Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism

Expand Messages
  • SteveZ167
    The 1599 Geneva Bible is a better Bible than the KJV and it does not have Easter in it pages: Geneva Bible 4 And when he had caught him, he put him in prison,
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 6 11:22 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Message
      The 1599 Geneva Bible is a better Bible than the KJV and it does not have Easter in it pages:
       

      Geneva Bible

       

       4 And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people.

       

      Steve

       
       
      Home Page
      1599 Geneva Bible Online

       

      1 Corinthians 14:8 And also if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?
      Yahoo Group Owner
      -----Original Message-----
      From: weeping_calvinist [mailto:raging.calvinist@...]
      Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 1:21 PM
      To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism

      Personally, I think the AV could use some work (let's get the
      word "Easter" out of there, for example).  But I still think it's the
      best available English version and it's usage ought to be retained.

      gmw.


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Britton"
      <bander1643@y...> wrote:
      > I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster's
      Preface
      > to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind that
      > Noah was reformed, calvinistic & Independent/Congregtionalist.
      >
      > Among some of his points:
      >
      > 1. "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct
      and
      > perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin;
      peculiarly
      > adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity
      with
      > beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version
      > ought not to be altered."
      >
      > 2."[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken
      > place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others,
      > obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have
      fallen
      > into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular
      use,
      > is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the
      > version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
      > understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries,
      and
      > who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other
      > words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had
      > when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or
      false
      > ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that
      > which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
      > original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of
      > God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
      > most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
      > injurious...In my own view of this subject, a version of the
      > scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the
      > sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first
      > ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such
      > words, according to the original languages. That many words in the
      > present version, fail to do this, is certain."
      >
      > 3. "There are ... many words and phrases, very offensive to
      delicacy
      > and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I have
      > conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be
      > retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in
      company
      > without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding,
      > exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their
      > authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy
      > religion."
      >
      > 4."There are a few errors in the A.V which "are admitted on all
      hands
      > to be obvious;" which he has corrected. HOWEVER, "To avoid giving
      > offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly
      made
      > any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which the
      > different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar
      > tenets."  So what good is THAT? Probably a good thing there weren't
      > Mormons around at the time :-)The A.V is chock full of errors that
      > support the "peculiar tenets" of the so-called Episopalians, and I
      as
      > a Presbyterian find THAT offensive :-) (I know, I know, "who cares
      if
      > the Presbys are offended." :p~~~]
      >
      >
      > 3. it is very important that all denominations of Christians should
      > use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises &
      > controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform.
      >
      >
      > Anyway, I'm not chucking out my A.V., but I would like to know how
      to
      > get a better sense of it in a lawful way without exposing myself &
      my
      > family to grave error.
      >
      > Your thoughts are appreciated,
      >
      > Tom



      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Thomas Britton
      Yup, Down widat TdB ... Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 6 4:04 PM
      • 0 Attachment

        Yup,

        Down widat

        TdB


        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
      • Thomas Britton
        The Geneva Bible def. has its merits, merits that the modern versions do not. (E.g., compare any modern version with the Authorized Version on Genesis 2:20 And
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 6 4:19 PM
        • 0 Attachment

          The Geneva Bible def. has its merits, merits that the modern versions do not.

          (E.g., compare any modern version with the Authorized Version on Genesis 2:20

          And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. A.V.

          But for Adam [1] no suitable helper was found. NIV

          But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. New "King James".

          The NKJV follows the NIV not the Authorized version.)

          Not really wanting to start a faithful translation vs. unfaithful translation debate. I was interested in the question of using Webster's or the Geneva Bible within the context of covenanted uniformity.

          Hope this clarifies,

          Tom


          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        • SteveZ167
          Question... Why is the KJV called the Authorized Version? My answer is because a King had a bias to God s Word the Geneva Bible because it threatened his
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 6 6:38 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Message
            Question... Why is the KJV called the Authorized Version?
             
            My answer is because a King had a bias to God's Word the Geneva Bible because it threatened his kingship besides the Catholics wanted the Geneva Bible to be replaced also. Plus the Geneva Bible was against Freemasons and secret fraternities which have proven throughout history to be worshiping Lucifer and not the God of the Bible.
             
