Question for those who only use the KJV Bible (CC)

[Lovedtodeath]

I use several translations and I honestly haven't found differences (only clarification) in these:

 

NKJV, New Living Translation, NASB, Amplified, New American Bible, KJV.

[tntgoodwin]

No, based on much reading and praying about the topic. Finding the difference in meanings based on translation re-sparked the research which I had done years ago. So, my earlier post was poorly worded since I had become convinced before, but investigated again after planning the Bible study. For the study I ended up including 2 versions of the verses since I knew there were people who used other translations...though I don't remember which since it was close to 5 years ago. Several of the women have moved away the rest of us are so busy with high school aged Dc that we rarely see one another.

 

Thanks for clarifying! That makes more sense to me.

[Dustybug]

Authorized means the King (of England) ordered it and eventually permitted ONLY that version to be used. There were other English Bibles prior. The KJV was a bit of a reaction against the Geneva 1560 (loved my Geneva, btw...good if you are Protestant).

 

However, anymore the KJVO's treat "Authorised" as though it was authorised by God as THE English translation over and above all those before and after (I grew up KJVO, btw)

 

Thanks for this information. I told DH about the Geneva Bible and he is interested in maybe purchasing one to look at it.

 

Thanks to everyone else for your knowledge and the links, etc!

 

After a conversation with DH today, he actually told me that he really just believes that people shouldn't jump around to different translations. He thinks that you should pick one and stay with that one, so maybe since he was raised on the KJV, he sees no need to change?

[mommaduck]

Thanks for this information. I told DH about the Geneva Bible and he is interested in maybe purchasing one to look at it.

 

Thanks to everyone else for your knowledge and the links, etc!

 

After a conversation with DH today, he actually told me that he really just believes that people shouldn't jump around to different translations. He thinks that you should pick one and stay with that one, so maybe since he was raised on the KJV, he sees no need to change?

It costs more, but if he could get hold of a 1560, it includes the deuterocanon and psalter. The 1599 that is typically put out does not. The 1611 KJV also used to contain the deuterocanon at first, from my understanding.

[Heather in Neverland]

I just wanted to say that this is the most respectful conversation I have ever read about KJVO. We have some acquaintances that are definitely KJVU and insist anyone who uses any other version is going to hell. Preferring one version is one thing but tying the use of that version to one's salvation is so wrong. This thread has been such a nice contrast to that.

[Joanne]

I just wanted to say that this is the most respectful conversation I have ever read about KJVO. We have some acquaintances that are definitely KJVU and insist anyone who uses any other version is going to hell. Preferring one version is one thing but tying the use of that version to one's salvation is so wrong. This thread has been such a nice contrast to that.

 

The irony and contrast involved in a Christian believing another believer is going to hell based on a Bible translation is striking.

[Dustybug]

It costs more, but if he could get hold of a 1560, it includes the deuterocanon and psalter. The 1599 that is typically put out does not. The 1611 KJV also used to contain the deuterocanon at first, from my understanding.

 

We actually have a 1611 KJV, but it is written in the Olde English pen and it VERY difficult to read. There are also many misspellings.

 

I just wanted to say that this is the most respectful conversation I have ever read about KJVO. We have some acquaintances that are definitely KJVU and insist anyone who uses any other version is going to hell. Preferring one version is one thing but tying the use of that version to one's salvation is so wrong. This thread has been such a nice contrast to that.

 

:iagree:

[Rene']

The problem with the Gap Theory is that it is racist, has been discredited, and was never held by the historical churches.

I just have to say that I have never come across any racist information in all my studies of the Gap/Ruin-Reconstruction Theory. What you quote below is something I have never encountered before and do not believe.

 

n 1655, Frenchman Isaac La Peyrère published his theory that not only did Adam come from pre-Adamic stock (rather than being formed by God from the dust of the ground), but also Cain’s wife and the inhabitants of Cain’s city came from other pre-Adamic stock

 

In the 18th and 19th centuries, because white and non-white people looked superficially different, a minority of Christians thought that God had created non-whites separately from Adam, and so they must have descended from pre-Adamic creatures. Hence pre-Adamism took the form of polygenism, or multiple creations of different races. Proponents of this idea often thought that non-whites were inferior beings who could be treated as slaves. Pre-Adamism thus became the scientific justification for slavery, and a defense for racism.

The earth is found in Gen 1:2 in a state of destruction, without form and void and covered in water. No pre-adamic creatures would have survived the destruction. The bible doesn't say, but I personally do not believe Adam and Eve were Caucasian. And I would think, especially in America, most of us are of mixed race now-days. My husband is part Native American. I don't know what I am. :lol:

 

A “mistranslation†has contributed to the case for this misinterpretation. In the King James Version of the Bible, God says to Adam, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.†Proponents of the Gap Theory emphasize the word “replenish.â€

I just want to say that it's not this word alone that the Gap Theory hangs on. It is many many things in the Bible.

