Definitions, Please

[Dr. Bob]

As I recall on the old (1611) BaptistBoard there was some question defining just what variations there are in the KJVonly controversy.

People were being "called" KJVonly when they took umbrage to it. No one wanted to be identified with R*ckman and Riplinger.

Any help reconstructing (or deconstructing) these various positions, Dr. Cassidy or others?

[DocCas]

I'll take another shot at it. smile.gif

1. Those who believe the KJV was re-inspired in 1611 and is the only valid word of God in print today. Some of this group will even disallow all foriegn language bibles and insist the missionaries teach the people to understand English so they can read the "real bible."

2. Those who believe the KJV was not re-inspired in 1611, but that its origin was so superintended by God that it now replaces all earlier bibles, including the Hebrew and Greek.

3. Those who believe the KJV was not re-inspired in 1611, but that its words are equal to the Hebrew and Greek and that the words of the KJV are the "Final Authority" and that any word in any other bible which differes in any way from a word in the KJV is "corrupt."

4. The Textus Receptus Only, or Majority Text Only, or Critical Text Only, or Stephens Text Only, or Westcott Hort Text Only who limit the NT scriptures to one and only one Greek language text and refuse to accept any reading which varies from their chosen (usually arbitrarily) text. This view has produced KJVOs but to the best of my knowledge it has not produced any NIVOs or NASVOs, etc.

5. Those who believe the basic texts underlying the KJV are superior to the basic texts underlying most of the later versions, and consider the KJV to be an excellent translation of Holy Writ and love it and honor it as they teach and preach from it.

I would consider 1-3 to be KJVOs, #4 may contain KJVOs as well as NIVOs etc., and that #5 is not KJVO and is the most rational of the positions listed and the position I hold after 35 years of intense study of the issue. smile.gif

[Dr. Bob]

Where is SuperDave? He called himself (facetiously, I know) an NIVonly on one post!

I appreciate the response. I am a KJV preferred, although I received a New Geneva Study Bible, with good reformed notes, but in NKJV text.

Now I like the NKJV, but will start another thread with questions about it - know that many in the "preferred" camp also enjoy the NKJV but others still take "cheap shots" at it.

[Circuitrider]

Thanks TC for giving us that delineation. I, too, am a #5 on your list and have some good friends who are #4s. However, to group me with KJVO status is to include me with biblical heretics. I believe the KJVO position is truth out of balance and a position new in the 20th century. smile.gif

Keep in the Word (KJV - 1769) ;)

[DocCas]

Circuitrider, I too am a #5, and I too have several friends who are #4s. I love them, and pray for them and their ministries, but reserve the right to disagree with them. What I have not found myself able to do is to demean them and their ministries on the basis of our disagrement. I'm with you! Let's just preach the gospel from whichever bible we have in our hands, and watch the Father draw men, women, boys, and girls to the Son! smile.gif

[CorpseNoMore]

Dr. Cassidy, I'm continuing my thought over in this thread where you directed me. Your breakdown is a little different than James White's.

On the one hand, your's is more distinguishing in some regards and otherwise completely missing White's first category, which was "I like the KJV best" Which is sorta the... it-was-mama's-Bible, and I'll-never-give-it-up or she'll-turn-over-in-her-grave kind of argument. tongue.gif

Thanks again for this LINK, but I was curious as to whether you think James White is fair in the way he writes the descriptions for the categories he asserts? Maybe I'm presuming too much in thinking that you have his book, do you?

Btw, do you have a shorthanded way to describe these categories, one - three word phrases?

Anyway... to your remarks...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I'll take another shot at it. smile.gif

1. Those who believe the KJV was re-inspired in 1611 and is the only valid word of God in print today. Some of this group will even disallow all foriegn language bibles and insist the missionaries teach the people to understand English so they can read the "real bible."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You offered these definitions without critical comment, so I'll ask, would you not agree that position #1 here (notwithstanding the possibility that there could be some nice folks who hold it) is, in substance, a serious heresy?

I'm not invoking the term as a curse word, but in sober criticism. I'm using the term heresy in ALL of it's common definitions: out of the mainstream of historic orthodox doctrine, divisive innovation and biblically incompatible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
2. Those who believe the KJV was not re-inspired in 1611, but that its origin was so superintended by God that it now replaces all earlier bibles, including the Hebrew and Greek.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This view, as you've described it, is tolerable for about three-fourths of the way through the text, but when we get to the last clause, we've once again stumbled upon what I think can be fairly described as a heresy, unless I've misunderstood the meaning of your phrasing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
3. Those who believe the KJV was not re-inspired in 1611, but that its words are equal to the Hebrew and Greek and that the words of the KJV are the "Final Authority" and that any word in any other bible which differes in any way from a word in the KJV is "corrupt."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't want to sound redundant, but if this view is not heretical, it is at least bad doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
4. The Textus Receptus Only, or Majority Text Only, or Critical Text Only, or Stephens Text Only, or Westcott Hort Text Only who limit the NT scriptures to one and only one Greek language text and refuse to accept any reading which varies from their chosen (usually arbitrarily) text. This view has produced KJVOs but to the best of my knowledge it has not produced any NIVOs or NASVOs, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this view, you've not made an important distinction that I believe should be made. From my reading and common sense, I get the impression that there is no such thing as a critical text only, or a Wescott & Hort only person, in the same sense that we use the term KJVO.

It's true, there may be persons who ONLY use the: "critical text," "Wescott & Hort type text," I suspect these types use those formulations because they believe, on a scholarly level, (rightly or wrongly) those texts are the best.

That's not the same mindset we are describing when we KJVO-critical writers use the term KJVO. When we say KJVO, we are NOT using it as technical shorthand to describe one who happens to only use the KJV.

We're using it as an unflattering label for a cultic superstitious paranoid mindset that looks at the translation committees of all other versions and sees, NOT scholarly Christian gentlemen with a different view of textual criticism, BUT a cadre of apostate spooks working their bible corrupting voodoo, on the Holy Word of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
5. Those who believe the basic texts underlying the KJV are superior to the basic texts underlying most of the later versions, and consider the KJV to be an excellent translation of Holy Writ and love it and honor it as they teach and preach from it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree that number 5 is not strictly a KJVO position, because the thrust has switched from bigoted-ignorance to scholarly-dispute. I have absolutely no problem with someone who holds such a position, and I don't think that anyone else should either. Those who disagree with the substance of this view should be able to debate with those who hold it like Christian ladies & gentlemen.

cordially,

CNM

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

[HankD]

For whatever its worth...

I would classify myself as a 4.5.
Just barely outside of the KJVO or TRO sphere.

I view (by faith) the Greek and Hebrew eclectic text underlying the KJV as the restored Word of God and always fall back on this text (I have the Trinitarian Bible Society copies). I would consider and am open to scholarship and enhancement of this text.

Obvioulsy then,I don't agree with the Wescott and Hort theories : Older is better, shorter reading is better.

However, I use the MVs as study tools because (IMO) the translators use modern English words and phrases which are closer in nuance to the originals than the olde KJV English (that is of course if there is no serious variant in the MV reading). Having some formal education in Greek and Hebrew I can get along without the MVs but they do simplify things.

Often in my Adult Sunday School class I will ask for some one to read from the NIV, NAS, NKJV...etc, but usually only if I know that it has a closer meaning to the original than the KJV (apart from the olde English vs. Modern English difference).

HankD

[Pastor KevinR]

Personally, I only use for Teaching and Preaching the KJV/NKJV. I do prefer the Majority Text for the N.T. I sometimes however, will reluctantly acknowledge that the NIV/NASV renders this verse or phrase thusly, to enhance the meaning of the text. ;)

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RevKevin77:
Personally, I only use for Teaching and Preaching the KJV/NKJV. I do prefer the Majority Text for the N.T. I sometimes however, will reluctantly acknowledge that the NIV/NASV renders this verse or phrase thusly, to enhance the meaning of the text. ;)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've just finished a two-week intensive exegesis course on Galatians, taught by Muarice Robinson, Byzantine text expert and co-editor of the NT according to the Byzantine text, with Robert Pierpoint.

He of course taught the course using the Byzantine Greek text, but alongside the NKJV. Most of us students had the NASB.

Although he prefers the Byzantine text, and therefore prefers the NKJV as his English translation, I chuckled that at least 3 dozen times after he translated the verse from Greek and checked the NKJV, he said it was not really translated correctly (at that word or verse). He then would ask who had an NASB, and checked the translation, and then he'd say "The NASB really translated it better there".

He really panned the NIV, calling it a glorified paraphrase, but admitting that even the NIV got the sense of some passages better than the NKJV.

One thing I've found interesting sitting under three Greek and Hebrew scholars: to them, no one ever really translates the languages correctly. Each one would like to translate his own version.

I guess that expresses the need for translation by committee over individual translators. smile.gif

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
I would agree that number 5 is not strictly a KJVO position, because the thrust has switched from bigoted-ignorance to scholarly-dispute. I have absolutely no problem with someone who holds such a position, and I don't think that anyone else should either. Those who disagree with the substance of this view should be able to debate with those who hold it like Christian ladies & gentlemen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, #5 is mainly a belief of KJV supremacy, but even that tends to produce KJVO's when propagated publicly -- in the same way that bigoted remarks about racial supremacy do. For example, the KKK is not "white-only" in the sense that anglos are the only race that is human -- they just think whites are much better than non-whites. And, as we all know, that leads to racial strife. :eek:

The problem is, a great number (the vast majority?) of KJV-onlies and KJV supremacists feel obliged to share their beliefs with everyone they know. That's what causes division in churches, and you can rest assured that the Holy Spirit is NOT in it.

The bottom line is, ALL FIVE positions are fertile ground for producing divisive and pugnacious KJVO's, which is not good. Most folks in the pews are not spiritually mature, and aren't aware of the subtle differences between KJVO and KJV/TR supremacy. To them, it's the same thing, and many will make an issue over it as proof that they're "spiritual". :(

TLB

P. S. -- I mean no offense toward KJVO's by these remarks, I'm just trying to tell it like it is. He who has ears to hear . . . ;)

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
The problem is, a great number (the vast majority?) of KJV-onlies and KJV supremacists feel obliged to share their beliefs with everyone they know. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terry:

Not defending KJVOs, but are there not also MV supremacists who sneer and belittle anyone who would even still consider using a KJV?

