Psycho-Babble Faith | about religious faith | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Lou's reply to rayww-acuratrcord

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2008, at 20:07:15

In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-wntuthrekjv rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2008, at 17:54:06

> > I'm not trying to interfere with your discussion, but I have a couple of questions.
> >
> > http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/1
> > How close is this King James version to the one you use Lou? (click top left corner "listen" for audio) Is there a web link to yours and Dena's?
> >
> > Another person questioning verses in the Book of Revelation was told the following by his "rider"? Does this agree with what you were told by yours? Pardon me for being so curious. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77 (again you have the option to listen or read)
>
> rayww,
> You wrote,[...King James version...the (version) {of the bible} that you use...].
> I do not use any version in particular. I like the King James for some of the language that I feel is appropriate for the verse in question.
> I was riding in a car one midnight in a blinding rain storm, many years ago. And on comes on the radio a man in halting,staggering English barely understandable. He is broadcasting from a mountain top in Tennessee. At the end of his time he identifies himself as a Greek person and offers to send free, a bible that has all the words in Hebrew and Greek numbered with their original meanings in the back of the bible from the KJV. I sent for it and in the mail is this huge bible, free!.
> I still have it, worn and torn, and refer to the original Hebrew and Greek words to see how the verse is translated. If there is still a doubt, I can referr to a web site that has all the popular translations to any verse, such as the Darby, RSV, Young's literal,Amplfied concordant, and many others. The intersting thing is that in the Greek, the articles and conjunctions are not there in many of the original Greek statements and were supplied by the translators. I do not think that any of the translators of the KJV were Jewish so I sometimes have to do my own translation from the original Hebrew or Greek and compare with the Septuagint for the Hebrew trnaslated into Greek. Also, there are many verses in the KJV that can not be found in manuscripts before 900 CE. There are some verses that are questionable due to incomplete authority to match the author's style and those could have been inserted by a scribe to foster their own agenda. Some of the other trnaslations omit those verses and passages.
> I do not think that there is one translation that could be more authoritive than all the rest because of the nature of translating from one language to another.
> Lou

rayww,
I think that the above aspects of bible translations can make a difference in what the earliest manuscripts mean. But I think that in the totality of the bibles used, that there is a core teaching that comes through regardless of the version used, if one studies. For by studying, one precept leads to another precept and one line leads to another line and one can garner from here a little and there a little. I think the overall picture could be seen regardless of what version of the bible one uses. For if there is a questionable verse and that verse does not appear in earlier manuscripts, then one could question the verse and see what doctrine it is advancing and compare other verses in that same doctrine and see if then the verse could have been inserted to advance a particular doctrine and then be able to give it credence or not. Since the bibles were copied by hand untill the printing press, I think that there was the potential for verses to be inserted if the scribe wanted to advance their own doctrine. This only makes me study more.
These verses can be found in a search such as google, and in some cases I think that they could make a difference in some doctrinal meanings, but not in the overall message of the bible if one studies. I look at the versions of the bible as being written by man from the original, and that the original manuscripts are not available at this time. So I see errors and ommissions and such as part of the bible like any other book that was copied over and over for over a thousand years. With that in mind, I think that the bible in any of its trnaslations and versions to be an accurate record of the original books.
Lou

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Faith | Framed

poster:Lou Pilder thread:814179
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20070227/msgs/814323.html