KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum (2005 - 2007)

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics ::

Go to bottom of the page

# 01071 :  "Original Only" - Why? What?
Dear Readers,

Under ‘what we believe’ of the KB site we read like this;

“That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God, and inerrant in the original writings, are the Word of God, and the final authority in faith and conduct.”

Now there is a discussion geared towards discounting this teaching and some are labeling me among the ‘original only’ group. I am glad to be part of this and I don’t mind being labeled as such. My suggestion for the truce was challenged as a sign of defeat. My effort is not to prove them wrong but to provide more information regarding this stand.

Contd.


Post by : tomj  View Profile    since : 1 Feb 2007


Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 10:17:14 AM Close
I am copying the writings of ‘prof’ who was a contributor on this forum back in 2005. In his article “KJV Only Attitudes – 2” he addressed these issues. Instead of me re-writing what he wrote or re-introduce it I will copy the pertinent portions.

I would recommend all to read the entire postings (KJV Only Nonsense & KJV Only Attitudes -2; these are brought forward recently).

I know this contributor personally. Without saying much about him (I am hoping he wouldn’t find me writing this about him – and he is going to be very upset), let me give just a casual introduction. He had been a ‘featured speaker’ among the elite group of Theologians who specialize in Biblical original languages. By this, what I mean is this. He is considered as one of the top in the North America who the elite circle of scholars would call an ‘authority’; (one among the very few) on this subject.

Let me plead to you to read those postings! Try to understand the whole process. Don’t build a wall around you and think “I have arrived”, and there is no need to study any further.

The other day I heard this analogy. The world renowned Chelloist (a violin like musical instrument) Messier (not sure of the spelling) kept on practicing his instrument, 2-3 hours a day. At the age of 97 his friends asked; why do you still practice this, you are the best? He answered; ‘I am making progress’! I wish we create an attitude like this when we come to the Bible.

Please read the following postings – better yet; read the whole thing and understand better from his entire postings.

Contd.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 10:18:36 AM Close
We believe, with good reason, that the Bible is God’s word. God gave us Scripture over a long period of time, approximately 1500 years. He used men whose language was Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to do so. He used the prevailing language of the community to whom the message was given. So the Bible came to us in Hebrew (almost all of the OT), Aramaic (the letters in Ezra and part of Daniel), and Greek (all of the NT).

So when we quote Scripture’s testimony about Scripture, these statements themselves are translations of what was written in Hebrew or Greek. They referred not to an infallible translation, but to the document which has been translated over the centuries. It is very proper to think of the original writings, in whatever language they were given, both when we try to understand Scripture, and when we interpret Scripture’s statements about itself or other matters.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 10:19:07 AM Close
KJV-only” ideologues frequently appeal to a doctrine of preservation. Even if the verses they cite to prove such a doctrine mean anything like they think these verses do (that is to be seriously doubted, and I hope come to this later), there is no valid reason to interpret them as having specifically to do with the KJV any more than with many other English translations before or after the KJV, or the Latin Vulgate, or the various translations into French or German or Indian languages. Since these verses are present in the Telugu Bible also, one would not have a basis for saying the Telugu Bible is correct to the extent it agrees with the KJV. One should say about ALL translations that they are correct to the extent they agree with the ORIGINAL. I repeat: Unless one held to a “special inspiration” behind the production of the KJV, there would be no ground for deciding whether a given version (=translation) is correct by comparing it to the KJV, any more than the KJV is to be judged by comparing it to your favorite translation. So, if the notion that inerrancy applies only to the original documents in the original language of Scripture makes you uncomfortable, be a little discomfited (or study the languages of the original—after all, if a Telugu or Malayalam speaker can handle KJV English authoritatively, what could keep him/her from learning Greek or Hebrew?). But that discomfiture is no license to invent novel doctrines, unsupportable by facts from inside or outside the Bible.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 10:20:36 AM Close
Furthermore, do you not also see an Anglo-centric arrogance behind the KJV-ONLY doctrine? It says something like this: “No one can tell us that the original writings of the Bible were inspired or ask us to study those languages to be serious interpreters. Everyone should learn English, and use our favorite English translation, the KJV, even where it deviates from the original, as the point of reference for truth.” Why would anyone sell himself to this idea?

