Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2018 15:44:48 GMT -5
I will say as a writer that the issue of copyrighted Bibles is contentious, not just spiritually but professionally. The justification I always hear for this is that the translators worked very hard. Copyright legally is not a reward for hard work, though. A copyright protects intellectual innovation. I can work very hard to re-write War and Peace by hand in a notebook, but I have not earned a new copyright. Only when I produce an original piece can I copyright it. I’m not speculating on this. I happen to know a thing or two about this process. So really this is a shell game. They are going to the copyright office and letting on like their new translation is a new innovation. There’s no way around it. That’s the only way to get a copyright from the government. So of course they would have to put some kind of new spin on the text. But then they go out in public and they say the copyright is a reward for their labor. That is disingenuous. I have never thought this through before. You guys might make me KJV only yet. Amen...tainted from the get-go. There is no fear of God before their eyes! |
|
|
|
Post by John on Sept 20, 2018 16:00:15 GMT -5
As far as difficulty goes, my highest level of education is a GED. I left school at 17 to go to work full time and got my GED while I was working. I actually passed it one month before I would have graduated from High School, but I have no college. I have read the 1611 Edition KJV Bible from Genesis to Revelation straight through 3 times, including the Apocrypha, and preached right out of that Bible for probably the last 2 years I was at the Pentecostal Holiness Church. I have that Bible with me now, along with an Authorized King James Bible. If I can read those Bibles with little effort today, I know most anyone can. It did take me a little time to get used to the 1611 Edition. It took me till I had finished reading Genesis the first time to be familiar with it, and now the only thing that throws me off a bit is the high Roman numerals in Psalms. I don't trust the new translations.
If we were talking about the KJV verses the Geneva Bible, and that was all that was out there, I wouldn't be striving over that. The biggest controversy over the Geneva Bible was the notes it contained, not the text itself. I highly recommend everyone stick with the KJV Bible. And again, I didn't start out KJV only, though my first Bible was an Authorized King James Bible. I had no strong opinion over the new versions, and was actually at odds with my first Pastor over that issue once I came to see the truth, so I wasn't brain washed as I was accused of.
|
|
|
|
Post by frienduff on Sept 20, 2018 20:27:48 GMT -5
You right butero . I have a Geneva . and the footnotes are horrible in places . But the text is fine .
I TOO say KJV number one .
Why would we settle for less . they changed things folks . ISNT it obvious by now . if anyone needs help understanding it , we will pray about it
and help others who might not be understanding it as well at first .
I was a reader from the time I was wee tot . I remember reading large three hundred page books when the other kids were struggling with see spot run .
SO , I know some might have a harder time reading . BUT STILL , its as butero said , just keep reading it , GOD IS THE ONE Who will keep you and us all.
But I really think everyone should pray about this , and start reading the kjv. Watch how clear things will get . And the LORD will
work on us also , so we come together in agreement . Just watch . IF we really seek GOD and follow HIM and be prepared to simply learn from HIM . WE WILL . WE TRULY WILL.
FOR the LORD wants us made wise in those scrips through our faith IN CHRIST .
|
|
|
|
Post by Cletus on Sept 21, 2018 0:16:40 GMT -5
How to choose a bible, by cletus:
God, You are from everlasting to everlasting, You are the Alpha and Omega. You have seen more years than I have seconds. In you is truth, and no lie. You know what has happened before, and you were there. Which bible version of bible should i read? guide me to the right one for me to learn of you and your ways, and to know Your Word and Truth. Amen.
Pray that everyday until you get the bible. You will know when its the right one.
|
|
|
|
Post by PG4Him on Sept 21, 2018 7:35:20 GMT -5
How to choose a bible, by cletus: God, You are from everlasting to everlasting, You are the Alpha and Omega. You have seen more years than I have seconds. In you is truth, and no lie. You know what has happened before, and you were there. Which bible version of bible should i read? guide me to the right one for me to learn of you and your ways, and to know Your Word and Truth. Amen. Pray that everyday until you get the bible. You will know when its the right one. Human scholarly research has its limits, especially on topics we have little personal access to. Each of must seek out the truth by faith, experience, wise counsel from friends, and perhaps a dash of research. |
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Nov 27, 2018 12:49:11 GMT -5
Psa 12:6-7
(6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
God said he would preserve his word, and if he says it, then it will be done.
