Originally posted by NemesioI hope you see my reply to twhitehead above.
Originally posted by josephw
[b]I know of only two bodies of extant manuscripts besides the dead sea scrolls.
Well, there are thousands more. The Dead Sea Scrolls have literally zero NT literature in them.
They aren't even remotely relevant to Christian Scripture, so I don't know why you would bring them
up.
I addressed the two important ...[text shortened]... ly four 4th-century ones. It only means an error was repeated over and
over.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by josephwI call it reliable too, but I do the same with all the scriptures I have
In this way. Without trying to qualify this statement, my belief is that the KJV is totally reliable.
to read. That is not saying every i or t is correct or that some cover
certain passages better than others either, but with me it is prayer
and God I go to along with my study so I'm still not sure what you
are getting at. I attempt to not stand in judgment of the Word, but
instead line myself up with it as a guide to my life; however, I do go
to several translations to get a clear picture of God's intent in those
things I believe I need clarity on.
Kelly
Originally posted by kirksey957Yes, but I elected not to post it. I didn't feel it would be productive to get bogged down in a debate over manuscript evidence. Since nemesio assumes I "know very little about the art and science of translation", I would probably look like an idiot if I tried.
Did you have a response to Nemesio's post above yours?
And I'm sure he is more equipped to discuss it.
Let's do this out of order:
Originally posted by josephw
Be that as it may, I still hold to the thought that the bible is the most reliable source for all things concerning God and living the christian life.
That's fine. I have no problem with this. This is a statement of faith;
you're searching for God, and this is the way in which you find the
greatest connection. I think this is a blessing.
Perhaps I'm being too stringent. I have it in mind that the bible, specifically the KJV, is the "word of God". By definition, in my mind, that means it is free of error. Maybe I'm being too inflexible here in regard to the possibility that there may be "errors" as a result of mans involvement in the work of translation.
You are being to stringent. You are holding the KJV as an idol no
different than Jesus' objections to the Pharisees when they were holding
up slavish attention to the ritual practices of the Temple.
You are essentially saying that scholarship culminated with Tyndale and
is irrelevant now.
I'm not saying throw out the KJV. I have three on my shelf (!). I also
have eight other translations. When I want beauty, I go to the KJV.
When I want to know what St Jerome was pondering, I go to the Vulgate.
When I can't read the Vulgate, I go to the Douai-Rheims. When I want
to know what the Pope is saying, I go to the NAB. When I want
to know what the authors wrote, I go to the Greek and my translation
aids from UBS. When I want a contemporary translation with progressive
interpretations, I go to the Jesus Seminar Bible. And, I keep the NIV,
the RSV, and the NRSV so I can follow what other people are saying, too.
(And I think I have a few more translations, but I can't remember them
off the top of my head.)
The danger for you is that your Scripture study is static: You have the
one, true translation (in your mind), therefore there can be no spiritual
growth. It is not a living faith, and it is a desparate and tragic problem.
I think it must be the environment of this forum that motivates me to "defend" the faith
Defending your faith in the Resurrection is different than defending the
so-called perfection of the KJV. The former is a definitive article of your
faith, without which Orthodox (i.e., Creedal) Christianity has no meaning.
Defending the latter is not an article of your faith. A Christian need not
even have seen the KJV to be a person of faith.
...to the extent that I am perceived to be, and I hate to use the word, a bigot.
Bigotry is an ugly thing.
Your misguided faith in the perfection of the KJV doesn't make you a bigot.
I hope you don't think that somehow I implied this. I did not. It merely
makes you an idolator, which I think is too bad.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou are going way overboard with this idolatry stuff. You must think I'm stupid. 😕
Let's do this out of order:
Originally posted by josephw
[b]Be that as it may, I still hold to the thought that the bible is the most reliable source for all things concerning God and living the christian life.
