Jump to content
Online Baptist

Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5
    • Not Sure
      0
    • Probably
      1
    • Probably Not
      2


Recommended Posts

  • Members
8 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Now, what has been proposed is that we should separate "the thing of the Spirit of God" in verse 14 from all of the previous references to "the things of God" throughout the preceding context. 

That is not what I have stated.  I have already said the context of verse 10 and 11 show the generality of "things."  Of course context matters.  But in this case, it is not a constraining context as you claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why would you need to update anything? The ‘old language’ is still perfectly good English.The fact that modern folks are too lazy to learn the meanings of words is no reason to change the Bible. Save

In my estimation the poll title is misleading and should not be used on this forum. The poll title is: "Would you use a simple accurate KJV update? The poll title insinuates that the KJV is

Since an answer does not seem forthcoming, allow me to provide the grammatical facts concerning the meaning and significance of the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye."   Concerning PER

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
8 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

That is not what I have stated.  I have already said the context of verse 10 and 11 show the generality of "things."  Of course context matters.  But in this case, it is not a constraining context as you claim.

Hmmm. The following is what you said --

6 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I also disagree with your limiting of this phrase "the things of the Spirit of God" in verse 14. 

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

It is plainly very general and not at all limited by verse 13 and preceding, for it says:  "the things."  Natural people who reject all spiritual things do not receive the things of God's Spirit generally, not just the things you limit it to mean.  That's what it says and means.  Scripture can narrowly use the word "things" in one verse and use it generally in the next.  I think you need to reconsider your ideas of contextualization. (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So, if you you actually believe that the references to "the things" in verse 14 is contextually connected to "the things" in verses 10-11, let us consider how "the things" are presented in verses 10-11.  

1.  In the opening portion of verse 10, we learn that God has revealed them ("the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9) unto us believers specifically by His Spirit.  (Note: This grammatical construction indicates that we should not contextually separate the statement of verse 10 from the statement of verse 9.)

2.  In the closing portion of verse 10, we learn the reason why God has revealed these things unto us believers by His Spirit.  He has done so because it is the Spirit who specifically searches "all things, yea the deep things of God."

3.  In the closing portion of verse 11, the reason from the closing portion of verse 10 is substantiated more firmly.  Indeed, we learn that NO man knows "the things of God," but the Spirit of God only.  Thus (as I presented in my previous posting) we learn that it is impossible for any of us to know "the things of God" apart from the Holy Spirit's guidance.

4.  So, does that which follows in verse 12 help us to understand who actually possesses the Spirit of God?  Indeed, it does; for in the opening portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have indeed "received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."  Furthermore, in the closing portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have received the Spirit of God, specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God."  (Note: By this doctrinal progression in the context, we further recognize that the statement of verse 12 should not be contextually separated from the statements of verses 9-11.)

But that leaves open the doctrinal question -- What about those individuals (unbelievers) who have not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit of God?  1 Corinthians 2:14 contextually answers the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Hmmm. The following is what you said --

So, if you you actually believe that the references to "the things" in verse 14 is contextually connected to "the things" in verses 10-11, let us consider how "the things" are presented in verses 10-11.  

1.  In the opening portion of verse 10, we learn that God has revealed them ("the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" from verse 9) unto us believers specifically by His Spirit.  (Note: This grammatical construction indicates that we should not contextually separate the statement of verse 10 from the statement of verse 9.)

2.  In the closing portion of verse 10, we learn the reason why God has revealed these things unto us believers by His Spirit.  He has done so because it is the Spirit who specifically searches "all things, yea the deep things of God."

3.  In the closing portion of verse 11, the reason from the closing portion of verse 10 is substantiated more firmly.  Indeed, we learn that NO man knows "the things of God," but the Spirit of God only.  Thus (as I presented in my previous posting) we learn that it is impossible for any of us to know "the things of God" apart from the Holy Spirit's guidance.

4.  So, does that which follows in verse 12 help us to understand who actually possesses the Spirit of God?  Indeed, it does; for in the opening portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have indeed "received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God."  Furthermore, in the closing portion of verse 12, we learn that we believers have received the Spirit of God, specifically "that we might know the things that are freely given to us [believers] of God."  (Note: By this doctrinal progression in the context, we further recognize that the statement of verse 12 should not be contextually separated from the statements of verses 9-11.)

