Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Jordan Kurecki

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

    962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Everything posted by Jordan Kurecki

  1. I think this is getting away from the original topic. If you make another thread I would be willing to engage you on this more.
  2. Also personal revelation would be God in no uncertain way declaring to you infallible truth. Revelation is infalible whereas ones personal convictions can be based on a number of things such as application of scriptural principle, logic, knowledge, etc. Revelation is not fallible while ones convictions certainly are fallible.
  3. There is a big difference between what you personally feel God wants you to do as an individual, and someone claiming an objective fact based on their own “conviction”. I suppose the important question is what is ones “conviction” based on. Ones “convictions” might not necessarily correlate with reality always. Just because someone has a “conviction” does not make something factually true. Often peoples “convictions” are based on the current (and sometimes false or misleading) knowledge that we have. There are many people who have “convictions” that are nothing more than them adopting and following the examples they have seen modeled or taught to them by a respected source. These sources may or may not be correct at times. In other words we ought to be careful what we base our convictions on. I guess my point is personal convictions have no bearing on what is or is not true. I mean you having a conviction about something has zero binding authority on any one else nor does your conviction necessarily determine reality. There is a huge difference between having a conviction that you should personally use the KJV and the KJV is perfect. You feeling like you should exclusively use the KJV is not making a declaration about truth or reality for others. I have zero problems with that. Its quite different to assert that the KJV is perfect based on a conviction and to state that conviction as if it has any kind of authority to declare reality or determine truth.
  4. To be clear, I have no problem with the KJV, and I think it's an excellent translation of what I consider to be the reliable texts of the Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. What I am concerned about is what seems to be almost a blind mysticism and adherence to a tradition of men that's devoid of basis in actual promises of God or in actual personal investigatory evaluation by individuals with any sort of training/education in Greek or Hebrew. In theory there are only 3 possible ways in which one could know the KJV is perfect: 1. There would have to be a promise in God's word: Which I demonstrated above why I think that is not the case. 2. God would have to supernaturally reveal that to an individual, There are some Charismatics who claim this about the KJV. But this is impossible for anyone else to confirm or deny as it rests on a supposed personal revelation. 3. Someone would have to have Hebrew and Greek training/education and would have to actually have looked at every word in the KJV and compare it to every word the Hebrew and Greek texts, and even if said person declared that every translation choice was completely accurate, they could still possibly be mistaken or wrong. Therefore even this possibility is rather impossible.
  5. I see many people make claims about the KJV as being perfect because "God promised to preserve his word". The argument seems to go 1. God Promised to Preserve his Word 2. God Promising to Preserve his word means perfect translation in front of me 3. The KJV is that perfect translation. Here is the dilemma that I see that people don't want to seem to acknowledge: To start, I think we need to agree that God's promises do not change. That means God's promises to preserve his word mean the same thing in 2021, as they did when the originally writers under Inspiration wrote them, and this means they meant the same thing in 1610, as they did in 1611, and they still meant the same thing in 1769. So, if in 2020 God's promise to preserve his word=perfect translation in my language in front of me. Then in 1610 God's promise to preserve his word also should= perfect Translation in front of me. Yet no one seems to acknowledge that any of the pre 1611 KJV Bible's are perfect. When I was in Bible College I asked one of the professors how we know the KJV is God's perfect Bible over the Geneva Bible, the answer I got was really non substantial. if I lived in 1599 in Europe and I hold the Geneva Bible 1599 in my hand, I could open it to passages as the following: Matthew 5:18 For truely I say unto you, Til heaven, and earth perish, one jote, or one title of the Law shal not escape, til all things be fulfilled. Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the Lord shal stand for ever, & the thoghts of his heart through out all ages. Is 40:8 The grasse withereth, yͤ floure fadeth: but the worde of our God shal stãd for ever. Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shal passe away, but my wordes shal not passe away. So here's the question I have: What is the difference ,in principle, between holding the Geneva Bible in 1599 and claiming its perfect based on its promises and holding a KJV in 2020 and claiming its perfect based on its promises? Did God's promises of preservation change in meaning in 1611 or 1769? God's promises do not change in their meaning based on time, Therefore God's promise of preservation has to mean the same thing before 1611 as it does in 2020. By nature claiming that the KJV is God's perfect preserved word, you have to also admit that the prior 1611 English Bibles were not perfect, But by also doing that, you have created a contradiction. Remember God's promise to preserve his word has to mean the same thing in 2020 as it does in 1610. It cannot mean perfect bible translation in 2020 but imperfect Bible translations before 1611. So here's my question, is the belief in the KJV as a