Inasmuch as KJV reflects what God had his servants write down in the process of giving us Scripture, the KJV is Scripture. But to say the reverse, as the KJV-only position demands, that what the prophets and apostles wrote are wrong unless they agree with the KJV, is false. Although they will not admit to it, this is precisely what the “KJV-only” doctrine amounts to. “We do not care about the original. We do not care about the facts surrounding the KJV. We are going to pretend that from now on all men should refer to the KJV as the inspired original. All other English and non-English translations must agree with the KJV to be correct.” The way I describe the “KJV-ONLY” attitude here is not a caricature, because study about NT manuscripts and the original languages is a sincere effort to understand what the prophets and apostles (and other human instruments of God in the process of inscripturation) actually wrote. To denigrate it, and even to be arrogant to say, “We don’t need it” is an aberrant faith.


There is more in his writings - please read those postings.


Regards,

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : george.p.alexander   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 12:42:05 PM Close
huh? what's this? Did I miss something? Why does it now look like you're changing your stand which you held on till sometime last week. For you stated in the thread you started earlier and brought back up recently ("HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE" Part 1) that:

[Quote]

ONLY the original autographs (original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the DIVINE PROMISE of inspiration and inerrancy

[/EndQuote] (Emphasis mine)

Compare with new stand:

[quote]

“That the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God, and inerrant in the original writings, are the Word of God, and the final authority in faith and conduct.”

[/endquote]

And now you're trying to equate your ORGINAL "Orginals Only" statement with the statement from KB.Net??? Interesting. Very interesting. I've asked about OO theory a couple of times on earlier threads with some Biblical portions that contradict it (Babu asked too) only to have been conviently ignored.

I'll copy paste it here:

I don't expect anyone to address this anymore because it needs more faith in God than human logic but just to put it in context with "Orginals Only",

1. Copies of the orginal are called "scripture" both in both old and new testaments in numerious places.

2. Mathew translated from Hebrew to Greek and we call the Gospel of Mathew "scripture". Further, it is likely that the Ethopian Enuch used a translation of the hebrew when he read Is 53.

And I hope you believe that ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God and therefore inerrant.

Now see your "Orginals Only" statment, what our "featured speaker" says ("So, if the notion that inerrancy applies only to the original documents in the original language of Scripture makes you uncomfortable, be a little discomfited") and what the Bible says about "Orginals Only" (absolutely NOTHING).

By the way, much of his "attitude analysis" you posted is plain steriotype. Sad.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 1:05:31 PM Close
Quoting 'prof' from above posts:

"One should say about ALL translations that they are correct to the extent they agree with the ORIGINAL. I repeat: Unless one held to a “special inspiration” behind the production of the KJV, there would be no ground for deciding whether a given version (=translation) is correct by comparing it to the KJV, any more than the KJV is to be judged by comparing it to your favorite translation. So, if the notion that inerrancy applies only to the original documents in the original language of Scripture makes you uncomfortable, be a little discomfited (or study the languages of the original—after all, if a Telugu or Malayalam speaker can handle KJV English authoritatively, what could keep him/her from learning Greek or Hebrew?)."

I agree that all translations should agree with THE ORIGINAL. That is a no brainer. But do we have THE ORIGINAL to compare our Bibles with? Does studying the LANGUAGES of the original (that is Hebrew/Chaldee/Greek) give us THE ORIGINAL to compare our Bibles with? Of course, some folks tells us that THE ORIGINAL is recovered to an accuracy of 99.99%.

Tom J worte in the thread "HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE – Part 3" (8 Jul 2005 12:57:51):
"Through the centuries thousands of copies and thousands of translations have been made which introduce some error. By the exacting science of ‘textual criticism’ (explained in How we got the Bible part 2) has been able to reclaim the content of the original writings to the extreme degree of 99.99%, with the remaining one hundredth of one percent (or less) having no effect on its content."

I replied (8 Jul 2005 14:27:59):
"That's good. Now there are 31,102 verses in the Bible, and 0.01% means 3.1102 verses. Let's round that figure to 3 verses. For the time being, let me put up with that 99.99% correct Scriptures. Has some body bound them together in one BOOK as yet? Where can I get a copy of that BOOK please?"

cont'd...