But that leaves open the doctrinal question -- What about those individuals (unbelievers) who have not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit of God?  1 Corinthians 2:14 contextually answers the question.

Thank you for your time Pastor.  I think I have already made my interpretation clear.  There's no need to keep saying the same thing.  May God be glorified.  Have a blessed day!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
6 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Those verses do not mean all non-believers can never receive the wisdom of God.  Of course some non-believers become believers and receive the wisdom of God.  In fact, the gospel is the wisdom of God in Christ.

It is simply amazing that someone with a screen name of BibleBeliever would see nothing contradictory in engaging members on a message forum and asserting that the Bible does not say what it clearly does say.

I posted the verses above to show beyond a shadow of a doubt, that in opposition to your assertion that unbelievers "can and do receive these things as they seek God", that there simply are no unbelievers that seek after God. God's Holy Spirt, the author of all Scripture, makes this fact clear to all by reaffirming that what was written in Romans 3:11 is further reinforced by Romans 3:12. Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Using just a bit of logic it would of necessity follow, that if there are no unbelievers that seek after God, as Scripture affirms, then there cannot possibly be any unbelievers that receive the wisdom of God.

You further try to bolster your argument by asserting that they, (unbelievers) "hear about these things, and then become believers." So then, it is only at the point of becoming believers that the former unbeliever can receive the wisdom of God. (he is no longer an unbeliever)

It all seems perfectly clear to me and anyone that believes, that the Bible means what it says and says what it means.

It is also clear that no revision is needed simply because believers have the capacity, in the form of the Holy Spirit, to understand what is written. And in direct opposition to the preceding sentence, unbelievers do not and cannot understand spiritual things.

1Co 2:14 KJV But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 minutes ago, SureWord said:

"Besom of destruction" (Isaiah 14:23)

My take on this "archaic" word. According to etymonline .com the word broom was in use 300 years before the KJV translators chose the word "besom". As I see it the word "besom" (a type of broom) fits the passage better since a "besom" is traditional associated with the occult and witchcraft (even to this day among Wiccans) and the context of the passage has to do with Satan himself as well as probably the future beast of Revelation.

Brother "SureWord,"

That is a valuable point to consider why the original translators chose the word "besom" in that context, rather than the word "broom."  Whatever their reasoning may have been (if we are able to discern it) is worthy of consideration whether the word "besom" is more significant for the context than the word "broom."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
56 minutes ago, SureWord said:

I always enjoy looking up words I've never heard before. 

I appreciate your comments and I think they show the right spirit in which most faithful King James Bible users approach the scriptures. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
10 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

It is simply amazing that someone with a screen name of BibleBeliever would see nothing contradictory in engaging members on a message forum and asserting that the Bible does not say what it clearly does say.

I posted the verses above to show beyond a shadow of a doubt, that in opposition to your assertion that unbelievers "can and do receive these things as they seek God", that there simply are no unbelievers that seek after God. God's Holy Spirt, the author of all Scripture, makes this fact clear to all by reaffirming that what was written in Romans 3:11 is further reinforced by Romans 3:12. Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Using just a bit of logic it would of necessity follow, that if there are no unbelievers that seek after God, as Scripture affirms, then there cannot possibly be any unbelievers that receive the wisdom of God.

You further try to bolster your argument by asserting that they, (unbelievers) "hear about these things, and then become believers." So then, it is only at the point of becoming believers that the former unbeliever can receive the wisdom of God. (he is no longer an unbeliever)

It all seems perfectly clear to me and anyone that believes, that the Bible means what it says and says what it means.

It is also clear that no revision is needed simply because believers have the capacity, in the form of the Holy Spirit, to understand what is written. And in direct opposition to the preceding sentence, unbelievers do not and cannot understand spiritual things.

1Co 2:14 KJV But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

I think you are misunderstanding Scripture and not using good logic.  Have a blessed week!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

The natural man is the unregenernated man. Scripture is pretty clear on this. 

The word of God was given to believers not unbelievers (just as the law was given to Jews not Gentiles). The gospel goes out to the lost but first the message was given to the church. This is all that God has to personally say to the lost, i.e. "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him". Anything that unregenernated sinners may read and understand, usually through the writings of Christians and not the bible itself, is solely because of the revelations of God given to his church. Even the angels had to be revealed some truth from God via his church (Eph. 3:10)

There is nothing complicated about this unless you want it to be because you cannot admit you are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
26 minutes ago, SureWord said:

The natural man is the unregenernated man. Scripture is pretty clear on this. 

