When have I ever said I was better than anyone?
-
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 ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
When have I ever said I was better than anyone?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Because with out you naming the version you think to be correct your statement is incomplete and meaningless. If you want any one to take anything you say seriously about the bible, you need to nail your colours to the mast, and state what version you hold to.
The bible I know best and was brought up using was the KJV.
today I mainly use the NRSV English edition. Which is thought by most churches and scholars, to be the most accurate available..
Last edited:
rosends
Well-Known Member
2 Concerns, if I might.
1. Why would you ever prefer a text that has mistranslations? If the biblical text is central to belief and behavior, allowing any mistranslations is acknowledging that theological foundations and therefore their normative conclusions might be erroneous.
2. Why is "Strongs" any less biased or based in interpretation than any other resource? Its editors, human, had to choose what to include, what connections to make and what was outside the pale of reasonable understanding. There are significant resources which they did not exploit (or which didn't exist when they composed their text. Why not rely on Klein's Etymological dictionary? Why not rely on a Jastrow? Choosing one to the exclusion of others might lead to consistency but it also might lead to a jaundiced view.
Jedster
Well-Known Member
Because I can read it for myself. Without having master another language just to read a book.
Because it works.
Strong's Concordance - Wikipedia
It is a good tool to use for people who use the kjv. I trust it more than I would someone translating it for me.
rosends
Well-Known Member
What if you were a Russian national who moved to America and wanted to live under American law but only read Russian and read the American constitution in Russian even though you knew that the process by which the English was translated led to mistranslations? You are ensuring that you live your life in error.
But that's the problem -- one can only say it works if one is already convinced that it works. How do you know that it works? You know that it provides you with a source, but how do you know that its presentation is accurate, exhaustive or unbiased? What if I started by saying "it doesn't work" and showed situations where its analysis is incomplete or wrong? Who judges that it "works" and on what basis -- unless the judge knows as much and more, how can he judge?
I would do the best I could to translate it. As I do already.
Strongs Exhaustive Concordance is my go to. Nothing in life is perfect. We do the best we can and roll with the punches. Even Jewish folk can make mistakes too ya know.
Unless you claim perfection?
rosends
Well-Known Member
And you would be happy knowing that there are mistakes?
No one claimed perfection but I would think that when dealing with divine command one would not be happy with mistakes and would try anything to do better instead of simply accepting problems.Strongs Exhaustive Concordance is my go to. Nothing in life is perfect. We do the best we can and roll with the punches. Even Jewish folk can make mistakes too ya know.
I already know and accept I make mistakes. That's one of the major differences that sets Christianity apart from Judaism. Does not mean one is better than the other. Just different strokes for different folks.
The Serenity Prayer comes to mind.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
rosends
Well-Known Member
But do you make them because you are an imperfect person, or because you are allowing yourself to rely on mistaken texts? One is not fixable, but one is. Is it theologically proper to say "I learned a falsehood but that's ok -- I'll just follow the falsehood and be fine"?
In what sense? Accepting that we are imperfect, or settling for second best?
But you CAN change this if you look at explanations and translations that go beyond Strong's. Relying on one admittedly imperfect resource is not exemplifying that courage.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Those and many others I think likewise of. Anything that contradicts the scriptures found in the KJV, NRSV or NIV is not scripture at all, I don't care who wrote it or where it came from.
Galations 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!
Because I am imperfect.
Accepting that I am imperfect.
It's good enough.
You do you, I'll do me. And let the chips fall where they may.
rosends
Well-Known Member
That happens to be an essential part of Judaism as well, but that's why we keep trying to improve.
Finally common ground. Same here.
This is the Christian religion we're talking about. I have higher standards for Marvel or DC comic books than I do a religion largely based on the writings of hateful nomads... and I'm not even a fan of comic books.
Intellectual honesty would indeed be nice, but intellectual bankruptcy and equivocation seem to me to go very well with many of the "values" and behaviors that Christianity has inspired throughout the centuries.
There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with Strong's. That said, it helps to understand the difference between a concordance and a lexicon, and to use Strong's to interpret a Hebrew verse is a bit like using a paint brush to hammer a nail.
Nor, by the way, is there anything inherently wrong in appreciating the artistry of the KJV. What is wrong is obstinately ignoring/denying the fact that the KJV is an early 1600's translation of a translation, and that over the subsequent four centuries advances have been made in the fields of philology, archaeology, and biblical criticism that have informed our understanding of Biblical Hebrew.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Most Christians undoubtedly believe in the HS and its guidance, which I have no problem with, but the fact that there are myriads of denominations and probably billions of Christians that often have differences of opinion, how is it logically possible that each person and denomination would be 100% accurate because of the HS? [rhetorical question] So, there certain can be guidance by the HS, but at the same time one should take into consideration that there are so many differences between people/denominations-- and that's all I was saying here.
That's sort of relative-- they certainly are not one and the same, so it depends on what's being considered. I don't ever recall anyone in Judaism claiming that the HS* makes their beliefs inerrant.
My response was in no way an attack on Christianity but was in response to someone stating beliefs as if they're facts and how that may or may not relate to the belief in the HS.
*BTW, the "HS" shows up in the Tanakh as "God's spirit", but it is not viewed as in any way being separate from God like we see in the trinitarian approach used by most Christians.
I don't need a translation to know 2 Kings 2:24 doesn't say that two bears mangled forty-two children. I don't need The Holy Spirit. Two bears can't do that. Since two bears can't do it and if it is the truth for the truth then it was a miracle. I am not aware of another miracle in the book that caused the death of someone. Do people say that no child actually died? That would be another miracle.
Seeing as how this has pretty much been a debate thread from the start and I'm not inclined to ding at least a dozen people for Rule 10...
*** Thread Moved to Religious Debates ***