Bible Believers- King James Version Only question

[Biker]

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth


Word is truth. Sanctify in it.

If anyone can help, where in the Word (defined as truth) would I find GOD promising to preserve the original writings in the for English Speaking peoples? Please identify which Word and Version 




.

 

[Izdaari]

Simple enough answer: It isn't there.


Antigonish [I met a man who wasn't there]
by Hughes Mearns

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... (slam!)

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away...

 

[T-Bone]

There is no direct promise of preservation for English speaking people...the English language is not the center of God's universe and the world does not revolve around us.  The church is so westernized that people have begun to think that of Jesus as the european individual who speaks the high language of the English.  The Bible was not written in English, but it has been faithfully translated into the English language in several good translations.

 

[Castor Muscular]

it has been faithfully translated into the English language in several good translations.

Inasmuch as it is possible to translate it faithfully.  English -- even the English of the KJV -- presents problems that make it impossible to convey the intended meaning in the Greek without taking liberties with the original text.  Most translations do not take such liberties, and so the original meaning is lost in translation. 

 

[Izdaari]

it has been faithfully translated into the English language in several good translations.

Inasmuch as it is possible to translate it faithfully.  English -- even the English of the KJV -- presents problems that make it impossible to convey the intended meaning in the Greek without taking liberties with the original text.  Most translations do not take such liberties, and so the original meaning is lost in translation.

Indeed. That's why one of my most valued bibles is an NASB/Message parallel. It's a great combo: the NASB is very literal and faithful to the Greek, and the Message is a paraphrase that takes as much liberty with the text as it needs to. Comparing the two is often very enlightening.

Sometimes I read something in the NASB, and think "huh?" and find the answer across the page in the Message side. Sometimes I read the Message and wonder, "does it really say that, or is Peterson (the Message author) just giving me his interpretation?". And then I read it in the NASB, and can decide for myself if Peterson has it right. Sometimes that's not obvious, and I'll compare other versions, and look at some commentaries. Usually that's enough to resolve the matter. If not, I'll file it away for further study.

 

[T-Bone]

it has been faithfully translated into the English language in several good translations.

Inasmuch as it is possible to translate it faithfully.  English -- even the English of the KJV -- presents problems that make it impossible to convey the intended meaning in the Greek without taking liberties with the original text.  Most translations do not take such liberties, and so the original meaning is lost in translation.

Interesting...would you care to share where the original meaning has been lost in the translation?  I would genuine like to have those.  I would readily admit that in translations and in the evolution of languages there can be difficulties in translation, but I am unaware of complete changes of meaning in the translations from the original text language.

 

[Castor Muscular]

it has been faithfully translated into the English language in several good translations.

Inasmuch as it is possible to translate it faithfully.  English -- even the English of the KJV -- presents problems that make it impossible to convey the intended meaning in the Greek without taking liberties with the original text.  Most translations do not take such liberties, and so the original meaning is lost in translation.

Interesting...would you care to share where the original meaning has been lost in the translation?  I would genuine like to have those.  I would readily admit that in translations and in the evolution of languages there can be difficulties in translation, but I am unaware of complete changes of meaning in the translations from the original text language.

There are lots of examples, but here's one of the most obvious:

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The message of this passage is entirely lost in English because it translates both phileo and agape as "love".  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?  Yeah?  So what?  He said the same thing twice before... or did He?  No, He didn't.  But you'll never know that from the English. 

 

[Ransom]

I've heard or read D. A. Carson point out that the agape/phileo distinction in John 21 is actually an artificial one, because although those words sometimes have a distinction of meaning, they are also used interchangeably, and often in ways that do not meet the stricter definitions (for example, Shechem agapeing Dinah after raping her in Gen. 34 LXX).

I believe there is a discussion of this in Exegetical Fallacies, but apart from that I know I've got him saying so in a taped lecture I attended back in 2001.

 

[T-Bone]

it has been faithfully translated into the English language in several good translations.