The word of God was given to believers not unbelievers (just as the law was given to Jews not Gentiles). The gospel goes out to the lost but first the message was given to the church. This is all that God has to personally say to the lost, i.e. "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him". Anything that unregenernated sinners may read and understand, usually through the writings of Christians and not the bible itself, is solely because of the revelations of God given to his church. Even the angels had to be revealed some truth from God via his church (Eph. 3:10)

There is nothing complicated about this unless you want it to be because you cannot admit you are wrong.

Please think more carefully about the words used in 1 Cor. 2:14-15.  I think you are missing the nuances of "natural man" and "he that is spiritual" in light of the whole verses.  I don't think we need to argue.  We actually have lots of common ground.  I have already expressed my belief that the natural man in 1 Cor. 2:14 means certain non-believers, the natural ones, as it says.  I wish you the best, and let's not argue out of our love in Christ.  🙂  ❤️ 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Thank you for your time Pastor.  I think I have already made my interpretation clear.  There's no need to keep saying the same thing.  May God be glorified.  Have a blessed day! (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Yes, I believe that you have made your interpretation clear; however, I do NOT believe that you have made your grammatical and contextual explanation for that interpretation clear.

35 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Please think more carefully about the words used in 1 Cor. 2:14-15.  I think you are missing the nuances of "natural man" and "he that is spiritual" in light of the whole verses.  I don't think we need to argue.  We actually have lots of common ground.  I have already expressed my belief that the natural man in 1 Cor. 2:14 means certain non-believers, the natural ones, as it says.  I wish you the best, and let's not argue out of our love in Christ.  🙂  ❤️  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On 1/31/2021 at 11:32 AM, BibleBeliever5 said:

Verse 14 is talking about natural men as non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual.  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Therefore, I would request that you present a more thorough explanation from the grammar and context as to how you derive the above definition for "the natural man" of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

In a previous posting I myself have presented my definition for "the natural man" as "the individual who has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit (as such -- all unbelievers)."  Furthermore, I have presented from the context the necessity for an individual to have received the Holy Spirit specifically that he or she might know "the wisdom of God."  On the other hand, you have defined "the natural man" as "non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual."  Yet you have not provided any grammatical or contextual support for your usage of this definition.  I am now asking you to provide that grammatical or contextual support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
13 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Yes, I believe that you have made your interpretation clear; however, I do NOT believe that you have made your grammatical and contextual explanation for that interpretation clear.

Therefore, I would request that you present a more thorough explanation from the grammar and context as to how you derive the above definition for "the natural man" of 1 Corinthians 2:14.

In a previous posting I myself have presented my definition for "the natural man" as "the individual who has not yet received the indwelling Holy Spirit (as such -- all unbelievers)."  Furthermore, I have presented from the context the necessity for an individual to have received the Holy Spirit specifically that he or she might know "the wisdom of God."  On the other hand, you have defined "the natural man" as "non-believers who are atheists and secularists who do not believe in anything spiritual."  Yet you have not provided any grammatical or contextual support for your usage of this definition.  I am now asking you to provide that grammatical or contextual support.

Hi Pastor, I think I have already indicated that I am ready to finish this conversation with you that is somewhat off topic from the original post.  I am busy.  Even if I explain more than I already have, I think it is very unlikely that you would accept it.  I know God can reveal to you the correct meaning in time to come.  Are you able to let this go?  Stay safe and healthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I haven't read the thread, but based on the original post, here is my two cents

1. God has promised to preserve His Word for every generation. God has done so in English through the KJV. In Spanish, it's another version. There is a German equivalent, French equivalent, etc.

2. The KJV is not double inspired - Ruckmanite false theology. 

3. The likely hood of a modern English translation being accepted is slim to none. Those who have the ability to translate from the original languages see no reason to leave the KJV. Those who want a Modern translation, don't have the skillset to translate

4. Those who hold to an KJV only would never consider it and those with only KJV for the most part understand the KJV well enough that we are comfortable with it and 

 

So the question is, what would be the reason to create a modern translation? We live in a day where the majority of Americans don't understand the Kings English. Therefore, the KJV is not in the language of today. If a missionary were to go to an area where the Bible was not translated, we would have no issue translating it in that language. I would love to see a modern version, but as stated above, do not believe an accurate 21st century translation will ever happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Hi Pastor, I think I have already indicated that I am ready to finish this conversation with you that is somewhat off topic from the original post.  I am busy.  Even if I explain more than I already have, I think it is very unlikely that you would accept it.  I know God can reveal to you the correct meaning in time to come.  Are you able to let this go?  Stay safe and healthy.

