| Author | Message | ||
| Dennisrainwater (Dennisrainwater) |
Hi all, I'd like to offer a praise report in that my dad and his wife are making some wonderful strides forward in their walk with Jesus, and away from the bondage of Adventism. They are having some of the rather normal "growing pains", as most do. One note of concern for me though is that someone has apparently gotten to him recently with a King James Version Only arguement. I have no complaint with using the King James Version, but I have found both that it is not always the most clear and reliable version that is available, and that most of those whom I've encountered who are zealous that we should use ONLY that version tend toward an unhealthy extremism, and toward legalism. Has anyone else encountered this, and do you know of any resources that might help open his eyes to what I'm afraid might be a dangerous side-track away from the generally healthy growth he's been enjoying otherwise? Satan sure has a large variety of attacks in his arsenal! Thanks in advance for your help! Den<>< | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
http://www.lastdisciple.com/ Has a series of studies about Bible translations including a close examination of the KJV. You may not agree with everything, but it might be a start. | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
One thing that really opened my eyes and I shared it here lately, was the total difference in meaning between Hebrews 4:3 and Ps 95:11. In the KJV one says If they enter My rest, and the other says They shall never enter My rest. BIG difference there. My NKJV says the same in both places as well as the NIV. So glad to hear our prayers are being answered! | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
One more thing. Remember Dennis, when I was going to the KJV only church and I asked you what you thought about it? Well, you warned me and I decided to ask God what He thought. I prayed, God, if you want me to get rid of this NKJV Bible, I will, just let me know. Plain as day I heard, "You came to the understanding of salvation with that Bible didn't you?" That was all I needed. | ||
| Clay (Clay) |
I say that if I cannot defend my doctrinal beliefs from all the good TRANSLATIONS (not paraphrases) then I am in trouble. Just a thought- 'would I want my surgeon to do surgery on me based on his understanding of a medical surgery book written in the 1600's?' Since the time the KJV was written there have been numerous manuscripts discovered that biblical archeologists believe are earlier manuscripts that were available at the time the KJV was written. Let's face it folks, the only reason (some) Adventists pastors and evanglists push the KJV is because it is the only one they can defend some of their doctrines with. I have worked with a number of SDA evangelists as a pastor and they have made that very clear. Yes I came to accept Christ as my Savior with the KJV but as far as I am concerned the later translations such as NIV and my favorite the NLT are even more clear and wonderful with the "gospel message". The web site that Jerry gave sounds very interesting. Thanks Jerry. | ||
| Colleentinker (Colleentinker) |
I agree, Clay. The KJV is the only one that (marginally) supports some SDA doctrines. And I also agree that people who are dogmatic about the version usually have other issues hidden behind their need for that one version. Colleen | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
What verses do they use from the KJV that we need to know about? | ||
| Dennisrainwater (Dennisrainwater) |
Jerry -- Thanks so much for that tip. I'll look forward to exploring that tomorrow. I appreciate your help. Sabra -- I had completely forgotten that you had once been in that camp, too!! Gosh, there's been plenty of water under the bridge since those days, huh?? ;-) Watching your journey has been an incredible experience!! You have taught me a lot! Thanks for your input, and for your prayers. Yes, our prayers have certainly been continuingly answered in my folks' lives. I'm so grateful to our Lord -- and to each of you who have taken the time to petition Him for them. Clay -- I couldn't agree more! I have long said that God meets us at our level of need, and knowing that, why would He expect us to listen to Him, and seek to gain understanding and clarity about Him, through words that no one has used for four hundred years??!! I also appreciate the insight re: SDA evangelists maintaining a KJV perspective in order to continue supporting their unique views. That makes a great deal of sense in retrospect. (Gee, I wonder how many evangelistic series and Revelation seminars I sat through as a kid and young adult... I know I still have a great number of books (such as Sam Campbell) in my library to show for it!!) Colleen -- Thank you also for your words. I, too, believe that a tenacious clinging exclusively to a particular version hides some agenda or insecurity... I sincerely appreciate all the time you invest into us here on this forum. You have great wisdom and a gentle spirit that well reflects His Spirit. Thank you for sharing and providing this place for us to gather to dialogue and heal. At the foot of the Cross, Den<>< | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
