Revelation 20-5

[WhiteWings]

IIRC there are translations and versions.
Translation are (supposed to be) without doctrinal bias.

- strictly literal.
- thought-for-thought.
- functionally equivalent.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/best-bible-translation-faq.htm
http://www.gnpcb.org/assets/products/excerpts/1581346433.1.pdf
etc (sure you already knew)

[WhiteWings]

The King James Bible is the best and most accurate, based as it is on the most sources.  I read all the Bibles, but I always look to the KJ for the final word.   All other Bibles, including the NKJ are degraded.

Molly,
I think that the translation for you doesn't really matter. You know how words are translated and I'm sure you have all/most of the articles on the main site in your head. So you read it with a different eye then someone without that knowledge.
One example for-ever vs age-during.
I'm sure many on this forum have enough knowledge not to be tricked by the KJV.
But for noobs like me it can be a real danger.....
:2c:

I also consider it divinely inspired.

Even KJV readers admit that the KJV-1611 had 1000's of errors. IIRC there where even 10 different prints during the early days of the KJV. Admitted many where just typos. But "Thou shalt commit adultary." that's more than just an insignificant error.
Surely the current KJV is much more error free. 100% error free if you wish.
My question is how can something with so many mistakes can be devinely inspired?
Or what is the use of devine inspiration when it gets wrecked anyway?

[martincisneros]

Here's one of the minor ones that's very important, but aren't the rise and fall of any doctrine.  There's hundreds like this.  I won't tell you where it is in this verse.  Let's see if you can find it:

53When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them: (Ezekiel 16:53)

The Dutch equivalent of the KJV, the 1637 Dutch Authorized Version (States-General Bible) that WhiteWings should be very familiar with makes the same collosal blunder; insertion of Reformed Theology.

Calvin said about it: "Ironice loquitur: et...ostendit fieri non posse, ut unquam populi iudaici misereatur Deus."  Calvin, however, did not change his translation to suit this explanation: "Et convertam captivitatum earum....Et sorores tuae Sodoma et filiae eius revertentur ad pristina sua..."

Luther (1534) remained true to the text: "Ich wil aber ir gefengnis wenden/nemlich/das gefengnis dieser Sodom and ire tochter," and "Und deine schwester diese Sodom und ire tochter sollen bekeret werden/wie sie vor gewesen sind..."

[Molly]

Surely the current KJV is much more error free. 100% error free if you wish.
My question is how can something with so many mistakes can be devinely inspired?

God doesn't make typos, man does. I have always loved the 'sound' of the KJV, but I have not always been able to understand it.  In that regard, the other translations can help.  Neither have I always been able to read it.  I remember the day I read one of Paul's letters from start to finish in one sitting and understood it (in the KJV).  It was like someone had turned on the lights in a dark closet.   That tells me that the Bible is a sealed book--especially since I've read hundreds of books and never had this experience.  It's easy to read one of the 'dick and jane' Bibles and understand them, but the nuances are lost.

But, most importantly, I find that the KJV most accurately depicts the person of Christ and who we are in Christ, which I consider to be one of the most important messages of the Bible and one of the least understood.   Even if you can't understand what is being said, it works on you in the most mysterious of ways (kind of like exercise keeps burning calories long after you've stopped) which is why I am always quoting it.  I know it will not come back void.


Martin--

53When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them:
--Eze 16


Ephesians 4:8
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

[WhiteWings]

WW isn't familiar with it. Just got stuck with English versions.

Wikipedia shows it well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statenbijbel
Why are there so many Dutch names in the USA. Perhaps because of religious freedom at that time....

At the Synod of Dort in 1618/19, it was deemed necessary therefore to have a new translation

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

The Synod of Dort was a National Synod held in Dordrecht in 1618/19, by the Dutch Reformed Church, in order to settle a serious controversy in the Dutch churches initiated by the rise of Arminianism.

Sounds like a very biased panel  :winkgrin:

[WhiteWings]

Surely the current KJV is much more error free. 100% error free if you wish.
My question is how can something with so many mistakes can be devinely inspired?

God doesn't make typos, man does.

Agreed. It's just that I don't have much trust in the authorties from that time.
I also wonder how that inspiration works.
King James says "Hi commision of scholars I want a inspired Bible."
"OK majesty we will."
And then the HS just comes along to inspire?