 

They interpret the text as saying that Adam and Eve were to refill the Earth. They were to fill it again. The problem with this view is that, regardless of what it says in English translations, the Hebrew word is mâlê’, and it simply means “to fill†or “to be full.†Moreover, the English translators of the King James Version knew the word means “to fill.†They chose “replenish†because, in 17th-century Elizabethan English, “replenish†meant “to fill†(similar to how in modern English the word “replete†doesn’t mean to “abound again,†it simply means “abundant†or “aboundingâ€). Language is not static, but dynamic. Words change meaning over time. Today “replenish†means “to fill again.†It didn’t mean the same thing in 17th century England. Nearly all modern translations translate mâlê’ as simply “fill†in the passage in question (Genesis 1:28).

If the bolded above were true then the word "fill" would not be present in the Old Testament and in fact every time it would say "replenish". That is not the case.

 

The word mâlê' is found 241 times in the OT. It is translated as

 

• Filled 74 times
  
• Full 50 times
  
• Fill 33 times
  
• Fulfilled 20 times
  
• Fulfill 7 times
  
• Accomplished 6 times
  
• Wholly 6 times
  
• Replenished 5 times
  
• Set 5 times
  
• Consecrate 3 times
  
• Consecrated 3 times
  
• Expired 3 times
  
• Fully 3 times
  
• Filleth 3 times
  
• Gather 2 times
  
• Replenish 2 times
  
• Also translated as accomplish, become, confirm, end, fenced, filledst, fillest, fullness, furnish, gathered, handful, overfloweth, overflown, presume, satisfied, satisfy, and space.
  

Proponents of the Gap Theory respond by pointing out that God said to Noah after the flood, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill [mâlê’] the earth†(Genesis 9:1). It is evident that Noah was meant to refill the earth after the flood. Can’t we then interpret the same command to Adam to mean the same thing—that Adam was to repopulate the earth after God’s judgment? The fact is that, regardless what the condition of the planet was before Noah’s flood, God didn’t tell Noah to “refill†the Earth. He simply said to fill it. God chose the words He chose and no others. If He said “refill,†that would have been something, but since He just said “fill,†that argument falls flat.

Since we can see from above that one Hebrew word was translated into a myriad of English words, and I believe those English words are exactly what God wanted to say, I believe God was telling Noah, and Adam, to re-fill the earth. But again, that's not the only reason I believe in the Gap.

[Rene']

(for the record I don't find KJ difficult).

I didn't state it in my post, but :iagree:

[mommaduck]

I just have to say that I have never come across any racist information in all my studies of the Gap/Ruin-Reconstruction Theory. What you quote below is something I have never encountered before and do not believe.

 

The earth is found in Gen 1:2 in a state of destruction' date=' without form and void and covered in water. No pre-adamic creatures would have survived the destruction. The bible doesn't say, but I personally do not believe Adam and Eve were Caucasian. And I would think, especially in America, most of us are of mixed race now-days. My husband is part Native American. I don't know what I am. :lol:

 

I just want to say that it's not this word alone that the Gap Theory hangs on. It is many many things in the Bible.

 

If the bolded above were true then the word "fill" would not be present in the Old Testament and in fact every time it would say "replenish". That is not the case.

 

The word [i']mâlê'[/i] is found 241 times in the OT. It is translated as

 

 

• Filled 74 times

• Full 50 times

• Fill 33 times

• Fulfilled 20 times

• Fulfill 7 times

• Accomplished 6 times

• Wholly 6 times

• Replenished 5 times

• Set 5 times

• Consecrate 3 times

• Consecrated 3 times

• Expired 3 times

• Fully 3 times

• Filleth 3 times

• Gather 2 times

• Replenish 2 times

• Also translated as accomplish, become, confirm, end, fenced, filledst, fillest, fullness, furnish, gathered, handful, overfloweth, overflown, presume, satisfied, satisfy, and space.

 

Since we can see from above that one Hebrew word was translated into a myriad of English words, and I believe those English words are exactly what God wanted to say, I believe God was telling Noah, and Adam, to re-fill the earth. But again, that's not the only reason I believe in the Gap.

To be honest, sometimes they were translated to say what the translators wanted them to say. I don't consider the KJV to be accurate though (I've come a long way away from my KJVO roots though, through much study).

[Lovedtodeath]

 

To be honest, sometimes they were translated to say what the translators wanted them to say.

:iagree:Reminds me of the word diakonos which Paul used 34 times and only one of those times is it translated servant.

[Rene']

:iagree:Reminds me of the word diakonos which Paul used 34 times and only one of those times is it translated servant.

This is not true.

