Oh, shit.
I explained it in a response to the other guy, scroll up…I did a “play by play” of the verses. The NIV has been around since the 1970’s, the KJV has been around since 1611. No thanks on the NIV offer.
It is wrong because you are not taking into account other parts of the text that are included in the canon. Remember my example of:
Now what if your interpretation of part 1 was that events A and B took place within 1 day of each other but in part 3 it clearly states that event C took 1 week? This would make your interpretation of the events of part 1 wrong. I have to ask again, do you understand this? This has nothing to do with whether various parts of the text can contradict itself or not, for instance, in my hypothetical trilogy, let’s say that events P and Q contradict each other. Does that have any bearing on the interpretations of events A and B accounting for Event C?
See above.
You are confused.
See above.
What “philosophy”? I am merely telling you what the text of the Bible has to say on the subject of “Creation”.
Hopefully, tomndebb or Diogenes will be able to convince you of the ignorance of your “older is better” philosophy.
Frankly, you’re so far out in left field, I don’t think I have the fuel to get there…
CigaretteRepairman, are you arguing this out of personal convictions? Or are you just arguing the “other side” in this debate because there doesn’t appear to be anyone else doing so?
In other words, do you really believe the KJV is actually the most legitimate translation and is inerrant, or not?
(Prediction: Vague sideslip, accompanied by a demand that we stay on topic, as he defines it…)
What does it have to do with being “better”? The KJV is still the most widely used translation especially taking into account of all the languages that it is available in. Either way, it is the obvious choice for a Bible debate because of its long standing acceptance. The few critical differences between the KJV and the recent translations don’t even come into play in the areas that we are discussing anyway.
Are you worried about the language being too difficult for you? Maybe we should be discussing a children’s picture Bible?
This has turned into a separate debate that started when I corrected someone’s “6 days from creation of the universe to Adam” view of the “Creation” account. I was taken to task for it so here we are.
My personal beliefs are irrelevant. The facts are available about all of the translations out there and people can decide for themselves which is a translation that is truer to the source.
Regardless, in the context of this discussion, there are no critical differences between the KJV and the NIV. The only reason someone would demand the NIV is either because of poor reading comprehension abilities or to be obstinate. The KJV has beautiful flowing text that is enjoyable to read. The NIV seems clumsy and awkward.
As far as a Biblical debate goes, the obvious choice would be the most established version, which is the KJV.
(Prediction: Vague sideslip, accompanied by a demand that we stay on topic, as he defines it…) **
[/QUOTE]
I would think the obvious choice would be the better-translated version, or the version which is translated into a more modern form of the language, neither of which is the KJV.
KJV English is not modern English. Many of the words used in the KJV are either obsolete or have different meanings (some slightly different, some VERY different) than they did when the KJV was published.
Using the most “beautiful” version in a debate over what the damn book actually says is kind of, well…stupid. Using a version with clearer and more immediately comprehensible language would seem to be the more intelligent choice.
Oh, and I’d like to note that my prediction has been fulfilled. I wish I’d put a bet down…
Simply profound. You are a true asset to Great Debates. How can I possibly compete with such obviously superior intellect?
Say goodnight, Gracie…
CigaretteRepairman, you are basically propounding two excluded middles in your arguments. Firts let’s address the whole KJV thing.
Without getting into the accuracy of the KJV (it’s not accurate, it contains a lot of mistranslations and biased interpretations) I’ll just address your strange argument that the fact that the KJV has a long history somehow makes it more dependable. How do you get from long tradition to dependability? That’s an excluded middle. The conclusion does not follow from the predicate. Guess what, the Latin Vulgate has an even longer history than the KJV. Does that make the Vulagate more dependable than the KJV?
Perhaps you can also explain why you “lol’ed” tomndebb’s remark about the Latin text. The fact is that the vulgate translates the Hebrew phrase heylel ben shachar (“shining star, son of the dawn,” a Hebrew name for Venus) as “lucifer”*, which is derived from two Latin words. “lux,” meaning “light,” and “ferre,” meaning “to bring.” This gives us “light bringer” which was the term that Roman astrologers used to refer to the planet Venus. What’s so laughable about having that explained to you?
