# Kjv



## earl (Feb 7, 2009)

Not trying to be a smart aleck.  Why would you support some thing that is a version rather than the original ? Yes , I am rather slow.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 8, 2009)

They are all translations from the original language.  I don't see why the folks who translated the KJV got it any more right than those who wrote the NIV, NASB, etc, etc, etc.

I guess I would ask the other end of that question.  Why would you assume that the KJV is a better translation (from the original language) than any of the others. 

Don't you think the scholars of today are just as (or possibly more) adept at translating the original languages as they were 100's of years ago?


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I guess I would ask the other end of that question.  Why would you assume that the KJV is a better translation (from the original language) than any of the others.



  Formal equivalence vrs Dynamic equivalence.


----------



## earl (Feb 8, 2009)

Good questions. T he problem I see with a modern translation would be getting folks to accept it just because it was new.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 8, 2009)

The KJV is not the original.  The original was in Greek and Hebrew and other.
The kjv is one of the translations.  More than one of the newer versions are more accurate than the KJV.  Based solely on the fact that they use better more reliable originals.
Course, some will surely disagree with me.


----------



## crackerdave (Feb 8, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> The KJV is not the original.  The original was in Greek and Hebrew and other.
> The kjv is one of the translations.  More than one of the newer versions are more accurate than the KJV.  Based solely on the fact that they use better more reliable originals.
> Course, some will surely disagree with me.



Yep - there have been many,many,many discussions on this subject,as a quick glance through past threads will tell anyone willing to look.

You ain't slow,earl.You're earl! By the way - do you ever watch the TV show "My Name is Earl?" now,THAT earl is s-l-o-w!


----------



## earl (Feb 8, 2009)

My wife says he is my twin. I'll figure out that search button one of these days . lol


----------



## addictedtodeer (Feb 8, 2009)

earl said:


> Not trying to be a smart aleck.  Why would you support some thing that is a version rather than the original ? Yes , I am rather slow.



3 arguments (nutshell version) for KJV

1)For some it has to do with the words "authorized".

2)For others it has to do with it is the only "English" translation that was done by the English church and supervised by the English church. This is quite an interesting argument. The newer translations have been done by groups of scholars but not supervised by any "church" so one does not know all the motives behind the translator. The idea is that the church should make sure that those who translate the Word of God are lovers of God.

3) For others it is what Greek manuscripts are used

You can get very scholarly when you approach this argument. It gets very interesting the deeper you get.


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> They are all translations from the original language.  I don't see why the folks who translated the KJV got it any more right than those who wrote the NIV, NASB, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> I guess I would ask the other end of that question.  Why would you assume that the KJV is a better translation (from the original language) than any of the others.
> 
> Don't you think the scholars of today are just as (or possibly more) adept at translating the original languages as they were 100's of years ago?


Sorry but none are translations , they are "transliterations"
Hebrew nor Greek can be translated straight into English.
http://www.friktech.com/rel/canon/trans.htm


----------



## Mako22 (Feb 8, 2009)

Go look up Matthew 18:11 in your NIV and tell me what it says, then go look it up in the KJT and see what it says.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 8, 2009)

Woodsman69 said:


> Go look up Matthew 18:11 in your NIV and tell me what it says, then go look it up in the KJT and see what it says.



Then see what the NASB says.  It's more accurate.


----------



## earl (Feb 8, 2009)

When you say english church ,do you mean church of England. I thought the C of E was created to help with a divorce.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 8, 2009)

I grew up on KJV and have studied many years from that version. I don't know if or think that it is more accurate. Some pastors will teach from two or three versions....ie in KJV it says.....and in NIV it says.....same sermon.

My daughter grew up on KJV but studies from another version that includes a bible study for women. We still get the same thing out of both, as far as understanding the word.

My grandfathers Bible was NIV and so was my mother's in their later years. But we still got the same message from each. And I think that has a lot to do with rightly dividing the word and the Holy Spirit, and sitting under a good Bible teacher.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 8, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Then see what the NASB says.  It's more accurate.



 Who killed Goliath in your NASB in 2 Samuel 21:19????

 Never mind I will post it here...2 Sam 21:19-20
19 And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. 
NASB

 is that more accurate than the KJV??? It says the brother of Goliath.....which by the way is correct.....

 I will post it here too..2 Sam 21:19

19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
KJV

 that doesn't look to accurate to me.....


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 8, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Then see what the NASB says.  It's more accurate.



 What about the Blood of Christ???? in the NASB it says this...Col 1:14
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 
NASB

  In the KJV it says this....Col 1:14

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
KJV


 WHERE DID THE BLOOD GO???????  Ronnie which is more accurate???


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 8, 2009)

Oh, that's an easy one.

1 and 2 Samuel both have problems in translating them from the original Hebrew.

In actuality, the NASB translates verse 19 precisely as it appears in the original Hebrew.  There are obviously some controversy with that verse but the NASB translated it from the original.  KJV did not translate that verse exactly as written in the original text.  They made what appears to be the appropriate correction.

Check this site for original text information:  http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=2Sa&chapter=21&verse=19

*Here's a portion of it
sn The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage; in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible. The


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 8, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> What about the Blood of Christ???? in the NASB it says this...Col 1:14
> 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
> NASB
> 
> ...




The NASB is more accurate in sticking to the original text.  Just because it's in the KJV doesn't mean that verse is totally accurate when compared to the original text.

Don't compare the NASB to the KJV, compare the two to the original text.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 8, 2009)

Woodsman69 said:


> Go look up Matthew 18:11 in your NIV and tell me what it says, then go look it up in the KJT and see what it says.



Its not in the NIV because the earlier and more reliable manuscripts do not include this verse. 

You can find the same message thought in Luke 19:10 in the NIV, its not like its not in there, it just shouldn't be here.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 8, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> The NASB is more accurate in sticking to the original text.  Just because it's in the KJV doesn't mean that verse is totally accurate when compared to the original text.
> 
> Don't compare the NASB to the KJV, compare the two to the original text.



AMEN Ronnie... We agree on that one.


----------



## earl (Feb 8, 2009)

With todays science and/or education , why can't these ''problems ''be corrected ?


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 9, 2009)

Thank God it still boils down to the promise of John 3:16.

I've got maybe 6 different Bibles here, no matter which one I use, I still know that I am saved by the blood. I still know that the jews during the passover were saved by the blood of a lamb. I still know that Jesus died on the cross for my sins and that He resurrected and He gives us peace. Peace doesn't mean arguing over everything, every verse of every version. Anybody disagree about the work on the cross?

I have a Catholic friend, well two Catholic friends. I don't know much about their practices at church or going to confession or any of that.
I do know that they believe that Jesus is who He says He is and that He died and rose on the 3rd day for our sins, and by His blood we are forgiven. That's basic....as long as that's clear between us...I'm good with the rest of  whatever they practice, whatever that may be.
Course they do think us Baptists are beneath them....  We've duked it out a bit over that.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 9, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Oh, that's an easy one.
> 
> 1 and 2 Samuel both have problems in translating them from the original Hebrew.
> 
> ...




  HOGWASH, read it in 1cron. 20:5 it corrects it there, but has it wrong in  2 samuel 21:19....

 The fact is the NASB is wrong, and your website is wrong in saying that David and Elhanan are the same and the existence of two goliaths, It was Lahmi the brother of Goliath.....and I dont need a web site to teach me a error about something that I know is right....

 It is funny the length people go to, to justify something that is flat wrong....

 I will stick to the one that has it right and has all the Blood of Christ.....you can teach your kids that there was 2 davids or goliaths if you want.....


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 9, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> The NASB is more accurate in sticking to the original text.  Just because it's in the KJV doesn't mean that verse is totally accurate when compared to the original text.
> 
> Don't compare the NASB to the KJV, compare the two to the original text.



 OK, you bring me all the original texts that you have and we will compare them . 

 I like how people who try to argue or justify the errors, always say go back to the original manuscripts, where are they Ronnie?  How many even exist? [ very few]  How many do you have access to??? [NONE]

  And by the way which manuscripts do you call the originals.... That's a whole new argument....


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 9, 2009)

Well we already know that of course Jesus spoke like Shakespeare and wrote in red pen for his words...

Earl- The modern translations are far more accurate. Those that cling to a KJV only belief are denying the scholarship and work that thousands have put into making sure we have what was written.

NASB is very good NIV is good. NKJV is fine. But please guys the KJV is not even a translation of the greek and aramaic. It's a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. Yes some things are wrong in there.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 9, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Well we already know that of course Jesus spoke like Shakespeare and wrote in red pen for his words...
> 
> Earl- The modern translations are far more accurate. Those that cling to a KJV only belief are denying the scholarship and work that thousands have put into making sure we have what was written.
> 
> NASB is very good NIV is good. NKJV is fine. But please guys the KJV is not even a translation of the greek and aramaic. It's a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. Yes some things are wrong in there.




 OOOOHHHH!!! that justifies the errors, I feel better now.. Now I can tell my kids David and Elhanan were a tag team like on Monday night raw and they both were in the ring when Goliath was Killed......


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 9, 2009)

Not sure where you are coming from Pigpen but if I get the drift of it and you want to sue the KJV that's fine just don't claim it's the only translation that can be used. Or even that it is correct. Because there's too much evidence to the contrary.

And God I am sure wants us to get it right.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 9, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Not sure where you are coming from Pigpen but if I get the drift of it and you want to sue the KJV that's fine just don't claim it's the only translation that can be used. Or even that it is correct. Because there's too much evidence to the contrary.
> 
> And God I am sure wants us to get it right.



 I like all this error stuff, any 9 yr old can pick out the one with error just read them 2 Samuel 21:19.....out of the mouth of babes......


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 9, 2009)

Pigpen,

Are you under the dillusion that you are able to read and interpret better than the literally thousands of biblical scholars that have collaborated to introduce all of these other translations?

Bud, there is nothing wrong with the KJV if that's the version you prefer.  But you are making yourself look like pretty silly in this thread.  Might want to re-think your tactics.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> But you are making yourself look like pretty silly in this thread.  Might want to re-think your tactics.



And your avatar


----------



## earl (Feb 9, 2009)

I kinda like his avatar . I bet one guy is baptist and one is catholic.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 9, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> HOGWASH, read it in 1cron. 20:5 it corrects it there, but has it wrong in  2 samuel 21:19....
> 
> The fact is the NASB is wrong, and your website is wrong in saying that David and Elhanan are the same and the existence of two goliaths, It was Lahmi the brother of Goliath.....and I dont need a web site to teach me a error about something that I know is right....
> 
> ...




Hogwash!!!!!  Hogwash!!!!!    I bet you ain't never washed a hog in all your life.

The primary Bible that I use are the KJV and the NASB.  I have become comfortable with the NASB and thru the years have found many problems with the KJV.  I use to be like you.  I believed the KJV was the "Perfect" Bible.  But it simply is not.

Now, I got to go wash my hogs. I'm not going to argue about Bibles today.  I got to clean my boat up.


----------



## SBG (Feb 9, 2009)

This comparison of the KJB to the NASB or NIV or NKJV is pointless. The KJB was translated from different original text than the others. The original text that the KJB was translated from is far superior to those from which the NASB or NIV were derived from. Most Greek and Aramaic scholars will admit that if they are truly honest.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 9, 2009)

SBG said:


> This comparison of the KJB to the NASB or NIV or NKJV is pointless. The KJB was translated from different original text than the others. The original text that the KJB was translated from is far superior to those from which the NASB or NIV were derived from. Most Greek and Aramaic scholars will admit that if they are truly honest.





You can't be serious.  Don't you think texts that were closer to the original time frame of the actual writing would be more accurate and less prone to errors?

And wouldn't it be Greek and Hebrew scholars...not Aramaic?  Since when was the OT originally penned in Aramaic?


----------



## SBG (Feb 9, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> You can't be serious.  Don't you think texts that were closer to the original time frame of the actual writing would be more accurate and less prone to errors?
> 
> And wouldn't it be Greek and Hebrew scholars...not Aramaic?  Since when was the OT originally penned in Aramaic?



I'm very serious. And pardon me for neglecting to mention the obvious Hebrew of the OT...but I guess it was necessary to allow for the inevitable zinger bullets that fly here.

Why do you suppose all of the copies of the Textus Receptus were always worn and faded and its counterpart was pristine in comparison? 

The scholars of antiquity were much, much more educated in the languages than the scholars of today.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 9, 2009)

SBG said:


> I'm very serious. And pardon me for neglecting to mention the obvious Hebrew of the OT...but I guess it was necessary to allow for the inevitable zinger bullets that fly here.
> 
> Why do you suppose all of the copies of the Textus Receptus were always worn and faded and its counterpart was pristine in comparison?
> 
> The scholars of antiquity were much, much more educated in the languages than the scholars of today.




The scholars of antiquity were much, much more educated in the languages than scholars of today?

Please....and if you held to that line of thought...again, why would you prefer something that was written well after the original was penned?

It doesn't make sense...it is almost like the Mormons...basing their entire belief on the fact that many errors have occurred in the OT and NT since the time of Christ.  Then, when archeology finds texts that are dated very soon after the originals, no errors are found and their belief system is shake, they bury their head in the sand and say that their were and are still errors.

Or like the JW's that said they were the true 144,000.  And then, when they had successfully recruited more than 144,000 and Christ still had not yet returned, they alter their doctrine to accomodate more people.