Isn't the KJV more Dick and Janish than for example YLT.
Ah well everyone has his/her own preference.
6 billion people. 6 billion translations :-)

[Molly]

One example for-ever vs age-during.
I'm sure many on this forum have enough knowledge not to be tricked by the KJV.
But for noobs like me it can be a real danger.....

ww, you know by now I love words and their definitions.  For this reason, the word 'forever,' does not pose a problem for me.  I consider the strict definition of the word to be a subjective one--as anyone who has ever been in bone crushing physical pain without the benefits of modern day narcotics knows,  the pain is lasting forever.  The use of this word poses a warning--separation from God, should it occur in this life or the next, will be experienced as 'forever.'   That's the way I read it.  Whereas, it's easy to brush off the phrase, age-during, the word 'forever' is not so easily brushed off, and I consider that a good thing.  It's good to be warned, as those of us who have actually experienced 'forever' can witness.



for·ev·er (fôr-vr, fr-)
adv.
1. For everlasting time; eternally: No one can live forever.
2. At all times; incessantly: was forever complaining about the job.
n.
A seemingly very long time: It has taken forever to resolve these problems.

[martincisneros]

Well, the mistranslators of the KJV and the mistranslators of the Dutch Authorized Version decided to follow Calvin in putting a "that'll be the day" into the text that's NOT in the Hebrew at all.  God wasn't being ironic!  This misunderstanding of Sodom and Gomorrah's restoration is what's lead to all of the weird stuff like trying to call the US Sodom and Gomorrah, or whatever.  I mean, if ETers just couldn't wrap their minds around the promise of the Universal Restoration, then without having to deal with that concept in the Scriptures they could at least try to say that perhaps it's the land that gets restored from it's salty ruins in that passage rather than to slip into the nonsense, like with the reference in the margin that Luther put in there trying to say this was talking about the restoration of Judah or whatever.  The restoration of the land itself isn't a satisfactory enough of an answer on that passage, and for anyone wanting a further explanation on why that wouldn't answer the text in question accurately enough, I believe that google books has a copy of Elhanan Winchester's "The Universal Restoration" where he deals with that pretty thoroughly as well as other objections to the Universal Restoration.  But if we could just get away from paraphrasing passages or inserting/taking away from things that don't fit with our paradigm at that moment, then God could teach us if the fear of giving ammo to the heretics wasn't as strongly pervasive among translators, or would be translators, as it usually is.  Anybody know of a translation put out by atheists and agnostics that honestly don't give a crap about one doctrine over the other, but are simply going to report what they're seeing in the Hebrew/Greek?? :laughing7:

[WhiteWings]

One example for-ever vs age-during.
I'm sure many on this forum have enough knowledge not to be tricked by the KJV.
But for noobs like me it can be a real danger.....

ww, you know by now I love words and their defintions.

I'm very aware of that Molly. I did even wrote above I'm sure you did lots of background research.
So that's why you don't, imo, really read the KJV anymore.
That's in no way said in a negative way. Actually the opposite.
But many readers just read fire=fire. Forever=forever

phrase, age-during, the word 'forever' is not so easily brushed off, and I consider that a good thing.

I understand your example. It has good logic too. But my fear, you certainly do not have to share, is that many just read as you called it at a Dick and Jane level.
Plus again my opinion. If the HS inspires a certain word, no matter how hilarious it sounds, should be used.
That's why I like literal version. Not claiming a understand all written in it. Far from it. But that's so for all tranlations in my case. :2c:
FYI I have 3 printed Bibles and KJV (study version) is one of them.

[Molly]

Well, the mistranslators of the KJV and the mistranslators of the Dutch Authorized Version decided to follow Calvin in putting a "that'll be the day" into the text that's NOT in the Hebrew at all.  God wasn't being ironic!  This misunderstanding of Sodom and Gomorrah's restoration is what's lead to all of the weird stuff like trying to call the US Sodom and Gomorrah, or whatever.  I mean, if ETers just couldn't wrap their minds around the promise of the Universal Restoration, then without having to deal with that concept in the Scriptures they could at least try to say that perhaps it's the land that gets restored from it's salty ruins in that passage rather than to slip into the nonsense, like with the reference in the margin that Luther put in there trying to say this was talking about the restoration of Judah or whatever.  The restoration of the land itself isn't a satisfactory enough of an answer on that passage, and for anyone wanting a further explanation on why that wouldn't answer the text in question accurately enough, I believe that google books has a copy of Elhanan Winchester's "The Universal Restoration" where he deals with that pretty thoroughly as well as other objections to the Universal Restoration.  But if we could just get away from paraphrasing passages or inserting/taking away from things that don't fit with our paradigm at that moment, then God could teach us if the fear of giving ammo to the heretics wasn't as strongly pervasive among translators, or would be translators, as it usually is.  Anybody know of a translation put out by atheists and agnostics that honestly don't give a crap about one doctrine over the other, but are simply going to report what they're seeing in the Hebrew/Greek?? :laughing7:

Martin, I still don't understand your objection to that passage in the KJV, especially since I showed you it relates to a quotation from the New Testament.  You seem to be objecting to how people are interpretating that passage.  Is that right?  But, if you see the relationship to the New Testament, it is easier to see the relationship by using the actual words from the KJV than not.

