|
|
|
|
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/21/2006 7:40:51 PM |
In 2001 the Baptised Catholic Population was 1.06 billion
This makes them by far the largest Christian Denomination
They do not use the KJB
So the KJB is not used as widely outside the Americas
They baptize babies, don't think the infants are reading any bible KJV or otherwise | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/21/2006 7:49:36 PM |
They baptize babies, don't think the infants are reading any bible KJV or otherwise
Indoctrination comes later...........Kid James Version... | |
|
Tinkle
|
Joined: 12/14/2005
Msg: 27 | |
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 1:13:57 AM | Due to the hypnosis of social conditioning and fear.
I recommend not trying to look for a book, but many. God could inspire poets, comedians, musicians and movie directors as well. Or, I like to view it as a person taps into God, rather than God needing a human to bring forth a message. | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:52:11 AM |
Have you ever heard og Gail Riplinger? She spent 6 years going through the many different versions of the bible and can to the conclusion that the KJV is the most accurate based on the manuscripts from which they were translated.
Part of the problem with the KJV is that it was translated from inferior manuscripts. This isn't necessarily the fault of the translators. Some of the earlier and more reliable manuscripts weren't discovered until after the KJV was published. | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:10:04 AM | Little off topic but....
The Pint-Size Pope
January 21
Would you stand barefoot in the snow for three days to receive forgiveness of sin?
One man did. In the eleventh century the church fell into widespread corruption, and a dwarf-size reformer named Hildebrand became Pope Gregory VII. Gregory immediately instituted change, insisting that he—not secular kings—had the prerogative of appointing church leaders in the various nations of Europe.
Germany’s emperor Henry IV resisted and tried to replace Gregory. The pope excommunicated Henry, dispatching an edict that the emperor’s subjects should no longer obey him. Henry flew into a rage, storming around for months as his subjects rebelled. He finally realized the only way to save his crown was by seeking Gregory’s forgiveness.
The winter of 1077 was among the coldest in memory. Even so, a few days before Christmas Henry left Germany with his wife and infant son, crossing the Alps as a penitent seeking absolution. The queen and child were lifted and lowered across the icy slopes in rough sledges of oxhide. Horses were killed for warmth and food. The little entourage arrived at the palace housing the pope in Canossa, Italy, on January 21, 1077, when the cold was severest. For three days Henry stood in the snow, a penitent with bare head and feet, in a coarse woolen shirt, shivering, and knocking for entrance. “The stern old pope, as hard as a rock and as cold as the snow, refused till he was satisfied that the cup of humiliation was drained to the dregs.”*
Henry was finally allowed into the presence of the pint-size pope, throwing himself at his feet and bursting into tears, saying, “Spare me, holy father, spare me!”
Gregory forgave him.
We don’t have to stand barefoot in the cold, for Christ hung on Calvary that our sins, though scarlet, should be as white as snow.
I, the Lord, invite you to come and talk it over. Your sins are scarlet red, but they will be whiter than snow or wool. Isaiah 1:18
Morgan, R. J. (2000, c1997). On this day : 265 amazing and inspiring stories about saints, martyrs & heroes (electronic ed.) (January 21). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Just to really pe off...
The Pope’s Hope
January 22
The little man before whom Henry IV had stood half-frozen, Gregory VII, didn’t become pope in the usual manner. He had not been elected behind closed doors by cardinals but proclaimed pope by the people.
His name was actually Hildebrand. His insight and integrity had made him advisor to five popes, and he preferred working behind the scenes to foster reform. That reputation earned him the respect of the people.
During the funeral of Pope Alexander II in 1073, the crowds began shouting “Hildebrand shall be pope!” When Hildebrand tried to ascend the pulpit to quiet the people, Cardinal Candidus stopped him. “Men and brethren,” shouted the cardinal. “We cannot find for the papacy a better man, or even one his equal. Let us elect him.” The cardinals and clergy, using the ancient formula, all exclaimed, “St. Peter elects Gregory (Hildebrand) pope.”
Gregory VII tried to bring integrity and revival to the church, but many church leaders opposed him. One who didn’t was his friend Hugo, a monk in Cluny. On January 22, 1075, the pope wrote to his friend about his burdens:
The Eastern Church fallen from the faith, and attacked by infidels from without. In the West, South, or North, scarcely any bishops who have obtained their office regularly, or whose life and conduct correspond to their calling, and who are actuated by the love of Christ instead of worldly ambition. Nowhere princes who prefer God’s honor to their own, and justice to gain. The Romans among whom I live are worse than heathens. And when I look to myself, I feel oppressed by such a burden of sin that no other hope of salvation is left me but in the mercy of Christ alone.
Hildebrand did his best to free the church from corruption and from political control by secular princes. But frostbitten Henry IV eventually regained strength enough for revenge. He marched to Rome, reduced it nearly to ruins, and drove Gregory into exile. The pope died in Salerno, heartbroken, in 1085.
No hope suckled him but the mercy of Christ alone.
Only God can save me, and I calmly wait for him.
I feel like a shaky fence or a sagging wall.
You want to bring me down from my place of honor.
Only God gives inward peace, and I depend on him.
