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)

Manny Rodriguez 12-04-2008 08:57 PM

The William Carey Bible Society
 
I would like to recommend the website of a newly formed ministry that I believe all defenders of the KJV should be aware of. This ministry is the William Carey Bible Society.

The website is - http://www.wcbible.org.

This ministry was started by Dr. Phil Stringer (former Vice President of Landmark Baptist College), Dr. Stephen Zeinner, Dr. Mickey Carter, Dr. Rex Cobb, Dr. Humberto Gomez and a few other men who stand for the inerrancy and preservation of the KJB. I know several of these men personally and have at least met all but 1 of the leaders of this group. While we all may not agree with each of these men on every single particular of the Bible issue, I can vouch for these men that they are are strong in their stand on the KJB as the inerrant and preserved word of God for the English-speaking people. These men will not hesitate to tell you that there are absolutely no errors in the KJV and they vehemently opposed the modern translations and the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts that they are based upon.

The William Carey Bible Society's purpose is to promote Bibles in other languages that are equivalent to or are least the closest to the KJV. This may not mean a lot to some of you but to those of us who minister to people of a different language it is an important issue. We know we have a perfect Bible in English in the KJV. But what do we do when God leads us to minister to people outside of the English language?

The leaders of the William Carey Bible Society are committed to investigating the situation of Bibles in other languages in order to determine which are the best to use. On their website they have provided a list of Bibles in other languages around the world that are at least based upon the Received Texts of which the KJV came from:

http://wcbible.org/documents/theword.pdf

Now keep in mind that this list is not impeccable. It should be understood that this list simply provides a starting point for those interested in finding out what Bible in a certain language reads closest to the KJV. There are over 4000 languages in the world that do not have 1 verse of scripture translated. There is about 400 whole Bibles and about 1100 NTs of Bibles in different languages. Some language groups only have corrupt bibles. And so this list is provided by the WCBS to help the seeker get past the bad bibles and find what real options for a foreign Bible are available if any.

There is much more I can say about this important ministry but I trust those interested will peruse the website and let the information speak for itself. Of course, I look forward to some dialogue in this thread concerning Bibles in other languages as it is a subject near and dear to my heart.

Needless to say, as a Bible-believer I am in full support of what the William Carey Bible Society is doing. I'm sure you will be to.

stephanos 12-04-2008 09:25 PM

Quote:

Doctrinal Statement

The William Carey Bible Society believes that the Holy Scriptures are the verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative Word of God. We believe that God has preserved His word through the Received Text. The Old Testament Received Text is to be found in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The New Testament Received Text is to be found in the Greek New Testament as edited by Dr. Scrivener (1894). The King James Bible is the Received Text in English.
I could never stand with those who believe that the Holy Scriptures are preserved in Scrivner's text. Scrivner was a notorious Bible corrector who is well known to have edited the AV 1611 to fit his weak faith in God's Word.

Also this doctrinal statement makes it clear that they are TR guys. They are not King James Bible Believers (not by this statement that is).

Nice try.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

bibleprotector 12-04-2008 10:58 PM

I believe that it would be better to help people learn English than to waste resources making second-best translations into other languages. The trends are toward global use of English anyway, and knowing English gives them economic advantage, etc. If people know English, they can read the KJB and in many cases get it from the internet right now.

bibleprotector 12-04-2008 11:12 PM

The following quote from the “William Carey Society” is a woeful disgrace:

Quote:

On the other hand, a translation taken only from the English might be less accurate than one also using the Greek, especially if it is done too literally. For instance, Revelation 3:20 says, “. . .if any man hear my voice. . .” This first-year Greek student can see at a glance that the word “man” is not found in the Greek phrase. The English uses the word “man” to mean any person; therefore “man” is a good choice. However, suppose that in the receptor language the word “man” can only refer to an adult male. Then a literal English translation would be an inaccurate one. Paul asks a ridiculous question in Romans 6:1, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” He answers his question with, “God forbid.” A look at the Greek shows that the word “God “ is not found in this phrase and neither is the word “forbid.” The Greek uses a very strong word meaning “no” any another word meaning “to be.” The Spanish Bible translates this phrase as “in ninguna manera” (in not any way). The Greek, Spanish and English are all different; which is correct? They all are! By studying the Greek along with the English, the translator may get a better understanding of the text, something he desperately needs. He also sees that there is a certain amount of liberty in choosing the best word in the receptor language. Perhaps the receptor language best expresses it, “never, never.”
“never, never.”!?!

Steven Avery 12-05-2008 08:48 AM

Hi Folks,

Overall I am more warm to such a web-site, preferring in a case like this to emphasize agreements more than differences. Or at least to point out that they can still be largely allies, even while their presentation has flaws.

There is an irony in placing the Scrivener back-translation, derivative from the King James Bible, over the King James Bible itself. This is only a result of paradigmic muddle, the refusal to simply see and declare our Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.

Stephen, they are referring to the Greek Scrivener back-translation, not the deficient Cambridge Paragraph Bible done by Scrivener. The back-translation to Greek (ie. picking and choosing sources from Beza, Stephanus and other) is a decent scholarly work, the Greek text today closest to the King James Bible.

The list of Bibles in other languages is fairly good, and at least can be a help. I have seen one other web-article with similar information.

Among those who believe that Bible translations into other languages can be a positive effort, the issue of the source text (when skills in Greek or Hebrew as well as English are available) is a fascinating question. As of today I would not belittle the arguments on either side.

Although the "men" argument for Greek translation given in their article is flawed since someone translating from the King James Bible is likely to know full well when "men" is inclusive of men and women, simply by English knowledge and context. They also would likely know full well that "God forbid" is idiomatic, or dynamic equivalence. And the web site articles clearly do not see God's hand in the English Bible as we do. And by their theories could easily end up translating incorrectly from "the Greek" (e.g. they could crash-up some 'faith of Christ' into 'faith in Christ'). Thus the Greek-Hebrew-Aramaic TR alone would be a very dubious source option today, if the KJB was not included.

Another strange aspect that pops up continually is how there could be over 50 pages (in two articles) on the "LXX" with no mention of the Psalm 14 gross tampering. This always amazes me.

Beyond that, I hope to look at those articles a little closer. Oh, I note that they mention Josephus but miss the fact that the Antiquities Preface indicates the lack of an available Greek translation of the Old Testament histories in the late first century. This is a bit more nuanced than the Psalm 14 issue but should be in every substantive "LXX" article.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Manny Rodriguez 12-05-2008 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanos (Post 12547)
I could never stand with those who believe that the Holy Scriptures are preserved in Scrivner's text. Scrivner was a notorious Bible corrector who is well known to have edited the AV 1611 to fit his weak faith in God's Word.

Also this doctrinal statement makes it clear that they are TR guys. They are not King James Bible Believers (not by this statement that is).

Nice try.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Then if you are a King James Bible-believer, you are cutting your nose to spite your face. You must not realize that Scrivener's Greek Text of the TR is the most accurate edition of the TR in that it is the ONLY Greek Text that was made to mirror the KJV. Here is an official statement from the Trinitarian Bible Society concerning the Greek Text they print (read carefully and learn):

Quote:

Which edition of the Textus Receptus does the Trinitarian Bible Society print?

In the latter part of the 19th century, F. H. A. Scrivener produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which reflects the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorised Version. This edition, published posthumously in 1894, is currently published by the Society.


How does the Scrivener edition differ from the other editions of the Textus Receptus?

F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891) attempted to reproduce as exactly as possible the Greek text which underlies the Authorised Version of 1611. However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus.

Manny Rodriguez 12-05-2008 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 12554)
I believe that it would be better to help people learn English than to waste resources making second-best translations into other languages. The trends are toward global use of English anyway, and knowing English gives them economic advantage, etc. If people know English, they can read the KJB and in many cases get it from the internet right now.

As a Missionary to a non-english speaking people, I strongly disagree. You are out of touch with reality if you really believe that. There are thousands of language groups in this world. Most of which live in 3rd would countries where education is not very good. Some language groups in this world are simply not going to learn English and that is a fact and reality. Some will REFUSE to learn English because they are proud of their language, and if God calls you to minister to such people, the only way you are going to reach them is through THEIR language not yours. God has not called you to Americanize or Anglicize them but to evangelize them.

Besides, even if you COULD teach everyone English, the time, money, energy, and resources spent teaching them English could have very well been used to give them the words of God in their language. Outside of the Gospel itself, there is no greater gift you can give to a foreign people than the word of God in their own language.

Almost every pioneer Missionary to we read about and uphold today as heroes of the faith were involved in translating the word of God into the language of the people the minister to. Only in this day and age of apostacy and APETHY do you find a de-emphasis of translating the word of God into foreign languages.

Manny Rodriguez 12-05-2008 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 12559)
The following quote from the “William Carey Society” is a woeful disgrace:



“never, never.”!?!

How is this a "woeful disgrace"? Do you even understand what this man, who is an experienced Bible translator, is explaining? Have you ever studied a second language?

Manny Rodriguez 12-05-2008 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanos (Post 12547)
I could never stand with those who believe...

Bob Jones Sr. said:

“It is never a compromise to go as far as you can on the RIGHT road with anyone: it is always a compromise to go any distance on the wrong road with anyone.”

Manny Rodriguez 12-05-2008 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 12568)
[COLOR="Navy"]Hi Folks,

Hello Bro. Avery, it's been a while.

Quote:

There is an irony in placing the Scrivener back-translation, derivative from the King James Bible, over the King James Bible itself. This is only a result of paradigmic muddle, the refusal to simply see and declare our Bible as the pure and perfect word of God.
Just for the record, and I speak for myself, but I do not hold the TR as superior to the KJV. I believe the KJV and the Greek and Hebrew words that underlie it are equal. For those who don't know me, I believe the KJV is PERFECT. It is the infallible word of God. There are no errors in it whatsoever. But I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. God's words have always been around and always will be because Ps. 12:6-7 and a score of other verses says so. And before 1611, yea before John Wycliffe's translation in the 1300s, the words of God existed in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Syriac and other languages before it ever did in English. Just because God has chosen English to be the universal language of today, and He has given us a perfect Bible in that language, does not mean that his words in other languages ceased or expired from being God's words as well. So I furthermore believe that these Bible-believers who utterly despise any consideration of the Greek and Hebrew make absolutely no sense and shoot themselves in the foot.

Of course, Bro. Avery, I'm sure you already knew these things about me from past conversations. I state my position for the sake of others.

Quote:

the Greek Scrivener back-translation
If I may be a little knit-picky, I disagree with referring to Scrivener's text as a "back-translation". I've done a little write-up about this which I have yet to publish. Here is a portion of it:

"First off, Scrivener’s Annotated Greek NT is not necessarily a “new Textus Receptus”. According to Scrivener’s own testimony (see the preface of Scrivener’s Greek NT), his text is basically Beza’s 5th edition (1598) save in 190 places. For these 190 places, Scrivener replaced those readings with Greek renderings that matched the KJV more closely. But these replacements were not new TR readings nor were they a back-translation of the English into Greek as some have suggested. These renderings already existed in prior editions of the TR and were borrowed from those editions to replace the 190 instances in Beza’s 5th edition which did not match up as closely with the KJV. So there is really nothing new about Scrivener’s TR text. It is simply an edited version of Beza’s text in just 190 places with renderings that already existed in prior TR texts."

Quote:

Among those who believe that Bible translations into other languages can be a positive effort, the issue of the source text (when skills in Greek or Hebrew as well as English are available) is a fascinating question. As of today I would not belittle the arguments on either side.
I'm glad not everyone is so close-minded. The subject of Bible translation is an important subject. It would do us as Bible-believers some good to listen a litter better and actually try to understand what is going on before delving into something half-cocked. Even if we don't agree with everything a certain individual is proposing, some of these men have a sincere desire to help people by providing them the pure words of God. They are doing the best they know how to figure out what is the best way to do that. Instead of "biting and devouring" one another, we should set are pride aside, and see what we can contribute to the discussion in assitance of those who have a true burden to help people receive God's pure words in their language.


Quote:

Although the "men" argument for Greek translation given in their article is flawed since someone translating from the King James Bible is likely to know full well when "men" is inclusive of men and women, simply by English knowledge and context. They also would likely know full well that "God forbid" is idiomatic, or dynamic equivalence.
I disagree with referring to the KJV translators' choice of wording (God forbid) in this instance as Dynamic Equivalence. Bible believers need to understand that Formal Equivalence (word for word translating) is not necessarily a demand for an exact translation IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE. It is a demand for an exact word for word translation WHEREVER IT IS POSSIBLE. Anyone who has studied a second or third language knows that a word for word equivalent is not always available for every word in every language. In such cases, an exception must be made and the translator must diligently and prayerfully search for the closest to an equivalent that is possible. This is what the KJV translators did when 2 Tim. 3:16 when they translated the 1 compound word "theopneustos" into 5 english words "given by inspiration of God". There is no 1 word available for "theopneustos" therefore they had to improvise in order to convey the Greek word properly into English. There is right now a team of Bible-believing Missionaries in Papua, New Guinea translating the word of God into the Pidgin dialect. They do not have a word for "modest" in Pidgin. So the translators had to do the same thing as the KJV translators did in 2 Tim. 3:16 with the translating of "theopneustos". They had to use several words to convey the English word "modest" into Pidgin.

Another example of when an exception must be made is with idiomatic expressions. The KJV translators were experts in the original languages on a level that today’s pseudo-scholars will never attain to. The KJV translators were so fluent in the original languages as well as the cognate languages that they could identify the idiomatic expressions in those languages.
Most Greek and Hebrew professors today have not even begun to understand the languages that they teach at a level in which they can identify the idioms. The KJV translators could. Those who criticize the KJV translators for translating an idiom in the original languages (mA genomia) into an idiomatic expression in the receptor language (God forbid) fail to appreciate the expertise of the KJV translators for this proper methodology.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with EXCEPTIONS here. The vast majority of words in any language WILL have an exact word for word equivalent. Therefore, a dynamic equivalent translation is never justified. However, it is an error to refer to exceptions in word for word translation as Dynamic Equivalence because the dynamic equivalence method of translating is not concerned with conveying the most literal sense of the source but rather the most "understandable" sense for the reader. This is a big difference. The KJV translators were not concerned with an easy to understand translation. They were concerned with an ACCURATE translation of God's pure words.

Quote:

And the web site articles clearly do not see God's hand in the English Bible as we do. And by their theories could easily end up translating incorrectly from "the Greek" (e.g. they could crash-up some 'faith of Christ' into 'faith in Christ'). Thus the Greek-Hebrew-Aramaic TR alone would be a very dubious source option today, if the KJB was not included.
Bro. Avery, you obviously must have skimmed through the articles. Dr. Rex Cobb was trying to explain that both the KJV and the original languages should be used when translating into another language. And I agree wholeheartedly with that. I believe the Received Texts should be the foundation, but the KJV should be the standard on how to translate. In fact there is not translation on planet earth, including the KJV, that was ONLY made from the original languages without the collaboration of a foreign translation (or several) and vice-versa.

