Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,214
Members1,325
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
9 registered members (dedication, daylily, TheophilusOne, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,526
guests, and 9
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: Gerry Buck]
#124182
03/23/10 01:07 AM
03/23/10 01:07 AM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
Gerry, is that really you?! It's good to have you back. Is everything okay?
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: Mountain Man]
#124274
03/26/10 10:32 PM
03/26/10 10:32 PM
|
|
Seeing that Gerry hasn't replied to your post, I will say that Gerry has been having his struggles.
It is good to see him back again.
I also think he is having a struggle getting used to the forum software that is quite different from the time he was last active on here.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: Gerry Buck]
#131829
03/15/11 05:49 AM
03/15/11 05:49 AM
|
Banned Member
Full Member
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 178
Deer Park, WA
|
|
It is unfortunate that this issue is springing up again in our church. From what I've seen, much of it is springing out of the misinformation put out by Amazing Discoveries. I used to subscribe heavily to the KJV-Only way of thinking at would instantly dismiss anything a minister/evangelist would say if he used a translation based on the critical Greek texts (though I did cut some slack for those using the NKJV). In short, I judged the worth of a text based on what I already believed, rather than judging what I believed by a multitude of [scriptural] witnesses.
KJV advocates need to come to terms with the fact that the Greek text underlying it (a version previous to the Textus Receptus) in no way represents the majority of readings found in the Byzantine line of texts. There are no two manuscripts that are identical throughout. Any Greek compilation can only be a best guess at what the original really was. And from what I've read, the further back one goes in the Majority Text manuscripts, the more closely they align with the ones brought to light by Westcott and Hort.
As baffling and disconcerting as it is at times, perhaps there is divine providence behind the differences as well. In research writing, it is crucial to be able to rephrase cited material in your own words. It is the only way to demonstrate that you understand the essential ideas behind your sourse material. What is better? Being able to quote a text word-for-word, or understanding the idea conveyed by the text sufficiently enough to express it in your own words? Better yet, how about having an experiential knowlege of what the text is saying?
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: Alpendave]
#131830
03/15/11 06:15 AM
03/15/11 06:15 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Interesting thoughts, Dave, and welcome to the discussion. Would you be willing to expound a little more on your understanding? (My questions as pertain to your thoughts are below.) It is unfortunate that this issue is springing up again in our church. What makes you feel this cannot be present truth? From what I've seen, much of it is springing out of the misinformation put out by Amazing Discoveries. What makes you believe it is "misinformation?" I used to subscribe heavily to the KJV-Only way of thinking at would instantly dismiss anything a minister/evangelist would say if he used a translation based on the critical Greek texts (though I did cut some slack for those using the NKJV). In short, I judged the worth of a text based on what I already believed, rather than judging what I believed by a multitude of [scriptural] witnesses. Have you studied the differences among these "witnesses?" Can you tell us more about them? KJV advocates need to come to terms with the fact that the Greek text underlying it (a version previous to the Textus Receptus) in no way represents the majority of readings found in the Byzantine line of texts. Where is your evidence for this? How do you know that the Textus Receptus is a "newer" version? There are no two manuscripts that are identical throughout. Any Greek compilation can only be a best guess at what the original really was. Do you believe that God wants us to be guessing what He said? And from what I've read, the further back one goes in the Majority Text manuscripts, the more closely they align with the ones brought to light by Westcott and Hort. Are you well acquainted with Westcott and Hort? What makes you put confidence in them? As baffling and disconcerting as it is at times, perhaps there is divine providence behind the differences as well. In research writing, it is crucial to be able to rephrase cited material in your own words. It is the only way to demonstrate that you understand the essential ideas behind your sourse material. Do you think the Bible should be rephrased in your own words and taught as "Scripture?" Do you think the Bible is equivalent to a piece of research writing? What is better? Being able to quote a text word-for-word, or understanding the idea conveyed by the text sufficiently enough to express it in your own words? Do you believe God does not care how we phrase things, so long as we "own" them? Do you think God is more interested in the big picture than the details? Better yet, how about having an experiential knowlege of what the text is saying? How does this relate to the wording of the Bible? Do you think that the wording chosen by the reader will make a significant impact upon whether or not they will be capable of having an "experiential knowledge?" Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#131835
03/15/11 12:43 PM
03/15/11 12:43 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,512
Midland
|
|
Interesting questions. However, I am hoping that is questions for "expounding" because I didn't hear him saying anything like some of them.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: kland]
#131855
03/15/11 06:00 PM
03/15/11 06:00 PM
|
SDA Charter Member Active Member 2019
20000+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 22,256
Southwest USA
|
|
As baffling and disconcerting as it is at times, perhaps there is divine providence behind the differences as well. In research writing, it is crucial to be able to rephrase cited material in your own words. It is the only way to demonstrate that you understand the essential ideas behind your sourse material. What is better? Being able to quote a text word-for-word, or understanding the idea conveyed by the text sufficiently enough to express it in your own words? Better yet, how about having an experiential knowlege of what the text is saying? Yes, experiential knowledge of Scripture is superior! Jesus demonstrated the truthfulness of Bible doctrines in the way He lived His life. People who question whether or not the Bible advocates and promises "a life of continual obedience" need only to look unto Jesus for the proof it is certainly so. Ellen wrote: All true obedience comes from the heart. It was heart work with Christ. And if we consent, He will so identify Himself with our thoughts and aims, so blend our hearts and minds into conformity to His will, that when obeying Him we shall be but carrying out our own impulses. The will, refined and sanctified, will find its highest delight in doing His service. When we know God as it is our privilege to know Him, our life will be a life of continual obedience. Through an appreciation of the character of Christ, through communion with God, sin will become hateful to us. {DA 668.3} But, alas, how many SDAs have concluded "a life of continual obedience" is not possible! Too many! Ellen wrote: "Verily, verily, I say unto you," Christ continued, "He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also." The Saviour was deeply anxious for His disciples to understand for what purpose His divinity was united to humanity. He came to the world to display the glory of God, that man might be uplifted by its restoring power. God was manifested in Him that He might be manifested in them. Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was. {DA 664.4} "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself."
