The Town Hall Forum Index The Town Hall Archives
Ahh, the nostalgia.
 
  SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   Log inLog in 

A Problem
 
   The Town Hall Forum Index -> Impolite Company Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tianlet
New Citizen


Joined: 19 Mar 2005
Posts: 50
Location: Indiana

PostPosted: Tue May 03, 2005 6:45 pm    Post subject:

Gandalf wrote:
Speaking of French and German, this has always been one major problem for me as far as the KJV only position goes. Some KJV only people believe that God inspired the translation and it is perfectly preserved in every meaning. I have to ask the question though, why is this belief only held by English speakers? One doesn't hear a lot of French or German (the two oldest translations outside of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) people claiming that the KJV is the only inspired Word of God.
And how can we, as English speakers, be so proud and arrogant as to think that we are the only ones who have received God's Word? I have seen this argument taken to the extend that all people must learn English in order to read the Bible. This is not only wrong but damnable. The entire point of the KJV was to put it into the hands of peasants and uneducated people so they could understand it for themselves.


Why can't the French and Germans have the preserved Word of God in their own languages? Are you limiting God's power to preserve His Word in more than one language? The King James Version is the preserved Word in English. There may be other in other languages.

Gandalf wrote:
Now though, people that cling to the KJV as the 'only inspired preserved Word of God' are doing the very thing that the translators of the KJV tried to prevent. I challenge you to take the KJV, place it in the hands of a 15-year old from the inner-city and ask them what John 3:16 or Acts 16:31 means. Chances are, he simply won't be able to tell you. You're preventing God's Word from reaching the hands of the undereducated, underpriveledged, and non-English speakers. But don't worry, you're in good company with the Roman Catholic Church of the 1500's. This stance is very similar to the one they held when they burned William Tyndale and other Bible translators.


There is a very very simple answer to this one: SO EDUCATE THEM! People need a better education than the current Welfare State is affording them. But that is another discussion for another day. Do you know that the Puritans educated their children for one reason: to allow them to read the Bible. They passed a piece of legislation called "The Old Deluder Satan Act" to that end, so that their children would have a defence against the Devil (i.e. the Holy Bible).
Gandalf
Cursor Always on Submit Button Member


Joined: 30 Nov 2002
Posts: 876
Location: Desolation

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 1:05 am    Post subject:

Tianlet wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Speaking of French and German, this has always been one major problem for me as far as the KJV only position goes. Some KJV only people believe that God inspired the translation and it is perfectly preserved in every meaning. I have to ask the question though, why is this belief only held by English speakers? One doesn't hear a lot of French or German (the two oldest translations outside of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew) people claiming that the KJV is the only inspired Word of God.
And how can we, as English speakers, be so proud and arrogant as to think that we are the only ones who have received God's Word? I have seen this argument taken to the extend that all people must learn English in order to read the Bible. This is not only wrong but damnable. The entire point of the KJV was to put it into the hands of peasants and uneducated people so they could understand it for themselves.


Why can't the French and Germans have the preserved Word of God in their own languages? Are you limiting God's power to preserve His Word in more than one language? The King James Version is the preserved Word in English. There may be other in other languages.


Aren't you limiting God's power to preserve His Word in more than one English translation? After all, if God can preserve His Word perfectly in every language, why can't He preserve it in more than one English translation?

The point is that God chooses NOT to preserve His word in ANY language but Greek and Hebrew. All translations, Latin, French, German, KJV, NIV, NKJV, NASB have errors in them. Why did God choose to do this? I believe because He wants us to really seek Him. It's wonderful that people can have God's Word in their language, but there comes a point in one's spiritual walk when he really needs to dig, get deeper, spend some time researching and studying in order to find the best gems of God's Word. If God's Word were perfected in our language, we wouldn't really have to do that and reading His Word would become a meaningless task.

Another problem with your theory: there are very few, if any translations that agree 100%. I'd wager that if you compare the KJV with the oldest French translation, there will be differing meanings in dozens, if not hundreds, of places. Same for German. Does this mean that God had different meanings in mind for different 'races' when He 'preserved' His word in their language?

And I still say we have no proof or reason to believe that the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word of God (in English or any other language). I see nothing but a faith that comes from no facts, no reason, and no logic to make one believe that the KJV is the only inspired Word of God.

