King James Version Only...?

[RLT63]

I did not avoid it but asked what is wrong with it saying that?

To be honest, I thought your original question was about the immediate effect of taking the potion, not the future curse. Let me put it this way, If a woman who committed adultery is NOT pregnant, she cannot miscarry, correct?

Regarding the woman being cursed; the curse is not necessarily an instantaneous imposition. What is the curse? Not being able to have children. Miscarrying a pregnancy is one way a woman would be not able to have children. It is in this context that my question comes up, what is wrong with saying that the potion will cause a miscarriage?


/rant

This is part of what annoys me about talking to KJV-only folks. You truly think your translation is correct and others are wrong (as opposed to different ways of saying the same thing). The bias becomes so bad, not only can I not talk to you about Scripture, I tend to avoid KJV-only type people entirely in real life not on the internet. The closed-mindedness disrupts my peace. For instance, I know you deny being a KJV-only person, which is laughable in the face of writing 46-paragraphs in defense of your IDOL.

endrant/

Again a personal attack and a mischaracterization of my position, I was King James Only for a very short time over 30 years ago, I soon saw the error of that movement, I could call you The Voice Only and that would be more accurate, I would be very careful in taking the position that God is in the business of causing miscarriages, //////////. . ////////////////. Those who claim the passage depicts abortion insert concepts not even hinted at in the text. Part of this confusion stems from the 2011 edition of the NIV, which refers to miscarriage. Pregnancy is not part of the requirement for the ritual. Nor is pregnancy mentioned anywhere in the process. The effects include some type of swelling and/or shriveling. Yet the targeted body part is vague. In fact, it’s the same Hebrew term used to describe the spot where Jacob suffered his infamous injury (Genesis 32:25), as well as the place where Ehud hid his sword (Judges 3:16). At worst, the Numbers 5passage implies future infertility. The ritual was not a remedy for an unwanted pregnancy—it was a test for adultery. Traditional interpretations of the ritual even restricted it from being performed on pregnant women (Mishnah Sotah 4:3

 

[RLT63]

I'm sorry this was meant for @Wrangler not you.

Again I apologize for hitting the wrong post. @RLT63

Okay no problem I was just confused but I understand now

 

[Jim B]

Then why do you reject the KJV and why don’t the scholars agree with each other,

I don't reject the KJV. I accept it for what it is: one of many Bible translations. I don't believe it is as accurate as many other translations because it is based on inferior sources (compared to what is available today) and written in archaic (thereby confusing) language. Bibles are translated to be read and understood by the target audience. The society of early 17th Century England no longer exists and the language is easily misunderstood. I much prefer Bible translations that are written for modern audiences, with the expressed goal that God's word should be understood.

If you don't understand why scholars don't agree with each other then you clearly don't understand scholarship. People devote their lives to translating the ancient languages into our language, attempting to give us the truest understanding of what was written thousands of years ago. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the source languages and the destination language. Scholars disagree about the meaning of words, verb tenses, idioms, etc. that exist in the ancient languages but have no parallel in English. However, with rare exceptions, they give us what they believe is the most accurate translation. There will never be a pure, 100% accurate translation, so there is disagreement. It's sad that you don't understand that!

 

[Jim B]

I don’t know as much as scholars but I know when. something is missing

Please read my "signature" phrase below!

 

[RLT63]

I don't reject the KJV. I accept it for what it is: one of many Bible translations. I don't believe it is as accurate as many other translations because it is based on inferior sources (compared to what is available today) and written in archaic (thereby confusing) language. Bibles are translated to be read and understood by the target audience. The society of early 17th Century England no longer exists and the language is easily misunderstood. I much prefer Bible translations that are written for modern audiences, with the expressed goal that God's word should be understood.

If you don't understand why scholars don't agree with each other then you clearly don't understand scholarship. People devote their lives to translating the ancient languages into our language, attempting to give us the truest understanding of what was written thousands of years ago. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the source languages and the destination language. Scholars disagree about the meaning of words, verb tenses, idioms, etc. that exist in the ancient languages but have no parallel in English. However, with rare exceptions, they give us what they believe is the most accurate translation. There will never be a pure, 100% accurate translation, so there is disagreement. It's sad that you don't understand that!