God is our place of safety.
Psalm 62:1,3–5,8
Morgan, R. J. (2000, c1997). On this day : 265 amazing and inspiring stories about saints, martyrs & heroes (electronic ed.) (January 22). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
| |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:25:27 AM | | No matter what kind of dramatics have happened in history or what translation comes before or after ,what God always says is go to Him and reason with Him and He will always clarify things. We have an individual responsibility as well. Why not the King James version? | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:28:43 AM | The OT was written for it was the law (written in stone).
The NT is spirit and life (written in blood) and would be hard to be penned in any book!
Gods words are spirit and life. The title King James VERSION says it all. It's a version. Simple. You can find what salvation is in the pages, but it's still the Lords words you are obeying.
The 1898 Young's literal translation is probably the closest to the original Hebrew and Greek. When seeing what was the original meaning, seek a translation, not a version. There is a world of difference between the two.
I still read the KJV. It gets the message across, but deeper study comes through other translations and Yes, even versions...
2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:32:46 AM | A greek interlinear is probably a good way to go. But then we are still left with a compilation of the early texts and partials and fragments. Someone still has to go to the trouble of producing a compiled greek text..
I think most bibles get to the point of what christianities message is about. If you want to haggle over words and unclear doctrines thats were the "trouble" arises.. | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:38:36 AM | I don`t think it`s the doctrines, they should never cause problems w/o diviating from the path, but the principles, that don`t affect salvation.
Doctrines can`t be changed , can they?
Those would be the core beliefs.
To change core beliefs is producing something new, right?
Cause if anyone`s changed core beliefs I would like to know. And have a vote. | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 12:07:32 PM |
A greek interlinear is probably a good way to go. But then we are still left with a compilation of the early texts and partials and fragments. Someone still has to go to the trouble of producing a compiled greek text.. .
..yeah that is the direction I was coming from...The "Recived Texts"...the history on this subject is long and sometimes muddy,...but the "TEXTUS RECEPTUS…THE Received Text"...it was from this compilation that the KJV scholars were working...
And Won Long Pong , it was in the proces of that very study(for me personally) that question arose about certain things (I only remember the generalities) and when my questions were dismissed , and / or answered ina "boilerplate" fashion...I simply asked more questions...
Eventually I was Ordered to stop Questioning ...I didnt and this only made trouble...anyway,...I know it seems like I am picking on the KJV...I am not...I am trying to point out that the book we know and recognize today as the Bible,...is a big hodpoge and some of the podge was not necessarily done by men who very gifted translators... | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 12:30:13 PM | Essaress, what were the certain things that were not only dismissed but refused questioning.
Are you saying that the backbone of beliefs is broken or that the wrappings have been "muddied?" I would really like to hear what you have to say on this subject... | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 12:45:48 PM | I don`t get it
Here`s what I googled:
Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant: Quote: "The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful." (Ref: J2)
Fuller continues: Quote: "First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church.
All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because the Church of Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." ( Ref: F1)
Why did the early churches of the 2 nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?
The answer is because:
Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.
Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.
Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.
Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
Reverend Gipp comments further: Quote: "The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible, which we know also as the Authorized Version....We describe this text with the term "Universal," because it represents the majority of extant MSS which represent the original autographs. Professor Hodges of Dallas Theological Seminary explains, "The manuscript of an ancient book will, under any but the most exceptional conditions, multiply in a reasonable regular fashion with the result that the copies nearest the autograph will normally have the largest number of descendants." (Ref:B3) | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 1/22/2006 2:28:04 PM | My problem with the KJV has less to do with their source material, but the individuals who created it. Agendas were involved and to think that those agendas did not corrupt the final product would be a bit far fetched.
Further, as my studies of translations have shown, just because one version was translated from something, does not mean they translated it "right".
You can take a 500 page text to 20 different translators and get 20 different versions. Then upon analyzing those versions you may get some wildly different core ideas due to differences in translation. Not to blame the translators directly but I think Christians are the worst people to have translate their holy books because of them reading the source text in the context of their faith and putting their beliefs and ideals into the words where the words may not fully support their beliefs and ideals.
Similarly strong atheists would probably be a poor choice. You need someone who has a minimum of faith based beliefs to get the most impartial translation possible. And even then, there is a high likelihood that it won't be "right".
The end result of this is that there are a lot of literalists who have never bothered to try to study the original texts or even the Textus Receptus in the language in which they are written and then make broad proclaimations about TRUTH in minor details of whatever version they were raised with.
Literalists who believe in the infallability of the Bible are the ones I have a gripe with. Those who take a more generalized understanding of the book deserve more respect. | |
|
| Why Is The King James Version...
Posted: 6/4/2006 10:28:47 PM |
If not the King James Bible as being the preserved word of God, which one shall we choose.
The NASB, NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, NAB are just a few choices that would be better than the KJV. Shoot, even the NWT is better.
By the way, the translaters of the King James Bible used the most accurate, and oldest manusdripts available.
At the time. We have better and more reliable manuscripts available to us today.
I dont think that they even had any greek manuscripts for the book of revelation. I believe they used older, inferior latin manuscripts to translate that book. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
