KJV only?
-
Came across this website by sudden. It seems that some bible presby pple create this website just to argue abt whether it's kjv-only....think it is quite sad for christians to split just arguing abt this matter.....
http://www.truth.sg/repudiations/rep1.htm -
the only translation i dun recognise is THE MESSAGE.
other than that its a matter of translation quality n how modern the translator wants to make the text sounds for the readers. I have nothing much against translations like NLT, CEV etc but when a person wants to do serious Bible study, such versions do not help in any way.
I personally recommend NASB or ESV for in depth Bible studies. If u r adventurous enough KJV also can.
There is no perfect translation. People who insists that KJV alone is accurate should start to take Greek, Hebrew and Aramiac classes so that they can read the manuscripts. -
Frankly, I bought a KJV commentary bible, and I have to go back to my NIV so that I can understand what it is. NKJV is still not too bad. But KJV, it is as good as greek to meOriginally posted by NT2:the only translation i dun recognise is THE MESSAGE.
other than that its a matter of translation quality n how modern the translator wants to make the text sounds for the readers. I have nothing much against translations like NLT, CEV etc but when a person wants to do serious Bible study, such versions do not help in any way.
I personally recommend NASB or ESV for in depth Bible studies. If u r adventurous enough KJV also can.
There is no perfect translation. People who insists that KJV alone is accurate should start to take Greek, Hebrew and Aramiac classes so that they can read the manuscripts.
-
then buy another KJV study bible lor.Originally posted by laoda99:Frankly, I bought a KJV commentary bible, and I have to go back to my NIV so that I can understand what it is. NKJV is still not too bad. But KJV, it is as good as greek to me
i guess its the kind of english they use...
if not sell tt bible to some Bible-Pres
and u get for urself a ESV bible. -
I finds cross referencing across different translation helps also.
Personally I believe that translations is to suit different needs, of course the original text is always most accurate, but not many can read them? -
hmmm....interesting..........from the same website
"errors" in the bible? I think this dispute will only increase the argument that the bible is flawed....haizzz...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2Sam 8:4 (700 horsemen) and 1Chron 18:4 (7,000 horsemen) in KJV
In your “A Plea for a Perfect Bible” (The Burning Bush January 2003), you put this down as an “apparent discrepancy”, that perhaps one counted them one-by-one and the other by groups. The obvious difficulty is that there are no groups! All the other numerals are in concurrence – one thousand chariots, twenty thousand footmen and horses David reserved for one hundred chariots and his slaying of twenty two thousand men (Syrians). If 2Sam 8:4 counted horsemen in groups, why did it not also do the same for the chariots, footmen and slain men? Do you lord it over the intelligence and faith of your hearers? But your approach creates large difficulties in reading and understanding God’s Word – one would never know when a number is a number or a group of numbers, opening the way for “spiritualising” non-literal, liberal interpretation of God’s Word.
But God’s Word states, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2Cor 13:1, Deut 19:15) If the above verses therefore are at odds, they cannot be established; therefore one of them has to be correct and the other probably a scribal error!
Since it is normal that an army would have more footmen than horsemen, and more horsemen than chariots, seven thousand horsemen in 1Chron 18:4 would seem the more correct. When we research evidential sources older than the 10th Century AD Masoretic texts, Praise the Lord, we find this true! The Septuagint, with older extant textual copies dating back to the 2nd and 3rd Century AD, has 2Sam 8:4 exactly as 1Chron 18:4, “one thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, twenty thousand foot soldiers! And the Hebrew Dead Sea scrolls also, recently discovered and dating back to the time of Christ, confirm this reading!
But this is not all. The KJV translators recognised the 2Sam 8:4 error of the Masoretic, which actually reads “one thousand seven hundred horsemen”! The word “chariots” is not in the Masoretic (thus italicised in the KJV to indicate not in the original)! The CUV and the NASV are thus more faithful to the Masoretic than the KJV on this point. Confronted with the scribal error revealed by the parallel account of 1Chron 18, the KJV translators, without any warrant or basis, chose to deviate from the Masoretic and broke up the one thousand seven hundred into one thousand, to which they added the word “chariots” and left the balance seven hundred as horsemen, to reduce the discrepancy. I reiterate: they have absolutely no warrant; no underlying Hebrew text support whatsoever! Clearly in this instance, the KJV translators recognized the scribal error and chose to discard the original reading of 2Sam 8:4 of the Masoretic text!! -
people want to say what, then let them say lor.
if one wants to argue then an argument will happen.
they believe in their stuff, u believe in yours.
a debate like this will be the same as the Pro-NS and anti-NS argument... it will be never ending. -
Exactly! Use whichever version that is most comfortable lah! I prefer NIV but I also have NASB on the side.Originally posted by NT2:There is no perfect translation. People who insists that KJV alone is accurate should start to take Greek, Hebrew and Aramiac classes so that they can read the manuscripts.
The point is, for good Bible Study, merely just reading from one Bible is insufficient. Need concordance and commentaries as well lah. -
cannot swim dun blame the swimming trunks too big
-
Hey, you mean you've been quoting PB having the orthordox doctrine but did not know they only belief in KJV only?Originally posted by laoda99:Came across this website by sudden. It seems that some bible presby pple create this website just to argue abt whether it's kjv-only....think it is quite sad for christians to split just arguing abt this matter.....
http://www.truth.sg/repudiations/rep1.htm
It's their doctrine as well. -
last time only the Authorized King James Version only, think now a bit lax already, think to some extend NKJV and NASB also is acceptable (but may still be consider of lower quality).Originally posted by M©+square:Hey, you mean you've been quoting PB having the orthordox doctrine but did not know they only belief in KJV only?
It's their doctrine as well.
btw, I thought its BP? -
Originally posted by vince69:last time only the Authorized King James Version only, think now a bit lax already, think to some extend NKJV and NASB also is acceptable (but may still be consider of lower quality).
btw, I thought its BP?
BP....thanks for correction. -
-
I know their belief in kjv only, but i dunno they can have a big problem among themselves even when they are using only kjvOriginally posted by M©+square:Hey, you mean you've been quoting PB having the orthordox doctrine but did not know they only belief in KJV only?
It's their doctrine as well.
seems the prob is not with what version they using, but with men.... -
*sob sob* .. my NRSV is not popular in Singapore.
-
tecman got sell....only 4 leftOriginally posted by Icemoon:*sob sob* .. my NRSV is not popular in Singapore. -
wat is NSRV?Originally posted by NT2:tecman got sell....only 4 left -
I bought mine at Tecman, a bit expensive considering the same kind of binding for other version costs cheaper.Originally posted by NT2:tecman got sell....only 4 left -
New Standard Revised VersionOriginally posted by laoda99:wat is NSRV? -
It is NRSV - New Revised Standard Version.Originally posted by laoda99:wat is NSRV?
I believe it is one of the few, or the only version, to have the Protestant bible, the Roman Catholic Apocrypha and the Orthodox Church additions all in one book. They call this the ecumenical version.
I have the Oxford edition bought from Borders. -
wah leow .. he misquoted and you repeat his mistake.Originally posted by NT2:New Standard Revised Version -
I used to have a copy, bought $10 maybe less at a 2nd hand bookshop when I was in Sydney 10yrs back, threw it away when I returned, cause by then, its quite torn up and my book shelf no space.Originally posted by Icemoon:I bought mine at Tecman, a bit expensive considering the same kind of binding for other version costs cheaper. -
aiyo...hw can u throw away the bible?Originally posted by vince69:I used to have a copy, bought $10 maybe less at a 2nd hand bookshop when I was in Sydney 10yrs back, threw it away when I returned, cause by then, its quite torn up and my book shelf no space.
-
Originally posted by vince69:I used to have a copy, bought $10 maybe less at a 2nd hand bookshop when I was in Sydney 10yrs back, threw it away when I returned, cause by then, its quite torn up and my book shelf no space.
-
no need angry one lah, last time, I like to go to the 2nd book shop in the campus, can find a lot of funny things one and very much cheaper also, cause 2nd hand mah.Originally posted by Icemoon: 