POLL: Correcting the Greek With the English

[MilkmanDan]

*shrug* None of the above.

I believe the Textus Receptus is the inerrant inspired Word of God and that the KJV is the inerrant and inspired through preservation Word of God for English Speaking People.

If I spoke Greek, then the TR would be my copy of the Word of God. Since I speak English, I use the KJV.

Just because words are changed in translation does not mean it has errors...even the NT translates things differently from the OT because of the differences between Hebrew and Greek.

God says its inerrant and that He will preserve His Word through all generations and the history behind the KJV tells us that it is that preserved Word of God. However, it doesn't make the TR any less the Word of God.

Ditto..........

[Brother Rick]

I believe the Textus Receptus is the inerrant inspired Word of God and that the KJV is the inerrant and inspired through preservation Word of God for English Speaking People.

The TR is missing half of that verse. The KJV and the TR clash on this verse. It's not a matter of adding a word here and there to make the language read better - the KJV translators inserted the words and had no TR authority to do it. They were correct in doing it!

Six times in I Cor. 14 the word "unknown" is in italics. It's talking about tongues. The word "unknown" completly changes the interpretation of the entire chapter. "He that prayeth in a tongue..." verses "He that prayeth in an unknown tongue..." The translators of the KJV had no TR authority to add this word. They were right in adding it though! Do you believe the promise of Ps. 12:6-7?

One can not stick with the TR as being perfect and the KJV as being perfect. God preserved His word, perfect and entire for us in the King James Bible, we need nothing else nor should we seek anything else but that.

I have no prOBlem with someone useing "the Greek" or any other source to help him understand the word of God, but the word of God is not the Greek, it is preserved for us in the King James Bible. Edited June 11, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Anon]

I do agree we do not "correct" our Bible with the Greek, but the Greek is there to further understand it...for instance, the three types of "love": agape, phileo, and eros.

The prOBlem with throwing out the TR is that there are more languages than just English in the world. The TR is the Word of God, perfect and inspired. As I mentioned, history tells us that the KJV is the proper preserved, inspired Word of God for ENGLISH speaking people. Other languages should have Bibles translated from the TR (NOT from the KJV) for them to read.

As a sort of a crazy example...when I do a purse cake, I look at an original purse to copy. I do not copy another purse cake, because the more times I copy a cake, the more chance there is to get away from the original. I get the most accurate rendition of a purse by going from the original. Whenever I make another purse, I still do not look at my last purse cake, I go straight, again, to the original purse.

[HappyChristian]

Have to say that I agree with Kita, Jerry8, trc, BroMatt...

I love my KJB. But there are times that knowing the Greek meaning behind a word (NOT changing the word!) expands the thought in a verse...and there is nothing wrong with that. Anymore than there is anything wrong with using a dictionary.

I used to work for Evangelist Joe Boyd. He was a KJVO (long before PR...) who actually read the NT in Greek for his devotions often. And I've not met many men who knew the Bible like that man!!

If the KJB is the only way we have God's Word, then those who don't speak English are out of luck. Using the KJB to translate into other languages is actually harder than using the TR, because of the changes that had to be done when they transliterated words from the Greek, creating new English words...that don't exist in other languages.

"Great peace have they that love they law, and NOTHING shall offend them."

[Brother Rick]

I do agree we do not "correct" our Bible with the Greek, but the Greek is there to further understand it...for instance, the three types of "love": agape, phileo, and eros.

The prOBlem with throwing out the TR is that there are more languages than just English in the world. The TR is the Word of God, perfect and inspired. As I mentioned, history tells us that the KJV is the proper preserved, inspired Word of God for ENGLISH speaking people. Other languages should have Bibles translated from the TR (NOT from the KJV) for them to read.

As a sort of a crazy example...when I do a purse cake, I look at an original purse to copy. I do not copy another purse cake, because the more times I copy a cake, the more chance there is to get away from the original. I get the most accurate rendition of a purse by going from the original. Whenever I make another purse, I still do not look at my last purse cake, I go straight, again, to the original purse.

I greatly appreciate that you and others here love the KJV and respect it, so please don't take anything I say as anything other than friendly discussion.

The TR is not the originals. It is copies of copies of copies of it. If you were to translate straight from the TR to another language, you would get an excellent Bible, but it would not and should not be labeled a King James Bible - because the King James Bible and the TR Bible are different, *in some ways* like the KJV and the NKJV are different.

A Bible translated straight from the TR today would omit the word "unknown" all six times from I Cor. 14, and it would omit the second half (all ten words - every word of God is pure!) of I John 2:23.

We get in an uproar over the NKJV for changing key passages, but the NKJV agrees with the TR in I Cor 14 and disagrees with the KJV.

