|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/24/2008 3:15:25 AM
|
|
|
NomadMan
Posts: 15
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The missing verse with the nun is correct; however, the source is not from the Dead Sea. This was discovered prior to the discovery of the dead sea in several different sources i.e. the Syriaca and the LXX (Greek). The apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia documents the sources of this verse.
That is true, the missing verse was in the LXX but I can't comment on the Syriac but take your word for it.
quote:
As far as I am aware Ps. 145 was not found amount the DSS i.e. I don't believe any fragments found contain any portion of the Psalms between 104 and 147.
Below is an image of Psalm 138, most of the Psalms have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Ancient Hebrew Research Center
I have not seen Psalm 145 myself but a friend of mine on the Dead Sea Scroll Foundation has and was the one who told me about it. Also, if you look at the foot note for this verse in the NIV it will tell you that this comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
On a side note, I once asked a Jewish Rabbi why they don't add the missing verse into their Bibles and I was told because they only except the Masoretic text as Authoritative and not the Dead Sea Scrolls or the LXX, kind of a KJVO in reverse ;-)
< Message edited by NomadMan -- 4/24/2008 3:33:32 AM >
_____________________________
Nomad Man (Jeff)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/24/2008 8:30:36 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2829
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NomadMan
quote:
The missing verse with the nun is correct; however, the source is not from the Dead Sea. This was discovered prior to the discovery of the dead sea in several different sources i.e. the Syriaca and the LXX (Greek). The apparatus of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia documents the sources of this verse.
That is true, the missing verse was in the LXX but I can't comment on the Syriac but take your word for it.
quote:
As far as I am aware Ps. 145 was not found amount the DSS i.e. I don't believe any fragments found contain any portion of the Psalms between 104 and 147.
Below is an image of Psalm 138, most of the Psalms have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Ancient Hebrew Research Center
I have not seen Psalm 145 myself but a friend of mine on the Dead Sea Scroll Foundation has and was the one who told me about it. Also, if you look at the foot note for this verse in the NIV it will tell you that this comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
On a side note, I once asked a Jewish Rabbi why they don't add the missing verse into their Bibles and I was told because they only except the Masoretic text as Authoritative and not the Dead Sea Scrolls or the LXX, kind of a KJVO in reverse ;-)
The catalog I had checked was incomplete; I checked a another source and found a number of additional Psalms including the Ps. 145 fragment (it is 11QPsa, published in 1965 in DJD volume IV). I stand corrected; however, scholars were aware of the omission of this verse long before the discovery of the DSS, i.e. from the other sources I had mentioned, and the inclusion of this verse into many of the more modern translations was based primarily on these other sources because (unfortunately) access to much of the DSS content remained unavailable to most translators and scholars until 1991 when the Huntington Library released unauthorized photos of the unpublished scroll fragments. There were still many unanswered questions about the significance of the DDS discovery at the time the NIV was published, so even though the 11Qpsa had been published, scholars were hesitant to use the DSS as a primary source at that time. Note: the RSV (published before the DSS discover in 1946 includes this verse), but the NASB (published in 1971 does not)
< Message edited by benelchi -- 4/24/2008 9:20:56 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/24/2008 7:00:21 PM
|
|
|
NomadMan
Posts: 15
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Shalom Benelchi
quote:
...because (unfortunately) access to much of the DSS content remained unavailable to most translators and scholars until 1991 when the Huntington Library released unauthorized photos of the unpublished scroll fragments.
Actually, the scrolls are still unavailable to this today. It has been over 60 years since their discovery and only a few select people have access to these scrolls. The only way any of us have gotten access to these these scrolls is from the photographs you mentioned and the unauthorized lexicon that was aquired by a few scholars and "reverse engineered" to recreate some of the scrolls. The big question is, Why haven't they released these scrolls to the world? Is there something in there they don't want people to know about? Or is it a power and control thing?
_____________________________
Nomad Man (Jeff)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/24/2008 9:14:04 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2829
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NomadMan
Shalom Benelchi
quote:
...because (unfortunately) access to much of the DSS content remained unavailable to most translators and scholars until 1991 when the Huntington Library released unauthorized photos of the unpublished scroll fragments.
Actually, the scrolls are still unavailable to this today. It has been over 60 years since their discovery and only a few select people have access to these scrolls. The only way any of us have gotten access to these these scrolls is from the photographs you mentioned and the unauthorized lexicon that was aquired by a few scholars and "reverse engineered" to recreate some of the scrolls. The big question is, Why haven't they released these scrolls to the world? Is there something in there they don't want people to know about? Or is it a power and control thing?
It's expensive, but anyone can order the DJD volumes (or the DJD CD), and there are a number of volumes that are readily available with transliterations of the Hebrew fragments. To date 99.9% are published. After the 1991 release of photos, the "official" scrolls team was reorganized, scroll assignments were distributed among a much larger group of scholars and publications of the scroll fragments was greatly accelerated. Here is a link to an index of the DJD volumes and ordering information. Note how many have publication dates after 1991, and how few were available before 1991. Additonally, there are some much less expensive volumes that contain only transliterations of the scrolls, but very few real photographs.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 4/24/2008 9:20:13 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/24/2008 10:02:17 PM
|
|
|
NomadMan
Posts: 15
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
|
Shalom Benelchi
quote:
It's expensive, but anyone can order the DJD volumes (or the DJD CD), and there are a number of volumes that are readily available with transliterations of the Hebrew fragments. To date 99.9% are published. After the 1991 release of photos, the "official" scrolls team was reorganized, scroll assignments were distributed among a much larger group of scholars and publications of the scroll fragments was greatly accelerated. Here is a link to an index of the DJD volumes and ordering information. Note how many have publication dates after 1991, and how few were available before 1991.
Thank you very much for the link, I will be looking into getting some of these. I was not aware that so many of them have been published, its about time.
_____________________________
Nomad Man (Jeff)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/24/2008 10:21:17 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2829
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NomadMan
Shalom Benelchi
quote:
It's expensive, but anyone can order the DJD volumes (or the DJD CD), and there are a number of volumes that are readily available with transliterations of the Hebrew fragments. To date 99.9% are published. After the 1991 release of photos, the "official" scrolls team was reorganized, scroll assignments were distributed among a much larger group of scholars and publications of the scroll fragments was greatly accelerated. Here is a link to an index of the DJD volumes and ordering information. Note how many have publication dates after 1991, and how few were available before 1991.
Thank you very much for the link, I will be looking into getting some of these. I was not aware that so many of them have been published, its about time.
Shalom
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/2/2008 3:20:22 PM
|
|
|
JordanW
Posts: 693
Joined: 4/23/2008
From: Bakersfield, California
Status: offline
|
Can someone tell me why the NKJV isn't widely accepted and is usually condemned?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/2/2008 3:53:27 PM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 1809
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JordanW
Can someone tell me why the NKJV isn't widely accepted and is usually condemned?
Hi JordanW!
A few months ago NKJV was said to be the best-selling version at my local mega-retailer. KJVO's by definition only accept one version, but in the NKJV, they don't like the source for the OT translation as well as the NT not being Textus Receptus. I think it's called the Majority text(help me smart guys!) but I remember it's of the non-Alexandrian, eastern Greek texts. Maybe that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/2/2008 4:22:01 PM
|
|
|
JordanW
Posts: 693
Joined: 4/23/2008
From: Bakersfield, California
Status: offline
|
Hello! So it's not a legitimate translation then?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/2/2008 4:41:24 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2829
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JordanW
Hello! So it's not a legitimate translation then?
The NKJV is a very good translation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/2/2008 4:47:07 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1854
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JordanW
Can someone tell me why the NKJV isn't widely accepted and is usually condemned?
It's probably the circles you run in. As has already been mentioned, King James Version only people (KJVO) routinely condemn every other version apart from the KJV. Those who read the NIV or NAS do not reject nor condemn the NKJV, they just have different preferences.
Wintery saidquote:
I think it's called the Majority text(help me smart guys!) but I remember it's of the non-Alexandrian, eastern Greek texts.
For the benefit of Jordan, the term MT (Majority Text) refers to the numerical count of underlying Greek texts. It does not refer to the superiority of the text readings. However, KJVOs would probably say that MT is inherently more superior and for that reason, the scribes created more copies. They would say the Minority Text manuscripts were less desirable and therefore fewer were copied.
Wintery:
If your question was: Is the Textus Receptus (Received Text) identical to the MT...? No, it is not.
The textual family underlying the MT is called the Byzantine Text type.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=677
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 5/2/2008 5:00:05 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/3/2008 12:29:09 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Can someone tell me why the NKJV isn't widely accepted and is usually condemned?
The NKJV is a very good translation and is widely accepted. The only groups I know of who don't accept the NKJV are the KJVO groups.
quote:
but in the NKJV, they don't like the source for the OT translation as well as the NT not being Textus Receptus.
My understanding is the source for the OT is the same Hebrew text used in translating the KJV, and the NT source text is the Textus Receptus. It was originally intended to be a Majority Text translation, but that was changed and they used the same texts as the KJV.
KJVOs don't like some of the translation choices and they don't like the fact that the NKJV has footnotes that indicate alternate readings that are found in the "NA" text and the "M" text. "NA" refers to the text used by most modern translations and "M" refers to the Majority text.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/3/2008 9:27:12 PM
|
|
|
wintery
Posts: 1809
Joined: 2/1/2007
From: nw alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Wintery:
If your question was: Is the Textus Receptus (Received Text) identical to the MT...? No, it is not.
The textual family underlying the MT is called the Byzantine Text type.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=677
Thanks man. I couldn't remember if I was using the right term.
I have a really nice NKJV with center-column references. It has info on the version in the front of it, but I don't know it off the top of my head.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 5/5/2008 5:52:02 PM
|
|
|
McFatty
Posts: 1084
Joined: 12/8/2007
From: Augusta, GA
Status: offline
|
I love the King James Version just as I love almost all translations. I personally read from the New American Standard Bible more often than anything else, but I own several KJV Bibles as well as many other popular translations. The problem (among others) I have with the King James only philosophy is that I have a hard time believing that God would find the people living in the early 1600s more in need or more worthy or whatever of a translation in their modern common-man language than any other time in history.
_____________________________
“Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.” – Philippians 4:8
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 5/7/2008 3:57:06 AM
|
|
|
Casper22
Posts: 68
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
When I was younger I went to a different Church than my parents I went to a Southern Baptist church while my mom attended a Foursquare church. But this became a big issue with my church when my pastor attended a seminar lead by a guy named Peter Ruckman with a special speaker named GA Riplinger. After the seminar our pastor came back with a very aggressive is the kindest word I can think of attitude. He did a series of teachings on Bible translations and the Antichrist. And out of the blue and to the shock of many he made this statement I can still remeber it to this day. In so many words he told us if we did not hold to the KJV only point of view we where to get up leave now and join a church that believes apostacy is truth and truth to be a lie that those of us who didnt believe in his teachings about the beloved King James Bible get out now God doesnt want you in this church and niether do I. We where so taken aback because of us like many here believe God reveals his word in many beautiful translations. Saddly my old church went from a 2300 member ship to little less than a hundred thru the years since he did this to us. Alot of people dont realise how emotional and intence this issue is to some. Some KJVO believers act like there very lives and Salvation is dependent on a 16th century translation and will become very discourteous and down right tyranical toward those who dont see it there way. My old pastor and his new congregation have gone out of there way to disrupt other christian activities that they decide arent KJV enough. I watched one of there tv programs a while ago the whole hour was spent on KJVO propaganda and bible bashing not one word was said about salvation or hell except maybe 10 minutes were spent teaching there Baptist Bride doctrine. But it seems alot of this propaganda nonsence is taught back in the South I live in Washington now and thank God it hasnt been made into a new doctrine here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/5/2008 8:23:35 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1639
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: online
|
quote:
I really either want to have the KJV or the NKJV as my primary study Bible but I can't decide.