Tianlet wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Now though, people that cling to the KJV as the 'only inspired preserved Word of God' are doing the very thing that the translators of the KJV tried to prevent. I challenge you to take the KJV, place it in the hands of a 15-year old from the inner-city and ask them what John 3:16 or Acts 16:31 means. Chances are, he simply won't be able to tell you. You're preventing God's Word from reaching the hands of the undereducated, underpriveledged, and non-English speakers. But don't worry, you're in good company with the Roman Catholic Church of the 1500's. This stance is very similar to the one they held when they burned William Tyndale and other Bible translators.


There is a very very simple answer to this one: SO EDUCATE THEM! People need a better education than the current Welfare State is affording them. But that is another discussion for another day. Do you know that the Puritans educated their children for one reason: to allow them to read the Bible. They passed a piece of legislation called "The Old Deluder Satan Act" to that end, so that their children would have a defence against the Devil (i.e. the Holy Bible).


In idealogy I agree, however I disagree with your conclusion. On one hand it's outrageous that children who have grown up in a conservative Church don't understand what 'thee', 'thou', 'shalt', etc. mean. On the other hand, by forcing children from the inner city to learn 'proper' or KJV English before they can understand the Word of God is, again, back where the Catholic Church was in the 1500's.

English Parliment (they, not the Puritans, passed "The Old Deluder Satan Act" I believe) wanted to teach their children to read and write so they could read the Bible, yes. However, they did not force them to learn a new language in order to read the Bible. The KJV, as beautiful and epic as it is, is simply not the same language that the common person speaks today. It's going to take a lot more than simply teaching reading and writing for a child to be able to understand the KJV Bible.
Continental Admiral
Ornery Member


Joined: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 867

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 1:56 pm    Post subject:

Gandalf wrote:
English Parliment (they, not the Puritans, passed "The Old Deluder Satan Act" I believe) wanted to teach their children to read and write so they could read the Bible, yes.


Here.

Beyond that, the King James Version isn't that horrible (I.e., hard) to read. John 3:16 quite clearly states just what it says, and if a child can't somehow understand the KJV, I have a hard time seeing how it would understand some other versions.

New International Version: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

King James Version
: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

(Note: I'm not using this argument to say that the KJV is the preserved Word of God.)
Gandalf
Cursor Always on Submit Button Member


Joined: 30 Nov 2002
Posts: 876
Location: Desolation

PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2005 9:09 pm    Post subject:

My pardon, it was indeed a colony government that passed the Old Deluder Satan Act. Embarassed Thank you for correcting me. Actually, when I think about it I'm pretty sure I knew that. "The Old Deluder Satan Act" is commonly used by Christian American historians to prove that we have a Biblical/Christian background. Cool

the KJV translation of John 3:16 is understandable to us because we 1) know what it means and 2) have grown up hearing it. How many inner-city kids know what 'begotten', 'perish', 'believeth', etc. mean? And yes, some of these words are indeed used in translations like the NIV, NKJV, etc. That doesn't mean they are understandable to everyone either. No translation is perfect. And I could probably post some verse from the KJV that most people, even people who only read the KJV, have no real idea what it's trying to say.

The KJV isn't horrible at all and, as I've said, I enjoy reading it. It's merely NOT the 'preserved Word of God'. It isn't perfect. It's closer than some other translations (especially the NIV) but it also has some errors, mis-translations, and out-of-date translations in it.
Elrohir
New Citizen


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 4:19 pm    Post subject:

NAS took out references to the word 'dragon' in the Old Testament. What's up with that?!
Jonathan
Dungeon Master


Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 2254
Location: Minnesota and/or North Dakota

PostPosted: Thu May 05, 2005 6:40 pm    Post subject:

What is NAS and what references are you referring to?

-Jonathan
Elrohir
New Citizen


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2005 8:16 pm    Post subject:

In New American Standard dragons are only refered to 3 times in the Old Testament. The word "dragon" appears six times, and "dragons" appears 16 times in the JKV Old Testament. NAS replaced dragon with some other word like jackal or serpent, as if they were trying to deny they existed.
Display posts from previous:   
   The Town Hall Forum Index -> Impolite Company All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group