In I John 2:23, the NKJV agrees with the KJV, but the TR agrees with neither of them.

The TR is the best and most reliable Greek manuscript today. But it is not the originals, and it is not the perfect word of God. The King James Bible is the perfect word of God, and therefore it should be the one that people translate from. When you have the KJV and the TR disagreeing, escpecially in key doctinal areas such as I Cor. 14 - they can't both be the word of God. If we had the originals, then fine, I would definitly be in favor of translating from them - but we do not. We have the preserved and perfect word of God in the KJB.

[Anon]

Well, the TR has to be copies of copies because it was such a well-used book. The prOBlem comes in when people find "unused" manuscripts...not correct, because they were left unused. God promises preservation, and that means copies...

[Brother Rick]

Well, the TR has to be copies of copies because it was such a well-used book. The prOBlem comes in when people find "unused" manuscripts...not correct, because they were left unused. God promises preservation, and that means copies...

Amen, amen, and amen sister! That is why when they label the Siniaticus and the Vaticanus the "oldest and best manuscripts" they are dead wrong. The Siniaticus was found in a trash can in Rome, and the Catholic Church had the Vaticanus locked away from the public until the 1800s.

The real soul winners were using the TR and the Old Latin Vulgate. When the KJB entered the scene, the real soul winners were using it and our nation was its holiest when the KJB was the only one in the nation. Edited June 11, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Brother Rick]

These are some quotes by Jack Hyles that I thought you guys might like:

"Let me explain what I mean when I say that the King James Bible contains the words of God. I believe that every word in the King James Bible is God's Word."

"That revelation which God inspired has been preserved as He said He would preserve it for these 6,000 years, which means we still have those very words..."

"If the only place in the world where we have a word-for-word inspired Bible is in the original that means that today there is no book that contains the words of God."

"I'm tired of colleges and universities advertising that they use the King James Bible. Tell the whole story! Tell everyone that you do not believe that it is inspired word for word..."

http://www.lovethetruth.com/bible/KJB/dr_jack_hyles.htm

[Anon]

Why would we want to hear quotes from Jack Hyles?

[Brother Rick]

Why would we want to hear quotes from Jack Hyles?

Why are you being like this?

Why not read a couple of his quotes?

Is he a "bad guy" or something around here?

Last time I checked he did some amazing things for the Lord before he died, do you not have respect for that? Edited June 11, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Anon]

Oh...I was just curious. Sorry, I wasn't trying to be a snot...I just...didn't know why. Sorry.

I guess I'm getting sick of any of this man-following thing.... too many IFB preachers have gotten too involved in telling church members what to do instead of leading their souls.

[Brother Rick]

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I agree with you on the man following thing, we're only to follow as they follow Christ and no where are we to idolize them.

You know what's interesting? Where the KJV says, "Follow me as I follow Christ..." the NKJV says, "Imitate me as I imitate Christ..." Big difference, huh?

What sparked my interest was my latest hOBby of delving into church history. I'm trying to learn more about Christian leaders throughout the 1900s. We ditched cable (much to my shagrin because of the NBA playoffs) a couple months ago because of finances. It's been a really good thing for us (no brainer) because we have more time for each other and more time for reading (no brainer).

Edited June 11, 2010 by Rick Schworer

[Anon]

I think the prOBlem isn't really with the translation of the word "follow" but moreso the fact that nOBody in America can understand true English anymore...our language is really degenerating.

Interestingly enough, a branch off the Ruckmanites are really into "Paul-following".... which is sort of that ultra-hyper dispensationalist belief system I guess.

[Brother Rick]

Interestingly enough, a branch off the Ruckmanites are really into "Paul-following".... which is sort of that ultra-hyper dispensationalist belief system I guess.

I'm not sure I know what you mean. If you're talking about the nuts who idolize Ruckman, they are affectionatly called "Doc-heads" and I don't know anyone that is level headed that encourages their behaviour. Hyles has his share of those types too, it's wrong.

But if you mean "Paul Following" as in getting the lion's share of our doctrine from Romans, Ephesians, etc... then I agree with that principle, and it's not really a "Ruckman teaching".

That doesn't mean we should exclude other books of the Bible, but when Jesus said we're to pray for our enemies and love them that dispitefully use us and then in Joshua they're told to kill thier enemies... well, as much as we'd like to get our doctrine from Joshua we'd better go with Jesus.

[Anon]

I know of a guy who was a pastor (not really anymore...kinda....well long story...) and usually when he preaches, he says "Paul" about 79 times and "Jesus" or "God" maybe twice.

And was it Paul who said that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration, and is "profitable"?