Did God

[Pastorj]

There are multiple spanish versions, but one of them is based on the Majority text.

There are languages where God's Word has not been translated though. In these cases, when translating, would you translate from the KJV or from the Greek and Hebrew?

[atlas]

None of the above I could not do the job. I would not know how.

What are you trying to say?


Atlas

[Pastorj]

Same with me, I am not a greek or hebrew expert, but I would have it translated from the Hebrew and Greek.

[atlas]

Well ok Greek would be fine with me. I also think useing the KJV would be fine as well, or the good German Bible for example. I do not think it would have to be Greek.

By saying that I mean I do not see the Greek as being better than the KJV. I see them as the same thing. Do you think the same thing?


Atlas

[Pastorj]

No I don't. When you translate from one language to another, there are things that do not come across in the same manner as the original language. If you translate from a translation, you lose even more. Where if you translate from the same original you will come up with an equivilent translation. For instance, Jn 3:16 in a French Bible does not translate word for word to the KJV, but to the French it has exactly the same meaning.

[atlas]

Pastorj

Are you saying you do not see the KJV and the Greek being equal?

I see them as being equal. Both are the FULL 100% word of God.

That was my question. I understand what you are saying about translating from one language to another.

Atlas

[Pastorj]

The KJV is 100% the Word of God for English speaking people. There are many words though that you need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew to get a complete understanding.

For instance, there are 3 words for the word love in the greek. Each have the same english translation, but yet the three have a different emphasis and meaning. You can not get this out of the English, it was lost in translation.

Another example would be the transliterated word Baptize. The KJV translators out of fear did not translate Baptidzo (I don't know how to put the greek in) to immerse, but rather transliterated it Baptize. If you were to read the French Bible, you would read "repent and be immersed", not "Repent and be baptized".

We can hold up our KJV and say we have God's preserved Word of God because He promised to preserve it. The French can hold up their version (from the Majority text) and say the same thing.

[bzmomo7]

First of all, I agree with the rules above and I only read the KJB. Now that I got that out of the way, I was sitting in a church history class in Sunday School once, and I was shocked to find out that there was another translation (the Geneva Bible) before the KJV. We were not allowed to ask questions in class, and there was no time afterward. Why did they pursue another English translation beyond the Geneva, and does this have any bearing on the above discussion? Is the Geneva Bible God's Word, too? or not? It's wording, obviously would not be completely the same either.

[Pastorj]

God promised to preserve His word from Generation to Generation. He did not promise that there would only be 1 English translation forever. If the Lord were to tarry another 1000 years, it would be very feasible that our English language had changed so much that another translation would be necessary.

This is what happened in 1611. The English language had changed significantly and it was necessary to have a Bible translated in the language of the day.

[bzmomo7]

God promised to preserve His word from Generation to Generation. He did not promise that there would only be 1 English translation forever. If the Lord were to tarry another 1000 years, it would be very feasible that our English language had changed so much that another translation would be necessary.

This is what happened in 1611. The English language had changed significantly and it was necessary to have a Bible translated in the language of the day.

Did anyone back then have a problem with them updating to KJV from the Geneva because of changes to the English language? I mean, if you were to propose that we need an updated version or will in the future to a KJ person.......you might throw them into a tizzy. I know even the mention of it makes my head spin, and yet I do understand how the need could arise.

[Jerry]

The issue with the Geneva Bible was not because of language. Part of it was the Calvinistic notes - part of it was because King James and many believers in the realm wanted one standard Bible translation. I am sure there was more, but these two things come to mind.

[bzmomo7]

The issue with the Geneva Bible was not because of language. Part of it was the Calvinistic notes - part of it was because King James and many believers in the realm wanted one standard Bible translation. I am sure there was more' date=' but these two things come to mind.[/quote']
Thanks for filling that in! I always wondered what happened with that......and I've never actually seen a Geneva Bible to compare the translation for myself.

[JAHinton]

God promised to preserve His word from Generation to Generation. He did not promise that there would only be 1 English translation forever. If the Lord were to tarry another 1000 years, it would be very feasible that our English language had changed so much that another translation would be necessary.

This is what happened in 1611. The English language had changed significantly and it was necessary to have a Bible translated in the language of the day.

Let me preface by assuring everyone that I am a thorough bleliever in the KJV and teach and preach from nothing else. I am also in agreement with the statements concerning the TR and Mosoretic texts as the preserved Word of God.

But isn't the above the same argument that might be used by those supporting the modern versions.

[John the Baptist]

The KJV is 100% the Word of God for English speaking people. There are many words though that you need to go back to the Greek and Hebrew to get a complete understanding.

For instance, there are 3 words for the word love in the greek. Each have the same english translation, but yet the three have a different emphasis and meaning. You can not get this out of the English, it was lost in translation.

Another example would be the transliterated word Baptize. The KJV translators out of fear did not translate Baptidzo (I don't know how to put the greek in) to immerse, but rather transliterated it Baptize. If you were to read the French Bible, you would read "repent and be immersed", not "Repent and be baptized".

We can hold up our KJV and say we have God's preserved Word of God because He promised to preserve it. The French can hold up their version (from the Majority text) and say the same thing.

I agree that you lost shades of meaning of words and tenses and experessions in translating from the Greek or Hebrew to another lanauage. This clearly reveals that the translation is not inerrant but can be totally trustworthy. God has preserved HIs Word. I am not KJV only as you know. There are variations in all of the manuscripts but they are minute.

But that is okay I am not trying to start anything.

God Bless
John

[rizen1]

I just have to say God bless you PastorJ...
You really helped me understand a couple of things.

This was a great discussion