FYI - I just looked this one up and the KJV is the most literally correct. The word translated is “episcopan”. When the word “bishoprick” had meaning, it was a solid translation. In fact, since the word “bishop” was used in translating the similar root elsewhere, this was arguably the best translation.
No the church burning th bibles consider that version the KJV 1611 as the only legitimate bible, read their web site.hi libertarian. are you aware of how many modifications have been made to the 1611 kjv. tell me you were just having fun and your not serious? but if you are lets start a new thread.
I wonder if they would burn the Latin Vulgate, from which the KJV is derived.
I wonder how the Bible Burning Bonfire went?
Nope. Sorry, but the there is no Greek word “episcopan”. However, the word Episcopi is defined thusly in Greek:
Libertarian_FL:
I just looked it up and saw it with my own eyes in my Greek NT. I studied three years in Greek and I know to read. Obviously this is a form of the word episcope (fem, acc)
Nothing more than a fine example of extreme fundamentalism. What else is new?
Honestly, I can’t stand these people. They make the fight for Christianity harder by reinforcing bad (and needless) stereotypes. I seriously have fantasies of driving by “churches” like that with a copy of The Screwtape Letters in one hand (they hate C.S. Lewis apparently) and rocking tune blaring on a CD player. >benidict:
The KJV does have its merits. It is written in a beautiful English style. It was a great accomplishment–placing the Bible in the hands of the people in a language they understood. And devoted Christians died trying to make this possible. So, I am aware of the rich history of the KJV.
The problem is that it was translated from inferior manuscripts–mostly from the 16th Century. Since, that time, many earlier manuscripts have been discovered, shedding new light on errors in the KJV and other Bible translations.
Of course, The Dead Sea Scrolls were an amazing discovery.
Who knows what will be discovered in years to come. I think it is important to keep up with manuscript discovery. It is the KJV *** only*** part that disturbs me.
Good luck with your Latin studies. You are plenty bright.
I studied Greek, when I lived there for two years; but lack of use for about 22 years has not helped my retention of the language. Greek was very difficult for me, because the characters are different, as is Hebrew.
I keep thinking I will get back to my studies. For Biblical purposes, I would need an ancient form of Greek, as well as Hebrew, and Aramaic. Not sure if I have the energy.Anna
Libertarian_FL:
I would agree that most translations have merit. Some are far more accurate than others. Some translations do clearly reveal a bias.
It is interesting to compare translations—and pay attention to the footnotes. The body of the Biblical text is often manipulated by translators, using very simple methods.
When there are variants among manuscripts, translators choose whether to place a certain rendering in the main body of text or banish it to the footnotes. People rarely read the footnotes. Translators will use a number of different manuscripts to make a translation–some passages may come from Greek manuscripts, others from Hebrew, etc.
Jesus and his disciples, most likely, spoke Aramaic. Of course the N.T. was originally written in Greek.
Scholars cannot fully agree on the authors of the N.T.
If I recall correctly, there was only about a 10% literacy rate at the time of Christ. And many of the 10% could read, but not write. So, if any of the N.T. was written by the disciples of Christ—in the midst of preaching the Gospel and fleeing persecution; they would have had to learn to read and write Greek (eloquently,) when most could not read or write their primary language of Aramaic.
DeusVult09:
.I’ve never heard of a rainbow bible? But I do love the informal **Good News **bible!
