| Apr 14 @ 8:34 AM |
The KJV Only controversy
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,236
|
God will preserve his Word The KJV Only controversy Fourth Sunday after Pentecost, 1996
http://davnet.org/kevin/articles/preserve_word.html
But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. [James 3:17 NASB]
A new translation of the Bible was published. It strove to make God's word clearer using the best available ancient texts rendered in modern language. Nevertheless, it was met with a storm of opposition from those that claimed that it "changed God's Word". That new translation was what we call today the King James Version. The translators of this new Bible translation penned these words:
Whosoever attempteth anything for the public (especially if it pertain to Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same setteth himself upon a stage to be gloated upon by every evil eye, yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue. For he that medleth with men's Religion in any part, medleth with their custom, nay, with their freehold; and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.
From The Translator to the Reader in the 1611 edition of the Authorized King James Version.
Now, over 400 years later, the same attacks that were brought against the King James version have been marshaled against the translations of today.
One might think that the choice of a Bible translation was a personal thing. No one can fault those that choose the King James Version, whether for the beauty of its language or for the love of the words through which they first heard the Gospel of Christ. But the King James Only movement is more than a preference for a translation; it has become almost a religion in itself. The picture above, showing the Bible enthroned as king (instead of Christ) is from one of their web sites. Here are points where the King James Only movement has departed from what is acceptable Christian behavior:
The movement slanders the good names of dedicated scholars and Christians who work as textual critics and Bible translators.
The movement uses the techniques of propaganda to manipulate others through emotion rather than reason.
The movement spreads falsehoods about the available Greek texts of the New Testament.
The movement spreads falsehoods about modern Bible translations.
The movement fosters division between Christians over the choice of translation.
The movement fosters division between Christians through anti-Catholic rhetoric. Very interesting take on this bible version, thoughts? The KJV controversy
|
|
  |
|
| Apr 14 @ 9:05 AM |
The KJV Only controversy |
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,865
|
Yash,
The problem is not just in the translation as I see it from outside looking in. I think if it was only the use of words, there would be little dispute.
Theologians creating new bible translations, however, have in the process of translating introduced their own beliefs and actually changed the message of the texts. If a translator doesn't agree with something, they have been know to actually delete whole verses and passages.
Any translation will reflect the beliefs of the translator and the religious group he has associated himself with.
Peace
|
| |
|
| Apr 14 @ 9:48 AM |
The KJV Only controversy
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,236
|
I agree yet people go on fooling themselves into believe the words written in the bible are the actual words of a mystical God and a borrowed myth of a man called Jesus.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 14 @ 12:11 PM |
The KJV Only controversy |
|
eastham
Posts: 7,907
|
The English translation of the Bible commissioned by King James I (James VI of Scotland, for anyone who is counting) was as much a political document as a religious one.
While Henry VIII is credited with bringing Protestantism to England, he really did not. Despite naming himself as head of the English Church, little changed theologically under Henry. The change came under his son, Edward. During the reign of the "Boy King", clerical abstinence and the Roman Catholic liturgy that had continued under his father's reign was replaced by that now known today as Protestant. Reformation minded clerics like Cranmer, etc brought forth the Book of Common Prayer and the 42-articles.
Following the adoption of the Book of Common Prayer and through the reign of Mary and later Elizabeth, the English translation of the Bible used officially by Anglican clerics changed from the largely Catholic Bible to the Geneva (Calvin) Bible. Nothing appealed.
James called for a new translation, one, he thought, would bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant and would be used at all services and by all denominations. It was meant to be a compromise.
|
| |
|
| Apr 15 @ 1:22 PM |
The KJV Only controversy
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,236
|
Thanks East good information
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 15 @ 2:22 PM |
The KJV Only controversy |
|
eastham
Posts: 7,907
|
So, the KJV was as much a political document as it was a religious one. That said, the Anglican Church does not exclusively use the KJV, despite the fact it was written for them. More often than not, Anglicans use the NIV (New International Version) rather than the KJV.
|
| |
|
| Apr 17 @ 11:46 AM |
The KJV Only controversy
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,236
|
It just makes one wonder what the real original said minus the editing and revisions, not to mention interpretations.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 20 @ 12:36 AM |
The KJV Only controversy |
|
bunnybiz
Posts: 4,758
|
That is why there is a warning in the scriptures about adding or deleting words.
I wondered for a long time what that could me. one word can change everything.
such "this is the day of salvation" instead "this is a day of salvation"
That is why everything thinks you got to get saved today or else.
or mistranslating a word for ages into eternity, everlasting is a real big problem.
God caused this to happen to but He did warned us.
