- This topic is empty.
- Posts
My answer Ed J is most of it is scripture. The Comma Johanneum is not for example along with other passages. Also, of that which is scripture. Some of it is translated badly, leading to misconceptions as to the true meaning. That said, it is probably a good translation considering the circumstances. Certainly not as good as others that are available today.
In other words, the AKJV is not perfect. Simple as that.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 07 2014,00:06) Do YOU consider the “AKJV Bible” Scripture? (YES – NO – I DON'T KNOW)
It is one of the hundreds of English translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures, Ed.For the most part, it does a fine job of translating those scriptures from the original languages, and therefore can be considered as “scripture”.
But the additions, mistranslations, and biased translations cannot be considered “scripture” – because those things weren't part of the oldest known mss, and therefore likely not part of the originals.
Your question is kind of tricky. Consider John 1:18, which the KJV does a good job of translating:
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
But since that KJV translation, we've uncovered older Greek mss, and the older ones have the word “god” instead of “son”. It is thought that a later scribe, sensing that “only begotten god” was an odd phrase, and knowing that John used the phrase “only begotten son” many times, read “god” in an old mss, and altered it to “son” to make the reading easier, and make it align with the other times John used “only begotten son”. (There is only the equivalent of an English dash that would have distinguished between the two words. They looked very similar in the Greek nomina sacra.)
At any rate, of the English Bibles that believe “god” was the original word, a couple of them do a good job with the translation:
NASB ©
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.NWT
No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.But, due the fact that the majority of English translators are Trinitarians, and want us to believe that the Son of God is the very God he is the Son of, we have also ended up with these translations:
NIV ©
No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.NLT ©
No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart; he has told us about him.So which one of these is “scripture”? If you asked if we considered the NIV to be “scripture”, what answer could we give? They do a fine job with most of the Bible, and in fact, the NIV is my personal favorite for wording. But should we consider that travesty at John 1:18 to be “scripture” in the NIV?
What kind of nonsense would tell us that no one has ever seen God, but “God the One and Only” has explained Him to us?
Is that “scripture”?It is the same with all Bibles. They, for the most part, do a decent job of conveying the Hebrew and Greek to us in an accurate manner. But they also take it upon themselves to SLANT their translation in favor of their own bias. That is how we ended up with that nonsense in the NIV. It was produced by over 100 confirmed Trinitarians, and this was one of their “triune slants”.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2014,12:03) My answer Ed J is most of it is scripture. The Comma Johanneum is not for example along with other passages. Also, of that which is scripture. Some of it is translated badly, leading to misconceptions as to the true meaning. That said, it is probably a good translation considering the circumstances. Certainly not as good as others that are available today. In other words, the AKJV is not perfect. Simple as that.
Hi T8, so is your answer “Yes” then? …Or is your answer “No”?Do YOU consider the “AKJV Bible” Scripture?
Certainly answering “Yes” – “No” – or “I don't know” cannot be that difficult.
After all it is your rule, certainly you can follow you own rule, can you not? I can
always start another thread in “The Hot Seat” if you refuse to answer it here.Cheerio
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 08 2014,10:30) Hi T8, Did you take me off of Facebook?
…and will you please answer this question too.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 08 2014,12:59) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 07 2014,00:06) Do YOU consider the “AKJV Bible” Scripture? (YES – NO – I DON'T KNOW)
It is one of the hundreds of English translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scriptures, Ed.
Hi Mike,Do YOU consider the “AKJV Bible” Scripture? (YES – NO – I DON'T KNOW)
My answer is “Yes”, what is yours?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2014,12:03) Certainly not as good as others that are available today.
Hi T8,Which one or ones are you suggesting is better?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 09 2014,05:23) Hi Ed,
Threats do not show your character in a good light.
Hi Nick,See T8, even Nick sees!
Thank YOU, you have made my point!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 08 2014,11:46) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2014,12:03) Certainly not as good as others that are available today.
