versions, the KJV will still be here. It is the Word of God, it will be here when Christ returns.

^i^

New English Bible and New King James are highly recommended.

Quote from: DaveW on Fri Sep 28, 2012 - 13:31:30
For light reading I like the NASB or the NKJV, sometimes the ESV.  Just starting to get my feet wet with the TLV. (only the NT and Psalms are currently released)

For study you have to go to the Hebrew and Greek.

Im not saying nor would wish to dont study Greek and Hebrew.

But let me ask you this question.

Saul of Tarsus .Was not Greek and Hebrew his mother tounge as it were?
Was he not a Hebrew of the Hebrews?
Did he not study under the greatest theologians of his day?
Was not his whole live form an early age  dedicated to studying the scriptures?
Did he not have the 'original texts' more than any man alive could have today?

But tell me.
Q:Did he understand the scriptures?

A: NO.

He so did not  understand the scriptures  that he persecuted the church  and agreed with Stephens death thinking it was Gods will!

We could then go onto the many of the Pharasees and the Saducees and the Sanhedren.
But surfice to say though they boasted in the scriptures and indeed thier learning .
Did they understand the scriptures?

They so did not understand them .Not only did they not know Him of whom the scriptures spake. But crucyfied him as well.

In conclusion then.
The only way to understand the scriptures as they SHOULD be understood .Is by HIM who leadeth us into all truth.
For if he was neded to inspire them to write was written .
Then in and by the same measure he is also needed to understand what is written.
Wether in Hebrew Greek English  or any other language where the message is accurately translated.

Lean not then upon your own understanding (of Greek and Hebrew or indeed Englsih) But trust in the Lord "who shall  lead us into all truth.
For if your not wiling to be led by Him in your mother tounge.Why would you think you will be by HIm in another languague?
Or if your willign to be led by Him in your mother tounge. How much the more you will need to  in a langauge that is not?

in Christ
gerald

Quote from: Grappler on Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 16:12:59
I have a few questions for the KJV only cult.  Which version of the KJV is the version we are to use? the original? It has been revised a few times.  Also if my native language is say Spanish must i learn English before i can have the "real word of God"? or is okay if the KJV is translated into my native tongue?

Quote from: Grappler on Sun Feb 03, 2013 - 16:12:59
I have a few questions for the KJV only cult.  Which version of the KJV is the version we are to use? the original? It has been revised a few times.  Also if my native language is say Spanish must i learn English before i can have the "real word of God"? or is okay if the KJV is translated into my native tongue?

You have fallen into the same error as the Moslems .
Who think that  only the Koran  in arabic is the pure word of God.

Having talked with one paricular  moslem  over a number of weeks (In english) he came out with this statement about the Koran in arabic.
In spite of the fact  that he carried in his hand  while he said it  a book.That on one page was the Koran in arabic and on the opposite  the english translation.

I looked at him and asked him in that case had he been lying to me?
Shocked  he replied that he hadnt.
I  pointed to the bookm he was holding and asked was that also lying? he said no.
I then asked him if he thought God was an arab?
Shocked he saidf NO!
I then asked him was God and englishman. I pointed out to him that we once thought he might be .
But rightly he said no God was not an Englishman.
I then went through any number of versiosn of the same quiestion.Chinese  etc.
The point I was trying to make him understand was that all these languages  are of men.
They are the languages of men.
if then men have thier langauge .God needs must have his as it were .For God is not a man. Yet does not God speak?
true it is  that God humbles himself to speak to a man.
But let us not kid ourselves .God is not only above all he is high above all.
Now tell me.
What are words?
if not expressions of thought?
Now has not God declared that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts?
yet me continualy seek to bring the Word of God to the elevel of thier own experience and perceptions.
Where as the Word of God the Bible the scriptures are here so that we may by His help see things from Gods perspective and understanding.
was that not the root cause of the fall?
For where as God said in effect that that tree was evil to eat and would brign death.
He thus told them by HIS knowldge and wisdom and Word ;what was good and what was evil.

it was the denial of that Word .The truth and that knowldedge  and beleiveing the lie.That they did what was right and good in their own eyes and died.
So let us not kid ourselves here and  think that a loose aproach to the scriptures  will profit us.