Again...nothing wrong with the KJV.  And the fact that you can have two different starting places and end up with very similar document (KJV to NAS) is amazing and shows the lack of errors that occurred over the centuries.  But to say that one is the only way...and the fact that it is based on documents (copies of the original) that are much newer in date, is absurd.


----------



## Lowjack (Feb 9, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Oh, that's an easy one.
> 
> 1 and 2 Samuel both have problems in translating them from the original Hebrew.
> 
> ...


The Word Goliath in arameic Means "Large one"


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 9, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Same thing in English too.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 9, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> The Word Goliath in arameic Means "Large one"





dawg2 said:


> Same thing in English too.





Huntinfool said:


>



Hmmm...that will make the explanation to my kids so much easier now when I read them the story of Goliath in the NAS.  Thanks Lowjack.


----------



## SBG (Feb 9, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> The scholars of antiquity were much, much more educated in the languages than scholars of today?
> 
> Please....and if you held to that line of thought...again, why would you prefer something that was written well after the original was penned?
> 
> ...




You need to expand your thinking and read other accounts of the original documents than those that only support your biased opinion. You parrot the same arguments that have been thorougly debunked many, many times. 

Furthermore, to believe that the scholars of today are more educated and better equipped in the study of hermeneutics is lunacy. A high altitude look at the writings of those from the 15th-18th centuries will illustrate how far superior that they were in their knowledge and command of the languages.

It offends common sense to state on one hand that the Alexandrian Text is superior to the Textus Receptus due to its (incorrect premise) antiquity, thereby being closer to the originals, but then say that today's scholars are smarter than those that were actually closer to when those languages were actually commonly used.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 9, 2009)

SBG said:


> You need to expand your thinking and read other accounts of the original documents than those that only support your biased opinion. You parrot the same arguments that have been thorougly debunked many, many times.
> 
> Furthermore, to believe that the scholars of today are more educated and better equipped in the study of hermeneutics is lunacy. A high altitude look at the writings of those from the 15th-18th centuries will illustrate how far superior that they were in their knowledge and command of the languages.
> 
> It offends common sense to state on one hand that the Alexandrian Text is superior to the Textus Receptus due to its (incorrect premise) antiquity, thereby being closer to the originals, but then say that today's scholars are smarter than those that were actually closer to when those languages were actually commonly used.



I love this guy...

Man I am SO glad you are back.  

rj...don't you feel like a fool now?


----------



## SBG (Feb 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I love this guy...
> 
> Man I am SO glad you are back.
> 
> rj...don't you feel like a fool now?



Mr. Kettle opines with another snippet of useless drivel...as is typical. Great job!

Does your mommy know you have snuck back on to the computer?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 9, 2009)

What?  I said I was glad you were back?


I'm serious.  It was boring without you.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I love this guy...
> 
> Man I am SO glad you are back.
> 
> rj...don't you feel like a fool now?



Yup.  They call them the dark ages for a reason.


----------



## SBG (Feb 9, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> What?  I said I was glad you were back?
> 
> 
> I'm serious.  It was boring without you.



I know...that is why I used the smiley and dancing banana.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 9, 2009)

OUCH!  



Oh you added the banana...Silly rabbit.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 9, 2009)

SBG said:


> You need to expand your thinking and read other accounts of the original documents than those that only support your biased opinion. You parrot the same arguments that have been thorougly debunked many, many times.
> 
> Furthermore, to believe that the scholars of today are more educated and better equipped in the study of hermeneutics is lunacy. A high altitude look at the writings of those from the 15th-18th centuries will illustrate how far superior that they were in their knowledge and command of the languages.
> 
> It offends common sense to state on one hand that the Alexandrian Text is superior to the Textus Receptus due to its (incorrect premise) antiquity, thereby being closer to the originals, but then say that today's scholars are smarter than those that were actually closer to when those languages were actually commonly used.



No but to believe it is better to translate a latin text that was translated to latin from Greek that was translated from Aramaic is insane. Especially when we can now translate directly from Greek and Aramaic and I am truly sorry to bust your bubble but there were no aramaic scholars working on the KJV.

But keep on. I am sure there are some who will agree with you but the "scholars" you denigrate certainly don't.  

But I have heard this before and quite frankly think that if you follow this line of reasoning you must have your head in the sand. THOU SAYEST THE CELTICFISHERMAN.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 9, 2009)

I thought the original text was written in Hebrew...OT.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 9, 2009)

Some were but the Septuagint was translated into Greek before the birth of Christ. This was the texts the Disciples and Paul learned from.


----------



## crackerdave (Feb 9, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> ...this is a funny thread...



It's "dayja - view" all over again,brother!

I study in my "Life Application Study Bible"in the NIV - published by Zondervan,and the best Christmas gift I ever got.
I tote a KJV to church to keep the peace.If the senior pastor caught me sneakin' in with an NIV,he'd probably chase me back to my lil' truck.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Hogwash!!!!!  Hogwash!!!!!    I bet you ain't never washed a hog in all your life.



 By the way I'll take that bet, I raise Hogs and have washed the crap off of alot of them, so I know Hogwash when I see it.....




Huntinfool said:


> Pigpen,
> 
> Are you under the dillusion that you are able to read and interpret better than the literally thousands of biblical scholars that have collaborated to introduce all of these other translations?
> 
> Bud, there is nothing wrong with the KJV if that's the version you prefer.  But you are making yourself look like pretty silly in this thread.  Might want to re-think your tactics.



  If I look silly by pointing out such a great error as two people killing Goliath, so be it, I think what looks silly is those who see the error and claim that it is correct...

 I have not claimed to be able to interpret better than anyone, and have not said the KJV is the only bible...

 People on here can claim all they want about original text or manuscripts, but how many on here have ever saw or studied a original manuscript, I would feel safe to say probably none.....

  And trying to compare a bible like the NIV as being more accurate than the KJV shows the ignorance on that person, they apparently know nothing about what I said in the beginning of this thread, and that is Formal equivalence vrs Dynamic equivalence.

Apparently you do not know the difference in Formal equivalence and Dynamic equivalence. You can use what ever text you want, but you can not compare accuracy even in the same text translated by these two differant techniques....


----------



## SBG (Feb 10, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No but to believe it is better to translate a latin text that was translated to latin from Greek that was translated from Aramaic is insane. Especially when we can now translate directly from Greek and Aramaic and I am truly sorry to bust your bubble but there were no aramaic scholars working on the KJV.
> 
> But keep on. I am sure there are some who will agree with you but the "scholars" you denigrate certainly don't.
> 
> But I have heard this before and quite frankly think that if you follow this line of reasoning you must have your head in the sand. THOU SAYEST THE CELTICFISHERMAN.



