Pope: There Is No Hell

#902
#902
UT-Rex said:
O_C,

If you have a moment, post the translators' statement regarding this (not the entire preface, but an excerpt -- you may have posted it earlier, but I can't find that).

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Orange_Crush said:
Quoting the contextual surroundings for completeness.

In defending their translation from accusers (as well as all translations, by the way), they wrote this:

Quote:
"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express."

This is a troubling quote from the translators for the KJV-onlyists. They call any English translation that isn't the KJV Satan's handiwork and explicitly NOT the Word of God, yet the translators lauded any genuine attempt of the scriptures to the common tongue for the benefit of the authentic seeker.

:hi:

The Translators to the Reader
Click to expand...

Woww, thanks for this good information O-C !

Ok, I'm a tad confused what the argument is (regarding "this is a troubling quote" ^^), considering the KJV translators seeem to be admitting that their translation -- even (which it's not) if it be the "very meanest translation of the Bible in English" -- "containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

If I understand them correctly, they believed thus: "There are men in this world who believe that Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew, are to be languages FAR superior to that of English; but, while even where the original word of God be written in those languages, when God's word is translated into English, it is still the word of God. This translation, into English, is therefore (we consider) to be the word of God."

If I understand Big0, he's saying the KJV contains the word of God.

Edit: ok, I see you clarified "yet the translators lauded any genuine attempt... ."
 
Last edited:
#903
#903
UT-Rex said:
Woww, thanks for this good information O-C !

Ok, I'm a tad confused what the argument is (regarding "this is a troubling quote" ^^), considering the KJV translators seeem to be admitting that their translation -- even (which it's not) if it be the "very meanest translation of the Bible in English" -- "containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

If I understand them correctly, they believed thus: "There are men in this world who believe that Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew, are to be languages FAR superior to that of English; but, while even where the original word of God be written in those languages, when God's word is translated into English, it is still the word of God. This translation, into English, is therefore (we consider) to be the word of God."

If I understand Big0, he's saying the KJV contains the word of God.

Edit: ok, I see you clarified "yet the translators lauded any genuine attempt... ."
Click to expand...
he takes it further than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#904
#904
UT-Rex said:
Woww, thanks for this good information O-C !

Ok, I'm a tad confused what the argument is (regarding "this is a troubling quote" ^^), considering the KJV translators seeem to be admitting that their translation -- even (which it's not) if it be the "very meanest translation of the Bible in English" -- "containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

If I understand them correctly, they believed thus: "There are men in this world who believe that Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew, are to be languages FAR superior to that of English; but, while even where the original word of God be written in those languages, when God's word is translated into English, it is still the word of God. This translation, into English, is therefore (we consider) to be the word of God."

If I understand Big0, he's saying the KJV contains the word of God.

Edit: ok, I see you clarified "yet the translators lauded any genuine attempt... ."
Click to expand...

Their argument was that it is the word of God in the general sense that it is profitab, but not the sense that the original autographs were perfect in their transmission.

They made a distinction between the originals and their faithful but fallible translation...
 
#905
#905
I do believe that the KJV is the preserved word of God. I do however also believe that some of the new translations contain some of the words of God as well. I also contend that there is no way they can all be the perfect word of God seeing they are distinctly different and say completely different things.
Also, I believe that the Alexandrian Greek text is flawed and corrupt and the works os Westcott and Hort to be in no way trustworthy. So, flame away, I may have to take a 10th of a baby aspirin tonight to get some sleep over all the ridicule on this board for believing we have a perfect preserved copy of the word of God.
Do your homework and you may come to the same conclusion as I. If not, oh well!
 
#906
#906
golfballs said:
Pope Francis: 'There Is No Hell'

tenor.gif
Click to expand...

Fortunate for the pope IMO.
 
#907
#907
BigO95 said:
I do believe that the KJV is the preserved word of God. I do however also believe that some of the new translations contain some of the words of God as well. I also contend that there is no way they can all be the perfect word of God seeing they are distinctly different and say completely different things.
Also, I believe that the Alexandrian Greek text is flawed and corrupt and the works os Westcott and Hort to be in no way trustworthy. So, flame away, I may have to take a 10th of a baby aspirin tonight to get some sleep over all the ridicule on this board for believing we have a perfect preserved copy of the word of God.
Do your homework and you may come to the same conclusion as I. If not, oh well!
Click to expand...
Those are great topics of discussion and debate.

Can you provide the best example of where it says something completely different? That would provide a context for your argument.
 
#909
#909
1) NASB - New American Standard Bible

The New American Standard Bible holds the reputation of being the most accurate Bible translation in English. It is a 'literal' translation, holding to the formal equivalence school of thought that the translation should be as literal as possible. Most Bible scholars agree, as the NASB is generally agreed to be the most literal of the English translations, reflecting Hebrew and Greek grammar and style the best.

The NASB also restricts scripture to the oldest and best manuscripts available. Verses that are not clearly scripture are placed in footnotes rather than the main text. These translational notes are invaluable for those worried about getting the most accurate translation possible.

[In these ways the NASB surpasses another good, popular literal translation, the ESV, as the ESV does not always footnote when necessary and is slightly less accurate in its rendering.]

For even more accuracy, you can find NASB study Bibles that underline key words that link with a Hebrew and Greek lexicon in the back.

2) NKJV - New Kings James Version

While the NASB is generally considered the 'closest translation' and the 'most literal', there are many scholars and Christians who prefer translations based off of the Byzantium texts alone for the New Testament and eschew the Alexandrian texts. For these, only the KJV or NKJV is really a candidate for 'most accurate.'

The NKJV updates the older King James Version by using more modern English words to avoid confusion, and by footnoting verses that have been shown by textual criticism to be dubious and likely later additions. While this 'downgrading' of verses to footnotes is upsetting to many KJV purists who prefer the original, it is more accurate in regards to faithful translation by checking the reliability of manuscript variances.


In general, most English translations are going to be over 99.5% accurate, with minimal variance between them. Translations that are less accurate and best avoided as actual translations of scripture are loose paraphrases like the Message and cult translations like the New World translation by the Jehovah's witnesses.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top