And I believe he has done so, in most of the languages we have in the world.
And in English he has done so through the King James Version.
There may be typos, spelling mistakes, but that does not make people not able to know what it is saying, the wording is still there, just a typo, that is all.
And the bible says this:
1Co 2:13
(13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Which is comparing the word with the word.
Yes we may use Hebrew and Greek concordances such as Strong's and Thayers, which I personally believe that they are very decent concordances.
And in many words there may be many definitions of it, in these concordances, but to get a good sense of that word, it is good to also compare scriptures with scriptures and read the context, and ultimately ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the word to you.
We do not need to be Hebrew, and Greek scholars, and it seems some seem to think that.
And it seems that there are some who get deep into this, yet in some cases, in some weird way, a chunk of them seem to eventually get very bizarre interpretations, I think many are actually depending more on intellect to understand the word, rather then actually asking the Holy Spirit to give them understanding, for it is a spiritual book.
And I think many are going away from this simple truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Abby-Joy on Nov 27, 2018 12:56:34 GMT -5
Psa 12:6-7 (6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. (7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. God said he would preserve his word, and if he says it, then it will be done. And I believe he has done so, in most of the languages we have in the world. And in English he has done so through the King James Version. There may be typos, spelling mistakes, but that does not make people not able to know what it is saying, the wording is still there, just a typo, that is all. And the bible says this: 1Co 2:13 (13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Which is comparing the word with the word. Yes we may use Hebrew and Greek concordances such as Strong's and Thayers, which I personally believe that they are very decent concordances. And in many words there may be many definitions of it, in these concordances, but to get a good sense of that word, it is good to also compare scriptures with scriptures and read the context, and ultimately ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the word to you. We do not need to be Hebrew, and Greek scholars, and it seems some seem to think that. And it seems that there are some who get deep into this, yet in some cases, in some weird way, a chunk of them seem to eventually get very bizarre interpretations, I think many are actually depending more on intellect to understand the word, rather then actually asking the Holy Spirit to give them understanding, for it is a spiritual book. And I think many are going away from this simple truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Nov 27, 2018 12:59:30 GMT -5
Awesome, awesome, awesome, praise God Abby !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Abdicate on Nov 30, 2018 21:11:08 GMT -5
I don't know how anyone can live with their conscience making money off the word of God that HE gave to us. It's HIS word, not anyone else's to sell for profit. The scripture says "Buy the truth but sell it not". As far as I know the earlier translators weren't doing it for profit.....the work was funded by benefactors and/or using their own resources.
2 Peter 2:3 (KJV)
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
Very few speakers do it for God's glory. I understand the workman is worthy, but if I bought from everyone I liked, I'd have a collection bigger than the Library of Congress and broke! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Dec 11, 2018 11:03:56 GMT -5
I am noticing in a deeper way that every language is different, and in translating one language to another, sometimes certain things have to be put in, only because of the way the language is spoken. I guess to truly understand Hebrew, you almost have to know it and speak it, and know how the language flows or how it is used when spoken. I know that many will say that some of the Italicized words of the bible do not belong there, but I would disagree, and I believe that God led them (the KJV writers) to put those things in, because of the way our language is written , spoken , and flows. Here is information on this Italicized stuff: From "Answers To Your Bible Version Questions" ©2001 David W. Daniels.
Question: Why are some words in the KJV italicized? I don't see this in other versions. Why don't they do this if it's a good thing to do?
Answer: The italics usually are a simple way of telling us when the word in English is not in the Hebrew or the Greek. There is only one exception to this rule. I will discuss this in a moment.
The King James translators had a simple goal: to communicate God's words in the English language. They were quite honest. When the word they needed to communicate the Greek or Hebrew sentence into English was missing, they wrote the word, but in italics. There are two ways in which this happened.