Unfortunately, your post is based on biased opinion from a one-sided view. Until you are willing to challenge yourself to examine both sides of an issue and not just the side that seems to confirm your pre-conceived notions, you will never reach full understanding.

Expand your thinking.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

SBG said:


> Unfortunately, your post is based on biased opinion from a one-sided view. Until you are willing to challenge yourself to examine both sides of an issue and not just the side that seems to confirm your pre-conceived notions, you will never reach full understanding.
> 
> Expand your thinking.



You know for someone with a hamburger as an avatar you are incredibly anti- thought. If someone disagree with your opinion they need to expand their thinking... Maybe you should. Maybe instead of you and PigPen running around proclaiming the virtues of staying with a 4th level translation you should actually study it. Maybe you should realize that you are the ones who need to expand your thinking and that God gave you a mind and said "Let us Reason together". So you just stay right there with the Amish and read shakespeare. Oh and which verse of psalms has his signature in it???

And as for full understanding. You would actually have to study and it is apparent you never did on this issue. So how does it feel to agree with the nothing but Arabic radical islamists? Won't to explain how we should all burn the NIV and NASB translations oh and even the manuscripts that they used because they contradict the latin that the english used???


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> And trying to compare a bible like the NIV as being more accurate than the KJV shows the ignorance on that person, they apparently know nothing about what I said in the beginning of this thread, and that is Formal equivalence vrs Dynamic equivalence.



I would agree with pigpen on this one.  The NIV is not the best of translations and I'd recommend the NKJV over the NIV.  

The problem with the NIV is that they sacrificed the translation for the easability (is that even a word?) for people to read.  As such, they took an easy way out.  Is it blasphemous? No.  Does it get the message across?  Yes...but not as clearly as the NAS or NKJV.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I would agree with pigpen on this one.  The NIV is not the best of translations and I'd recommend the NKJV over the NIV.
> 
> The problem with the NIV is that they sacrificed the translation for the easability (is that even a word?) for people to read.  As such, they took an easy way out.  Is it blasphemous? No.  Does it get the message across?  Yes...but not as clearly as the NAS or NKJV.



I agree. but I am not defending the NIV but all other translations that have come after. NASB and etc. Well not including The MEssage.

But this only KJV stuff is a little insane.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 10, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I agree. but I am not defending the NIV but all other translations that have come after. NASB and etc. Well not including The MEssage.
> 
> But this only KJV stuff is a little insane.



I agree.

Actually, funny thing is my 3 year old's cubbies (awana) book is in KJV.  One of her verses last week had some 'Haths' in it and the sentence structure was very difficult for her.

I told my wife that it was rediculous that they've got 3-4 year olds learning in the KJV.  So, I did the unthinkable...I changed it to read as in the NAS.  After doing this, she had it down pat in no time...got her little sign-off and is continuing to learn God's Word.


----------



## SBG (Feb 10, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You know for someone with a hamburger as an avatar you are incredibly anti- thought. If someone disagree with your opinion they need to expand their thinking... Maybe you should. Maybe instead of you and PigPen running around proclaiming the virtues of staying with a 4th level translation you should actually study it. Maybe you should realize that you are the ones who need to expand your thinking and that God gave you a mind and said "Let us Reason together". So you just stay right there with the Amish and read shakespeare. Oh and which verse of psalms has his signature in it???
> 
> And as for full understanding. You would actually have to study and it is apparent you never did on this issue. So how does it feel to agree with the nothing but Arabic radical islamists? Won't to explain how we should all burn the NIV and NASB translations oh and even the manuscripts that they used because they contradict the latin that the english used???



Typical response of someone that is not well studied in a subject. I can't discuss this intelligibly, so I will resort to name calling...I saw it right off. But alas, every internet forum has several.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 10, 2009)

SBG said:


> But alas, every internet forum has several.




Ah yes....every internet forum DOES have a few....don't they?




SBG said:


> Mr. Kettle opines with another snippet of useless drivel...as is typical. Great job!
> 
> Does your mommy know you have snuck back on to the computer?




You know, if you'd temper the condenscending attitude a bit, people might be slightly more willing to listen to what, sometimes, are very good points that you make.  

Folks are just turned off by what comes off as belittling (whether intended or not).


I don't think anyone on here has disagreed that the KJV is an extremely valid translation.  At issue is the question of whether other translations that were generated by groups of scholars with hundreds of years of combined experience and education are actually legitimate translations of the original.

It's the height of arrogance on our parts to even begin to think that those other translations are not valid.  Trust me...the KJV may be a great translation.  But millions upon millions of souls have been brought to salvation in Jesus Christ...even while reading such a "horrible" version as the NIV.

Is there really anything better than that?


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 10, 2009)

I've been reading and studying the Bible for 45 years.  For many years now, I've probably spent 30 - 35 hours a week with several Bibles open in front of me.  

I now fully trust the KJV, the NKJV, and the NASB.  
I believe the most accurate to the original text is the NASB.  At times, that can make it a little difficult but it does it's best to copy the original.
That doesn't mean I have negative feeling about the KJV.
It doesn't mean I'm an idiot.
It means I'm a realist.
And it means I do what I feel is best.
I hope everyone will do the same.
But get off my feet.


----------



## Branchminnow (Feb 10, 2009)

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell   I got here late...........so I ll keep my thoughts short, not that they are ever long........KJV undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. I ll have no other Im not educated enough to argue alot of what SGB abd pig are arguing but I KNOW what is in my heart..........KJV. It is the only translation for me ....it was the first translation (1611 was before the one we currently have, and I have one) so it is less "messed with" it has not been reworded to be able to understand it better (btw that is a "good teachers job" to help the little ones understand it and might I add that they need to learn it because it is God's word not to earn awards) niv and all the others came after the KJV.....therefore they are not as accurate.

keep it up pig and SBG.

Onemore thing Mtn woman said it best I guess........as long as ALL understand and know what John 3:16 says .......


----------



## SBG (Feb 10, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Ah yes....every internet forum DOES have a few....don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



People without mirrors in their house should refrain on opining about someone else's apearance. You might want to consider the beam/plank that you continuously ignore. 

In regards to a condenscending attitude, you sir, have very few peers.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 10, 2009)

In the interest of not getting PM's from mods again....


I'll simply apologize if I've appeared condescending.  Most of it is in jest.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

SBG said:


> Typical response of someone that is not well studied in a subject. I can't discuss this intelligibly, so I will resort to name calling...I saw it right off. But alas, every internet forum has several.



Please explain how I am not intelligent on this subject?