I too prefer Bibles written in modern English. I do understand that there is disagreement and why. You are left with having to choose which scholars you agree with, That’s why there are so many translations, I’ll leave you to argue with Davy over the perfect translation issue

 

[RLT63]

Please read my "signature" phrase below!

Now read mine.

2Ti 2:23 - Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels

 

[Wrangler]

Again a personal attack and a mischaracterization of my position,

Not an attack on your position. An observation about your personality.

I was King James Only for a very short time over 30 years ago,

No kidding? The shadow of that remains.

I soon saw the error of that movement,

Oh. I could not tell.

I could call you The Voice Only and that would be more accurate,

I personally read 4 translations: CEV, NLT, CJB & NRSV. I also do Spirit led reading in ESV and VOICE translations. My 'go to' translation is probably NLT but as you can see below referencing ESV, I do mix it up. When I do not have a physical Bible to reference, I most often go to the VOICE but I am on the other side of the spectrum, sir, of those who subscribe to only one translation (especially those whose one translation has "James" in the title).

I would be very careful in taking the position that God is in the business of causing miscarriages, it would be punishing an unborn child for the sins of the mother. That doesn’t sound like the God I know

Hmmm. That most certainly is the God of the Bible. Consider doing a Bible Study on the 10 Commandments. Pay close attention eo Ex 20:5. God explicitly states his divine justice calls for punishing multiple generations for the sin of the mother and father. Not sure how you could have missed it. It's a big deal.


4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands[a] of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6 ESV

 

[Jim B]

I too prefer Bibles written in modern English. I do understand that there is disagreement and why. You are left with having to choose which scholars you agree with, That’s why there are so many translations, I’ll leave you to argue with Davy over the perfect translation issue

There is no perfect translation. The idea is impossible since there are so many differences between the source languages and the destination language.

 

[Jim B]

Now read mine.

2Ti 2:23 - Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels

Plus 24 and 25a: And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness."

 

[RLT63]

Not an attack on your position. An observation about your personality.


No kidding? The shadow of that remains.

Oh. I could not tell.

I personally read 4 translations: CEV, NLT, CJB & NRSV. I also do Spirit led reading in ESV and VOICE translations. My 'go to' translation is probably NLT but as you can see below referencing ESV, I do mix it up. When I do not have a physical Bible to reference, I most often go to the VOICE but I am on the other side of the spectrum, sir, of those who subscribe to only one translation (especially those whose one translation has "James" in the title).


Hmmm. That most certainly is the God of the Bible. Consider doing a Bible on the 10 Commandments. Pay close attention eo Ex 20:5. God explicitly states his divine justice calls for punishing multiple generations for the sin of the mother and father. Not sure how you could have missed it. It's a big deal.


4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands[a] of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6 ESV

Fathers not mothers and nothing about killing them . The NLT is nice to read but it is one of the worst and most inaccurate versions. It’s a paraphrase. If you want to make God out to be a baby killer that’s between you and God. As far as Exodus 20 there are generational curses but God doesn’t kill the children because the parents sinned.

 

[Jim B]

Again a personal attack and a mischaracterization of my position, I was King James Only for a very short time over 30 years ago, I soon saw the error of that movement, I could call you The Voice Only and that would be more accurate, I would be very careful in taking the position that God is in the business of causing miscarriages, it would be punishing an unborn child for the sins of the mother. That doesn’t sound like the God I know

Are you forgetting that God killed all the firstborn in Egypt: humans and animals? And He allowed Herod to kill all the male children two years of age and younger. You must get to know God better.

 

[Jim B]

Fathers not mothers and nothing about killing them . The NLT is nice to read but it is one of the worst and most inaccurate versions. It’s a paraphrase

Simply your opinion.

The NLT is not a paraphrase. It's emphasis is on the most accurate meaning of the sources. From the introduction: "The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning and content of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as accurately as possible to contemporary readers. The challenge for our translators was to create a text that would communicate as clearly and powerfully to today’s readers as the original texts did to readers and listeners in the ancient biblical world. The resulting translation is easy to read and understand, while also accurately communicating the meaning and content of the original biblical texts."