perfect translation really simply a matter of believing in God's actual promises, especially if we are inconsistent in it's application and in light of historical reality. For example, My Lugbara friends over in Uganda have a critical text dynamic translation of the Bible, they do not have a formal textus receptus translation, yet their bible has many of the same promises as yours do about preservation of the word, What if they held their translation up, and claimed it was perfect based on those promises and told you that your English KJV is corrupt because it differs from their translation. How would their methodology and philosophy be any different than the current view of the KJV amongst many IFB? I will be the first to grant you that I don't think the critical text based Lugbara Bible is a fully accurate Bible, but what about God's promise of preservation? If in 2020 that means we have to have a perfect English Translation, then surely that promise must mean the same thing for the Lugbara person in Uganda? And yet the Lugbara do not have what any TR or KJV Only advocate would argue is a perfect Bible. And there are hundreds of languages that do not have the a translation that is the equivalent of the KJV in their language. Did God's promise of preservation fail all of these people who speak these languages? Or is it more likely that our understanding and application of God's promises of preservation are inconsistent and erroneous? I have to ask, is there any Biblical reason for giving primacy to English? and at that to a particular translation in 1611? [technically 1769 is the edition of the KJV most used] People make arguments about English being a popular language today and that God knew that, But God inspired his word in Hebrew and Hebrew never did become a dominate world language. This is an argument based on opinion and supposition rather than actual promise Good made. People make arguments about the superiority of the KJV translators using the correct text, (Which by the way I happen to agree with) but just because they used the right text, does not necessitate that their translation is perfect. People make arguments about the superior skills of the KJV translators, and while I agree they were great scholars, that still doesn't somehow mean 100% perfect translation. I guess my point is, from my point of view, believing in the KJV as being perfect really does not seem to based on a sound, and consistent application of God's promise to preserve his word, Belief in the KJV has being perfect seems to stem more from a predetermined position and then that presupposition forced back onto God's promises. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that explains how or why God's promise of preservation changed in 1611 and came to mean some different today in 2020 than it would have in 1610. If the KJV was perfect, and I am not saying that it is or isn't, Its impossible to prove that based on what the Bible says alone, because if I can't claim the Geneva Bible is perfect in 1599 based on God's promise of preservation, then I really have no consistency to claim the KJV is perfect in 2020 based on God's promise of preservation. The issue I see is people turn the KJV being perfect into a "faith" issue, but faith is believing what God actually promised, not what we presuppose he promised. unfortunately we have a tendency to misunderstand God's promises and to put words in God's mouth that he did not say. God promise his words would be preserved for all generations, he did NOT promise a perfect translation of that word for every language or for any particular language. There are a little less than 4000 languages without a printed translation of God's word, did God fail here? Or maybe have we misunderstand his promises? An interesting side note and food for thought HERE: When Jesus said his words would not pass away in Luke 21:33, what was he talking about? Was he talking about printed words in a perfect manuscript or translation? As far as I know it would have been around 20-30 years before those words actually would have been written down by any of the Gospel writers? Was the church totally without the words of Jesus for those 20-30 years between when he said that statement and when the Gospel writers wrote them down?
  6. God does not say is word is purified seven times. he says it is like silver purified seven times. The comparison is the to the end product of the purified silver, not the process of getting to the silver. God tells us that Holy Men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and that the scriptures are given by inspiration of God. To claim that God's originally inspired word given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek needed any kind of purifying is heretical nonsense. There are no impurities in what God gives by Inspiration and it needs no purifying. Also the purifying verse has nothing to do with translation. When David wrote that Psalm under Inspiration he was just talking about the pureness of God's word, not some need for it to be purified. End product is in mind, not the process of purification of silver.
  7. Some off the chick tracts can get weird and highly conspiratorial. I would avoid chick tracts.
  8. Thank you Bruce, I appreciate the spirit and attitude that you are manifesting in your posts, even though I think we probably would disagree on this subject.
  9. For the reasons on these pages, I reject the teaching that the “fornication” of Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 refers to fornication within a betrothal period.
  10. https://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Remarriage-Christian-Spectrum-Multiview/dp/0830812830 I just recently finished reading this, I found it helpful.
  11. With JW's I always ask if they know they have eternal life and then begin a conversation about 1 John 5:11-13. With Mormons I have not really come up with an approach. In my opinion I would rather talk to a JW than a Mormon because with Mormon doctrine there are SOOO many terms and false teaching to unravel.
  12. By definition preservation cannot "take time to get it around", that would not be preservation. Preservation by definition is maintaining the existence of something already in existence. Translation is taking God's word which existed in the source text languages, and then taking it into the new language. It's not preservation if the word of God never existed in that language to begin with. It seems like you are confusing "preservation" of God's word with "propagation" of God's word. Do you think the first TR translation in any language is the "perfect preserved" word of God for that language? If so, why not accept any of the earlier English TR translations and reject the KJV as spurious? If you don't think the first TR language in any translation is the "perfect preserved" word of God in that language, at what point and using what criteria do you determine which translation is the "perfect preserved" word of God for that language?
  13. You can correct me if I am wrong. but It seems that you are making an appeal more on the basis of pragmatic use rather than what God actually promised. It seems that you are implying that people not having a preserved word is of no use to them, therefore God must have preserved his word for all people? To try and draw out and prove a point, allow me to ask some questions. IF, God's promise of preservation somehow means perfect translations in every language, consider the following: There are over 7,000 languages spoken in the world today, many of those languages have no translation of God's word, and many many of them only have Critical Text based translations, many of them even being dynamic equivalent translations. In other words, there are many languages that do not have the equivalent to the KJV in terms of source text and translational methodology. IF God's promise to preserve his word NECESSITATES that every language have a "perfect" translation... then we can ONLY conclude 2 things if we accept that premise: 1. God failed to keep his promise 2. The KJV is not actually the perfect preserved translation God promised. Some questions to ponder in relation to this, for all of those languages that do not have Textus Receptus based translation that reads like the KJV: Why does God's promise of preservation not apply to them, but it does to English? What about pre-1611? Was God's promise of preservation unfilled until 1611? On what basis does one pick one specific language (English) and a specific translation (KJV) and claim that translation in that particular language is the perfect preserved word of God? Are God's promises of preservation different for English speakers than other languages? Do English speaking people have some special elevated status in God's eyes than other language speakers? Alternatively I would like to suggest a 3rd option, which is that we are misunderstanding the promises of preservation that God actually made and reading into his promises our own presuppositions.
  14. This is a worthwhile statement with substance that few seem to interact with or even address.
  15. This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.
  16. That’s not what the Gospel of John says John 20:30-31 KJV [30] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: [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.
  17. I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes.
  18. I have no interest in discussing something with someone who wants to keep caricaturing my position as being more concerned with catering to the reader than accuracy of word choice. You keep asserting this false either or fallacy and It’s quite annoying. The whole point of Bible Translation in the first place is to put the words of God from Hebrew and Greek into language understood by the reader. Not one single person in this thread has advocated for making any changes that would diminish meaning, yet you keep making unfounded accusations that those in favor of any kind of update simply don’t care about accuracy. Just because you keep repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it true.
  19. Well John. The fact that you accuse me of a lack of care about word accuracy tell me you know very little about my actual position. As I stated repeatedly over and over again that I was not for making any changes that caused a loss in meaning. Secondly, you stated "Just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning. " This is ironic to me, you seem to assume that because two words are different that it ALWAYS means there is a distinction in the meaning. John, you need to go and read the KJV translators to the readers because they themselves would disagree with you on the point you are making. In their preface they talk about how others were criticizing them for not translating a particular Hebrew word consistently but how they chose to use SYNONYMS for various reasons. You can find numerous places in the KJV where the translators used a variety of synonyms to translate one particular word and in some of those cases it would simply a stylistic choice or a choice based on any of the various reasons they stated in their preface for doing so. "Chalking up word accuracy to mere Superstitions or archaism " John that is an extremely gross misrepresentation of my position and I don't see how you could possibly conclude again that I have no care for word accuracy. I am flabbergasted that you would make such an accusation. you said "just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning." John, you have an assumption that different word choices ALWAYS mean a difference in precise meaning, which is NOT the case. Sometimes yes there are some "synonyms" that have slightly difference nuances and connotative meanings. But that is NOT always the case. And you are in error to make that assumption. you said "they have almost an eagerness to