Every forum also has someone who want answer the questions and hides behind junk.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

Branchminnow said:


> Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell   I got here late...........so I ll keep my thoughts short, not that they are ever long........KJV undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. I ll have no other Im not educated enough to argue alot of what SGB abd pig are arguing but I KNOW what is in my heart..........KJV. It is the only translation for me ....it was the first translation (1611 was before the one we currently have, and I have one) so it is less "messed with" it has not been reworded to be able to understand it better (btw that is a "good teachers job" to help the little ones understand it and might I add that they need to learn it because it is God's word not to earn awards) niv and all the others came after the KJV.....therefore they are not as accurate.
> 
> keep it up pig and SBG.
> 
> Onemore thing Mtn woman said it best I guess........as long as ALL understand and know what John 3:16 says .......



Latin from Greek was actually the first.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I would agree with pigpen on this one.  The NIV is not the best of translations and I'd recommend the NKJV over the NIV.
> 
> The problem with the NIV is that they sacrificed the translation for the easability (is that even a word?) for people to read.  As such, they took an easy way out.  Is it blasphemous? No.  Does it get the message across?  Yes...but not as clearly as the NAS or NKJV.



 RJ, I have a question for you, Do you believe that when people get saved that they are SAVED or do you believe salvation is a gradual process? Like working our way to heaven....


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Maybe instead of you and PigPen running around proclaiming the virtues of staying with a 4th level translation you should actually study it.



  I have, and understand perfectly why David chose 5 stones when he went up against Goliath... Goliath had 4 more brothers, which latter fell at the hands of Davids men, one of which was Elhanan, whom killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.....which the modern versions have wrong when they say that Elhanan killed Goliath and that distorts the context of chapter 21 of 2nd Samuel. If you like that kind of error so be it...


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I have, and understand perfectly why David chose 5 stones when he went up against Goliath... Goliath had 4 more brothers, which latter fell at the hands of Davids men, one of which was Elhanan, whom killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.....which the modern versions have wrong when they say that Elhanan killed Goliath and that distorts the context of chapter 21 of 2nd Samuel. If you like that kind of error so be it...




Just FYI. The KJV translators took it upon themselves to make this change. The only original Hebrew text that is available says that Elhanan killed Goliath. 

It was probably the work of a sloppy copyist. 

The traditional Jewish explanation resolves the difficulty by asserting that “Elhanan” was an alternate name for David; others have expanded this concept, suggesting that “Elhanan” was David’s original name and that “David” was his regnal name, that is, the name given him when he became king.ï»¿

It could be alot of things. While it was laudable on the part of the KJV translators to make the change to what would seem to be the right answer. The available original text reads just as it does in the NIV.

Now let me say I don't think the NIV is the best translation, but neither do I think KJV is king.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Just FYI. The KJV translators took it upon themselves to make this change. The only original Hebrew text that is available says that Elhanan killed Goliath.
> 
> It was probably the work of a sloppy copyist.
> 
> ...



Good answer. Not much need to expand on that.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Just FYI. The KJV translators took it upon themselves to make this change. The only original Hebrew text that is available says that Elhanan killed Goliath.
> 
> It was probably the work of a sloppy copyist.
> 
> ...



 It is not alot of things, or Elhanan being Davids other name READ  1 Chronicles 20:5 in any of these NIV, NASB, or KJV.... and again read the context of 2 Samuel ch 21..... David only slew Goliath...Davids men slew the other four brothers of Goliath....


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

What's the difference in your opinion here about KJV and legalism?


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> What's the difference in your opinion here about KJV and legalism?



 I don't know, it is according if we want to make up new names for them or say they are the same to get the outcome that we want....


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> It is not alot of things, or Elhanan being Davids other name READ  1 Chronicles 20:5 in any of these NIV, NASB, or KJV.... and again read the context of 2 Samuel ch 21..... David only slew Goliath...Davids men slew the other four brothers of Goliath....



I don't mean to be ugly, but you just don't get it. Do you honestly believe that the KJV got it ALL right. 

Now I don't know much. I do not claim to be an expert. I am not educated in much. 

But I know bible. I am educated there and regardless of what some may think, it is helpful.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> I don't mean to be ugly, but you just don't get it. Do you honestly believe that the KJV got it ALL right.
> 
> Now I don't know much. I do not claim to be an expert. I am not educated in much.
> 
> But I know bible. I am educated there and regardless of what some may think, it is helpful.



 They did about David and Goliath...and Elhanan and Lahmi...


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> They did about David and Goliath...and Elhanan and Lahmi...



You are being completely legalistic here. No need to make it up we'll just use what fits.

And I got to agree with jm here. Your stance just doesn't make sense. You can say you like it because it is more poetic or more memorable for you but your arguments don't hold up to historical evidence or even a logical view of it.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 10, 2009)

Again I never said they didn't . What I said was that it was wrong in the earliest available manuscript, which is the manuscript that the KJV translators were working from. They didn't get it right, they changed the original to make it right. Which is fine. I think they were right. But they messed up alot too. 

All of them make some mistakes in translation. Greek and Hebrew are not easy to translate. There are going to be some misinterpretation issued in ANY translation of the bible. All of the major translations serve a powerful purpose and not any ONE of them is ALL right. That is the only point I am trying to make here. 

I am in no way slamming the KJV. Been reading one all my life. But I am not blinded by its authority over all others


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No need to make it up we'll just use what fits.



  I am proud to see you are changing your tactics...


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I am proud to see you are changing your tactics...



I'm not. Just pointing out how you are behaving on this issue. We agree on a lot but this is not one place and it is a very narrow view. One that is not supported by anything other than personal desire.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> RJ, I have a question for you, Do you believe that when people get saved that they are SAVED or do you believe salvation is a gradual process? Like working our way to heaven....



Wow...I'm sure Dawg, Big7 and Dominic could answer this one for you...or you could do a search on a thread about if Catholics are Christians, but I'll answer it here.

Saved by Justification.  Becoming more like Christ through Sanctification.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...I'm sure Dawg, Big7 and Dominic could answer this one for you...or you could do a search on a thread about if Catholics are Christians, but I'll answer it here.
> 
> Saved by Justification.  Becoming more like Christ through Sanctification.



Yep...


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...I'm sure Dawg, Big7 and Dominic could answer this one for you...or you could do a search on a thread about if Catholics are Christians, but I'll answer it here.
> 
> Saved by Justification.  Becoming more like Christ through Sanctification.



 The reason I asked is because you said you liked the NKJV and I was wondering because most places where the KJV says that we ARE SAVED, the NKJV says we ARE BEING SAVED, making it a gradual process....like this....1 Cor 1:18

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
KJV

1 Cor 1:18-19

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 
NKJV


----------



## Big7 (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> RJ, I have a question for you, Do you believe that when people get saved that they are SAVED or do you believe salvation is a gradual process? Like working our way to heaven....