I have talked extensively with both Dr. Stringer and Dr. Zeinner of the WCBS on several occasions about Bible translation. These men would never accept a translation that is not equivalent to the KJV or at least an attempt to be and in order to accomplish that the KJV must be used as the standard in the translation process. In fact, on this same website Dr. D.A.Waite wrote an article critiquing another man for insisting that a KJV equivalent is not possible. These men are on the right side of the fence. It's time for Bible-believers to quit with the "friendly fire" and start realizing who their fellow-soldiers are lest Satan should get an advantage in this war.

bibleprotector 12-05-2008 11:09 AM

Quote:

How is this a "woeful disgrace"?
The KJB is in English. It is perfect.

What language is "never, never.”?

Does it match the KJB?

Quote:

God has not called you to Americanize or Anglicize them but to evangelize them.
True, but what language is the perfect Word of God in?

What cultural foundation is best for national evangelisation? What nations of the world at this point have been the most Christianised? What language is their doctrines presented in?

Quote:

Besides, even if you COULD teach everyone English
God can make it so, and it is not just one person doing the teaching. The Great Commission said for all believers to teach nations.

Quote:

give them the words of God in their language.
Has there ever been a 100% exact or perfect Bible besides the KJB? Name any good Bible and the KJB is better. Even if you had one of Paul's letters, or a whole collection of Hebrew scrolls, the KJB would be better because it has all the Canon. (This is besides the fact that the KJB is accessible to the widest amount of people, etc.)

Quote:

Outside of the Gospel itself, there is no greater gift you can give to a foreign people than the word of God in their own language.
But the Gospel = the Word. Look at 1 Peter 1:23, 25. It calls it incorruptible. Now the Word of God has come forth in many languages historically. But since the Word of God has never been manifested incorrupt in one book as far as a perfect text and translation, the full meaning of the passage must be the KJB for all the world before the end. That's not to say other Bibles were wrong. And many have been saved without the KJB. But in the future, for the best results with the full truth, the very best is the KJB for all. This is where we should aim for now.

And there are a number of verses which relate to even getting the Jews to learn English, namely, Isaiah 28:11 and Zephaniah 3:9.

Quote:

You are out of touch with reality
Quote:

Only in this day and age of apostacy and APETHY
And yet,

Quote:

It's time for Bible-believers to quit with the "friendly fire"
While these William Carey folk and supporters are not "against" the KJB, they are not fully for it if they undermine its position of dominance (by a policy or assumption that it is not for every man), or think that they stand firm when they take "consideration of the Greek and Hebrew", which is to attempt to undermine the KJB itself. Clearly, there is no perfect text in Greek or Hebrew extant today. And there is no certain translation method present today. But if we take the KJB as supersuccessionary to the Hebrew and Greek, we are saying that it came from there, but is better than it for its perfection of text (criticism) and sense, that is, the KJB is the resolved form of the Scripture, unlike the (increasingly!) uncertain state of the original languages. Running back to the Hebrew and Greek other than from the basis of the KJB being received is futile. If you use the Hebrew and Greek to support the KJB, or inquire in a believing fashion, you will see that the KJB is always right. But this has been resolved time and again, that we can advance beyond concentrating on looking back at the Hebrew and Greek, and go forward into establishing the domination of the English Bible for the world, a task which finds providential favour.

bibleprotector 12-05-2008 11:23 AM

Quote:

There is no 1 word available for "theopneustos" therefore they had to improvise in order to convey the Greek word properly into English. There is right now a team of Bible-believing Missionaries in Papua, New Guinea translating the word of God into the Pidgin dialect. They do not have a word for "modest" in Pidgin. So the translators had to do the same thing as the KJV translators did in 2 Tim. 3:16 with the translating of "theopneustos". They had to use several words to convey the English word "modest" into Pidgin.
God prepared English to be the vehicle for presenting the Word of God. The same cannot be said for Pidgin.

The authority of meaning or "proper" sense is not locked into the Greek. If God could not get it out of Greek, how could anyone be saved?

The solution for the PNG people is teaching them the English word "modest", rather than foolhardy adventures in cultural equivalency... we believe in the Lamb of God, but are they to have the pig or rooster of God?

Australian Colonial Policy was successful in PNG when they laboured to bring them up to our standard. Now we have people trying to reduce things to the standards of benighted worldly hearts. If the most successful missionary activity of the twentieth century carried the idea that the best-taught natives would have an English and western Bible College-style education, what must the standard now be, but to improve on this in line with the KJB.

Steven Avery 12-05-2008 11:31 AM

Hi Folks,

Greetings, Manny. Nice to chat again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
I'm sure you already knew these things about me from past conversations. I state my position for the sake of others.

Yes, your position has always been stronger than what is on the web-site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
If I may be a little knit-picky, I disagree with referring to Scrivener's text as a "back-translation".

I agree that it is imprecise, and modified it later. "(ie. picking and choosing sources from Beza, Stephanus and other)". The problem with calling it a back-translation is that it can imply new translation. A better phrase would be back-reconstruction and I likely will switch to that in the future, or something similar (back-compilation, reverse-source-text .. hmmm, what is best). Perhaps "source reconstruction with Beza as the primary text".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
.. some of these men have a sincere desire to help people by providing them the pure words of God. They are doing the best they know how to figure out what is the best way to do that.

I agree. There is an isolationist tendency among King James Bible defenders that allows our opponents to ignore the foundational base of our position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
I disagree with referring to the KJV translators' choice of wording (God forbid) in this instance as Dynamic Equivalence.

From my way of thinking, a "dynamic equivalence" translation can, on occasion, be an accurate translation, more meaningful and accurate that a slavishly literal translation. However if you view DE as ipso facto a bad thing, then you need a more involved construct, as you have given. A Formal Equivalence translation can, on some occasions, be un-literal (e.g. some idioms in either the source or target language). I just allow for calling those occasions "dynamic equivalence" and you are concerned that this would represent or allow a DE translation philosophy, an understandable concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
2 Tim. 3:16 when they translated the 1 compound word "theopneustos" into 5 english words "given by inspiration of God"..

Yes, but I would not consider the result of a phrase representing a single word to have much to do with the "Dynamic Equivalence" question, since the single word has component parts of the phrase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
The KJV translators were experts in the original languages on a level that today’s pseudo-scholars will never attain to.

Right, no comparison. Likely, very few today can take an unpointed Hebrew text and give a sermon in English fluently, directly out of the text. Similar with Hebrew and Greek "lexicon scholars". This stumbling limitation is the soft underbelly of today's computer-oriented scholarship. The folks (with an occasional exception) simply are not fluent masters of the languages, as were the Oxford and Cambridge and Westminster scholars of the 1600s. Publish or perish, consult on a version, study arcane cognates, but no simple, powerful depth and clarity. No living, breathing, daily conversation, study and understanding of the languages. Replaced by looking into an Akkadian cognate and running around town to pick up a roast beef sandwich and dozens of media and puter and scholarly diversions ; of little import. I've had enough discussions with the 'experts' today to tell that their brain synapses tend to be somewhat frazzled as well, it seems more important to them to try to prove the Bible is unpure or unknown or strange than simply the pure and perfect word of God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
Those who criticize the KJV translators for translating an idiom in the original languages (mA genomia) into an idiomatic expression in the receptor language (God forbid) fail to appreciate the expertise of the KJV translators for this proper methodology.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
Keep in mind that we are dealing with EXCEPTIONS here.

Right, most verses and sections do not have these types of questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
it is an error to refer to exceptions in word for word translation as Dynamic Equivalence because the dynamic equivalence method of translating is not concerned with conveying the most literal sense of the source but rather the most "understandable" sense for the reader.

Since "dynamic equivalence" historically was a term used for a translation as a whole, I'll consider only using it in that regard in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
Bro. Avery, you obviously must have skimmed through the articles. Dr. Rex Cobb was trying to explain that both the KJV and the original languages should be used when translating into another language.

The main statement begins as follows:

1. A translation should always be based upon the right source text: For the Hebrew Scriptures, (i.e. the Old Testament) the Masoretic Text ...For the New Testament, the Received Text as edited by Dr. Scrivener in 1894


No mention of the King James Bible, the closest is point #8.

8. Translation efforts should be compared to long-established Received Text translations to verify accuracy in translations.

Which is still not a direct reference.

They also have.

11. Translators should remember that the grammar of the original languages “trumps” the grammar of the national language. This may create some “unusual phrasing” but it preserves accuracy.

This could be read as "trumping" the King James Bible grammar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Manny Rodriguez 12-05-2008 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 12580)
The KJB is in English. It is perfect.

What language is "never, never.”?

Does it match the KJB?

You obviously totally missed the point and didn't read carefully. What this Bible translator was explaining is "never, never" is the "expression" being conveyed in all three translations: Greek - "ma genomia", English - "God forbid", and Spanish - "in ninguna manera". This is an idiomatic expression. An idiomatic expression must be translated as an idiomatic expression in the receptor language otherwise it will be an awkward rendering and not make any sense. The KJV translators translated a Greek idiom (ma genomia) into an English idiom (God forbid) which is the strongest way in English to convey the idiomatic expression of "never, never". That was the point that in your zeal you totally missed.

And yes the KJV is perfect. And so if another translation is to render this expression perfectly they must do the same thing the KJV translators did when dealing with this idiomatic expression. They must translate the idiom using the strongest expression possible in the receptor language that conveys the idiomatic expression of the source language.

Quote:

True, but what language is the perfect Word of God in?

What cultural foundation is best for national evangelisation? What nations of the world at this point have been the most Christianised? What language is their doctrines presented in?
A Missionary's job is not to promote their "culteral foundation" or teach English. His job is to preach the Gospel and teach the word of God.

Quote:

God can make it so, and it is not just one person doing the teaching. The Great Commission said for all believers to teach nations.
God can do anything He wants to do. But God also allows man to exercise his freewill. And if a person who is proud of his culture, race, and language refuses to be Americanized and Anglicized, the only way you are going to reach them is through their language and in their culture (in so far as that culture is not sinful or paganistic). That is how Paul operated (read 1 Cor. 9:19-23) and every other God-called Missionary that ever ministered to a foreign people.

Quote:

Has there ever been a 100% exact or perfect Bible besides the KJB? Name any good Bible and the KJB is better. Even if you had one of Paul's letters, or a whole collection of Hebrew scrolls, the KJB would be better because it has all the Canon. (This is besides the fact that the KJB is accessible to the widest amount of people, etc.)
Well then this becomes a game of semantics then because you are defining "better" as "most complete". I am discussing the accuracy of words not canon. That is the issue. We're talking about TRANSLATION.

I believe that any people can have a Bible just as accurate and good as the KJB if that translation has the same basis (the Received Texts) as the KJV and every word in that translation is not in conflict with the words in the KJV. Newsflash - Jesus was not an Englishman.



Quote:

But the Gospel = the Word. Look at 1 Peter 1:23, 25. It calls it incorruptible.
No, the Gospel is not the Word. The Gospel is defined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4:

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

1Co 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;

1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Quote:

Now the Word of God has come forth in many languages historically. But since the Word of God has never been manifested incorrupt in one book as far as a perfect text and translation, the full meaning of the passage must be the KJB for all the world before the end. That's not to say other Bibles were wrong. And many have been saved without the KJB. But in the future, for the best results with the full truth, the very best is the KJB for all. This is where we should aim for now.
You are basing your position upon an assumption. You are assuming that between 100-1611AD there was never a complete canon of the perfect word of God in any language. But even if the Bibles that the Waldenses, Albigenses, Bogomils, Paulicians, and other Christians of old used were not as complete as the KJV, that does not prove that the KJV is the END of God's promise to preserve His words. God gave us the KJV and we can now use the KJV as the standard to produce His pure words into other language.


Quote:

And there are a number of verses which relate to even getting the Jews to learn English, namely, Isaiah 28:11 and Zephaniah 3:9.
That is ridiculous to use these verses as some sort of argument against translating God's words into other languages. Isa. 28:11 is not a reference to anybody learning English. It is a reference to the Apostolic sign gift of "speaking in tongues" according to Paul the Apostle in 1 Cor. 14:21-22. And Zeph. 3:9 is a Millineal context that has no bearing upon Missionary work or the work of Bible translating today.


Quote:

While these William Carey folk and supporters are not "against" the KJB, they are not fully for it if they undermine its position of dominance (by a policy or assumption that it is not for every man), or think that they stand firm when they take "consideration of the Greek and Hebrew", which is to attempt to undermine the KJB itself. Clearly, there is no perfect text in Greek or Hebrew extant today. And there is no certain translation method present today. But if we take the KJB as supersuccessionary to the Hebrew and Greek, we are saying that it came from there, but is better than it for its perfection of text (criticism) and sense, that is, the KJB is the resolved form of the Scripture, unlike the (increasingly!) uncertain state of the original languages. Running back to the Hebrew and Greek other than from the basis of the KJB being received is futile. If you use the Hebrew and Greek to support the KJB, or inquire in a believing fashion, you will see that the KJB is always right. But this has been resolved time and again, that we can advance beyond concentrating on looking back at the Hebrew and Greek, and go forward into establishing the domination of the English Bible for the world, a task which finds providential favour.
You are wrong on so many accounts here. First off you are totally wrong, in fact you're sowing discord amongst the brethren, by accusing these men of undermining the KJB just because you don't agree with them on a few particulars. Considering the Greek or Hebrew in the process of Bible translating is not undermining the KJB. That is stupid! God preserved for us His words in Greek, Hebrew, English, and many other languages, and there is nothing wrong if a Bible translator wants to avail himself of all the resources God has given him in order to provide a foreign people with the Word of God.

Bibleprotecter, with all due respect for your defense of the KJB, you are totally out of touch with reality. I would love to see you go to some of the backwards tribes in New Guinea, or Indonesia, or South America, and other places in this world and see you try to teach these people English so that they can read the KJB and be saved. It'll never happen. And God is not going to twist everyone's arm to learn English for you. That is why God will call someone else to minister to them instead of you because while you would be wasting your time trying to minister in English to a non-english speaking people, souls are dying and going to hell, and the most efficient way to reach these people is in their language. Ask ANY God-called Missionary that ever lived on this planet.

Manny Rodriguez 12-05-2008 12:15 PM

Bro. Avery,

As usual, we seem to be on the same page on most of this. The only responses to your statements I offer are the following:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 12582)
Yes, but I would not consider the result of a phrase representing a single word to have much to do with the "Dynamic Equivalence" question, since the single word has component parts of the phrase.

I only brought that up to demonstrate that an exact word for word equivalent is not always possible. I was using that example to preface my next statement that idiomatic expressions are also an example of when a literal translation is not possible. (bearing in mind that such are exceptions and exceptions prove the rule) Nevertheless, I'll try to be more clear next time.
Quote:

The main statement begins as follows:

1. A translation should always be based upon the right source text: For the Hebrew Scriptures, (i.e. the Old Testament) the Masoretic Text ...For the New Testament, the Received Text as edited by Dr. Scrivener in 1894


No mention of the King James Bible, the closest is point #8.

8. Translation efforts should be compared to long-established Received Text translations to verify accuracy in translations.

Which is still not a direct reference.

They also have.

11. Translators should remember that the grammar of the original languages “trumps” the grammar of the national language. This may create some “unusual phrasing” but it preserves accuracy.

This could be read as "trumping" the King James Bible grammar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Dr. Cobb's whole point to the article is that those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the KJV and those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the Greek & Hebrew are both wrong. All resources should be considered.