[AnnaM]

I'm not KJV only but have family members who are. The translation of the KJV is from Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament collectively called the Textus Receptus. The people who are King James only believe that these manuscripts are the most accurate.

 

 

This is my understanding as well. I go to a KJV church though I also use the ESV. At this point I am convinced the ESV uses accurate texts, but I love the language of the KJV so still prefer it. I did grow up on it though so it just makes more sense for me to keep using it as all of my scripture memory comes from the KJV. The KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB are from what I understand literal translations of the original texts, where NIV and most others are paraphrase translations. You don't even want to get me started on The Message. I don't even consider it an actual Bible.

[Rene']

To be honest, sometimes they were translated to say what the translators wanted them to say. I don't consider the KJV to be accurate though (I've come a long way away from my KJVO roots though, through much study).

I don't pretend to understand all the in's and out's of translating from Hebrew or Greek into English. I do know that I can look at the Textus Receptus and see some slight variations in the Greek words that have the same root meaning but are translated into different English words. As I have let the King James Bible define my theology, rather than the other way around, I've seen a wonderful picture expand out before me. Everything makes sense in a way it did not before, everything fits in to place.

 

Do you have any bible that you believe to be the true Word of God?

[Lovedtodeath]

This is not true.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1249

[milovany]

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1249

 

??? It translates the Greek word as servant *8* times, according to your link. And the definition shows it can mean minister, servant and deacon (which is the most obvious meaning).

[tex-mex]

My DH was raised to believe (by his pastor father) that the KJV is the first complete translation of the Bible into English and therefore, we need no other English translations. I don't know if that is completely true, because I've honestly never researched it, but DH hasn't really delved into the "why" on his own. That's fine with me, I'm not trying to make him change his views, I just want to understand better.

 

Our church (which is not his father's) teaches that the KJV is the one and only "authorized" english version of the Bible (whatever that means). I have never asked anyone to explain it further, mostly because I didn't want to ruffle feathers and because I don't actually mind using the KJV, just want to know why so many are KJV-only. When we first started attending this church four years ago, one of the deacons told me that they were, "KJV Only, but not KJV Ugly" (meaning they didn't condemn others for using something different, although they definitely teach that they believe that one should only use the KJV).

Technically, the first English translation of the Bible is the Wycliffe Bible and then the Tyndale Bible.

 

What is the significance of the Wycliffe translation?

 

1. It was the first complete Bible in English—in fact, the first complete Bible in any modern European language!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wycliffe%27s_Bible

 

2. It indirectly began to break down the power structures of the political-religious machinery of the Roman Catholic church. Lay folks did not need to rely on the priests to access God. And they could know his will and even challenge their spiritual leaders. It is no wonder that by 1408 even reading the Bible in English was outlawed.People owned a copy at risk of liberty and life. So powerful was Wycliffe’s influence in fact that in 1415 the Pope decreed that his bones should be dug up, burned, and the ashes scattered on the River Swift.

 

3. The translation was completed more than sixty years before the invention of the movable-type printing press. All Wycliffe Bibles were thus handwritten copies. This lessened its impact considerably. And even though one Bible could take up to a year to copy, thousands were made.

 

No new English translations occurred between Wycliffe’s and Tyndale’s. One hundred and thirty years passed without progress. A part of the reason was no doubt that the 1408 British law against any Bible in English was still in effect. It would be risky enough just to make a copy of Wycliffe’s Bible!

Meanwhile, there were encouraging signs in the rest of Europe. Italian, French, Spanish, and Dutch Bibles appeared in the 1400s, most likely inspired by Wycliffe’s pioneering efforts. The stage was becoming set for the single most influential Bible translator of all time.

 

The KJV is simply a by-product of Wycliffe (King James had numerous scholars -- including Catholic Rheims scholars work on the KJV -- using the Wycliffe partially as it was translated from the Latin Vulgate) and Tyndale's (Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic translations) work and the hybrid of Anglican and Catholic church arguing and finally in agreement on an "official" Bible to be in English translation. Personally, I do not like the KJV and the Bible College I attended liked the 1984 NIV Bible. I do like the New American Standard Version Bible. But to each their own. HTH

Edited July 9, 2012 by tex-mex

[Juniper]

 

Do you have any bible that you believe to be the true Word of God?

 

Technically an Orthodox believer cannot answer this question in the affirmative as it goes against our theology. The only true Word of God is Jesus. On this point you have brushed up against one of the very stubborn areas in EO.

 

I remember my Priest was leading a catechumen class and there was a Pentecostal woman attending. The first time she referred to the Bible as the Word of God he very gently informed her that in Orthodoxy Jesus is the Word of God. She would not stop. I watched him maintain his cool, but every time (which was a lot) she would say, "the Word of God." He would interject, "Jesus." The woman ended up not being able to have a decent conversation and it was really quite sad. It was also very informative as to how far into the realm of "bad" theology this thought could take a person. ;)

[Rene']

The KJV is simply a by-product of Wycliffe (King James had numerous scholars -- including Catholic Rheims scholars work on the KJV -- using the Wycliffe partially as it was translated from the Latin Vulgate) and Tyndale's (Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic translations) work ...