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Not defending KJVOs, but are there not also MV supremacists who sneer and belittle anyone who would even still consider using a KJV?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a good point, Chris, and thanks for bringing it up. I think ANYONE who causes division in a church by touting their own preferences for ANYTHING should be silenced:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
1 Cor. 1:11-13
For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As for me, I throughly enjoy studying the NASB and the Amplified, but that is purely my personal preference, and I won't mention that preference from the pulpit. I preach from the KJV almost exclusively, mostly to avoid causing a problem. And, that is the whole point. ;)

Terry

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
I was curious as to whether you think James White is fair in the way he writes the descriptions for the categories he asserts? Maybe I'm presuming too much in thinking that you have his book, do you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I not only have James White's book, but have corresponded with him and chatted with on several occasions. I think his book is unfair only insofar as it tends to take the worst case scenario and apply it with a rather broad brush to everyone whom James labels as KJVO without taking into consideration his own different catagories of KJVOism.

As to your questions, let me offer a rather broad opinion (perhaps too broad). I don't consider any form of KJVOism to be heresy in my understanding of the word. It seems to me that a person expressing his faith in his bible cannot be considered heresy. Some of the conclusions drawn from that faith in his bible can be heresy (I have a bible but you don't - I am saved because I believe the KJV but you are not because you don't, etc.), but the position of believing the KJV is the word of God, inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved, etc., is far better, in my mind, than the position taken by some on this board (thankfully a very small minority) that the bible is not inspired, inerrant, infallible, or perserved in any form, and cannot be trusted in all that it speaks of! smile.gif

Sorry for the short answer, but today is my busy day. Preperation day. smile.gif

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... I preach from the KJV almost exclusively, mostly to avoid causing a problem. And, that is the whole point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a serious question (not inflammatory), is not this attitude a part of the modern problem? It seems the the trouble stems from the fact that for 100 years we have had at least one good option that most people agreed was a good option. Yet no one ever switched, thus giving the opinion that there was no other Word of God out there. I was listening to a pastor recently whose church has just voted to allow public use of the NASB and the NKJV. He said the reason is "These are the Word of God and we want to validate it by public use." He commented on the "inadvertent propogation" of the KJV Only position because we have failed to publically use and thereby endorse the fact that there are other versions that are equally the Word of God. It seems that when we have failed to make our practice fit our teaching, often for the reason that we don't want to confuse or cause trouble. Yet we have no problem confusing people over the Trinity, the blood atonement, the miracles, etc. all of which are hard to fathom. Why is this the place we choose to put our "non trouble causing" stake down?

I am not suggesting we should cause trouble. I preach from the 95NASB, but regularly quote from the NIV, NKJV, and KJV by name. Most people in my (small) church do not have a problem because I preach authoritatively the text and reference others where necessary. I have gone out of my way to give the public impression that I trust and use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV.

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
As a serious question (not inflammatory), is not this attitude a part of the modern problem?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I hardly consider my attitude of being a peacemaker as a problem, but I think I see your point. ;)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It seems the the trouble stems from the fact that for 100 years we have had at least one good option that most people agreed was a good option. Yet no one ever switched, thus giving the opinion that there was no other Word of God out there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume you are referring to the ASV?

Well, Psalm 23 just doesn't sound quite the same in other translations. That makes tradition a hard thing to overcome, especially when it affects things that are very dear to our hearts. And, that's why so many KJVO's are willing to fight to the death over this thing. :(

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It seems that when we have failed to make our practice fit our teaching, often for the reason that we don't want to confuse or cause trouble.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't think my approach is hypocritical in any way, but it's funny that you brought that up.

Before I started preaching, I used to think the pastors in the churches I belonged to were a little wishy-washy about that. Now that I'm in the driver's seat, I can understand why they were so cautious. Not all Baptist churches are open-minded enough to make such a switch.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Yet we have no problem confusing people over the Trinity, the blood atonement, the miracles, etc. all of which are hard to fathom. Why is this the place we choose to put our "non trouble causing" stake down?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, we shouldn't be confusing people about anything. It's our job to un-confuse 'em. :D

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I am not suggesting we should cause trouble. I preach from the 95NASB, but regularly quote from the NIV, NKJV, and KJV by name.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's great. If you'll notice my previous message, I said I preach from the KJV almost exclusively. I do drop hints from time to time that I'm not KJVO. ;)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Most people in my (small) church do not have a problem because I preach authoritatively the text and reference others where necessary. I have gone out of my way to give the public impression that I trust and use the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you mentioned, the size of the congregation has a lot to do with a church's willingness to accept such a radical change, which would probably require the purchase of additional pew Bibles.

Anyway, I mostly agree with you. I expect to make such a change eventually . . . Lord willing. :eek:

Terry

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
True, #5 is mainly a belief of KJV supremacy, but even that tends to produce KJVO's when propagated publicly -- in the same way that bigoted remarks about racial supremacy do. For example, the KKK is not "white-only" in the sense that anglos are the only race that is human -- they just think whites are much better than non-whites. And, as we all know, that leads to racial strife. :eek:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terry I appreciate your perspective, but I have my doubts about it. As I am reading Dr. Cassidy's view #5 on it's face it sounds very close(though slightly stricter) to the Majority Text position, which would include people like: Zane Hodges, Arthur Farstad, Wilbur Pickering, Willliam C. Dunkin, Jakob Van Bruggan, Harry A, Sturz, Alfred Martin.

That the radical KJVOs selectively borrow from the material of people like these, is well-known. You may recall that Zane Hodges and Alfred Martin both had essays published in D.O Fuller's "Which Bible?" But I heard or read somewhere, that Hodges was not comfortable with the effect of this essay lumping him with radical KJVOs. Also I might be wrong, but I thought maybe Fuller edited Hodge's essay. In any case, Fuller did catch some heat for portraying Robert Dick Wilson and C.H. Spurgeon incorrectly.

Beyond this, I suspect one could hardly hold such a KJV supremacy stance without eventually lapsing into one of the other four positions, or migrating to at least a recognizable MT position. If you are correct then Dr. Cassidy's list is too short. I'm not completely comfortable with the wording of his five positions, and I suspect that if we were to place them on a sheet next to James White's five, that between the 10, we could come up with about six distinguishable KJV positions, but maybe only three or four that are truly KJV-Only in the sense that I take that label.

cordially,

CNM

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
[/qb]As to your questions, let me offer a rather broad opinion (perhaps too broad). I don't consider any form of KJVOism to be heresy in my understanding of the word. It seems to me that a person expressing his faith in his bible cannot be considered heresy...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a little reluctant to reply as I think I should wait for the rest of yours, but I can't help but feel the need to further clarify.

Well... it is true that one could hold position #1, in ignorance to it's ramifications, certainly some of the factory workers (in the assemblies that propogate this aberrant {and abhorant} view) probably do.

But, I did say, in substance. For a refresher your view #1 reads...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>1.Those who believe the KJV was re-inspired in 1611 and is the only valid word of God in print today. Some of this group will even disallow all foriegn language bibles and insist the missionaries teach the people to understand English so they can read the "real bible."
[/list]

The last two thirds of this view, imo, is just simply bad doctrine and bad practice which stems from the heresy of the first sentence. The list of possible heresies flowing from this one heresy is disturbing, to say the least.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>1. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture emasculates the doctrine of providential preservation. In this sense the extreme KJVOs are just like the worst of the Higher Critics. Because, by practice, the necessity of reinspiration is a de facto disregarding of providential preservation.

<LI>2. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture is neo-pentecostal extremism. If we accept this doctrine by it's very validity it tranforms the KJV translators into apostles & prophets.

<LI>3. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture undermines(to some degree) a historical and theological appreciation for the special place of the biblical writers. This has to be so, since God went ahead and re-did the whole thing over in 1611.

<LI>4. The doctrine of RE-inspiration of Holy Scripture calls into question the propriety of ANY biblical translation work. If God did not (for whatever reason) providentially preserve the sacred scriptures from biblical times, and thus needed to RE-inspire the biblical books in 1611, then, who is anyone to think that he can make a translation into Spanish, Tagalog, Swahili or what-have-you, if such-a-one is not an apostle or prophet?

Also, again this opens up the logical necessity for revelatory Charismata in each new country missionaries enter, unless of course we teach them Elizabethan English. ;)
[/list]

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
Terry I appreciate your perspective, but I have my doubts about it.
&lt;snip&gt;
That the radical KJVOs selectively borrow from the material of people like these, is well-known. You may recall that Zane Hodges and Alfred Martin both had essays published in D.O Fuller's "Which Bible?" But I heard or read somewhere, that Hodges was not comfortable with the effect of this essay lumping him with radical KJVOs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that sort of guilt by association wasn't the point I was trying to make. (Sorry, I should have been more clear.)

I was mostly referring to the influence (inadvertent or intentional) that KJV/TR supremacists tend to have over the people in their own congregations. It's a type of leaven that tends to "leaven the whole lump".

Whenever a church member self-righteously throws down the gauntlet that the KJV/TR is the BEST (or ONLY) Bible there is, that instantly creates an an atmosphere of divisiveness and peer pressure which can easily quench the Spirit. The resulting conflict is unnecessary and extremely harmful.

My question is: How does that honor Jesus Christ? Is the Holy Spirit the force behind such things? Absolutely not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Also I might be wrong, but I thought maybe Fuller edited Hodge's essay. In any case, Fuller did catch some heat for portraying Robert Dick Wilson and C.H. Spurgeon incorrectly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't doubt that. I myself ran across a few quotes from Spurgeon a while back where he seemed to think very highly of the Revised Version. (I have that Fuller book, but I haven't finished studying it yet.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Beyond this, I suspect one could hardly hold such a KJV supremacy stance without eventually lapsing into one of the other four positions, or migrating to at least a recognizable MT position. If you are correct then Dr. Cassidy's list is too short.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I can accept Thomas Cassidy's excellent classifications as they are, and I believe it's possible for #5's to remain so indefinitely without ever embracing KJVO-ism themselves.