Dr. Cobb's last statement was, "So, do we translate from the English or the Greek? Yes—and from the Portuguese too!"

stephanos 12-05-2008 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez (Post 12569)
Then if you are a King James Bible-believer, you are cutting your nose to spite your face. You must not realize that Scrivener's Greek Text of the TR is the most accurate edition of the TR in that it is the ONLY Greek Text that was made to mirror the KJV. Here is an official statement from the Trinitarian Bible Society concerning the Greek Text they print (read carefully and learn):

Right, I had realized this. What I was saying is that these guys are clearly TR guys by their statement. I also was commenting on my concerns about Scrivener. He was a Bible corrector, not on the level of what we have today, but a corrector none the less.

Oh and I still agree with Bibleprotector on teaching english vs translating the entire KJB into another language.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Steven Avery 12-05-2008 03:22 PM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanos
Scrivener ... was a Bible corrector, not on the level of what we have today, but a corrector none the less.

However the work we are discussing is not a "corrector" work, it is simply the accurate King James Bible NT reflection into Greek, the single-source text, if the King James Bible translators had used a single source. A scholarly work that was well done.

The problem comes when it is placed, stated or implied, as superior to the King James Bible. The author of the work is not the problem, Edward Hills or another could have conceptually produced the work, Scrivener did so, a lot of labour. And appreciated on this end.

Shalom,
Steven

Manny Rodriguez 12-05-2008 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanos (Post 12591)
Right, I had realized this. What I was saying is that these guys are clearly TR guys by their statement. I also was commenting on my concerns about Scrivener. He was a Bible corrector, not on the level of what we have today, but a corrector none the less.

Oh and I still agree with Bibleprotector on teaching english vs translating the entire KJB into another language.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Scrivener was a Bible "corrector" in the similar sense that John Wesley and Noah Webster (author of the 1828 Websters Dictionary that Bible Believers hold so dear) were considering that they also authored their own revisions of the English Bible. These men had no disdain for the Traditional Texts or the KJV like Westcott and Hort and supporters of the Alexandrian Text crowd did/does. As the KJV was going through its purification process between 1611 and the 1800s, many of these men sincerely thought there was more work to be done. Of course, we now know that they were wrong. But I wouldn't put Scrivener in the same category as Westcott, Hort, Nestles, Nida, Aland, and others who manifested a real disdain for the KJV. Scrivener opposed Westcott and Hort and wrote extensively in disproving their translating theories, criticizing their corrupted Greek text, and uplifting the Received Texts of which the KJV was based upon.

As far as "TR guys", I think its high time that Bible-believers start realizing that there is life outside of Ruckman (no disrespect to Doc intended, my Pastor is a PBI graduate) and that not everyone who doesn't dot their I's and cross their T's like we do are the enemy. Take these men on the William Carey Bible Society for example. You may not agree with them on their interpretation of Inspiration or their emphasis on the original languages. But these men are criticized by the same Bible correctors and the anti-KJV crowd that we combat. Dr. Waite is just as despised by Bob Jones University as Dr. Ruckman is. One church, of whom I know the Pastor personally, lost his entire staff and most his members because he invited Dr. Waite to his church to teach on the Bible issue. BJU issued statements to these church members that they could no longer be affiliated with BJU if they attended this church. Here is a Pastor and church who are being persecuted for their stand on the Bible, yet some "Bible-believers" would look at that Pastor and say "His stand is not good enough" or "He's just a TR guy and not a REAL Bible-believer like I am" because of his association with Dr. Waite.

I know Dr. Waite personally. I am a member of his Dean Burgon Society. I also know the men of the William Carey Bible Society. I consider most of them as personal friends. I have preached for at least 3 of them. I have sat down with these guys and talked extensively about many issues concerning the KJV debate. And every one of these guys will not hesitate to tell you that there is not one shred of error in the KJV. Every one of these guys will tell you that the Modern Versions, even the NKJV, are corrupt, perverted, and so on. These men have a true zeal and love for God's pure words just as much as any man that was ever associated with Dr. Ruckman. These men receive just as much heat from the Alexandrian Text crowd as any man from Ruckman's crowd ever did. If you don't think so, read anything by James White, James Price, Micheal Sproul, or any other Bible apostate. These "TR guys" are on the right side of the fence. We agree on a whole lot more than we disagree with concerning the Bible issue. Yet some "Bible-believers" are so narrow-minded that they are incapable of thinking outside of the box. Forget about working together like saints of old did for the cause of Christ.

I will say this for these so-called TR guys, at least these guys do more than just sit back and complain and criticize their own. These guys are actively involved in aiding Bible translators, raising funds for worthy Foreign Bible projects, supporting Bible translators, printing the KJV and KJV equivalent foreign translations, providing Missionaries with the information they need on the situation of Foreign Bibles, writing books to defend the KJV and inform people, and actually engaging with the Alexandrian Text crowd to try to convince them of the truth. These guys are getting the job done while others are sitting on the sidelines trying to find what technicalities they disagree on so that they can make a big deal of it.

I have more respect for those that are actually trying to do something to help the pure words of God grow and multiply rather than those who just sit back and shoot their own crowd. And I'm a Bible-believer.

stephanos 12-05-2008 08:01 PM

Brother Manny,

I'm just trying to make it clear that I don't stand on the TR, but rather the AV 1611. If these guys believe the King James Holy Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God preserved in the English Language then I could work with them. But I could not work with men who think that in order to understand the AV1611 I need to be able to read and understand the TR (whatever edition). This is the feeling I get from the website you linked to, that is that they think it is necessary to go to the Greek and their lexicons in order to get some sort of higher understanding of the Scriptures. This is an error taught by a lot of pseudo-KJBO folks that I feel strongly about. Now, that being said, I am all for standing with these men against the cult of Alexandria, and its scholars. I myself am no scholar and my understanding of the textual issues behind King James Bible Onlyism is rather simple, but my faith in the AV1611 is anything but simple. It quite literally defines me as a Christian, and a Bible Believer.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

Manny Rodriguez 12-05-2008 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanos (Post 12598)
Brother Manny,

I'm just trying to make it clear that I don't stand on the TR, but rather the AV 1611. If these guys believe the King James Holy Bible is the inerrant infallible Word of God preserved in the English Language then I could work with them. But I could not work with men who think that in order to understand the AV1611 I need to be able to read and understand the TR (whatever edition). This is the feeling I get from the website you linked to, that is that they think it is necessary to go to the Greek and their lexicons in order to get some sort of higher understanding of the Scriptures. This is an error taught by a lot of pseudo-KJBO folks that I feel strongly about. Now, that being said, I am all for standing with these men against the cult of Alexandria, and its scholars. I myself am no scholar and my understanding of the textual issues behind King James Bible Onlyism is rather simple, but my faith in the AV1611 is anything but simple. It quite literally defines me as a Christian, and a Bible Believer.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

Fair enough. I don't disagree with anything you said here.

bibleprotector 12-05-2008 09:38 PM

Quote:

What this Bible translator was explaining is "never, never" is the "expression" being conveyed in all three translations: Greek - "ma genomia", English - "God forbid", and Spanish - "in ninguna manera". This is an idiomatic expression.
This implies that the sense as rendered in the KJB as it stands, i.e. “God forbid” is subject to change > not perfect > wrong. “God forbid” does not exactly mean “never, never”. They are different words with different meanings. If we have perfect words in English, i.e. “God forbid”, then the words “never, never” are imperfect renderings of the Word of God. They might be a possible translation, but it is not a perfect translation. On the level of total perfection, we have to say “God forbid” is exactly right. Therefore, any variations to “God forbid” in English are just going the wrong way, and to have those kinds of translations in other languages shows that they are always inferior to the KJB. That is why people from other lands should continue learning English.

Quote:

And yes the KJV is perfect. And so if another translation is to render this expression perfectly they must do the same thing the KJV translators did when dealing with this idiomatic expression.
If the KJB is perfect, how could we think that the same perfection could exist somewhere else (except in heaven?) By perfect we mean:

a. exact wording/text/version (this is not found in any single extant edition of even the originals)

b. exact sense of the inspired original (this is not found in any translation in complete perfection, except the KJB)

Quote:

They must translate the idiom using the strongest expression possible in the receptor language that conveys the idiomatic expression of the source language.
Near enough may be sufficient, but it is not EXACT. It is better for people to have access to the EXACT words and meanings as presented in the KJB, where there is absolute certainty. Other translations do not match up to this high standard, though many have been acceptable and useful.

I will give an example of the perfection of the KJB which comes down to its very presentation. This, I assume, would be totally absent from other translations. We note in the English Bible that the word “vail” is used for a covering cloth or curtain. However, we also find the word “veil” is used. “Veil” is always used meaning that the hidden thing is revealed or made known. (Not to be confused with a vail being taken from someone’s heart so that they understood something.) Do other translations differ or distinguish between “vail” and “veil” in their places?

Quote:

A Missionary's job is not to promote their "culteral foundation" or teach English. His job is to preach the Gospel and teach the word of God.
If the exact form of the Word of God is in English and the people learn English, then the missionary can be certain that he is teaching people exactly what the highest advances of Christians in English-speaking countries believe. Moreover, since we are told to teach nations, baptise nations, and make them observe the exact words of God according to Matthew 28:19, 20, then to bring in the existing foundations of Christian national culture, and more importantly, to give them the exact Word of God in English cannot be wrong.

Quote:

And if a person who is proud of his culture, race, and language refuses to be Americanized and Anglicized, the only way you are going to reach them is through their language and in their culture (in so far as that culture is not sinful or paganistic).
Existing national cultures being Christianised is proper. Teaching English or bringing in elements from Anglophone cultures is not wrong. But if people are against English or the Gospel because they are “proud of his culture, race, and language”... pride is a sin, and where patriotism or any other thing gets in the way of the Gospel, it is wrong. (It is just as wrong to enforce wrong unbiblical things onto cultures because they are from “civilised nations”, etc.) Racism is wrong too.

Quote:

I believe that any people can have a Bible just as accurate and good as the KJB if that translation has the same basis (the Received Texts) as the KJV and every word in that translation is not in conflict with the words in the KJV. Newsflash - Jesus was not an Englishman.
The basis for the Bible today is not by going back to “the Received Texts” if that means Hebrew and Greek. Why? 1. There is no settled existing text/version in those languages. 2. There is no certain sense ascribed to each word or perfect method of translating 100%. (Waite even says that no translation brings over 100%, which is a wrong idea on several grounds, first, that God is able to providentially get all His Word over, otherwise people cannot be saved, secondly, that English specifically has been prepared and had the full outworking to get the exact meanings present today in English.)

Even slight variations in the sense in good translations as when compared to the KJB are on the final level in conflict with the KJB. Historically they do not conflict with God's will, because of the principle of sufficient truth. But finally, once we go to the very jot and tittle, the very sense of the meaning of each word, the very structure of the sentence, etc. etc. we find that only the KJB is final authority, not the body of many versions/translations/editions of the original languages. That is to say, that the KJB supersedes and is successionary to them all, or “supersuccessionary”, therefore, why keep on making usurpers when we have the true king?

Quote:

You are basing your position upon an assumption. ... that does not prove that the KJV is the END of God's promise to preserve His words. God gave us the KJV and we can now use the KJV as the standard to produce His pure words into other language.
Biblical reasoning shows there is an end of God’s promise as far as text and translation, there is NOT and end as far as the continual preservation of this particular Bible. God gave us the KJB, and we now use the KJB as the standard so that other nations and men of other languages may come to it to find His pure words. Yes the Scripture is pure, and purity may be found in other languages. But complete, seven-times, linguistic purity is only in the KJB today. (Revelation 14:6 shows one Gospel going to all languages, and Revelation 10 one book [KJB and KJB-based preaching]. This of course is the ultimate fulfilment of the prophecies, as it has been good to translate to other languages.)

Quote:

That is ridiculous to use these verses as some sort of argument against translating God's words into other languages.
No, God was for translating to other languages. He is still using them today. But the trend and the manifest providence of God is to go toward one language. It is the Church where Babel is reversed, and where the possibility of Babel is unperverted, i.e. that all things are possible to him that believeth.

Quote:

Isa. 28:11 is not a reference to anybody learning English.
Since the Jews are to hear the truth in another tongue, which means not Hebrew, and since the Jews know English ... the KJB must be for all, including the Jews. (When did the Greek preaching of the NT convert the Jews? It was only a "former rain" blessing which had modest [by today's Laodicean standards, "impossibly wonderful"] results.)

Quote:

Zeph. 3:9 is a Millineal context that has no bearing upon Missionary work or the work of Bible translating today.
Since the Jews are to be turned to another language so that they may call upon God, are we to think that the conversion of Israel is only AFTER the Millennium begins? No, they are to believe before the return of Christ, and if you look at Romans 11:25, 26a, it says, “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” ... That is not in the Millennium. The salvation of the Jews must accelerate now, while the Church is yet here. Therefore, it is the highest aim of missionary activity to get the Gospel to all the Gentiles, and to the Jews. Who is going to preach to the Jews? It has to be the people of God doing this missionary work. Zeph. 3:9's context is pre-Millennial.

Quote:

God preserved for us His words in Greek, Hebrew, English, and many other languages
Actually, God preserved His Words in Hebrew and Greek for 1611 and to today so that they may now, that is to say, the knowledge of His words in those languages, may diminish. It is obvious that knowledge in Hebrew and Greek have diminished substantially in the last 100 years. How can we expect today’s translators to even come close to the KJB, as much as they might be KJB users and supporters? That is why it is better to teach the people English than to try and get second-rate Bible translations to them. They might not be “bad”, but they are just not the best. At present foreign Bible continue to be used, sure, but if we change our focus and aim now, we are sowing for a better future and the long term excellence for the whole Church.

Quote:

I would love to see you go to some of the backwards tribes in New Guinea ... and other places in this world and see you try to teach these people English so that they can read the KJB and be saved.
You seem to have made up your mind that this endeavour would fail. I urge you not to accept Satanic thoughts that doubts that the Gospel can spread. I would to God that missionaries had much more success than what they have had. And that each of us grows to be many times greater Christians.

What I am saying is nothing short of a Christian Restitution. What we need is strong and proper conversions. Having the KJB as foundation to national and a proper world-wide evangelistic and teaching movement has to be the best thing. Don’t say it is “unrealistic”. Just look at how different Europe was after Luther! If the Word of God does not have power, then why even bother preach?

Quote:

That is why God will call someone else to minister to them instead of you because while you would be wasting your time trying to minister in English to a non-english speaking people, souls are dying and going to hell, and the most efficient way to reach these people is in their language.
Past and short term outworkings are quite fine for foreign preaching and teaching. Unless there is a Christianity infused with divine mandate on a solid Bible as foundation, we will see the same (sad to say) lack and failure in the West as much as in the little results of missionary activity.

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

“And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.” (Isaiah 58:12).

The KJB is foundation.

Quote:

Ask ANY God-called Missionary that ever lived on this planet.
Why did David Livingston teach the brightest and best Christians in Africa English? Why did missions in Australia teach Aboriginals English? Surely this is a sign of the providence of God. There has been the day of going to other languages, now is the day of other languages coming to the Biblical English.