Wycliffe's bible was not used in translating the King James. The Bishop's Bible was the main reference, and the translators were to refer to Tydale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible and Geneva when they agreed better with the text than the Bishop's.

 

...the hybrid of Anglican and Catholic church arguing and finally in agreement on an "official" Bible to be in English translation.

:confused:

[Rene']

Technically an Orthodox believer cannot answer this question in the affirmative as it goes against our theology. The only true Word of God is Jesus. On this point you have brushed up against one of the very stubborn areas in EO.

 

I remember my Priest was leading a catechumen class and there was a Pentecostal woman attending. The first time she referred to the Bible as the Word of God he very gently informed her that in Orthodoxy Jesus is the Word of God. She would not stop. I watched him maintain his cool, but every time (which was a lot) she would say, "the Word of God." He would interject, "Jesus." The woman ended up not being able to have a decent conversation and it was really quite sad. It was also very informative as to how far into the realm of "bad" theology this thought could take a person. ;)

 

I understand. I, too, believe that Jesus is the Word.

 

Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Is there any bible that Mommaduck believes to be the "words" of God, translated correctly, that she can read and trust that what is says is worded in the way God wants it and is truth?

[Laurie4b]

Orthodox Christian here: As Mommaduck stated, we use the OT Septuagint, for many reasons. The NT quotations from the OT come from the Septuagint and it is the scripture that was available to the Apostles and to Christ. It contains many things that left out of the Masoretic texts (and the Masoretic text adds things that are not in the Septuagint...like the verse, "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not depart from it" That is new in the Masoretic. I don't know why I remember that but I do.

 

The other reason is that there was a lot of work put into the Masoretic text from AD50 forward to deflect the prophecies concerning the Christ from referring to Jesus Christ. So where the Septuagint says "A virgin shall conceive..." the Masoretic says, "A maiden shall conceive..." (Big whoop! Happens more than you can imagine!) :0)

 

Anyway, that is a side issue and I comment only because I found this extremely interesting.

 

In what language do you read the OT Septuagint? If in English, what is the translation called?

[Laurie4b]

This is my understanding as well. I go to a KJV church though I also use the ESV. At this point I am convinced the ESV uses accurate texts, but I love the language of the KJV so still prefer it. I did grow up on it though so it just makes more sense for me to keep using it as all of my scripture memory comes from the KJV. The KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB are from what I understand literal translations of the original texts, where NIV and most others are paraphrase translations. You don't even want to get me started on The Message. I don't even consider it an actual Bible.

 

I think calling the NIV and most others a paraphrase is not quite correct. I would call The Message a paraphrase, or Phillips (much older--popular in the 70s). The NIV and others don't seek to translate literally word for word, but rather literally thought for thought. This is actually sometimes more accurate in conveying the meaning of the text in a way that the average English speaker would understand it. I'm having a hard time putting this into words . Sometimes translating literally word for word strains the English so that it is not as comprehensible to the reader as it would be if the meaning of the thought was translated literally.

[Kathryn]

I think calling the NIV and most others a paraphrase is not quite correct. I would call The Message a paraphrase, or Phillips (much older--popular in the 70s). The NIV and others don't seek to translate literally word for word, but rather literally thought for thought. This is actually sometimes more accurate in conveying the meaning of the text in a way that the average English speaker would understand it. I'm having a hard time putting this into words . Sometimes translating literally word for word strains the English so that it is not as comprehensible to the reader as it would be if the meaning of the thought was translated literally.

 

:iagree:

[mommaduck]

I don't pretend to understand all the in's and out's of translating from Hebrew or Greek into English. I do know that I can look at the Textus Receptus and see some slight variations in the Greek words that have the same root meaning but are translated into different English words. As I have let the King James Bible define my theology' date=' rather than the other way around, I've seen a wonderful picture expand out before me. Everything makes sense in a way it did not before, everything fits in to place.

 

Do you have any bible that you believe to be the true Word of God?[/quote']

Well, I can tell you that it would not be the KJV. There is a verse that my husband found, in Proverbs, I believe. A Mennonite quoted it at me (personal issues): "A man that hath friends must shew himself friendly." My husband looked up the verse. Yes, you will find words for these in the Strong's, but that does not mean that that is what the Manuscripts say. Apparently, the verse there was originally, "A man with many friends is a fool" or "will come to ruin" or "doeth his own destruction".