That's fine. I have no problem with this. This is a statement of faith;
you're searching for God, and this is the way in which y ...[text shortened]... id not. It merely
makes you an idolator, which I think is too bad.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by josephw
You are going way overboard with this idolatry stuff.
It's a proven fact. You look at the KJV and see utter perfection. Looks, sounds, smells, tastes and
feels like an idol to me. So much for the 'living Word.'
You must think I'm stupid. 😕
Now you're getting like Whodey. I say what I mean. If you can find 'stupid' or 'dumb' or 'idiotic'
or 'moron' in reference to you, then you can conclude it. If you can't, then you're inferring,
and I can tell you that you are inferring inaccurately. I don't think you're stupid. I think you're
woefully misguided because you don't like to challenge your faith. You like it nice and comfy, with
the perfect Bible in your hand. As soon as anyone starts to say, 'Hey, examine that thing,' your
brain shuts like a steel trap.
You're like a long line of believers in lots of different faith traditions. You want security. You want
to live forever. You want the knowledge that you're loved by some sort of paternal figure.
Believe what you want, JosephW. You've made it clear that you aren't interested in dialogue, so I'm
not going to keep repeating myself every time you say, 'Nemesio thinks I'm dumb.'
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI agree with your post. Very good. There are also many who do not understand how words change in meaning. For example in 1600 KJV time the word "terrible" meant "awesome" in todays english.
Originally posted by josephw
[b]Now, if you wanted to compare different versions with the King James, I could show you hundreds of errors in the other versions.
The essential gist of JosephW's statement is that other translations have errors, but the King James
Version does not.
There are two reasons to object to this.
First, translatio ...[text shortened]... d, depending on the translation!) in having a fixed and
graven image of God.
Nemesio[/b]
Joel 2:31
31The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
(KJV)
Joel 2:31
31The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
(NKJ)
There are many words that don't mean the same today in the KJV.
Ps 116:15
15Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
(KJV)
This word precious I believe meant costly at the time, else it would contrdict the meaning of ....
1 Cor 15:26
26The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
(NKJ)
Death is an enemy not a friend...also, you did not mention, but I will, the possibility of a translator with a biased religious belief changing the meaning with deliberate or accidental intent. Most translators have a theology like the Trinity, immediate entrance to heaven at death, etc. and they don't neccessarily give the true translation. They mean well, but sincerity is no guarantee for truth.
Originally posted by NemesioThis place drives me nuts sometimes. I honestly believe that half the things I say really are not that accurate. But in the heat of debate I sometimes go overboard. I sincerely apologize.
Originally posted by josephw
[b]You are going way overboard with this idolatry stuff.
It's a proven fact. You look at the KJV and see utter perfection. Looks, sounds, smells, tastes and
feels like an idol to me. So much for the 'living Word.'
You must think I'm stupid. 😕
Now you're getting like Whodey. I say what I mean. ...[text shortened]... ng myself every time you say, 'Nemesio thinks I'm dumb.'
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by josephwMy problems with the idea that the KJV is 'free of error' include:
Sorry, I didn't intentionally ignore your question.
Perhaps I'm being too stringent. I have it in mind that the bible, specifically the KJV, is the "word of God". By definition, in my mind, that means it is free of error. Maybe I'm being too inflexible here in regard to the possibility that there may be "errors" as a result of mans involvement in the work o ...[text shortened]... I am perceived to be, and I hate to use the word, a bigot.
Bigotry is an ugly thing.
1. If perfect translation is impossible then it implies that the original is the one with errors.
2. Why only the KJV? What was so special about the English people in the 1600s that God singled them out for a 'perfect translation'.
3. All language has limitations and your interpretation of the text is as important as the actual text and yet God does not seem to put a whole lot of effort into getting people to interpret it uniformly.
4. Many people who read the KJV cant understand the English. When you encourage others to use the KJV you are actually robbing them of the chance to understand the Bible.
I come from Zambia, where English is not a first language for a large proportion of the population. My father used to sell Christian books including Bibles. A large number of people come asking for the KJV version specifically and don't want any other version. Many of them do so because they have been told that it is the 'true Bible' and some even believe that it was written by King James and that that somehow granted it extra authenticity. Most of these people cant actually understand the English used.
Originally posted by Nemesio1. "Guessing" implies obtaining a conclusion without any evidence; clearly translation (or interpretation generally) involves some evidence.
Originally posted by josephw
[b]Now, if you wanted to compare different versions with the King James, I could show you hundreds of errors in the other versions.
The essential gist of JosephW's statement is that other translations have errors, but the King James
Version does not.
There are two reasons to object to this.
First, translatio ...[text shortened]... d, depending on the translation!) in having a fixed and
graven image of God.
Nemesio[/b]
2. Just because Greek scholarship in the 16th century was not what it is today does not mean we necessarily have a better idea of what Greek words/expressions mean.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is silly. Of course we think we have a better idea today than we
2. Just because Greek scholarship in the 16th century was not what it is today does not mean we necessarily have a better idea of what Greek words/expressions mean.
did then, otherwise we would still be using the KJV. We have access to
more manuscripts which give us a broader context for interpretation,
we have access to more commentaries and contemporary theological
and secular literature, we have a better sense of the historical millieu
in which the texts were written, and we are much more responsible about
not imposing a priori assumptions about the intent of the authors
than in any previous time.
How could you possibly defend that we don't necessarily have a better
idea of what the words/expressions mean?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioLet's look at the reasons you give:
This is silly. Of course we think we have a better idea today than we
did then, otherwise we would still be using the KJV. We have access to
more manuscripts which give us a broader context for interpretation,
we have access to more commentaries and contemporary theological
and secular literature, we have a better sense of the historical millieu
in wh ...[text shortened]... that we don't necessarily have a better
idea of what the words/expressions mean?
Nemesio
We have access to more manuscripts which give us a broader context for interpretation
1. Do we actually have access to more manuscripts? After all, isn't it possible that translators back then had access to manuscripts that have been lost/destroyed since?
(This is mostly a hypothetical with the KJV, but we certainly know this happened with St. Jerome's Vulgate.)
2. Is a broader context for intrepretation necessarily a good thing?
After all, language is always employed in a local context. Using the meaning of the English word "lash" (for instance) as it is used in the majority of the English-speaking world is only going to obfuscate its meaning if the document you're translating comes from the East Midlands region of England.
we have access to more commentaries and contemporary theological and secular literature
So? "Contemporary" does not mean better. I know the idea that we're all evolving as a society to a better form of living seems to be the popular philosophy these days but (paraphrasing Chesterton) is there any reason to assume that Wednesday is better than Tuesday simply because it's Wednesday?
we have a better sense of the historical millieu in which the texts were written
I'm not sure we do. The modern mind has imbibed so many metaphysical and epistemological suppositions that would be completely alien to the medieaval or ancient mind - what makes you think we'd be better at putting ourselves in their shoes (which, as you say, is a goal of translating) than people closer in time to them?
and we are much more responsible about not imposing a priori assumptions about the intent of the authors than in any previous time.
Again, not sure about that. In our attempt to be "impartial" we often tend to disregard available evidence (including oral tradition) about the intent of the authors in the search for elusive, secret, revolutionary intentions.
Originally posted by NemesioActually my parents said that they preferred modern translations partly because they are more understandable to people today, so I don't think that a better idea of the original meaning is the only reason for using newer translations.
Of course we think we have a better idea today than we did then, otherwise we would still be using the KJV.
In fact I would go as far as to say that the vast majority of people in Zambia who use the KJV do not have enough understanding of old English to actually understand a lot of it. I also remember some discussion by my parents about how some phrases used in the KJV would not be understood by a modern reader even if he did have a good grasp of old English as they are phrases that had specific meaning in the 1600s but are no longer in use today. Sorry I don't have any examples.