You are welcome, Dennis. Just a note. I have not studied the entries in detail. You can take them or leave them or use them as a springboard for more research. When I looked at a couple of articles in the group, it seemed like reasonable enough analysis. If you see anything that troubles you, feel free to comment here. | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Clay--you wrote that 'numerous manuscripts' have been discovered that were earlier manuscripts than the Textus Receptus and were available when the KJV was written? Can you tell me what these are? There are only two that I'm aware of--Codex Sinaiaticus and Codex Vaticanus. Although I'm not a 'King James only', I would say for serious Bible study I am a 'King James usually'! Look folks, the modern translations are based on the two Codexes mentioned above. The Sinai codex was found in a monastery on Sinai in the process of being thrown out. The other codex was found locked away in the Vatican library--and hadn't seen the light of day for many, many years. The reason that one codex was being thrown out and the other locked away is that they are at great variance with the large number of other manuscripts available. Way back before printing presses, copies of the Bible were made very carefully by hand. The Textus Receptus consists of a large body of manuscripts carefully copied by hand and in agreement with each other. The new translations want to rely on two manuscripts that differ (often radically) with this large body of manuscripts. That, to me, is a big flashing red danger sign! Add to that who is behind so many modern translations---for some it is either the World Council of Churches, or there are some extremely liberal members from some of these churches on the translation board. I'm not at all comfortable at having a translation which can be affected by the biases of extremely liberal so-called Christians. The other problem is that the Greek and Hebrew languages are not structured the same as English. The Greek language has verb tenses that don't exist in English--as an example. From the books I've read, the KJV English was NOT the common language of the English people but was a 'high' version of the language designed to be a textual equivelent of the Greek/Hebrew. So, that's why for serious, careful study I just about always use KJV. For everyday use, I prefer the NASB---it's very literal and you can tell when the Codex's are used as the margin notes say 'some earlier manuscripts say'. I basically ignore what the ealier manuscripts say and go on. For kids and new believers, the Living Translation is good (IMO) as it's easy to read and fairly accurate on major doctrinal points. Sabra---so, in your Thursday post, which version of Scripture is more accurate? The KJV indicates that it MAY be possible for the Jews to enter God's rest. Doesn't that agree with most evangelical/fundamentalist thinking that there is coming a time when most Jews convert to Christianity? As compared to the other translations which indicate that such an event is an impossiblity? I don't see any way to reconcile these two different translations--do you? What does this comparison tell us about the bias of modern translations? Is the modern translation really more accurate? What does the Greek say? (If Clay the ex-preacher is around maybe he can shed some light on this)?! | ||
| Jerry (Jerry) |
As it turns out, Bill and Sabra, the Greek in Hebrews 4:3 DOES have a word correctly translated as ìifî or ìwhether.î The transliteration is ìeiî in the Greek. However I think we are missing the point of the verse unless we look around for the context. I believe, if you will look at all of chapter 3 and 4, you will see that this is a reference to the Israelites at the time of the Exodus. I do not think this is an indictment of all Jews for all times. Rather, I think the writer of Hebrews uses the Jews of that time as an analogy and example for ANY unbeliever. The conditional word in Hebrews 4:3 points to the choice between belief and unbelief in the Gospel Message. The conclusion of the thought occurs at Hebrews 4:6. There we see the determination that we have a more complete rest (in Jesus) typified by the Sabbath when we believe and have faith. | ||
| Sabra (Sabra) |
Loneviking, I don't know which is more accurate but the prophecy in Ps 95:11 is "so I swore in My wrath, they shall never enter My rest" and so far they as a nation haven't. Of course, individually they have the choice to accept Christ and enter into that rest. I think the "if" is very confusing at least by my understanding of the passage. What is the Hebrew translation of the Ps 95:11 verse? | ||
| Lydell (Lydell) |
Okay Dennis, let's think about what the KJV only crowd are telling us: the God who spoke the universe into being was only able to see that His word is adequately communicated thru the King James Version. Pity the poor Chinese, Danes, Spanish, Masai, Australian Aborigines, Russians, etc. etc. etc. For them to really understand what God really means they are going to have to learn to speak the English of the 1600's. For that matter, pity the poorly educated English speaking folks as well. (You know, I've seen the look on the face of one of these poory educated folks, a babe in Christ, who was handed a modern language translation of the Word after struggling for months with the "king's official version". You should have seen their tears of joy as they realized that their Lord loved them enough to actually be willing to speak to them in THEIR language.) Kind of a very small picture of God the KJV only folks paint, isn't it? It really is an absurdly silly argument