 

I'm waiting for an English translation that doesn't rely on the NKJV. I do compare versions between languages though (preferably the Greek and Aramaic). Also, I've learned a lot by learning about the cultures that the Scriptures were written in by studying history and by speaking with those that are from those cultures and have understood the lingual implications due to their own native languages stemming from them (again, Greek and Aramaic). When we translate a word into what we hope is the "best" English word, and then insist upon applying our choice of English understanding and English definition, particularly with our sight only on what we are familiar with in the Western world and history, we set ourselves up for a fall. So no, I no long believe I can take a bible, any bible, and go sit by myself and have a "me, my bible, and the holy spirit (generally a persons own construct or "feeling" that they later say was the "holy spirit" rather than the actual Holy Spirit)" powwow and come out with a full and truthful understanding. Some things were meant to be done in community or with guidance. The eunuch is a prime example. Some say, "well, he wasn't baptised yet, so he didn't have understanding", but that is not what happened. He understood with guidance and someone to help explain it to him appropriately, THEN he was baptised.

 

If I was still Protestant, I'd enjoy the Geneva and the ESV (still have mine). The KJV is nice for the way it reads. I currently own the OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) as that is what I could afford and is what is available to me right now in English. I would like to get an EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible). Again though, I believe any and all are capable of having error in them, as they are translated by man and man does err. Thus the need for study and guidance beyond a closet and a version of one's choosing.

 

So no, there is no one English translation that I would say is perfect, complete, the be all, end all, with nothing else alongside it that I would follow to the ends of the Earth. I believe the Scriptures are part of Tradition, not separate from. They are to work in tandem with, not to the exclusion of.

 

If you ever learn to read another language (Spanish for example), try reading the Scriptures in that and compare. You will see what I mean by choices of words and definitions. Reading the Scriptures across languages is very enlightening. I did this with German when someone was teaching me German.

Edited July 9, 2012 by mommaduck

[Juniper]

I understand. I' date=' too, believe that Jesus is the Word.

 

Perhaps I should rephrase my question. Is there any bible that Mommaduck believes to be the "words" of God, translated correctly, that she can read and trust that what is says is worded in the way God wants it and is truth?[/quote']

 

Sorry, that I am stepping in here for her. She will probably interject her thoughts when she has a moment. (oops, she beat me to it!):D

 

Just of note: Mommaduck attends a Greek Parish, so their Liturgy (which includes major portions of scripture) is still in the original Greek.

 

Again it is just a difficult conversation to have when many in the EO still read the scriptures in the original Greek.

 

That said even the Greek LXX is not really from one direct source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Texts_and_translations

 

This is an area where EO is both behind and ahead at the same time. We are behind in that our scholars have not had a need to translate into one authoratitve text. Since we are not Sola Scriptura we do not have to the same motivation that many of our Protestant brothers and sisters do. OTOH, I would say they are a bit ahead (poor description), because for the most part our Bishops, scholars and the vast majority of priests still read (fluently) the original greek. Because our Dogmas have been established for so long there isn't much of chance of some new theology being preached that will come and lead us astray. ;) Even so we are definitely encouraged to read the Orthodox Study Bible and other intact (apocryphal) Bibles for our personal study.

 

I now have to run as I am running late. :D

 

PS, Mommaduck answered the versions she uses near the second page I think. ;)

[mommaduck]

Lay folks did not need to rely on the priests to access God. And they could know his will and even challenge their spiritual leaders. It is no wonder that by 1408 even reading the Bible in English was outlawed.

 

First, neither the Orthodox Church nor the Roman Patriarchate EVER taught that the lay people have to rely on the priests to "access God"...other than one must be properly ordained to serve the Eucharist, as it was not seen as merely symbolic, otherwise pull out the pepsi and pretzels and have it blessed and served by the eight year old ;)

 

In the EOC the people have always been a balance of power with the bishops. Thus the reaction toward the False Unification at the Council of Florence (the people locked the priests out and/or refuse to show themselves to Liturgy). The RC, okay, not as much, but I'll let them speak for themselves ;)

 

Reading the Bible in English wasn't the issue. The issue was the translation was a "renegade" translation in the manner in which it was carried out, without approval or proper oversight by the the RCC authorities. The RC concern was to see that there was no mistranslation and that it would be accurate. The RC believed they could trust the Latin Vulgate, but translations to other languages should take time and not just be popped out (such as they are today...a new translation or version every few years, willy nilly...an we see the problems with such and argue over them now, but we accuse the RCC of having the same concerns and falsely accuse them of simply not wanting to give it to the people in their own languages...hmm, that was partly what the homily was for, and the teaching and guidance of the priests).

[sunshine clementine]

i didn't take the time to read all of the replies..i grew up using kj only, so did my husband..from what we studied later on our own as adults (and sorry i can't remember the source)..was the method of translation was different for the kj..supposedly modern translations are translated in a thought for thought manner while the kjv is translated word for word. hope that helps.