Inasmuch as it is possible to translate it faithfully.  English -- even the English of the KJV -- presents problems that make it impossible to convey the intended meaning in the Greek without taking liberties with the original text.  Most translations do not take such liberties, and so the original meaning is lost in translation.

Interesting...would you care to share where the original meaning has been lost in the translation?  I would genuine like to have those.  I would readily admit that in translations and in the evolution of languages there can be difficulties in translation, but I am unaware of complete changes of meaning in the translations from the original text language.

There are lots of examples, but here's one of the most obvious:

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The message of this passage is entirely lost in English because it translates both phileo and agape as "love".  Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?  Yeah?  So what?  He said the same thing twice before... or did He?  No, He didn't.  But you'll never know that from the English.

Not sure I agree with this ...I would say the meaning is intact and the point is made...though the English may not be as exact as the Greek in these passages (and as Ransom said, that's debatable) the English does not change to meaning in that the message of the encounter is harmed.

 

[Izdaari]

From the English, I get the general impression that there's more going on there than the obvious... and looking at the Greek confirms that to be the case. If the meaning is interchangeable, why use the two different Greek words in the same passage? I think because the intended meaning is not quite the same.

 

[T-Bone]

From the English, I get the general impression that there's more going on there than the obvious... and looking at the Greek confirms that to be the case. If the meaning is interchangeable, why use the two different Greek words in the same passage? I think because the intended meaning is not quite the same.

While I agree that the KJV uses "love" in a very specific sense and in a general sense...context tells you that the word love in the conversation does not mean the same to both using it.  The literal direct translation gives clarification and I think is better than the KJV.  That being said the KJV does not harm to the meaning of the passage, it just obscures it and calls for deeper examination...which should be done with all Scripture.  The point is that a person can get a proper translation of the verse in the English with study...I would agree that not all the English translations are equally exact.

 

[rsc2a]

it has been faithfully translated into the English language in several good translations.

Inasmuch as it is possible to translate it faithfully.  English -- even the English of the KJV -- presents problems that make it impossible to convey the intended meaning in the Greek without taking liberties with the original text.  Most translations do not take such liberties, and so the original meaning is lost in translation.

Interesting...would you care to share where the original meaning has been lost in the translation?  I would genuine like to have those.  I would readily admit that in translations and in the evolution of languages there can be difficulties in translation, but I am unaware of complete changes of meaning in the translations from the original text language.

See yom, nephesh, sarx, diabolos (and aggelos/daimon) , and ekklesia for starters.

 

[T-Bone]

it has been faithfully translated into the English language in several good translations.

Inasmuch as it is possible to translate it faithfully.  English -- even the English of the KJV -- presents problems that make it impossible to convey the intended meaning in the Greek without taking liberties with the original text.  Most translations do not take such liberties, and so the original meaning is lost in translation.

Interesting...would you care to share where the original meaning has been lost in the translation?  I would genuine like to have those.  I would readily admit that in translations and in the evolution of languages there can be difficulties in translation, but I am unaware of complete changes of meaning in the translations from the original text language.

See yom, nephesh, sarx, diabolos (and aggelos/daimon) , and ekklesia for starters.

You don't know what these mean or are you saying you cannot find out what they mean or are you saying that English translations change what these mean?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=T-Bone][quote author=rsc2a]See yom, nephesh, sarx, diabolos (and aggelos/daimon) , and ekklesia for starters.
[/quote]

...or are you saying that English translations change what these mean?[/quote]

I often ask people (somewhat jokingly) what "yom" is in English*.  The point of my question being that translations are just that....a translation, not the original word.

There is, by the very nature of translating, interpretation required for any and all words. Some words, only marginally so; other words, a great degree of interpretation.

If you don't like the words selected in my original post, you could always use moshiach, presbuteros, episkopēs, and kephalē. (If you'd like, I could substitute those and stick in a bunch more.)