He does and so do you and that's fine but....
There is no such thing as "working your way" to Heaven.
Salvation is a process. Hope you don't die thinking OSAS.



rjcruiser said:


> Wow...I'm sure Dawg, Big7 and Dominic could answer this one for you...or you could do a search on a thread about if Catholics are Christians, but I'll answer it here.
> 
> Saved by Justification.  Becoming more like Christ through Sanctification.



OK - I'll take this one....
You know what you are supposed to do.
That is become MORE Christ-like through the fruits
you bring...

Salvation is not a "one time deal" you can fall even
after such a conviction. Continue to WORK to be Christ-like
and then you are on the right track.

Salvation is a process; it ain't over till it's over. 

First organized Christians 
If not first!


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> The reason I asked is because you said you liked the NKJV and I was wondering because most places where the KJV says that we ARE SAVED, the NKJV says we ARE BEING SAVED, making it a gradual process....like this....1 Cor 1:18
> 
> 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
> KJV
> ...




Actually, the translation that I like best is the NASB.  However, the Bible I carry is in NKJV.  Why?  Because they didn't have the study Bible I wanted in NASB.  Why?  Well, because the foundation that owns the rights to the NASB  (Lockman Foundation) did a disservice to the English speaking public.  The kids were more concerned about money than spreading the Word of God in a very good English translation.  That is why the NIV took over the marketplace.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 10, 2009)

Big7 said:


> He does and so do you and that's fine but....
> There is no such thing as "working your way" to Heaven.
> Salvation is a process. Hope you don't die thinking OSAS.
> 
> ...




  Now you're going way off-topic and you're going to stir up the ant bed.

Cmon Big7.  We all know that once God has us in His grasp..He aint letting go 

I personally like what DB BB said...not osas, but If Saved Always Saved.

The funny thing is that you say you can't work your way to Heaven, but then say that it is a process...based on your works.

Okay...done .  Big, I know you and I will never agree on those things.  That's alright....I, just like you can't compromise on my core beliefs and had to respond


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

Big7 said:


> He does and so do you and that's fine but....
> There is no such thing as "working your way" to Heaven.
> Salvation is a process. Hope you don't die thinking OSAS.
> 
> ...



Some more of you Baptist on here who like your NKJV, NASB, etc don't disagree about salvation being a gradual process with Big7 because that is what those bibles are teaching....


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> The reason I asked is because you said you liked the NKJV and I was wondering because most places where the KJV says that we ARE SAVED, the NKJV says we ARE BEING SAVED, making it a gradual process....like this....1 Cor 1:18
> 
> 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
> KJV
> ...





We could do this all night but I gotta go to sleep. The reason the NIV translates it as "are being saved" is because the original Greek properly translated says"are being saved."

sesosmenoi - the saved
sozomenoi- those who are being saved

The word found in the originals is sozomenoi.

This is simply an example of Pauline doctrine. He believed that salvation had four parts.

1. Salvation as a thing done in the past, “we were saved” (Rom. 8:24), 
2. As a present state, “ye have been saved” (Eph. 2:5), 
3.As a process, “ye are being saved” (I Cor. 15:2), 
4.As a future result, “thou shalt be saved”  (Rom 10:9)


IMO we are splitting hairs here. I got saved when I was 8. I am saved now. I am in the process of being saved. When I die, I will surely be saved. 

As we all know, the bible is meant to be read as a whole and not in parts. Anything out of context is very dangerous.


----------



## Big7 (Feb 10, 2009)

The one I like best, because 2000 years of Tradition and Living Magisterium
HERE: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
ECF's and The USCCB's think it is the best for me.
NAB (New American Bible) HERE:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Actually, the translation that I like best is the NASB.  However, the Bible I carry is in NKJV.  Why?  Because they didn't have the study Bible I wanted in NASB.  Why?  Well, because the foundation that owns the rights to the NASB  (Lockman Foundation) did a disservice to the English speaking public.  The kids were more concerned about money than spreading the Word of God in a very good English translation.  That is why the NIV took over the marketplace.



 Here it is from the NASB...1 Cor 1:18-19

18 For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 
NASB


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Actually, the translation that I like best is the NASB.  However, the Bible I carry is in NKJV.  Why?  Because they didn't have the study Bible I wanted in NASB.  Why?  Well, because the foundation that owns the rights to the NASB  (Lockman Foundation) did a disservice to the English speaking public.  The kids were more concerned about money than spreading the Word of God in a very good English translation.  That is why the NIV took over the marketplace.



I find it difficult to even find a NASB at times.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 10, 2009)

If you want to talk about being saved move over to the thread concerning the study of the book of 1st John.
Maybe you'll learn something.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> We could do this all night but I gotta go to sleep. The reason the NIV translates it as "are being saved" is because the original Greek properly translated says"are being saved."
> 
> sesosmenoi - the saved
> sozomenoi- those who are being saved
> ...



 What about HE11, do you think it is the Grave???

 What about Sodomites, Do you think that only pertains to a male prostitute???


----------



## Big7 (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Some more of you Baptist on here who like your NKJV, NASB, etc don't disagree about salvation being a gradual process with Big7 because that is what those bibles are teaching....



If so -and I don't see a need to question 
your judgment on this one because I have 
never read any of the others - but if so -all
ya' gotta' do is get in the deuterocanonical books ,
you might be close. At least closer than KJV. 

That is the way IT SHOULD BE, if that is what they are teaching.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

Big7 said:


> If so -and I don't see a need to question
> your judgment on this one because I have
> never read any of the others - but if so -all
> ya' gotta' do is get in the deuterocanonical books ,
> ...



 Thanks Big7 you are helping me with my fellow Baptists more than you know...


----------



## Big7 (Feb 10, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Now you're going way off-topic and you're going to stir up the ant bed.
> 
> Cmon Big7.  We all know that once God has us in His grasp..He aint letting go
> 
> ...



Fair enough.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> As we all know, the bible is meant to be read as a whole and not in parts. Anything out of context is very dangerous.



 You didn't think that about 2 Samuel 21:19...


----------



## Big7 (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Thanks Big7 you are helping me with my fellow Baptists more than you know...



Well....

If you right you are right.

Don't play me though...


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

Big7 said:


> Well....
> 
> If you right you are right.
> 
> Don't play me though...



 I do have to say this is one time I appreciate your doctrine....


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> What about HE11, do you think it is the Grave???
> 
> What about Sodomites, Do you think that only pertains to a male prostitute???





pigpen1 said:


> You didn't think that about 2 Samuel 21:19...




 Not sure where you are trying to go with the first question and our conversation and 2 Samuel 21:9 had absolutely nothing to do with context errors.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Not sure where you are trying to go with the first question and our conversation and 2 Samuel 21:9 had absolutely nothing to do with context errors.