Just don't let this stand in your way of reading Scripture. Better a bad translation (and of course, everyone will have a different idea of what makes a bad translation) than no translation at all.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/5/2008 8:49:33 PM
|
|
|
JordanW
Posts: 693
Joined: 4/23/2008
From: Bakersfield, California
Status: offline
|
Yeah you have a point there.
_____________________________
Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/6/2008 1:19:10 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Jordon, are you going to a church that is KJVO? If you do, then just go with the KJV. I wouldn't want you to stumble or to possibly cause someone else to stumble.
It's like in the letters to the Corinthians and I think in Romans, where the issue was whether it was ok to eat meat. There were those whose consciences could not handle the thought of eating meat that under Jewish laws weren't acceptable. And there were those who understood that God had given the freedom to eat that meat. Neither group was to cause someone from the other group to stumble.
But, I do wish you would take my advice and look up the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament and compare them with the verses you find in the Old Testament. You will see that God did not limit His word to one version only.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/6/2008 1:33:14 AM
|
|
|
JordanW
Posts: 693
Joined: 4/23/2008
From: Bakersfield, California
Status: offline
|
No, my Dad preaches out of the NKJV. What do you mean about God talking about 1 translation?
_____________________________
Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/6/2008 12:30:01 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
So, why do you not trust your Dad's judgement? You know him. Why are you influenced by that website? We all know that not everything you find on the internet is accurate or true. And, you don't know the people who put up that website.
One of the KJVO main points is that there can only be one true pure word of God. One of the biggest clues for me that this point is not true is the fact that when God through the Holy Spirit led the New Testament writers in their writing of the New Testament, He led them to quote two differing versions of the Old Testament.
And, the manuscript evidence also shows this. The Septuagint and the Masoretic text have differences. The Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts show that there were at least two Hebrew versions, and the ancient rabinnical writings also show an indication of at least two Hebrew versions.
If you search through the Bible for verses which speak of the word of God, you will find that they say the word of God is pure and it is perfect. They speak in the present tense, not future tense. There is no indication that God's people would have to wait until 1600 years after the birth of Jesus Christ to have the perfect word of God.
When Paul wrote to Timothy, he wrote that all scripture was given by inspiration of God. He did not tell Timothy he should make sure to use the correct Hebrew version. Timothy used the Greek version. In his writings, Paul quoted from both.
God didn't talk about one version, but, He led His people to use more than one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/7/2008 8:02:43 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 2291
Status: offline
|
Do you think the Bibles we have are infallible?
No? I agree. The Word of God is infallible.
How about inerrant?
No? I disagree. Translations breed errors.
Fact is, we do not have the original manuscripts and even
if we did the author's are dead, so we will never
be able to discover their original intent on many subjects.
We have copies of copies and we need to keep it in perspective.
The plain fact is there ARE errors in every Bible - errors of man.
Every translation is by definition an interpretation.
For the KJO people: what version would you take with you on
a mission trip to Honduras - a Spanish King James? 
IMO the KJ needs to be "translated" by preachers
every Sunday morning. (Think they might be using their favorite
"study translation" to prepare for sermons? Hmmm?)
Fact is, I know many who do this. Sunday School teachers as well.
People who cannot read and understand clearly the Bible they
possess will not be prepared in the Word and will not be
able to detect false teaching.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 6/7/2008 12:04:14 PM
|
|
|
JordanW
Posts: 693
Joined: 4/23/2008
From: Bakersfield, California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
ORIGINAL: JordanW
I'm having a hard time deciding which Bible I should be reading from.
I feel bad if I want to read from the NKJV, because people say that it
is an inaccurate translation.
It is not and you shouldn't feel bad.
Just pick a version and read it.
There are no major doctrinal issues you will be deceived about.
quote:
I don't like the NIV at all, it just doesn't seem that good.
You need a better reason than that!
Personally, it is my primary reading Bible. 
quote:
I have a KJV, NKJV, AMP, and NASB, but I really either
want to have the KJV or the NKJV as my primary study Bible but I can't decide. 
I recommend in parallel, then.
Its not a big problem ---> Just read your Bible!
I've seen and read on quite a few websites that the NIV translation deleted over 42 verses from the Bible.
_____________________________
Jesus Christ is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