However, it's the influence that their supremacist beliefs have on less mature Christians that worries me. Very few KJV supremacists know how to keep their Bible preferences to themselves while at church (James 3). :(

That creates a problem because most new Christians have no idea where the Bible came from, and it's easy to manipulate them with false information. :eek:

TLB

[ July 02, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
I was mostly referring to the influence (inadvertent or intentional) that KJV/TR supremacists tend to have over the people in their own congregations. It's a type of leaven that tends to "leaven the whole lump".

Whenever a church member self-righteously throws down the gauntlet that the KJV/TR is the BEST (or ONLY) Bible there is, that instantly creates an an atmosphere of divisiveness and peer pressure which can easily quench the Spirit. The resulting conflict is unnecessary and extremely harmful.

My question is: How does that honor Jesus Christ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't; and as you've described it, it is to my way of thinking another form of KJVOism hiding behind a cloak of denial.

You said DR. Cassidy's list is fine the way it is. If that is true, then Zane Hodges and Co. must be in category number five. But the true Majority Text people are generally scholarly Christian gentlemen, who wouldn't give the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger the satisfaction of sharing any kind of venue, not that an autononmous person like Ruckman would want to share anything with anybody anyway, but I digress.

What you seem to be referring to, is people who really don't understand what it is they are talking about, and using a position like #5 as a dividing weapon.

It appears (since we are disputing this point) that the # 5 position umbrella is two big and needs to divide.

I can't imagine the group you are describing needing more than a phone-booth to hold their meetings in. To affirm # 5, one would have to say, they are not TR-only. To be pro Majority Text is to not favor the Critical Text, but also to be broader than the TR!

If one equates the TR to the Majority Text, he is closer to number four than to number five, since the TR and MT disagree in so many places. If such a person as you describe exposes their position on the board, I will try to turn up the heat that such-a-one may recategorize himself or repudiate his incongruent ways.

cordially,

CNM

[Man of Sword]

The KJV should be the preferred Bible. It comes from the Textus Receptus, and I know and believe it to be God inspired, by it being perfectly preserved in the English, what is there in the Greek.
If any of you believe in a "God inspired Word" such as the Bible clearly states the Holy Scriptures to be...then the question is, where is it? Is it something that only exists in man's imagination, something that no one can hold or touch or read?
The KJV compared to the NIV or the NASB shows themselves to be obviously different...if nothing else, that there are hundreds of verses missing. If we all believe that there is a God inspired Bible out there, and there are obviously hundreds of verses missing out of the two "other" main "versions" (NIV & NASB), why do people continue to defend those versions. If verses are missing, it cannot be the perfect word of God. It simply can't.
Now, for those who believe that God is only powerful enough to inspire the original Greek text, yet not powerful enough to preserve it in the English...are usually of two categories: they either (1) don't believe in a powerful enough God, or (2)are usually into "scholarship" or "education" in too big of a way, where their own "education" becomes the "authoritative source", not the word of God...these are normally the people who defend these other versions, especially after they have the evidence that there are hundreds of verses missing.
The others that slightly defend the other versions, do so normally out of ignorance...not that they are ignorant themselves, but that no one has pointed these things out to them. Usually these folks are quite shocked when they learn of these things.
Search your hearts gentlemen, to find out why you defend, what you defend. If God's word is inspired, and we are warned by God in two different places in the Bible not to add to or take away from His word, then why do we continue to read and study "versions" that obviously do so.

[Dr. Bob]

Welcome to the fray, Man of Sword. We appreciate you sharing what you think and feel. Hope you will post on the version debate (and other topics, too) and I'd encourage you to add evidence to support your views.

You might choose to start by defending your position on these questions:

On what empirical evidence to you contend that the TR is superior Greek?

Where does the Bible say God will preserve His Word in English?

Do you have any proof that IF God preserved His Word in a language that it was the AV1611?

IF God preserved His Perfect Word in the AV1611, why have there been 50,000 changes in what was "perfect"?

Get the idea? Lots of fun and edification from questions such as these. God bless!

[Man of Sword]

Dear Dr. Bob,
Replying to your comments on my first post about the KJV vs. "the others":

I certainly have not read all of your comments on this baptistboard.com site, but I have read enough already to understand your position. I know there may be what some consider "extremes" in the "KJV only" position...but let me ask this: Why is it that folks like you are so "Anti-KJV"? It is not that you are defending God's Holy Word, folks like you make an everyday practice out of bashing the KJV, and calling people who defend it "cultists" for goodness sake. Someone who wants to defend the integrity of God's Holy Word gets shots from people like you, and are called cultists.

Are you the cultist, dear sir? Are you heading up an "Anti-KJV" cult? What exactly is yours and everyone else's problem with the KJV? Is the "archaic" language the only problem you folks can come up with? No one asks Congress to rewrite the Constitution with all of its archaic, old English language. How about some of the old classic hymns you sing in church, why don't you demand that they be "modernized"?

It blows my mind that you ask for evidence that God preserves His Holy Word. Are you implying that He does not, or did not?

Following are a few questions that I would like you to point blank answer, please number your responses according to the question...and do please answer them this way. I will keep the number of questions few, then after answering them...feel free to return the "challenge" to me...in the same format.

Questions:
1. Do you believe that the Bible is God inspired?
2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then is it a Bible you can actually hold? In other words, it is not some fictious "original manuscripts" that no one has touched in almost 2,000 years.
3. If you do believe that you can hold this God inspired word, is it written in English or Greek, or both, or in any other language?
4. If you believe that the "God inspired scriptures" are only in the "original Greek", why do you think God doesn't have His perfect word preserved, or translated, or whichever you want to call it, in another language...preferrably in English, seeing that it is the dominate language in the world, and has been for quite some time now. And why is it only in Greek, if less than 1% of the world's population speaks or reads Greek.
5. Let's soul search on this question: What is the real motivation behind yours and everyone else's attacks on the KJV, and the people who defend it? Leaving out the "extremes", there will always be ones who are extreme in almost anything. People who attack the KJV, hardly ever attack any other version...even versions that shouldn't even be on bookshelves...yet it is the KJV that gets "hammered" every single time.
6. Why do you suppose that one of the greatest "revival" times in church history happened from about 1600 - 1900, during which time, in English speaking countries, there was really only the AV1611 Bible...and since the late 1800's to current time...of which the Body of Christ is going further and further into apostasy, is being overrun with "newer and more accurate translations" each year?

I will stop my questions here, and I await your response.

One last comment though, especially for the others who may read this (I've talked with plenty of men over the years who have the same "opinion" as Dr. Bob, and short of God's grace, I don't see him changing his mind about this)...Why do you suppose all the "great scholars" of our time constantly make references to the "original Greek language"? Do you understand that that is exactly what the Catholic Church did for hundreds of years with Latin? Common people didn't know Latin, only the priests did...so people had to COME TO THEM FOR THE INTERPRETATION. Highly educated people like Dr. Bob here, want to become the "final authority" on God's word. They convince you that "correct interpretation" has to come from the "original language". Our God is not the author of confusion. Our God has never been a God who is impressed with men's education...it is foolishness unto Him. Our God is a God who take foolishness, ignorant, common men...and uses them for His purpose, for His glory. Watch these so-called "godly men" who want you to run to them for the "correct interpretation" of the "perfect Greek". Read them like a book. But most of all, ask the Lord for guidance...He will take care of the rest.

Your brother in Christ,
David

[Dr. Bob]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
Dear Dr. Bob,
Why is it that folks like you are so "Anti-KJV"? It is not that you are defending God's Holy Word, folks like you make an everyday practice out of bashing the KJV, and calling people who defend it "cultists" for goodness sake.
1. Do you believe that the Bible is God inspired?
2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then is it a Bible you can actually hold? In other words, it is not some fictious "original manuscripts" that no one has touched in almost 2,000 years.
3. If you do believe that you can hold this God inspired word, is it written in English or Greek, or both, or in any other language?
4. If you believe that the "God inspired scriptures" are only in the "original Greek", why do you think God doesn't have His perfect word preserved, or translated, or whichever you want to call it, in another language...preferrably in English, seeing that it is the dominate language in the world, and has been for quite some time now. And why is it only in Greek, if less than 1% of the world's population speaks or reads Greek.
5. Let's soul search on this question: What is the real motivation behind yours and everyone else's attacks on the KJV, and the people who defend it? Leaving out the "extremes", there will always be ones who are extreme in almost anything. People who attack the KJV, hardly ever attack any other version...even versions that shouldn't even be on bookshelves...yet it is the KJV that gets "hammered" every single time.
6. Why do you suppose that one of the greatest "revival" times in church history happened from about 1600 - 1900, during which time, in English speaking countries, there was really only the AV1611 Bible...and since the late 1800's to current time...of which the Body of Christ is going further and further into apostasy, is being overrun with "newer and more accurate translations" each year?
David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>David, you really are new here and all of these questions have been answered. But since they are so foundational, I will take a minute and share a brief reply to each.

ANSWERS:
pre-#1 - I am not anti-KJV1769. I use a Scofield myself. But you make an amazing error by equating the KJV as God's Holy Word, implying that all other translations and Greek/Hebrew are "not". I trust that is not your opinion.

#1 - The Bible is plenarily (fully) inspired, inerrant, infallible. Not the KJV1769 revision.

#2 - The original manuscripts were inspired. Thank God we do NOT have them now, for I am sure a Catholic church would be built over them and they would be held up and worshiped.

EVERY accurate and faithful translation into every language is "derived" inspired.

#3 - The hundreds of Greek/Hebrew manuscripts can be redacted and compiled so that we today can have an accurate picture of exactly what the originals taught.