 The first Questions are plain and our conversation about 2 Samuel 21:19 had all to do with the context of that chapter.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 10, 2009)

Well the questions are plain enough I suppose, just wasn't sure where you were trying to go with them. 

No I do not think H E L L is the grave. I think it as a real place where real torment takes place on those who do not believe.

As for Sodomites, I do not think that only pertains to male prostitutes.

As for the context issue, you may have been, but I was not arguing a matter of context.  I was arguing a matter of translation. Two different problems.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Well the questions are plain enough I suppose, just wasn't sure where you were trying to go with them.
> 
> No I do not think H E L L is the grave. I think it as a real place where real torment takes place on those who do not believe.
> 
> ...



Ever feel like this...


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Well the questions are plain enough I supposed, just wasn't sure where you were trying to go with them.
> 
> No I do not think H E L L is the grave. I think it as a real place that real torment on those who do not believe.
> 
> ...



 The NIV changes H E L L to grave in alot of places and completely removes H E L L from the old Testament and also removed the word sodomite and changed it to male prostitute, which a male prostitute does not necessarily mean a homosexual, which changes the context of homosexuality and the Bible....

 and the error of Elhanan killing Goliath changes the context of the chapter, being the chapter showing that Davids men killed the rest of Goliaths brothers...

 A error in translating changes context......


----------



## Big7 (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I do have to say this is one time I appreciate your doctrine....



It is and has always been the same.

Glad I could be of help.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 10, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Ever feel like this...





pigpen1 said:


> The NIV changes H E L L to grave in alot of places and completely removes H E L L from the old Testament and also removed the word sodomite and changed it to male prostitute, which a male prostitute does not necessarily mean a homosexual, which changes the context of homosexuality and the Bible....
> 
> and the error of Elhanan killing Goliath changes the context of the chapter, being the chapter showing that Davids men killed the rest of Goliaths brothers...
> 
> A error in translating changes context......




     Goodnight all. I am going to throw my NIV away and go to bed. See ya tomorrow


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> The NIV changes H E L L to grave in alot of places and completely removes H E L L from the old Testament and also removed the word sodomite and changed it to male prostitute, which a male prostitute does not necessarily mean a homosexual, which changes the context of homosexuality and the Bible....
> 
> and the error of Elhanan killing Goliath changes the context of the chapter, being the chapter showing that Davids men killed the rest of Goliaths brothers...
> 
> A error in translating changes context......



Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- in the Old testament is thought to be a place called "shiole" I know I spelled it wrong but think phonetically. A place where all went to await judgement. Or literally being with their ancestors.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 10, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Goodnight all. I am going to throw my NIV away and go to bed. See ya tomorrow



  Do you know that the Niv had two openly professed homosexuals on the translating committee and one just happened to be over the old testament..... Why is this important? the Niv was translated by Dynamic equilivence, which is Thought for Thought, their thought might have swayed how they interpreted the scripture....[male prostitute]

 Do you know who owns the exclusive publishing right to the Niv? Rupert Murdoch, he owns the sun and star tabloids, 20th century Fox, and Bart Simpson just to name a few.....

  there is much more.......


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

Did you know Shakespeare inserted his name in Psalms...

The NIV ain't the only one just like the KJV ain't the closest translation.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 10, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> And your point?  King James had an affinity for men over women as well.



Ok. I can rest now...



But I'm anti british anyway... In fact maybe that's where this really starts with me. Me Irish roots... Those bloody buggerin brits...


----------



## Big7 (Feb 11, 2009)

Try a cross with British and Irish - then
throw in some redneck and Cherokee 

Then - You would get me...


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 11, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> And your point?  King James had an affinity for men over women as well.



 Did king James actually translate any scripture??? NO!

 He only gave government approval and protection of the translators from the murdering catholics that had killed many before who tried to translate the Bible.[william tyndale]..

  And  by the way apparently you do not understand Formal Equilivency vrs Dynamic Equilivency...

 the NIV was translated using Dynamic Equilivency, which is Thought for Thought....

 The KJV was translated using Formal Equilivency, which is word for word....you could be a homosexual or even a Atheist and translate using Formal Equilivency and still have a accurate translation, However that is not the case with Dynamic Equilivency. The translator writes it as what they think it should mean, kinda the way some people read their Bible....

  And If the king was a homosexual, it is apparent that he did not influence the translators because the finished product [kjv bible] condemns the abomination and did not change it to a word that is not necessarily a Homosexual..[male prostitute]....


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 11, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> The KJV was translated using Formal Equilivency, which is word for word....you could be a homosexual or even a Atheist and translate using Formal Equilivency and still have a accurate translation, However that is not the case with Dynamic Equilivency. The translator writes it as what they think it should mean, kinda the way some people read their Bible....



Kinda like the KJV did with David and Elhanan huh?


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 11, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Kinda like the KJV did with David and Elhanan huh?



 Yep, but they put it in in italics, so you could tell what was added by the translators....unlike modern versions...


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

Big7 said:


> Try a cross with British and Irish - then
> throw in some redneck and Cherokee
> 
> Then - You would get me...



Well. That is a little scary...


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

Way to make your point...


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Truth hurts.......



No ignorance does. 

Again that more than crossed the line. They made a valid point about the sponsorship of the KJV. you can't take it. You brought Gays into the issue. They have all acknowledged problems. As we have in all churches and denominations. Let's see the "evangelical" gay pastor in Colorado. The creep in ATL who was sleeping with his brothers wife. How about all the 1980's with Jim and Tammy Faye and Oral Roberts... Sexual sin is sexual sin. And amongst the leadership they should be held to a higher standard.

The anti-catholic attitude helps no one. Much less win any one to your side. 

And if you are so worried about authenticity learn Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Then you can read them in their original forms because other than that the KJV is just as good as any other translation.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 11, 2009)

Y'all or Ya'll play nice now


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman (Feb 11, 2009)

Don't want to hijack this thread which I've followed without posting on...

But 





> Sexual sin is sexual sin. And amongst the leadership they should be held to a higher standard.


  I have to disagree.

If sin is sin...  then sinners are sinners.  Priest, pastor, or thug, all have sinned and come short of the Glory.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

northgeorgiasportsman said:


> Don't want to hijack this thread which I've followed without posting on...
> 
> But   I have to disagree.
> 
> If sin is sin...  then sinners are sinners.  Priest, pastor, or thug, all have sinned and come short of the Glory.



Yes but the standard and the SIN is worse when you are a spiritual leader. If you fall or me it doesn't have the impact that a leader has. He causes others to doubt their faith. It is a compounded sin.


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman (Feb 11, 2009)

I'm just not so sure God sees it that way.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

Then read what happens to David.