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 1:14:15 PM Close
Then 'prof' replied (8 Jul 2005 14:37:08):

"That is brilliant, bro. Moses, simply brilliant.

Tomj cannot identify the 99.99% accurate book as one volume for you, so YOU get to decide for GOD.

That gives Moses Lemuelraj TOTAL and FREE right and authority to decide what must be the from-now-on-absolutely-guaranteed-and-sealed-100%-God's-word. It has to be in English because you like it that way, and even the original documents will now have to agree to be superseded by your decree!"

How I decided on the KJV is a different question. But so far it has been asserted that 99.99% of THE ORIGINAL is recovered. If its recovered, where is it? I want to buy one copy. Notice that 'prof' agreed, Tom J CANNOT IDENTIFY!

Recently, Bro.Tom J revised that number from 99.99% to 99%. I refuted it again, providing evidence on how the published Greek texts differ. I will reproduce that here again.

Unless we can get hold of THE ORIGINAL, we cannot compare our Bibles with it. So if some one learnt the original LANGUAGES, how can he use it to correct the KJV since what he has is not "the original"?

cont'd...

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 1:16:06 PM Close
From "Inspiration of Scriptures" (26 Jan 2007 12:22:36 PM):

Dear Readers and Bro. Tom J:

Brother Tom J wrote on 26 Jan 2007 09:11:01, "It is important to remember that the Biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the Biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another.

Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes."

Kindly observe that the 99% number is not correct. Brother Tom J is not probably not done his home work well in reporting this number. Let me show you the real differences--


The following is an analysis of differences between Scrivener's Greek NT (TR) and the Nestle-Aland's 27th edition of Greek NT (NA). TR is supposed to be the underlying text of AV (according to FHA Scrivener). NA is by and large the underlying text for modern versions like NASB.

1. There are 7,957 verses in the New Testament.

2. Out of these, 22.9% of verses (1826 of 7957) in TR have an average of 2 Greek words per verse MORE than the NA.

3. And 8.6% of verses (683 of 7957) in TR have an average of 1.53 Greek words per verse LESSER than NA.

4. In other words, 31.5% of the verses (2509 of 7957) in TR have an average DIFFERENCE of 1.88 Greek words per verse when compared to NA. If there is an average difference of 1.88 Greek words in every one of those 2,509 verses, imagine how much different TR and NA are.

These statistics are worked out by me. The TR and NA Greek texts are copied in Excel sheets (one verse per row), and the word counts were computed using a program tested thoroughly. Any one is welcome to check and verify the numbers I am giving here. I have taken great care to ensure accuracy, and any descrepancies are NOT intentional. I can gladly provide the excel sheet to any one at request. My email ID is moses.lemuelraj@gmail.com.

In Christ Jesus,
Moses LemuelRaj

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 2:12:37 PM Close
Dear 'george p.alexander'

I wish you could control your emotions and address the issue. I just read what you wrote during a break time and I didn't really understand anything. I will read it more carefully later, but I hope the exchange can be civil with less sarcasm.

I will address genuine concerns and questions, but I will be ignore that which has the overtone of excessive sarcasm and emotional outburst.

Those asking questions, please read the pertinent articles in its entirety so you won’t be asking the same questions over and over if such questions are already addressed in the article. Above all, try to read the article carefully in its entirety before launching emotional sentiments in the form of questions.

Regards,

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 3:08:52 PM Close
Dear Readers

I am wondering if I can propose a truce between the different groups here: OO, KJVO and the rest of us!!

Here is a proposed framework for the truce:

1. All scripture as it was ORIGINALLY written is indeed GOD-BREATHED(INSPIRED) and INERRANT.

2. A TRUE COPY of the ORIGINAL in the same language is also equally GOD-BREATHED and INERRANT as 1 above.

3. A TRANSLATION version from the ORIGINAL or a TRUE COPY is GOD-BREATHED but not necessarily INERRANT as the ORIGINAL or a TRUE COPY.

