King James Only

[mommaduck]

Somewhere back, Teannika mentioned the numbering system in the Bible and accuracy. The old manuscripts weren't numbered. The English translators chose where to put in breaks. I can't say that they always got it right. Either way, it's an invention that has NOTHING to do with accuracy and could work against it. It's great for finding lines and passages though.

[Slache]

The KJV.

I don't believe the KJV is inspired. I think it's the best translation of the inspired text.

[mommaduck]

I don't believe the KJV is inspired. I think it's the best translation of the inspired text.

Let me clarify: the KJV has textual errors and additions. Scripture in general is inspired...no translation or manuscript is infallible.

[Georgiana Daniels]

I guess my final thought on this is that I wish that Christians spent more time and energy in finding ways to unite us than divide us. 

 

This isn't a comment on Teannika or others who I am sure have sincerely held religious beliefs on the subject.

 

It is just a general comment that I think we would all be better served by focusing on the big picture - the loving your neighbor, the helping the Samaritan, than focusing on the divisions between one translation and another.

 

But thanks all for a very enlightening discussion, I for one learned a lot about something I had no idea about.

 

Such a good point here!

 

We can "argue" over differences in texts/manuscripts/translations, either realizing or not realizing that they all have their issues and biases, until we're blue in the face. But it's important not to lose sight of the bigger truths that are universal across the texts. If we spend our time and energy focusing on living the points we ALL KNOW we should--loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, loving our neighbors as ourselves, caring for the poor--we will have more than enough to keep us busy for the rest of our lives.

[FaithManor]

And let us not forget that the scripture itself makes a clear distinction between scripture (which at the time of writing was the Old Testament texts) and the Word of God.

 

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made that has been made. In Him was light and that light was the light of mankind. The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not overcome it.

 

The Word of God is a person not a thing. A living person and the only infallible one that has ever lived with a nature that far exceeds sentences penned by fallible, human hands. Do not confuse the inspired aspect of the written record with the infallible nature of Christ. These are two very different theological concepts that are sadly, readily confused in modern times.

[Georgiana Daniels]

The problem with all texts/manuscripts/translations is that they are trying to portray the living God in human words, which isn't possible. He's too big, and human words are insufficient. There are simply some things we'll never know until we see Him face to face (for now we see dimly!)

 

I still say that the VERY best translation is the one you'll read :laugh:

[milovany]

I still say that the VERY best translation is the one you'll read :laugh:

 

Or "The very best translation is life in the Church!"  ;)

 

That's what I was brought back to this morning as I read the "Glory To God For All Things" blog and specifically the post called "There's no Bible in the Bible."  It's definitely written from an Orthodox perspective, but the underlying thought -- that the Scriptures are a part of what the Church gives us to lead us to salvation in Christ, but not the foundation piece -- is valid across the denominations.

 

I don't want to spend hours debating something that isn't foundational to our faith.  It's a big part of our faith, and is one of the pieces that make up the complete picture of our faith, but it's not the foundation.  The Church is the foundation and is where we commune with and get to know God. 

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I for one agree that the Byzantine texts that were used in translating the KJV were superior. I'd even go so far as to say that the KJV is superior to many other English versions. Do I think KJV is the only bible translation inspired by God? No. The NKJV does form the foundation of my Orthodox Study Bible. My church uses RSV and KJV and for the New Testament we use the EOB (The Eastern Greek Orthodox New Testament: Based on the Patriarchal Text of 1904 with extensive variants). Someday we will have a true Eastern Orthodox Old Testament translation into English, but for now the OSB based on NKJV will suffice.

[mommaduck]

I for one agree that the Byzantine texts that were used in translating the KJV were superior. I'd even go so far as to say that the KJV is superior to many other English versions. Do I think KJV is the only bible translation inspired by God? No. The NKJV does form the foundation of my Orthodox Study Bible. My church uses RSV and KJV and for the New Testament we use the EOB (The Eastern Greek Orthodox New Testament: Based on the Patriarchal Text of 1904 with extensive variants). Someday we will have a true Eastern Orthodox Old Testament translation into English, but for now the OSB based on NKJV will suffice.

This.

[Bluegoat]

 

The fact is that Chinese people live like Chinese people, and they speak Chinese. If God really behaves with translations the way you claim to believe he does, he would have made sure they had a flawless one 4 or 5 hundred years ago.

 

I wonder - that perspective might be content simply to say that those people without access to the right translation are doomed.  In my experience that view would not allow for things like natural revelation as a path to God.  I think they would tend to see people without a good translation in the same way they would see people who had never read the Bible or heard about Christ.