You're clearly not aware that there is a spectrum of translation philosophy ranging from a word-for-word translation (an impossibility) to a meaning-for-meaning translation. Obviously the NLT conforms more to the latter than the former. Each translation has a specific goal in mind, and the NLT has clearly achieved their stated purpose.

 

[RLT63]

Are you forgetting that God killed all the firstborn in Egypt: humans and animals? And He allowed Herod to kill all the male children two years of age and younger. You must get to know God better.

So he kills unborn children? Were the firstborn in Egypt innocent? And saying God allowed Herod to kill children is like saying he allows all the murders, all the abortions, all the rapes, all the cancer, all the accidents, name it. Where would you have him step in?

 

[RLT63]

Simply your opinion.

The NLT is not a paraphrase. It's emphasis is on the most accurate meaning of the sources. From the introduction: "The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning and content of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts as accurately as possible to contemporary readers. The challenge for our translators was to create a text that would communicate as clearly and powerfully to today’s readers as the original texts did to readers and listeners in the ancient biblical world. The resulting translation is easy to read and understand, while also accurately communicating the meaning and content of the original biblical texts."

You're clearly not aware that there is a spectrum of translation philosophy ranging from a word-for-word translation (an impossibility) to a meaning-for-meaning translation. Obviously the NLT conforms more to the latter than the former. Each translation has a specific goal in mind, and the NLT has clearly achieved their stated purpose.

Paul said I knew a man who was taken to the third Heaven. The NLT says I was taken to the third Heaven. That’s not what Paul said. The NLT doesn’t just translate scripture. It interprets it .

2Co 12:2 - I was caught up to the third Heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don't know—only God knows. NLT. It’s a good version if you’re just reading but it’s not for serious study. Call it what you want it’s a paraphrase. From the NLT website: . But at the same time, its development was immersed in the spirit of a popular paraphrase. The result is a beautiful hybrid of the accuracy and reliability of a large-scale translation and the beauty and clarity of a literary paraphrase

 

[Wrangler]

Fathers not mothers and nothing about killing them .

Rationalization. I think you are smart enough to know the culture of the Bible writers used masculine orientation unless specified otherwise. Other translations use the more accurate and politically correct term ‘parents.’

Here is another example. David committed adultery with Bathsheba. God did not allow the baby of infidelity to live.

 

[RLT63]

Rationalization. I think you are smart enough to know the culture of the Bible writers used masculine orientation unless specified otherwise. Other translations use the more accurate and politically correct term ‘parents.’

Here is another example. David committed adultery with Bathsheba. God did not allow the baby of infidelity to live.

Flawed example. God allowed the couple to have another child named Solomon. Are you one of those people who is going to tell me God is a baby killer because women and children died in the flood?

 

[Wrangler]

Flawed example. God allowed the couple to have another child named Solomon.

It is NOT a flawed example at all. Unborn baby damned by God because of sin of parent.

I don’t know why you are trying to impose your doctrine onto God’s word. You’ve moved the goalposts twice already. Don’t try to move it again.

Going back to the original point in Deuteronomy, the woman made to eat her words would be punished by God if guilty by not having children.

 

[amigo de christo]

There is no question that the last twelve verse of Mark are genuine. Just ignore the naysayers and ALL modern bible versions. They are all corrupt, bar none.

Wescott and hort were liars . They deceived many . We is sticking to the KJV .

 

[Wrangler]

The NLT is nice to read but it is one of the worst and most inaccurate versions. It’s a paraphrase.

Wrong. No translation is a paraphrase. Non-literal translations are called thought translations. I generally prefer such thought translations PRECISELY for their readability.

When petty literalists want to argue what the 3rd word of the 5th verse of the 17th chapter of book 11 - is in the manuscript language - why, I turn to the translation that claims to be the most literal in the English language, ESV. Although I’ve read the NASB also makes that claim. And the NRSV is widely respected in that regard also.

 

[Wrangler]

Wescott and hort were liars .

Did you say something about personal attacks? I guess that only applies to others.