An explanation for concept #3
As an allegory of this concept is that God breathed into the nostrils of Adam and he became a living soul. His children, including us, are just as alive as Adam was alive, but God did not individually breath into our nostrils, to make us alive. The life that God breathed into Adam passed on to his children and continues to keep the world of people alive.
His son, Seth, got that BREATH OF GOD from Adam, but Seth is NOT Adam. Seth is a completely different person with a different personality. However, no one doubts that Seth is ALIVE or Adam's son, since Seth is the image of Adam.

In a similar vein, the ORIGINALs were GOD BREATHED and INERRANT. A TRANSLATION is from the ORIGINAL but now has a new personality. The TRANSLATION is not ORIGINAL and cannot claim the unique qualities of the ORIGINAL. But the BREATH OF GOD has passed from the ORIGINAL to the TRANSLATION (provided the Spirit of God was involved in the process of translation) and makes it ALIVE just like the ORIGINAL.

So from this prespective, the scriptures we have today are GOD BREATHED but cannot claim INERRANCY as the ORIGINALS and TRUE COPIES could, simply because translation errors between human languages are inevitable and will only be removed when we all speak one language in heaven.

This is a compromise view, taking sensible ideas from both camps. It ascribes ORIGINALS its due position and lets us declare our present translations as GOD-BREATHED (meaning alive like the ORIGINALS were). Comments?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : greatlybeloved   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 4:19:52 PM Close
Bro Moses (moses2006),

As you compared ORIGINALS with Adam and the rest with Adam's sons, it sounded to me that you're saying that Adam is superior to his sons BECAUSE God breathed into Adam directly (Correct me if I'm wrong).

How does it make any difference as long as the BREATH is same (i.e., God's). For e.g, Apostles Peter, John, James, etc., were taught by the Lord Jesus DIRECTLY and many things were revealed to them DIRECTLY by the Lord. And the Lord also revealed many things to Apostle Paul but NOT DIRECTLY. But did that make any difference? Will you say Peter is right and Paul could be wrong (because it was an indirect revelation)?

<<the scriptures we have today are GOD BREATHED but cannot claim INERRANCY as the ORIGINALS and TRUE COPIES could, simply because translation errors between human languages are inevitable>>

If translation errors are inevitable, why not copiest errors? Honestly this is nothing but a mere 'mathematical probability'. If you use the same logic, there should be 'errors' also in ORIGINAL book of Proverbs, because they were COPIED BY MEN (Proverbs 25:1). Is the book of Proverbs GOD BREATHED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY? And what is the 'probability' of errors in that Book (in the ORIGINAL, i.e., copied by men of Hezekiah)?


John.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 6:45:05 PM Close
Bro John (greatlybeloved)

Quote <..it sounded to me that you're saying that Adam is superior to his sons BECAUSE God breathed into Adam directly>

No, that is not what I meant to say. Adam is superior only in being the first "created" person. But otherwise he is just like anyone else. God breathed into him, but that does make him 'greater' than us (in my opinion).

I think you are asking if by my allegory I implied if the ORIGINALS are special or superior. In being GOD BREATHED AND INERRANT yes they are special, unique and superior. If the Word of God was written in the language of heaven (which Paul heard), then that version would be more superior to the ORIGINAL Hebrew.

Quote <How does it make any difference as long as the BREATH is same (i.e., God's). ....Will you say Peter is right and Paul could be wrong (because it was an indirect revelation)?>

I am not sure what you mean. All scripture is God breathed (per scripture) whether it came by direct or indirect revelation. One cannot say that Proverbs (since they were copied down) is inferior to lets say Malachi (direct). They may differ in 'profitability' for the man of God, but they are equally important as revelation.

Quote <If translation errors are inevitable, why not copiest errors?>

Translational errors are inevitable, due to differences in culture between various major language groups. But copiest errors are not necessarily inevitable. They are avoidable. What is your point?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : greatlybeloved   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 7:31:44 PM Close
Dear Moses2006,

<<I implied if the ORIGINALS are special or superior. In being GOD BREATHED AND INERRANT yes they are special, unique and superior. If the Word of God was written in the language of heaven (which Paul heard), then that version would be more superior to the ORIGINAL Hebrew>>

This is your PERSONAL OPINION. I dont find any such suggestion in the Scriptures. In the example I gave, Solomon wrote the ORIGINAL Proverbs. But the "men of Hezekiah" COPIED them. Now we have these COPIED ones as Scriptures. Not only that, an extra verse (atleast one) was added to it. Proverbs 25:1 was NOT written by Solomon but ADDED by the MEN WHO COPIED and it is a PART of Scriptures now. The ORIGINAL that Solomon wrote DOES NOT (and cannot) have this verse.