Here is the passage in a 'dick and jane' Bible--

53 "I will not only give you back what you had before. I will also do the same thing for Sodom and her daughters. And I will do the same for Samaria and her daughters. 54 That will make you feel dishonored. You will be ashamed of everything you have done. You have made them feel better because you sinned more and were punished more than they were. 55 Your sisters Sodom and Samaria and their daughters will return to what they were before. And you and your daughters will return to what you were before.

--Eze 16

[Molly]

I understand your example. It has good logic too. But my fear, you certainly do not have to share, is that many just read as you called it at a Dick and Jane level.
Plus again my opinion. If the HS inspires a certain word, no matter how hilarious it sounds, should be used.
That's why I like literal version. Not claiming a understand all written in it. Far from it. But that's so for all tranlations in my case.

I'm saying it's impossible to read the KJV at a 'dick and jane' level. You just won't understand it at all.  It's one thing to quote a phrase here or there, but if you are serious about reading it, you will not be able to--I can't tell you how many times I read Paul in the KJV and had to ask--what did he just say?  Notice how few pastors in modern day churches actually teach from the Bible, especially correlating the Old Testament to the New?  That's because they do not understand it themselves!  You can go to church for a lifetime (and many have) and never have read the Bible.  I recently had a longtime Catholic say to me, Oh that's what 'the Lamb of God' means.  She has heard that phrase all her life and never understood it (not that it really matters in the long run as she loves Jesus regardless).

You can actually read a 'dick and jane' Bible and think you are understanding it--but the many dimensions which the KJV opens are closed to you.   That's been my experience.  That tells me the Holy Spirit is involved.

[WhiteWings]

I recently had a longtime Catholic say to me, Oh that's what 'the Lamb of God' means.  She has heard that phrase all her life and never understood it (not that it really matters in the long run as she loves Jesus regardless).

I think you met Jane  :laughing7:

Happy  :Book:

[martincisneros]

I consider the strict definition of the word to be a subjective one--as anyone who has ever been in bone crushing physical pain without the benefits of modern day narcotics knows,  the pain is lasting forever.  The use of this word poses a warning--separation from God, should it occur in this life or the next, will be experienced as 'forever.'   That's the way I read it.  Whereas, it's easy to brush off the phrase, age-during, the word 'forever' is not so easily brushed off, and I consider that a good thing.  It's good to be warned, as those of us who have actually experienced 'forever' can witness.

Amen! :Sparkletooth:

[martincisneros]

not that it really matters in the long run as she loves Jesus regardless

Huh??  Acts 20:28 calls us the Church that's bought with the Blood of God, Ephesians 1:7 says that our sins stop being through His Blood, Ephesians 2:13 says we're brought near by the Blood, Colossians 1:20 says we have reconciliation by the Blood, Romans 5:9 says we're justified and saved from wrath by His Blood, and 1John 1:7 says that it's if we walk in the light of the Blood that we're cleansed of all unrighteousness.  Knowing Him as the Sacrificial Lamb and the Triumphant Lion that's conquered death and as it's Lord has made us partakers in that conquest is all that matters, regardless of UR and any other genuinely Biblical doctrine!

[reFORMer]

I would read KJV-1611 with even more care than teh later version(s)

In 1613 over 300 variants were corrected from the original 1611 version. One printing of the KJV had one of the 10 commandments which read, "thou shalt commit adultery. This was soon labeled the "wicked Bible". In another printing, the error was made in 1 Corinthians 6:9, "the unrighteous shall inherit the Kingdom of God," and was soon called the Unrighteous Bible. In 1702 the England Puritan leader said that "scandalous errors" has affronted the Holy Bible itself.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/QandA/kjv_only1.shtml

The over 300 variants corrected between 1611 and 1613 were all spelling "errors."  What was it, the edition of 1763? if I remember, that is the one our modern KJV is copied from.  In the back of a hymnbook I read a professor and relatively famous writer of "Christian" books elevating that as proof of how ignorant we are, that what we have is a revision and not the original 1611 KJV.  Well all of the "revisions" are spelling only!  Not that it is so important an issue.  It only illustrates that people are misrepresenting facts to further a personal agenda.  Either that, or repeating something without verifying it themselves. 

Because I know so many of the important errors in the KJV, people who usually carry it to "church" are my hapless victims.  If I want to go to the same church more than once and be a little more effective I have to restrain myself.  But who needs the fruit of the spirit when you know you're right?