#4 - How vain to assume that the perfect Word of God, which we have in the original languages should be "preserved" in Jacobean English of 1611? God's word IS already preserved in the original languages so that it (the LIVING Word) may be translated into thousands of languages.

Thankfully, I do not have to teach people to read and understand Jacobean English so that they can be saved.

#5 - My attack is NEVER on the KJV1769 revision. I use it! I memorize from it, for I love the lilt of the language. My anger is on the bibliolaters who worship that translation, make it a test of faith, seek to have everyone use it, call other faithful and accurate English translations "satanic" - well, you just have to read some of cultlike mentality on other threads to catch the problem.

#6 - Probably the greatest time of spiritual revival and growth came when the believers used the original languages in the first three centuries. To say it is in 1600-1880 is ludicrous and unjustified.

Hope this helps David. Most of us are not anti-KJV1769 revision; we are anti-KJVonlys and the division of the historic ifb movement.

Now below I will reprint my questions. I've asked them once, they were unanswered by you, but you've promised to answer them. I look forward to the discussion, for edification of the Body.

[ July 03, 2001: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

[Dr. Bob]

MAN OF SWORD (or others entering the fray)
Short and to the point answers will help me understand where you are coming from and if you are beyond help! ;)

1. On what empirical evidence to you contend that the TR is superior Greek?

2. Is the AV1611 based on the TR solely?

3. Where does the Bible say that God will preserve His Word in English?

4. Do you have any proof that IF God preserved His Word in a language that it was the AV1611 English?

5. IF God preserved His Perfect Word in the AV1611 Jacobean English, why have there been 50,000 changes in what was "perfect"?

6. Do you personally use the AV1611 or one of the many revisions? (1762 Cambridge; 1769 Oxford)

Thanks for the reply!

[Rockfort]

Originally posted by Man of Sword:

&lt; Following are a few questions that I would like you to point blank answer, please number your responses according to the question...and do please answer them this way. I will keep the number of questions few, then after answering them...feel free to return the "challenge" to me...in the same format. &gt;

As an outspoken cynic of most people and most ideas, I will unapologetically impose my own answers to these Q's:

&lt; Questions:
1. Do you believe that the Bible is God inspired? &gt;

Yes.

&lt; 2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then is it a Bible you can actually hold? In other words, it is not some fictious "original manuscripts" that no one has touched in almost 2,000 years. &gt;

It is not in "a Bible you can actually hold," and the original manuscripts are not "fictious" (sic). They were actually written down on parchment, or some material.

&lt; 3. If you do believe that you can hold this God inspired word, is it written in English or Greek, or both, or in any other language? &gt;

It is settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89).

&lt; 4. If you believe that the "God inspired scriptures" are only in the "original Greek", why do you think God doesn't have His perfect word preserved, or translated, or whichever you want to call it, in another language...preferrably in English, seeing that it is the dominate language in the world, and has been for quite some time now. And why is it only in Greek, if less than 1% of the world's population speaks or reads Greek. &gt;

It is not "only in Greek." It is too 'Greek' even to be in Greek. If God's thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8), then human languages, which express *our thoughts*, are not the thoughts of God because our thoughts are NOT his thoughts. Also, Mandarin Chinese has more than twice as many speakers as English, and Spanish has approximately the same number as English.

&lt; 5. Let's soul search on this question: What is the real motivation behind yours and everyone else's attacks on the KJV, and the people who defend it? Leaving out the "extremes", there will always be ones who are extreme in almost anything. People who attack the KJV, hardly ever attack any other version...even versions that shouldn't even be on bookshelves...yet it is the KJV that gets "hammered" every single time. &gt;

I 'attack' the biases involved in making a translation, of which the KJV's was to help solidify the authoritarian church-state rule of an Anglican monachy in an era of increasing knowledge in an increasing world. I attack the bias of the 'New World Translation,' which aspires to affirm the single authority of the Watchtower Society, Jehovah's Witnesses' publishing arm. I attack odd versions (usually not translations) which deliberately change basic biblical doctrines, such as have been promulgated by queers, evironmentalists, and vegans. I attack any contention that one translation is exclusively *the Word*-- which BTW corresponds to the position of the KJV translators (See their Introduction to the Reader).

&lt; 6. Why do you suppose that one of the greatest "revival" times in church history happened from about 1600 - 1900, during which time, in English speaking countries, there was really only the AV1611 Bible...and since the late 1800's to current time...of which the Body of Christ is going further and further into apostasy, is being overrun with "newer and more accurate translations" each year? &gt;

I don't do any 'supposing' about some 300-year revival which did not exist.

&lt; One last comment though, especially for the others who may read this (I've talked with plenty of men over the years who have the same "opinion" as Dr. Bob, and short of God's grace, I don't see him changing his mind about this)...Why do you suppose all the "great scholars" of our time constantly make references to the "original Greek language"? Do you understand that that is exactly what the Catholic Church did for hundreds of years with Latin? &gt;

And it is what many-- apparently including you-- are doing with the KJV language.

&lt; Common people didn't know Latin, only the priests did...so people had to COME TO THEM FOR THE INTERPRETATION. Highly educated people like Dr. Bob here, want to become the "final authority" on God's word. &gt;

If this means Bob or anyone "wants to become the 'final authority' on God's word," then when KJVO's point out differences between teh KJV's and any others, THEY are trying to become the final authority on God's word. Hopefully both positions only seek to proclaim what is God's word.

&lt; They convince you that "correct interpretation" has to come from the "original language". &gt;

And KJVO's try to convince that any differences in translations are settled in favor of KJV regardless of compelling evidence otherwise. [This is 'cultist,' as you made reference to].

&lt; Our God is not the author of confusion. Our God has never been a God who is impressed with men's education...it is foolishness unto Him. &gt;

I'm glad you admit the 'education' and methods of the KJV translators, so often lauded on this board by Cassidy and others, is foolishness.

&lt; Our God is a God who take foolishness, ignorant, common men...and uses them for His purpose, for His glory. &gt;

So the 'foolishness' of educated Bible translators (of any era) can be used for HIs glory. I'm glad you see that.

&lt; Watch these so-called "godly men" who want you to run to them for the "correct interpretation" of the "perfect Greek".&gt;

I reckon you're right-- pass over any post here in which the Greek is interpreted (Cassidy has quite a few of those, too).

[Man of Sword]

Dear Dr. Bob,
On the responses to my questions:
Your pre-#1 response: I do not error in stating that the KJV is God's Holy Word. And do please trust in the fact that I firmly, with every fiber of my being believe that, and know it to be true.

Your responses to #1 and #2 were expected. You say you believe in a God inspired, inerrant, infallible word. Yet according to your following answers…no one has it. And yes, you are correct, that if there were some "originals" that were actually penned by Paul and Peter…the Catholic Church would definitely own them. And we would all "be out in the cold".

Dr. Bob, why do you believe in an inerrant, infallible word of God…yet you don't believe in its actual, physical existence? If you do believe in its physical existence, you most likely believe that its "somewhere out there, hidden among all the manuscripts…and God help us to find it.

I have taught the Bible for years, you may have as well. How do you stand up in front of the Body of Christ, and hold your Bible in the air, and say "Well guys, this isn't God's Holy Word, but we'll give it our best shot any ways"? God help us if we don't "physically" have His word. Think about it. What are we to do if we don't have the word of God? Where is the authoritative source…where is the final authority? If our Bible, (or Bibles depending on what side of the fence you stand on), is only a translation, and is "close" to the original, and has "all of the basic fundamentals"…how can close be good enough on God's Holy, inerrant, infallible, perfect word? Perfect means perfect, not close.

So many of these arguments are made asking for empirical evidence…which I agree is needed…but we miss a major point: What about God? What about His character? What about the intent of His word, why did He give it in written form…so that it would be lost, forgotten, or destroyed…so that the adversary would win? Think of the logic of the argument. It makes no sense as far as the character of God is concerned.

Now, on to your questions.
1. On what empirical evidence to you contend that the TR is superior Greek?
For now, let's go on the evidence of what "products" are produced by the different Greek texts. The TR is primarily used for the KJV, and now the NKJV…all other "versions" use primarily the other two. The other two Greek texts are preferred by the Roman Catholic Church, the TR and the KJV are basically rejected by the Catholic Church. If you argue with a Jehovah's Witness, and you tell him you will not use the "New World Translation", they prefer to use the NIV or the NASB…because it falls more in line with their "version". Comparing the KJV to the other two main "versions", look at the number of times the Deity of Christ is "lessened". Why? Is this strictly a "textual criticism" argument?
In Luke 2:33 for example…a really "un-important" Bible verse, we see a big difference between the KJV and the others.
"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." Luke 2:33 KJV
"The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him." Luke 2:33 NIV
"And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him." Luke 2:33 NASB

Does the "original Greek" here say the name Joseph, or does it says the child's father. We all know for a fact that the father of Jesus is God, not Joseph. What most men say, making the argument here is that "we all know that the Father of Jesus Christ is God". Really? So why is it changed? The "original Greek" clearly says the name "Joseph"…not the "child's father".

1 John 5:7-8
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. NIV

7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. NASB
Here, the NIV and NASB not only eliminate verse 7, which is probably the most definite of all Bible verses in proving the Trinity, they do it in a very deceptive way…by pulling half of verse 8 up into verse 7, so that it doesn't stand out so obvious that verse 7 has been removed.

There are many, many others…too many to list.

2. Is the AV1611 based on the TR solely?
Addressed in the answer above.

3. Where does the Bible say that God will preserve His Word in English?
It doesn't. Where does the Bible say that God will preserve it in Greek? It doesn't. Where does the Bible say that God will preserve it in Hebrew? It doesn't. What's the point? Are you saying it is not preserved in any language?
Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

4. Do you have any proof that IF God preserved His Word in a language that it was the AV1611 English?
I'll answer this question with a question. Did God preserve His Word anywhere? I believe it MUST BE PRESERVED somewhere. And if it is, where is it? Which "version" is it? It's not a question of "is it preserved"…it absolutely has to be. So since it is preserved, where is it?