Be blessed.
|
| |
|
| Apr 20 @ 10:38 AM |
The KJV Only controversy
|
|
jamminjerry
Posts: 4,085
|
i think i have a simular POV as Bunny. i am of the opinion that my God does not prevent men or women from altering the bible to suit them and their own opinions. in the same sense i beleive that my God does require the truth to also be there to rebutt the changes. one of the best examples of my POV is the verse matt 15:24. my God required it to be left in the bible so that there would be no confusion as to why Jesus came and to the extent of having Jesus validate this with his own words. there have of course been many changes as to who and why Jesus came but when Jesus says something to me, there is no changing it. we be jammin 
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 21 @ 10:05 AM |
The KJV Only controversy |
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,236
|
The only question there is in reality is who was the author(s) of the words that you read?
|
| |
|
| Apr 21 @ 5:11 PM |
The KJV Only controversy
|
|
Thor1960303
Posts: 3,345
|
I have alot of personal experience with KJV only people. They are, from the ones I have met anyway, the most hard core fundies you're ever going to meet. They're usually the ones you find picketing movies like "Last Temptation of Christ" or Monty Python's "Life of Brian." Very strict on everything from haircuts to dress code. Some of the more rural churches are a little more mellow on dress code, but a woman wearing pants to church is still very much frowned upon and usually the subject warrants a sermon a two a year. In general, they love to argue, not debate, argue. Differences between the KJV and other translations are often called "perversions" by these folks.
|
|
| |
|
| Apr 22 @ 8:36 AM |
The KJV Only controversy |
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,236
|
Thor, I think we in growing up were over exposed to such people....I think most of those people are highly subject to the Mesmer principal of suggestion. If you want a good audience to demonstrate hypnosis on invite a lot of these folks they look so cool when they get down on all fours and bark like a dog... 
I found people like this love to hate supported by their false beliefs they have an attitude of superiority towards anyone who does not believe as they do.
|
| |
|
| Apr 28 @ 11:39 AM |
The KJV Only controversy
|
|
uncrazy
Posts: 2,382
|
When I watch the more fundamentalists become defensive over the inerrancy of bible text, I remember that without this or another similiar point of authority, their world is in danger of being shaken.
My mind remains untroubled when I read the writings of textual critics, even though they point out that there are 400,000 variants in the 170,000 words of the NT. The variants are catalogued using 0ver 5700 Greek texts, over 10,000 Latin texts, and the writings of early christian clergy where they quote text in more original forms.
Reading the critiques of christians on works by textual critics studying the bible books for over 30 years, I notice that so often the christian critic does not appear to address what the scholar has found. It is more typical to see a regurgitation of the approved and accepted truths.
Key points are ignored in mazes of generalities...and the high number of variations is ignored as lacking any significance to inerrancy.
Interesting pieces I discovered in a book first published in 1926 showed how long some information has been in the public domain without the people in the pews being told anything by the learned clergies charge to teach.
The churchmen behave as if no knowledge or information has been forthcoming since the original writings, and what we have today is what was originally writtten.
Two pieces that prompted further research for me were the line in the creed he descended into hell and the story of the woman taken in adultery where one is without sin can throw the stone. Both were none existent in the texts of creed and the bible before around 600CE. These things shake the approved dogma, and questions to the clergy are not easily answered.
A second area of study is the meanings of simple words in the bible books that have assumed new definitions within the christian framework. Some are so different to what they meant within the Jewish society and temple structure that birthed christianity.
Faith based christians declare that mans works mean nothing for salvation, even though our works will be judged to determine fitness for final salvation. While we watch the argument, it is clear that few have ever researched what the referenced "works" meant in the time of Jesus.
To the temple system, being saved and receiving life meant you were circumcised. Jesus and his brother James who head up the "poor" in Jerusalem were in conflict over the circumcism requirement, yet it became a tradition in the Roman church. Jesus was against this requirement. Paul was originally upset about this teaching before his conversion from Pharisee to christian. After that marking of a gentile, the works that the Jews refer to are the Nazarite rules that applied to the community concerning the drinking of wine and celibacy. Nazarites were a sect of the Essenes as were the Therapuets and Ebionites that made up the "poor".
Thus the reference to "works being worthless before God" take on a much different meaning. The bible is saying that neither celibacy or not drinking wine didn't count to God...so much in contrast to what the churches have offered to us.
A similiar idea seen in the christian dogma is that Jesus is the Way. To the temple system at the time, the "Way" meant something much different. The person speaking was teaching out of the authority of his position called the "way" and had been promoted to the level of a deacon. When he spoke from the "truth" he was a bishop, and from the "life" a high priest or what became a cardinal. What a change our use of prepositions and articles have given us.
And for the story of Balaam's ass speaking, we can find the temple position of the second person in the conversation. Off course this makes a miracle go away in the story...actually the miracle doesn't go away, only the authority that derived from the telling of the story about a conversation...and sometimes miracles have only been what the clergy fillede in to explain what had been forgotten.
To claims that words are twisted, they are true, twisting becomes accepted when we don't know our history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|