Jump to content


Photo

About The Bible


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 ret

ret

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Hillsboro, OR

Posted 14 May 2005 - 09:36 PM

And is the reason I stick with an older version KJV. Because sometimes, the old stuff has more truth, and changing it, does more harm.


It's true that the Bible has more truth than science, but I think it's a little over-optimistic of you to claim that the KJV is the only accurate one. Considering that it was translated long ago to an archaic form of english, it can be slightly misleading. Only the original Bible is exactly accurate, all translations hinge on the translator's interpretation of certain sentences. The newer translations aren't necessarily bad, they should be subjected to the same tests as the KJV to determine if they are quality translations.

Let me put it this way: the original copies weren't KJV, so KJV can't be the only accurate translation (and we can't gaurantee its accuracy any more than any other version).

#2 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 16 May 2005 - 01:21 PM

Let me put it this way: the original copies weren't KJV, so KJV can't be the only accurate translation (and we can't gaurantee its accuracy any more than any other version).

View Post


What I think is often missing is the cultural context during the time that the Old Testament (and Genesis in particular) was written. For instance, it might have been obvious to the Jews in exile that the Tower of Babel story was constructed to demean the ziggurats of the Babylonians (Babel=Babylon) but not meant as a literal story. Note that I say "might have been". I think it is as important to contextualize Genesis within it's time as it is to have an accurate translation.

#3 ret

ret

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Hillsboro, OR

Posted 21 May 2005 - 10:08 PM

For instance, it might have been obvious to the Jews in exile that the Tower of Babel story was constructed to demean the ziggurats of the Babylonians (Babel=Babylon) but not meant as a literal story.


If you said that because of what I said, you must have misunderstood me. I believe that everything in Genesis is literal, I just don't condone translation bigotry. The KJV was translated far too long ago for us to understand it correctly (words are used differently now). Cultural context is important to understand, but the books were entirely literal. The context was, in this case, a book meant to give a completely accurate (but not exhaustive) history of God's people, and of His activity on the Earth to that time.

#4 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 May 2005 - 11:44 PM

I put these posts here so that these members can continue their conversation about the bible. So if these post look like something that in the middle fo a debate, they are. But these posts were changing the subject of another thread, so I post them here to continue.

#5 Guest_The Deacon_*

Guest_The Deacon_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 May 2005 - 11:21 AM

If you said that because of what I said, you must have misunderstood me.


I doubt that is what he meant.

I believe that everything in Genesis is literal, I just don't condone translation bigotry.


So do I, and neither do I.

The KJV was translated far too long ago for us to understand it correctly (words are used differently now).


I'm sorry my young friend, but that just isn't true. What is required is an historical knowledge of English, and a willingness to refer to lexicons when necessary. The KJV is excellent, even though it can be somewhat opaque to those who know only late 20th century usages. That is not a problem with the text, but with the reader.

Cultural context is important to understand, but the books were entirely literal.


Are you saying that all 66 of the books are completely literal?

The context was, in this case, a book meant to give a completely accurate (but not exhaustive) history of God's people, and of His activity on the Earth to that time.


In the case of Genesis, yes, I am convinced for many reasons that it is literal. Other examples, for instance Proverbs, are not literal, and can not possibly be taken for such.

#6 ret

ret

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Hillsboro, OR

Posted 29 May 2005 - 11:56 AM

I'm sorry my young friend, but that just isn't true. What is required is an historical knowledge of English, and a willingness to refer to lexicons when necessary. The KJV is excellent, even though it can be somewhat opaque to those who know only late 20th century usages. That is not a problem with the text, but with the reader.


I didn't mean that it was a problem with the text. All I am saying is that most people don't understand entirely what they are reading. Not everyone has a historical knowledge of English and a lexicon, and they shouldn't have to. If you're going to go that far just to read the Bible, you might as well learn Greek so you can read the septuagint and New Testament that way. The KJV was translated for people of the time, but we now have translations that are easier to understand, and there is no reason to prefer the KJV.

Are you saying that all 66 of the books are completely literal?


Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that all of Moses' books were completely literal. There are some books that aren't completely literal (Revelation for one), but I was thinking in the context of the story he mentioned.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users