5. IF God preserved His Perfect Word in the AV1611 Jacobean English, why have there been 50,000 changes in what was "perfect"?
Which changes are you referring to? The majority of ones you are referring to are grammatical changes. Changes where in the "old English" it would not read as it does today. Changes that obviously needed to be made, such as two words being typed in succession…where today we do not write that way. The vast majority of changes you are referring to are grammatical…and you know this.

6. Do you personally use the AV1611 or one of the many revisions? (1762 Cambridge; 1769 Oxford)
Obviously, I use only the KJV.


Dear Rockfort,
Thank you for your response to the questions posed to Dr. Bob…at least you answered the questions, he did not.

Now to address your answers:
To the first question, you answered "yes", that the Bible is inspired by God.

Yet to the second question, you said that there is NO Bible that is God inspired, THAT A PERSON CAN HOLD IN THEIR HAND. I hope you understand the severity of that answer. If there is no inspired word of God that anyone can hold in their hand, then you are basically left with two outcomes:
1) that we can not be held accountable by God to what His word has instructed us to do, or not to do…according to His laws, His commandments…are we really under grace, are we still under the law…did the Son of God come and die for our sins, or was it someone else?
2) God help us all at the judgment…it will be every man for himself, to see "who got it right" as far as God is concerned. If we have no written word of God, that is God inspired, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE, only man's opinions.

I did not exactly expect that response from anyone, a response that, just applying a tiny bit of common sense, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How do people of this day know what God is requiring of them? You must believe in modern day prophets.

I am not going to spend much more time in responding to a reply from someone who does not believe the Bible is the God inspired, word of God. You say you believe in that, yet you can't touch it

And for the comment on the fictitious "original manuscripts", the reason I made the statement I did and called them fictitious, is that these ""original manuscripts" are constantly referred to by people…when they are referring to the Textus Receptus, or to the other Greek manuscripts…as if they are the "originals". These are copies, of copies, of copies, etc. They are not the originals, but a lot of people who have not studied this subject, are misled into thinking that they are. So yes, they are fictitious.

Of course I know that there WERE original manuscripts…did you think that I thought the apostle Paul wrote a letter without writing the letter?

And finally, that the Bible is God's word settled in heaven.

If this is where the Bible is…can someone please ask God to send it down here…we really need it.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
I can't imagine the group you are describing needing more than a phone-booth to hold their meetings in. To affirm # 5, one would have to say, they are not TR-only. To be pro Majority Text is to not favor the Critical Text, but also to be broader than the TR!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My position regarding #5 is even broader. I not only am not TR-only (as all TRs differ, although I use the Scrivener TR as my Greek bible, I have questions regarding some of the readings, even Scrivener said he could not account for about a half dozen of them!) nor MT-Only, but an advocate of the Traditional Text, of which the TRs are representitive as is the MT. Does that muddy the water even more? smile.gif

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
Question asked by Dr. Bob "5. IF God preserved His Perfect Word in the AV1611 Jacobean English, why have there been 50,000 changes in what was "perfect"?
Which changes are you referring to? The majority of ones you are referring to are grammatical changes. Changes where in the "old English" it would not read as it does today. Changes that obviously needed to be made, such as two words being typed in succession…where today we do not write that way. The vast majority of changes you are referring to are grammatical…and you know this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It seems to me that both of you could use a lesson in accurate reporting. The "50,000" changes charged by Dr. Bob is somewhat disingenuous, in my opinion. Over 90% of those so called "changes" are mearly spelling changes, "sonne" changed to "son" "trvst" changed to "trust" etc. It is obviously not a change of substance, merely an updating of the spelling.

As to Man of Sword's answer, it is equally flawed. There are few grammactical changes from the 1611 edition of the AV to the 1762/1769 editions. In fact, of the 421 translation changes, only 136 were changes of substance. And of the remaining 285 changes of substance, many, if not most are changes of form only, I.E. "towards" changed to "toward" "burnt" changed to "burned" etc.

Some personal advice for Man of the Sword, if you are going to defend the KJV, defend it with facts, not myth. When you defend the KJV with unsubstantiated information, and that information is proven, subsequently, to be false, you have done more harm than good to the cause of the KJV.

Thomas "I love and use only the KJV but have real objective reasons for doing so" Cassidy. smile.gif

[ July 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Dr. Bob]

Thank you, Thomas. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times, "My hyperbole waxes bold." Driving home a point to SwordMan that, unfortuneatly, bypassed his cognisance.

I was asked 6 questions. I answered each fully. I was appalled that SwordMan actually believed any of it. But he claimed I did not answer (what was he reading?). Arguing like that, rather than dealing with the issues, is more than a little discouraging to me.

BTW, I asked him which KJVrevision he was using and expectedly he either didn't even know (assuming the best) or was untrue in his response (assuming the worst).

Dr. Cassidy and I disagree and debate on many of these issues. Before I invest more time in a debate with the newcomer, I will simply ask him to take 30 minutes and go through the threads on the Forum and read them carefully.

Matthew 7:6-7 reminds us to be careful in matters of such great import.

[DocCas]

Dr. Bob, I noticed that too. When asked "which KJV" "I use the KJV" doesn't seem to me to be a very forthcoming answer. :D

When somebody asks me I tell them "I use the 1762 Cambridge for my personal study and reading bible, the 1769 Oxford for preaching (the Scofield edition of the 1769 Oxford comes in a large print, but not giant print, edition which is easier for me to see without my reading glasses as it lays on the pulpit), and I occasionaly read from my 1611 editions (reprints, of course) of which I have two, the Thomas Nelson edition in modern type, and a reprint of the original (first edition, He varient) 1611 exactly as it first appeared."

I know that is probably more than you really wanted to know, but it is how I answer the question. smile.gif

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
What you seem to be referring to, is people who really don't understand what it is they are talking about, and using a position like #5 as a dividing weapon.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It appears (since we are disputing this point) that the # 5 position umbrella is two big and needs to divide.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, this categorizing business can get out of hand. It's okay as long as it identifies specific issues to address and the best approaches for constructive dialogue on those issues. Otherwise, I see no point in subdividing the categories ad infinitum.

Mainly, my point is that we should not tolerate pugnacious text/version supremacists (or "onlies") of any kind -- regardless of the specific issue they are arguing about. To be fair, that also applies to troublemakers who malign the KJV or KJVO's just for spite.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
. . . that such-a-one may recategorize himself or repudiate his incongruent ways.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I think. Which version did you get that from? tongue.gif

TLB

[Scott J]

Please excuse my intrusion but some of this is too tempting... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
I do not error in stating that the KJV is God's Holy Word. And do please trust in the fact that I firmly, with every fiber of my being believe that, and know it to be true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suspect that none of the readers doubt that you believe what you write. The question is whether your beliefs are supported by the known facts. I am fully convinced that they do not and nothing that you have written establishes even a weak factual foundation.

The Word of God is nothing more nor less than what God has chosen to reveal of Himself directly to all mankind; His special revelation given in writing as opposed to the general revelation of God in nature (which by the way is enough to condemn a sinner according to Romans 1). It was inerrant, infallible, and complete in the originals. The original autographs by definition can be the only earthly standard for judging how well manuscripts or translations agree with what God inspired.

Further, since we cannot prove with 100% certainty what the precise original wording was, we must accept that these uncertainties are for our good and God's glory. There is no doubt that everything God has willed to reveal about Himself is communicated in the KJV, NASB, NKJV, CT, MT, TR, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

physical existence?...God help us to find it.

So many of these arguments are made asking for empirical evidence…which I agree is needed…but we miss a major point: What about God? What about His character? What about the intent of His word, why did He give it in written form…so that it would be lost, forgotten, or destroyed…so that the adversary would win? Think of the logic of the argument. It makes no sense as far as the character of God is concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you dare to presume upon God? Are you rationalizing His providence to agree with your beliefs? God did preserve His word and it is accurately conveyed in the manuscript evidence and in numerous translations. However, it is not confined to one particular set of human words...It is the expressed will of God. God did in fact preserve His word. He just didn't do it the way the KJVO's demand. We should not be about judging whether God has behaved logically- He has and the truth agrees completely with the empirical evidence. If we cannot comprehend His logic then we should conform to God, not demand that He conform to us. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Now, on to your questions.
1. On what empirical evidence to you contend that the TR is superior Greek?
For now, let's go on the evidence of what "products" are produced by the different Greek texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? You demanded that your questions be answered not evaded. If you have proof then produce it. If not, say so. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The TR is primarily used for the KJV, and now the NKJV…all other "versions" use primarily the other two. The other two Greek texts are preferred by the Roman Catholic Church, the TR and the KJV are basically rejected by the Catholic Church.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> REMINDER: The TR originated from a Catholic scholar. It was endorsed by the Pope himself. If association with the Catholic church is a disqualifier then the TR/KJV are out. But, we probably wouldn't have a Bible at all if the Catholic and Orthodox churches had not preserved and copied manuscripts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you argue with a Jehovah's Witness, and you tell him you will not use the "New World Translation", they prefer to use the NIV or the NASB…because it falls more in line with their "version". Comparing the KJV to the other two main "versions", look at the number of times the Deity of Christ is "lessened".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
#1- Don't argue theology with a JW...Their training is to tell not to listen. The only way to reach them is to ask questions they can't answer and get them to find their own answers. #2- A JW at work visits me from time to time. She frequently brings a KJV with her. She has been trained to reach the abundance of KJVO's in our area by not offending them. Her main target is always the deity of Christ. The NASB rendering of John 1:14 and Titus 2:13 left her speechless. Titus 2:13 is particularly effective. Its authenticity cannot be argued. The KJV just translates it poorly. Another JW recently asked me to order a KJV for her. It seems to be their second favorite version! The KJV, RSV, and ASV have all been the official Bible of the JW's. They frequently quote the KJV in their literature. I have never seen them quote or use the NIV or NASB. #3- The NWT is different from all other versions because it was written to support their errant theology. If you have proof that the NASB or NIV are somehow in agreement with the NWT, show it.
#4 You gave two verses to try to prove that the MV's are weak on the deity of Christ. The KJV addition to I John 5:7-8 is highly disputed and probably not original- this is in JW training literature so in their mind you have lost the argument just by using it. As for the other, look at Luke 2:48 in the KJV. Mary calls Joseph the father of Jesus. Mary is definitely an expert on the subject. She is obviously referring to Joseph in an adoptive sense- just as the verse you cite is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If this is where the Bible is…can someone please ask God to send it down here…we really need it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Once again, you presume upon God. He has provided everything we need to know Him.