If you find Solomon's Original and the COPY of Hezekiah's MEN NOW, which one would be superior, in the light of the fact that God choose Hezekiah's men's COPY to be the Scriptures INSTEAD of Solomon's ORIGINAL?

<<Translational errors are inevitable,... But copiest errors are not necessarily inevitable. They are avoidable>>

I dont think so! There are many Old Testament Hebrew passages translated into Greek by the writers of the Gospels and Epistles. As for the differences in culture, portions from Daniel (with Babylonian + Persian cultures) were translated into Greek in gospels as well. Did you find any errors in those translations?

John.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : greatlybeloved   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 7:38:50 PM Close
<<If the Word of God was written in the language of heaven (which Paul heard), then that version would be more superior to the ORIGINAL Hebrew>>

Peter heard the FATHER testifying DIRECTLY FROM HEAVEN. But Peter says it is better to rely on the word of prophecy than his own (Peter's) testimony about Christ's glory.

"We have also a MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY; whereunto YE DO WELL THAT YE TAKE HEED" (2Pe 1:19)

John.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 8:42:01 PM Close
Dear John,

Yes its my personal opinion. You are correct. Remember, I was trying to propose a truce framework. My personal opinion is based on God's Word, as it talks about itself (God -Breathed) and also in the practical sense (ORIGINAL). Like the lowest common denominator, we all atleast agree that the ORIGINALs were God breathed (don't we all? am I wrong?)

Regarding Proverbs, we read that Solomon spoke 3000 proverbs (1 Kings 4:32). We do not have all the original 3000 writings of Solomon's proverbs. But God's Spirit moved some people to record a few hundred of it for our benefit and its in the book of Proverbs. Now if we suddenly discover an ancient book of 3000 solomon proverbs, would it be superior to the Book of Proverbs? I would not say that considering, God only choose the ones that in Proverbs over the rest. Otherwise you would be second guessng God. The book of proverbs is a God-Breathed portion of scripture, which is a part of many other proverbs that Solomon spoke.

Quote<Did you find any errors in those translations?>
I am not sure what your point is?!! Translations done by the Holy Spirit in the NT are OF COURSE error free!!!! I don't think I said that translations SHOULD have errors. I meant there is high probability of lack of dynamic equivalence, between languages. Spirit of God guided the NT writers to translate Hebrew into Greek, as much as the language Greek could handle it!!! We cannot do anything about that (as opposed to COPIST erros).

The last point of Bible being written in heavenly language, I am not inclined to discuss further, as it is really not a subject called for in this discussion.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : george.p.alexander   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 9:24:45 PM Close
Dear Tom J,

My appologies.

Just that I've been asking the same questions to brother George P. Koshy and You and anyone else in earlier threads as I really wanted to know what is the basis for this belief everyone preaches.

Even though it was asked a couple of times by myself and others for consideration, everytime the answer has been to wait for a future thread or read another thread which does not address the Biblical incidents that had been pointed out.

Once again, my appologies. But if you can read my post again and address those pointers so I can get another persective, it will be great. I'm not the only reader who has been asking for some clarification in light of the scriptures.

regards,

George

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 1 Feb 2007 10:36:53 PM Close
Dear moses2006,

"For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another DIVERS KINDS OF TONGUES; to another the INTERPRETATION OF TONGUES" (1Cor 12:8-10).

WHY did the Spirit of God give to some men the interpretation of tongues? Because they were meant for interpreting UNKNOWN (that is, FOREIGN)tongues! Now think about this. When the Spirit of God gave some men the interpretation of tongues, will He not use it? Remember, this gift has no relation to Acts 2 kind of tongues. The tongues in Acts 2, 10 and 19 never needed INTERPRETATION. Those who heard, heard in the OWN languages as the tongue speakers spoke. And the tongue speakers miraculously spoke. They were not UNKNOWN tongues for the hearer, but their OWN LANGUAGE (see Acts 2:6).