So when a man speaks how can he be heard and understood  unless he gives his breath or life to what he says?
Now if a man cannot be heard or understood without him giving his life and breath to his words.
How little or how much less will man hear or understand Gods words?
Unless they are quickened to the student or hearer by the same one who inspired them so to write those words.

But there is more . For it is in the nature of words that they can only be spoken of one word at a time.
Therefore what is wanted to say is not said save by one word at a time.
if God has hsi own langauge  he must needs for our sakes translate it as it were to the language nescersary for any man to receive it.
But does any man here or anywhere else dare to say  that God does not know His own mind?
That albeit words come out one word at a time for that si the nature of words.
That Gods message  is not already perfect  IN him already?
What"! Know ye  not "in the beginning was the Word"?

Do you oh man of dust  sugest that the Word that was in the beginning has changed?
That God who in sundy times and in ndivers ways spake by the prophets who in the last days has spoken to us by His Son.
Cannot speak Spanish  Greek Hebrew german Chinese?etc

and cannot or is as ignorant as those who sugest such things; lead any man called of God to translate the scriptures to express that Word in whatever langauge  God sees fit to do so?

of course he can.

Nor do I believe or can ,That God was so uncertain  of his mind and abilaties  that  he coould not give man or any man or men suficient understanding of that Word that he enfeebled them  as to need a myriad of other 'interpreters ' or translators to say the whole message again.
In very truth they who boast  in their "better understanding " have by thier own words/works proved how ignorant they are  and in very truth  shown by thier fruits  how wrong they were to start with.
For amazingly  inspite of the great and swellign words about " a better understanding "  the church is no more Holy than before it was in 'ignorance'  in truth it is worse .
and in very truth every man is doign that which is right in his own eyes .Choosign that which is most conevenient and right  by whatever 'version' of scripture suits him and they are "comfortable with"

I hold that people are leaning  more upon thier understanding and anothers learning that they are becoming progresively ignorant of the truth in consequence.,
No good will come of it.

in Christ
gerald

in Christ

Quote from: gbzone on Thu Mar 14, 2013 - 08:03:58

Quote from: DaveW on Fri Sep 28, 2012 - 13:31:30
For light reading I like the NASB or the NKJV, sometimes the ESV.  Just starting to get my feet wet with the TLV. (only the NT and Psalms are currently released)

For study you have to go to the Hebrew and Greek.

Im not saying nor would wish to dont study Greek and Hebrew.

But let me ask you this question.

Saul of Tarsus .Was not Greek and Hebrew his mother tounge as it were?
Was he not a Hebrew of the Hebrews?
Did he not study under the greatest theologians of his day?
Was not his whole live form an early age  dedicated to studying the scriptures?
Did he not have the 'original texts' more than any man alive could have today?

But tell me.
Q:Did he understand the scriptures?

A: NO.

He so did not  understand the scriptures  that he persecuted the church  and agreed with Stephens death thinking it was Gods will!

We could then go onto the many of the Pharasees and the Saducees and the Sanhedren.
But surfice to say though they boasted in the scriptures and indeed thier learning .
Did they understand the scriptures?

They so did not understand them .Not only did they not know Him of whom the scriptures spake. But crucyfied him as well.

In conclusion then.
The only way to understand the scriptures as they SHOULD be understood .Is by HIM who leadeth us into all truth.
For if he was neded to inspire them to write was written .
Then in and by the same measure he is also needed to understand what is written.
Wether in Hebrew Greek English  or any other language where the message is accurately translated.

Lean not then upon your own understanding (of Greek and Hebrew or indeed Englsih) But trust in the Lord "who shall  lead us into all truth.
For if your not wiling to be led by Him in your mother tounge.Why would you think you will be by HIm in another languague?
Or if your willign to be led by Him in your mother tounge. How much the more you will need to  in a langauge that is not?

in Christ
gerald

Amen, Gerald!  and Yeshua!