* "Yom" in English is "yom" because "yom" isn't an English word. 

 

[christundivided]

it has been faithfully translated into the English language in several good translations.

Inasmuch as it is possible to translate it faithfully.  English -- even the English of the KJV -- presents problems that make it impossible to convey the intended meaning in the Greek without taking liberties with the original text.  Most translations do not take such liberties, and so the original meaning is lost in translation.

Indeed. That's why one of my most valued bibles is an NASB/Message parallel. It's a great combo: the NASB is very literal and faithful to the Greek, and the Message is a paraphrase that takes as much liberty with the text as it needs to. Comparing the two is often very enlightening.

Sometimes I read something in the NASB, and think "huh?" and find the answer across the page in the Message side. Sometimes I read the Message and wonder, "does it really say that, or is Peterson (the Message author) just giving me his interpretation?". And then I read it in the NASB, and can decide for myself if Peterson has it right. Sometimes that's not obvious, and I'll compare other versions, and look at some commentaries. Usually that's enough to resolve the matter. If not, I'll file it away for further study.

The "Message" is a utterly horrible translation. It takes entire too many liberties with the texts.

 

[christundivided]

From the English, I get the general impression that there's more going on there than the obvious... and looking at the Greek confirms that to be the case. If the meaning is interchangeable, why use the two different Greek words in the same passage? I think because the intended meaning is not quite the same.

What a surprise.... Even Greek speaking peoples use synonyms.

 

[christundivided]

* "Yom" in English is "yom" because "yom" isn't an English word. 

You really should stick with your day job. Yom is a English representation. The next thing you're going tell me is Y, O, and M are part of the Hebrew alphabet?

 

[Castor Muscular]

I've heard or read D. A. Carson point out that the agape/phileo distinction in John 21 is actually an artificial one, because although those words sometimes have a distinction of meaning, they are also used interchangeably, and often in ways that do not meet the stricter definitions (for example, Shechem agapeing Dinah after raping her in Gen. 34 LXX).

I believe there is a discussion of this in Exegetical Fallacies, but apart from that I know I've got him saying so in a taped lecture I attended back in 2001.

The passage makes no sense if you assume they're interchangeable and can both be represented with the word "love".  There was a difference in the third "love" and it grieved Peter.  But that difference is lost in the English translation. 

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?

Peter was grieved because Jesus said "phileo" this time instead of "agape", which is what Jesus said the first two times. 

For the sake of argument, let's say that my interpretation is wrong -- that it's not Jesus' use of "phileo" the third time that grieved Peter.  The problem is that the English doesn't even give you the ability to discover that it MIGHT be interpreted that way.  It must be assumed the original writer is faithfully recording what the people said.  So, no matter how you interpret the passage, a FAITHFUL translation MUST indicate the change to make the reader aware that the change in terms exists in the conversation. 

There are many other examples of the English being inferior to the Greek, and therefore obscuring the intended meaning.  I'm actually quite surprised that this would be debatable. 

 

[Castor Muscular]

For the benefit of those who have not looked at the Greek, here's how the passage goes:

phileo -- brotherly love
agape -- pure selfless love

Jesus:  Peter, do you agape me?  (1)
Peter:  Yes, I phileo you.
Jesus:  Peter, do you agape me?  (2)
Peter:  Yes, I phileo you.
Jesus:  Peter do you phileo me?  (3)
Peter:  Peter is grieved that Jesus asked him the third time, do you phileo me?  Yes, you know all things.  You know that I phileo you.

 

[Biker]

There is no direct promise of preservation for English speaking people...the English language is not the center of God's universe and the world does not revolve around us.

So true. We aren't "All That"

Neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3.

It flies in the face of Christianity and what Jesus stands for. To think GOD singled out those with a particular means of communication to ONLY have access to his truths is ludicrous.  I avoided these debates...maybe I didn't want to realize the depth of the heresy espoused in the name of our Lord.