            Steve
             
             
            Home Page
            1599 Geneva Bible Online

             

            1 Corinthians 14:8 And also if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle?
            Yahoo Group Owner
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Thomas Britton [mailto:bander1643@...]
            Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 7:20 PM
            To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: Authorized Version & KJV-only Extremism

            The Geneva Bible def. has its merits, merits that the modern versions do not.

            (E.g., compare any modern version with the Authorized Version on Genesis 2:20

            And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. A.V.

            But for Adam [1] no suitable helper was found. NIV

            But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. New "King James".

            The NKJV follows the NIV not the Authorized version.)

            Not really wanting to start a faithful translation vs. unfaithful translation debate. I was interested in the question of using Webster's or the Geneva Bible within the context of covenanted uniformity.

            Hope this clarifies,

            Tom


            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

          • Dan Fraas
            Tom, I d suggest you try using the New King James Version. Although I personally think that it is an inferior translation in some ways, largely because modern
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 8 7:02 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Tom,

              I'd suggest you try using the New King James Version. Although I
              personally think that it is an inferior translation in some ways,
              largely because modern English is ill-suited to a translation from
              antiquity, it has many advantages in comprehension for your average
              reader.

              Riley
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Britton"
              <bander1643@y...> wrote:
              > I am curious about what any of you think about Noah Webster's
              Preface
              > to his 1833 updating of the Authorized version. Keep in mind that
              > Noah was reformed, calvinistic & Independent/Congregtionalist.
              >
              > Among some of his points:
              >
              > 1. "In the present version, the language is, in general, correct
              and
              > perspicuous; the genuine popular English of Saxon origin;
              peculiarly
              > adapted to the subjects; and in many passages, uniting sublimity
              with
              > beautiful simplicity. In my view, the general style of the version
              > ought not to be altered."
              >
              > 2."[I]n the lapse of two or three centuries, changes have taken
              > place, which, in particular passages, impair the beauty; in others,
              > obscure the sense, of the original languages. Some words have
              fallen
              > into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular
              use,
              > is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the
              > version. The effect of these changes, is, that some words are not
              > understood by common readers, who have no access to commentaries,
              and
              > who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other
              > words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had
              > when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or
              false
              > ideas. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that
              > which they had when introduced, and different from that of the
              > original languages, they do not present to the reader the `Word of
              > God'. This circumstance is very important, even in things not the
              > most essential; and in essential points, mistakes may be very
              > injurious...In my own view of this subject, a version of the
              > scriptures for popular use, should consist of words expressing the
              > sense which is most common, in popular usage, so that the `first
              > ideas' suggested to the reader should be the true meaning of such
              > words, according to the original languages. That many words in the
              > present version, fail to do this, is certain."
              >
              > 3. "There are ... many words and phrases, very offensive to
              delicacy
              > and even to decency. In the opinion of all persons with whom I have
              > conversed on this subject, such words and phrases ought not to be
              > retained in the version. Language which cannot be uttered in
              company
              > without a violation of decorum, or the rules of good breeding,
              > exposes the scriptures to the scoffs of unbelievers, impairs their
              > authority, and multiplies or confirms the enemies of our holy
              > religion."
              >
              > 4."There are a few errors in the A.V which "are admitted on all
              hands
              > to be obvious;" which he has corrected. HOWEVER, "To avoid giving
              > offense to any denomination of Christians, I have not knowingly
              made
              > any alteration in the passages of the present version, on which the
              > different denominations rely for the support of their peculiar
              > tenets." So what good is THAT? Probably a good thing there weren't
              > Mormons around at the time :-)The A.V is chock full of errors that
              > support the "peculiar tenets" of the so-called Episopalians, and I
              as
              > a Presbyterian find THAT offensive :-) (I know, I know, "who cares
              if
              > the Presbys are offended." :p~~~]
              >
              >
              > 3. it is very important that all denominations of Christians should
              > use the same version, that in all public discourses, treatises &
              > controversies, the passages cited as authorities should be uniform.
              >
              >
              > Anyway, I'm not chucking out my A.V., but I would like to know how
              to
              > get a better sense of it in a lawful way without exposing myself &
              my
              > family to grave error.
              >
              > Your thoughts are appreciated,
              >
              > Tom
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.