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: Mountain Man]
#145008
09/02/12 12:42 PM
09/02/12 12:42 PM
|
|
I noticed Dave Mullbock online in the process of posting a reply, possibly to Green Cochoa's post #131830.
Perhaps he is still working on that potential post of his.
At least I hope so, as I would be very interested in his reply to that post, especially after our pastor had presented a series espousing all the other modern translations/versions.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: Daryl]
#145010
09/02/12 02:30 PM
09/02/12 02:30 PM
|
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,154
Brazil
|
|
I'm in the process of translating the SDABC into Portuguese and I'm impressed by the number of errors existent in the translation of the KJV which the SDABC has to correct.
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: Rosangela]
#145013
09/02/12 03:21 PM
09/02/12 03:21 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2014
Veteran Member
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 936
Quebec
|
|
Rosangela, are you referring to errors in the English translation of the KJV, or errors in the Portugese translation of the KJV?
Could you post some examples?
_________________
|
|
|
Re: The truth about the KJV only argument
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#145014
09/02/12 04:58 PM
09/02/12 04:58 PM
|
Banned Member
Full Member
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 178
Deer Park, WA
|
|
Sorry I forgot to reply so long ago. I just re-read your post and thought I'd follow up on it. Interesting thoughts, Dave, and welcome to the discussion. Would you be willing to expound a little more on your understanding? (My questions as pertain to your thoughts are below.) It is unfortunate that this issue is springing up again in our church. What makes you feel this cannot be present truth? From what I've seen, much of it is springing out of the misinformation put out by Amazing Discoveries. What makes you believe it is "misinformation?" After reading more on some of Dr. Veith's talking points (which are for the most part, the same I used to make when arguing for KJV-only) I realized that I the ad hominem regarding the origins of the critical texts were unfounded: Westcott and Hort quotes in their context. I think it is telling that Amazing Discoveries has THIS BOOK in their online store. I used to subscribe heavily to the KJV-Only way of thinking at would instantly dismiss anything a minister/evangelist would say if he used a translation based on the critical Greek texts (though I did cut some slack for those using the NKJV). In short, I judged the worth of a text based on what I already believed, rather than judging what I believed by a multitude of [scriptural] witnesses. Have you studied the differences among these "witnesses?" Can you tell us more about them? As a former KJV-onlier, I became quite familiar with them. Like I said, I judged the worth of a translation based on my understanding of the SDA message. Since accepting the principle of reasoned eclecticism, I've discovered that these differences add depth to what I believe as an SDA. KJV advocates need to come to terms with the fact that the Greek text underlying it (a version previous to the Textus Receptus) in no way represents the majority of readings found in the Byzantine line of texts. Where is your evidence for this? How do you know that the Textus Receptus is a "newer" version? The fact that the term "Textus Receptus" applies to the 1633 greek Bible (KJV written in 1611) is one thing. There are several differences between the TR and the majority text as well. There are no two manuscripts that are identical throughout. Any Greek compilation can only be a best guess at what the original really was. Do you believe that God wants us to be guessing what He said? And from what I've read, the further back one goes in the Majority Text manuscripts, the more closely they align with the ones brought to light by Westcott and Hort. Are you well acquainted with Westcott and Hort? What makes you put confidence in them? Are you familiar with the Westcott and Hort statements in their context? It was in looking deeper into their statements and reading them in their context (as well as statements made elsewhere) that I realized how disingenious some of the proponents (the ones who original lifted the quotes from their sources, like Gail Riplinger) of KJV-onlyism are. As baffling and disconcerting as it is at times, perhaps there is divine providence behind the differences as well. In research writing, it is crucial to be able to rephrase cited material in your own words. It is the only way to demonstrate that you understand the essential ideas behind your sourse material. Do you think the Bible should be rephrased in your own words and taught as "Scripture?" Do you think the Bible is equivalent to a piece of research writing? All translations are essentially in somebody's own words (collectively, or individually). Only a word-for-word transcription of the autograph would not be a rephrasing. Translation is rephrasing. The structure of the Greek language is such that it simply can not be translated reasonably without rephrasing it in a way that makes sense in English. Since the Bible is thought-inspired and not word-inspired, it must be translated in a way that conveys the thought. The fact that the Bible was written in Koine Greek is strong evidence of this. Koine was a vulgar form of the language. It could have been written in Classical Greek (like KJV-english) but it was written in the form of the language spoken by the commoner -- and often a crude form of that. What is better? Being able to quote a text word-for-word, or understanding the idea conveyed by the text sufficiently enough to express it in your own words? Do you believe God does not care how we phrase things, so long as we "own" them? Do you think God is more interested in the big picture than the details? God cares that we have a functional understanding of what He says more than the ability to repeat it word-for-word. As long as the key aspects of the idea are conveyed, that is what is important. Lots of OT quotations in the NT are a far cry from the original Hebrew wording, yet the original idea (and even new insights) are still communicated. Better yet, how about having an experiential knowlege of what the text is saying? How does this relate to the wording of the Bible? Do you think that the wording chosen by the reader will make a significant impact upon whether or not they will be capable of having an "experiential knowledge?" Choosing a faithful, yet readable translation that you understand will enhance one's experience far more than one that is more difficult to read (and which is based on a conflated Greek text).
Last edited by Dave Mullbock; 09/02/12 07:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|