Quote from: PeterEnergy on Tue Jun 12, 2012 - 13:39:26
Another poster here supporting Universalism referenced 1 Timothy 2:4, which in the KJV says what God will do but the NIV translates it to what God wants to do, a BIG difference. So, I'd like to know what you recommend and why. Also, what concordance would you recommend?

When the KJV was made, in the 1600's, saying that someone "will" do something meant that they intended to do it, which is one step above 'wants to' but one step below what we mean when we say something 'will' happen.

The KJV uses the word 'shall' to express the certainty of something happening.

Jarrod

Quote from: DiscipleDave on Sat Feb 23, 2013 - 21:08:45
Which version of the Bible has brought the most people to the Lord?
Which version of the Bible has many Brothers and Sisters have died protecting?
Which version of the Bible has satan many times tried to destroy?
Which version has God Himself protected?

The Greek Koine. 

People are always saying "The best version of the Bible is the one you read." I read the RSV-CE2, so therefore it must be the best version of the Bible.

Quote from: DiscipleDave on Sat Feb 23, 2013 - 21:08:45
Which version of the Bible has brought the most people to the Lord?
Which version of the Bible has many Brothers and Sisters have died protecting?
Which version of the Bible has satan many times tried to destroy?
Which version has God Himself protected?
The King Jame Version is the answer to those questions.

Not even close. 

It is the Chinese Union  vernacular Mandarin Version.

Quote from: DaveW on Thu Mar 21, 2013 - 15:57:24

Quote from: DiscipleDave on Sat Feb 23, 2013 - 21:08:45
Which version of the Bible has brought the most people to the Lord?
Which version of the Bible has many Brothers and Sisters have died protecting?
Which version of the Bible has satan many times tried to destroy?
Which version has God Himself protected?
The King Jame Version is the answer to those questions.

Not even close. 

It is the Chinese Union  vernacular Mandarin Version.

What the question  is realy saying is what english translation is the best.
I gather  you are refering to the chinese who are being  persecuted very cruely who are using the bible you speak of?
The scriptures lead you or should do to "know HIm of whom the scriptures speak" of.
The more like the world a version is  the less you will know Him if at all.and so will not be persecuted .
"For they that live Godly in Christ jesus shall suffer tribulation".
The most accurate  English transalation of scripture is the KJV . All modern versions save 1 other .Some one has said 2 others. start wrong  from the very first verse.

Be that as it may.What a man sows that shall he reap.
In the end "wisdom will be justyfied by her children"

in Christ
gerald

QuoteWhat the question  is realy saying is what english translation is the best.

We know that.  But the snarky answers reveal that many of us think the question is myopic, at best.

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 22, 2013 - 01:40:33

QuoteWhat the question  is realy saying is what english translation is the best.

We know that.  But the snarky answers reveal that many of us think the question is myopic, at best.

I got that; but who died and made English the end-all and be-all? 

English is a TERRIBLE language from a biblical standpoint.

Quote from: DaveW on Fri Mar 22, 2013 - 05:38:18

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 22, 2013 - 01:40:33

QuoteWhat the question  is realy saying is what english translation is the best.

We know that.  But the snarky answers reveal that many of us think the question is myopic, at best.

I got that; but who died and made English the end-all and be-all? 

English is a TERRIBLE language from a biblical standpoint.

Well I find that strange.

For one thing God has saw fit  to make English  if not universal  then the language of the world and which  also he chose to evangelise the world by englishmen  it as well.

That may seem a rather jaundice veiw point . But I say it as a general thing.

But I would also say that being an englishman I know we used to think God was perhaps an  englishman But he is not.
Nevertheless  I find no problem in understanding scripture  in realtion to it beign in English.
The hard bit is understanding God through the scriptures.
Some times it has taken me years  other times months  of chewing on scripture for the light to come on.

That is more down I think to my dull hearing  that it is to be an englishman . Though some may argue that is one and the same.
The understanding of scripture  is not I believe ;the language.Its the willingness to follow where the Holy Spirit wants to take you.
Sheep are not the brightest  of animals.

in Christ
gerald

Quote from: betsy on Wed Feb 27, 2013 - 15:23:12
New English Bible and New King James are highly recommended.