We don’t have to wait for the Millennium for Christian success, if you interpret Scripture in line with the symbols of the Church age of grace:

“And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:2).

bibleprotector 12-05-2008 10:04 PM

Quote:

Dr. Cobb's whole point to the article is that those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the KJV and those insisting that the Bible should only be translated from the Greek & Hebrew are both wrong. All resources should be considered.
That would have been a seventeenth century method. But today, it would be diluting the pure (KJB) with "everything". The editor/scholar still has to choose the "best" rendering out of the holistic view of the evidence. That very thing resulted in the NKJV, because if you look at "all the evidence" yet have incorrect selection criteria, you will chose wrong even 0.0001% of the time.

The KJB does not have as much as an error in the punctuation.

Since the KJB is fully right, you don't have to take into account anything else now (i.e. Hebrew and Greek). It is the standard, which stands alone.

Invariably, going to the Hebrew or Greek to "help" (interpret/understand) is going to tend toward error now. The only thing the Hebrew and Greek are good for is what many good scholars had shown, viz., that the KJB presents the Word of God exactly. You can mine this kind of gold from Burgon, Hills, etc.

But the Word of God, self-contained, self-authenticating and in every whit whole is right there in the KJB.

MC1171611 12-05-2008 11:00 PM

While I'm not (yet) a missionary, and I do not yet speak Spanish well enough to be an authority, let me insert something here to try to calm down the altercation. I didn't read the William Carey site, and I don't really have any intention of doing so (that's their business, I'm doing other things :) ), but is it really possible to argue that for basic salvation and discipleship of people in foreign countries, their own language is the best way to reach them? Regardless of the "inerrancy" of the Bible used in that language, as long as you can teach them how to be saved and get them started growing in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, as much as they can glean from their Bible, they will profit from it.

Now, being that I'm only familiar with the English Bible issue and the Spanish, I cannot speak authoritatively about any other language. However, if God has provided an excellent translation of the Bible, like the Valera 1865 in Spanish, that can be used to teach and expound even the deepest Biblical doctrines, then there is no reason to spend years teaching them English just so you can turn around and struggle to teach them deep doctrine in a language they can barely understand. If that were to happen, then those men have to turn around and continue evangelizing their people, teaching them English, and struggling the same way again and again. That is if there is at least an acceptable Bible in that language.

However, if the language does not currently have a good, Philadelphian-age Bible, then you're stuck with a few people translating, to the best of their abilities, the Bible into that language, or a missionary spending years of his time teaching some people the second-hardest language in the world (English) and again struggling through Doctrine in a language the people are unfamiliar with. This is an option, and the best one at that (since God's perfect word is in English!), but if there are alternatives to that they should be considered fully.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool "Ruckmanite" King James Only Bible Believer. I will accept nothing over or equal to the King James Bible, in English or otherwise. That being said, I'm also (somewhat) multi-lingual and rather well-versed in idiomatic and linguistic problems between languages. I think this society is doing a good thing (for languages without a decent translation of the Bible currently, that is) even though I may disagree with individuals or whatnot. The point is that teaching English to every foreign convert, or even national pastor, is impractical and unnecessary as long as the word of God is available in a faithful, though obviously not perfect, translation.

stephanos 12-06-2008 01:34 AM

I think it is good for a missionary to start with the simplicity that is the gospel, in the native tongue of those he's evangelising. And then while discipling them he should be preaching from the KJV in their language (translating things which are used in his sermons), while teaching faithful men how to read the English AV1611.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2 KJV)


And these new teachers can then teach other natives how to read the KJV in ESL classes at the newly formed churces. I think this is the best way to get the Pure Word of God into everyones hands. The reality of the issue is that translating the AV1611 into every language on the planet is impractical. Sending a missionaries to every tribe/tongue to start the process I just spoke of seems to me much more practical. If someone wants to do a full translation in a different language, there is of course, no reason this should not be done. I just believe that time could be better spent training new pastors and teaching them to read the KJV, and then moving on to the next country to begin the process again.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Manny Rodriguez 12-06-2008 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 12606)
This implies that the sense as rendered in the KJB as it stands, i.e. “God forbid” is subject to change > not perfect > wrong. “God forbid” does not exactly mean “never, never”. They are different words with different meanings. If we have perfect words in English, i.e. “God forbid”, then the words “never, never” are imperfect renderings of the Word of God. They might be a possible translation, but it is not a perfect translation. On the level of total perfection, we have to say “God forbid” is exactly right. Therefore, any variations to “God forbid” in English are just going the wrong way, and to have those kinds of translations in other languages shows that they are always inferior to the KJB. That is why people from other lands should continue learning English.

Again, you just don't get it. And I sense that you refuse TO get it because you want to convince yourself that you know what you are talking about. Yet you don't. "Never, never" is the EXPRESSION of the idiom in question (ma genomia). The point of the article was simply that a literal translation of an idiomatic expression will not always work and make sense in the receptor language. Therefore, the translator must understand the expression of the idiom in order to know how to translate it and in this case the expression is "never, never". In English, the strongest way to convey that expression is to say "God forbid". But that may not be the strongest way to convey that expression in another language. The point is that when dealing with idiomatic expressions an exception to translating literally must be made in order for the translation to make sense in the target language. But I feel that I can explain this point a hundred times and you still won't get it.



Quote:

If the KJB is perfect, how could we think that the same perfection could exist somewhere else (except in heaven?) By perfect we mean:

a. exact wording/text/version (this is not found in any single extant edition of even the originals)

b. exact sense of the inspired original (this is not found in any translation in complete perfection, except the KJB)
In the Smithsonian Institute is a ruler on display that is considered THE standard for what is exactly 12 inches. It is not impossible to produce a ruler that is the exact size as the standard on display in the Smithsonian Institute. God has given us a standard. If we use this perfect standard that God has given us how can we go wrong especially if we are led by the Holy Ghost. Your insistence that no Bible in another language can be just as accurate as the KJV is totally faithless. God did not die in 1611 nor in the Philadelphian Church age.

Quote:

Near enough may be sufficient, but it is not EXACT. It is better for people to have access to the EXACT words and meanings as presented in the KJB, where there is absolute certainty. Other translations do not match up to this high standard, though many have been acceptable and useful.
By your standard even the KJV would be invalidated because if you want to get technical in terms of EXACTNESS God did not breath out His words in English when He dictated the original writers. He breathed out His words in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. So if you want to play the EXACT card, quit using the KJV and become a "TR guy" to the extreme by ONLY using the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Your position is self-defeating and self-contradictory.

Quote:

I will give an example of the perfection of the KJB which comes down to its very presentation. This, I assume, would be totally absent from other translations. We note in the English Bible that the word “vail” is used for a covering cloth or curtain. However, we also find the word “veil” is used. “Veil” is always used meaning that the hidden thing is revealed or made known. (Not to be confused with a vail being taken from someone’s heart so that they understood something.) Do other translations differ or distinguish between “vail” and “veil” in their places?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the translating of idiomatic expressions. Again, you just don't get it.


Quote:

If the exact form of the Word of God is in English and the people learn English, then the missionary can be certain that he is teaching people exactly what the highest advances of Christians in English-speaking countries believe. Moreover, since we are told to teach nations, baptise nations, and make them observe the exact words of God according to Matthew 28:19, 20, then to bring in the existing foundations of Christian national culture, and more importantly, to give them the exact Word of God in English cannot be wrong.
Again what you are proposing is a distortion of scripture. In Mat. 28:19-20 Christ was not mandating His disciples to teach all nations English, it was a mandate to teach and preach (Mark 16) the Gospel, not "the existing foundations of Christian national culture" (whatever that is).

Quote:

Existing national cultures being Christianised is proper. Teaching English or bringing in elements from Anglophone cultures is not wrong. But if people are against English or the Gospel because they are “proud of his culture, race, and language”... pride is a sin, and where patriotism or any other thing gets in the way of the Gospel, it is wrong. (It is just as wrong to enforce wrong unbiblical things onto cultures because they are from “civilised nations”, etc.) Racism is wrong too.
I never said that pride was not a sin. It definitely is. But what I did say is that pride of culture, race, and language exists and is a reality that must be dealt with. The best way to deal with it is not impose "elements from Anglophone cultures". That is actually the worse thing to do and the quickest way to turn people away from what you have to say. What you propose is definitely not how Paul operated according to 1 Cor. 9:19-23.


Quote:

The basis for the Bible today is not by going back to “the Received Texts” if that means Hebrew and Greek. Why? 1. There is no settled existing text/version in those languages.
Wrong. There is a settled text in Greek and Hebrew. In Greek it is Scrivener's Annotated Greek NT, which as explained early is the exact Greek words that underlie the KJV from Mat thru Rev. In Hebrew it is the Bomberg Masoretic Text of Ben Chayiim. These are the Greek and Hebrew texts that underlie the KJV word for word.

Quote:

2. There is no certain sense ascribed to each word or perfect method of translating 100%.
By this statement you just contradicted your own position because if that's so than even the KJV is not perfect since it was a translation.

Quote:

(Waite even says that no translation brings over 100%, which is a wrong idea on several grounds, first, that God is able to providentially get all His Word over, otherwise people cannot be saved, secondly, that English specifically has been prepared and had the full outworking to get the exact meanings present today in English.)
I will speak for myself. I believe wholeheartedly that the English of the KJV perfectly conveys everything that God said in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words that he dictated to the original writers. But when it comes to the matter of translating, it is wise for the translator to avail himself of ALL available resources (just like the KJV translators did) during the process of translating. Because when you get involved in translating, you're going to find out quick that you're going to need more than one language source to aid you when trying to figure out what word or words to choose to accurately translate. Those who say that the KJV is ALL we need, or the Greek & Hebrew is ALL we need, have obviously never been involved with translating before and therefore do not understand the nature of translation work.

Quote:

Even slight variations in the sense in good translations as when compared to the KJB are on the final level in conflict with the KJB. Historically they do not conflict with God's will, because of the principle of sufficient truth. But finally, once we go to the very jot and tittle, the very sense of the meaning of each word, the very structure of the sentence, etc. etc. we find that only the KJB is final authority, not the body of many versions/translations/editions of the original languages. That is to say, that the KJB supersedes and is successionary to them all, or “supersuccessionary”, therefore, why keep on making usurpers when we have the true king?
Translating God to Dios, or water to agua, or man to hombre, is not usurping anything. It's translating and there is nothing wrong with it.

Quote:

Biblical reasoning shows there is an end of God’s promise as far as text and translation, there is NOT and end as far as the continual preservation of this particular Bible. God gave us the KJB, and we now use the KJB as the standard so that other nations and men of other languages may come to it to find His pure words. Yes the Scripture is pure, and purity may be found in other languages. But complete, seven-times, linguistic purity is only in the KJB today. (Revelation 14:6 shows one Gospel going to all languages, and Revelation 10 one book [KJB and KJB-based preaching]. This of course is the ultimate fulfilment of the prophecies, as it has been good to translate to other languages.)
You're whole position is built upon assumptions and speculations. You are assuming that the promises of preservation in the scriptures had an expiration date on them and that the preservation process expired with the KJV. That is nothing but an assumption. You are speculating that the one book in Rev. 10 is the KJV yet you are building an entire premise based on this speculation.


Quote:

No, God was for translating to other languages. He is still using them today. But the trend and the manifest providence of God is to go toward one language. It is the Church where Babel is reversed, and where the possibility of Babel is unperverted, i.e. that all things are possible to him that believeth.
Chapter and verse. I'd love to see you demonstrate that in the scriptures. What I do find is God gifting the Apostles in the book of Acts with a supernatural ability to preach in unknown tongues. The book of Acts is the very manual for Missions. And when we go to the word of God we don't find God telling His disciples to teach everybody Hebrew. We find the disciples ministering to people IN THEIR OWN TONGUE. Your position is not supported by the examples of scripture.


Quote:

Since the Jews are to hear the truth in another tongue, which means not Hebrew, and since the Jews know English ... the KJB must be for all, including the Jews. (When did the Greek preaching of the NT convert the Jews? It was only a "former rain" blessing which had modest [by today's Laodicean standards, "impossibly wonderful"] results.)
Sorry, but no matter how you try to twist it, Isa. 28:11 is not a reference to anyone learning English. Paul already told what it was a reference to in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 and so why you would try to make it be something different than what the Holy Ghost through Paul already revealed it to be is beyond me.


Quote:

Since the Jews are to be turned to another language so that they may call upon God, are we to think that the conversion of Israel is only AFTER the Millennium begins? No, they are to believe before the return of Christ, and if you look at Romans 11:25, 26a, it says, “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” ... That is not in the Millennium. The salvation of the Jews must accelerate now, while the Church is yet here. Therefore, it is the highest aim of missionary activity to get the Gospel to all the Gentiles, and to the Jews. Who is going to preach to the Jews? It has to be the people of God doing this missionary work. Zeph. 3:9's context is pre-Millennial.
During the Tribulation period the church is not going to be here. So the ones preaching to the Jews are going to be the converts of the 2 witnesses in Rev. 11 (most likely Moses and Elijah). There will be 144000 Jewish converts according to Rev. 7 and I have a hard time believing that they Jews are going to ditch their Hebrew scriptures and ditch their Hebrew language and start doing everything in English.


Quote:

Actually, God preserved His Words in Hebrew and Greek for 1611 and to today so that they may now, that is to say, the knowledge of His words in those languages, may diminish. It is obvious that knowledge in Hebrew and Greek have diminished substantially in the last 100 years. How can we expect today’s translators to even come close to the KJB, as much as they might be KJB users and supporters? That is why it is better to teach the people English than to try and get second-rate Bible translations to them. They might not be “bad”, but they are just not the best. At present foreign Bible continue to be used, sure, but if we change our focus and aim now, we are sowing for a better future and the long term excellence for the whole Church.
I don't disagree that we do not have anyone today that could even shine the KJV translators shoes. But what I am arguing for is the validity of foreign Bible translations. It is much needed. You are insisting that it is not needed. And I am trying to inform you that trying to teach English to the 6912 living language groups in this world is an unrealistic option. Sure, perhaps it is possible to teach some groups English. But first off, do you even realize how long it would take to teach an uneducated tribalman, who can't even read or write his own language, one of the most complex and difficult languages in the world. We need people to get saved NOW, not 2 years later when they might understand English good enough. THINK about what you are proposing. It is ridiculous. The resources used to teach English and American culture could have been used translating the words of God into the language of the people. You accomplish that (a Bible translation) and you will leave behind something that God will continue to use to minister to those people generations after your gone and dead. What's going to happen when the English teacher is gone and/or dead. Will those who learn English, learn it good enough to teach it to others and pass it down from generation to generation? You tell me which of these 2 options is more efficient and will yield the most lasting effects.

Quote:

You seem to have made up your mind that this endeavour would fail. I urge you not to accept Satanic thoughts that doubts that the Gospel can spread. I would to God that missionaries had much more success than what they have had. And that each of us grows to be many times greater Christians.
A missionary will have all the "success" that God intends for them to have by simply obeying the Great Commission, which is to preach the Gospel, not to teach English and American cuture.


Quote:

What I am saying is nothing short of a Christian Restitution. What we need is strong and proper conversions. Having the KJB as foundation to national and a proper world-wide evangelistic and teaching movement has to be the best thing. Don’t say it is “unrealistic”. Just look at how different Europe was after Luther! If the Word of God does not have power, then why even bother preach?
This is precisely what I am saying. Give these people the word of God in THEIR language and watch what kind of wonders God's holy words can work in the lives of people. The power of God's words are not bound to any one language.



