AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   The William Carey Bible Society (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=784)

tonybones2112 03-31-2009 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17524)
A child will grow eating food that is poor in nutrition, but he will not grow healthy. A believer may grow reading a modern version (the extent of that growth depends on many factors), but he will always be more stunted than if he had the "pure milk of the word".

Brother Tim, how are we going to force, short of Stealth bombers and aircraft carriers, the non-English speaking peoples of the world into learning English?

From the time that the original manuscripts of the New Testament decayed until the KJV was 1500+ years. We will soon be 400 years out from the KJV. Where is the inspired Arabic equivalent and why has no one produced one? Where is the French, the Spanish, the German? If someone wanted to translate the word of God that would work effectually in those who believe in other languages, are we helping or hindering? Are we going to help and share in the fruit, or maintain our quasi-British Israelite position that the world is going to have to learn English to be saved? Sorry brother, a most untenable position and one I cannot support. I say that to brothers with charity and grace, I'm saving my vitriol for the Jesuits on FFF.

Grace and peace to you.

Tony

Brother Tim 03-31-2009 04:02 PM

First, I do not reject the work of translating the Scriptures into USABLE languages (that is, languages that are robust enough to communicate the message clearly*) AS LONG AS the translators qualify their work as being based on the KJB. The full reasons why I don't go along with stepping all the way back to the original languages are too extensive for one post but it boils down to two, ( 1 ) the question of which manuscripts are to be used, and ( 2 ) the lack of original language skills of the average missionary/translator [now if we had men of the caliber of the KJB translators, this might be different - Dr. D.A. Waite, himself a skilled man, told me that he did not know of 5 men alive who would qualify.]

* The vast majority of languages in today's world do not have the range of vocabulary to adequately communicate. One attempt had Jesus being called the "rooster of God".


Secondly, we do not need to train everyone in a given language... Skilled individuals can be trained in English, and then they could communicate the truth to others.

It is commonly known truth that many countries which do not allow missionaries will allow English teachers, even when those teachers are missionaries.

Brother Tim 03-31-2009 04:04 PM

P.S. Tony, you sure don't do the "soft, sweet approach", do you. :D I saw your first couple of posts at FFF. It is going to get WILD!!:boxing:

bibleprotector 03-31-2009 09:50 PM

People should see that we are NOT saying "Unless you have the KJB, you cannot be saved".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Bones
1. 2Co 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Is Manny, Daniel, and Brett trying to corrupt the word of God or spread it into the hands of souls that have no word of God?

2. Are they with us(the Church, not just this forum) or against us?

Apollos knew only the baptism of John. It was good. But it was not the perfect understanding. Just as Apollos had the motive to spread truth and do good, so I would venture is the aims of the TRO folk.

But let us be clear: the Word of God is already available to many folk throughout the world today. There are three forms: modern versions (the worst), TR-based versions (multiple ones in some languages), and the KJB itself.

The best form of the Word of God for anyone is the KJB, and I would rather have the KJB given to people who have English as a second language than expend all the effort, resources, time and money on trying to get a KJB equivalent into their native dialects.

Therefore, I serious doubt that we could say that some Poles or Spanish-speakers are missing out of the Scripture, as the above statement implies, "spread it into the hands of souls that have no word of God". It is not that they do not have the Word, but it is as if many need the best form, and that it would be good for them all to have it, namely the pure and perfect KJB.

The evidence of whether or not people are with us or not, is whether or not the KJB is being uphold as both the best, and as perfect. Many people on this forum agree that the KJB is perfect. That means that as far as the exact knowledge of Scripture is concerned, the KJB itself must be upheld as the final form of the Received Text, to which we desire all folk of all languages to acknowledge, even if English is not their first language. This is despite the existence of Scripture in other previous translations.

bibleprotector 03-31-2009 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Bones
the "Great Commission", that millions still persist in teaching, and not Paul's ministry of reconciliation

I see that we have a different view on the Gospel. I believe that the same Gospel of Acts 2 is the same as Acts 22.

George 03-31-2009 11:12 PM

Re: "The William Carey Bible Society"
 
Aloha Daniel

Your quote - Post #73, this Thread:
Quote:

"God did not promise that He would give the Bible in one language and then everyone must come to that language. He promised to preserve it, but He also promised to give it to the whole world."
It's important that we take note of Scriptural "distinctions" and keep our facts straight: God never: "promised to preserve it (the whole Bible) - God promised to preserve His words
[Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.]

While The Holy Bible {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands}, contains ALL of God's words/word - God never promised that everyone would have a "Bible" in their own language, or that He would preserve ALL of His "words" in ALL languages.

And God never: "promised to give it (the Bible) to the whole world." The Lord promised that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world"
[Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.]

There is a whole lot of difference between "this gospel of the kingdom" and the whole Bible {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands}.

The “problem” between those of us who are genuine King James Bible believers and those Christians that are not, or who may not understand where we are coming from, often is a matter of semantics or the “definition” of words. I will illustrate:

The first thing that Christians should know is what GOD’S ATTITUDE is towards His word:

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnifiedthywordabove all thy name.

The next thing that Christians should know is:

GOD’S WORD or WORDS = Oral and/or Written words

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

FIRST OCCURRENCE IN SCRIPTURE OF GOD’S “WORD”/“WORDS”:

Job 6:10Then should I yet have comfort; yea, I would harden myself in sorrow: let him not spare; for I have not concealed the words of the Holy One.

Job 23:12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.

Job 42:7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Exodus 4:28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD who had sent him, and all the signs which he had commanded him.
29 And Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the children of Israel:
30 And Aaron spake all the words which the LORD had spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people.

GOD’S PROMISES CONCERNING HIS WORDS

GOD PROMISED TO PURIFY HIS WORDS
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

GOD PROMISED TO KEEP HIS WORDS
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORDS FOREVER
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

THE LORD PROMISED HIS TRUTH WILL ENDURE TO ALL GENERATIONS

Psalms 100:5
For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

THE LORD PROMISED THAT HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY BUT HIS WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

CONCERNING PROMISES - GOD IS NOT A MAN THAT HE SHOULD LIE

Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgment endureth for ever.

Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Psalms 145:17 The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

THE ORACLES OF GOD = God’s Word/words {Oral and or Written}

FIRST OCCURRENCE IN SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD “ORACLE”:

2 Samuel 16:23 And the counsel of Ahithophel, which he counselled in those days, was as if a man had inquired at the oracle of God: so was all the counsel of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom.

Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mountSina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Romans 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.


THE SCRIPTURE OF TRUTH = God’s Written Word/words.

FIRST OCCURRENCE IN SCRIPTURE OF THE WORD “SCRIPTURE”:

Daniel 10:21But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

Quote:

This the only place in the entire Old Testament where the word "Scripture" is used.
Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Matthew 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

Mark 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Did you know that the word “BIBLE” is NOT in the HOLY BIBLE?

THE HOLY BIBLE= ALL of God’s Inspired Word (Words), Oracles, and Scriptures, Preserved - Perfect, Holy, Infallible, Inspired, and without error in a BOOK = AV1611 - The King James Bible.

God promised to “preserve” and “keep” His words PURE [Psalms 12:6&7] and He has. God never promised that every single nation, state, tribe, or people would have a preserved HOLY BIBLE.

The Holy BIBLE is A BOOK {that a person can hold in their hands). When someone says they are a “Bible believer” and then they start referring to the “ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS” (“verbal plenary inspiration”), they are NOT referring to The Holy BIBLE {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands}, they are referring to some of the word/words of God (a portion of the “Scripture of truth” or segment of “the Oracles of God”), BUT they are not talking about The Holy BIBLE {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands – that contains ALL of the preserved words of God}!

The Holy BIBLE is A BOOK {that you can hold in your hands}; IT is NOT the “Textus Receptus” (any text), the “Majority Text”, or the numerous corrupt texts taken from Vaticanus or Sinaiticus (take your pick). The Holy Bible is A BOOK {that you can hold in your hands} – IT is NOT 5,500 Greek manuscripts that contain God’s words with some errors (some mss more than others); or 11,000 Latin manuscripts that contain God’s words with lots of errors (some mss more than others); or the Early Translations (Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Aramaic, Gothic, Coptic, Bohairic, etc.)

The Holy BIBLE is derived from some of the Greek manuscripts of Scripture; some of the Hebrew manuscripts of Scripture; some of the various Early Translations of Scripture; from some of the Greek Lectionaries; and some of the Patristic (church “fathers’) quotations of Scripture – but NONE of the sources from which The Holy Bible {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} was translated was the COMPLETE HOLY BIBLE {Preserved - Perfect, Holy, Infallible, Inspired, and without any error.}

A person can have some of the word (words) of God - without having The Holy Bible. A person can have some of the Oracles of God – without having The Holy Bible. A person can have some Scriptures - without having The Holy Bible. They can have some of The Holy Bible - without having the complete Holy Bible. A person can have one of the numerous modern English translations (per-versions) - without having the complete Holy Bible (Preserved - Perfect, Infallible, Inspired, and without error). The Holy BIBLE is A BOOK that a person can hold in their hands; that contains ALL of the word (words, Oracles, Scriptures) of God - Preserved Perfect, Holy, Infallible, Inspired, and without error.

Historically, ONLY ONE BOOK has ever met these criteria (for nearly 400 years), NO OTHER “book” (“bible”) ever has! Historically, ONLY ONE BOOK has ever met this STANDARD – NO OTHER “book” or “bible” has even come close! So the next time someone says they are A “BIBLE” believer – ask them for their “DEFINITION” of the “BIBLE”, and see what say. And if they come up with “somethingother than A BOOK you can hold in your hands, you’ll know that they are not talking about the SAME THING that you are referring to. And if they come up with a modern translation (per-version), that they themselves will admit is NOT Preserved - Perfect, Holy, Infallible, Inspired, and without error, you’ll know they aren’t genuine BIBLE believers!

I’ve said all of this to simply say: Translate THE HOLY BIBLE {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} into as many languages as you possibly can. Get the Gospel to as many countries and people, and in their language, as God will lead and allow. However, if you are going to translate THE HOLY BIBLE {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} into another language, then USE THE HOLY BIBLE {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} for your “exemplar” (Foundation) and NOT some inferior manuscripts that are NOT Preserved - Perfect, Holy, Infallible, Inspired, and without error.

If you are going to translate THE HOLY BIBLE into another language, do what the early Protestant Missionaries did when they went to China, India, Burma, the South Seas, Hawaii, etc.; and USE THE HOLY BIBLE {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} to translate from, and if you don’t (or won’t), don’t expect us to accept your “bible” as being anything, but either a “poor substitute” for the “real thing”, or a truly “corrupt” translation from the perverted modern texts of the “original tongues”!

Perhaps now you will understand why, those of us who are genuine BIBLE
{A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} believers say: We believe the King James Bible is the HOLY word of God {Preserved - Perfect, Holy, Infallible, Inspired, and without any error} and it is our FINAL AUTHORITY in all matters of faith and practice. And should anyone think or believe that they have an equivalent or superior "bible", I say "bring it on" and let us examine it in the light of His glorious word.

bibleprotector 04-01-2009 04:40 AM

Dean Burgon wrote, “I believe that GOD’s Word must be absolutely infallible”, and “The Bible (be persuaded) is the very utterance of the Eternal ... the Books of it, and the sentences of it, and the words of it, and the syllables of it, — aye, and the very letters of it.” (Inspiration and Interpretation, pages 74 & 76.)

Several questions I would pose to those who claim to uphold the King James Version, yet seem to find issue with the KJBO view, namely,

1. Is the King James Bible infallible, the very message of God, to the very letters? or can this ultimately apply only to the Greek?

2. Where is the authoritative, standard, representative and exactly correct text of the Scripture today? Is it the King James Bible, or is it in the Greek? If in the Greek, what is the exact text in the Greek, where is it, and why does it differ to the KJB?

3. Can we legitimately point to the King James Bible (which is a translation), and uphold it specifically as the representative of God’s exact Word, being refined, final and totally accurately what God’s Word was when given by the original penmen?

4. Since God has certainly provided His Word in English, do we need to make any recourse to the Greek, in order to gain understanding of His message, or as needful for interpretation? or is the English of the King James Bible fully and ultimately sufficient to convey the full counsel of Scripture to every last detail?

5. Is God powerful enough, in His providence, to set up one form of perceivable Scripture, extant and finite, which may be looked upon by Christians across the world as the final standard which they can straightly acknowledge? If so, what is it? (That text/version/edition/volume must stand up to examination of it to the very jot and tittle.)

MY ANSWERS:

1. The KJB is infallible to the very letter.

2. The KJB is the final form of the Received Text.

3. The KJB is an exact translation, with the full import and sense of the original in English.

4. The KJB does not need another form of Scripture to interpret it, since it is perfectly self-interpreting, because it is exactly the correct text and translation.

5. The KJB is fit to be a standard, because it is wide and open for all, and not shrouded with mystery, uncertainty or perplexity, as is the Greek, even the Scrivener-TBS edition.

chette777 04-01-2009 04:41 AM

Amen George. I have been working on translating the OT from the King James into Tagalog. I have had whole books done and then my computer crashed and I lost all the data even the best computer guys couldn't salvage the files from the drive.

I have started again. but I fear the Lord will return before it is finished.

but you points are correct. use the KJV to translate it into another language not Greek or Hebrew manuscripts that contain errors. I have learned where there is no equivocal translation into the language to transliterate the word. Most them know how to figure the word by going to the English that way. example instead of translating Lucifer in Isa 14 to bright morning star (tala sa Umaga), as some errored manuscripts have done. I transliterated it to Luciper all these letters are found in the today's Tagalog alphabet.

Will Kinney 04-01-2009 04:54 AM

Excellent points George. Very well stated.

"In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word." Psalm 56:10

Will K

bibleprotector 04-01-2009 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 17657)
Amen George. I have been working on translating the OT from the King James into Tagalog. I have had whole books done and then my computer crashed and I lost all the data even the best computer guys couldn't salvage the files from the drive.

I have started again. but I fear the Lord will return before it is finished.

but you points are correct. use the KJV to translate it into another language not Greek or Hebrew manuscripts that contain errors. I have learned where there is no equivocal translation into the language to transliterate the word. Most them know how to figure the word by going to the English that way. example instead of translating Lucifer in Isa 14 to bright morning star (tala sa Umaga), as some errored manuscripts have done. I transliterated it to Luciper all these letters are found in the today's Tagalog alphabet.

It seems better to me, on the above testimony, to be involved in the Christian-oriented teaching of people English, (and allow for the world to become anglicised), and use the KJB than the alternative. After all, if Jesus did return and there was no KJB-equivalent Tagalog Version, would He be unjust in the light of Matthew 24:14? I trow not.

It is actually unsatisfactory that some translation should have so many issues (like altering names). And worse, since I know that most today do not seem to understand the Bible very well (whether it be their dullness of hearing or wrong doctrinal commitments), I think that this can all be avoided by adhering to the KJB, which we can all hold to as correct, despite various doctrines which might be held, or the lack of full understanding of various believers. It is better to bring people to the mountain than to try and bring the message from the mountain. "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!" (Isaiah 52:7).

Daniel Haifley 04-01-2009 09:36 AM

an incomplete answer
 
I am involved in a project right now which is an effort to prove the problems of the 1960 edition of the Spanish Bible. As you may be aware there has been in recent years an effort to produce a King James Equivalent Spanish Bible. Due to the vitriol rhetoric on the part of some, many good people have refused to even look at the problems of the 1960 Reina Valera which was influenced by the critical text. So, about 5 years ago my staff and I started researching all of the Spanish Bibles that had ever been produced. Way back to the 1400's there was a Spanish translation of the scriptures (This one, incidentally was Authorized by the King of Spain and was produced by a Jewish rabbi- its called the Alba Bible.) We started lining them up, side by side, comparing them with the King James Version and found some interesting things. We decided to publish our findings in an Octopla format as a recourse for the Spanish speaking brethren, without any commentary, and let the facts speak for themselves. Several of the versions that predate the KJV are very similar- almost identical in fact. However, there are some differences. (Men like Humberto Gomez, Jeff McCardle and others have been attempting to fix the problems and republish the Spanish Bible for the church today.) The similarities were interesting, so, I started researching the translation work to find out when it was being done etc. Imagine my surprise to find 4 different European Bible's being translated at the same time by men who appeared to be comparing their translations with each other. Tyndale, who built the foundation that the King James Translation Committee used as their base (95% identical to the KJV), was a contemporary with Enzinas who put together the first complete Spanish Bible. Enzinas lived in Melanchthon's house while he was working on his edition. Melanchthon was Martin Luther's understudy and was assisting Luther in his translation into German. There was also another European language that was being worked on at the same time, but I've got to go back and look at my notes to remember which one. Furthermore from Tyndale to 1611 there were 7 major English translations all of which were faithful to the Erasmus text (who by the way was called the incarnation of the devil by Luther). There were also 5 different revisions of the 1611. They were done in 1613, 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. The 1762 edition is the one which is used today. The only things changed in these editions were spelling and grammar, as I understand it. The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect? In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text. The changes were so drastic that they had to rename their text the Revised Version.
I am not tyring to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth. I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts. I believe that the men who originated the critical text will face the fires of hell for taking out words that God intended us to have. I believe the NIV is blasphemous in its wrenching of the truth. But I also believe that truth can stand scrutiny.

Will Kinney 04-01-2009 11:08 AM

Hi Daniel. All very interesting, but you still haven't answered the question. Is there ANY Bible in any language outside of the King James Bible that you consider to be the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God?

¿Hay alguna Biblia en español qué tú creas que sean las completas e inspiradas palabras de Dios?

Aceptos en el Amado - Efesios 1:6

Will Kinney

Will Kinney 04-01-2009 11:56 AM

Hey Daniel. Do you by any chance have the link to the Spanish Bible of 1280 by rey Alfonso? About three years ago I did a big project for one of my Spanish classes at Colorado University and I used to have the link to a site that showed the New Testament portion of La Biblia Alfonsina of 1280. I did a comparison of it with the Greek of the TR, and compared it also to the Latin and the modern Spanish. It is not a very good translation, but it was quite interesting to see the old Spanish words, spelling and grammar. Now I can't find that link anymore. (I did a Google search too) Have you ever run across it? I think it was the first complete Bible to be made in the Spanish language. If you have the link, I would love to see it again.

Gracias,
Will K

Will Kinney 04-01-2009 01:04 PM

Hola Daniel. I found it. The only thing apparently that is online is the gospel of Saint Luke. It is missing the first few verses, but has most of the gospel of Luke. It is pretty interesting for those of you who know how to read Spanish. By the way, I am not an expert in Latin. I only know a few things about that language, but I am fluent in Spanish.

It is quite interesting to see the "old" Spanish spelling and vocabulary. In some places it is almost impossible to understand, yet most words are still pretty close to modern day Spanish.

Here is the link:

http://www.iglesiareformada.com/Alfo...s_Parte_1.html

Will K

George 04-01-2009 05:24 PM

Re: " The William Carey Bible Society"
 
Quote:

"Furthermore from Tyndale to 1611 there were 7 major English translations all of which were faithful to the Erasmus text (who by the way was called the incarnation of the devil by Luther). There were also 5 different revisions of the 1611. They were done in 1613, 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. The 1762 edition is the one which is used today. The only things changed in these editions were spelling and grammar, as I understand it. The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect? In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text. The changes were so drastic that they had to rename their text the Revised Version.
I am not tyring to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth. I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts. I believe that the men who originated the critical text will face the fires of hell for taking out words that God intended us to have. I believe the NIV is blasphemous in its wrenching of the truth. But I also believe that truth can stand scrutiny
."
Aloha Daniel,

I'm somewhat disappointed that you haven't addressed brother Will Kinney's question, and that you have ignored everything that I have posted in regards to some of your comments. I'm not trying to "strain at a gnat" here, but some of the things that you have stated in your last Post (#91) need "clarification".

You said:
Quote:

"The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect?"
Are you claiming: IF there are spelling or grammatical differences between the Cambridge & Oxford King James Bibles that one of them would be in error? Do spelling or grammatical differences equal WORD CHANGES? Is God concerned with spelling and grammatical rules and changes? Or is He concerned with His Holy words? Since you didn't spell out what you believe about this issue, but inserted this statement within your Post, I'm curious as to whether you personally believe - IF there are spelling or grammatical differences between King James Bibles, whether you would consider one of those Bibles to be in error, and by inference, IMPERFECT?

In keeping with my habit of trying to be as accurate as is humanly possible when dealing with any issue, I find your following statement confusing and wanting in accuracy and clarity:

Quote:

"In 1881 the King James Revision committee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text. The changes were so drastic that they had to rename their text the Revised Version."
FACT: The so-called "King James Revision Committee" actually was called the "Revising Body"; "The Revisionists"; or simply "The English Committee". It was never called, nor was it known, at the time, as the "King James Revision Committee", simply because the NAME "King James Bible" did NOT EXIST IN 1881! The name "King James Bible" did NOT come into vogue until the late 1930's (no one seems to know exactly WHEN the Publishers of Bibles {$$$} CHANGED the NAME from "The Holy Bible"!)

FACT: "The English Committee". had been authorized to "revise" the "Authorized Version" (i.e. The Holy Bible) by the Southern Convocation of the Anglican Church (the whole of the Anglican Church did not authorize a Revision of The Holy Bible - much less authorize the production of a NEW VERSION (the English Revised Version i.e. the "RV") of the Holy Bible.

FACT: From June, 1870 up to 1881 (when the Revised Version was first published) Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort (who had previously worked together {secretly} for about 20 years producing their own "revised' Greek Text) had been secretly bringing in their own "revised" Greek Text into the "Revisers" committee meetings (in place of the "Textus Receptus") and were subtilely continually influencing the "Revisers" to abandon the "Textus Receptus" (as the basis for the New Testament in English) and instead USE their own "revised" Greek Text in its place.

You said:
Quote:

"In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors. This, as you probably know, is where the infamous Dr. Hort and Dr. Westcott reinserted the Critical Text."
FACT: Westcott & Hort did NOT just "reinsert the Critical Text" at that ONE MEETING! The FACT is that Westcott and Hort had been subtilely doing their "dirty work" (displacing the Textus Receptus with their own corrupt Greek Text ) for over ten years (the entire time that the "Revisers" met) - NOT just one last meeting in 1881!

You said:
Quote:

"I am not tyring to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth. I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts. I believe that the men who originated the critical text will face the fires of hell for taking out words that God intended us to have. I believe the NIV is blasphemous in its wrenching of the truth. But I also believe that truth can stand scrutiny."
I wouldn't worry about "stealing the faith" of a genuine Bible believer on this Forum, especially since you will not answer a simple question put to you by another brother in Christ on this Forum, and ignore the comments made by others (myself included) in regards to the issue of translating The Holy BIBLE {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} into other languages.

Your statement:
Quote:

"I am not trying to steal anyone's faith. I am not trying to obfuscate on the issues. But this information that I just gave you is worth looking at and pondering over. If you choose not to even consider it. Than your faith is not based on truth."
My faith is based on "TRUTH" - BIBLE TRUTH [John 17:17] Did you think that you can come onto a AV1611 Forum and make statements that are inaccurate and misinformed, without someone calling it to your attention? I looked at the "information" you just gave us back in 1968. I not only "pondered over it" and "considered it"; I studied the issue in great depth. Some of us have spent a whole lot of time studying this issue (speaking for myself - between 1968 through 1988 I spent a minimum of 12,000 to 15,00 hours studying the Bible "issue"; and when it comes to this issue, there are several men on this Forum that can make "mincemeat" out of me). We aren't a bunch of wild-eyed KJBO FANATICS - spouting off about matters that we know nothing about!

As you have said: "I don't mean to be contentious, but that is how I see it. I want an honest answer to the facts." Well, I too don't mean to be contentious”; and, I too "want an honest answer to the facts". As a matter of fact - "I'm a "stickler" for FACTS that can be verified; and my comments may seem "picayune" to you or some others on the Forum, but I want to know why it is that when Christians make certain claims or statements that cannot be proven, or shown NOT to be true or factual, WHY is it that many Christians EXCUSE misstatements, error, or outright lies - as if the truth about an issue does not matter?

My advise to you is - make sure of your "FACTS" before you make statements; otherwise people will not take you very seriously, when some of the statements that you make can be shown to be in error.

The work that you are doing is to be commended - IF you are using The Holy BIBLE as the FINAL AUTHORITY in your translating work; If you aren't using the King James Bible as your "exemplar" (i.e. Foundation), then I, for one, cannot commend you for anything. :( The Holy Bible {A BOOK that you can hold in your hands} says:

Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

If ALL God’s works “are done in truth” – shouldn’t ALL our works “be done in truth" also? :confused:

chette777 04-01-2009 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 17662)
It seems better to me, on the above testimony, to be involved in the Christian-oriented teaching of people English, (and allow for the world to become anglicised), and use the KJB than the alternative. After all, if Jesus did return and there was no KJB-equivalent Tagalog Version, would He be unjust in the light of Matthew 24:14? I trow not.

Actually I am teaching them English. From April 13-30 I will be teaching both English, and Rightly dividing w/a Dispensational NT Survey course. and it will be to a inter-denominational group. I have requested KJV Bibles for both courses and got no argument from the administrator.

Also in the Open Bible Bible College that I teach at during the regular School year. the students are being taught English. the English words used in the KJV best represent the Hebrew and Greek (no need to go to them) in that the English words like the original language (though not using any manuscripts) are broad in meaning just like the inspired originals (if any could be found) so their understanding of broad meaning English words is where the problem lays. Like Hebrew and Greek these English words found in the KJV have multiple meanings which are great for teaching through the scriptures while most are clearly defined by context, a spiritual application can be found in the other sub meanings of the words as well.

the biggest problem is clear understanding of words in English and they to fully understand in their Tagalog mind. So KJV primarily and a Tagalog version if the Lord tarries as a compliment to it. if that happens and we are able to print it will be the Tagalog KJV along side the English KJV when printed. Unlike the current Tagalog and English Parallel Bible which is a Tagalog ASV along side an English KJV.

tonybones2112 04-01-2009 08:49 PM

[QUOTE=George;17536]Aloha brother Bones,

Although some of your comments may accurately describe some people on the Forum you need to be more specific as to who you are addressing:

Your quote:
WHO (on the Forum) are you addressing? ALL of us?

