was Word now Translation

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

the Word of GOD was written down by men as they were moved upon by the
Spirit of GOD, first in Hebrew and Aramaic then in Greek. Hebrew because
this was the language of GOD's chosen people, Greek because it was the
known worlds international language. the Bible was translated my times
into many languages before good king James appointed translators to
translate the Bible into english. the KJV is perhaps the best and
closest (most correct) translation. however the other translations are
very useful in the study of GOD's Word to get a different slant on
meanings. there are not many men who know ancient Greek and Hebrew
enough for an exact translation. the Sprit of GOD guides us in our
studies and GOD will give us the understanding. 

just a few thoughts, Tom

>----------
>From: 	Diogenes[SMTP:Calvin@clarityconnect.com]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, March 18, 1997 9:39 AM
>To: 	higher-fire@prairienet.org
>Subject: 	Re: was Word now Translation
>
>Steven Hall wrote:
>> 
>> Chris Foster asks?
>> "Which part of the KJV is not a translation of the word of God?"
>> 
>> Steven hall ask?
>> What do you believe is the "Word of God?"
>
>4487  rhema (hray'-mah);
>
>from 4483; an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically); by
>implication, a matter or topic (especially of narration, command or
>dispute); with a negative naught whatever: 
>
>KJV-- + evil, + nothing, saying, word.
>
>Paraphrasing that of the King James translation of the Word of God noted
>as Romans 10:17 (by the way are the numbers 10:17 also the Word of God?)
>"faith comes from hearing the utterance of God".  One cannot escape the
>conclusion that preaching is in view!  Not a translation, not the Greek
>version of scripture nor the English version of scripture, but the
>utterance that is of God. 
>
>3056  logos (log'-os);
>
>from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a
>topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or
>motive; by extension, a computation; specifically (with the article in
>John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ): 
>
>KJV-- account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X
>have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, +
>reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none
>of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.
>
>Logos/logic is the mental faculty, intention, expression, reasoning,
>plan, thought of God.  The KJV is a translation of the scriptures that
>give to us those thoughts, intentions, reasoning, plan, etc.
>
>If you want to continue to ignor these facts and hold that the KJV is
>the ONLY WORD OF GOD that's ok.    
>
>You must then contend that the words that are in italics in the KJV are
>also the only Word of God you will recognize.  You *should* know, that
>they are the graceful attempt of the translators giving thier honest and
>forthright interjection, in order to bring what they believed was the
>true meaning to those passages they were commissioned to translate.  If
>you choose not to take this into consideration then we are dealing with
>a question of integrity, and not a question of debate!  
>
>> Luke 4:4  And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall
>> not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
>
>This King James Translation of the Word of God is very apropos to our
>discussion.  I believe that I can hear the Word of God *without* someone
>quoteing the KJV of it!  Don't you!?  
>
>If that is not true, then God cannot speak to your heart in prayer
>unless it is in the Old English, (You wrote that God spoke to you about
>the KJV did he speak to you in the Kings English????) Also
>interpretation of tongues must be in the Old English,  Preaching must be
>in the Old English.  To make such a conclusion is ridiculous!  I have
>read those posts on interpretation of tongues being in the Old
>English....WHAT NONSENSE!!!!!!
>
>Finally I preach and teach out of the KJV.  It is the best TRANSLATION,
>but certainly not the ONLY translation.  I am interested in the Word of
>God not some translators version of it!  Therefore I will continue to
>study rightly dividing the WORD (not translation).
>
>Chris (still contenting for the WORD and not the TRANSLATION) Foster
>