[WhiteWings]

Hi,

Are just speaking in general? Or asking/telling me?
Sounds a bit like the last so I try to answer.
Yes I know most where spelling errors (said so in reply to Molly)
When do we call it a spelling error and when just plain wrong.
Is forgetting not in "thou shalt commit adultary" a spelling error?
Or "unrightous shall inherit heaven"
Just to mention two.
What about the 1611 version having apocalyptica. (and the modern versions don't)
For all I wrote above are explanations. So good and some less good.
Molly had/has also an explanation for "forever" (and not that bad)
My whole point was and still is, if you look at the whole history of the KJV it might be best to call it something like "the most beautiful written Bible" instead a kinda boastful "the one and only inspired Bible"
For me the inspired part (if it ever was there) wears of after a certain number of mistakes.
:2c:

[WhiteWings]

Some info on AV and RV of KJV from the Bullinger of the Companion Bible (also a KJV)


7.  ITALIC TYPE IN THE REVISED VERSION.
The Revisers ill-advisedly decided that "all such words, now printed in italics, as are plainly implied in the Hebrew, and necessary in English, be printed in common type."

One of the consequences of this decision is that the very "to be" is not distinguished from the verb "to become", so that the lessons conveyed by the A.V. "was" and "was" in Gen. 1:2; 3 and 4; 9 and 10; 11 and 12, are lost.  See the notes on Gen. 1:2.

For the general uses of various types in the English Bible see Ap. 48.

48.  THE USE OF VARIOUS TYPES IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
The practice of indicating, by different types, words and phrases which were not in the Original Text, was, it is believed, first introduced by Sebastian Münster, of Basle, in a Latin version of the Old Testament published in 1534.

The English New Testament (published at Geneva, 1557) and the Geneva Bible (1560) "put in that word which, lacking, made the sentence obscure, but set it in such letters as may easily be discerned from the common text."  The example was followed and extended in the Bishops' Bible (1568, 1572), and the roman and italic (*1) types of these Bibles (as distinguished from the black letter and roman type of previous Bibles) were introduced into the A.V. (1611).

The following seem to have been the principles guiding the translators of the A.V. :--

To supply the omissions under the Figure Ellipsis, or what they considered to be Ellipsis.
To supply the words necessary to give the sense, when the Figure Zeugma is employed.
Once, at least, to indicate a word or words of doubtful MS. authority, 1John 2:23 (first introduced in Cranmer's Bible -- doubtless from the Vulgate).  Perhaps also Judg. 16:2 and 20:9.
Where the English idiom differs from that of the Originals, and requires essential words to be added, which are not necessary in the Hebrew or Greek.
For the use of italic type in the R.V. see Ap. 7.
The use of large capital letters for certain words and phrases originated with the A.V.  None of the previous or "former translations" have them.

The revisers abandoned this practice, but have not been consistent in the plan they substituted for it.  In most of the cases they have used small capital letters instead of the large capitals; but in three cases (Jer. 23:6.  Zech. 3:8; 6:12) they have used ordinary roman type.

The use of large capitals by the translators of the A.V. is destitute of any authority, and merely indicates the importance which they attached to such words and phrases thus indicated.

The following is a complete list :--

Ex. 3:14.  "I am that I am."
Ex. 3:14.  "I am."
Ex. 6:3.  "Jehovah."
Ex. 28:36; 39:30.  "Holiness (R.V. "Holy") to the Lord."
Deut. 28:58.  "The Lord thy God."
Ps. 68:4.  "Jah."
Ps. 83:18.  "Jehovah."
Isa. 26:4.  "Jehovah."
Dan. 5:25-28.  "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin."  (v. 28, "Peres".)
Zech. 14:20.  "Holiness (R.V. "Holy") unto the Lord."
Matt. 1:21.  "Jesus."
Matt. 1:25.  "Jesus."
Matt. 27:37.  The inscriptions on the Cross.  Also Mark 15:26.  Luke 23:38.  John 19:19.
Luke 1:31; 2:21.  "Jesus."
Acts 17:23.  "To the (R.V. "an") unknown God."
Rev. 17:5.  "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of (R.V. "the") Harlots and (R.V. "the") Abominations of the Earth."
Rev. 19:16.  "King of Kings, and Lord of Lords."
Large capitals in A.V.  Small roman letters in R.V.
Jer. 23:6.  "The Lord our Righteousness."
Zech. 3:8.  "Branch."
Zech. 6:12.  "Branch."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(*1)  The word italic means relating to Italy, and is used of a kind of type dedicated to the States of Italy, by Aldus Manutius, about the year 1500.


More: http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/list.html

[Paul Hazelwood]

The King James Bible is the best and most accurate

The 1611 version? 

[Doc]

The KJV is really hit and miss. One of the problems though, is that because it is the first English version, it's not based on the oldest, most accurate manuscripts, which weren't discovered until later.