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

(Note: I intend the following with grace, but also with clarity.)

Sure, I can let it go.  However, this discussion between us most definitely HAS affected my view of your original topic for this thread discussion.  Your original topic concerned the matter of updating/altering the present language of the King James translation to something that you view as more simple/modern.  Since you are the one who initiated this thread discussion, you serve as the central representative of that idea within the context of this thread discussion.  Even so, since (from my perspective) I have not found you able to understand the contextual and doctrinal flow of thought in a fairly basic portion of Scripture, I myself have come to not at all trust you as a representative of the pursuit to update/alter the language of the King James translation.  Understanding the flow of thought in a context is a matter of language comprehension.  Even so, if I (from my perspective) cannot trust you in the language comprehension of a fairly basic passage, then I (from my perspective) certainly cannot trust you in the language comprehension necessary to change/alter the entire Scriptures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
8 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Please think more carefully about the words used in 1 Cor. 2:14-15.  I think you are missing the nuances of "natural man" and "he that is spiritual" in light of the whole verses.  I don't think we need to argue.  We actually have lots of common ground.  I have already expressed my belief that the natural man in 1 Cor. 2:14 means certain non-believers, the natural ones, as it says.  I wish you the best, and let's not argue out of our love in Christ.  🙂  ❤️ 

 

 

You are reading something into the passage that's not there. There's the natural man and the spiritual. The unregenernated and regenerated. The saved and the lost. The Christian and the non-Christian. There is nothing in between. A Christian may be carnal in behavior but he in still a spiritual man with the mind in Christ in him. It's just a matter of yielding to that mind.

The bible was not intended for the natural, i.e. lost man.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 2/1/2021 at 2:43 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "SureWord,"

That is a valuable point to consider why the original translators chose the word "besom" in that context, rather than the word "broom."  Whatever their reasoning may have been (if we are able to discern it) is worthy of consideration whether the word "besom" is more significant for the context than the word "broom."

I always give the KJV the benefit of that doubt and consider that the translators had a valid reason to choose the words they chose.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/30/2021 at 10:23 AM, BibleBeliever5 said:

You may feel comfortable with the antiquated language of the KJV, but that does mean it isn't archaic for the general population.  The definition of archaic fits exactly what you describe:  "no longer in ordinary use though retained by individuals" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).  So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself, just your explanation.  That's a problem.

I agree, it's mostly spelling changes.  It was not a general update of the grammar and vocabulary.  The grammar and vocabulary of the 1769 is still basically the same as the 1611.  So let's be clear-eyed about this.  We are still using a version basically 400 years old.  It is obviously and factually antiquated.

You won't be quoting the NLT to the "non-believer that you meet on the street" either. Or, for that matter any other version unless you just happen to have your large print New Living Translation with you as you approach Walmart. So, that argument doesn't fit either.

No, you still won't admit that the 1769 has MANY changes to words. The "v" for "u" was one of 1000s. I think you were caught off guard when you discounted significant changes from 1611 to 1769 only to find there are thousands. We have the best Bible available to english speaking people and it has been for almost 300 years. Your argument isn't holding water or, for that matter attaining your goal of agreement for a another new version. Why don't you just stop "as one that beateth the air:" [1 Cor. 9:26]  and move to a different topic; "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." [1 Timothy 2:16] "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." [Galatians 5:26]. There is "discord among brethren" [Proverbs 6:19] being sown. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/30/2021 at 1:16 PM, BibleBeliever5 said:

Here is one verse that was written for and to the non-believer.

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

That is archaic English and would sound very strange for a non-believer not familiar with KJV English.  Do we need to give non-believers that kind of hurdle to understand God's word?

No, you actually have to remain with them and disciple them submitting yourself to the Holy Spirit to be used in aiding the unbelieving to understand God's truth and the Gospel of Christ. It's not a microwave oven process...its not a drive up window give me a small fry and a burger. These are souls of men.