constantly change the word to suit their culture's tastes and flairs and flings rather than change their culture to suit the word. In rejecting the rock of historic stability they seek the ever shifting winds and raging waves of cultural, idiomatic, and doctrinal change to carry their language." This is NONSENSICAL John, you are trying to equate people wanting to having the Bible in modern vernacular and using language that makes it sound like they are no better than someone who literally changes the meaning of the word of God to fit the culture. I have zero desire to change the meaning of God's word to fit our corrupt culture. Wanting to put the King James Bible into modern english is not in the same category as something like the "Queen James Bible" that was put out which removed all reference to sodomy. The fact that you would try to act like anyone trying to take the bible and put it into modern vernacular is in the same category as something like that is mind boggling to me. again you stated " The ability to properly translate and update must come from a place of desiring biblical and logistical accuracy and historic stability first and foremost or your self desire of fickle cultural pandering will lead only to corruption of the text." These accusations are ridiculous John. If you actually read what I said carefully, you would realize that I place a premium on "logistical accuracy". My guess is that you place anyone who disagrees with you into the category of not caring about "logistical accuracy". The cultural pandering accusation is insane John. John, when you speak to people and preach your sermons, do you say every word or phrase in King James style English? No you do not. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of "cultural pandering"? Is speaking in a style that is close to your audience cultural pandering John? You and I know it isn't. You apply one standard to one area, and another standard to another. Why is it ok for a preacher to get up and spend time explaining the meanings of archaic words, but it wouldn't be ok to just put that better understood word the preacher used into the text instead. Tell me John, What meaning has one lost if one says "The Lord is my shepherd I shall not lack" rather than "The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want". You can argue about style and whatever all day, but what MEANING has been lost. What NUANCE has been lost John? Your argument rests on the simple accusation that anyone who wants to update words is going to eventually lose meaning and nuance. And your accusation is simply false. Also your verses that your quote are completely out of context. I hope this is not how to teach people to handle and use the word of God. First of all, If the passage in Proverbs mean what you actually says it does, then you better stop using the KJV and go back to one of the Older English Bibles, because the KJV certainly was a change. Ephesians 4:14 has nothing to with taking the bible and putting it into an accurate modern vernacular. Maybe we should all go back to using Wycliffe's old english translation, after all we should not meddle with those given to change right? and if we just ask God for wisdom he will help us understand Wycliffe, and if you disagree with me it's just because you are tossed about with the wind. Come on John, Don't use the Bible as your bludgeoning board to attack anyone who disagrees with you.
  20. 1 Corinthians 14:7-9 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
  21. This is based on the Flesch Kincaid evaluation which is really flawed. That method mainly focuses on syllable length and sentence length. it does not take into account difficult/archaic grammatical structure nor does it take into account archaic word difficulty or archaic idioms. As for perfectly understanding the KJV, you might think you perfectly understand it but I highly doubt that. Even if you perfectly understand it now, I highly doubt you always have. I am constantly finding things in the KJV that I have misunderstood and have to had to refine in my own understanding. My Bible is full of synonyms I have written in the margins and explanations of certain idioms and such as a fruit of my own studying of the word of God. The first time I read Psalm 23:1 Years ago I had no idea “want” did not mean desire but instead meant “to lack”. I have heard some refer to words like these as “false friends”, meaning they are words that you think you know the meaning, but because you are unaware that it has an archaic meaning and has changed meaning you won’t be as likely to look the word up in a dictionary. The whole “look things up in a dictionary” is hard to do if you don’t even realize a word you are reading has changed meaning. Jim, I sincerely doubt you have not had many occasions through your Christian life where you did not have similar things happen with words. It’s one thing to have a more mature understanding of the KJV after having had years of reading, studying, and hearing it preached. It’s quite another to pick it up and read it not having gone through all that. Learning the King James English is almost like learning a new way of speaking and reading. When I first started reading the KJV 10 years ago I was frequently frustrated with some of the archaic words and there were many times where I assumed a word or phrase meant one thing and then later learned it meant something else. I have a hard time believing that anyone else’s experience has not been the same. Let’s not pretend like the KJV is just like the normal or even formal English that we use today. There is a huge learning curve to being able to read, understand, and handle the KJV skillfully.
  22. I would refuse to use a new update without first having it next the KJV. I would want to diligently check it against the KJV while reading through it.