Hi T8,Which one or ones are you suggesting is better?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,The Emphatic Diaglott is not translated by Trinitarians and is actually older that the AV of the KJV edition that is in common use today. The original edition of the AV of the KJV is older but no one uses that today as far as I know.
I have only read a little of it but it look fairly good now, though not perfect.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 09 2014,06:10) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 09 2014,05:23) Hi Ed,
Threats do not show your character in a good light.
Hi Nick,See T8, even Nick sees!
Thank YOU, you have made my point!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Nick,I started this thread because of T8's threat to me… (Link)
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 09 2014,00:10) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 08 2014,11:46) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 08 2014,12:03) Certainly not as good as others that are available today.
Hi T8,Which one or ones are you suggesting is better?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Ed,The Emphatic Diaglott is not translated by Trinitarians and is actually older that the AV of the KJV edition that is in common use today. The original edition of the AV of the KJV is older but no one uses that today as far as I know.
I have only read a little of it but it look fairly good now, though not perfect.
Ed,It does have trouble speaking of the land of the dead but so does the AV of the KJV. It is more forthcoming about the second death than the AV of the KJV calling the Lake of Fire Gehenna. The KJV calls both the land of the dead and the Lake of Fire Hell. The Land of the dead should be labeled Sheol preferably as it is more Hebrew though Hades is also acceptable; Hell is more confusing.
Hi Kerwin,
If you want to discuss whether the “AKJV Bible” is the anointed word of God or not with me please answer the following question…
Do YOU consider the “AKJV Bible” Scripture?
“Yes”
“No”
“I don't know”we can start there OK?
Your Fellow Student,Ed J
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 09 2014,07:57) Hi Kerwin, If you want to discuss whether the “AKJV Bible” is the anointed word of God or not with me please answer the following question…
Do YOU consider the “AKJV Bible” Scripture?
“Yes”
“No”
“I don't know”we can start there OK?
Your Fellow Student,Ed J
Ed,No, the only Scripture that counts for anything is the teachings of the Spirit of God. Without that the AKJV is just words written on paper. The Spirit can overcome many of the errors in the AKJV translation.
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 09 2014,06:40) Hi Everyone, The fact that Nick sees T8's character reflected through me is inconsequential.
Hi ED,
Demeaning another member does not reflect well on your character.Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 07 2014,23:25) Hi Mike, Do YOU consider the “AKJV Bible” Scripture? (YES – NO – I DON'T KNOW)
My answer is “Yes”, what is yours?
I'd have to say “MOSTLY”, Ed. That's the closest to a truthful answer I can come. It is definitely not 100% “scripture”, since it has some additions, and some biased twists to the original.I'd say the KJV is 89.9% “scripture”.
If you insist on one of the three answers you included as our choices, I'd have to say “NO” – because only PARTS of it are really “scripture”.
Or I suppose I could say, “YES……. for the most part.”
Yeah, let's go with that last one as my final answer.
Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 08 2014,16:40) The Land of the dead should be labeled Sheol preferably as it is more Hebrew though Hades is also acceptable; Hell is more confusing.
And it's not necessarily the word “hell”, in and of itself, Kerwin. It is all the “science fictional” teachings that have been linked to “hell” throughout the years.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 10 2014,00:38) Quote (kerwin @ Mar. 08 2014,16:40) The Land of the dead should be labeled Sheol preferably as it is more Hebrew though Hades is also acceptable; Hell is more confusing.
And it's not necessarily the word “hell”, in and of itself, Kerwin. It is all the “science fictional” teachings that have been linked to “hell” throughout the years.
Mike,From reading the current edition of the AV of the KJV I get the idea the Anglican translators believed that the wicked dead went to the lake of fire and begin there eternal suffering even though Judgement day has not yet occurred. They also seemed to have difficulties with the concept of ghosts as other versions cover the idea of the land of the dead, ghosts, and the final judgement better. They also seem to believe that as soon as Jesus sacrificed himself and was raised from the dead Passover was transformed into Easter. Mistaken traditions cause them to be misinterpreted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