[mommaduck]

 

Just of note: Mommaduck attends a Greek Parish, so their Liturgy (which includes major portions of scripture) is still in the original Greek.

 

In our particular parish (and being seen in more and more parishes) the Liturgy is a mix of English and Greek. The Scriptures are read in both. The Homily is in English unless it's a minor service and the majority of the people are elderly Greeks, then the entire service is in Greek (the language of the people). The Eritreans have a separate service after Liturgy, so that any of their people that don't understand English may also have understanding. We attended last week and a friend sat next to me and made the basic points to me. Fortunately, I was able to piece together what I already knew of the people mentioned and the topic and basic phrases. In that situation, I got to understand what it would be like to be the minority language there. She was Eritrean and the teaching was in Ethiopian (slightly different dialects).

 

(if you ever have a chance to try Eritrean food, do it! YUM!)

[mommaduck]

This is an area where EO is both behind and ahead at the same time. We are behind in that our scholars have not had a need to translate into one authoratitve text. Since we are not Sola Scriptura we do not have to the same motivation that many of our Protestant brothers and sisters do. OTOH, I would say they are a bit ahead (poor description), because for the most part our Bishops, scholars and the vast majority of priests still read (fluently) the original greek. Because our Dogmas have been established for so long there isn't much of chance of some new theology being preached that will come and lead us astray. ;) Even so we are definitely encouraged to read the Orthodox Study Bible and other intact (apocryphal) Bibles for our personal study.

 

 

:iagree:

[Tree House Academy]

The NIV and others don't seek to translate literally word for word, but rather literally thought for thought. This is actually sometimes more accurate in conveying the meaning.

 

:iagree: When I was taking French in college, we did a lot of translating from French to English. If you have ever studied another language, you know that "word for word" translations into English are almost impossible because of the way that other languages will conjugate. Most of the time, the verb includes the pronoun and changes the ending. When translating French, I had to do it sentence by sentence or it didn't make sense. Word for word sometimes came out strange.

[Lovedtodeath]

??? It translates the Greek word as servant *8* times, according to your link. And the definition shows it can mean minister, servant and deacon (which is the most obvious meaning).

When Paul uses the term or a derivative it is translated as servant only when referring to a woman.

 

Epaphras, our dear sundoulous (fellow servant), is a faithful diakonos (translated minister) of Christ. --Colossians 1:7

 

I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a diakonos (translated servant) of the church in Cenchrea, --Romans 16:1

[Rene']

When Paul uses the term or a derivative it is translated as servant only when referring to a woman.

 

Epaphras, our dear sundoulous (fellow servant), is a faithful diakonos (translated minister) of Christ. --Colossians 1:7

 

I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a diakonos (translated servant) of the church in Cenchrea, --Romans 16:1

I don't really see the problem. Jesus does the same thing - same Greek word used as minister and then as servant.

 

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

 

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Rene'

[dlcricket]

Jesus actually said "diakonos" in both of these instances. The translators chose to use different words. I believe, according to context and the meaning of diakonos, that "servant" would be the best translation of what Jesus said in both verses.

 

 

I don't really see the problem. Jesus does the same thing - same Greek word used as minister and then as servant.

 

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him' date=' and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. [/color']

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

 

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

[ktgrok]

I don't really see the problem. Jesus does the same thing - same Greek word used as minister and then as servant.

 

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him' date=' and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. [/color']

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

 

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

 

Um, didn't Jesus speak Aramaic, not greek? So no, I don't think he used the same greek word.

[ktgrok]

oops, duplicate post.

[Rene']

Jesus actually said "diakonos" in both of these instances. The translators chose to use different words. I believe, according to context and the meaning of diakonos, that "servant" would be the best translation of what Jesus said in both verses.

 

That was my point. Obviously, the two words, Biblically, are pretty synonymous. When "minister" is used here for "diakonos" it is not a "Minister" like we think of today.

[Rene']

Um, didn't Jesus speak Aramaic, not greek? So no, I don't think he used the same greek word.

We don't have any copies of the gospels written in Aramaic, and there might not have ever been any. I'm one who believes that translations can be inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit so I have no problem saying Jesus used the same word in both instances. It's clear from the text, whether "minister" or "servant" or "diakonos" or something else, that Jesus was reiterating the same statement.

 

Since the translators used both "minister" and "servant" in those two instances with Jesus, there is no reason to assume that something different is being said about Phoebe than what is said about the other "ministers". It's clear from the text that she was on some sort of trip as a minister of the Lord and the saints were to assist her in her business while among them.