How do you know that the AV translators were not bestowed with this gift by the Spirit of God? How can you say "Translational errors are inevitable, due to differences in culture between various major language groups"? This is a humanistic argument proposed by the "scholars" who do not understand the ways of God.

Acts 2 kind of tongues ceased, because they were given for a sign to the unbelieving Israel (Isa 28; 1 Cor 14), and when the purpose was served, the tongues ceased, when God set aside Israel according to Rom 11:25. The gift of interpretation of tongues has NO RELATIONSHIP with Acts 2 kind of tongues. Gift of interpretation is meant for interpreting UNKNOWN (that is, FOREIGN) tongues.

In Christ Jesus,
Moses LemuelRaj

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 2 Feb 2007 7:11:28 AM Close
Dear Bro. Tom J,

Thanks for acknowledging that there is an "Originals Only" position and that you are glad to be a part of it. Do you also think that this position will automatically result in "Scholarship Only" position? Since Originals are lost, if some one were to teach the Bible authoritatively (Titus 2:15), he has to depend on the Textual scholars to get the right text first, and the scholars in Hebrew/Greek to get the right meanings of the text. If you think it does, then it will be also appropriate to discuss this point as well in this thread. Thankyou.

In Christ Jesus,
Moses LemuelRaj

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 2 Feb 2007 8:00:20 AM Close
Bro LemuelRaj,

I had raised a couple questions which I would like your answers:
1. Have you hit any major doctrinal truths from KJV that your Telegu Bible does not talk about?
2. Do you assert that the KJV is capable of producing better christians with better good works than lets say the Malayalam or Telegu Bible?
3. Is the Word of God for the saved ONLY?

Now coming to you questions:
Quote <How do you know that the AV translators were not bestowed with this gift by the Spirit of God?>

I guess I could ask you how do you know the AV translators WERE bestowed with this gift, but all others (NIV, NKJV, Telegu, Malayalam, etc) did not get this SPIRIT of Interpretation? But you probably will not answer that.

Anyways, you gotta admit that its not easy to achieve dynamic equivalence between major language groups. Its common sense, which people like us who speak a dravidian language and an anglo-saxon language is intuitively aware of. I am not an expert in ancient Hebrew, Aramiac and Greek. But, considering these languages represent wholly different population groups and cultures, its not impossible to discover a lack of one to one word match (read idea match) between these language groups. (Am I wrong?)

So when the Spirit of God gave the gift of interpretation, I believe God matched the words and ideas (between speaker and interpreter) as close as the interpreted language permitted. God did not invent new words in the interpreted language to cover up any deficiencies. And I am sure such deficiencies did not matter to the purpose behind such a gift of the Spirit.

So the claim that a translation can achieve a 100% dynamic equivalence is at best fanciful or naive at worst. God is more interested in conveying His eternal truth in the language that we know, not have us learn one language that He will only speak in. Is'nt that the hallmark of Christianity? That God reached to us, Americans, Indians, Pygmies, Chineese, Maories, etc?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 2 Feb 2007 8:32:15 AM Close
Dear Moses L,

Let me preface my comments with a ‘Preacher’s story’ - unlikely happened in real life, but has a good lesson to it. A little girl attending the High School was sitting next to Albert Einstein at a dinner, who was very much grey haired at that time and advanced in age. The conversation led her to ask this old person what he does with his life. Einstein replied; ‘I study Physics’. The little girl wondered; ‘Do you study Physics at this age! I was just done with Physics at the last semester’.

Yes, Bro. Moses I depend on people who have devoted their life gaining scholarship, deciphering manuscripts after manuscripts, analyzing new information and discoveries, converging into making the Bible the most reliable, unique and pure as any human entity can produce. I don’t believe in any super natural ‘thunder & lightning’ by which God would make a particular translation ‘inspired’ at this stage. It is give to man to explore and work diligently, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and preserve the purity of Scriptures.

