[diehl12c]

Why is it those who advocate the KJV as "the only" word of God, miss out on the common understanding of grace and peace that are the basis of the gospels. They pridefully defend a specific book to the point that they cause themselves to be foreigners to others, and vise versa. ACTS 14:11 The bottom line is that any human interpretation of God's word will be imperfect. Because we are in fact, imperfect. God preserved his word by placing it in our hearts, to test by means of the holy spirit.

[TUT317]

Why is it those who advocate the KJV as "the only" word of God, miss out on the common understanding of grace and peace that are the basis of the gospels. They pridefully defend a specific book to the point that they cause themselves to be foreigners to others, and vise versa. ACTS 14:11 The bottom line is that any human interpretation of God's word will be imperfect. because we are in fact, imperfect. God preserved his word by placing it in our hearts, to test by means of the holy spirit.

The KJV is an example of 17th century Early Modern English as is the works of Shakespeare.

The KJV version of the bible fitted the Church of England's views on religion at the time. Other denominations may not agree with the interpretation.

It is worth keeping in mind that English is a borrowed language (German, French and Latin also had an influence as did other languages and cultures). English evolved from the 17th century and continues to evolve.

There are problems with translations and this is especially true of English. Words and their context have changed over time. Some words have been added some discarded and other have had their meaning changed.

Translating any book from a foreign language would be a difficult task, it largely depends on how good the translators are. By that I mean how well they understand the foreign language and how well they understand the intricacy of their language.

[sndbay]

Why is it those who advocate the KJV as "the only" word of God, miss out on the common understanding of grace and peace that are the basis of the gospels. They pridefully defend a specific book to the point that they cause themselves to be foreigners to others, and vise versa.

If you care to read (2Timothy 2:15) it tells us to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God"

And it is also written in(Hosea 4:6)"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge"

My opinion of the KJV version is more likely my favorite because I am able to reference and use The Massorah which was set up to safe lock all that was written by putting what was designed as a fence to the Scriptures. This protective work was done under Ezra and Nehemiah, to set the Text in order after the return of Babylon; and we can read of it in Neh 8:8.
Further Attention to these facts can be found in Appendix 30 of the Companion Bible.


So today I can use this completed work to find the interpretation of greek and hebrew word meaning with the number referenced back to the early Sacred Text.

Example: Greek

1 John 1:8 ean eipon hoti echō ou hamartia planaō heautou kai alētheia esti ou en hēmin

English Meaning
1 John 1:8 In case(1437) to speak(2036) that because(3754) any possess(2102) no, not(3755) violate God's law(266) to lead astray(4105) themselves(1438) indeed(2532) falsehood(225) "he/she/it is"(2076) no, not(2102) in,by,with(1722) us, we, our (2254)

Written in the KJV :
1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

The bottom line is that any human interpretation of God's word will be imperfect. because we are in fact, imperfect.

Please reference:

Genesis 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Consider what made Noah perfect in the eyes of God.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Luke 6:4 The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

Consider what is written, and what we are asked to be

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

God preserved his word by placing it in our hearts, to test by means of the holy spirit.

There are many parables and written words that speak of how we are given our daily bread, and the increase is determined by Christ.

~in Christ

[Alty]

This is what you get when you try to decipher a book written by men that some believe is inspired by God.

There are too many interpretations, which is correct, are any of them?

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=Altenweg
There are too many interpretations, which is correct, are any of them?[/QUOTE]

I guess that is the problem. From my own point of view they are all a good approximations and that is the best we can hope for.

The problem is that there is no such thing as "a perfect language". All languages evolve over time. Most philosophers of language would agree with Wittgenstein's claim that the search for a perfect language which accurately mirrors experience cannot be realized.

[Fr_Chuck]

While the KJV is a good version, and there are several poor versions, some of the newer ones seem to lose some of the good meanings of verses. I sat Sunday listing to a preacher who was reading a bible and I was looking at mine, was not even close.

But to many the New Jerusalem bible as being one of the best translations today.

But the issue comes with the denomination views of the translator, so many of the greek can have so many meanings from various areas.

So there is no perfect one, and most real scholars normally go back to the original texts to argure wording.