[Lovedtodeath]

Interesting discussion :)

 

then we have:

 

"Epaphras, our dear sundoulous (fellow servant), is a faithful diakonos (translated minister) of Christ." --Colossians 1:7

 

and doulos :"Art thou called being a servant? care * not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." --1 Corinthians 7:21-23 From http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/1_corinthians_7.shtml

[ereks mom]

Here are some links you might find useful:

 

 

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm

 

http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm

 

http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume15/TM015277.html

 

http://www.tentmaker.org/Biblematters/adding.htm

 

http://virtualreligion.net/primer/textus.html

 

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/textusreceptus.htm

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Here are some links you might find useful:

Very helpful. :) In another forum, we give "thumbs up", like a facebok "like" but I can't do that here.

[npmomof5]

Hello! We just had a man in our church who is very studied on this subject. Try going to www.samgipp.com. On his home page, you will see a book called the Answers Book. You can click to read most of this online. It will list 62 questions that you can click on to see his very knowledgable answers. Hope this helps!

[mommaduck]

Hello! We just had a man in our church who is very studied on this subject. Try going to www.samgipp.com. On his home page, you will see a book called the Answers Book. You can click to read most of this online. It will list 62 questions that you can click on to see his very knowledgable answers. Hope this helps!

I had to really roll my eyes by #13. Please see any and all posts above about English translations PRIOR to the 1611. And he skips answering #49 (the answer is "yes").

Edited July 13, 2012 by mommaduck

[tex-mex]

First, neither the Orthodox Church nor the Roman Patriarchate EVER taught that the lay people have to rely on the priests to "access God"...other than one must be properly ordained to serve the Eucharist, as it was not seen as merely symbolic, otherwise pull out the pepsi and pretzels and have it blessed and served by the eight year old ;)

 

In the EOC the people have always been a balance of power with the bishops. Thus the reaction toward the False Unification at the Council of Florence (the people locked the priests out and/or refuse to show themselves to Liturgy). The RC, okay, not as much, but I'll let them speak for themselves ;)

 

Reading the Bible in English wasn't the issue. The issue was the translation was a "renegade" translation in the manner in which it was carried out, without approval or proper oversight by the the RCC authorities. The RC concern was to see that there was no mistranslation and that it would be accurate. The RC believed they could trust the Latin Vulgate, but translations to other languages should take time and not just be popped out (such as they are today...a new translation or version every few years, willy nilly...an we see the problems with such and argue over them now, but we accuse the RCC of having the same concerns and falsely accuse them of simply not wanting to give it to the people in their own languages...hmm, that was partly what the homily was for, and the teaching and guidance of the priests).

That is why Wycliffe, Tyndale and later Martin Luther protested against the powers that be within the Church who said there had to be approval or proper oversight. And why there became Protestants and religious wars between the two in Europe.

[tex-mex]

Wycliffe's bible was not used in translating the King James. The Bishop's Bible was the main reference' date=' and the translators were to refer to Tydale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible and Geneva when they agreed better with the text than the Bishop's.

 

 

[/quote']

I know that. :D I guess I did not make that point clear earlier? My apologies.

 

I made the point earlier about Wycliffe being the first English Bible translated by hand. Hope that makes sense.

[mommaduck]

That is why Wycliffe, Tyndale and later Martin Luther protested against the powers that be within the Church who said there had to be approval or proper oversight. And why there became Protestants and religious wars between the two in Europe.

True, but even the translators of the KJV 1611 believed in something called "proper oversight". The Reformed were known for strict belief in it (other than Martin Luther who was a bit of a lone ranger...but then he believed so strongly that others should agree with him that he later became bitter when they didn't. I admire his wife more than him for the simple fact that she put up with him and tore the door off of his study when he was ignoring his family ;) ).

 

 

The main reason that I found the above link laughable was due to what you and Rene' posted: it pretends that the translation came strictly and only from certain manuscripts, when in fact, it did not. Also, the fact that he finds the Latin Vulgate so reprehensible, yet the precious KJV uses other English translations that may have depended upon the LV for some of their translation work...well, it's just ironic. He complains about how "educated" folk will try to damage another's faith in the KJV, but his own lack of education in the area that he's teaching on is more damaging, particularly when those that grow up under such dogmatic teaching (such as myself) learn the reality of translating and the history of the English Bible and the Bible in other languages. Then he claims that other have added or taken away from Scripture, when the reality is that we can find just that with the KJV. (again, raised IFB and know the KJVO positions inside out and upside down)

Edited July 13, 2012 by mommaduck

[tex-mex]

True, but even the translators of the KJV 1611 believed in something called "proper oversight". The Reformed were known for strict belief in it (other than Martin Luther who was a bit of a lone ranger...but then he believed so strongly that others should agree with him that he later became bitter when they didn't. I admire his wife more than him for the simple fact that she put up with him and tore the door off of his study when he was ignoring his family ;) ).