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
My position regarding #5 is even broader. I not only am not TR-only (as all TRs differ, although I use the Scrivener TR as my Greek bible, I have questions regarding some of the readings, even Scrivener said he could not account for about a half dozen of them!) nor MT-Only, but an advocate of the Traditional Text, of which the TRs are representitive as is the MT. Does that muddy the water even more? smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Muddy the water? Yes, a little, but not for me, but probably for the KJV-Onlies. They may think you're not on their side as much as they had hoped.

I can see that it is obviously broader than the TR. But broader than the MT? I dunno. It seems to me your position is BOTH broader and narrower. By the "Traditional Text," I take that to mean the general stream of what is commonly labeled the Byzantine family of manuscripts.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>I admit I am operating at a disadvantage(not knowing original biblical languages) but I can usually discern the most cogent arguments in English, which does limit my investigation to most logical debaters since I can't crosscheck them, in the linguistic technical sense. Which would be a greater problem if one confined oneself to one writer the way that Ruckman-knights seem to do, for example.
[/list]

However, is not the "Majority Text" (by defintion, in theory) the readings which enjoy the widest dissemination throughout the raw extant textual material? If so, would not (logically speaking) any other textual presentation based on other principles be a narrowing of the issue?

What I mean is, as long as one says, I favor the "traditional text," one has a broad, general, somewhat undefined position (albeit limited to Byzantine side of the spectrum.) But when one commits to a particular non-MT textual presentation, one immediately narrows the question.

If you hold the TT position as I describe it above, one of the KJV-Only objections immediately comes to the fore. Which is, a lack of 100% certainty of the wording of the autographa. Such a "scholarly" position, if contemplated by the folks in the first four KJVO positions you tried to describe, will earn you the epithet of Bible corruptor, will it not?

Because...

As I see it, the kind of so-called "jot-n-tittle" precision that KJV-Onlyism pressumes and demands, cannot abide the textual criticism implicit in your messages.

cordially,

CNM

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
Of course, this categorizing business can get out of hand. It's okay as long as it identifies specific issues to address and the best approaches for constructive dialogue on those issues. Otherwise, I see no point in subdividing the categories ad infinitum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well Terry... all of us like to think our viewpoints are sophisticated, and defy definition. You've experienced the howling that comes when persons or groups feel they are being broad-brushed unfairly. I agree there is a point when subdivisions get ridiculous, but I also think that there are valid distinctions to be made.

My list would not look quite like Dr. Cassidy's, but I'll take a stab at this categorization thing.

In decending order from most extreme, to slightly less extreme...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Double Inspiration view: the notion that the Holy Scriptures were reinspired in 1611 in the form of the King James Version. (Readers will gather my opinion of this view in an earlier post in this thread.) Suffice it to say, however, that this view is so bizarre, and without any reasonable explanation that it can only be described as the fantasies of deluded minds.

<LI>The Perfect Preservation view: this view is the more temperate sister of view #1. The idea that God had so superintended the copying of the originals and subsequent generation copies up to and through Erasmus and to the KJV translators, that they (the KJV translators) were able to make the perfect translation choices that give the ultimate in perfect rendering from one language to another. We can, therefore, say by faith, that the KJV is an English mirror version of the originals. This view is wholly unsupportable by empirical observation, historical record, and textual & linguistic sciences. Moreover, it's NOT really a "faith" position at all! It is based on a kind-of rational presumption and the non-sequitor it just has to be that way, or God's a liar.

<LI>The TR-Only view: this view is really a half-brother of view #2. It is one in which the proponants presumably think they can escape the nonsensical argument that one language can perfectly mirror another. So they can hold the same 100% perfect preservation up to the Textus Receptus. This view also fails upon analysis the way that view number two does because of the very simple fact that out of the 5000+ New Testament textual pieces, no two manuscripts agree perfectly. This then necessitates the science of textual criticism, which is in fact the way the TR came to be.

<LI>The Majority text/Traditional text view: this/these view(s) are scholarly attempts to derive the closest wording to the original wording, with a prejudice for or exclusive use of the Byzantine type manuscripts. As I see it, the MT and TT advocates differ only in degree, not in kind.
[/list]

I list four broad views, because those who have the position: "I like the KJV best," that's why I only use it, are stating a preference position. In such a view, the inference is that such people are not busy about making it normative for everyone else.

Views 1-3 are clearly in the KJV-Only camp mindset. View #4, it depends. It depends on their view of the modern versions and the critical text.

The dividing line between KJVOs and non-KJVOs is... does one believe that ONLY the King James Version is the Word of God, and conversely, as well, does that person believe the modern versions are not?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
Mainly, my point is that we should not tolerate pugnacious text/version supremacists
(or "onlies") of any kind -- regardless of the specific issue they are arguing about. To be fair, that also applies to troublemakers who malign the KJV or KJVO's just for spite <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I understand. Your point is in regard to a mindset and an attitude, not really a theological position.

As far as my writing style, such is the hazards of an apologist.

cordially,

CNM

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:

Well Terry... all of us like to think our viewpoints are sophisticated, and defy definition. You've experienced the howling that comes when persons or groups feel they are being broad-brushed unfairly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How true. It's a good thing none of us preachers have that problem. :D

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I agree there is a point when subdivisions get ridiculous, but I also think that there are valid distinctions to be made.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, and I am quite impressed with your list. I see some similarities between yours, James White's and Bro. Cassidy's lists, but I like yours very much. In fact, I would like to quote it on my website, if I may. smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
It is based on a kind-of rational presumption and the non-sequitor it just has to be that way, or God's a liar.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and since they think they've got God on their side, they won't back down. :(

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The TR-Only view: this view is really a half-brother of view #2. It is one in which the proponants presumably think they can escape the nonsensical argument that one language can perfectly mirror another.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen -- especially languages that use entirely different alphabets!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I list four broad views, because those who have the position: "I like the KJV best," that's why I only use it, are stating a preference position. In such a view, the inference is that such people are not busy about making it normative for everyone else.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, until some of these innocent and well-intentioned folks become Sunday School teachers or lay preachers, and their passive KJV preference inevitably gets brought up in Sunday School or church. On the other hand, I guess if the pastor has done a good job stating his own position on the KJV issue, hopefully that fire will have been put out before it starts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The dividing line between KJVOs and non-KJVOs is... does one believe that ONLY the King James Version is the Word of God, and conversely, as well, does that person believe the modern versions are not?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Yes, I understand. Your point is in regard to a mindset and an attitude, not really a theological position.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. However, I guess I'm being a little hypocritical on that, because I'm currently constructing a website that deals with the theological aspects also. :rolleyes:

It seems part of me wants to be a peacemaker, and the other part of me wants to shove some common sense down KJVOs' throats. :eek: O, wretched man that I am . . . ;)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
As far as my writing style, such is the hazards of an apologist.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand. And, I'm glad you understand me too. smile.gif

Terry

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[Man of Sword]

Gentlemen,

To all of you who are commenting on this subject, two questions:

1. We all believe that the "original manuscripts" are God inspired, infallible, inerrant. We believe that they are from the mouth of God, if you will. I think no one here departs from that belief. So here's the question: Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE? Just answer the question plainly. Forget if its the KJV, or the TR, or the NIV, or the NASB, or the Vaticanus, or whichever. For the moment, let's drop the preferences. Why would God, Who reveals Himself through His Word, (and yes I understand He reveals Himself through creation and other means as well, let's not get distracted), and we will be held accountable to our obedience to that Word, be it under the law, placing our faith in the "right things", is it faith and works, is it strictly faith, etc., etc...are we trying to say, on the "preservation" issue here, that God would make His Word perfect for the people who lived before 100 A.D., and progressively from then on, His Word would become more and more diluted? Is that what were saying? You guys need to wake up and take a serious look inside yourselves for a minute. Forget that I stick with the KJV, that's just a distraction for you right now. Stick with the question of "If God inspired His Word, would He also have something to do with preserving it?".

2. Second question. To the ones who said they are preachers...are you guys saying that you stand in your pulpits (figuratively speaking) and tell your "flock" of which you have God ordained responsibility over...and tell them there no longer remains a God inspired Word, that it has been gone for several centuries...but hey, cheer up! God still gets the job done! Is that what you tell them? Come on gentleman, please, wake up!


To Dr. Bob,
My apologies for the comment on not answering my questions...I know that you did. I had typed that prior to seeing all of your message to me...then never erased it.

I certainly don't agree with your answers, but I wanted to clear the air on that.

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said he had "nothing" to do with it? I think the bigger question for you is "If God miraculously preserved his word as you claim, then how come no two manuscripts match? Was God unable to get more than one right? And where did God tell us which one is the right one?

I for one think God did have something to do with preserving his word. He did it through providential means.

You ask the question why would God do something the way he did? Job asked the same question. Perhaps reading God's response to Job in Job 37-41 would prevent such a question. We will never be able to grasp the mind and purpose of God. Why would God save any of us? Who knows? It is beyond comprehension. "Why" does not seem to me to be an appropriate question. The simple answer is that God didn't tell us why and that means that we don't need to know.

To your second question, I am a pastor and I preach from the NASB and I regularly tell my people they are responsible for obedience to the word of God. The word of God is any faithful translation. That is what you are missing. You have established the KJV as teh standard (without any Scriptural support) and then said everything else is wrong because it differs. Yet it is clear that any faithful translation is the word of God. IMHO, a pastor does his people a great disservice when he denies them the word of God in their own language and vernacular.