Your other continuing fallacy is your insistence that the establishment of a “canon” necessarily imbues that collection of books known as the Bible with any sort of inter-referential consistency. The book of Matthew, for example, can never tell us anything about the intent of the author of Isaiah even though Matthew quotes from it and uses it to support his own theological agenda. Just because Matthew interprets Isaiah a certain way does not mean that Isaiah intended that interpretation and no amount of canonozation can change that.
This is the dumbest and most insulting thing you’ve said in this thread.
I won’t bother trying to tell you why. I have a feeling I’d be wasting my time. I’ll just ask you to name one “Messianic prophesy” which you thing Judaism 'denies the clear meaning of."
(The “servant” in Isaiah 53 is a personification of Israel, btw. It’s not a Messianic prophesy. You may interpret it that way if it makes you feel good but it is certainly not the “clear meaning” of the text)
This is just odd. Why would you discuss that bible “in the way that it is known today” as if it had any relevance to anything? Which bible? Neither the NIV, the RSV, not the Jerusalem Bible use the name Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 because it does not appear in the Hebrew original. Lucifer got into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate when Jerome accidentally used that name in that passage and then Erasmus copied that translated that passage out of the Latin into his Greek recension as a gloss. So, yes, Lucifer did come from the Latin.
On the other hand, no Christian Scriptural scholar*, today, relies on the KJV, regardless how many people may have used it for the last couple of hundred years, so that is an irrelevant argument. (To say nothing of the fact that the KJV has never been used by the Germans, French, Swiss, Italians, Poles, Chinese, Greeks, Malian, etc. peoples of the world. Scholarship today, whether undertaken by Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, or atheists relies on examining the original languages in which a passage was written. In discussing what “the bible” means, attempting to limit the discussion to one outdated and inaccurate translation is simply silly.
This is utter nonsense. If a bible is not written in English, it is not the KJV (although it may be a bad translation to another language).
I am really curious as to whether you are coming up with your odd interpretations on your own or whether there is actually some school of teaching from which you have taken these notions.
- (There are pastoral writers who rely on the KJV, but as they are not scholars of scriptural exegesis, they are irrelevant to this discussion. as well.)
You are not going to find universal agreement on which is the “better-translated” version. You will find universal agreement on which is the more established version.
Is this a reading comprehension issue? It is not my problem if folks can not understand the text of the KJV Bible. I know where the critical (doctrinal) differences lie between the KJV and the NIV and they are not in the area of this debate. In case you are wondering, there are only 2 major translations out there today. The KJV and the “others” which started in 1881 and include the RV, AS, RSV, Berkeley, Amplified, JB, NEB, NASN, LB, TEV, NIV and NKJV. The KJV relied on the Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus and its own heritage (Vulgate [Latin 400 AD], Wycliffe [English 1380], Tyndale [1525], Coverdale [1535], Matthews [1537], Great [1539], Geneva [1560], Bishops [1568], KJV [1611]).
The “others” paid little regard to the established lineage of the KJV and concentrated heavily on the Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus with some Dead Sea Scrolls thrown in in the case of at least the NIV. The problem is, these old manuscripts (425, 340, 330 AD respectively) were contrary in many respects to established Judeo-Christian doctrines. To compound things further, the versions used in the “other” translations were themselves translated by two (count them, two) Catholic scholars in the late 1800’s. Two people is not good enough, insufficient checks and balances. and the fact that they were Catholic adds to the potential bias (Catholicism had already formed a distinct line for Protestantism by that point and disagreed on major doctrinal issues).
Anyway, the claim that the newer translations are “better” translations is not set in stone and is very debatable. For the purposes of this debate, I go with the by far more established version as a given. If you disagree then look up any verses cited in an NIV and if you think that there are meaningful differences then bring them to the table. I will not be quoting for the NIV however.
You would have lost the bet…
Why would I have lost the bet? I asked you if you actually believed in your positions in this thread. You sidestepped the issue explicitly. I quote:
This is a sidestep which incorporates the demand to stay on topic within it. Therefore my prediction was correct.