----------



## christianhunter (Feb 11, 2009)

Lowjack said:


> Sorry but none are translations , they are "transliterations"
> Hebrew nor Greek can be translated straight into English.
> http://www.friktech.com/rel/canon/trans.htm



Thats right,and I'm KJV only.I'm not knocking any of the other Transliterations,thats just my conviction.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

Just a question cause I guess I don't really understand why you are KJV only. 

Why is it just a KJV for you?


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 11, 2009)

christianhunter said:


> Thats right,and I'm KJV only.I'm not knocking any of the other Transliterations,thats just my conviction.



Wow...after 127 posts...we have a winner


Again...this is a PREFERENCE issue not a PRINCIPLE issue.

So many have these two mixed up and what happens?  LEGALISM

Thanks CH for not knocking other translations...and not trying to impose your personal convictions on others.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 11, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...after 127 posts...we have a winner
> 
> 
> Again...this is a PREFERENCE issue not a PRINCIPLE issue.
> ...




I agree! I have no problem with anyone choosing to use the KJV exclusively, but I get real bent when someone suggests that it is the ONLY correct translation. 

If that is your conviction then run with it, but that is exactly what it is. A conviction and a choice.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> I agree.  I also use a KJV as a cross reference.



I didn't even own a KJV until my daughter was given one for Kindergarten graduation at a Baptist school. Went back to reread some of what I had grown up with... 

So technically I still don't own a KJV...


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman (Feb 11, 2009)

As far as using KJV along with other translations... I like the way my preacher once put it.

"A man that owns more than one watch never really knows what time it is."

I own 6 bibles, all of which are KJV.  It's my choice


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

If he owns 6 rolex's he always knows what time it is.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 11, 2009)

northgeorgiasportsman said:


> As far as using KJV along with other translations... I like the way my preacher once put it.
> 
> "A man that owns more than one watch never really knows what time it is."
> 
> I own 6 bibles, all of which are KJV.  It's my choice



Okay...I don't understand that quote at all.  Does someone mind explaining it too me?


Yup..it is your choice.  One that I don't understand, but respect.


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman (Feb 11, 2009)

You wearing a watch right now?  See what time it is.  Ask the person closest to you what time it is.  I'll bet it's two different times.  Which one is correct?

Apply that concept to Bible translations...  I'd rather stay with the ONE that I feel is correct, and not confuse myself with others.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 11, 2009)

northgeorgiasportsman said:


> You wearing a watch right now?  See what time it is.  Ask the person closest to you what time it is.  I'll bet it's two different times.  Which one is correct?
> 
> Apply that concept to Bible translations...  I'd rather stay with the ONE that I feel is correct, and not confuse myself with others.



I gotcha....but what if your watch is 5 minutes slow?  Wouldn't looking at another allow you to verify and get a second perspective?  If you never did, you'd always be 5 minutes late.  Kinda like going to a doctor and him telling you you need to amputate your arm.  You gonna believe him because you "feel" he is right or are you going to go and get a second opinion?

I just want to emphasize that I'm not trying to  you...just trying to see where you come from.


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman (Feb 11, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I gotcha....but what if your watch is 5 minutes slow?



I see what you're asking, but after studying the available translations, I feel that MY watch is correct.

Other watches have too many hands, too few numbers, numbers that just don't make sense, and numbers that have been changed from the original ones.

When I look at my watch, I KNOW what time it is.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 11, 2009)

northgeorgiasportsman said:


> I see what you're asking, but after studying the available translations, I feel that MY watch is correct.
> 
> Other watches have too many hands, too few numbers, numbers that just don't make sense, and numbers that have been changed from the original ones.
> 
> When I look at my watch, I KNOW what time it is.



Well said.  Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## earl (Feb 11, 2009)

I think he's kjv only cause he burned up the others. LOL Does he know about King James perversion ? Still LOL.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 11, 2009)

northgeorgiasportsman said:


> I see what you're asking, but after studying the available translations, I feel that MY watch is correct.
> 
> Other watches have too many hands, too few numbers, numbers that just don't make sense, and numbers that have been changed from the original ones.
> 
> When I look at my watch, I KNOW what time it is.




But what if you're wrong!  What if you think you doing the best thing with your Bible but you're total off-base?
What if?


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman (Feb 11, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> But what if you're wrong!  What if you think you doing the best thing with your Bible but you're total off-base?
> What if?



After doing considerable research on the topic, I'm convinced that I'm not wrong.

I'm reminded now why I make it a habit not to post on Political or Religious forums.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

northgeorgiasportsman said:


> After doing considerable research on the topic, I'm convinced that I'm not wrong.
> 
> I'm reminded now why I make it a habit not to post on Political or Religious forums.



Yep we demand answers too much...


----------



## Branchminnow (Feb 11, 2009)

jmharris23 said:


> Goodnight all. I am going to throw my NIV away and go to bed. See ya tomorrow



halelujah!!!! WE finally got you!


----------



## Branchminnow (Feb 11, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Wow...after 127 posts...we have a winner
> 
> 
> Again...this is a PREFERENCE issue not a PRINCIPLE issue.
> ...



you must have missed my post.....


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 11, 2009)

Branchminnow said:


> you must have missed my post.....



Yup...either that or I read it late at night and didn't have the energy to type something.

Also, if it was early on in the thread, it doesn't make my point as well.  The more posts...the better


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 11, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Again that more than crossed the line.



 I do not see a line, when it comes to the truth....


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 11, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I do not see a line, when it comes to the truth....



Then I am afraid you need to look again.


----------



## Big7 (Feb 12, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> Ya'll don't need one, Ya'll have the priests....



Yeah - and The Priest has the real Bible, so
they have no need for KJV


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 13, 2009)

Big7 said:


> Yeah - and The Priest has the real Bible, so
> they have no need for KJV



 Maybe you should go back and read the context of what was being discussed, it sounds like you are justifying a horrible sin just because they used the bible version of your choice..


----------



## Big7 (Feb 13, 2009)

I guess you woud say that.

Should I be supprised?

Sounds to me like you need to back up and
read your own post - that I quoted.

Don't dish it out, if you can' take it. 

BTW - What is the "horrible sin" you mentioned?


----------



## Big7 (Feb 13, 2009)

8 hours?


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 13, 2009)

Big7 said:


> 8 hours?



 I'm back! and I can take it.....whatcha got???  but according to jmharris, I need to be nicer to you, he deleted my post to you today......so this is for you Big7 ...


----------



## Big7 (Feb 13, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> I'm back! and I can take it.....whatcha got???  but according to jmharris, I need to be nicer to you, he deleted my post to you today......so this is for you Big7 ...




Just me?
Go ahead and PM it to me, please.


----------



## PWalls (Feb 13, 2009)

Final and last call for certain members to play nice.


----------



## pigpen1 (Feb 13, 2009)

PWalls said:


> Final and last call for certain members to play nice.



 OK, I'm done....


----------