You made a bit of an error when you said that God preserved his word perfectly till AD 100. The OT was likely not perfectly preserved at that time (just see the LXX for the discrepancies). The NT was written but it is likely that as soon as the first copy was made, there were scribal errors introduced into it. I would say those scribals errors in hand copying are very similar to printing errors that you admit are in the various editions of the KJV. They do not affect the authority or truthfulness of the text or message. They are the results of finite man.

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi MoS, your question presumes too much. The topic of this thread is the definitions of the various KJV-Only positions. With those definitions stated, it is natural for writers to then offer comment on the validity and consequences of each. This is what we might call the negative approach to the issue, meaning that cases are being made to refute those positions but no positive alternatives are being offered. Sounds like you may have an idea for a new thread. You could ask: "did God preserve His Word, if so, in what way?"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
Why would God, Who reveals Himself through His Word, (and yes I understand He reveals Himself through creation and other means as well, let's not get distracted), and we will be held accountable to our obedience to that Word, be it under the law, placing our faith in the "right things", is it faith and works, is it strictly faith, etc., etc...are we trying to say, on the "preservation" issue here, that God would make His Word perfect for the people who lived before 100 A.D., and progressively from then on, His Word would become more and more diluted?...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The substantive problem with your question is that it is a rational argument, without Biblical or historical support. Therefore (if it's premises are granted) can only be accepted for it's logical force. If on the other hand, it's premises are disputed the argument loses all of it's vigor as it has no other legs to stand on.

cordially,

CNM

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
However, is not the "Majority Text" (by defintion, in theory) the readings which enjoy the widest dissemination throughout the raw extant textual material? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In theory, yes. In practice, no. The MT, as published by Hodges and Farstad (Thomas Nelson 1982), often contains readings that are accounted for in less than 15% of the MSS. Besides, the majority readings do not always, in my opinion, constitute the best readings. We often have to go to the ancient vernaculars to get some idea of what the best readings should be. 1 John 5:7-8 is an excellent of this. It is a reading in the vast minority, yet it must be included or the grammar of the passage is so damaged that it makes God appear to be ignorant of simple rules of Greek grammar.

As to what the most radical of the KJVOs think of me, well, I really don't care. I have a Hebrew bible (Ben Chayyim) that is authoritative, and a Greek bible (Scrivener's 1894 Annotated Greek New Testament) which is also authoritative. There are about 6 words in that GNT that Scrivener could not account for, but, the men who did the original work did such a good job on the rest I will trust in their judgment, and in the Providence of God, to insure I have a GNT that will not lead me astray. smile.gif

I also have an English bible I can recommend to the people whom God has placed in my pastoral watchcare, the KJV, which I can honestly say is the inspired (in the derivative sence), inerrant (without proven error of fact), infallible (the promises will never fail to be kept and the prophecies will never fail to come to pass), preserved (an accurate and authoritative transmission) word of God in the English language. I can tell my people, with a little study, they can trust their English bible not to lead them astray, and that they don't need an "Authoritative Magisterium" to tell them what the word of God really is and really means. No priestly class necessary for them to know the Lord personally and exercise their soul liberty. smile.gif

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
1. We all believe that the "original manuscripts" are God inspired, infallible, inerrant. We believe that they are from the mouth of God, if you will. I think no one here departs from that belief. So here's the question: Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see two glaring errors in your presuppositions. The first is that "God inspired the original manuscripts." God did not inspire manuscripts. The bible nowhere says God inspired "manuscripts." God inspired words. God did not concern himself with velum, papyrus, ink, etc., but with words. It is the words of God which are inspired, not manuscripts, ink, paper, etc. And it is those words that God has preserved for us in the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek languages. As long as the words are the same words God inspired, they are God's inspired words. It matters not if they were penned by Moses, Joshua, David, Matthew, Paul, Peter, James, or John, or if they were carefully copied by a copyist, or if they are scrawled in magic marker on the restroom wall, if they are God's words they are inspired words! Secondly, God did not supernaturally intervene every time a copy was made to insure the manuscripts containing the words remained inspired. The words were already inspired, and copying them did not deminish that inspiration! God has preserved His word (and His words) in that He has breathed into those words His breath of life (that is what "inspiration" means) and that which God breathes into becomes an eternally living thing, perserved by the breath of God for all eternity! God breathed into man His breath of life and man became an eternally living being (all people who have ever been alive are still alive today, somewhere!), and He breathed into His word the breath of life and His word is now an eternally living word ("quick" in Hebrews 4:12, refering to the word of God, means "living!) When those living words are properly translated into a receptor language those words do not lose their power, but become the word of God in that language. That is what preservation is all about! smile.gif

[ July 04, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Rockfort]

&lt; Dear Rockfort, &gt;

[I'm sure not called "dear" very often]

&lt; Yet to the second question, you said that there is NO Bible that is God inspired, THAT A PERSON CAN HOLD IN THEIR HAND. I hope you understand the severity of that answer. &gt;

I do, and it is very minimal. A book is phycially just bound paper. Read it, throw it, sneeze on it, burn it... it is still material objects and is no animate entity. You would have to put together a Bible with sharper materials than most of them are made of if you actually wanted to stab someone with it-- even though *The Word* is sharper than any 2-edged sword. So is The Word a physical book or not?

&lt; If there is no inspired word of God that anyone can hold in their hand, then you are basically left with two outcomes:
1) that we can not be held accountable by God to what His word has instructed us to do, or not to do…according to His laws &gt;

We sure are (Romans 2:15).

2) God help us all at the judgment…it will be every man for himself, to see "who got it right" as far as God is concerned. If we have no written word of God, that is God inspired, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE, only man's opinions. &gt;

Then don't we wish we were all illiterate and could not possibly be held accountable?

&lt; How do people of this day know what God is requiring of them? &gt;

I can know by opening my NAS to Roamns 10:9 and understand that He requires belief in the Lord Jesus and the proclamation of such...is that, or is it not, what God requires? Yes or No--- Is He gonna throw a person into hell for reading that verse and carrying it out from a non-KJV?

&lt; You must believe in modern day prophets. &gt;

I do not, and I have never met one.

&lt; I am not going to spend much more time in responding to a reply from someone who does not believe the Bible is the God inspired, word of God. &gt;

Either you are no longer addressing me, or you did not read my answer to that precise question.

&lt; You say you believe in that, yet you can't touch it &gt;

That's right-- what about it?

&lt; Of course I know that there WERE original manuscripts…did you think that I thought the apostle Paul wrote a letter without writing the letter? &gt;

Evidently you thnk he wrote letters which are now ficitious.

&lt; And finally, that the Bible is God's word settled in heaven. If this is where the Bible is…can someone please ask God to send it down here…we really need it. &gt;

I cited the verse which says His Word is settled in heaven. Now, if you can, YOU show ME the verse which says His Word is setled on earth.

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
In theory, yes. In practice, no. The MT, as published by Hodges and Farstad (Thomas Nelson 1982), often contains readings that are accounted for in less than 15% of the MSS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't that because of the "stemmatics" scheme that they insist on slavishly following, which ends up painting them into corners, and comfounding the so-called "majority" premise?

Do you think, that Robinison and Pierpont have overcome the quandries Hodge's and Farstad created for themselves? Or have you not had the chance to compare the two?

THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html) by Maurice A. Robinson (Editor) William G. Pierpont (Editor)

cordially,

CNM

BTW,

ORDER Here:

Greek New Testament according to the Byzantine Textform (http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0P587JYTTP&mscssid=CBWD47QD4FT79J4NGFS3N0LMK7SPECE9&isbn=0759800774) by Maurice A. Robinson (Editor) William G. Pierpont (Editor)

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
1 John 5:7-8 is an excellent of this. It is a reading in the vast minority, yet it must be included or the grammar of the passage is so damaged that it makes God appear to be ignorant of simple rules of Greek grammar.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been trying to verify this discrepancy that you mentioned in a previous post. I have the Online Bible 8.01 which has the TR, MT, and WH texts. Can you help me find this gender disagreement that you are referring to? These texts do not seem to have it.

I am a novice without formal training in Greek. I am learning what I can by using lexicons and Vine's study guide. Please try not to be too technical.

Most scholars seem to be against the authenticity of this passage but a majority ruling has never been an adequate test for truth. However, the fact that such a plain declaration does not appear elsewhere in the Bible weighs against the inclusion as well. I don't think that the deity of Christ nor the doctrine of the Trinity hinge on this one verse but it would be valuable if it could be proven authentic.

[Man of Sword]

Rockfort,

&lt; You say you believe in that, yet you can't touch it &gt;

That's right-- what about it?

&lt; Of course I know that there WERE original manuscripts…did you think that I thought the apostle Paul wrote a letter without writing the letter? &gt;

Evidently you thnk he wrote letters which are now ficitious.

I believe I see where you are coming from now Rockfort. You believe that the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, the LB, the NLT, and any other version is the perfect, inerrant, infallible word of God.

So let me make a point, if I may. If I wrote Rom 10:9 on a bathroom wall ( like someone wrote earlier), that is the word of God…even though its on a bathroom wall. However, if I want to read the word of God, I'm not going to the bathroom to get it.

Just because these versions "contain" the word of God, does not mean that they are in themselves THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD, IN WRITTEN SCRIPTURES, IN ITS ENTIRITY. I obviously believe that when the Lord said,
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matt 24:35
that He meant what He said.

If the word of God, which you have agreed with, is perfect, infallible, and inerrant…and there are 20 different English versions of it down here (on earth), you are left with two possibilities:

1. None of them are the perfect word of God

2. Only one of them is perfect, because if they all differ in what verses they contain…and some words are changed which changes the meaning of what was said…then one has to be right…the others have to be wrong.

From what you have written, my guess is you will pick #1…yet tell people that the NASB is the word of God. Quite confusing.

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Quite confusing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is only confusing if you fail to understand the nature of translation. It is the transfer of a message from the signs and symbols of one language to the signs and symbols of another.