Quote:

Past and short term outworkings are quite fine for foreign preaching and teaching. Unless there is a Christianity infused with divine mandate on a solid Bible as foundation, we will see the same (sad to say) lack and failure in the West as much as in the little results of missionary activity.

“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

“And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.” (Isaiah 58:12).

The KJB is foundation.
God's pure words in any language is foundation.



Quote:

Why did David Livingston teach the brightest and best Christians in Africa English? Why did missions in Australia teach Aboriginals English? Surely this is a sign of the providence of God. There has been the day of going to other languages, now is the day of other languages coming to the Biblical English.

We don’t have to wait for the Millennium for Christian success, if you interpret Scripture in line with the symbols of the Church age of grace:

“And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Micah 4:2).
And the simple fact that David Livingston himself translated the Bible into a foreign language is proof enough that even he disagrees with your position.

Manny Rodriguez 12-06-2008 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 12609)
That would have been a seventeenth century method. But today, it would be diluting the pure (KJB) with "everything". The editor/scholar still has to choose the "best" rendering out of the holistic view of the evidence. That very thing resulted in the NKJV, because if you look at "all the evidence" yet have incorrect selection criteria, you will chose wrong even 0.0001% of the time.

The KJB does not have as much as an error in the punctuation.

Since the KJB is fully right, you don't have to take into account anything else now (i.e. Hebrew and Greek). It is the standard, which stands alone.

Invariably, going to the Hebrew or Greek to "help" (interpret/understand) is going to tend toward error now. The only thing the Hebrew and Greek are good for is what many good scholars had shown, viz., that the KJB presents the Word of God exactly. You can mine this kind of gold from Burgon, Hills, etc.

But the Word of God, self-contained, self-authenticating and in every whit whole is right there in the KJB.

Don't even try to compare what I am talking about to the NKJV. The New King James was an attempt to product an "easier-to-understand" translation, which we know turned out to be nothing but a watered down counterfeit. Besides, since the KJV is perfect it needs no revision anyways so the NKJV was nothing but a waste to begin with. What I'm talking about is something totally different. What I'm talking about is ACCURATE translations in foreign languages. It can be done so long as we have the KJV as our guide.

Manny Rodriguez 12-06-2008 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanos (Post 12618)
I think it is good for a missionary to start with the simplicity that is the gospel, in the native tongue of those he's evangelising. And then while discipling them he should be preaching from the KJV in their language (translating things which are used in his sermons), while teaching faithful men how to read the English AV1611.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2 KJV)


And these new teachers can then teach other natives how to read the KJV in ESL classes at the newly formed churces. I think this is the best way to get the Pure Word of God into everyones hands. The reality of the issue is that translating the AV1611 into every language on the planet is impractical. Sending a missionaries to every tribe/tongue to start the process I just spoke of seems to me much more practical. If someone wants to do a full translation in a different language, there is of course, no reason this should not be done. I just believe that time could be better spent training new pastors and teaching them to read the KJV, and then moving on to the next country to begin the process again.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but an armchair quarterback may have all sorts of ideas that may sound good, make a lot of sense, and seem like its the best strategy. But his perspective of what really works will never be as accurate as an actual quarterback in the NFL who has been there and done that. I speak as a fool but I have had the privilege of ministering to Hispanic people representing many different Hispanic cultures from around the world for several years. I also get to rub shoulders with hundreds of Missionaries around the world. I'm simply telling you that from my experience and from what I have gleaned from the experience of others, teaching EVERYONE english as a primary objective in Foreign Mission work is not a realistic option. I'm not saying that it may not work for some groups, but I am saying that it will not work for MOST groups.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Steven Avery 12-06-2008 06:17 AM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manny Rodriguez
Scrivener was a Bible "corrector" in the similar sense that John Wesley and Noah Webster (author of the 1828 Websters Dictionary that Bible Believers hold so dear) were considering that they also authored their own revisions of the English Bible. These men had no disdain for the Traditional Texts or the KJV like Westcott and Hort and supporters of the Alexandrian Text crowd did/does. As the KJV was going through its purification process between 1611 and the 1800s, many of these men sincerely thought there was more work to be done. Of course, we now know that they were wrong. But I wouldn't put Scrivener in the same category as Westcott, Hort, Nestles, Nida, Aland, and others who manifested a real disdain for the KJV. Scrivener opposed Westcott and Hort and wrote extensively in disproving their translating theories, criticizing their corrupted Greek text, and uplifting the Received Texts of which the KJV was based upon.

While above I defend the Scrivener Greek text that represents the King James Bible, this misses a few points.

Scrivener's position was more milquetoast. Example: Wesley defended the Johannine Comma (quoting quite beautifully with a bit of modification the mariner's compass poem of Bengelius) Scrivener attacked it .. even while essentially recognizing the Cyprian citation. Scrivener also attacked other TR verses like Acts 8:37.

Noah Webster was a grammatical 'corrector', not a textual corrector. His view of the grammar of the King James Bible was similar to the Scrivener view of the text and translation, a desire to make "corrections", to meddle and muddle. With Scrivener that is why he was on the Revision committee, that is why even his Cambridge Paragraph Bible changed faith to hope in Hebrews 10:23 and why he wrote specifically opposing various Greek-minority TR verses.

Dean Burgon, while not strictly TR, never attacked these verses and wrote in a way that favored every more significant Received Text verse. Even in his case it would be more accurate to say he uplifted the Traditional Text. From outside Dean Burgon decimated the corrupt Revision, smashed it to smithareens. Something never done by the compromised Scrivener, who had been on the Committee.

Scrivener in a sense gave the Revision legitimacy by being on the committee and losing the textual battles against Hort the mesmerist (my conjecture, based on the seance attendance with occultists/mesmerists even when older). Losing in this context means outvoted in the Revision Committee. Even if he went in without full understanding, after a day or a month or a year of the charade he would better have left the Revision. Afaik, he remained to the bitter end and must be considered as an active participant in the biggest textual disaster of some centuries. (ie. Combined with the W-H Greek text accepted by the participants.) What did he accomplish in his 10 years or so ? Perhaps Scrivener prevented a couple of laughable Hortian "primitive corruptions" into the text or effected the manner the Revised Version deceived the publich in including the ending of Mark against its own text. Better to let the dogs lie to one another and have time for prayer and sleep.

While we can respect his scholarship (even including some of his KJB scholarship and historical analysis) and appreciate greatly his Greek KJB-text, and note various arguments he made that were solid, we should be slow to give F H A Scrivener more than faint praise, if that, for his Bible views overall. While he definitely should not be confused with Westcott, Metzger, Aland etc. his overall Bible text legacy is mixed.

Shalom,
Steven

bibleprotector 12-06-2008 08:24 AM

Quote:

"Never, never" is the EXPRESSION of the idiom in question (ma genomia).
"Never, never" is not the perfect expression of the meaning or sense of the Scripture in English. This is plain because the KJB is perfect, and it has “God forbid” not the English words “never, never”.

The words “ma genomia” are not English, and cannot be used as though they have a certain meaning in English, unless it is a statement of fact, that the Greek expression was sense-for-sense rendered into English as “God forbid”. Otherwise you are saying, the KJB has this translation, but it really or literally or actually (or at least could) means something else (which is actually what you are defending).

Since the Word of God is settled in English, talking about “ma genomia” is as a barbarian. But we are confident that we have sense-for-sense exactly in English the Word of God, therefore the Greek words “ma genomia” must mean “God forbid”. Notice how meaning is allocated to the Greek from the KJB. Meaning is not allocating in English from the Greek, and it certainly should not differ to the KJB.

Quote:

In the Smithsonian Institute is a ruler on display that is considered THE standard for what is exactly 12 inches. It is not impossible to produce a ruler that is the exact size as the standard on display in the Smithsonian Institute. God has given us a standard. If we use this perfect standard that God has given us how can we go wrong especially if we are led by the Holy Ghost.
Since we have the standard, it is easy to see that it is not “locked up in heaven” or “the past” or “in the Millennium” or the Smithsonian.

Quote:

Your insistence that no Bible in another language can be just as accurate as the KJV is totally faithless.
Faithless? You mean requires faith. “And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.” (2 Thess. 3:2). Notice how proper reason links to faith. And since the KJB is perfect, and perfection single, nothing else can be perfectly perfect except that single thing.

Quote:

God did not die in 1611 nor in the Philadelphian Church age.
Which is exactly why He is the God who is getting one Bible out to the world for tomorrow.

Quote:

By your standard even the KJV would be invalidated because if you want to get technical in terms of EXACTNESS God did not breath out His words in English when He dictated the original writers.
So you don’t believe the KJB is perfect. Of course it is. To be KJBo means you believe it is a perfect text and that it is a perfect translation. If you do not believe that it is a perfect translation then the Scripture in English is not inerrant and infallible because of transmission problems.

Quote:

He breathed out His words in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
What’s this “breathed out”? Inspired is not “breathed out”. Where does the Scripture say that God “breathed out” the Scripture? No, He inspired it. I suppose you are constructing a doctrine out of “going to the Greek”. In fact I know your doctrine is not quite right, because you talk about “Aramaic”. Maybe you got that from the NIV or something. I see no “Aramaic” in the Bible. I see Syriack that has been translated into English (e.g. in Daniel). I see margin notes referring to Chaldee. But I don’t see “Aramaic”.

Quote:

quit using the KJV and become a "TR guy" to the extreme by ONLY using the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
Unless God’s Word is perfectly in English, we would be stuck in that scenario. Of course, God has many sufficient presentations of the Scripture from ancient times till now, but we have a word perfect Bible which is supersuccessionary to all those good Bibles. Yes, the KJB should replace even the Gomez Spanish Bible. Even if were to take 120 years, we have to do it.

Quote:

That has absolutely nothing to do with the translating of idiomatic expressions. Again, you just don't get it.
Do other good foreign translations have the degree of perfection as is found in the very use of the spelling, punctuation, words and grammar of the KJB? Do they contain glistering truths? The distinction between “vail” and “veil”? The semi-colon in 2 Kings 8:26? Do they differ between “sith” and “since”? Do they have “God will provide himself” in Genesis 22:8? Do they have “Shibboleth”? Do they have firmament, unicorn and brass? Do they vary the use of the rhythm or sound, like “mine house” versus “my house”?

Quote:

Christ was not mandating His disciples to teach all nations English
No, but this extends to teaching English, or making use of English as a global language, since the perfect Word of God exists in English. I think you have no “perfect Bible”. Because with a perfect Bible, you see that Greek and Hebrew are former things. You see that no other language can get it 100%. But you see that it is there 100% in English, right down the very jot and tittle, just as Jesus said (another prophecy fulfilled in the manifestation of the KJB).

Quote:

The best way to deal with it is not impose "elements from Anglophone cultures". That is actually the worse thing to do and the quickest way to turn people away from what you have to say.
The Gospel is not based on “popularity”. Nor is it “unless you learn English you cannot be saved”. But imposing "elements from Anglophone cultures" is necessary. Not only things like teaching and the knowledge of Anglo-Protestant religion, but also that the very knowledge of the Word of God is most easily and widely accessed by having an English Standard Bible. Why have thousands of good Bible versions for the world when we can have one Bible for all. And one that is tested and considered best right now.

Quote:

I said “The basis for the Bible today is not by going back to “the Received Texts” if that means Hebrew and Greek. Why? 1. There is no settled existing text/version in those languages.” Reply: Wrong. There is a settled text in Greek and Hebrew. In Greek it is Scrivener's Annotated Greek NT, which as explained early is the exact Greek words that underlie the KJV from Mat thru Rev. In Hebrew it is the Bomberg Masoretic Text of Ben Chayiim. These are the Greek and Hebrew texts that underlie the KJV word for word.
Now we can see that you are not a KJB believer. The Word of God is not textually perfect in Scrivener’s Greek edition. There are all kinds of little things which do not match up with the KJB in Scrivener's Greek, including small errors in Revelation and the diminishing of 1 John 5:7. There simply is no perfect single standard Hebrew or Greek in one edition. However there is a single perfect standard of all the Bible in the KJB.

Quote:

I said: "There is no certain sense ascribed to each word or perfect method of translating 100%."

By this statement you just contradicted your own position because if that's so than even the KJV is not perfect since it was a translation.
I mean today (I was unclear in my former statement here). The KJB translators had a perfect method, and they got it over 100%. We don’t have the same learning or capability today.

Quote:

I will speak for myself. I believe wholeheartedly that the English of the KJV perfectly conveys everything that God said in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words that he dictated to the original writers.
If the KJB perfectly conveys everything that God said, then it is God’s Word in English. It is not merely “An English rendering of what God said in Hebrew or Greek”. It is, “What God said, in English”. I can see that you are still servant to Hebrew and Greek, and not in the English only. I know that people teach doctrines based on what the Hebrew and Greek say, but that is actually an unbiblical approach, and subject to error. It is much wiser to teach English Scripture as interpreted, compared and based upon right dividing and sound use of English Scripture.

Quote:

Translating God to Dios, or water to agua, or man to hombre, is not usurping anything. It's translating and there is nothing wrong with it.
It is usurping in the sense that it is going against God’s providentially appointed trend of getting His word- and sense-perfect Word which is in English, not Spanish, to the world. The usurping comes in where there is a persistence to resist the purity and long term regal destiny of the KJB.

Quote:

You're whole position is built upon assumptions and speculations. You are assuming that the promises of preservation in the scriptures had an expiration date on them and that the preservation process expired with the KJV.
I said (in other words) that God would continue to preserve the KJB as His special interest. There is no expiry date there. I did not say that God would end preserving His Word.

Quote:

You are speculating that the one book in Rev. 10 is the KJV yet you are building an entire premise based on this speculation.
I do believe that is another of many prophecies in Scripture of the KJB. That is only one of many passages. I do not think it to be merely speculation, because it is the doctrine of Scripture itself that it (singular) should go forth to all the world, ends of the earth, all nations, etc.

Quote:

But the trend and the manifest providence of God is to go toward one language. It is the Church where Babel is reversed, and where the possibility of Babel is unperverted, i.e. that all things are possible to him that believeth.
Again, lots of verses taken in concert. It should be apparent to someone with somewhat knowledge in the KJB issue that the KJB in the whole Church is the true reversal of Babel. There’s lots of teaching here: basically, when evil men had one language, they could do anything. But the power should be in the Church to do great things for Christ before His return. Lots of verses show this, such as a portion of Isaiah 28, Hab. 2:14, Matthew 24:14, Acts 1:8, Romans 16:26, etc. etc.

Quote:

And when we go to the word of God we don't find God telling His disciples to teach everybody Hebrew. We find the disciples ministering to people IN THEIR OWN TONGUE. Your position is not supported by the examples of scripture.
Actually, the point is not that God was preached to many nations by many languages, but that this idea is furthered so EVENTUALLY that all nations are taught one Word. That is why I have said the KJB is supersuccessionary. It is better than and replaced the Geneva Bible. Therefore, it is better than and replaces even the Gomez Spanish Bible (in time).

Quote:

Isa. 28:11 is not a reference to anyone learning English
By what other SINGLE language was the Gospel then presented to the Jews historically, whereby the outworking eventually was that the nation of Israel was turned to Jesus Christ?