Your understanding of biblical scholarship and translation in the last 100 years is abysmal, sir.
A significant portion of your analysis relies upon the erroneous acceptance of “Lucifer” that does not appear in any of the translations that you scorn.
I have just checked out the bibles presented in German, French, Norse, and several other languages, seeking the oldest transation I could find for each language, and only the Latin Vulgate and the KJV and its descendants use Lucifer, so, for the bulk of the Christian world, Lucifer is not appropriate.
You can buy a Spanish KJV, a French KJV, and English KJV, etc. The KJV is available in more languages than any other translation of the Bible. Why don’t you check out the facts before you make foolish statements? I am going to tell you a secret, when you take the KJV and translate it into another language, you haven’t created a new version of the Bible. It is still the KJV and it says that right on the cover, sometimes in big pretty letters. Would you like to buy your very own Spanish KJV? Here you go http://www.bibledata.net/bibles/product.asp?pID=343469&cID=996
This is all red herring anyway. What does the Bible say about Creation? I’m not interested in what the Hebrew texts say (save that for a relevant discussion) or what the NIV says (forunately it says the same thing as the KJV on this subject although you folks have failed to realize that). This debate has nothing to do with “intent” of the authors (how in the hell can you debate “intent”?).
Here are some facts.
*The KJV is the most established translation available today (and yes, it is available in other languages than English).
*The most established piece of any work merits the discussion. (When discussing the movie “Psycho” do we talk about the 1960 version or the recent remake? Or do we bring similar movies/stories from before Pyscho came out into the discussion?)
*The works included in the Bible as we know it today have been considered canon for about 1700 years. This is not open for discussion.
*Harping over the translation of “Lucifer” does not change the fact that an obvious being was being referenced other than King Neb. This also changes absolutely nothing about the reference in Ezekiel to the cherub that was in the Garden of Eden. Your “weakest link” arguments are getting you nowhere.
No, very little of my argument relies on the word Lucifer. You are being selective with your reading. I will repost it:
There was no demand to stay on topic neither was there a “sidestep”. You asked an irrelevant question and I informed you of it.
You want to point out specific errors or are you content to hand wave?
The Bible is the Hebrew texts. Are you saying that a translation is more definitive than the original text? Why on earth would you think that?
What do you mean by “established?” It’s not even close to being a scholarly standard if that’s what you mean.
You still have to define what “established” means.
It’s also completely irrelevant. A “canon” proves nothing about anything.
No, there is not “another being” in Isaiah. The passage calls Nebuchadnezzar “morning star” in a satirical way. It has nothing to do with Satan. “Lucifer” is not in the Hebrew text and that is the text that matters, regardless of your weird assertion about it somehow being different than the Bible.
“Accuracy” is not the issue here.
Dependability is also not an issue and that is a separate debate.
I don’t. There are things that cast a suspicious light on the credibility of the NIV but that is not an issue either. I am discussing what the KJV says. Maybe one day we can discuss what the NIV says or what “War and Peace” says but that is not on the table today.
What does “intent” of the author have to do with anything? We are not engaging in a debate in preparation of compiling a new translation. We are discussing what an existing one already says. Think of it this way; if a person with excellent reading comprehension abilities and absolutely no bias or knowledge of the material or history of the material were to sit down and read the Bible as a canonical collection of books, what conclusions would he come to about “Creation”?
Look, it reads like a mini-biography of a certain Jewish carpenter. What a coincidence.
Mentioned the birthplace of a certain Jewish carpenter. Must be another coincidence.
“Heaven” in Hebrew is synonomous with sky. This a a metaphor. Her is better rendering of the Hebrew from the New English Translation of the Bible:
You seem to be severely metaphorically impaired but this passage is in fact metaphorical. It has nothing to do with Satan as can plainly be seen with a decent translation.
met-a-phor: A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world’s a stage” (Shakespeare).
(American Heritage Dictionary)
a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity
(wordnet)
And it’s translated better as “sky” not “Heaven.”