The word or words were needed to make sense in English. In 1 John 4 is this verse:
"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:3)
It is less clear to write, "and this is that of antichrist." "That what?" you will ask. That spirit. To avoid confusion, they supplied in English a word that you could understand from knowing the Greek, but which wasn't directly said in the Bible language.
Where the words were in the original, but they didn't have enough evidence at the time. God's help in preservation of His words is found in an unusual way in 1 John 2:23:
"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."
Look at the verse again. This is a bit more complex. The word [but] is not in any manuscript, period. It is needed, however to show the contrast to English readers. That is like the regular italics in the rest of the King James Bible.
But wait! A full 1/2 of this verse is in italics! How could this be? It's simple: the King James translators were very honest. They found some Greek manuscripts at the time that had the verse and others that didn't. But they had enough evidence from other languages that did, and a very good reason why the verse might have been mistakenly removed by a copyist — homoeoteleuton.
Homoeoteleuton (ho-moy-oh-tell-you-tahn)
That big Greek word simply means, "having the same ending." The phrase "hath the Father" is at the end of both parts of the verse. In Greek it looks like this: ton patera ecei As the copyist looked back and forth between the original and his copy, his eye could have skipped to that same phrase at the end of the verse. Thinking he had already written it, he would have moved on, thus leaving out the last part of this verse.
In order to be truthful, the King James translators included the 2nd 1/2 of the verse, because it belongs there. But to be fair with what they had in front of them, they put that 1/2 verse in italics.
The King James Translators Vindicated
But the best part is that history has shown the King James translators correct! As many more minuscule manuscripts (Greek scriptures with all lower-case letters) were found, many more contained the verse. Of course it was found in many early translations. But in the biggest irony for the King James haters: it was even found in the Alexandrian perversions! The pro-Alexandrian "scholars" could not say the King James translators were wrong, since it even appeared in their own corrupt copies!
The Bottom Line
The main point is this: God made sure the King James Bible was not only an accurate and excellent translation of His words in English, He even made sure they were quite honest in their use of italics. Some have even gone so far as to say, "even the italics are inspired." What I will conclude is this: God watched over every word of His Bible in English, the King James Bible (or Authorized Version), to be sure we would have God's preserved words in our powerful and influential language. And this has been confirmed time and again, every time I research what is in the King James Bible.
God bless you as you learn from His preserved, even italicized, words. |
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Dec 11, 2018 13:52:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by 2fw8212a on Dec 11, 2018 19:47:33 GMT -5
Question: Why are some words in the KJV italicized? I don't see this in other versions. Why don't they do this if it's a good thing to do?
I have heard it means it is there to aid in comprehension as those words were not translated from the original manuscripts. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Dec 12, 2018 9:32:55 GMT -5
There will always be issues like that going from one language to another. The important thing is using the best corresponding words, leaving nothing out, and not changing the meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giller on Dec 12, 2018 10:34:29 GMT -5
I believe that those italicized words do belong, and does not change any meaning, but brings the right flow to the English language, even the right meaning to each verse.
Every language flows differently, and things are said differently in every language to some degree, God said he would preserve his word, and he did.
To use these italicized words and say they do not belong, so to change a meaning of a verse is a wrong way to look at scripture.
Sometimes I think people try to be too intellectual.
Most of us really do not know Hebrew, but many of the KJV guys did.
I personally know two languages, French and English.
And sometimes things are said differently, but you can always find a way to get the right meaning anyways.
I heard that in the Chinese language, there are things you can say, and be saying the exact same words, but the tone changes the meaning.
|
|
|
|
Post by discipler777 on Jan 10, 2019 1:05:41 GMT -5
Choose a Bible in modern English for a better understanding but keep the Bible in old English as a reference to check for clearer translation or mistranslation. Hence, I use the NKJV and KJV Bibles.
Also, better to use a Study Bible and Concordance which are required for Bible College students. An online Bible resource can be used as a Concordance.
|
|
