Centurion AD

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

Centurion AD

Postby mitchellmckain on January 23rd, 2017, 6:09 am 

This was a Christian film made for evangelism passing itself off as science fiction. I didn't know. It didn't bother me. I watch all kinds of sci-fi fantasy stuff and check out all the speculation they have to offer on such things. I have even watched a Mormon film of the same type (evanglism passing itself off as sci fi). "Centurion AD" was pretty hokey as most films of these types are, and I really had to laugh at the things they were pushing.

These in particular are things I very much disagree with:
1. Salvation by believing the right things.
2. King James is the best version of the Bible.

In response:
1. The above is a Gnostic gospel of salvation by the mental works and a secret knowledge. By contrast, I believe in Salvation by the grace of God, who asks for faith, which is only made real in works of taking care of those in need (read Isaiah chapter 1, Matthew chapter 35, and the epistle of James verse 1:27 and verses 2:14-20).
2. The King James version sounds good because sounding good is what the translators focused upon. They were influenced by the agenda of the monarchy on a few issues. So if you want accuracy which is most true to the earliest manuscripts then King James and its variations are not a good choice. The King James version quite blatantly adds stuff which just isn't there in the earlier manuscripts.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Centurion AD

Postby hyksos on March 6th, 2017, 1:58 pm 

James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

As far as I know, the 47 translators were not trying to sound good. Rather they were trying as hard as was possible to match the ancient Hebrew on a word-for-word basis. This caused them "add things that aren't there" (as you said). Many of the words in Hebrew have no direct translations to english due to differences in grammar. So to keep on the word-for-word path, they were forced to add things like "and" constantly. They used additional Englishy modifiers like "in the year of" over and over to make it conform to English grammar. The re-appearance of "unto" repeated ad nauseum in the King James bible is likely the translators trying to express the declensions in Hebrew (English does not decline nouns per se).

zeke1_1.png
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1458
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Centurion AD

Postby mitchellmckain on March 6th, 2017, 10:30 pm 

hyksos » March 6th, 2017, 12:58 pm wrote:James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

Good for the church of England at that time but not so good for Christianity as a whole and for all time.

hyksos » March 6th, 2017, 12:58 pm wrote:As far as I know, the 47 translators were not trying to sound good.

But I do know. They were indeed trying for something that sounded good to make the text better for pulpit oratory.

hyksos » March 6th, 2017, 12:58 pm wrote: Rather they were trying as hard as was possible to match the ancient Hebrew on a word-for-word basis.

I will grant that this was one of their intentions but I deny that this was their only guiding principle.

hyksos » March 6th, 2017, 12:58 pm wrote: This caused them "add things that aren't there" (as you said). Many of the words in Hebrew have no direct translations to english due to differences in grammar. So to keep on the word-for-word path, they were forced to add things like "and" constantly. They used additional Englishy modifiers like "in the year of" over and over to make it conform to English grammar. The re-appearance of "unto" repeated ad nauseum in the King James bible is likely the translators trying to express the declensions in Hebrew (English does not decline nouns per se).

It also caused them to add theological clarifications that were not in the orginal text. The original text nowhere contains the doctrine of the Trinity. But the King James translation adds this in 1 John 5:7-8. Now I am a Trinitarian, but this does not mean that I approve of modifying the Bible to agree with my opinion on this matter. This is not to say that these scholars were the first to add this text for it can be found in the Latin Vulgate (added in the 4th century) but no respectable Greek manuscript has this addition and this is an example of how work of later translators are a bit more honest and true to the oldest manuscripts.

One of many examples? YES. You want more? ok.

Matthew 12:47, 17:21, 18:11, 21:44, 23:14
Mark 7:16, 9:44 , 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9–20
Luke 17:36, 22:43, 22:44, 23:17, 24:12, 24:40
John 5:4, 7:53–8:11
Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29
Romans 16:24
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016



Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests