King James, King of Bibles???

[wicklunds]

I read somewhere that the set of manuscripts used in the translating of the King James Bible was more accurate than the ones being used in modern translations. Let the whole world know why you disagree or agree.

[Gregory Matthews]

W:

We have gone this route several times here in CA.

You tell us to let the whole world know why you agree or disagree. Why should we? You have told us nothing other than you read somewhere.

For those who may be new to this discussion:

Begin with a basic knowledge of translations and MSS (manuscript) issues. There are a number of books that can give you such.

One that I recommend, although it deal with much more, and is well recognized outside of the SDA Church is:

Gubliotto, Lee J. HANDBOOK FOR BIBLE STUDY, Review & Herald, 1995 & 2000, 464 pages.

It will only start you out on this subject. It is an overall handbook, and deals with much more.

Going my memory, another book of interest in this field is:

SO MANY VERSIONS, by Kubo and Sphect. As I am going by memory, on this one, I shall check it out, and correct it if I am wrong.

There are plenty of other good book on this subject.

[Gerr]

The KJV was a 17th century translation based on the available manuscripts they had at the time. Since then there have been manuscripts discovered that even antedate the KJV manuscripts.

I suggest you use several translations, even the paraphrases. You will find a richness in the original thought that no one translation can convey. And looking at Strong's numbers and seeing the wide range of meanings in the original Heb or Gk will galvanize your Bible study like nothing else. I stopped using the KJV as my study Bible 40 yrs ago. I only use it now because it is the only one that has Strong's numbers.

Gerry

[wicklunds]

Well,

I was willing to let the educated tell me that "the more modern translations are better". However, recently I have figured out that even with the old english present in the King James, I have found that it sticks fairly close to the original languages and doesnt have modern gender-inclusive language or any other liberal bending of the text. I do sometimes use the NASB and think that it also sticks fairly closely to a literal reading to the original language, but there is some translation of the Hebrew and Greek that I am not comfortable with. Also, I think that it is wrong that we are multiplying so many versions of Bibles because now there is no one standard to have a consensus over. It seems we have sacrificed some when we want to have a version that fits our biases. This is where NIV and others are not adequate for me.

[wicklunds]

I would avoid Kubo and other SDA liberal opinions about which translations are the best.

[Robert]

Disagree! Here are a few additions found in the KJV:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Here are how the NASB, NIV, & RSV states it:

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Paul makes it clear in chapter 7 that we are not fully measuring up to the spirit of the law....Is there any condemnation for such a believer? NO! But the KJV condtradicts this truth....

Here's another:

"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev 22:14

The other versions read:

Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

KJV makes it legalistic!

I like the NASB....

Rob

[wicklunds]

Robert,

If all the fuss is over someones perception of legalism, then all things being equal I will cast my vote on the side of KJV. But do you know where the manuscripts differ in language? If the issue is over poieo (to do) and pluno (to wash) then I really dont see a difference of legality. They both take cooperation on the believers part. I hope you realize this.

[wicklunds]

I do know of other additions in the KJV that are not favorable to the belief of some. But I dont see them as reasons for rejection on the basis of legalism. Legalism is a word that liberals made up to make themselves feel better because sin lies at the door. You should refrain from using it if you want to convince me.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert,

If all the fuss is over someones perception of legalism, then all things being equal I will cast my vote on the side of KJV. But do you know where the manuscripts differ in language? If the issue is over poieo (to do) and pluno (to wash) then I really dont see a difference of legality. They both take cooperation on the believers part. I hope you realize this.

---

What does it mean by to "wash their robes"?

Let me give you a clue:

• -BC- TMK

  -TI- That I May Know Him

  -CN- 103

  -CT- Christ Our Peace and Righteousness

  -PR- 02

  -PG- 109

  He who has the spotless robe of righteousness, woven in the loom of heaven, in which is not a thread that sinful humanity can claim, is at the right hand of God, to clothe His believing children in the perfect garment of His righteousness. Those who are saved in the kingdom of God will have nothing of which to boast in themselves; the praise and the glory will all flow back to God. . . .

We must keep Christ's robes clean of our attempts at adding self to the redemption equation....In other words we must keep our robes white with His righteousness and add nothing that would defile it - namely our works....

[DaveM1936]

Why?

I took Greek from Kubo 40 years ago. He was one of the smartest people I even met. He knew Biblical languages better than anyone I even knew. If you had ever met the man, you not have made such an off-hand remark just because of your prejudice.

Are you saying that only non-SDA's can be trusted?

Your friend

Dave M

[DaveM1936]

Quote:

---

I do know of other additions in the KJV that are not favorable to the belief of some. But I dont see them as reasons for rejection on the basis of legalism. Legalism is a word that liberals made up to make themselves feel better because sin lies at the door. You should refrain from using it if you want to convince me.

---

No one is trying to convince you. I use the KJV at times. But the version I choose to use personally is the NRSV. It does not matter what version a person uses. There is nothing wrong with people using the KJV. The problem I have with you is insisting that anyone who uses any other version is a sinner.

The line you use concerning liberals has been used by the extremist religious right for years to destroy the intergrity of their main opponent. When someone makes the statement you did, and I have heard it many times, a red flag goes up.

A true Christian will not be a conservative, like you, or a liberal. He will be involved with revealing the character of Jesus to others. I do not believe that a Christian can be involved with any political party. I do vote. But my first question of any candidate: Where do you stand on the issue of separation of church and state?

Legalism has nothing to do with liberals. It is a religious term, not a political term. I have heard people of all political and religious persuasions use it. The ultimate legalism is to try to take over control of one of the political parties and then enforce by law their version of Bible truth.

Your friend,

Dave M

[David_McQueen]

Quote:

---

I read somewhere that the set of manuscripts used in the translating of the King James Bible was more accurate than the ones being used in modern translations. Let the whole world know why you disagree or agree.

---

I remember doing a study on this some years back. We had the staunch KJV only research of people like Dr Gail Riplinger to the contraraian position held by Luther Wiegle. I personally believe that the extremists on both sides of the argument have missed the point.For many reasons

1) Language is dynamic and has changed

2) Older manuscripts have been unearthed since the 1611 AV

3) God's message still shines through regardless of the bible version

4) Contention of translations is nothing new. The argument over Hebrew or Greek(Speptuagint)torah was similar in the third century BC

The research continues and people will have their preferred styles. Students of EGW will note whilst she preferred the KJV she used at least four of the modern translations emerging during her lifetime including the RV and AV.

My personal preferences based on my own research are the RSV, KJV and Youth Bible (21st Century)

[Robert]

• We must keep Christ's robes clean of our attempts at adding self to the redemption equation....In other words we must keep our robes white with His righteousness and add nothing that would defile it - namely our works....

That simply means it is the gospel that saves! That's the robe of Christ's righteousness with no taint of any human contribution....Now, as we stand on that truth, we bear fruit....

Nuff said,

Rob

[Gregory Matthews]

Dave:

If you took Greek from Kubo 40 years ago, were you at Andrews at the same time as I? I was at the Seminary from the Fall to 1965 through late December 1967.

[DaveM1936]

I'm afraid I am a little older than you. I was there from 1956-1961. I never took clases from Spect (sp) but he was there then . I also took classes from Dr. Thiele. I enjoyed his classes very much.

Your friend,

Dave M

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Well,

I was willing to let the educated tell me that "the more modern translations are better". However, recently I have figured out that even with the old english present in the King James, I have found that it sticks fairly close to the original languages and doesnt have modern gender-inclusive language or any other liberal bending of the text. I do sometimes use the NASB and think that it also sticks fairly closely to a literal reading to the original language, but there is some translation of the Hebrew and Greek that I am not comfortable with. Also, I think that it is wrong that we are multiplying so many versions of Bibles because now there is no one standard to have a consensus over. It seems we have sacrificed some when we want to have a version that fits our biases. This is where NIV and others are not adequate for me.

---

==================================

Older manuscripts don't make them better at all. You want the ones that the Waldenses Christians preserved for our generation through the KJV. The harlot church hated this real bible MORE than they did the people they were killing. She still does. Each one of these modern interpertation [not translations] has a specific target to seek out and DESTROY some doctrine helt sacred by last day people. But this harlot church has a better chance in holding the tide back with a 5 gallon bucket than to destroy something that God took a personal interest in by "purifying & preserving". [Ps. 12: 7-9]

[bevin]

Start with a terrible assumption - that the ORIGINAL's were flawless

Add another assumption - that the particular manuscripts that discovered for the KJV were better than the others

Stir in a belief in the capabilities of the KJV translators

Add the hope that people understand the ENGLISH that they used

Lastly you assume that God doesn't care as much about the people that can't speak KJV english

AND, HEY PRESTO, you have a Bible fit for legalists to bash people up for not using.

There is NOT ONE important doctrine that can't be taught from any mainstream translation you care to give me

There ARE some stupid SDA specific weirdnesses that can only be taught by misunderstanding KJV English

THAT is why some people want to cling to the KJV. Because misunderstanding it is the only way they can get to their favorite piece of legalism.

/Bevin

[wicklunds]

With your attitude I will never use one of those "better translations". Just because, in your exalted opinion, you sound worse than any KJV hardliner I have ever met. And I never felt any predisposition to labeling someone a legalist because they were using the KJV. You could be just as extreme if you used any other translation. So don't feed me that party line.