You said:
Again Manny and Brett have been “ill used” by WHOM? Certainly not ALL of us!

Brother George, they come in(Manny first)and rather than being welcomed and offered words of praise and edification, his messages are picked apart like some Church Of Christ "elder" at a "debate" straining at gnats. Then Brett and then Daniel, and now we are all that's left to contend among ourselves.I didn't join this group to devils advocate everything you all believe. I have the highest regard for every person who posted in this thread. Will knows me well enough that he's seen my claws bared at the Original Manuscript Frauds. He'll tell you I am being a nice guy in this forum. I'm not out to earn any disciples but so far I have been the only one to speak up. I'm not dragging Will into this, he agrees with me in principle, but I'm asking again, these guys seem to have been reacted to as if they were secret agents for The Lockman Foundation and intruders.

I have not yet answered Bible Protector's message to me here in detail, several of them in other threads also, but that is not out of disrespect to him. I just think I have read in this thread the possibility that the KJV is or already has become Mose's brass serpent. I apologize if I offended you brother George.

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death...

No, not all of the readers of this forum are being accused of anything brother George, but does anybody else(besides brother Will) feel as I do? Speak now or forever hold your peace?

Alrighty then, let's grab our cloaks and move on. I'm going to continue to answer messages directed to me in this thread but I'm working on a booklet called The Original Manuscript Fraud, the second portion will be my translation called The New Revised International Living Original Manuscript Version In Archaic Jacobean English.

Grace and peace friends

Tony

tonybones2112 04-01-2009 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17607)
Brother Tony, you and I see things slightly differently, but I look forward to seeing you on FFF. I don't go there for fellowship, I go for combat training. There are some decent folks there. ChaplainPaul and Mitex(Brent) are brethren-in-arms. .... then there is roby :( Now, ransom makes roby look like an angel.

Suit up, Brother!

Tim, I'm already over there and cut loose my introductory broadside in BIBLEVERSIONS, the threads are the Inspiration Poll and What Bible Do You Read? Roby has felt my lash, and don't expect him to answer any of my questions, he can't answer them. To be blunt with you all, I don't consider a lot of those people over there to be saved Christians, but deceived Neoevangelical/Neo-orthodox/ Protestant/ Charasmatics and not fundamentalists. I don't have a lot of time to fight with them so my messages are gonna be with both barrels, I don;t have as much time as I would LIKE to spend in this forum, so they are a sideline, but remember this: When I first joined this group I commented on what I call The Woodpeckers, The Doorknockers, Mormons, JWs, and other cultist pairs at your door. You have to bounce your Scripture off the hardcase into the newbie they are trying to train. I'm not out to win an argument with Roby or anybody, but to ridicule their arguments and let the Scriptures shine a light on how dumb those arguments are, because there are 50 readers of that forum for every person who posts messages. Just like on Mars Hill.

Acts 17:32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

This is our pattern for doing the work of an evangelist. Let them mock and spew their poison, we're getting through to someone. See, manuscript evidence returns to God void, His words don't.

I got your six. Hoorah.

Grace and peace

Tony

bibleprotector 04-01-2009 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Haifley (Post 17672)
Furthermore from Tyndale to 1611 there were 7 major English translations all of which were faithful to the Erasmus text (who by the way was called the incarnation of the devil by Luther). There were also 5 different revisions of the 1611. They were done in 1613, 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762. The 1762 edition is the one which is used today. The only things changed in these editions were spelling and grammar, as I understand it. The Cambridge edition and the Oxford edition (used by Scofield) are different in 3 places. Which one is exactly perfect? In 1881 the King James Revision commitee met again, ostensibly to check one more time for spelling and grammar errors.

And now we have it. A person who claims to stand for the King James Version speaking against certainty and trust in that version (at least, that is the implication from the above quoted statement).

First of all, no English Bible is identical to Erasmus, after all, there are (at least) five different Erasmus editions. What we find, notably with the KJB, is that it gathers from a variety of sources.

We are then told that there are five different revisions of the 1611. Actually, there are scores of minor revisions, several major ones, and some which do not count.

Next, we are told the completely unfactual statement, that the 1762 Edition is used today. It is not. Just look at the following links:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm
http://www.bibleprotector.com/editions.htm

Then we are told that the only spelling and grammar has been altered. Of course, this cannot be all that was changed, since there were obvious printer's errors in 1611 which also needed correction.

Furthermore, we are told that there are only 3 differences between the Oxford and the Cambridge. In fact there are scores of differences, if you look at the above links, you will see that.

And so we come to that question: Which one is exactly perfect?

This is the same question the anti-KJBO people ask. The answer is clear and simple. Just read these booklets:
http://www.bibleprotector.com/THE_FI...AMES_BIBLE.pdf
http://www.bibleprotector.com/God's_...ames_Bible.pdf

Finally, the editorial work on the KJB was nothing like the reason behind the RV committee, and the RV work was just an accelerated form of the kind of bad revisionary editions made by Webster, the ABS, Scrivener (or Norton). In the case of the RV, the underlying text was drastically altered, but it is just as bad to change words like "bewray" into "betray", etc.

P.S. What is the 1615 Edition?

tonybones2112 04-01-2009 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17625)
P.S. Tony, you sure don't do the "soft, sweet approach", do you. :D I saw your first couple of posts at FFF. It is going to get WILD!!:boxing:

He he, brother, you think my opening broadside was wild? Let's examine some of the topics, my beliefs, that we will discuss in this forum among brothers and sisters, flesh and bone of His flesh and bone:

I believe Judas Iscariot is(will be)the Antichrist.
I believe in the firstborn always being rejected.
I believe the Antichrist will be killed in the Temple by a Muslim fundamentalist wielding a scimitar, possibly a member of an "honor" bodyguard.
I believe the foundation of the Christian "religion", as it were, is NOT the Lord Jesus Christ, but His RESURRECTION.
I believe the Two Witnesses in Revelation will be Moses and Elijah.
I believe they will be killed at Christmas and their bodies will be shown on CNN and Fox.
I believe the "star" of Bethlehem was an angel, and Christ Himself.
I believe Paul died of pneumonia, not execution.
I believe the first water baptism occurred in Leviticus 8.
I believe the KJV is the perfect and inspired word of God in ENGLISH. It's worthless paper to a Zulu who can't read it.
I believe the Gap Theory is a gap between some folk's ears.
I believe Joshua write the ending of the Torah.
I believe Paul wrote Hebrews.
I believe Elihu write Job.
I believe the Scriptures will be divided by God into 77 books, or 11 more books are yet to be inspired, as 66 books is the number of man and is an incomplete number.
I believe the Dead Sea is the Lake Of Fire.
I believe the "unknown" tongues of i Cor.14 is merely foreign languages as demonstrated at Acts 2.
I believe my spirit is before the Face of the Father and was cut(circumcized) out of me and that I live because the Holy Spirit has been given in place of mine.
I believe the pope is the false prophet and not the Antichrist.
I believe the Antichrist will be a Jew-Gentile cardinal of the Maronite Catholic Church of Lebanon who will rise and "settle" the Middle Eastern "problem" and be declared the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
I believe Cain's wife was one of his sisters.

We got a lot to discuss over in the Bible Study thread of this forum, don't we brother?:D

Now, you think what I've written above is wild, as Paul said of the fall of the Jews, how much wilder do you think it's gonna get at FFF?

They can mock and "answer" manuscript evidence, Greek/Hebrew grammar. Those are sciences that have been perverted and falsely so called "sciences", vain philosophies, vain jangling and tinkling brass. That's their jungle. My jungle is the words of God. Brother Tim, He must increase, I must decrease, but personally I've seen rocks thrown at my wife on the street witnessing for the Lord Jesus Christ. I've been hit with bags of urine in Zip-Lock bags on the street. Do you know for certain or not if the person in line behind you at McDonalds has syphilis or not? So what might be in an average Zip-Lock bag of urine?

There's been no closer instance of hell on earth than the Battle Of Gettysburg. So if they think a man who lived through the 3 days of that battle is going to be impressed with a group of children having a schoolyard brawl, well, you're going to read it:D

1Ki 18:27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

Grace and peace brother Tim, give FFF the words of God, they will not return to Him void.

Tony

tonybones2112 04-01-2009 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 17638)
People should see that we are NOT saying "Unless you have the KJB, you cannot be saved".



Apollos knew only the baptism of John. It was good. But it was not the perfect understanding. Just as Apollos had the motive to spread truth and do good, so I would venture is the aims of the TRO folk.

But let us be clear: the Word of God is already available to many folk throughout the world today. There are three forms: modern versions (the worst), TR-based versions (multiple ones in some languages), and the KJB itself.

The best form of the Word of God for anyone is the KJB, and I would rather have the KJB given to people who have English as a second language than expend all the effort, resources, time and money on trying to get a KJB equivalent into their native dialects.

Therefore, I serious doubt that we could say that some Poles or Spanish-speakers are missing out of the Scripture, as the above statement implies, "spread it into the hands of souls that have no word of God". It is not that they do not have the Word, but it is as if many need the best form, and that it would be good for them all to have it, namely the pure and perfect KJB.

The evidence of whether or not people are with us or not, is whether or not the KJB is being uphold as both the best, and as perfect. Many people on this forum agree that the KJB is perfect. That means that as far as the exact knowledge of Scripture is concerned, the KJB itself must be upheld as the final form of the Received Text, to which we desire all folk of all languages to acknowledge, even if English is not their first language. This is despite the existence of Scripture in other previous translations.

Then let's you and I be at peace with each other on this topic, brother, and continue to run our course that we may decrease and He increase. The KJV is a worthless lump of wood pulp to the average Arab man on the street, he can't read it. It's not inspired to him. God cannot breath through it. That's the purpose of I Cor. 14. We are forbidden to preach the gospel of Christ in English to an Arab or Chinese who cannot understand it. The Catholic Church preached in an unknown tongue(Latin) with no interpreter for 1700 years and burned those who tried to give His words, even their corrupted versions, to the common man. Do you understand my teaching on I Cor. 14 now?

I'm with you and not against you on the KJV. To a point. At no time in history were the original manuscripts ever gathered together in one inspired volume that God could speak through until 1611. I have a Reina/Valera of 1569 on my computer Bible program. Purge out the "Apocrypha" and it looks pretty good to my uneducated-in-Spanish eyes. Are there errors in it? Why have they not been corrected? I'm being neither sarcastic or accusatory, but we have an entire continent on this planet that speaks nothing but Spanish, other than some native Indian tongues.

Let me offer you my right hand in fellowship and let's move on to our discussion of the Lord's cry on the cross and water baptism in Leviticus 8 when I can get time to write, and when those are over let's just pray for each other, separated by thousands of miles but brothers in Him who is closer than a brother.

Grace and peace to you

Tony

tonybones2112 04-01-2009 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kinney (Post 17674)
Hey Daniel. Do you by any chance have the link to the Spanish Bible of 1280 by rey Alfonso? About three years ago I did a big project for one of my Spanish classes at Colorado University and I used to have the link to a site that showed the New Testament portion of La Biblia Alfonsina of 1280. I did a comparison of it with the Greek of the TR, and compared it also to the Latin and the modern Spanish. It is not a very good translation, but it was quite interesting to see the old Spanish words, spelling and grammar. Now I can't find that link anymore. (I did a Google search too) Have you ever run across it? I think it was the first complete Bible to be made in the Spanish language. If you have the link, I would love to see it again.

Gracias,
Will K

(Brother Tim, get Brandon Staggs attention for a second so he won't hear this) Will, I have the 1569 Reina/Valera "Bible Of The Bear" for E-Sword. Apparently the .bbl files for texts of a given bible for E-Sword is simply a Microsoft ACCESS file. I have Word 97, I don't know if this database will work on E-Sword. I'd love to have Sam Gipp's Answer Book on E-Sword as a topic file. I'm not versed enough in OPEN OFFICE to try their database program, but many users of E-Sword have made modules they share. I have The Nit-Wit Translation(Watchtower), the NIV, New Living, NASB, New Jerusalem, Clementine Vulgate, Wyclife's, Bishops, Coverdale, Geneva, I have about 30-40 versions. No one has made Jerome's Vulgate yet that is available for one I've used since day one, The Online Bible. I'd love to have the Reformation translations(Luther, Diodoti, etc.). I checked the Louis Segond 1910 French but it is missing the Johannine Comma and I think also "firstborn" from Matthew 1:25, I didn't install it yet. There are many Mexican immigrants settled in my town, so many that the local Catholic Church tore down to the foundation their church building and rebuilt larger. I'd love to be able to print simple Spanish language tracts for them. I'm on disability, what our government so quaintly calls Social "Security"(yeah, and my dog chews bubblegum too) and am on literally a barter and trade economy. I'd love to have Swordsearcher but can't afford it. Keep me in mind if you hear anyone who has any off the wall E-sword modules. I got a fragmented NT in Gothic and two Saxon 4-Gospels someone made and also the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah Scroll someone made for OLB.

Grace and peace brother, it's good to be back in touch with you. Pray for those on FFF, as Chief Dan George once said, hell has come to breakfast.

Josey Wales

Brother Tim 04-02-2009 08:32 AM

One cannot distract Brandon. Sorry.

You can freely download SwordSearcher to evaluate for 30 days.

http://www.swordsearcher.com/download.html

Will Kinney 04-02-2009 08:42 AM

Great source for other Bible versions
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tonybones2112 (Post 17706)
I'd love to have the Reformation translations(Luther, Diodoti, etc.). I checked the Louis Segond 1910 French but it is missing the Johannine Comma and I think also "firstborn" from Matthew 1:25, I didn't install it yet.

Hi Tony. You may or may not already know about this site, but it is a great source for numerous foreign language Bibles. You can find the 1649 Diodati and the 1545 Luther translation there. If you do not know how to read German or any other language, just copy the words you want to have translated and take them over to a free translation site like Babel Fish. The Louis Segond is not a good bible, but the French Martin 1744 is quite good and the French Ostervald 1996 is also pretty good.

MANY Bibles both English and foreign language can be seen here:

http://unbound.biola.edu/

Here are a couple of free translation sites:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

and this one is very good:

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/enfo...al/translation

All of grace,
Will Kinney

Brother Tim 04-02-2009 10:28 AM

Tony asked:
Quote:

I have a Reina/Valera of 1569 on my computer Bible program. ... Are there errors in it? Why have they not been corrected?
I do not know Spanish, but from what I have read, the RV has gone through a number of revisions (not just editions) over the years, some improving and other corrupting.

George 04-02-2009 10:36 AM

Re: " The William Carey Bible Society"
 
Aloha brother Tony,

Your quote:
Quote:

"I apologize if I offended you brother George."
There isn't any need for an apology brother, it wasn't necessary. I wasn't offended by your comments; I only was asking WHO you were referring to.

If you check out the entire Thread you will see that I not only welcomed brother Manny Rodriguez, but I was in agreement with much of what he presented. Brother Manny is a missionary to Puerto Rico, and he seems to be a genuine Bible believer. I do not require that every Christian dance to the music that I play, however, some of the people who come on the Forum represent themselves as Bible believers, and if you asked them for a simple DEFINITION of the Holy Bible they'll start to refer to the "originals"; or they’ll start talking about "plenary inspiration"; or “The Greek”; or “The Hebrew”; or “The Textus Receptus”; or “The Majority Text”; etc.; etc.; ad nauseam (until it’s enough to make a Hippo gag)!

You and I both know that the “ORIGINAL” Oracles of God (the Scriptures) haven’t been seen by any one alive for the last 1,800 years (for the New Testament) and up to a 3,400 years (or more) for the Old Testament. Why is it so difficult for a genuine BIBLE believer to give a simple definition for the Holy Bible?

My point simply is - that the Holy BIBLE is a BOOK that you can hold in your hands, NOT some pile of manuscripts - gathering dust in the Pope's Library; or in some great “Classical” European University; or in some European Library. The Holy BIBLE is not the “Textus Receptus” or the so-called “Majority Text”; and the HOLY BIBLE is certainly NOT the modern texts (Nestles/Aland-Metzger) take your pick. All of those “texts” contain the word/words of God (some more than others); but none of them is THE HOLY BIBLE!

Because of all of the Humanists and Sophists (both within and without Christian circles) today, it is necessary to DEFINE words - so that we all can know who or what is being spoken of. I repeat: THE HOLY BIBLE is a BOOK that we can hold in our hands, and as such, if men are going to translate God’s word/words into various languages, they should be using THE HOLY BIBLE for there “exemplar” (foundation) and FINAL AUTHORITY in determining the words to be translated.

I am not trying to disparage the work of sincere Bible translators, but if they are going to translate THE HOLY BIBLE, then they should be USING THE HOLY BIBLE as their foundation! I am not saying that other translations can’t be used for comparison (the King James translators compared the previous English translations), what I am saying is simply this: in determining which words to translate into other languages, the King James Bible should be the FINAL AUTHORITY in determining which words to use. If it is NOT the FINAL AUTHORITY in determining the choice of words, then we are right back to square one – MULTIPLE AUTHORITIES!

As I said before brother, there is no need to apologize. If I thought you had done wrong or if I were offended I would accept your apology, and I understand your concerns; it’s just that I like CLARITY. It’s so much easier to discuss Scriptural issues if we all start out on the same page, and with a basic understanding (definition) of words.

You will notice that whenever I Post, I always site the “Thread” first (so people will know WHAT I am addressing); and then I either address an individual (and his comments) or the entire Forum (so people will know WHO I am addressing). I use the word “aloha” in my address to begin with, unless I perceive that I am dealing with someone that doesn’t deserve “aloha”; and once I am fairly sure I am dealing with one of the “brethren”, I will address them as brother or sister. I DO NOT use “titles” such as “Reverend”, or “Pastor”, or “Doctor” in addressing a brother in Christ.

At this point in my life (at 68 years old), other than preaching the Gospel (which ALL Christians should be doing – not just “pastors”) - I have four basic concerns: WORSHIPPING THE LORD (“in spirit and in truth”); SOUND DOCTRINE (I am a “moderate” Dispensationalist); CHRISTIAN LIVING {Concerning our conduct towards the brethren and the lost); and DEFENDING THE BIBLE (A BOOK that I can hold in my hands).

I am sure that there are certain “issues” that we disagree on brother, but on the other hand, you have a “unique perspective” on Scriptural matters that I appreciate – sometimes. :D This one thing I know for sure – there will come a day when we will all come together in the UNITY that is in the Lord Jesus Christ. And in that day ALL of our doctrinal differences are going to disappear in a moment. Until then, as long as a brother or sister doesn’t spout unmistakable heresy, I will try to make the effort to get along (as much as lieth in me). :)

Brother Tim 04-02-2009 11:03 AM

Quote:

it’s enough to make a Hippo gag
That would not be a pretty sight! :D: :puke:

And here I was wondering why I get queasy reading some of the posts. :D

Will Kinney 04-02-2009 11:13 AM

the Spanish Bibles
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17727)
Tony asked:
I do not know Spanish, but from what I have read, the RV has gone through a number of revisions (not just editions) over the years, some improving and other corrupting.

Yes, unfortunately, the Spanish Bibles are gradually being changed and are omitting inspired Scripture and starting to adopt the critical text in some parts. Here are 7 examples of where the earlier Spanish Bible has the correct readings, but even in 1909 they revised it and made these changes by following the critical texts instead of the traditional Textus Receptus that underlies the KJB and the previous English and Reformation Bibles. The 1960 Reina Valera got a little worse and the 1995 edition is worse yet. But even the 1995 Reina Valera is far superiour to English versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman.

Mateo 15:8 - They removed the words "draws nigh" and "with their lips", which are also found in the cross reference of Isaiah 29:13..
(RV1909) Este pueblo (omisión) de labios me honra; Mas su corazón lejos está de mí.
Omisión: “se me acerca… con su boca y”
(Gr. “eggizei moi… to stomati aunton kai” ).

__________________________________________________ ______________________________
Marcos 2:17 - omits "to repentance"
(RV1909) Y oyéndolo Jesús, les dice: Los sanos no tienen necesidad de médico, mas los que tienen mal. No he venido á llamar á los justos, sino á los pecadores.
Omisión: “a arrepentimiento” (eis metanoian)

__________________________________________________ ________________
Marcos 9:24 - omits "with tears" and "Lord"
(RV1909) Y luego el padre del muchacho (Omisión) dijo clamando: (Omisión) Creo, ayuda mi incredulidad.
Omisión: “con lágrimas” (meta dakruon) y “Señor”(kurie).

__________________________________________________ _________________
Lucas 23:42 - omits the all important word "Lord".
(RV1909) Y dijo á Jesús: (Omisión)Acuérdate de mí cuando vinieres á tu reino
(Omisión: “Señor” gr. “kurie”. Quita el reconocimiento del Señorío de Cristo, por parte del ladrón en la cruz.
___________________________

Hechos 20:28 - important doctrinal words "the church of GOD" and makes it "the church of the Lord", thus removing the fact that the church was bought with the blood of GOD!
(SRV) Por tanto mirad por vosotros y por todo el rebaño en que el Espíritu Santo os ha puesto por obispos, para apacentar la iglesia del Señor, la cual ganó por su sangre.s conocida y aceptada que lee "iglesia del Señor".
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
1 Corintios 2:13 - omits the word "holy"
(RV1909) Lo cual también hablamos, no con doctas palabras de humana sabiduría, mas con doctrina del Espíritu (omisión), acomodando lo espiritual á lo espiritual.
OMISION: Falta la palabra "SANTO" (gr. agiou) nada menos que referido la tercera persona de la Santa Trinidad.
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
Efesios 3:9 - omits the important words "by Jesus Christ"
(RV1909) Y de aclarar á todos cuál sea la dispensación del misterio escondido desde los siglos en Dios, que crió todas las cosas.(omisión)
OMISION: "por Jesucristo" (dia iesou chistou).

Will K

Daniel Haifley 04-03-2009 04:26 AM

Sorry George
 
Sorry George,
Didn't mean to ignore you. Haven't had a lot of time to read all the posts, and must have missed yours. I understand how much time and research you and many others have put into this subject. I also have spent many hours and years. I didn't mean to misrepresent the history of the KJV in my choice of words, and you are right about the differences between the Cambridge and the Oxford. There are more differences than 3. I had only found 3 personally, but went to check based on your comments and found other lists. I know you don't know me or my stand or my background so you couldn't possibly know the context in which I make my comments. I haven't spent the time trying to explain my position, I've just kind of lobbed some rocks into the middle of the discussion.That is my error. I didn't feel it necessary because several on this forum have given statements that reflect my thoughts and beliefs - so I started on the assumption that we were all on the same page. Again - my mistake.

I believe that if an English speaking person is going to translate the Bible into another language that he should use the KJV as the standard. It is the undisputable standard for the English language. Interestingly enough every other translation (that I know of) tries to compare itself to the KJV in its introduction.

I believe that the if you add to the Words of the Book -God will add to you the plagues out of the Book. I believe that if you take away from the Words of the Book- God will take your part out of the Book of Life. I believe this is serious business.

But I also have some honest questions due to my research into other languages, as per my belief that we should attempt to get the Bible into all languages- which is more possible than getting everyone to understand English. The reason I even brought up the Cambridge vs. Oxford issue was to underscore my question. Some times translators make a choice in a translation. If the word conveys the same meaning of the Greek or Hebrew Text is the translation perfect?

For example:a friend of mine translated portions of the Bible into the Zapatec Indian language. In the story of the feeding of the 5,000 he ran accross a problem with translating the 12 basketfulls that remained. In the receptor language they had 3 words which said basket. Each completely different word spoke of a completely different size of basket. Which one was accurate. Did the disciples use a basket that slung under their arm, one that could be put on the shelf, or one that was the size of a barrel? Based on the context of the miracle the translator chose the biggest one? Was he right? Did he get it "perfect"? Did God help him in the translation? Will he be judged with Origin, Marcion, Wescott, Hort, etc. if he got it wrong?

These are not questions meant for argumentation. I am struggling with these questions. And am hoping to hear from some genuine Bible believers. The textual critics can not help me.

By the way we have put together a prayer journal of the 5,000+ language groups that don't have a Bible. It is at the publisher. For the last 2 years I and the children of my church have been praying every day for 72 countries that do not have a gospel witness at all. In fact we printed the countries on trading cards and have been distributing them for people to pray. In 2 years 33 of those countries have missionaries in them or going to them. We may not be able to sort all of this out, but we serve a God who can, and I am actively asking Him to help us.

bibleprotector 04-03-2009 07:41 AM

It is interesting that the "basket" issue, and how to translate that idea into a foreign language is given.

If we assume that the KJB is right, and the translation was being made from the KJB into an Indian dialect, the great problem still is that the translation is never going to be able to get it exactly right. It can be good. It can be sufficient. But it just misses something... and it is evident it misses something big. It misses the providential "seal of approval" behind it.

The level of knowledge of people today attempting to make a KJB-based translation is low. What I mean is that there is not an adequately high enough knowledge of the KJB, its complexity, in the English to those who know English, so much worse, or how much will a translator miss, or even misjudge, when turning it to another tongue.

Another thing is that the English tongue was prepared out of history way before the Reformation ever occurred, to be fit and ready for the very Word of God to be communicated in that language. People assume rightly that the OT is communicated perfectly in Hebrew, or the NT in Greek, but to get another language prepared, and able to take both Testaments, bound together, and fitly, excelling beyond the Latin, is a wonder that is the result of the providence of God.