[mommaduck]

Or "The very best translation is life in the Church!" ;)

 

That's what I was brought back to this morning as I read the "Glory To God For All Things" blog and specifically the post called "There's no Bible in the Bible." It's definitely written from an Orthodox perspective, but the underlying thought -- that the Scriptures are a part of what the Church gives us to lead us to salvation in Christ, but not the foundation piece -- is valid across the denominations.

 

I don't want to spend hours debating something that isn't foundational to our faith. It's a big part of our faith, and is one of the pieces that make up the complete picture of our faith, but it's not the foundation. The Church is the foundation and is where we commune with and get to know God.

Thank you so much for sharing the link. I enjoyed it immensely!

[Professormom]

Thank you so much for sharing the link. I enjoyed it immensely!

Me too! This is infinitely more elegant than I would articulate it, but very much echoes how I view the Bible. Thanks so much!

[Teannika]

There are many, many things that people have been willing to die for throughout history. That doesn't inform how I approach a similar issue at this time in history.

 

 

My other point is did they die in vain? For no reason.

Would we have been better off for the men not to try to give us a bible from the majority text since it was costing them their lives?

[Teannika]

How can I know that older means better? Because it is closer to the source. It is logical to conclude that copies made closer to the original document will have fewer omissions and errors. Errors creep in over time. The less time that has passed the less chance that has happened.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Corruption was happening in Paul's day, and he even said that more people were corrupting than not. So earlier does not automatically equate to better.

[Teannika]

I find it interesting that you keep denigrating the newer translations because they are modern, then when someone points out they are based on actually OLDER texts than the KJV you say oh, but older isn't better. Which is it? You can't say older is better (KJV is better because it isn't modern) then say oh, but older isn't really better.

 

I'm not denigrating them because they are modern. Modern is the term I can use to describe which group of bibles I am referring to. There was a shift in time when the underlying text was changed, so this caused a departure from what the previous English bibles said.

[Guest]

My other point is did they die in vain? For no reason.

Would we have been better off for the men not to try to give us a bible from the majority text since it was costing them their lives?

 

Are you sure that this is not true for "both sides"?  

 

It's sort of a moot argument---not that it is wrong to honor those who put everything on the line for what they believe---but it isn't the measure of correctness.  People died on both sides.  There are Protestant martyrs, Catholic martyrs, Orthdoox martyrs.  So which of these died in vain?  The ones who don't support your argument?  It's not a good measure to use for this argument.  

[Teannika]

Adding my thanks to Cammie's -- this thread has been fascinating to me.

 

Sent me back, in fact, to Tower of Babel, one of my topmost favorites:

 

 

Gen 11:1 And all the earth was one language, one set of words. 2 And it happened as they journeyed from the east that they found a valley in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to each other, 'Come, let us bake bricks and burn them hard.' And the brick served them as stone, and bitumen served them as mortar. 4 And they said, 'Come. let us build us a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, that we may make us a name, lest we be scattered over all the earth.' 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the human creatures had built. 6 And the Lord said, 'As one people with one language for all, if this is what they have begun to do, now nothing they plot to do will elude them. 7 Come, let us go down and baffle their language there so that they will not understand each other's language.'

 

8 And the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore it is called Babel, for there the Lord made the language of all the earth babble. And from there the Lord scattered them over all the earth.

 

 

(FWIW, translation by Robert Alter, my personal favorite, though in the Jewish tradition no translation can ever be more than the roughest approximation of the Hebrew, in which sadly I am not remotely competent)

 

 

 

I puzzle over this story all.the.time. It seems to suggest that God sees a risk in our all speaking the same language (or, alternatively, that God sees a benefit in our having differences).

 

Prophetically I believe that we are heading back to this time, where mankind is uniting because they are uniting against God as one. Just as we are also getting back to the days of Noah, and the days of Lot.

[mommaduck]

My other point is did they die in vain? For no reason.

Would we have been better off for the men not to try to give us a bible from the majority text since it was costing them their lives?

We had the Bible. It was expensive, moreso before the printing press, and was generally chained to the pulpit to prevent theft. It was open to any that were able to read. We also had other ways that the Gospel was communicated. The Catholics weren't trying to prevent Scripture from being translated into the vernacular. That is not the complete truth of the issue. They did try to prevent a heretic from it out of fear that he would corrupt the translation and deceive others. The same grade you have of Catholics. No, I don't agree with how it was handled. By the same token, many Protestants handled things in the same manner.

[Teannika]

Are you sure that this is not true for "both sides"?

 

It's sort of a moot argument---not that it is wrong to honor those who put everything on the line for what they believe---but it isn't the measure of correctness. People died on both sides. There are Protestant martyrs, Catholic martyrs, Orthdoox martyrs. So which of these died in vain? The ones who don't support your argument? It's not a good measure to use for this argument.