If I am a KJVO, I should just burn the entire findings of the ‘dead sea scrolls’ right? Just in case these most ancient manuscripts would be found in disagreement with a word or two from KJV!

How about having an open mind and explore and understand the scholarly conclusions on these manuscripts? After all, to my knowledge, they found only one word (light) that was missing as a result of copying after copying after copying under the worst possible circumstances the whole Isaiah 53, for more than1000 years! This in fact testifies to me the Bible I have is very reliable and it contains everything I need for my Christian life.

But if the scholars want to make the change based on that word ‘light’ in future editions of a particular translation, I realize that translation got even closer to the originals. To endorse what Erasmus put together 400- 500 yrs. ago and made few changes under pressure, not based on credible manuscript evidence; I am sorry, I can't.

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 2 Feb 2007 11:27:26 AM Close
Dear George Alexander,

I will go through those questions and try to answer as much as I can.

Thank you for your patience.

Tom J

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ageorge1   View Profile   Since : 3 Feb 2007 2:26:19 AM Close
Dear Br. Lemuelraj,

It seems the discussion on KJVO status has come to the final termination and as stated by Br. Tom J in his recent post in this forum as unprofitable. As one of the regular readers in Forum I personally think, though considerable inputs were supplied to defend what we believe, but still it presumes KJVO preference is of an isolated presumption which does not intact with our faith in the Lord and trust in His Word.

As a matter of fact we all know and will very well appreciate that today there are number of Bibles translations in different languages available for which we should be thankful to Lord for the sustaining grace bestowed to the Gentiles. Even in remote and far away places Bible is made available. We just even not know the pain and suffering taken by men of God to reach out the Good News by way of translating the Bible looking to the people who never heard of our Lord Jesus Christ. Bible has changed the lifestyle of thousands and thousands not because of the logic of men but the work of Holy Spirit and through the inspiring power of His Word. Now we say all the translations are not authorized or rather not inspired or not God breathed. If the Scripture/Word of God available with us in various languages and in various editions are not inspired or not breathed by the God as stated by you and then how can the regeneration took place in individual belivers.

For an instance Kerala is the place in India where many men of God came up in the past and in the present they live with a good testimonial life, many of them were of the past only known their mother tongue and they were only used for their meditation and preaching they used only Malayalam Bible, they never complained nor look back its grass route rather believed as IT AS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. They were rich enough to sing new songs in the respective languages available. They were totally convinced and conversant with the leading of the Holy Spirit. This is what the testimony I have seen and observed, then how can an

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : ageorge1   View Profile   Since : 3 Feb 2007 2:30:59 AM Close
then how can the regeneration took place in individual belivers.

For an instance Kerala is the place in India where many men of God came up in the past and in the present they live with a good testimonial life, many of them were of the past only known their mother tongue and they were only used for their meditation and preaching they used only Malayalam Bible, they never complained nor look back its grass route rather believed as IT AS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD. They were rich enough to sing new songs in the respective languages available. They were totally convinced and conversant with the leading of the Holy Spirit. This is what the testimony I have seen and observed, then how can anyone to say that KJV is the only faithful, trustworthy, God breathed translation. It is because of the efforts and continuous suffering of men of God we got the Bible in various languages in order to know the grace of God in each individuals life irrespective any language barriesr. We simply ignore this great truth of God’s goodness and mercy.

Though you have supplied various facts and figures to ascertain the KJV Only position, still as a reader in this Forum, I personally feel that the KJV Only static lacks the integrity, reliability, and purity of the Word of God given to us.

1) Since KJV is the only inspired Word of God, it is only meant for the English speaking populace and what part will it for an ordinary believer who even not know English. Should he go for studying the language first and then come to the Lord for a better INSPIRED SCRIPTURE?

2) By reading and meditating the KJV what spiritual achievement we can expect that of what a non-KJV believer.


3) By reading and meditating, can any other translations apart from KJV, lead a believer in a misery spiritual situation? If so, can you give any instance of such cases where due to referring of translation mislead a person life ?

4) Can a person’s life lead only Scripture or what is the part of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life?

Christian Regards,

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page



Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::
© 2018 Sansnet.com



HOME