The witness of men, like the Puritan Bible Committee of the 1650s, was that the KJB was the best translation in the world. They vainly tried to improve upon it, and were thwarted. Other attempts have utterly failed. If the English be so high, how is it that we could expect that a foreign translation is really going to be satisfactory, even if made by a cadre of men who use the KJB every day?

That is why I sincerely believe the solution is to get the people to learn English rather than showing them something which is supposed to be polished gold and the words of life in their language, which is but a poor reflexion of the authoritative KJB. But as long as the KJB is not acknowledged as standard, the whole issue of foreign translation will be fraught with perplexities. At least when the KJB is upheld, even the best foreign translations (if they exist in that dialect) may yet continue in a secondary position, and that as people learn English, what the world sees as wide open (English is the world's language) may be accessed by all the native tribes.

The Scripture indicates in several ways that all men do have the Bible. I think it is both defeatist and not understanding prophecy to claim that men do not have the Bible, or that over 5000 language groups are missing out, etc.

1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

The Word is able to reach "you".

Col 1:6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:

The Word is able to come unto "you".

Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

The Scripture is made known to all nations.

Ro 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

God is able to reach them all.

When we look at the KJB, we are looking at God's way of communicating to the world. Sure there have been plenty of translations, and there are billions who yet need to acknowledge the Scripture. But we are observing the Word of God in transit. We are observing it at some point between its being first given and the end of the harvest. Just because people might not yet see the full harvest does not mean that God is unable to get the KJB out further and wider than it is this day.

And why the KJB? Because when you examine it in detail, you find that there is such a layer of truth, rightness and certainty in it, unlike looking at any Greek text today, or any other translation today. That's because the KJB gets it right as a text and translation, and it gets it the rightest because it is God's providentially appointed Word for all.

So it is better to pray for the preparation of the labourers with the KJB to be sent forth into 72 godless nations, than to be in a place where there appears no solution, no way, no direction and no real blessing, and all along we have the God who can do all things, and may be justly called upon to aid in the best and highest endevours of getting what is His perfect Word out among the nations.

Isa*49:22 Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.

Isa*59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

Isa*62:10 Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people.

Isa*5:26 And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:

Isa*11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Isa*18:3 All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye.

Manny Rodriguez 04-03-2009 09:20 AM

Hello everyone.

It's been a while since I've been on here. I travel constantly as I'm on the deputation trail and many times I hardly have any Internet access or the time to come on here and fellowship with you guys around the word of God. Today I come on and see that this conversation has been brought back up, for which I am glad because it is an important topic. This is a subject of such paramount importance in regards to worldwide evangelism that this issue needs to be hashed out by Bible-believers who may provide different angles of perspective.

I feel that I have already said enough on this topic on the first few pages of this thread. But as I've perused through some of the new comments, some of which I am mentioned in, I just want to make a couple things very clear.

For those who have any doubts as to where exactly I stand or what flavor of King James Bible-believer I am... I believe that the King James Bible is PERFECT. It is the Preserved, Infallible, Inerrant, and Inspired (yes I said Inspired) Word of God in English. It is the final authority in all things especially in the matter of translating God's pure words into a foreign language. I believe the KJV should be the standard for foreign Bible translations and revisions. I believe Dr. Edward Hills said it best when he said that the KJB is "an independent variety of the Textus Receptus".

When the printing press was first invented in the late 1400s there was a push to publish all 66 books of the Bible into one volume and mass produce it. Before the invention of the printing press, having all 66 books in one volume was a rarity considering that God's words were handwritten and therefore could take over a year to hand copy the entire word of God from Gen to Rev. The push for the entire Bible in one volume for mass production began with the Latin Bible which was the first book ever printed on the newly invented press. As you all know, Erasmus was the first (in the new era of the printing press) credited with producing the entire NT into Greek. Prior to the printing press, Latin had been the language of choice for both scholars and the common Christian (such as the Waldenses and Albigenses) to render God's pure words as Latin was the most prominent of languages in the world for many centuries. Erasmus's efforts sparked a revival of interest in producing God's words in the NT into it's original language - Greek. God not only raised up Erasmus but others like Stephanus and Beza to continually purify the Greek text.

I said all that to say this. I believe the KJV is the fulfillment of the Received Texts. It is the final culmination. The completion of accuracy. Therefore, the KJB should be the final authority for Bible translators and revisers on determining accuracy and purity of God's words into receptor languages (Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, Polish, etc).

However, because of the complications that arise when trying to determine how to accurately translate some words from one language to another, I DO NOT BELIEVE that the translator is wrong for consulting other sources outside of the KJV. I believe the translator is well in his right to consult other TR-based Bibles in other languages. And what better sources to consult than the Received Texts in the original languages themselves, of which I would recommend the Bomberg edition of the Masoretic Text for Hebrew, and Scrivener's text for Greek since his is the only edition of the Greek TR text that was produced to match up with the KJV word for word. Contrary to the opinion of some on this thread, this can be done without compromising the KJB as the final authority.

Now the problem that I have with some you guys, though I respect all of you for your faithful stand on the KJB and your different approaches to this subject, is that some of you act as if those of us who believe the Received Texts can be used by today's Bible translators and revisers are somehow less of a Bible-believer than you. Somehow we're compromisers or something. But really you're just manifesting your ignorance to the nature of languages in general. The KJV translators themselves used many sources for their work. I would think that Bible Believers who know the history of how their KJB came about would understand from the example set by the King James translators the importance of consulting several sources FOR LINGUISTIC PURPOSES in the process of translating. But "the brethren" never cease to amaze me.

And another thing...

Though I appreciate Bibleprotecter's stand for the KJB, he remains guilty of twisting scripture to formulate private interpretations. The Great Commission is not introducing "Anglo-phone Protestant culture" (whatever that is) to the world and to force everyone to learn English. The Great Commission is to preach the Gospel (which according to 1 Cor. 15:1-4 is the message of Christ's atoning death and resurrection, not the word of God which Bibleprotecter tried to define the Gospel as earlier in this thread). Not only that, but as Bro. Dan Haifley pointed out (Bro. Haifley, you and I have never met but we have mutual friends in the ministry and I salute you in the Lord. Thank you for your ministry, your stand for the KJB, and for what you do for the cause of worldwide evangelism) the example of the Apostles themselves in the book of Acts demonstrate that God's way of getting the Gospel to the world is in the language of the people. That is the Bible way. That is God's way. Bibleprotecter's way and God's way doesn't match. I'll stick with God.

God bless.

Brother Tim 04-03-2009 10:54 AM

Brother Manny and others who serve as missionaries, I honor your commitments to do all that you are enabled to do in ministering to those to whom God has sent you. I fully recognize the desire and drive that you have to get the message out through every means possible.

Respectfully, I would ask you these questions:

Brother Manny, you use the New Testament missionaries as evidence that the Gospel was put into the language of the people. Is there evidence in the NT that the Scriptures were translated into these many languages? Can a missionary learn and use the language so that communication is possible while at the same time train individuals in the English language? Is it possible that Matthew's way and God's way are not mutually exclusive?

I would ask any of those who would emphasize translation over English-training:

Let us consider a missionary going to a location where English was not known. The missionary faces a difficult challenge. Which is better? Learn the language to a level sufficient to accurately translate the Scriptures into this new language, or develop the English skills of the people. Yes, there is a middle ground, but for the purpose of discussion, I am dealing with the emphasis of translation over training or the reverse.

I would readily admit that either approach is a daunting task, and should be undertaken only through much prayer. There are advantages and disadvantages to either path. For the translation path, accuracy is paramount. The translator must not only be very skilled in the denotation of the vocabulary, but its connotation as well. Additionally, the receptor language must be robust enough to handle the deeper message of the Scriptures. Finally, most language groups that are not already exposed to English are not themselves either written languages or the population is predominately illiterate.

For the English-training route, the learning-the-language barrier must still be conquered. Some have said that English is difficult to learn. I have also heard the opposite. The fact remains that English is global, and is increasing in its influence. Given the fact that training and learning any language can be a challenge, what advantage does this path have over the first. I would say that there are several.
1 ) The people are not dependent on everything being presented in their language. The non-English reader is limited to only the material (Scriptures and other) that has been translated. He cannot listen to the massive amount of preaching/teaching available in English. He cannot take advantage of printed reference materials (dictionaries, etc). He is dependent on those who can speak and write in his language.
2 ) Because English has a global influence, the people receive a greater advantage in many aspects.

I have quickly sketched out a few of my thoughts here. The issue is much deeper than can be covered in a post, but hopefully others can follow the ideas that I expressed.

Manny Rodriguez 04-03-2009 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17760)
Brother Manny, you use the New Testament missionaries as evidence that the Gospel was put into the language of the people. Is there evidence in the NT that the Scriptures were translated into these many languages?