 

 

Do you have examples of martyred men who died to make the Catholic scriptures available for the common person? My focus is on the men martyred specifically in bringing us God's word. And it is also important to note who is doing the killing of these men.

[mommaduck]

Prophetically I believe that we are heading back to this time, where mankind is uniting because they are uniting against God as one. Just as we are also getting back to the days of Noah, and the days of Lot.

Then you have a glorified, white washed view of other points in history. There is actually LESS turmoil overall.

[mommaduck]

Do you have examples of martyred men who died to make the Catholic scriptures available for the common person? My focus is on the men martyred specifically in bringing us God's word. And it is also important to note who is doing the killing of these men.

Because Protestants burning churches, monasteries, Scriptures, and holy items that were all used to bring the Gospel to the people just isn't good enough, right? Locking people inside of those churches while they burned is of no matter, eh? Yes, the Catholics have their martyrs that were living the Gospel and bringing the Gospel to the people.

[mommaduck]

I'm not denigrating them because they are modern. Modern is the term I can use to describe which group of bibles I am referring to. There was a shift in time when the underlying text was changed, so this caused a departure from what the previous English bibles said.

When, specifically, are you placing that shift?

[Guest]

Because Protestants burning churches, monasteries, Scriptures, and holy items that were all used to bring the Gospel to the people just isn't good enough, right? Locking people inside of those churches while they burned is of no matter, eh? Yes, the Catholics have their martyrs that were living the Gospel and bringing the Gospel to the people.

...including those who could not read.  Or see (via hymnography).  Or hear (via iconography/religious art).  

 

So my point stands.  

[Teannika]

Interesting that the Textus Receptus, which was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus, a Catholic scholar, is considered the one non corrupt text. I suppose ad hominem attack is only valid if it supports the preferred position.

 

Erasmus was never a practising Catholic priest. He criticised doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. His books were placed on the banned list by the Catholic Church. And no Catholic Bible is based on his Greek text. Even the KJV relies more heavily on Stephanus and Beza than on Erasmus.

[ktgrok]

My Orthodox sisters, thank you. And may God have mercy on all of us. No matter how we worship. 

[Pam in CT]

re: humanity evolving towards common language and purpose as in Tower of Babel era:

Prophetically I believe that we are heading back to this time, where mankind is uniting because they are uniting against God as one. Just as we are also getting back to the days of Noah, and the days of Lot.

 

Interesting.  

 

So the trend that you noted upthread that you see, towards the adoption of English as a common global language, is evidence of humanity uniting against God as one?

[Teannika]

Because Protestants burning churches, monasteries, Scriptures, and holy items that were all used to bring the Gospel to the people just isn't good enough, right? Locking people inside of those churches while they burned is of no matter, eh? Yes, the Catholics have their martyrs that were living the Gospel and bringing the Gospel to the people.

 

If given an actual example relating to the scriptures I'd look it up and read about it. I actually don't align myself with Protestant because I see the bad in it too. There have been plenty of bible believing Christians who are not Protestant. And who have been persecuted, but have not done the persecuting. The two groups Protestant and Catholic get played off each other as if they are the only ones.

[Teannika]

When, specifically, are you placing that shift?

 

With Westcott and Hort in the 1800's.

[Teannika]

re: humanity evolving towards common language and purpose as in Tower of Babel era:

 

Interesting.

 

So the trend that you noted upthread that you see, towards the adoption of English as a common global language, is evidence of humanity uniting against God as one?

 

 

Well a lot more than that, the UN, all the global talk, migration and mixing of races, peace talks and so on. I'll try to think how to word this answer better and expand on it for you if I can.

 

My understanding of bible prophecy is that the Anti-Christ to come (the false Messiah) will give an illusion of achieving peace. And then all the cards will come tumbling down as humankind reaches their worst point in history and it is time for judgement again on earth.

 

 

1 Thessalonians 5:3 'For when they shall say, peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.'

 

Daniel 8:25 'And through his policy also he shall cause his craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.'

[mommaduck]

Erasmus was never a practising Catholic priest. He criticised doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. His books were placed on the banned list by the Catholic Church. And no Catholic Bible is based on his Greek text. Even the KJV relies more heavily on Stephanus and Beza than on Erasmus.

He was firmly Catholic though and against division. He was controversial, but that wasn't entirely unallowed in the RCC.

[mommaduck]

With Westcott and Hort in the 1800's.

You are aware of other translations between the 1611 and W&HH

[ktgrok]

mixing of races? We're going there?

[Teannika]

The perfect text would be the original documents We don't have a translation from the perfect text because we don't have the original documents. Neither did the KJV translators.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yet they had many manuscripts and fragments that were in agreement (over 5000). If you have thousands of manuscripts in various languages to refer to and they agree as whole then this is a very accurate method to refine error.

