• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

KJV "OT" quoters: a recommendation ...

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
They did have what Christians call the old testament. The New Testament was at that time , a work in progress.

And the old testament is an adaptation of the Tanakh that came before it, which I believe is Jay's point. i.e. the original is more accurate/authentic than the "remix".
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Sorry to say, but I don't believe you're a prophet.

The Protestants pretty much made every Christian a prophet vis the Holy Spirit, as schizophrenic as that may seem to you. (me too honestly) but what the heck, it's not my religion.

Just had a Christian today saying telling me they can't rely on human logic but only what God tells them.

I wonder, do Jews experience this personal communication with God through the HS? Or are they left to rely on their own "human" understanding of the Tanakh
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
And the old testament is an adaptation of the Tanakh that came before it, which I believe is Jay's point. i.e. the original is more accurate/authentic than the "remix".

Except he's referring to the KJV. Which is the original for many Christians.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
And the old testament is an adaptation of the Tanakh that came before it, which I believe is Jay's point. i.e. the original is more accurate/authentic than the "remix".

Of course. A study on what if anything is different between the Tanach and Old testament would be very useful and interesting. That is a study I would love to partake in. But starting a discussion with an insult is a no go. The Term Old Testament as used in the Christian Bible is not meant to be insulting in the least. Its just a way to distinguish the older writings from the newer.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Except he's referring to the KJV. Which is the original for many Christians.

The group your referring to are a fringe group called the King James Only people. thankfully they are not that many. Even the majority of folks who prefer the King James Bible don't think it is the original. Personally I prefer something in a more modern English. I don't use many thees and thous when I speak. Or call someone with a disability "halt".
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Of course. A study on what if anything is different between the Tanach and Old testament would be very useful and interesting. That is a study I would love to partake in. But starting a discussion with an insult is a no go. The Term Old Testament as used in the Christian Bible is not meant to be insulting in the least. Its just a way to distinguish the older writings from the newer.
I don't think that's the issue, but rather translation accuracy, especially regarding KJV.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The group your referring to are a fringe group called the King James Only people. thankfully they are not that many. Even the majority of folks who prefer the King James Bible don't think it is the original. Personally I prefer something in a more modern English. I don't use many thees and thous when I speak. Or call someone with a disability "halt".

That's fine, not your group.

My point is, belief is belief. It is based on faith. Faith in whatever the doctrine of your religion is. If you believe the Holy Spirit guides you to the proper understanding of the Bible then whom am I to say otherwise?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
They did have the New Testament letters.

Uhh
I believe he's talking just Old Testament translations, which are based on the Greek Septuagint, which was what the early Christians used.

But not the Apostles. Even if they were privileged to such knowledge it probably be written in Aramaic or Latin (due to the Roman occupation thingy). I believe if you check you'll find the "early Christians' came a little later in Christian history.



They did have the New Testament letters.


Uhh...don't think so.
 

Sanzbir

Well-Known Member
But not the Apostles. Even if they were privileged to such knowledge it probably be written in Aramaic or Latin (due to the Roman occupation thingy). I believe if you check you'll find the "early Christians' came a little later in Christian history..

Well, it looks like I was wrong in what he meant anyways. But I do think you are wrong here. Jesus is recorded as having quoted the Septuagint quite frequently, so it seems reasonable to assume his direct followers would have access to the book as well. And yeah, it was probably the Greek or Aramaic version they were quoting.
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

In the King James someone who was crippled was called halt.

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life HALT or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. ( Matthew 18:8 )
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
But to deny the sources that it was derived from is nothing other than dishonest.

I probably shouldn't be speaking for Christians, but, I was a Christian and have talked to many.

Also depending on the Christian you talk to, you may get a variety of answers.

From my experience with Christianity, You pray/meditate for guidance to the correct understanding of the Bible. You receive an answer, in the form of a vision, sometimes just simple inspiration. Sometimes a sign will provide a clue or a teacher will come along to provide a correct understanding.

If you do your own translation you're still relying on some authority as to the proper method of translation. Just as the folks who did translated it and still translate it into various versions. Any real authenticity is out the window.

So you don't understand how this contrary passage relates to your religious doctrine. You study, pray, think on it and come up with an answer.

There's always going to be "expert" other folks who disagree with your interpretation. However you prayed and received an answer. Christians for the most part relied on the inspired answer that was provided to them. Not the experts, not their own contrived understanding but the understanding provided through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the authentic source. Doesn't matter if you translate it yourself or are relying on the New, New Living Star Spangled version of the Bible.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
... actually, two:
  1. Don't.
  2. If you're too too cheap, too lazy, and or too disinterested to acquire a decent Tanakh, at least consult a reasonably good translation from a Jewish source, e.g., Sefaria

Nope, there is a reason Christians are not Jewish. This is one of them.
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Well, it looks like I was wrong in what he meant anyways. But I do think you are wrong here. Jesus is recorded as having quoted the Septuagint quite frequently, so it seems reasonable to assume his direct followers would have access to the book as well. And yeah, it was probably the Greek or Aramaic version they were quoting.

But we were referring to New Testament writings which were for all practical purposes non-existent to the Apostles. Being Jews of course they had as much access to Hebraic writings as the next guy. But even that was limited as to what was available out of Temple.
 
Top