No there is no evidence that I am aware of in the NT that the Scriptures were translated into the languages that the disciples ministered to the people in at that time. And I've never implicated such.

Of course, the canon of the scriptures had not yet been completed and so Bible translation was not as much as a necessity during the Apostle's time. Besides, most people in those days were versed enough in the cognate languages of Hebrew as well as Greek and Latin that there was not a demand for the scriptures to yet be translated outside of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin during the beginning days of the church.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17760)
Can a missionary learn and use the language so that communication is possible while at the same time train individuals in the English language? Is it possible that Matthew's way and God's way are not mutually exclusive?

Brother Tim, please don't misunderstand my position. I never said that a Missionary could never teach their people English and therefore bypass the need for a Bible translation in the language of the people they minister to. There are some parts of the world where that may be a viable option. And if that is the most efficient way to reach those particular people with the word of God than I am all for it.

The problem I have with Matthew's way (or Bibleprotector) is that he insists that the Great Commission is to convert all cultures of the world to what he calls an Anglo-phone Protestant culture and thereby force everyone and there mother to learn English. He believes that this method is the fulfillment of verses in the Bible (some of which he has posted throughout this thread). But this is sheer nonsense. He is twisting scripture to promote his private interpretation. And he is out of touch with reality as to ministering to people of a different culture.

There are parts of this world in which they will never learn English. For these people, it would be much more efficient for the Missionary to learn the people's language and minister to them in THEIR language. True God-called Missionaries are many times gifted with the ability to learn the language of the people much faster and more more fluently and effectively. I have had the privilege to rub shoulders with many Missionaries from all over the world who have mastered the language of the people just as intimately as their own language of English. Missionaries CAN learn the language good enough to be able to provide God's pure words into those languages. You would be surprised with how much God can enable and equip a man of whom He has called once that man is fully yielded to the Spirit of God. 1 Tim. 1:12

There is a famous Missionary quote that says something to the effect: "The Bible in the mother tongue is the greatest Missionary. It needs no furlough and is never considered a foreigner."

Which do you believe will leave a more lasting impression and effect? The Missionary/English teacher who teaches a certain group English or the Missionary/Bible translator who provides that same group the word of God in their language? I say the latter because when the English teacher is dead and gone who will continue his "ministry"? But let the word of God loose and it can take of men's souls on its own, with or without the Missionary who translated it.

The example of church history and missions has proven that the latter has left the more lasting effect. How many great English teachers do you know who did a great work for God as opposed to how many great Missionaries who translated the Scriptures and did a great work for God? Bibleprotector tries to bring up Missionaries in the past who endeavored to teach English. Yet it is somewhat humorous that those same Missionaries are men who also translated the Bible into the language of the people they minister to. The efforts to provide God's words into the tongue of the people have outlasted their efforts to teach people English. The reality is that there is no great movement to convert the world to switch to English as Matthew insists there is and/or will be. The reality is that God has and is raising up Missionaries to translate the word of God into other languages. Whole ministries exist for that very cause today.

Again, I'm not saying that teaching people English so that they can simply resort to the KJB can never be a viable option. But the more realistic, efficient, and effective option in MOST cases is simply to provide the people God's words in their tongue. This has always been an important aspect of Mission work and always should be.

Is a Missionary at liberty to simply teach the people English? Sure, he could be. Who knoweth the mind of God for each individual? But even so, I think the time, energy, and resources spent to teach people English could have been spent more efficiently providing them God's words in their own language.

Our God is a multi-faceted God. He cannot be limited nor confined in a box. I'm for whatever way will work the most efficiently and effectively to save men's souls from eternal destruction. And though I do not exclude teaching people English as a viable option, I believe providing them God's words in their language is the better way, in most cases, and the way that matches what we see in the scriptures.

What I find interesting is that many times those who insist that we convert everyone to learn English are those who are not involved with ministering to non-English speaking people and are therefore out of touch with reality with the cultural obstacles that exist. You have never seen a more thankful individual than a native in a foreign land who is given God's words in their language. They will cherish that gift in a way that we spoiled rotten Americans have long since forgotten. (And Bible correctors think WE are the Bibliolaters! They ain't seen nothin.)

I hope I've covered you question, Brother Tim.

Brother Tim 04-03-2009 12:51 PM

Manny, would you agree that translating the entire Bible is not necessary?

Brother Tim 04-03-2009 12:54 PM

Would you also agree that not teaching English limits the individual to only that material which is translated into his tongue?

Manny Rodriguez 04-03-2009 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17763)
Manny, would you agree that translating the entire Bible is not necessary?

If I understand the question correctly I don't think I could agree with that. Mat. 4:4 says that man cannot live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. So I believe it is important to accurately translate every word of God into the receptor language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17764)
Would you also agree that not teaching English limits the individual to only that material which is translated into his tongue?

Well the answer to that is pretty obvious. But if I understand where you're going with this I should say that I personally believe that every word of God can be accurately translated into a foreign language in such a way that the native in the foreign land can receive everything they need to spiritually grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. I disagree with those who say that it is impossible to translate a Bible into a foreign tongue that can provide everything the KJB provides for the English-speaking people. Some of my good friends disagree with me on that but I just believe that the same God that existed in 1611 exists today. Jesus Christ was not an Englishman. We ought not to limit the Holy One of Israel.

ps - I might not be able to come back to this thread for a while as I am about to hit the road again and I don't know when I'll have Internet access again. So please don't be offended if I don't get to answer any further questions any time soon. God bless.

George 04-03-2009 06:42 PM

Re:" The William Carey Bible Society"
 
Your quote:
Quote:

"I believe that if an English speaking person is going to translate the Bible into another language that he should use the KJV as the standard. It is the undisputable standard for the English language. Interestingly enough every other translation (that I know of) tries to compare itself to the KJV in its introduction."
Aloha brother Daniel,

From your statement above, I believe we are on the "same page" (or close to it). My concern has not been whether translations should or should not be made, my concern has always been - when a translation is made into a foreign language, WHAT was used as the exemplar (FINAL AUTHORITY) in determining which words to translate.

Your example of the baskets demonstrates that it isn't always simple or easy when trying to translate exactly, and I can see the difficulty in the example you cited.

However, if you went to the South Seas where the Natives had never seen snow (for instance), I believe that it would be better to leave the English word in your translation, rather than seek an equivalent native word (of which there would be NO SATISFACTORY EQUIVALENT). For those words where there would be no satisfactory equivalent, it would be far better to leave the English word (that can be explained in preaching and teaching) than to ADD some foreign word which would not be accurate.

The King James Bible translators "transliterated" the Greek word - "Nicolaitans" {Revelation 2:6 & 15], and I can see no problem doing that (in English) if a satisfactory equivalent word cannot be found.

If you read my Posts, I believe that you will see that I never objected to anyone translating the Bible into another language, as long as the translator understood the definition of the Bible {A Book you can hold in your hands), and as long as the translator knows WHICH BIBLE to translate from.

I would never presume to tell someone that they cannot translate the Bible or that they shouldn't. Who am I to know what God is leading someone else to do? [Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.] My only concern has been that those who undertake this task be FAITHFUL to the text of The Holy Bible; which by your testimony, I believe you will be.

Brother Manny Rodriguez is a good brother in the Lord, who is undertaking a daunting task. I commend both him and you for your labors in the Lord, and pray that God will bless your efforts. :)

tonybones2112 04-03-2009 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17718)
One cannot distract Brandon. Sorry.

You can freely download SwordSearcher to evaluate for 30 days.

http://www.swordsearcher.com/download.html

God is good brother, problem has been solved:)

Grace and peace to all

Tony

tonybones2112 04-03-2009 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Kinney (Post 17719)
Hi Tony. You may or may not already know about this site, but it is a great source for numerous foreign language Bibles. You can find the 1649 Diodati and the 1545 Luther translation there. If you do not know how to read German or any other language, just copy the words you want to have translated and take them over to a free translation site like Babel Fish. The Louis Segond is not a good bible, but the French Martin 1744 is quite good and the French Ostervald 1996 is also pretty good.

MANY Bibles both English and foreign language can be seen here:

http://unbound.biola.edu/

Here are a couple of free translation sites:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

and this one is very good:

http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/enfo...al/translation

All of grace,
Will Kinney

Thanks Will, I've bookmarked the sites. I once owned a leather over wood bound Martin Luther Bible printed in 1769.

Grace and peace

Tony

tonybones2112 04-03-2009 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 17727)
Tony asked:
I do not know Spanish, but from what I have read, the RV has gone through a number of revisions (not just editions) over the years, some improving and other corrupting.

That's true. Luther's Bible had Theodotian's corrupt "...son of the gods" (bar elahin) in Daniel 3:25 and did not include the Johannine Comma in the editions that came out while he was alive.

Grace and peace

Tony


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study