  23. I would like to give my opinion here as a King James Bible believer and defender, but also as one with a background in Linguistics, training in Bible Translation and as someone who has deeply studied the Bible both in English and in Greek and Hebrew. First of all, many Modern Translations are rightly criticized for their corrupt source texts and bad translation methodology. However, what you largely see here is a superstitious commitment to the particular word choices of the KJV translators that even they would not have agreed with. Even in the preface to the KJV they talked about how they were purposely NOT consistent in translating a particular Hebrew or Greek word consistently and they basically admitted to doing it for stylistic reasonings. They acknowledged that there is a certain measure of liberty in Bible translation, which if you study Hebrew and Greek this is absolutely true. There really is such a thing as saying things multiple different ways. English as a language is a hodge-podge of many other languages, there is latin, greek, old english, and old germanic influence. It’s very common in English to have one word meaning something with its root in say latin, and then to have synonym words from the other languages like greek and germanic. I can’t think of any specific examples but to give you somewhat of an idea “Father” comes from Old Germanic, while words like “paternal” “patriarchy” come from Greek. Because of English being a hodge podge of other languages it tends to have a very large vocabularly and we often have multiple synonyms for a particular word or concept. Another thing about Language is it is constantly changing and evolving, this happens less with languages that are written (like English) but it does still happen. Most people assume language always tends to dumb down, but this not true, sometimes it tends to become more succinct, sometimes things just simply change. There are several advantages to the English found in the KJV, I particularly like the precision of the distinctions found between thee, thou and you/ye. I would never want these distinctions to be eliminated in a translation. In fact I am in favor of keeping all things in the translation that give more precise accuracy. However there is definitely archaic language in the KJV that is not absolutely necesary and I find to be frustrating. For example “fetch a compass” is quite an old english idiom meaning “to go around”, in Hebrew there is nothing about an actual compass, the KJV translators just used one of their idioms of the day. It is not necessary for us to retain this idiom. I suspect that the original readers of the KJV probably had a much easier time with the words, phrases, and grammar of the translation than even I do having read it every day for almost 10 years, having a bible college degree, and having a background in linguistics. And this is simply due to the fact that the English that we speak today is much different than the English from the time the KJV was translated. First of all, the KJV is Anglican English, and we speak American English, and secondly It's a older style of English. I think there is a serious downplay and underestimating of just how different the English of the KJV is to today's English. When I go to Uganda, they speak "English". "English" is the official language of Uganda. But their English is an English they picked up from being a British Colony, and furthermore they speak their English with a lot of African influence. Some words mean completely different things. For example "pants", in Uganda means "underwear". Their idioms are completely different, they don't say "pick me up at 10Am" tomorrow, they say "pick me", they don't say "I will call you on the phone" they say "I will flash you with the phone". It just goes to show how much difference two different forms of "English" can be. The point I am making is that languages can change significantly over time and geographic location. Now, that's not to say that every single subset of American culture needs their own translation as someone else mentioned. We do have more of a formal style in America that we universally tend to us in more formal, professional, or academic settings. I do think it could be helpful and beneficial to have the King James put into a modern American formal style. The Bible does take study to understand, I will agree as someone having put in uncounted hours into. But personally I find it frustrating how frequently I have to look words up in the Bible due to archaic language and idioms. There is no reason to force someone to have to run to a dictionary to define a word like “besom” when a word like “broom” would be accurate, sufficient and easier to understand. Just because some word or phrase is archaic does not necessarily mean that it is “more accurate” or “better” or that it “has more depth”. Contrary to some of the opinions and feelings of other, it is actually possible to take the KJV and put it into modern english without changing or losing meaning. Personally I would be in favor of an update as long as it truly stuck to updating things without changing or losing meaning. The NKJV and MEV have gone beyond that and I reject them. I think the KJV is a masterpiece and an excellent translation, I have found no errors in it, but because of it’s age, in some places it is unnecessarily difficult to understand. Again, the key word is unnecssarily. Some people simply resort to the talking point of “well you just need to stop being lazy and study”, I personally don’t want people to have to continually run to dictionaries if they don’t have to. Now if the archaic word or reading is somehow more acccurate and give's more distinction, then I am in favor of keeping it. But there is a lot of archaic stuff in the KJV that is NOT necessary in that regard. You know it’s funny and this might be off topic, but some of the same people I know who tell you to run to a dictionary if you don’t understand an English word, are the same people that reject, or mock the studying of Hebrew or Greek using Hebrew or Greek dictionaries. I have never understood how some of the people out there that mock things like "scholarship" want you to turn around and run to an English Dictionary that is the work of an English scholar. In my opinion, the goal of Bible translation should be to eliminate as much "scholarship" between the Word of God and the Reader while still being faithful to what God said and not adding or removing anything that God has said. If the goal of the word of God is for people to understand it, then shouldn't we remove as many barriers as possible to the understanding as long as we are not changing anything of substance or meaning? I am NOT saying to dumb down the translation to the point of losing meaning. I believe it is a false dichotomy to say that you either have to dumb down the Bible or that you have to retain every archaism found in the KJV. What I see a lot of nowadays is “practical Ruckmanism”, Ruckman taught that the KJV itself as a translation was given by inspiration and that the KJV translators were inspired like the original writers of the OT and NT. Out of this Theological doctrine flows practices like holding to the archaic language of the KJV and rejecting and concept of modernizing and updating the English Translation. I’ve even seen it gone so far as to cling to archaic spelling (think british Saviour vs American Savior or British Shew vs American Show) What you see often are many people who would claim to reject Ruckmans doctrine, behaving as if they believed it. The archaic language of the English from the time of KJV is not some holy elevated language.
  24. What about all the people translating the received texts into foreign languages? Are all these new language translations doomed to lacking depth and accuracy?
×
×
  • Create New...