Originally Posted by TimV

Allow me to make a guess. You don't speak more than one language, do you?

Well, being Australian, most people would say that I dont even speak English very well...but I can usually make myself understood by using sign language, grunting and facial expresion.

And you're not much for history, right? A little FOX NEWS at night?

I do know that some of my relatives had a great time chasing Boers around the veldt until they very sensibly surrendered and became British subjects...besides that a smattering of world and general history that I picked up at school, reading books and travelling the world 6 or 7 times.

Tell me why should a group of translators care one way or another what a bunch of Englishmen did?
Yes, pride and arrogance can lead men to make bad decisions...

Do you think that the Gothic version was based on the KJV? If so, why? If not why?
Ooh, a hard one!...I guess that would depend on which was written first...did Wulfila live before or after King James? is AD600 before or after AD 1611?....can I use a calculator?

Sould the Afrikaner translators have referenced the TR and MH texts, or would you prefer that they (remember their people didn't speak English) have used the KJV???

Well, obviously, since it is well known that Afrikaaner farmers are fluent in Hebrew, koine Greek , Latin etc, why would anyone expect them to refer to an already completed work written in an obscure language such as English?

Please let fundy answer this post rather than covering for him. Thanks.

Oh, and Tim, dont bother answering my question... I did some study and found the answer myself. The Afrikaans bible was generally pretty good, except for the obvious shocking blunders like the use of "Terebinth". Sadly, like the modern English versions, more corruption is creeping in in later versions.

fundy

The Boers didn't surrender from being chased, they surrendered because of war crimes against them. Some crimes were so outragious that even the Brits had to execute some Australians to slow it down.

So, if I understand you, translators were free to use Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic source texts until 1611, when a group of people put together the 80 book KJV, and then so as to not set themselves up against God's Word translators became required to follow the KJV? With dragons and oaks and unicorns?

Originally Posted by MC1171611

The Book says Oak, and it was an Oak tree. Why anyone would want to differ from that is beyond me, other than someone is setting himself up as an authority over the written word of God.

LOL, amen brother... you know I was just thinking, as we are watching Bible correctors attacking and questioning God's Word regarding TREES and discussing their FRUIT, can you think of another time in history this happened?

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, YEA, HATH GOD SAID, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Gen. 3:1

Originally Posted by TimV

The Boers didn't surrender from being chased, they surrendered because of war crimes against them. Some crimes were so outragious that even the Brits had to execute some Australians to slow it down.

You seem to have an extremely shallow understanding of the facts concerning the events of the Boer war, but since this is not a military history forum, I will let the subject drop.

So, if I understand you, translators were free to use Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic source texts until 1611, when a group of people put together the 80 book KJV, and then so as to not set themselves up against God's Word translators became required to follow the KJV?

Er,no, it seems that you dont understand me...I didnt say that at all, What I meant was that it defys common sense that a group of tranlators would ignore the already finished KJV, even as a reference, simply because it was written in English, by Englishmen. (If that indeed was the case)

With dragons and oaks and unicorns?

Do a forum search and look up the thread "Satyrs, Dragons and Unicorns" , but just to whet your appetite;



Related Links
Asian Rhinoceros Factsheet
African Rhinoceros Factsheet
Rhinos once roamed throughout Eurasia and Africa, and were known to early Europeans who depicted them in cave paintings. Within historical times, rhinos were still widespread in the African savannas and the tropical forests of Asia.

the Great One-horned Rhinoceros or the Asian One-horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) is a large mammal found in Nepal, Bhutan, Pakistan and in Assam, India.........

"One horned"....isnt that what "unicorn" means?....HMMM, makes you think, doesnt it?

2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.


fundy

[PB1789]

Originally Posted by fundy

Obviously, Bible readers all over the world were getting confused because they didnt understand what an "oak" tree was,so, to avoid any further confusion the translators used the much more modern and commonly used word "terebinth"

Changing (oops,I mean "updating") a few words here and there also helps with the copywright and subsequent cashflow from sales of a particular version of "Gods word"

fundy

Well put fundy.

They sure did clear that "Oak" problem up, now hundreds of lumber store employees/furniture makers can rest easy.

That is just another example/reason that I sent my copy of the NKJV back to the publisher...

---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ------ -------- ------- --------

speaking of clearing things up--- {by adding mud}... Has anyone seen/read a copy of "The New English Bible", which came out of Scotland in about the 1970's..? Oy Vey... the way they twist things around in order to "make it easier to read" could best be compared to a printed pretzel. The AV may have been done centuries ago, but it still is able to be memorized much easier than these Modern Translations.

Originally Posted by PB1789

Well put fundy.

They sure did clear that "Oak" problem up, now hundreds of lumber store employees/furniture makers can rest easy.

That is just another example/reason that I sent my copy of the NKJV back to the publisher...

---- ---- ------ ------ ----- ------ -------- ------- --------

speaking of clearing things up--- {by adding mud}... Has anyone seen/read a copy of "The New English Bible", which came out of Scotland in about the 1970's..? Oy Vey... the way they twist things around in order to "make it easier to read" could best be compared to a printed pretzel. The AV may have been done centuries ago, but it still is able to be memorized much easier than these Modern Translations.

Hi PB,

Dont feel too bad, only 1 in 10 people understand a Scotsman when he speaks ( and that includes other Scotsmen), so a Scottish translation of the Bible is bound to be the Rubiks cube of literature

I reckon "The Message" is the version that really takes the cake for turning Gods Word into gibberish..

fundy

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by PB1789

a printed pretzel

Now I know why they put that symbol on the front of the NKJV.

[PB1789]

Humour (I spelled that correctly) from the folks from "Down Under".