when you place yourself in the viewpoint of a NON-english speaking person! | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Not as absurd or silly as you might think Lydell! It depends on whether you believe the Bible is the literal, inerrent Word of God. The Jews believed this, and copied the Scriptures so carefully that there are copies of Ezekial and Isaih from the Dead Sea that are identical to the books in our KJV, and are over 2000 years old! So, it is very important to not just get the 'flavor' right, but to get the subtle nuances right as well. I'm not arguing for KJV only---I am saying that I don't think it can be beat for serious Bible study. For everyday use, or for new Christians they need something easier to handle. The New Living Translation is quite good, as is the NASB. The good thing about the KJV is that it is based on the Textus Receptus without the two later Codexes, and we can be quite confident in the accuracy of the translation. Also, as mentioned, the language of the KJV was designed to be an equivelent to the Greek. As for other languages and cultures, that is a tough problem. Have any of you been involved with Wycliffe Bible Translators? A good friend of ours was a translator for them and worked for many years in Togo, Africa translating for the tribes there. Sometimes they don't have concepts that are in the Bible, and then you have to translate in terms that they understand. Things like 'Bread of Life' sometimes means nothing in some cultures that don't have access to grains and bread. Then you use some other food that is the staple of their diet to show how important Christ is. Anyway, the point to all of this is that you choose a translation based on where and who you are. New Christians who are todays' Americans should be using an easy to read translation. As they grow, they should advance to the KJV along with other tools for serious study such as Strongs, Greek studies on the Word...etc. I would expect that a pastor or teacher of the Word to be very familiar with the KJV and the original Greek and Hebrew to guide new believers away from some of the errors found in some of the newer translations. Clear as mud? Bill | ||
| Lydell (Lydell) |
Bill, I vaguely seem to remember somewhere reading that one of the newer translations does a better job of staying true to the original. Had once copied the info from a website, but can't find it now. Yeah, the Wycliffe people do an awesome job! I remember reading an interesting story in their newsletter many years ago. It was telling about one of the couples who were so excited when they finally learned enough of the language they were studying to be able to translate a couple of the old standard, well-loved hymns for a service. They were so anxious to sing them for the small group of believers with whom they had been working. Finally the big day came and they launched into the song. And were surprised to have the people very shortly begin giggling and then outright laughing. The people told them that was the worst thing they'd ever heard, "you call that a song?" So, they learned that you can translate the words to music, but it still doesn't mean it is going to speak the language of the people. From then on they just left it to the people there to come up with the songs to teach them. Okay, that's off the subject, but it just popped into my head. We heard a Wycliffe worker once tell about speaking to a group, with a interpreter translating. He said something about "the one God" and was shocked to see his translator hold up one hand, fingers splayed. So he quickly reworded what was said, stressing again "the one God". Again, he saw the translator hold up his hand like before. This kept happening until he finally stopped to try to clear up the problem. It seems in that culture that "one" was represented by the raised hand, "two" was touching the forearm, "three" the elbow, etc. Yeah, those folks have a tough job. | ||
| Dennis (Dennis) |
THOUGHTS ON BIBLE TRANSLATIONS Almost the entire Old Testament was written in the Hebrew language (exceptions are a few chapters in Ezra and Daniel that were written in Aramaic). Much of the rabbinical literature was also written in Aramaic. Before the Christian era, Aramaic had become the language of the Jews in Palentine. Aramaic is the language that Jesus spoke. By the time of the Islamic conquests in the 7th century AD, the Aramaic language was declining in favor of the Arabic language. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the street language or lingua franca of the whole Roman Empire. Koine Greek continued to be a universal language until at least the end of first century AD. From about the second century on, Latin began to win out in Italy (among the populace). Demotic is the spoken language of Greece today, the direct descendant of the Koine. (SOURCE: Daniel B. Wallace "Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics" Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996 pp.15-17) Having formally studied three languages (still speaking and writing two of them), I have more than a casual interest in linguistics. Martin Luther's German Bible is part of my 30+ Bible collection. You guessed it, I read and speak German. Some diehards in my family have speculated that German may be the language of heaven (smile). I grew up attending a small, German SDA church in western North Dakota. The men sat on the right side of aisle, and the women sat on the left side of the aisle. All children were required to sit near the front of the church, which greatly helped in their supervision. The head deacon handed out candies (sen-sen) to the kids that behaved properly following the worship service. Frequently, the worship service and "Sabbat Schule" were conducted exclusively in German. Currently, my favorite English Bible is the New American Standard Bible (Updated Edition). I find it to be the most accurate translation from the Koine Greek NT. The NASB or NAU is regarded as a literal translation. All in all, we can trust the Bible to be an all-sufficient and inerrant guide for Christian faith and practice. Dennis J. Fischer | ||