[sndbay]

This is what you get when you try to decipher a book written by men that some believe is inspired by God.

What each partake of in belief appears to depend what table they pick to eat among. There are two tables, one being the Lord's table of truth, and the second being satan's table of lies.

Children of God eat at the Lord's table. I respectively hope people join the children of God at the Lord's table, but also acknowledge anyone the right to eat elsewhere.

There are too many interpretations, which is correct, are any of them?

Scripture is the Word Of God and it takes time to study with a willing mind and heart. The prophecy comes by no private interpretation but from God unto who He veals truth.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

God knows the heart of every soul, and holds the promise to answer those that confess Christ as the begotten Son. Christ knocks at each soul's door but will only come in if the door is open. If you chose to eat at HIS table.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

I know you didn't ask for scripture but this is the Christian forum with God's Word in answer to the disbelief.


peace & joy
~in Christ

[diehl12c]

'I think there are those who misunderstand my original post. Yes, there are versions of the bible to steer clear of... namely, the NLT (jahova's witness bible)But if the doctrine of the version line up with what we solidly understand of God... ie; his values, and will for his church. Then I say let grace take over when someone uses a translation other than the one you favor. I myself cross reference between the NIV, KJV, and NASB. KJV advocates, and extreme KJV only-ists want to condemn any other "saved believer" for not following what they think is right. That is just what the pharisee done to the early church. They get rapped up in legalism and disregard the love taught by Jesus. If you prefer the KJV, God bless you... But if you want a wider perspective of holy scripture, regarding the original meaning of the author, as I do... then "Do not allow that which you consider good, be spoken of as evil" Rom 14:16... and furthermore, To those who would still condemn me for this," Do not call profane what the Lord has made clean" ACTS 10:15

[slapshot_oi]

People who bicker about what translation is better waste breath. Depends on what you dig reading, that's why there's several translations, if you're not much of a reader and like having things spelled out for you, read NIV or New Living Translation. I like to read, so I own the KJV.

KJV version has ambiguous language and powerful speech, the newer translations are simpler and use more direct language, so there's no real art involved.

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=diehl12c;2147611]'I think there are those who misunderstand my original post. Yes, there are versions of the bible to steer clear of... namely, the NLT (jahova's witness bible)But if the doctrine of the version line up with what we solidly understand of God... ie; his values, and will for his church. Then I say let grace take over when someone uses a translation other than the one you favor. I myself cross reference between the NIV, KJV, and NASB. KJV advocates...

I think I know what you are asking. For example, if you read two different versions of the bible your mind perceives the two ideas contained within the text and you INTUITIVELY come up with the essential meaning by comparing these ideas. What I have called INTUITION you call GRACE.

If this is the case then it is an age old problem and subject to debate, even today. The technical term used is a priori reasoning. Which just means that it is possible to have within our minds( perhaps before birth) knowledge of God. In other words, knowledge of God is a function of the mind therefore we do not require any worldly experience of God to know the truth of God.

An a priori argument for the existence of God is know as an ontological argument, Saint Anselm was credited with coming up with this type of argument. Rene' Descartes came up with a formulation which is a little easier to follow.

(For the above I am saying that intuitions are a priori)

On the other hand, you might want to say that intuition/grace is based on experience i.e.. Our experience based on the reading of texts and the ability to grasp their meaning. If this is the case then it becomes a little more complex when we try and add experience into mix.

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=TUT317;2147851]

'I think there are those who misunderstand my original post. Yes, there are versions of the bible to steer clear of ...namely, the NLT (jahova's witness bible)But if the doctrine of the version line up with what we solidly understand of God....ie; his values, and will for his church. Then I say let grace take over when someone uses a translation other than the one you favor. I myself cross reference between the NIV, KJV, and NASB. KJV advocates........



Quote...
On the other hand, you might want to say that intuition/grace is based on experience ie. our experience based on the reading of texts and the ability to grasp their meaning. If this is the case then it becomes a little more complex when we try and add experience into mix.

I just want to expand a bit on the second part of my explanation about grace/intuition and experience.

