View Single Post
  #78  
Old 07-15-2008, 10:16 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

By coincidence, I happened to watch parts of those two sermons on a live webcast last week, and so I have not looked at those links. As I heard them speak, it only confirmed to me that English was the way to go. Apparently hundreds of small Indian languages do not have the Scripture. Obviously English is the answer. (This speaker presented such a negative view of the reaching of the natives, that I turned it off.)

As for nations where Islam is currently in control, we should not think that such control is everlasting. Moreover, that the learning of the people involved with the Arabic translation is not on the same level as the King James Bible translators. Moreover, the principles of the Arabic translation raise some objections, e.g. allowing peer review in a time where modernism was arising/is now ascendant.

Most importantly, the learned speaker upon the Arabic translation stressed what is an incorrect premise, namely, that the Word of God exists in the "Masoretic Text" and "Textus Receptus". While this is generally true, these text forms are not final. It is obvious that there are many varying presentations or possibilities of textual and translational differences depending on choices within the good stream, because there is no final authoritative perfect extant presentation of the Scripture in Hebrew or in Greek.

Quote:
Are you supporting foreign language translators?
As far as wasting prayer, money and resources for future developments and "breakthroughs" in that direction, no. Personally, I want to see the KJB getting into non-English nations more and more.