Yet I have found that the new KJv makes the same error of translation in Gen 1:1  as most other new versionsof the bible.
By putting heavenS instead of heaveN
But that is for another OP perhaps albeit it has been covered before.

As another pint of interrest.There aer any number of good books  that lay out the very serious  translation problems  and 'interpretations'  that are found in most modern versions.
and also lays out a sound argument as to why  and the root cause of it.
In any event it is such a grave matter  that everybody who clals themselves christian neds to be fully persuaded before God in the matter.
Those who use the base argument of personal attack assertions and deenial and insults  impled or otherwise.Do but the devils work .
Given the use of scripture or the Word of God by the devil both in the garden and in the wilderness.
Let us not suppose  that he will not nor does not love using scripture to decieve  still and will ad dor ommit as he thinks it wil profit him.

So who am I to tell another what ?
But I have to testyfy of Gods goodness to me.
That in over 30 years  as a child of God .I have never found the KJV wanting and well able to stand up to the wiles of islams taunts and challenges.
Moreover I have also to testyfy to what I ahve seen and heard.
In that despite  our (it is alledged)  better understanding .I do not see the church  in any measure  on par with the church of the reformation in its conduct piety  and stand for the truth.As a general rule quite the reverse  and I cannot say other wise.
Let alone ready for the comin gof the Lord.

Is that not strange?
For now with so many versions  each man decides  for himself what the truth is.relying so it is said  upon thier understanding of greek and Hebrew.
That is more like "ALL we like sheep have gone astray  each goign his own way" than any thing else.
One could go on.
But to any one interested .Just take even a casual look through all these forums and tell me what you find.If you are honest you will find what I did.

So be sure then  what you hold in yoru hand and be fully persuaded of it.
Not by how many do or dont  agree with it.
But before God with an open heart laid bare before him.
and let God say yea and amen  to your heart about the matter.

in Christ
gerald

Quote from: DaveW on Fri Mar 22, 2013 - 05:38:18

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 22, 2013 - 01:40:33

QuoteWhat the question  is realy saying is what english translation is the best.

We know that.  But the snarky answers reveal that many of us think the question is myopic, at best.

I got that; but who died and made English the end-all and be-all? 

English is a TERRIBLE language from a biblical standpoint.

Maybe  to the chinese :) yes
But then again  chinese  is to me  !
But God is neither.
HIS message then  remains the same .
Its the accuracy of the translation of the message  that is then paramount.
I do NOT want another mans interpreation of the message I want the Holy Spirits understanding of it.
I do not nor can believe that he does not know all the languages of man.
That being the case.As it is HE that "knoweth the mind of God" then he can translate the message accurately!
and so  give the understanding to the chinese or the english.

But what men want is the truth to be what they want it to be .
and so seek always  and forever  to subject the scriptures to mans reasonings and wisdom.
Wether he be chinese or english.

If a man in deepest China can be begotten again by the father through Jesus Christ.
he is by the Wortd and the Spirit.
and it will be the EXACT way the same .Even as all babies are conceived and born  into this world in england.

in Christ
gerald

QuoteYet I have found that the new KJv makes the same error of translation in Gen 1:1  as most other new versions of the bible.
By putting heavenS instead of heaveN

Ah - the problem with english.

  בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃   

Bereshit bara Elohim et ha-Shamaim v'et ha-eretz

Shamaim is plural in Hebrew - Heavens

Quote

QuoteEnglish is a TERRIBLE language from a biblical standpoint.

Maybe  to the chinese :) yes
But then again  chinese  is to me  !
But God is neither.
HIS message then  remains the same .
Its the accuracy of the translation of the message  that is then paramount.

And accuracy is exactly the issue.  Neither Hebrew or Greek can accurately be portrayed in English.

Hebrew (as is typical in all Semitic languages) has multiple levels of meaning all true at the same time. There is NO WAY to convey that in English [and it is why there will never be an authorized translation of the Koran. - no way to show all 7 layers of meaning in another language]

And Greek has subtle shades of meaning that cannot be shown in english.