Stammering lips is talking about Pentecostalism and about the foolishness of preaching. “Another tongue” is talking about the KJB and the English language.

Did Paul limit the meaning of Isaiah 28:11 to only tongues or only his own time? (That gets into a whole other area.)

Quote:

why you would try to make it be something different than what the Holy Ghost through Paul already revealed it to be is beyond me.
I agree with what Paul wrote. But I know there are multiple valid interpretations of Scripture. Take the muzzel not the ox passage. Its meaning is literal. And its meaning also is don’t deny offerings to ministers. Therefore Isaiah 28:11 means Paul’s Pentecostal teaching AND it means the KJB evangelisation of the Jews.

Quote:

During the Tribulation period the church is not going to be here. So the ones preaching to the Jews ...
Why wait till then to fulfil Christ’s great commission? Scripture plain prophesies that it is the GENTILES who are to begin to convert the Jews? Why would the Church have a non-Scriptural doctrine to forfeit its responsibility of preaching to the Jews?

Quote:

I have a hard time believing that they Jews are going to ditch their Hebrew scriptures and ditch their Hebrew language and start doing everything in English.
Well, grow in faith. Torah beliefs, Orthodox Judaism and so forth is not Christianity. Getting Jews born again has nothing to do with Jewish religion. The Jews get our religion. And since the Bible both commands it and promises it, quit fighting the idea and get on board.

“I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.” (Romans 11:11).

“But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.” (Romans 10:19).

”Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.” (Romans 11:31).

Quote:

And I am trying to inform you that trying to teach English to the 6912 living language groups in this world is an unrealistic option.
Right now many many people are learning English or getting READY (providentially prepared) to learn English. It is not an unrealistic vision to bring the pure Word of God to them all. We have the press, radio, tv, internet and so on already. Given time and God’s providence it will happen. But we should have faith too, because that is how God uses us as vessels in His great scheme.

Quote:

one of the most complex and difficult languages in the world.
That is why God raised up English to get His high and mighty words exactly, sense-for-sense and perfectly present there.

Quote:

We need people to get saved NOW
Sure, but we are in a long term endeavour. If we build up the great threshing machine for world wide Christian harvest, then it will be quick. But now it is not time to be weary in labour.

Quote:

What's going to happen when the English teacher is gone and/or dead.
That’s a pitiful excuse. We are talking about millions of teachers.

Quote:

You tell me which of these 2 options is more efficient and will yield the most lasting effects.
Having one Church speaking on language so fulfilling 1 Cor. 1:10... And Ephesians 4.

Quote:

to preach the Gospel, not to teach English and American cuture.
That’s a side issue. Anglo-Protestant based culture is better, but we are not talking about mere civilising and colonialism, we are talking about getting all people in the world to hear the Gospel, and converting whole nations. If we believe that we can do it by God’s power, at least we will convert some, even if they are nations like PNG. I think Australia and NZ need to be changed first.

Quote:

This is precisely what I am saying. Give these people the word of God in THEIR language and watch what kind of wonders God's holy words can work in the lives of people. The power of God's words are not bound to any one language.
True, but now we are giving the world one language so that we can have one Bible.

Quote:

God's pure words in any language is foundation.
But they are not exactly perfectly pure in regards to the finest detail. I mean, the Gomez Spanish Bible is not the same as the pure KJB. While validly called Scripture, and a good Bible, the little problems in the Gomez I think shows that it be better for the Spanish people to learn English and have the pure English Bible. After all, the KJB does not have even one problem with one letter or punctuation mark.

How can many varying versions, or variations in the TR editions be “foundation”? Clearly, even the KJB translators had to choose the correct reading from the corpus of evidence. Then there was one. We cannot have a foundation of many. We see that there is a drawing out of many into one. That is the supersuccessionary restitution doctrine.

If the KJB is perfect (i.e. to the very jot and tittle) then no other extant Bible can be perfect. This can be shown because no exactly 100% text and translation perfect Spanish Bible exists right now.

Quote:

And the simple fact that David Livingston himself translated the Bible into a foreign language is proof enough that even he disagrees with your position.
Thankfully, we are in an advanced position today, so that while David Livingston did teach English to a few natives, now there are many in Africa who know English. The KJB is for them too.

bibleprotector 12-06-2008 08:42 AM

Quote:

Besides, since the KJV is perfect
Therefore we do not need Hebrew and Greek as a basis for translating or interpreting or doctrine.

Quote:

What I'm talking about is ACCURATE translations in foreign languages.
And how is accuracy measured?

By Hebrew and Greek?
By a scholar or denominations' opinions?
By all sources? (How do you pick and choose between them?)
By the KJB?

If the KJB is perfect, then other translations would always be a little inaccurate, and therefore it is better (and easier) to teach the world English (which is already far advanced a billion people) and us use the KJB for our Christianisation.

P.S. Do you agree that the KJB has exactly 100% the meanings of the original words that were inspired in the original langauges with nothing taken away or added?

Maverick 12-06-2008 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 12629)
Therefore we do not need Hebrew and Greek as a basis for translating or interpreting or doctrine.



I could say the same for just about ANY translation of the inspired Greek and Hebrew......

Manny Rodriguez 12-06-2008 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 12628)
"Never, never" is not the perfect expression of the meaning or sense of the Scripture in English. This is plain because the KJB is perfect, and it has “God forbid” not the English words “never, never”.

The words “ma genomia” are not English, and cannot be used as though they have a certain meaning in English, unless it is a statement of fact, that the Greek expression was sense-for-sense rendered into English as “God forbid”. Otherwise you are saying, the KJB has this translation, but it really or literally or actually (or at least could) means something else (which is actually what you are defending).

Well then according to you God's perfect words never existed until 1611. God's promise to preserve his words in every generation in Ps. 12:6-7 was a lie if your logic be true.

The truth is that the KJV translators were not receiving direct revelation from God as the original writers were. They were TRANSLATING scripture. If they were receiving direct revelation from God like the original writers they wouldn't have needed any manuscripts to translate from. They wasted their time consulting manuscripts if God was speaking to them directly on what to translate. And they wouldn't have included alternate readings in the marginal notes. They collated manuscripts and analyzed the Greek, Hebrew, and other languages to know how and what to translate. When they came to the words "ma genomia", they did not translate them literally because it would have been an awkward rendering in English. Ma genomia is literally "let it not be". But they recognized this was a Greek idiom. And when dealing with idioms you don't translate them literally unless that same idiom exists in the target language. You translate the expression. And in this case the expression was "never, never". And in English the KJV translators determined that the strongest words to convey that expression were "God forbid". End of story. That was the point. But you'll never get it in a million years because you have already crossed the threshold of twisting scripture in order to support your racist ideology of pushing Anglo Culture upon the whole world in order for them to be saved, which is a racist ideology and would never work anyways.

Quote:

Since the Word of God is settled in English, talking about “ma genomia” is as a barbarian.
Talking about pushing Anglo culture and forcing everyone to denounce their culture and language to learn English is barbarian. In fact it's the same concept as the Nazis. You act as if the KJV translators did no translating from the Greek at all. But unfortunately for you, they did. And by ignoring what the KJV translators actually did, such how they dealt with idiomatic expressions such as ma genomia, you have prohibited yourself from learning from the KJV translators when it comes to proper methodology in translating. Your loss.


Quote:

But we are confident that we have sense-for-sense exactly in English the Word of God, therefore the Greek words “ma genomia” must mean “God forbid”.
Any student of Greek on the planet will tell you and any Greek lexicon will tell you that the literal translation of the words "ma genomia" is "let it not be", not God forbid. The Greek word for God is "theos" and forbid is "koluo". The fact is that "ma genomia" is an idiomatic expression. And idioms are not to be taken literally. If I say "the NY Mets killed the Atlanta Braves", that is an idiomatic expression not to be taken literally. I am not saying that the Mets literally murdered the Braves. Nobody in their right mind interprets what I said as literal. But you're trying to totally change simple grammar rules (as well as twist scripture) to fit your ideology and its simply not going to work. God forbid is not a literal expression, its an idiomatic expression no matter how much you lie to yourself about it.


Quote:

Since we have the standard, it is easy to see that it is not “locked up in heaven” or “the past” or “in the Millennium” or the Smithsonian.
Totally irrelevant. You're one of these guys who says anything just to have a response. Nobody said anything about the word of God being "locked up" anywhere.


Quote:

Faithless? You mean requires faith. “And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.” (2 Thess. 3:2). Notice how proper reason links to faith. And since the KJB is perfect, and perfection single, nothing else can be perfectly perfect except that single thing.
Your premise is totally faithless. Faith must be built upon the word of God. And you want us to reinterpret the Great Commission and totally disregard the paramaters of Mission work as laid out by the Apostles in the book of Acts. But sorry, it won't work. The word of God still stands. The Great Commission is not to push Anglo-Protestant Culture and teach all nations English. It is to preach the Gospel to every creature. And the Apostles demonstrated the proper way to do this. Not one Apostle went around pushing Hebrew culture or forcing anyone to learn Hebrew. Rather they preached the Gospel in the language of the people they ministered to. What else do you think the business of "speaking in tongues" was all about, unless you are a Charismatic that thinks that speaking in tongues was this jibberish going on today in Pentecostal churches.


Quote:

Which is exactly why He is the God who is getting one Bible out to the world for tomorrow.
Totally baseless. Not supported by scripture.



Quote:

So you don’t believe the KJB is perfect. Of course it is. To be KJBo means you believe it is a perfect text and that it is a perfect translation.
Oh so now all of a sudden you are the one who gets to define who is KJBO and who is not. If I don't go along with your plan to dominate the world with Anglo-culture and force everyone and their mother to learn English all of a sudden I'm not a true Bible-believer. You sir, are insane.


Quote:

If you do not believe that it is a perfect translation then the Scripture in English is not inerrant and infallible because of transmission problems.
And so because I believe we should translate the words of God into other languages I must by lying when I say that I believe the KJV is perfect? You are living in a fantasy world.

Quote:

What’s this “breathed out”? Inspired is not “breathed out”. Where does the Scripture say that God “breathed out” the Scripture? No, He inspired it. I suppose you are constructing a doctrine out of “going to the Greek”.
That is EXACTLY what Inspiration is. Whatever God breathes out or upon receives life. God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. The Bible is a living book and it wouldn't be so if the words in that Book were not breathed by God. But why should I waste my time teaching you any Bible. You're to busy wanting us to dominate the world with Anglo-Protestant Culture. (By the way, I'm not a Protestant. I'm a Bible-believing Independent Baptist. And Baptists were never a part of Rome. You can HAVE your Anglo-Protestant culture. I stick with preaching the Gospel.)


Quote:

In fact I know your doctrine is not quite right, because you talk about “Aramaic”. Maybe you got that from the NIV or something. I see no “Aramaic” in the Bible. I see Syriack that has been translated into English (e.g. in Daniel). I see margin notes referring to Chaldee. But I don’t see “Aramaic”.
Portions of the OT were written from Aramaic, which is a cognate language to Hebrew. You need to go back and do your homework.


Quote:

Yes, the KJB should replace even the Gomez Spanish Bible. Even if were to take 120 years, we have to do it.
Again, you are living in ga-ga land if you think the millions of Spanish-speaking people are going to dump their Spanish language and switch to English. There is nothing in the scriptures to support this baloney.


Quote:

Do other good foreign translations have the degree of perfection as is found in the very use of the spelling, punctuation, words and grammar of the KJB? Do they contain glistering truths? The distinction between “vail” and “veil”? The semi-colon in 2 Kings 8:26? Do they differ between “sith” and “since”? Do they have “God will provide himself” in Genesis 22:8? Do they have “Shibboleth”? Do they have firmament, unicorn and brass? Do they vary the use of the rhythm or sound, like “mine house” versus “my house”?
If they don't, they can. That's what TRANSLATING is all about.


Quote:

No, but this extends to teaching English, or making use of English as a global language, since the perfect Word of God exists in English. I think you have no “perfect Bible”. Because with a perfect Bible, you see that Greek and Hebrew are former things.
No, with a perfect Bible I see that perfection as a standard for accuracy concerning God's words in other languages. No, I don't have to see the Greek and Hebrew as former things since God has chosen to preserve His words in those languages as well as the English of the KJV. If you believe in translating you would see the value of having other language sources to glean from when dealing with some of the more technical and difficult matters of translating. But you don't, so you have totally blinded yourself to all these things.


Quote:

You see that no other language can get it 100%. But you see that it is there 100% in English, right down the very jot and tittle, just as Jesus said (another prophecy fulfilled in the manifestation of the KJB).
No, you don't. You pray and trust that with God all things are possible. You lean upon the perfect God who gave us His perfect words. The same God that gave us His perfect words exists today and can again override man's human limitations to do whatever He pleases.


Quote:

The Gospel is not based on “popularity”. Nor is it “unless you learn English you cannot be saved”. But imposing "elements from Anglophone cultures" is necessary. Not only things like teaching and the knowledge of Anglo-Protestant religion, but also that the very knowledge of the Word of God is most easily and widely accessed by having an English Standard Bible.
Sheer nonsense! The Gospel is not "Anglophone culture" either. But what do you know about the Gospel? You though the Gospel = the Word and tried to use 1 Pet. 1:21-23 to try to prove this error. This shows me that you don't know how to rightly divide God's word in interpret scripture, especially when the Holy Spirit already told you what the Gospel is in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.

Quote:

Why have thousands of good Bible versions for the world when we can have one Bible for all. And one that is tested and considered best right now.
Because for the 100th time, NOT EVERYONE SPEAKS ENGLISH. And many never will.

Quote:

Now we can see that you are not a KJB believer. The Word of God is not textually perfect in Scrivener’s Greek edition. There are all kinds of little things which do not match up with the KJB in Scrivener's Greek, including small errors in Revelation and the diminishing of 1 John 5:7.

There simply is no perfect single standard Hebrew or Greek in one edition. However there is a single perfect standard of all the Bible in the KJB.
Oh I see, God has chosen you to determine who is a true KJB believer and who is not. To you, the word of God has been confined to English. If that be true, than the world was without the perfect words of God between 100-1611 AD and Ps. 12:6-7 and scores of other verses on Preservation are a lie.

Here's the facts:

1. When God spoke His words to the original writers, He did not speak in English to the Apostles and Prophets. He spoke in Hebrew and Greek.

2. He promised to preserve these original words, which were given in Hebrew and Greek.

3. Notice he promised to preserve WORDS, not manuscripts, not ink and paper, which accounts for why we do not have the Original Autographs. We don't need them anyways because...

4. God preserved these Inspired words (yes Inspired means God-breathed, if it they aren't God breathed than these words are dead words) by providentially guiding His people (Ps. 78) to tirelessly copy His words over and over again and pass them down from generation to generation.

5. God not only preserved His inspired words through the constant copying of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts but also...

6. ...the TRANSLATING of those original Greek, Hebrew, and yes some Aramaic (do your homework) words into other languages, such as Latin, Syriac, Gothic, etc.

7. In 1602-1611, God providentially guided the KJV translators to culminate these different preserved manuscripts into an English translation - the KJV.

8. In the late 1800s, Scrivener took Beza's 5th edition of the Greek NT (TR), which was the primary Greek text used by the KJV translators, and edited it in only 190 place. For these 190 places, he collated 18 different editions of the Textus Receptus to find readings that mirrored the exact wording of the KJV.