[Guest]

Bevin said this. "Because misunderstanding it is the only way they can get to their favorite piece of legalism."

=================================

Speak for yourself, just because you don't "understand" something in THE BIBLE, don't paint me into that same corner.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

No one is trying to convince you. I use the KJV at times. But the version I choose to use personally is the NRSV. It does not matter what version a person uses. There is nothing wrong with people using the KJV. The problem I have with you is insisting that anyone who uses any other version is a sinner.

---

I need convincing, trust me. At school in every class I have been in, they have all said that we cannot use KJV Bibles. I see this as them forcing a hidden agenda of some type. It is not right that a person cannot even use a Bible of their own choosing anymore. Noone said that if you don't use the KJV you are a sinner. I was talking only about the use of the descriptive term "legalism" which has been used so much as of late that it is nauseating and often misused to label people really trying to live right lives by the power of God. This is religious persecution.

Quote:

---

The line you use concerning liberals has been used by the extremist religious right for years to destroy the intergrity of their main opponent. When someone makes the statement you did, and I have heard it many times, a red flag goes up.

---

The red flag should go up because I have been taught at the SDA College I am attending that there is a division of liberals and conservatives in the Church. I never desired nor saw this division before this experience so if you have a problem with my identifying the left and right in our church, you might take it up with them, they drilled it into my head and now I cant get it out.

Quote:

---

A true Christian will not be a conservative, like you, or a liberal. He will be involved with revealing the character of Jesus to others. I do not believe that a Christian can be involved with any political party. I do vote. But my first question of any candidate: Where do you stand on the issue of separation of church and state?

---

Yes, I agree, but again I have had it repeated to me so many times the ideologies of SDA conservatives and SDA Liberals and they reinforced the liberal interpretation of everything in a superior light that I am now repulsed by anything I see as liberal. I hope to some day come to forget this experience. Likely I will not.

Quote:

---

Legalism has nothing to do with liberals. It is a religious term, not a political term. I have heard people of all political and religious persuasions use it. The ultimate legalism is to try to take over control of one of the political parties and then enforce by law their version of Bible truth.

---

And I often find the new theologians using this term to label the traditional SDA's because they are threatened by their good deeds. This is why I hold the opinions that I do. Sorry that it causes so much dissonance.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

My, my, my! One simply cannot trust the HS with THE correct Bible! Right? Sounds like that is what you are implying, but you have refused to answer simple questions before. Will this time be different? What is your agenda?

---

The truth about the truth. I am searching just like you sir.

[Pockey]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Also, I think that it is wrong that we are multiplying so many versions of Bibles because now there is no one standard to have a consensus over.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Yeah, how dare they make more bibles. Shut 'em all down!

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It seems we have sacrificed some when we want to have a version that fits our biases. This is where NIV and others are not adequate for me.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Can you provide examples of how sacrifices have been made to fit a bias?

[Guest]

Anyone remember that song “How you going to keep them down on the farm after they have been to Pariee [Paris]”?

Once anyone that has sat at the feet of these teachers in the seminaries that place the study of languages ABOVE the study of Gods word are in a locked in position where few can escape. Prayer & fasting may help, NOTHING else seem to work. The reason Heaven could use Willam Miller was because he ONLY studied from the bible and a Exhustive Concordance all other books were left on book store shelves. Thats still good advice today excluding the SOP.

======================================

MR No. 706 - The Study of Greek and Latin

“It is of far greater consequence that students study God's Word than that they study Greek and Latin. Yet some may carry the study of these languages with success, especially Greek, and yet not place them above the Word of God.--Manuscript 69, 1897, p. 5. ("The Bible in Our Schools, June 17, 1897.) {9MR 116.1}

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The reason Heaven could use Willam Miller was because he ONLY studied from the bible and a Exhustive Concordance all other books were left on book store shelves.

---

and he got his understanding SO RIGHT too!

/Bevin

[Guest]

You can rest assured that William Miller's grave is watched by Holy angels to be brought forth, and to ascend to heaven on heavens schedule. There is no way he could have arrived at his conclusions from studying from these modern interpretations. Ellen White was a babe in her mother arms while he was digging things out of the bible and his rule was to never advance to another chapter until the present one was understood. No he did not have all the light there was for God's people at that time, but he had some!

“In every age there is a new development of truth, a message of God to the people of that generation. The old truths are all essential; new truth is not independent of the old, but an unfolding of it. It is only as the old truths are understood that we can comprehend the new. When Christ desired to open to His disciples the truth of His resurrection, He began "at Moses and all the prophets" and "expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself." Luke 24:27. But it is the light which shines in the fresh unfolding of truth that glorifies the old. He who rejects or neglects the new does not really possess the old. For him it loses its vital power and becomes but a lifeless form. {COL 127.4}