| Dennisrainwater (Dennisrainwater) |
Bill and Lydell, I'm watching your dialogue with interest. Thank you both for your input and effort. I have resisted jumping into this particular debate because my "evidence" is buried and dusty... It now rests mostly in feelings and impressions which echo conclusions I was brought to through study that occurred many, many months ago. As the purpose of that study wasn't the King James issue (but rather, my conclusions about that matter arose alongside the other issues I was studying), I didn't keep any notes specific to that. Therefore, I regret that I cannot offer the particular examples which caused me to arrive at these conclusions. I agree with you Bill, that a new Christian would probably be well served to be maturing toward the use of more advanced study tools than merely one "modern" version of the Bible -- particularly if it's a paraphrase. Yet I am very reluctant to suggest that one of those most primary tools ought to be the KJV. My reason for saying this is that when I undertook my study into the doctrines of Adventism that eventually lead us out, I spent a great deal of time digging into the Greek and Hebrew through a wide variety of language tools. As a result of that study, one of the things I was the most surprised by was a definite persuasion -- because of what I learned from comparing more than five different versions (including KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, among others) with the original languages -- that the KJV was NOT the absolute authority I had always regarded it as. In fact, I discovered numerous passages in which I found the NIV and others to be apparently more true and accurate to the original language (even as presented through my Inline Strong's Numbers system embedded in my KJV) than was the King James. Now having said that, I don't believe the King James should be shunned -- but with the above impressions in mind, along with the fact that the KJV contains many, many archaic words that even highly literate folks don't readily understand today, I feel uncomfortable urging folks toward some sense of necessity of "ascending" to it as though it alone were worthy of our highest trust. I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear, and I surely don't want to touch off a fire-storm of unnecessary controversy. I just felt that I should clarify my position. My purpose in asking the original question remains that of helping my dad to avoid the pit fall of legalism and judgmentalism which I have seen several folks fall into because of taking up a zealous "KJV ONLY" position -- which it has felt like perhaps my dad is being tempted to do. Thanks again to everyone for your thoughts and input. Can't to wait to see Him "face to face", and not as "through a glass darkly"! Den<>< | ||
| Loneviking (Loneviking) |
Nope, no firestorm of controversy here, Dennis! I'm not sure I'd call what I described as 'ascending', maybe more akin to 'maturing'. The reason I say that they should (or maybe that they will) advance to the KJV is that is the version that tried to be an English language, exact equivelent to the Greek and Hebrew; it was translated from a body of very old texts that were all in agreement; and the individuals that were translating all agreed that the Bible was the literal, inerrent Word of God. That's quite a contrast from some of the translation work that's coming out today! Still, you are right that some of the new translations are quite good. The New Living Translation is very, very good. Just about every time I dig into the Greek/Hebrew language helps and 'translate' a section into modern English---I find time and again that the New Living Translation already has the text tranlated almost exactly the way I figured it out! I guess what worries me is that some folks hold the idea that any version is O.K., it's all Gods' Word and we don't have to worry about who is translating it. It seems to me to set them up for big trouble if they try to study with the J.W's and their translation, or the Mormons and their translation. It seems to lead on to the ideas that 'we really can't know what the original texts said or what was meant', or else they fall off into the school of 'textual criticism' that ruins any faith in the Bible. There needs to be a middle ground somewhere, as the translations run the gamut from outright heresey (such as the New World translation or the Clear Word--SDA pharaphrase) to the tried (albeit ancient) KJV. I guess this whole area is just one more indicia of why it's so important for a church to have a careful, structured program of discipleship for new believers and members, right? I hope everybody has a great Sunday at church and I'll be looking forward to more posts on this topic........ Bill S. |