 

On 1/30/2021 at 1:16 PM, BibleBeliever5 said:

Here is one verse that was written for and to the non-believer.

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

That is archaic English and would sound very strange for a non-believer not familiar with KJV English.  Do we need to give non-believers that kind of hurdle to understand God's word?

Which one of these words can't you understand? I'll help you with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/30/2021 at 1:39 PM, HappyChristian said:

Well, I guess the medical world doesn't realize that. Imagine that...an archaic word being used in modern times. Unprecedented. lol

In modern scientific endeavors, NEVER! 😲 That settles it, I won't be getting the Chinese virus vaccine. 😷

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Not true.

[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Here is wherein I can have agreement with you -- The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as presented in the Holy Scriptures, IS for the unbeliever.  (Note: This does NOT mean that I believe the entirety of the teaching in God's Holy Word is for the unbeliever, as per my previous discussion with you.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My response to the OP: without question or doubt, no...to any "update".  

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Is. 55:11).

A thoughtful quote is: "Teachers may put good things into our heads, but it is God that can put them into our hearts, that can work in us both to will and to do."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, WellWithMySoul said:

My response to the OP: without question or doubt, no...to any "update".  

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Is. 55:11).

A thoughtful quote is: "Teachers may put good things into our heads, but it is God that can put them into our hearts, that can work in us both to will and to do."

Would you use the KJV if you were a missionary to a place that doesn't speak English or would you use an equivalent version in the language of the country you are going to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

Edited by WellWithMySoul
addition
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, WellWithMySoul said:

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

Thanks. Unfortunately, that would not be the proper way to translate to the other language. You would want someone who is a linguist to translate from the original Greek/Hebrew to get the most accurate translation. A lot is lost when you translate from one language to another and it is always best to go back to the original language.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Yes.  That is exactly why I responded to the OP only.  I probably shouldn't have replied to the question of what I would do as far as translating to a  foreign language...I have no knowledge overall on the process.  Please forgive me for responding inaccurately.  I'm just a lil ole lady, striving to love the Lord with all of my heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 minutes ago, WellWithMySoul said:

Yes.  That is exactly why I responded to the OP only.  I probably shouldn't have replied to the question of what I would do as far as translating to a  foreign language...I have no knowledge overall on the process.  Please forgive me for responding inaccurately.  I'm just a lil ole lady, striving to love the Lord with all of my heart, soul, mind, and strength.

IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known.  IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done.  However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available (again as per God's providence).  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
47 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known.  IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done.  However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available (again as per God's providence).  

True - There are a number of organizations that are doing these translations.

My point is that We have no issue translating from the Greek and Hebrew to a language that does not have a Bible, but we are not willing to translate it from the original languages into a modern English. The KJV is awesome, but people today do not speak in the Kings English and the language of the KJV is not the language of America. I see no issue with translating from the original to English.

With that said, it won't happen because of the previously stated reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastorj said:

True - There are a number of organizations that are doing these translations.

My point is that We have no issue translating from the Greek and Hebrew to a language that does not have a Bible, but we are not willing to translate it from the original languages into a modern English. The KJV is awesome, but people today do not speak in the Kings English and the language of the KJV is not the language of America. I see no issue with translating from the original to English.

With that said, it won't happen because of the previously stated reasons.

People can read the King's English. That's what counts. 

15 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Not true.

[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Yes, the gospel. As I said previously the gospel is all that God has to say to the lost.

8 hours ago, WellWithMySoul said:

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

I've read this is quite common these days to translate from the KJV itself..

In China there also is a movement among Christians who only preach and teach from the KJV believing it is the pure words of God.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

A good translation from english speaking breathern can come from the KJV into a any native language but a refined accurate and precise translation most likely will have to come from the work of the native breathern themselves. Unless the native Christian equips themselves for the task, they will not have a perfect translation in their own language.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
14 hours ago, John Young said:

A good translation from english speaking breathern can come from the KJV into a any native language but a refined accurate and precise translation most likely will have to come from the work of the native breathern themselves. Unless the native Christian equips themselves for the task, they will not have a perfect translation in their own language.

That translation though should not be from the KJV. It should be from the original languages. The KJV is a translation. When you translate, you never translate from a translation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
    • By Jordan Kurecki
      Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?
       
      I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.
       
      I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).
       
      on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.
       
      What is your position and why do you hold to it?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 27 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...