Imagine if two people were given exactly the same bibles, each bible having a different translation. They were then asked to read their bibles and intuit the true meaning of the texts. There is every chance they will come up with different understandings. So who is correct? There is little point in one person say that God's grace was with me and not you. Therefore, my interpretation is correct.

No doubt you can see the problem

[sndbay]

[QUOTE=TUT317;2148109]

There is every chance they will come up with different understandings. So who is correct? There is little point in one person say that God's grace was with me and not you. Therefore, my interpretation is correct.

No doubt you can see the problem

What faith and trust is usually found by either interpretation, is the royal law of love. That being said grace is with us, and we can connect what we speak to having the Spirit intrepretation because it will complete a circle in the comparison scriptures throughout the Word of God.

If it does not show the royal law of love in Christ Jesus, and for all men that follow Him, then the intrepretation is stolen by evil that has beguiled the Word of God.


It is not what man says, but it is what the Word of God tells us.

We are all created with intuitive instincts, it is whether we follow and trust them. And I believe it is why we are to hold a Godly fear in the power and will of God. It was created to protect us from evil works.

[TUT317]

[QUOTE=sndbay;2148852][QUOTE=TUT317;2148109]

What faith and trust is usually found by either interpretation, is the royal law of love. That being said grace is with us, and we can connect what we speak to having the Spirit intrepretation because it will complete a circle in the comparison scriptures throughout the Word of God.

If it does not show the royal law of love in Christ Jesus, and for all men that follow Him, then the intrepretation is stolen by evil that has beguiled the Word of God.


It is not what man says, but it is what the Word of God tells us.


Hi sndbay,

As near as I can figure your above example seems to fit into my first explanation of intuition as a function of the mind not relying on experience to determine the truth. Your quote,"It is not what men says, but what the word of God tells us" points to this.


We are all created with intuitive instincts, it is whether we follow and trust them. And I believe it is why we are to hold a Godly fear in the power and will of God. It was created to protect us from evil works.

As far as the second part of the above quote is concerned I think you are talking about intuition in terms of instincts based on experience. This being the case then intuitive instincts negate the use of reason. Therefore, if we act out of instinct we are not employing our powers of reasoning so we are not considering the power or will of God.

I think the second part of your quote also belong in "the function of the mind category"

[hauser5]

It is my belief that anyone who is searching for truth through the word of God should yearn to read the closest to the original word that they can read. Even if they can't comprehend it all, they can see what they get from it. What I do, as I am currently reading the bible all the way through for the first time, is read KJV, and keep NKJV and NIV close by to see if my perception of the word changes at all. I have found that it really doesn't, but the Holy Spirit guides me as I read. Just simply reading the KJV and not comprehending, to me, just keeps people from continuing to read. So whatever way that they can read the word thoroughly is what matters.

[sndbay]

Hi sndbay,

As near as I can figure your above example seems to fit into my first explanation of intuition as a function of the mind not relying on experience to determine the truth. Your quote,"It is not what men says, but what the word of God tells us" points to this.


We are all created with intuitive instincts, it is whether we follow and trust them. And I believe it is why we are to hold a Godly fear in the power and will of God. It was created to protect us from evil works.

Hi TUT317,
So I am comprehending that you believe we can intuitively hold to faith and trust because it is instinctively created in us.

As far as the second part of the above quote is concerned I think you are talking about intuition in terms of instincts based on experience. This being the case then intuitive instincts negate the use of reason.

Perhaps only if you do not listen to the intuitive instinct. Reason takes over when the mind doubts what the intuitive instinct has offered. The example I would suggest is the crying of a new born baby. The intuitive instinct to cry was created within, and when the baby learn to reason out this occurance then it is a teaching of experience.

Therefore, if we act out of instinct we are not employing our powers of reasoning so we are not considering the power or will of God.

This is opposed to the first, so I would disagree, because if we act out of intuitive instinct, God is directly connect to what He created, and makes His will for our safety known. We should respond and intuitively continue to have faith and trust in that intuitive instinct.

I think the second part of your quote also belong in "the function of the mind category"

Only if you question, doubt, or mistrust.Because it would lead us to doing as we mindfully think we can rather then follow. Most assuredly man has chosen to led themselves, and fear in what they see rather then in what the instinct gives.


I have enjoyed your discussion but I think we have go astray from the thread.

