Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 05-22-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziffel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian Astronomer

If my memory serves, a lot of the KJV was actually translated from Latin translations of older manuscripts, not the manuscripts themselves. This caused some errors. To the best of my knowledge, the RSV and ESV are the most accurate English translations out there. I'm actually not a fan of the NIV, since it was written with a very strong evangelical bias, and it changes names, numbers, and stories to make the bible better match up with evangelical theology.

I believed the KJV was derived from the Textus Receptus, which most bible scholars abhor. It is rife with errors and scribal changes.

Honestly, I don't think many Christians would recognize the books of the bible as they were originally written.

Another problem with the KJV is the change in English usage since 1611. Some words are obsolete, and some have changed their meaning, so we no longer can understand the text as the translators intended.

And there has been development since then in analyzing mss and understanding the ancient languages. Many Christians are unaware that there are several "families" of mss, not just a single uniform Greek & Hebrew original.

ashurbanipal · 05-22-2009, 11:43 AM

Well, I'm still a little confused. The King James Version doesn't really convey the same meaning as either the Tanakh or most of the Greek New Testament. It's close, like most translations are close, but it fails to convey all the important subtext and context, which often has the effect of radically changing the sense or meaning of a passage.

You claim that God gave a revelation in 1611, and that therefore the KJV is the Bible for the English speaking world.

Is the Hebrew and Greek, from which the KJV is translated, flawed? Why is it that native English speakers like myself can read the Hebrew or Greek, and find that it means something rather different than the KJV?

bacht · 05-22-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

Well, I'm still a little confused. The King James Version doesn't really convey the same meaning as either the Tanakh or most of the Greek New Testament. It's close, like most translations are close, but it fails to convey all the important subtext and context, which often has the effect of radically changing the sense or meaning of a passage.

You claim that God gave a revelation in 1611, and that therefore the KJV is the Bible for the English speaking world.

Is the Hebrew and Greek, from which the KJV is translated, flawed? Why is it that native English speakers like myself can read the Hebrew or Greek, and find that it means something rather different than the KJV?

afaik there's no such thing as a perfect translation of any text (for centuries Muslims refused to translate the Koran from Arabic). Poetry is especially difficult. I don't know the original languages but I understand there are some features in the Hebrew (eg puns, acrostics) that can't be replicated.

On top of the technical challenges there will be the preferences of the translator(s) which may skew one way or another. With religious texts there will be confessional bias to watch for.

Underseer · 05-22-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyroteuthis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Underseer

Wow, that picture is hilarious! Who is the guy in the suit supposed to be?

Jerry Falwell.

Who would equate Jerry Falwell with Catholics and Satan?

I mean, besides people who have been persecuted by both Protestants and Catholics (e.g. Jews, homosexuals, etc.).

funinspace · 05-22-2009, 03:58 PM

Since these 2 polar opposite BJ statements are in 2 threads...I guess post in both threads....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Joey

Apologetics in Fundamentalism is different than apologetics in New Evangelicalism. We believe in the Doctrine of Sufficiency which states that the Word of God alone is good enough. Sadly many New Evangelical deny this doctrine, as their apologetics and ministries reveal this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Joey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyroteuthis

What is makes the KJV any better?

Much!! Check out the links I mentioned above. But God's word came to us in 1611 because He gave us revelation and the KJV is the Bible that He chose for the English speaking world. The KJV was good enough for many for thousands of years so its good enough for me! The NIV/ESV are bloodless bibles!

I dunno, I'm still wondering if there is going to be a April 1..."SUPRISE!!! Wasn't I a funny caricature of those wingnut fundies".

If BJ is for real...wow...

Sabine Grant · 05-22-2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Joey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

That is fine. In the King James Bible, Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." How can people reasonably verify the claim?

The fact that you have a heart that beats, the sun rises, the ocean waters do not overtake us, and the earth is here is fact that God created it all.

I heard an evangelist say that God controls your every heart beat.

I heard about a cardiologist who prescribes Toprol to control PVCs, cardiac arrhythmia, etc...an efficient Beta Blocker. It appears that God has no control over cardiac electric impulses.:devil1:

xaxxat · 05-22-2009, 04:15 PM

Funny that gawd chose a homosexual/bisexual to name its bible after...

Superheavy · 05-22-2009, 04:57 PM

I love the KJV because it contains these quotes:

"The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself."

"The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful."

"But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand."

"God hates them godless liberals!"

No, sorry, that last one was not there.

Jedi Mind Trick · 05-22-2009, 08:00 PM

Certainty, what Bill Joey is after is certainty. He thinks he has found it in the KJV. When people do things that undermine that certainty his Ego perceives this as a threat to its own existence. This then must be evil and if it is evil it is of the devil therefore such people who disagree are filthy and deserving of hell.

Von Bek · 05-22-2009, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashurbanipal

Well, I'm still a little confused. The King James Version doesn't really convey the same meaning as either the Tanakh or most of the Greek New Testament. It's close, like most translations are close, but it fails to convey all the important subtext and context, which often has the effect of radically changing the sense or meaning of a passage.

You claim that God gave a revelation in 1611, and that therefore the KJV is the Bible for the English speaking world.

Is the Hebrew and Greek, from which the KJV is translated, flawed? Why is it that native English speakers like myself can read the Hebrew or Greek, and find that it means something rather different than the KJV?

Get ready for something so crazy it is mind-blowing. I have long been fascinated (and deeply amused) by KJV-only people. The most extreme personality in the movement is a man named Peter Ruckman. He actually believes that the KJV is more accurate than the Hebrew and Greek texts! He believes that if there is a discrepancy between the KJV and the old Greek manuscripts, the KJV "corrects" the original Greek!! Type his name into google and see for yourself.

This is from his wikipedia entry:

Quote:

"Arguing that the KJV is more authoritative for English speakers than the Greek and Hebrew texts, he believes the KJV represents the final authority for modern disputes about the content and meaning of the original manuscripts. For instance, in his Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Ruckman says, "Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-22-2009, 11:43 AM	#52
ashurbanipal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Midwest, USA Posts: 928	Well, I'm still a little confused. The King James Version doesn't really convey the same meaning as either the Tanakh or most of the Greek New Testament. It's close, like most translations are close, but it fails to convey all the important subtext and context, which often has the effect of radically changing the sense or meaning of a passage. You claim that God gave a revelation in 1611, and that therefore the KJV is the Bible for the English speaking world. Is the Hebrew and Greek, from which the KJV is translated, flawed? Why is it that native English speakers like myself can read the Hebrew or Greek, and find that it means something rather different than the KJV?

05-22-2009, 04:15 PM	#57
xaxxat Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Space Station 33 Posts: 2,543	Funny that gawd chose a homosexual/bisexual to name its bible after...

05-22-2009, 04:57 PM	#58
Superheavy Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Finland Posts: 1,762	I love the KJV because it contains these quotes: "The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself." "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful." "But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." "God hates them godless liberals!" No, sorry, that last one was not there.

05-22-2009, 08:00 PM	#59
Jedi Mind Trick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Indianaplolis Posts: 4,998	Certainty, what Bill Joey is after is certainty. He thinks he has found it in the KJV. When people do things that undermine that certainty his Ego perceives this as a threat to its own existence. This then must be evil and if it is evil it is of the devil therefore such people who disagree are filthy and deserving of hell.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.