|
Post by Harold on Oct 15, 2007 14:09:55 GMT -5
Why do we only use KING JAMES in meeting?
|
|
timber
Senior Member
Posts: 249
|
Post by timber on Oct 15, 2007 14:13:15 GMT -5
As I understand it, this is changing. The New King James version is now allowed.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Oct 15, 2007 14:20:12 GMT -5
I use a NKJV and I have some friends that use NIV in meeting. Guess it depends on where you are from.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Oct 15, 2007 14:24:28 GMT -5
All the original translators of the KJV all agreed that the KJV comes the closest to the original
|
|
ecarg
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by ecarg on Oct 15, 2007 14:26:52 GMT -5
Original what?
|
|
|
Post by Harlod on Oct 15, 2007 14:44:53 GMT -5
All the original translators of the KJV all agreed that the KJV comes the closest to the original.
WELL, ITN'T THAT NICE! "We all agree that WE made the best translation!!!" Good translation? Perhaps, (I don't know Greek and Hebrew) but WHY must it be in 400- year-old English?
What thinkest Thou?!?!?! Doest Thou not agree 'tis old?
|
|
ecarg
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by ecarg on Oct 15, 2007 14:50:05 GMT -5
LOL LOL LOL LOL and STILL LAUGHING!!!!!!!!!!!! Now that's some funny stuff!!!!! I don't read the KJV anymore. Thouest decided to thinkest for thouselvist? I was tiredest of theeist not understanding meIST!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL Funny Stuff! Better yet........................WHY did they have to translate it IN THE FIRST PLACE. There was an ENGLISH version of the original Hebrew/Greek Text. HUM.............now that's a good bible to read! Thanks for the LOL LOL and still laughing!
|
|
ecarg
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by ecarg on Oct 15, 2007 14:53:03 GMT -5
Oh.............it's called "The New Jerusalem Bible" You should check it out! Have a good day!
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Oct 15, 2007 20:00:30 GMT -5
I grew up with KJV and find that when I read the same passages in NIV or ESV they don't always seem like the same passage. So KJV is my primary weapon for spiritual warfare, but I keep a NIV up my sleeve and a ESV tucked in my boot. Ya never know when ya might need some backup. ;D
In a more practical sense, use whatever you are more comfortable reading. For what it is worth, lot of workers are supplementing their reading with different translations.
|
|
|
Post by wondering1 on Oct 15, 2007 20:20:32 GMT -5
This is another subject that has been gone over many times with no real agreements of any kind as usual. I can tell you that even visiting workers at conventions have used the NKJV or Scofield and no one knows the difference unless following along. Other versions I have not seen used in Sun. or Wed. gatherings such as RSV and others. I have a 1611 version and have fun reading it. And as said before in the other thread, the KJV is just one of many translations with the KJV version coming many many versions after the originals. Just look it up sometime in bibles like the Ryre study bible. Even the Cath. Douay came before the KJV. So for me, to each his own.
|
|
|
Post by GuestS on Oct 16, 2007 16:34:34 GMT -5
Why do we only use KING JAMES in meeting? Because the workers say so! It's one of MANY forms of CONTROL!
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Oct 16, 2007 17:09:47 GMT -5
If I said, "Smell my finger," would you do it? Gee! Is this Simon Says? You are not an automaton. Are you? Do you have a brain? Can you choose? Stop blaming your actions on others and take responsibility for your life and salvation. People are depending on you to act, not pass the buck. The workers have no control over you that you don't grant them.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 16, 2007 18:09:06 GMT -5
Why do we only use KING JAMES in meeting?
This is one of my favourite topics of conversation, and can be broached on several levels.
I think that many people have a real affection for the King James (Authorised Version) of the Bible because it has "old" language that sounds both noble and majestic. In Anglican Churches, although the New English Version is the more favoured, there are times when services use the "old text" for special occassions. For example, Christmas Services at King's College, Cambridge have readings and preaching from the King James Version.
I certainly love the King James Version. I believe the structure of its writing makes it extremely easy to memorise. Although I read from the New International Version at home during private study as a matter of choice, I find that I always remember verses in the language of the King James Version. I think this is another reason people favour this version - you can remember, "Judge not lest ye be judged" far easier than "Don't judge or you will get judged!".
Some problems can occur when people start confusing that noble prose with some aspect of God - or even imagine, through lack of understanding, that the language is "heaven's language" and believe that it reflects the speech of 1st century Palestine. It does not. I don't think these people are evil or stupid. I just think they are misinformed as to how we got the Bible, and misinformed regarding textual criticism.
However, I would be the first to admit that the King James Version is deficient in many ways as an accurate translation. There are some passages which the committee of translators way back in the 17th century clearly did not understand, and so have been translated into comfortable ambiguity which could mean anything and are virtually impossible to decipher.
There are other passages which have been utterly misunderstood with the result that contradictory teaching has entered the Bible. For example, the King James Version has Moses covering his face with a veil in order that the people of Israel should not see the glory of the Lord shining out. In the King James Version Hebrews, we have Moses again covering his face with a veil in similtude to the veil covering the teachings of Moses in the Jewish religion. This obviously makes no sense! Moses did that which the Jews are doing?
Yet, modern translations clearly show that Moses covered his face when the glory of the Lord began to fade so that the people of Israel would not see his darkened countenance. He removed the veil when his face was shining with the presence of God.