[sndbay]

it is my belief that anyone who is searching for truth through the word of God should yearn to read the closest to the original word that they can read. Even if they can't comprehend it all, they can see what they get from it. What i do, as i am currently reading the bible all the way through for the first time, is read KJV, and keep NKJV and NIV close by to see if my perception of the word changes at all.

And this is showing the reasoning mind at work. Obviously nothing should discredit your intentions.

My choice is to read the KJV and use the Strong Concordance to view the Hebrew and greek words that are from the original Sacred Texts.

Many times I have found what I trust the newer versions have done is go forward rather then back to the original. If error was caused in KJV then that error continues and grows to reap further error.

I have found that it really doesn't, but the Holy Spirit guides me as i read.

And I believe truth can only come by the Holy Spirit, so I would say, trust in your heart of love for God and His truth

Just simply reading the KJV and not comprehending, to me, just keeps people from continuing to read. So whatever way that they can read the word thoroughly is what matters.

I believe the willing heart is fed by Christ Jesus, and that He increase daily bread to those that serve Him. The fruitful will be blessed, and we are fruitful in our righteousness to follow HIS footsteps of righteousness. We can only be considered righeous if we follow HIM in the spirit. (Romans 8)

Thank you and grace be with you

~in Christ

[TUT317]

Hi, sndbay

Your quote "So I am understanding that you believe we can intuitively hold faith because it is instinctively created in us."

This is pretty close to what I am trying to say, except I would replace the world 'faith' with 'reason'.

For example, How would I prove the truth of "All green apples are green."
Do I need to go to every supermarket in the world and see if all their green apples are indeed green? NO. I can prove the truth of this statement without moving from my chair. All I need to do is use my power of reasoning/intuition to prove that this statement must be true.

If on the other hand I were to try and prove the statement "All green apples are sour" I would need to get out of may chair and visit supermarkets and taste green apples to see if this is true. If I were to taste just one sweet green apple then the statement "All green apples are sour" is false.

Now the difference is that the first statement cannot be proven false while the second can be. Basically this is the difference between reason and experience. Also when I talk about intuition I mean the type that comes before experience. As you have pointed out intuition can also be used as a function of experience.Unfortunately intuition is a bit of a red herring.

Roughly speaking Descartes uses a " no need to get out of my chair type of argument to prove the existence of God".

No doubt from Descartes reading of the bible (possibly different translations) he has isolated some key points. From these key points he might formulate his ideas into something that might look like this.

(1) Clear and distinct ideas constitutes necessary existence.
(2) God's perfection constitutes clear and distinct ideas.
(3) Therefore, God's perfection constitutes necessary existence.

The conclusion must be true if the reasoning is correct.( which it is) It then becomes a question of whether his premises are correct.

Notice that no experience is required. Also (1), (2) (3) can be translated into any language it makes no difference. It will remain the same. It is also true that no faith is required. However, when it comes to translating the bible it becomes very much a question of peoples experiences and their cultural background. People are forced out of their chairs to do the translations by way of life experiences. This is where faith fits in with experience.For example I am placing my faith in their ability to come up with a good translation.

[arcura]

Personally I use several different versions and compare them to each other.
The reason is that many words in the original texts can be translated differently, often those differences are slight but sometimes not.
For me it gives a broader understanding of what has been written.
Often other bible passages will present another view or clearer view of a particular word or phrase.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[I Newton]

The truth can be obtained from any Bible.

I find it best to study as many different ones as possible in order to find a better way of understanding what it is saying.

There is no way I would trust the interpretation from hundreds of years ago.

I do not even know some of the words they used back then.

I would rather have a far more knowledgeable person translate it into my language of today than to rely on my own interpretation.

To hold a particular interpretation as the only one would be akin to idol worship as far as the scriptures are concerned.

[arcura]

I Newton,
I agree with you on modern translations of the bible.
Many more texts have been discovered in the last 60 years that help experts do a better job of translating a discerning what Holy Scripture says.
The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, those found in the attic of an ancient church in Egypt and those tightly rolled and decaying one that modern science was able to successfully open from the Vatican library have all been on great aid for better translations of Holy Scripture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred