In its continuing quest to control every single aspect of its members lives, the Philadelphia Church of God has come out and declared that the King James 1611 version of the Bible is the authorized one to used because Herbert Armstrong said it was 99% accurate.
How dare any PCG members read the Message Bible or buy a Duck Commander Bible!
The late Herbert W. Armstrong recommended we use the King James Version, translated in 1611. That is not to say it is a perfect translation. No translation is. The King James, however, is approximately 99 percent accurate. The small percentage of error in this translation is primarily due to the lack of understanding of the original meaning of certain Hebrew and Greek words by the translators—not because of faulty manuscripts, as we have proven.
Mr. Armstrong recommended that you use other translations only to complement your King James. The kjv was written over 400 years ago. Over that span of time, the English language has changed somewhat. Some of the awkward and archaic phrases in the King James can be cleared up by checking a few modern translations. Mr. Armstrong often used the Revised Standard Version and Moffatt translation. But he was quick to advise not using these more modern translations as your main study Bible. It is the King James Version that should be the standard by which these new translations are judged for accuracy. If you find a new translation saying something quite different from the King James, more than likely the King James is right. The ideal method of personal Bible study should be with the King James as your primary study Bible, along with one or two other translations for quick reference.
Then Stephen Flurry condescendingly tells PCG members how to read all the "thee's, thou's, ye's, goest's."
So, we’ve recommended the King James Version of the Bible to you. But perhaps that is one of the hardest to understand—purely because of the ancient wording that it uses. Here is a simple guide that should help you in making sense of some of those old words.
PCG conveniently ignores much of the information out there about the translators for the King James Bible.
Were King James Translators Inspired?
Did Little Stephen mention that ye olde 99% translates to about 5% or less for those of us who prefer reality?
ReplyDeleteIt should be pointed out that at one time, computer centers offered 99% up time. They had to change that to 99.999% when people realized that the SLAs which assured 99% up time permitted the computers to be down for three and a half days and still meet the service level.
ReplyDeleteNot so concerned about 99% accurate as 1% false. The 1% can be a killer.
Not to worry though, the false prophets of the Cult of Herbert Armstrong Mafia (all the leaders are prophets basing their predictions on British Israelism) are 99+% wrong.
And if Herbert Armstrong preached that British Isrealism was the key to prophecy and preached the prophecies based on it, he was certainly NOT a prophet: He was a false prophet. You can't be a prophet if you are a false prophet and Herbert Armstrong was certainly a false prophet.
Ah, the excuses of the Armstrongists go on and on when they realize they don't have a leg to stand on.
Which means the PCG is utterly worthless.
This is another case where the ACOGs willfully ignore advances in science, linguistics, and scholarship.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many additional manuscripts which have been discovered and are readily available for study than the translators of the KJV ever had. The entire science of textual criticism which determines the earliest or most accurate renditions of scripture has been finely honed. And, there is much better understanding of the original languages in which the texts and manuscripts which became the Bible were written. Hebrew itself was a dead language until its amazing revival at the end of the 19th century, a fact that, iirc, was never mentioned by HWA, or the WCG. In fact, it was a dead language during the time of King James.
The debate used to be over which translations were based on Textus Receptus or the Masoretic texts (these relate to the O.T, on which Armstrongism is primarily based). KJV = Masoretic. However, the newest translations of the Bible have relied on a far more vast wealth of texts, and have progressed beyond the simplistic nature of such either-or
arguments. Anyone who questions this should read the prefaces contained in, as an example, the warts and all New American Bible. The processes involved in producing the translation are discussed in great detail, and they are impressive.
BTW, I doubt that the gaiety of King James was of any influence on the translation which bears his name. Had it been, most certainly the negative references to same gender sex would have either been muted, or redacted from the Bible. It has been said that certain references to the freedoms a Christian enjoys were downplayed, as they might have been perceived as undermining the authority of the King.
Bottom line? This is yet another topic on which Armstrongism is deficient.
BB
Stephen Flurry is wrong. The King James Version widely available today is not what was released in 1611.
ReplyDeleteIt is actually a revision of the original King James Version made by Frances Sawyer Parris and Benjamin Blayney in the 1760s. This was done because spelling conventions had greatly changed since 1611. That is what we actually read as the King James Version.
The 1611 version was even more archaic. For instance i and j were interchangeable, so were u and v. S was spelt differently at the end of words. 1611 English is much more confusing to modern readers then the 1760s English that we read in our copies of what tends to be called the King James Version.
Stephen Flurry doesn't even know the King James Version he is using was actually made in the 1760s. And PCG members are willing to throw their lives away for a man who can't get his historic facts straight.
How dare this site imply that King James was gay! The word didn't even mean that back in his times so how could he be "Gay"??? God would not choose a gay King to write down his own God breathed words and you should know better. And don't give me that "But God lives alone in heaven with no wife and with his single son" either! It's different in God's world. His relationships are not our relationships. And just because men have to marry Christ in the resurrection and women have to become sons of God is NO reason to go after Noble King James!!! Men marrying Jesus is not GAY! It's spiritual.
ReplyDeleteAnd NO. Just because Mary, as a 12 to 14 year old middle eastern girl was not married when God impregnated her, it is not FORNICATION either!!! God's thoughts are HIGHER than YOURS! And NO, it is not sex with a minor either!!!
And just because it says she was prego by the Holy Spirit who is a third person...just don't go there Mr. YOUR way SEEMS right to You, but you need to know where it is going to end.
God's ways are not YOUR ways Mr. Blogger and His thoughts are NOT YOUR thoughts!
King James was not Gay nor was he loose in the boots. He was God's chosen instrument to bring us all we need to know about relationships and proper living.
Cancel my subscription
Don't listen to him!
ReplyDeleteAnon at 4:57 AM,
ReplyDeleteIt would be a SIN to cancel a subscription to anything that includes your humor.
Luv,
Mr. Prego
PS: I think I'm carrying your baby!