9. Therefore, what Scrivener produced was a Greek New Testament that is an exact Greek representation of what the KJV says in English.

In regards to the Hebrew Masoretic text, one only needs to see the articles by Dr. Waite, provided on this website by the Diligent to see the meticulous care of copying God's words in the OT by the orthodox Jews.

My point is that God promised to preserve His words. Today the prominent Bible that He has placed His stamp of approval upon when it comes to perfection is the KJV. But before 1611, those same Inspired, Preserved, Infallible words in other languages (just as God promised - Ps. 12:6-7). And you can see those words represented in Greek in Scrivener's text, and in Hebrew in the Masoretic text. The point is that God did not wait until 1611 to fulfill His promise to preserve his words, because according to Ps. 12:6-7 His promise was to preserve His words in EVERY generation.

Quote:

I mean today (I was unclear in my former statement here). The KJB translators had a perfect method, and they got it over 100%. We don’t have the same learning or capability today.
No but we have the KJV. Therefore we have a standard to go by. If we stick to the KJV as the guide and standard for translating we can't go wrong.

Quote:

If the KJB perfectly conveys everything that God said, then it is God’s Word in English. It is not merely “An English rendering of what God said in Hebrew or Greek”.
I don't disagree with that, what I disagree with is...

Quote:

It is, “What God said, in English”.
We have no record of God ever saying anything in English to anybody. God spoke in Hebrew and Greek, and He providentially guided the KJV translators to translate those words into English.

Quote:

I can see that you are still servant to Hebrew and Greek, and not in the English only. I know that people teach doctrines based on what the Hebrew and Greek say, but that is actually an unbiblical approach, and subject to error. It is much wiser to teach English Scripture as interpreted, compared and based upon right dividing and sound use of English Scripture.
I am not a servant to anything but Jesus Christ. You are a servant to a racist agenda - "Anglo-phone culture".

Quote:

It is usurping in the sense that it is going against God’s providentially appointed trend of getting His word- and sense-perfect Word which is in English, not Spanish, to the world. The usurping comes in where there is a persistence to resist the purity and long term regal destiny of the KJB.
Accurately translating God's words is not usurping anything ESPECIALLY when the KJV is being used as the standard.


Quote:

I said (in other words) that God would continue to preserve the KJB as His special interest. There is no expiry date there. I did not say that God would end preserving His Word.
No you are implying that preservation stopped with the KJV and that because the KJV is perfect, God cannot use any other language to preserve His words. But this is a flawed logic because by this reasoning you are forced to assume that God's perfect words never existed until the KJV showed up, which makes Ps. 12:6-7 and scores of other verses a lie.

Quote:

I do believe that is another of many prophecies in Scripture of the KJB. That is only one of many passages. I do not think it to be merely speculation, because it is the doctrine of Scripture itself that it (singular) should go forth to all the world, ends of the earth, all nations, etc.
You are formulating a strange doctrine by adding to the word of God with your private interpretations. The Bible does not teach that the Great Commission is to promote Anglo-phone culture and teach English. The Great Commission is to preach the Gospel.


Quote:

Again, lots of verses taken in concert. It should be apparent to someone with somewhat knowledge in the KJB issue that the KJB in the whole Church is the true reversal of Babel. There’s lots of teaching here: basically, when evil men had one language, they could do anything. But the power should be in the Church to do great things for Christ before His return. Lots of verses show this, such as a portion of Isaiah 28, Hab. 2:14, Matthew 24:14, Acts 1:8, Romans 16:26, etc. etc.
More wresting of the scripture to fabricate support for your racist agenda.

Quote:

Actually, the point is not that God was preached to many nations by many languages, but that this idea is furthered so EVENTUALLY that all nations are taught one Word.
Chapter and verse.

Quote:

Stammering lips is talking about Pentecostalism and about the foolishness of preaching. “Another tongue” is talking about the KJB and the English language.

Did Paul limit the meaning of Isaiah 28:11 to only tongues or only his own time? (That gets into a whole other area.)
Again you are adding to God's word with your private interpretation. The scripture interprets itself. And Paul told you what Isa. 28:11 is a reference to but you are so stuck on a racist agenda of push Anglo-phone culture on the whole world that you insist on adding some extra revelation to what the Holy Spirit through Paul already gave us. That's how heresies are formed.


Quote:

I agree with what Paul wrote. But I know there are multiple valid interpretations of Scripture. Take the muzzel not the ox passage. Its meaning is literal. And its meaning also is don’t deny offerings to ministers. Therefore Isaiah 28:11 means Paul’s Pentecostal teaching AND it means the KJB evangelisation of the Jews.
Sorry but Isa. 28:11 has nothing to do with evangelizing Jews with the KJB.


Quote:

Why wait till then to fulfil Christ’s great commission? Scripture plain prophesies that it is the GENTILES who are to begin to convert the Jews?
It does? Where? Chapter and verse. If you are referring to today, than yes there are Gentile efforts to reach Jews with the Gospel. But the Jews are not going to look toward Christ on a national level until the Tribulation (Rev 7, Zech 12, Rev 11).

Quote:

Why would the Church have a non-Scriptural doctrine to forfeit its responsibility of preaching to the Jews?
You are the one accusing us of forfeiting our responsibility to carry out the Great Commission by not teaching everyone English so they can read the KJV.



Quote:

Well, grow in faith. Torah beliefs, Orthodox Judaism and so forth is not Christianity. Getting Jews born again has nothing to do with Jewish religion. The Jews get our religion. And since the Bible both commands it and promises it, quit fighting the idea and get on board.
Wrong, it is not "our religion" that will convert the Jews. It's the revelation of Jesus Christ through the preaching of Moses, Elijah, their converts (the 144,000) that will convert the Jews eventually on a national level. And all that doesn't take place until the Tribulation. Today's church will not be a part of that since we will not be here during the Tribulation.


Quote:

Right now many many people are learning English or getting READY (providentially prepared) to learn English. It is not an unrealistic vision to bring the pure Word of God to them all. We have the press, radio, tv, internet and so on already. Given time and God’s providence it will happen. But we should have faith too, because that is how God uses us as vessels in His great scheme.
English may be the most learned and used secondary language in the world, but there are THOUSANDS of language groups in the world that are not learning English and most of whom never will. Jesus Christ can come back any time now and if He came back tomorrow somehow I doubt very seriously that everyone on earth is going to magically learn English overnight.



Quote:

That’s a pitiful excuse. We are talking about millions of teachers.
Again, you are living in Disney-land. There are no "millions of teachers" out there trying to convert the world by teaching English and Anglo-phone culture. The Independent Baptist movement right now has little over 4000 Missionaries around the world. And that number is dwindling every day as the days of Apostacy and Apathy before Christ's return grows. Your fantasy of "millions" of English teachers is not happening.



Quote:

Having one Church speaking on language so fulfilling 1 Cor. 1:10... And Ephesians 4.
More private interpretations.



Quote:

That’s a side issue. Anglo-Protestant based culture is better, but we are not talking about mere civilising and colonialism, we are talking about getting all people in the world to hear the Gospel, and converting whole nations. If we believe that we can do it by God’s power, at least we will convert some, even if they are nations like PNG. I think Australia and NZ need to be changed first.
Great idea, only except IT'S NOT HAPPENING.

Quote:

True, but now we are giving the world one language so that we can have one Bible.
No we're not.

Quote:

But they are not exactly perfectly pure in regards to the finest detail. I mean, the Gomez Spanish Bible is not the same as the pure KJB. While validly called Scripture, and a good Bible, the little problems in the Gomez I think shows that it be better for the Spanish people to learn English and have the pure English Bible. After all, the KJB does not have even one problem with one letter or punctuation mark.
Again, you are living in a dream world if you think the millions of Spanish-speaking people is going to ditch their language. It's just not going to happen. Nor should it.

Quote:

How can many varying versions, or variations in the TR editions be “foundation”?
I said nothing about varying editions of the TR. Why are you coming out of left field and making stuff up?

Quote:

Clearly, even the KJB translators had to choose the correct reading from the corpus of evidence. Then there was one. We cannot have a foundation of many. We see that there is a drawing out of many into one. That is the supersuccessionary restitution doctrine.
Your "supersuccessionary restitution doctrine" has already been proven to be nothing but a private interpretation. You're trying to create something in the scriptures that isn't there.

Quote:

If the KJB is perfect (i.e. to the very jot and tittle) then no other extant Bible can be perfect. This can be shown because no exactly 100% text and translation perfect Spanish Bible exists right now.
Even if you was right that there is no perfect Spanish Bible, you are assuming based on one language issue that of the nearly 7000 languages in the world there can be no perfect Bible. And to believe that you have to assume that the scriptures of old were never perfect. And that is a false assumption.


Quote:

Thankfully, we are in an advanced position today, so that while David Livingston did teach English to a few natives, now there are many in Africa who know English. The KJB is for them too.
And to the Africans that know English, you can preach and teach the KJB. But guess what? There are millions of other Africans that do not know English. That goes to show that God never intended to perpetuate Livingston's efforts to teach English. What God HAS perpetuated was Livingston's efforts to preach the Gospel, which is still going on today (and not just in English).

Manny Rodriguez 12-06-2008 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 12629)
Therefore we do not need Hebrew and Greek as a basis for translating or interpreting or doctrine.

I never said the Greek and Hebrew was a necessity to interpret the Bible or learn doctrine. So don't put words in my mouth just because you have no real argument to offer. What I did say is that there is nothing wrong if a Bible translator wishes to avail himself of the Greek and Hebrew alongside the KJV in the process of translating.

Quote:

And how is accuracy measured?

By Hebrew and Greek?
By a scholar or denominations' opinions?
By all sources? (How do you pick and choose between them?)
By the KJB?

If the KJB is perfect, then other translations would always be a little inaccurate, and therefore it is better (and easier) to teach the world English (which is already far advanced a billion people) and us use the KJB for our Christianisation.
Accuracy is measured by the KJB. But you are missing the point...

Quote:

P.S. Do you agree that the KJB has exactly 100% the meanings of the original words that were inspired in the original langauges with nothing taken away or added?
Yes it does but not everything in English can be translated exactly in another language. So the point is that the translator is in his right to avail himself of other language sources. And what better language sources than the Received Texts which were the very foundation of the KJB. But of course, you think the world needs to be dominated with Anglo-Protestant culture and so you are so blinded by a racist agenda that Foreign translations of the Bible is out of the question to you. Well that is why God is calling us to minister to non-English speaking people and not you.

MC1171611 12-06-2008 12:13 PM

"God forbid," translated verbatim into Spanish, wouldn't make any sense. Therefore, since the Bible should at least make linguistic sense in the receptor language, it is simply ignorant to think that forcing the Spanish language to say something that makes no sense to a Spanish-speaking person is going to do any good.

I think I almost fully agree with Hmo. Rodriguez; the KJB translators used dozens of different versions and translations to bring about the Bible, and though they were operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, He still used those different sources. Ignoring any trustworthy source while translating when facing such a difficult barrier as language is foolhardy. In Spanish that's not an issue as God has already provided His word in that language, even before the KJB was finished, but any language being translated into anew must invariably use all sources, and be subject to the direct leading of the Holy Spirit, in order to be considered trustworthy.

Another thing: the Bible is given by inspiration, not inspired. There's a difference there. ;)

Steven Avery 12-06-2008 06:01 PM

Hi Folks,

While the conversation is a bit heated, and would be nice to be toned down, there are two factual tweakings I'd like to make.

It is common to call the language of the OT Aramaic (sections in Daniel and Ezra) and the NT texts Syriac (eg. Peshitta and Old Syriac MSS). Even the OT Peshitta I think is called Aramaic while the NT Peshitta is called Syriac. With Aramaic possibly being a subset of Syriac in language theory, the terms do have a lot of overlap.

I'm not saying this necessarily is sensible, but it is scholarly language consensus and has nothing to do with e.g. recognizing the usage of Hebraisti == Hebrew in the NT. I can't see anything wrong with referring to "sections of Daniel and Ezra being in Aramaic" since that is what their Chaldee dialect is often called. Since Aramaic is used today, culturally in some lands as the main language, and by Orthodox Jews in studies and by Eastern Christians in their Bible text, there is no warrant to insist on banishing the word.

As for Scrivener's Greek text being an exact representation of the King James Bible, "exact" is a bit too strong. The Johannine Comma is not a counter-example, as Scrivener's italics was only in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible, a different work. However I have seen a couple of cases where English King James Bible information may not be in the Greek text. "Almost exact" - fine. The word "exact" is rarely applicable across languages.

Shalom,
Steven

bibleprotector 12-06-2008 07:42 PM

Quote:

The Johannine Comma is not a counter-example, as Scrivener's italics was only in his Cambridge Paragraph Bible, a different work.
I have looked up Scrivener's TR, and it has the entire Comma in bold typeface. The bold typeface differs from the normal text in the same way italics is used in his English edition. I can actually see quite a few places where there are bolded words scattered throughout his Greek NT.

bibleprotector 12-06-2008 07:50 PM

Quote:

Yes it does but not everything in English can be translated exactly in another language.
!?!

If the KJB is perfectly the text (readings) and translation (sense), and the Word of God cannot be perfectly rendered by the above two criteria in other languages, then clearly our long term goal should be to get people to learn English and use the KJB. You certainly are not going to get a perfect text and translation even by using all the sources including the original languages in concert. Since you are going to get an imperfect foreign Bible, why not move toward teaching the natives English and give them the perfect Bible?

Steven Avery 12-06-2008 09:29 PM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector
I have looked up Scrivener's TR, and it has the entire Comma in bold typeface. The bold typeface differs from the normal text in the same way italics is used in his English edition. I can actually see quite a few places where there are bolded words scattered throughout his Greek NT.

Good to know. That means that the Scrivener Greek TR text does have a clear and definite weakness. One that is probably ignored by those using it as a translation base, yet of import in the overall sense.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

bibleprotector 12-06-2008 09:56 PM

In this response, I aim to present things which would be edifying/instructional to the general reader. Note, “KJB” means King James Bible. I do not say “KJV” as though it is only one of many versions in the world to be used. I say “KJB” because I think it is the Bible for everyone in the world.

Quote:

Well then according to you God's perfect words never existed until 1611. God's promise to preserve his words in every generation in Ps. 12:6-7 was a lie if your logic be true.
God’s perfect Word existed in heaven and in inspiration, and was scattered in many copies, versions and translations, even as we observe today. But there was never a manifestation of one Bible having the perfect text and translation until 1611. Any good copy, version or translation has been because of God’s preservation, and these copies have been sufficient for salvation and Christian doctrine, but they were not 100% text and translation perfect.

You know full well that only half the Bible was on earth when Psalm 12 was written, so you cannot say that God’s perfect Word existed on Earth in the days of King David. The only perfect Word that existed was what had been written to that time. And even if there was a text-perfect single collection of scrolls of the OT, we know that the entire Bible was never perfect in one form until 1611, nor was the single perfect OT library accessible for many years (e.g. after 70 A.D.) Yet we had many faithful copies, wherein were scattered the true readings, which required a process of gathering, as is shown by the Bomberg printing and by Protestant Bibles, and finally by the KJB.

I believe that the Gomez Spanish Bible is Scripture and is part of God’s provision, etc., but I think that the KJB is overtaking and replacing it. And it is really not wise to try and make new foreign versions now, but to shift focus onto having the KJB as international standard (a long term goal, perhaps not immediately viable in many cases).

Quote:

The truth is that the KJV translators were not receiving direct revelation from God as the original writers were.
Yes, but if they are Christians, they have God’s spirit and they are vessels in His providence. Of course the KJB translators were not inspired, and of course they looked at a mass of evidence.

Quote:

And they wouldn't have included alternate readings in the marginal notes.
NO NO NO! If you say “alternate” you say that the margin is equal to or as valid as the text. You are saying the KJB as it stands is NOT perfect. No, the margin notes are the chaff. They show rejected readings, other translations, various notes, etc. They are NOT to be used to find the “real meaning”, they are NOT to be used as “Scripture”!

You are assuming that the margin notes render the actual text of the KJB as imperfect. You are allowing that there are other possible and valid translations WHICH STILL PERSIST. I am showing that the last time there was a possible valid English translation outside the KJB was when the Geneva Version was still being used by some poor Christian. That must have been over two centuries ago.

Quote:

When they came to the words "ma genomia", they did not translate them literally because it would have been an awkward rendering in English. Ma genomia is literally "let it not be".
This is no issue: they translated sense-for-sense (which is usually literal, but not always, as you rightly say).

[quote]translate the expression. And in this case the expression was "never, never".[/[quote]

No that is not the perfect Word of God. That might be a possible translation, but it is imperfect. It also constitutes an error, because if you believe the KJB is perfect, you would not allow “never, never" to be Scripture in English. And you are writing in English using English words here. Persisting in wanting to allow “never, never" as a form of Scripture in English, as though that was what Paul was really (or could be) saying is a dangerous doctrine.

Quote:

Any student of Greek on the planet will tell you and any Greek lexicon
Christians today are not supposed students of this sort, or consulters of divinations where the meaning of the KJB is undermined because DIFFERENT WORDS than the KJB are used in their definitions, which equals dangerous error. The KJB has the words of God, we do not need other "sources" to undermine and/or confuse the issue.

Quote:

But you're trying to totally change simple grammar rules
No, abandoning “Greek and Hebrew” mystery doctrine is not changing grammar, it is imposing the correct English as standard over and above the twisting of words and meaning of the original languages as is manifestly done today. We have at our fingertips the perfect English Bible, why would we want or allow the imposing of VARYING meanings of words from “scholars” onto it? By implying that the Greek does not actually say what the KJB says, you are denying the perfection of the KJB. Even if it is by making it a relative argument, like, the KJB translators were just trying to make the best English expression, but someone else will do it differently. To do that is to undermine the perfection of the KJB. “God forbid” is perfect. You cannot have any variation that is as good.

Quote:

Nobody said anything about the word of God being "locked up" anywhere.
Why do you keep talking about Greek words and then giving English meanings to them which differ to the KJB? Surely the perfect Scripture is in English, not locked up in Greek! (Why consult many sources when the perfection is already finalised in the KJB?)

[quote]all of a sudden I'm not a true Bible-believer[quote]

To be KJB-only means you believe it is a perfect text and that it is a perfect translation. You might believe the Scripture, but it is not “King James Bible only”. If it is not KJBO, then you do not have a final knowledge of every reading, because readings vary between versions, and it cannot be final knowledge of the translation/sense, because any word outside the KJB has a different meaning, and with other languages, many times slight variations in meaning are there because the other language is not identical to English.

Quote:

That is EXACTLY what Inspiration is.
The Bible does not say that inspiration is “breathed out”, because the term “breathed out” does not appear in the KJB. (I know that "breathed out" is the terminology of someone who attempted to define a Greek word rather than an English one.)

“But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” (Job 32:8). Inspiration must mean “spirit in”. God must have put His words through His spirit in the man [see postscript], and the process of writing out the Scripture was by this being present in the penman. This can be seen where the prophet spoke and the scribe wrote, or where the apostle wrote the letter with his own hand. At the end of the inspiration process, the written words were inspired, and the Bible in English retains this nature in its words today.

[quote]I asked: Do other good foreign translations have the degree of perfection as is found in the very use of the spelling, punctuation, words and grammar of the KJB?

Answer: If they don't, they can. That's what TRANSLATING is all about.[quote]

Of course no translation is perfect like the KJB is, but the point is that we cannot make another perfect translation. The Gomez has faults. Therefore, it must be better to encourage people to learn English, and to teach them English, so that they can use the perfect KJB.

Quote:

No, I don't have to see the Greek and Hebrew as former things since God has chosen to preserve His words in those languages as well as the English of the KJV.
1. Who today is using Bible Hebrew or Bible Greek as their first or only language? Answer: NO ONE.

2. Where is the perfect Bible or testament in Hebrew or Greek that has exactly the right readings, and the right meaning associated to words, so that the word for lapwing is not said to be a hoopoe, or the word for Easter is not said to be passover, etc. Answer: NO WHERE.

3. Since the Word of God is perfectly preserved in English, why would God still need to retain the Hebrew and Greek where there is no certain presentation of the perfect Word of God in exact extant form? Answer: NO NEED TO GOD.

4. Why would Christians need Hebrew and Greek for their doctrine, teaching or Bible study (other than to prove that the KJB is right)? Answer: NO NEED TO US.

5. Did God fail to get His word into the language of the Gentiles > English perfectly, so that He has to keep Hebrew and Greek as a failsafe/back up/repository of His “real” Scripture? Answer: NO.

6. Would God be failing His promise if He was preserving the Scripture perfectly in English for the world? Answer: NO.

Quote:

I said: But you see that it is there 100% in English, right down the very jot and tittle

Reply: No, you don't. You pray and trust that with God all things are possible.
Of course we see that the Word of God is perfectly in English to the jot and tittle, and that Matthew 5:18 is fulfilled by the KJB. If God’s words are not jot and tittle present and correct in the KJB, where ON EARTH are they? Show them to the world! That is exactly why the KJB should grow to go forth to all nations.

Quote:

You though the Gospel = the Word and tried to use 1 Pet. 1:21-23 to try to prove this error.
“And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:25). Is this passage error?

Quote:

the Gospel is in 1 Cor. 15:1-4.
Is 1 Cor. 15:1-4 in the Word of God? Yes or no?

Is my “the Gospel = the Word” statement error?

Quote:

NOT EVERYONE SPEAKS ENGLISH. And many never will.
We’ll see. “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deut. 18:22).

Quote:

If that be true, than the world was without the perfect words of God between 100-1611 AD and Ps. 12:6-7 and scores of other verses on Preservation are a lie.
No, the perfect text and translation is only present in English today. The Word of God is generally available as it has been for centuries in many copies, versions and translations. That is sufficient, but God is one who does perfect works, which means the result of the furnace of earth is a seven-time purified Bible.

Quote:

When God spoke His words to the original writers, He did not speak in English to the Apostles and Prophets. He spoke in Hebrew and Greek.
They wrote in Hebrew and Greek.

Quote:

He promised to preserve these original words, which were given in Hebrew and Greek.
No, you are reading the word “original” or “Hebrew and Greek” into Scripture. When Jesus said the jots and tittles would not fail, that means English, not Hebrew and Greek. The word “jot” and the word “tittle” are English words describing English letters and punctuation. Not one chapter and verse limits the Scripture to the originals only. Clearly, you are not KJBO if you believe that the perfection/preservation of Scripture is still locked up in the original languages.

[quote]Notice he promised to preserve WORDS, not manuscripts, not ink and paper, which accounts for why we do not have the Original Autographs. We don't need them anyways because...[quote]

Yes, and we have many translations made, e.g. in the Reformation.

[quote]God preserved these Inspired words ... by providentially guiding His people (Ps. 78) to tirelessly copy His words over and over again and pass them down from generation to generation.[quote]

But there was a point where single manuscripts were not perfect. However, if taken collectively, the perfect Word could be discerned, which was a process which manifested especially between 1517 and 1611. The KJB being supersuccessionary to the Bomberg and TR editions.

Quote:

In 1602-1611, God providentially guided the KJV translators to culminate these different preserved manuscripts into an English translation - the KJV.
Yes.

Quote:

In the late 1800s, Scrivener took Beza's 5th edition of the Greek NT (TR), which was the primary Greek text used by the KJV translators, and edited it in only 190 place. For these 190 places, he collated 18 different editions of the Textus Receptus to find readings that mirrored the exact wording of the KJV.
So what.

Quote:

Therefore, what Scrivener produced was a Greek New Testament that is an exact Greek representation of what the KJV says in English.
It isn’t, but even if it was, why go back to Greek when perfection is already manifest in English? Scrivener’s Greek NT is not going to be the same as the KJB. In fact, if used properly, this TR is only a scholarly apparatus to help prove the superiority of the KJB. The KJB is perfect, whereas Scrivener’s TR is not. What the people of the world need is God’s Word in the global tongue, not Scrivener’s TR or a translation made from it.

Quote:

the meticulous care of copying God's words in the OT by the orthodox Jews
Which indicates why we can be sure the KJB is correct.

Quote:

My point is that God promised to preserve His words. Today the prominent Bible that He has placed His stamp of approval upon when it comes to perfection is the KJV.
And now God is advancing the approved KJB to be the one Bible for all the world, because it is perfect.

Quote:

If we stick to the KJV as the guide and standard for translating we can't go wrong.
Since you admit that learning is not the same today as 1611, and the KJB is best, why not stick with the KJB where you can’t make a mistake, rather than trying to make a translation where you will make many mistakes?!

Quote:

We have no record of God ever saying anything in English to anybody. God spoke in Hebrew and Greek, and He providentially guided the KJV translators to translate those words into English.
If so, we don’t need Hebrew and Greek any more. And we don’t need to waste our time and resources in pushing other translations either. Can we seriously claim that the Gomez Spanish Bible was “providentially guided”? I know that the makers of it meant well. But we are looking to align with God’s continuing providence, and it is in the line of the KJB for the whole world.

Quote:

Accurately translating God's words is not usurping anything ESPECIALLY when the KJV is being used as the standard.
Since the KJB is standard, nothing else can be. Therefore the trend of other translations should not continue to be upheld.

[quote]The Bible does not teach that the Great Commission is to promote Anglo-phone culture and teach English. The Great Commission is to preach the Gospel.[quote]

The Bible does allow for Anglo-Protestantism to be promoted, and using English to preach to the KJB to the world fulfils that part of the great commission. However, nations need to be taught, and this means having a model. Clearly, elements from Anglophone culture are going to be the best to use, while every nation yet retains its own identity. (We are not banning chop sticks because we think cutlary is better.)

Quote:

I said: this idea is furthered so EVENTUALLY that all nations are taught one Word.

Reply: Chapter and verse.
Plenty, Zeph. 3:9 and Matthew 24:14 just for starters. What is the "pure language"? What is "this Gospel"?

Quote:

Isa. 28:11 has nothing to do with evangelizing Jews with the KJB.
Really? Are God’s chosen people stuck with an imperfect Hebrew New Testament? And where is a perfect Hebrew OT today? Since many Jews can speak English, it is providential, so that the KJB can be used to preach to them.

Quote:

I said: Scripture plain{ly} prophesies that it is the GENTILES who are to begin to convert the Jews?

Reply: It does? Where? Chapter and verse.
Today Gentiles should begin reaching the Jews effectively, which will come to finality with the salvation of Israel after the Church has left, see Romans 11:11, Romans 10:19, Romans 11:31, etc.

Quote:

You are the one accusing us of forfeiting our responsibility to carry out the Great Commission by not teaching everyone English so they can read the KJV.
No. I am saying teaching English furthers and is the way to fulfil the Great Commission.

Quote:

Wrong, it is not "our religion" that will convert the Jews.
What? If not Christianity, then how will the Jews become Christian? They are supposed to be in the same Body of Christ as we are.

Quote:

English may be the most learned and used secondary language in the world, but there are THOUSANDS of language groups in the world that are not learning English and most of whom never will. Jesus Christ can come back any time now and if He came back tomorrow somehow I doubt very seriously that everyone on earth is going to magically learn English overnight.
Since English is widely used, we should use the KJB. Since some people do not yet know English, we should teach them, so they can use the KJB too. And Christ may not come for 20, 50, 100 years or whatever, so don’t forfeit our responsibility to make long term plans of world evangelisation as though we are going to fail. We are talking long term, an agenda which begins as a seed today.

Quote:

And that number is dwindling every day as the days of Apostacy and Apathy before Christ's return grows. Your fantasy of "millions" of English teachers is not happening.
Maybe you haven’t realised, but Christ is about to spue a whole bunch of junk out of His body. And there are many many passages which speak of the last days glory and restitution of the Church before the translation. I am not talking about Dominion Theology, which is an error. I am talking about a powerful, spotless Church with nation-changing Christianity.

The Lord said to pray for labourers, so don’t call the millions of harvesters a “fantasy”. We are entering into the times of restitution. Why let the spirit of antichrist have all the power today?

“Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.” (James 5:7).

“Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” (1 Peter 2:12).

“And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.” (Rev. 14:16). This is not just a Tribulation prophecy, it is also pre-Tribulation Historicist.

“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.” (Isaiah 59:19). That standard is the KJB for all nations.

These are just some of the verses showing the “restitution supersuccessionary doctrine”. Having the KJB for all is in line with that.

Quote:

Great idea, only except IT'S NOT HAPPENING.
1. We walk by faith, not by sight.

2. The Scripture said it generally would happen, and God is not a liar.

3. Specific verses show it, e.g. “All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” (Psalm 22:27). Don’t explain away prophecy by saying “in the Millennium”.

Quote:

I said: now we are giving the world one language so that we can have one Bible.

Reply: No we're not.
Er, God is in control, we are on God’s side, therefore we are bringing the world to English so that we (not God for us) can bring the KJB to all.

Quote:

Even if you was right that there is no perfect Spanish Bible, you are assuming based on one language issue that of the nearly 7000 languages in the world there can be no perfect Bible.
The only perfect text and translation is the KJB. Why rob the world of the perfect Word? Why not get them to learn English and believe the KJB? After all, many already know English.

POSTSCRIPT: I would venture that most foreign translations do not rightly divide between the "spirit" of God and the "Spirit" of God. Furthermore, would the Spanish version specifically be altered in 1 John 5:8 to change "Espíritu" to "espíritu"?

MC1171611 12-07-2008 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 12678)
Good to know. That means that the Scrivener Greek TR text does have a clear and definite weakness. One that is probably ignored by those using it as a translation base, yet of import in the overall sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the 1611 edition of the KJB have the Comma in italics? :rolleyes:

Also, I'd be careful with Bro. Gomez' Bible...not only did he incorrectly and somewhat underhandedly use the Reina Valera name to apparently give his Bible more credibility, but he's also changed it multiple times as other Spanish-speaking missionaries and translators found error with it. One instance of error in the RVG (ugh!) is that he changed "salúd" in Psalms to "salvacíon." "Salúd" means "good health" or something along that line, while "salvacíon" means spiritual salvation. While at face value that seems to be a good change, remember that David thought his soul and his body were the same thing, and he had no idea that he needed spiritual "salvacíon." This is a blatant doctrinal error that would have never happened if they had stuck with the 1865 TRUE Reina Valera.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:15 PM.

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