 

And they rejected the Vatican manuscripts as corrupt. So it's fine for those who want a text that uses Vatican manuscripts, but for those who don't they need to stick with the King James Bible as there is no other choice.

[Teannika]

mixing of races? We're going there?

 

I'm not against it. It's a factual statement.

God is the one who separated in the past, and now we are seeing migration and mixing on a global scale etc.

[Guest]

This thread just took a turn right into Crazy Town.

[Teannika]

He was firmly Catholic though and against division. He was controversial, but that wasn't entirely unallowed in the RCC.

 

My understanding is that he was trying to change the church from within. And he was against popery. He had Protestant friends etc.

[Teannika]

You are aware of other translations between the 1611 and W&HH

 

Which ones?

[MFG]

Like white people ending up in Australia?

[FaithManor]

Wow! And the race card has been played since the poster cannot back her arguments with facts in evidence.

 

It has officially gone off the rails folks.

[Teannika]

For non-bible believers of course you won't believe that God created the nations. And separated the nations when he confused their languages.

[ktgrok]

Popery? People still use that word??? Between that and race mixing I feel like I just walked back in time. 

[Guest]

Honestly, I get so worried for some homeschooled kids. The world must seem so scary to them.

[milovany]

 I actually don't align myself with Protestant ...

 

Teannika, no offense (really!) but you're truly about as protestant as they come by any and all definitions that you can find in a basic dictionary.  It's not a choice, it's not a definition up for debate.  Protestants are Christians in the western tradition (i.e., not Eastern Orthodox) who are not Roman Catholic / under the leadership of the Pope.  They protest this church and its leadership and are separate from it.  There's no shame in that, no reason to not consider yourself Protestant. 

 

(And there are three main branches of Christianity, not two:  Roman Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox). 

 

 

- - - - - - -

 

ETA -- I confess that some Orthodox cheekily call Catholics the first protestants (having protested against the early church and having gone their own way; they might say the same thing about us), but in the way the word is used today, it's as described above. Western Christians who are not Catholic. 

[Teannika]

Wow! And the race card has been played since the poster cannot back her arguments with facts in evidence.

 

It has officially gone off the rails folks.

Evidence for what specifically? On the topic of the English language still?

 

If you want to read evil into my comment where there is none, I see that as your problem sorry.

[Cammie]

Milovany - that was an interesting graphic but I don't think it covers the current American Protestant/Evangelical/Independent groups that I would guess many on this board would identify with.

[mommaduck]

For non-bible believers of course you won't believe that God created the nations. And separated the nations when he confused their languages.

Languages, yes. Nowhere does it say by "race", which is a social construct. In fact, anthropology does not back up a division of skin color. Certain people thrived in certain areas and died out in others.

[Professormom]

mixing of races? We're going there?

Some of what is popping up here strikes me as very Worldview Weekend-ish. The only reason I know about that particular website is because of the unpleasant situation I referenced at the very beginning of this thread. I hope this isn't where this convo is going because I almost needed to take a shower after someone who wanted to "open my eyes" and "show me the truth" (because we are Anglican and apparently heretical) sent us links to it.

 

As I said, I really, really hope we are not going there.

[mommaduck]

Milovany - that was an interesting graphic but I don't think it covers the current American Protestant/Evangelical/Independent groups that I would guess many on this board would identify with.

Many can be traced down from then though.

[milovany]

Milovany - that was an interesting graphic but I don't think it covers the current American Protestant/Evangelical/Independent groups that I would guess many on this board would identify with.

 

I would agree, Cammie.  It also doesn't show the small schism that resulted in the Oriental Orthodox Church in the 400's or so. My point in posting it was to show, in the context of where this conversation has gone, the three basic branches of Christianity in general:  RCC, EO and Protestant.  Before we started looking into Orthodoxy seven years ago now, I had no concept of what this graphic shows at all.  It was sad, really.  So it has just stuck in my head as a way to visualize it. 

[Professormom]

Teannika, no offense (really!) but you're truly about as protestant as they come by any and all definitions that you can find in a basic dictionary. It's not a choice, it's not a definition up for debate. Protestants are Christians in the western tradition (i.e., not Eastern Orthodox) who are not Roman Catholic / under the leadership of the Pope. They protest this church and its leadership and are separate from it. There's no shame in that, no reason to not consider yourself Protestant.

 

(And there are three main branches of Christianity, not two: Roman Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox).

 

 

- - - - - - -

 

ETA -- I confess that some Orthodox cheekily call Catholics the first protestants (having protested against the early church and having gone their own way; they could as easily say the same thing about us), but in the way the word is used today, it's as described above. Western Christians who are not Catholic.

I love this graphic!