The King James translators simply did not have enough knowledge about Hebrew and Greek turns of phrases to be able to interpret certain passages. For instance, recently I came across a passage which recieved a fairly innoculous translation in the King James Version, but in other translations, referred to a spiritual teaching by analogy to sexual practices.
Finally, the King James Version is based entirely on the Textus Receptus manuscript - the "Recieved Text" - and is therefore influenced by Latin turns of phrases and use.
I favour the New International Version of the Bible for several reasons:
1. It was translated by believing scholars, not scholarly believers. My biggest issue with some translations, for example the Contemporary English Translation which was translated by Anglican clergy in the 70's at the time when the Nag Hammadi library was discovered and the Dead Sea Scrolls were big news. I detect significant aminosity toward Paul in these translations, and some "latent leanings toward gnosticism" - the darling of the 1970's theological movements.
2. It attempts to show the structure of the original - prose, poetry and reporting.
3. It is accurate, and based on ecclectic selection of the best manuscripts rather than simply being a translation of the Alexandrian texts or the Byzantine texts.
I do think it important that we have a common "liturgical text" in the Fellowship. I think the King James Version functions in that way - and I would not like to see general confusion during worship as different translations are phased in, especially given that few people understand the textual-critical issues involved.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 16, 2007 18:20:03 GMT -5
All the original translators of the KJV all agreed that the KJV comes the closest to the original
King James Onlyism is a new heresy. It could recieve pages of analysis and deconstruction.
But suffice it to say, these kinds of claims (as above) are made routinely by adherents of King James Onlyism. If you believe that the King James Version comes "closest" to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, then I would have to say that you simply have no idea what you are talking about on this issue.
The King James Version was translated from the Textus Receptus. What is the Textus Receptus? It is a collection - a series in fact - of printed Greek texts. Where did it come from? It originated with the famous Dutch scholar, Erasmus who undertook a new project of working with real Greek texts as opposed to the Latin Vulgate. Is it reliable? Not really. Erasmus worked in haste, adjusted his text against the Latin Vulgate, and changed phrases to such an extent that there are more than 2,000 variants between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Majority text. (I am not saying the King James Version is "corrupted" or "teaches falsely").
Accuracy would not be the King James Version's middle name.
|
|
|
Post by wondering1 on Oct 16, 2007 18:53:55 GMT -5
Does anyone know if GIT and Nathan are one of the same. Both write pretty similar like they are the only ones who know anything and also both use the red-letter high light system.
|
|
|
Post by kathy B on Oct 17, 2007 9:40:50 GMT -5
One suggestion might be to learn Hebrew and Greek.
|
|
|
Post by Watched on Oct 17, 2007 10:21:55 GMT -5
I challenge the notion that the KJV is used exclusively. In my meeting there are only 2 of them left.
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Oct 17, 2007 10:27:57 GMT -5
All the original translators of the KJV all agreed that the KJV comes the closest to the original. WELL, ITN'T THAT NICE! "We all agree that WE made the best translation!!!" Good translation? Perhaps, (I don't know Greek and Hebrew) but WHY must it be in 400- year-old English? What thinkest Thou?!?!?! Doest Thou not agree 'tis old? It doesn't have to be in 400 yr old english but every translator needs to agree...the way it is now i listen to the watchman on the wall and there denouncing all other translations so what does that tell you...It kinda tells me everybody isn't agree with these other translations other then KJV
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Oct 17, 2007 10:30:14 GMT -5
I'd like to get a parellel bible in N.T. only they are expensive I have been inquiring at our local bible college they told me cheapest one is $49.00
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Oct 17, 2007 10:35:22 GMT -5
I will probably get my parellel bible some day right now I have to gas up auto
|
|
chris
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by chris on Oct 17, 2007 17:27:46 GMT -5
King James Version
That is one thing I could never understand about meetings, only the King James Version of the Bible was allowed.
If you research the translators of the King James Version the majority of them were "hirelings!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2007 5:47:42 GMT -5
Chris, there is a major difference between what Jesus was discussing and what he meant by the term "hirelings," and how Workers have interpreted this.
Jesus was referring to himself (and only himself) as the good sheherd who cared for his flock and would die for them. A "hireling" did not have this same commitment because he was only hired to look after the flock.
Workers have mis-used the term "hireling" to separate themselves (and by doing so - elevate themselves) from other preachers, implying that since other preachers are paid they only look after their flocks because of the money they receive, whilst workers, who do not get paid have a genuine interest in their flocks.
Not only is their interpretation absolute nonsense, but their viewpoint is complete fantasy. In reality the workers (at least in my experience) have proved themselves to be worse than paid hirelings. The paid hirelings that I have encountered "do" have a genuine care for their flocks. Also, the fact they are in stationary and paid positions means they are both responsible and accountable to their flocks.
The peripatetic nature of the work, plus the fact they are not paid as such, gives workers opportunity and excuse to avoid responsibility and accountability to the flock. All too often I've seen workers imitate steam when persons have needed them most during the trials of life. They simply vanish into thin air and abdicate genuine commitment by implying "all your questions and needs will be met at the (gospel) mission."
As far as hirelings go, I'm afraid they are amongst the worst. This is another reality they are needing to face up to.
|
|