 

 

The main reason that I found the above link laughable was due to what you and Rene' posted: it pretends that the translation came strictly and only from certain manuscripts, when in fact, it did not. Also, the fact that he finds the Latin Vulgate so reprehensible, yet the precious KJV uses other English translations that may have depended upon the LV for some of their translation work...well, it's just ironic. He complains about how "educated" folk will try to damage another's faith in the KJV, but his own lack of education in the area that he's teaching on is more damaging, particularly when those that grow up under such dogmatic teaching (such as myself) learn the reality of translating and the history of the English Bible and the Bible in other languages. Then he claims that other have added or taken away from Scripture, when the reality is that we can find just that with the KJV. (again, raised IFB and know the KJVO positions inside out and upside down)

We can argue all day long over translation and dogma.

 

I'm not sure but I suspect you are biased against Protestantism, perhaps? Your tone in your posts in this thread on this KJV subject comes across as haughty? What is the deal?

[mommaduck]

We can argue all day long over translation and dogma.

 

I'm not sure but I suspect you are biased against Protestantism, perhaps? Your tone in your posts in this thread on this KJV subject comes across as haughty? What is the deal?

No, I'm not biased against Protestantism. I have many dear friends that are and nearly all our family on both sides are. We were both raised such. There are many Protestants that would also hold the same view as I posted about the link above. My point is, the link is very inaccurate and insists that people believe what he says while discouraging anyone from actually studying the issue with the veiled threat of "it will damage or destroy their faith".

[tex-mex]

No, I'm not biased against Protestantism. I have many dear friends that are and nearly all our family on both sides are. We were both raised such. There are many Protestants that would also hold the same view as I posted about the link above. My point is, the link is very inaccurate and insists that people believe what he says while discouraging anyone from actually studying the issue with the veiled threat of "it will damage or destroy their faith".

What link?

 

Are you confusing my posts with someone else?

 

Are you referring to message #68? I honestly have no clue to what or whom you are referring to. This thread has tons of "off-shoot" posts that I am not following (nor reading) intently.

 

I did not state anything about dogma being wrong or it being a veiled threat to damage or destroy one's faith.

Edited July 14, 2012 by tex-mex

[Omma]

I think of 'Uncle Cam' (Cameron Townsend), founder of Wycliffe Bible Translators, who was told... "If your God is so great, why doesn't he speak my language?" And, of course, He does! During the time of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 10, the people of the whole earth that had had just one language and a common speech, became scattered over the face of the earth and the Lord confused their language so that they would not understand one another. But Revelation ch. 4 refers to the fact that, by the blood of the Lamb, men were purchased for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And Mt. 24:14 states that this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

 

Wycliffe Bible Translators is working to translate the Bible to fulfill Mt. 24:14 and to let everyone know that God does speak their language. It is exciting to see that in heaven (according to Revelation 5) there will be people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation praising God. When I worked with WBT back in the '80's, there were about 3,000 languages left in the world that needed to be translated (much fewer lgs. left today). We know that it is God's will for Mt. 24:14 to be fulfilled, and that it won't all be done with the KJV translation for obvious reasons. I am just sharing this to try and widen the perspective with which we consider this question of KJV only. I believe that the scene in heaven of the richness of every language being represented in worshipping God will be completely awe-inspiring. Just think about how the Greeks have such a rich way of expressing the word, 'love', for example (compared with our 'bland' way of just one word that needs modifiers to explain the difference between loving God and loving ice cream :lol:). Or how we have just one word for 'snow' compared to Inuit languages that multiple different words, depending on if it is 'icy snow', 'fluffy snow', etc. etc. How can we think that there could only be one best translation? What extraordinary worship of God there will some day be, to take the best way to express each attribute of God using as our base every language in the world!

 

I grew up memorizing using the KJV only (and I did a lot of memorizing), but now I am happy if I remember any verses out of either the NIV or KJV :lol:.

 

Oh, and I agree that the poetry in the KJV is beautiful, BTW! And some may successfully argue that the KJV is the best translation in English. But to broaden the argument, we know that the KJV cannot be the best translation for people groups in a remote part of Russia, for example. And the expression of the gospel translations from this part of the world will be glorious and beautiful in heaven some day as part of that Revelation multitude that no one can number from every tribe.... praising God. AMEN!

[mommaduck]

What link?

 

Are you confusing my posts with someone else?

 

Are you referring to message #68? I honestly have no clue to what or whom you are referring to. This thread has tons of "off-shoot" posts that I am not following (nor reading) intently.

 

I did not state anything about dogma being wrong or it being a veiled threat to damage or destroy one's faith.

the link in #92...if you read through the Q&A section of the link (also where the anti-intellectual comments were made).

 

And I believe I was agreeing with something that you and Rene' both posted about, which is why I quoted you.

Edited July 14, 2012 by mommaduck