Believe me, in reality it is not confusing. The confusion only comes in when people are not properly taught the doctrine and implication of bibliology. I preach from the NASB, have people who carry the KJV and the NIV. In my Adult Bible Fellowship class, I routinely ask what other versions read and I quote them frequently from the pulpit. We have no issues over the "perfect Word of God" because we understand that there are various ways to accurately translate any given original language phrase.

[Man of Sword]

Reference Quite Confusing Reply

I'm not confused on this subject...I have studied it quite thoroughly. The problem here is not just translating a word from Greek to English...I wish it were that simple.

One very obvious problem is hundred of deleted or altered verses. Hundreds. If the word of God is perfect, we would assume that its not "missing something" that man has chosen to take out.

In studying manuscript evidence, it is quite obvious that hundreds of verses are taken out of the NIV, NASB, NLT, and such. The people who usually attack the KJV, is on "old English" and the like.

There has never been one proven error in the KJV, and for that reason, it should be the "preferred" Bible of use. I'm not saying the NASB or the NIV do not contain the word of God...they do. However, they are not the complete, perfect word of God. That is what I want.

[Pastor Larry]

I think the more obvious problem is the hundreds of added or altered verses in the KJV. Why do you want to use a Bible that man has so gratuitously added to over the years? Was the Word of God so deficient as to necessitate the addition of thousands and thousands of words by scribes over the generations of textual transmission? I hardly think so. I think we should stick with the unadulterated Word of God and leave the added words of man to the Anglican followers who are not satisfied with what God gave us.

[Ransom]

Man of Sword posted the following questions:

1. Do you believe that the Bible is God inspired?

Yes.

2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then is it a Bible you can actually hold? In other words, it is not some fictious "original manuscripts" that no one has touched in almost 2,000 years.

This is a loaded question, because it forces me to accept a fallacious assumption - namely, that because no one has touched the autographs in ~2000 years, they are fictitious.

But to answer the first part of the question without reference to the false assumption, the answer is yes, the Bible is a tangible object that I can hold.

Of course, the Bible can also exist in intangible forms: oral delivery or installation on a computer hard disk, for example, are both intangible.

3. If you do believe that you can hold this God inspired word, is it written in English or Greek, or both, or in any other language?

The Word of God exists in any language to which it has already been translated, and any future translations to be made would also be the Word of God.

4. If you believe that the "God inspired scriptures" are only in the "original Greek" . . .

I do not believe this.

5. Let's soul search on this question: What is the real motivation behind yours and everyone else's attacks on the KJV, and the people who defend it?

This is a loaded question, which assumes that opposing KJV-onlyism is the same as opposing the KJV itself. To give an answer, I have to accept your assumption that I am "attacking" the KJV, which I am not. I am not opposed to the KJV, only a particular set of views held by some people about the KJV.

6. Why do you suppose that one of the greatest "revival" times in church history happened from about 1600 - 1900,

Because revival followed Reformation.

[Ransom]

Man of Sword posted a couple more loaded questions:

1. We all believe that the "original manuscripts" are God inspired, infallible, inerrant. We believe that they are from the mouth of God, if you will.

Who's this "we" you're talking about? "We" believe no such thing, because you believe the "original manuscripts" are fictitious. As you said in your previous batch of questions:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. If you answered "yes" to #1, then is it a Bible you can actually hold? In other words, it is not some fictious [sic] "original manuscripts" that no one has touched in almost 2,000 years. (emphasis added)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fictitious adj. 1. Of, relating to, or characterized by fiction; imaginary. 2. (a) Accepted or assumed for the sake of convention: a fictitious belief. (b) Adopted or assumed in order to deceive: a fictitious name. 3. Not genuinely believed or felt; sham: greeted me with a fictitious enthusiasm. (AHD, 4th ed.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why did God inspire the original documents, yet HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH PRESERVING WHAT HE WROTE?

I have to assume both premises of your question are true before I can assign a reason. I do not believe both premises are true.

You are quickly proving yourself the master of the loaded question here.

Just answer the question plainly.

Try asking some real questions.

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

[Chris Temple]

Robert G. Gromacki, in hsi excellent little bookelt TRANSLATIONS ON TRIAL:Is Your Bible the Word of God?, says this:

In the hymn printed above, Holy Bible, Book Divine, one word is repeated over
and over. That word is mine. Are you personally glad that you have a Bible?
You should be. Millions of people throughout the world today cannot sing the truth
of this beautiful hymn. They do not own a Bible. They have never seen a copy of the
Scriptures. In fact, they probably don’t even know that the written Word of God exists. It may even be that the Bible has not been translated into their native tongue.
We believers in the English-speaking world should be extremely grateful because
we have the Word of God printed in our own native language. Through publishers and
bookstores, we have unlimited access to the Bible. We can buy it; we can give it to our
loved ones. In many ways we have become spoiled. The Bible has been in our language
for more than 500 years now. We have a heritage of Bible translations and an abundance of versions and study helps. Millions upon millions of English Bibles have been printed and distributed. Most of us own several personal copies. And yet, we’re not thankful to God for what we possess. Many fail to read it. Others criticize it. Most disobey it. The majority treat it like any other piece of literature. It is no longer a precious treasure. What a shame!

We need a fresh and proper understanding of the very nature of the Scriptures....

The Bible is inspired, technically speaking, in only the original writings that the
Spirit-directed authors wrote. These original documents are known today as the
“autographa,” meaning “the writings themselves.” Thus, the original writing of Romans was technically inspired or breathed out by God, through His selected, authoritative apostle, Paul. This claim would apply equally to all 66 books produced by 40 men who were gifted and authenticated by God.

At the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy held in October 1978, more than
250 scholars signed a document presenting the evangelical position on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures. Informed ministers and laymen throughout the evangelical, fundamentalist world have wholeheartedly supported the principles of this statement of faith, containing Nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial. Article X says: “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in
the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”

So the original documents of the 66 books of the Bible were actually and technically
inspired. The unique ministry of the Holy Spirit in divine revelation, illumination and
inspiration consequently was limited to the initial production of the written Word of God.

But we can also say that Spanish, French and Bengali translations are the Word of
God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original writings. Likewise, the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and other English translations are practically and virtually inspired to the extent that they also faithfully represent the autographa.
This distinction between the original writings and later copies, versions and
translations must be understood. There is much confusion today over the abundance of
English translations, their respective worth and their fidelity to the biblical originals.

Evangelical Christianity, unfortunately, has become divided over the issue of English
translations and the Hebrew-Greek texts upon which they are based. Are English translations, such as the KJV, NIV and NASB, the inspired, written Word of God? Or is there only one that qualifies? Or do none of them meet the proper prerequisites? In a technical sense, no translation is inspired. In a practical, virtual sense, they are all inspired to that extent whereby they correspond to the content of the original
writings.

The Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters which it addresses. The Bible is
inspired truth, not only in issues of doctrinal faith and moral living, but also in areas of history, geography and science.
The Evangelical Theological Society is an organization whose members subscribe
annually to a basic doctrinal statement: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written, and is therefore inerrant in the autographa.”

Unfortunately, a growing number of professing evangelicals cannot onscientiously
sign that statement. They embrace a position of partial or limited inerrancy. They believe
the Bible is inerrant and infallible on matters of faith and practice, but that, even in the original writings, it contained historical, chronological and geographical errors.

The issue of the complete inerrancy and infallibility of the total original Scriptures is the real doctrinal battleground today. Those who embrace this foundational doctrine should unite in its defense against the attacks made by both liberals and some evangelicals.
A person who uses the KJV should be committed to the full inerrancy of the
Scriptures. And so should those who use the NIV or the NASB. Charges of heresy should
be hurled at those who deny inerrancy, not at those who believe in it but use a different English version.

[Scott J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
Matt 24:35
that He meant what He said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes He did and it has nothing to do with the point you are trying to prove. You have used this passage out of context

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the word of God, which you have agreed with, is perfect, infallible, and inerrant…and there are 20 different English versions of it down here (on earth), you are left with two possibilities:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. There is at least one more possibility...the truth: God inspired the very words of the original writings so that they perfectly conveyed His WORD(His expressed will) and that His WORD has been transmitted to us through faithful manuscripts and translations in such a way that God's infallible, inerrant WORD can be known even though we cannot declare with absolute certainty what every original word was.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. None of them are the perfect word of God

2. Only one of them is perfect, because if they all differ in what verses they contain…and some words are changed which changes the meaning of what was said…then one has to be right…the others have to be wrong.

From what you have written, my guess is you will pick #1…yet tell people that the NASB is the word of God. Quite confusing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have falsely limited the alternatives to those that agree with your predetermined conclusions.

If you insist that only the 'words of God' = the 'Word of God' then how can you escape the obvious problem? The KJV is written in a language which didn't even exist when the originals were given. Even assuming the most radical of KJVO idea, that the KJV was re-inspired, you still have a problem because you say that only one can be perfect.

"I'm not confused on this subject...I have studied it quite thoroughly. The problem here is not just translating a word from Greek to English...I wish it were that simple." I will re-state my most basic objections to your stated opinions: (1) You presume upon God by insisting that He preserve His word in a way that He did not promise and that does not agree with the factual evidence, (2) you define the Word of God as a finite set of human words rather than God's expressed revelation of Himself, and (3) you start your reasoning process from what you feel/desire to be true develop a deeply held, sincere (although incorrect) faith, then manipulate facts to agree with your predetermined conclusion.

[Rockfort]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
I believe I see where you are coming from now Rockfort. You believe that the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, the LB, the NLT, and any other version is the perfect, inerrant, infallible word of God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. None of them are "perfect, enerrant, infallible." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So let me make a point, if I may. If I wrote Rom 10:9 on a bathroom wall ( like someone wrote earlier), that is the word of God…even though its on a bathroom wall. However, if I want to read the word of God, I'm not going to the bathroom to get it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's a big YEEHAW, isn't it? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just because these versions "contain" the word of God, does not mean that they are in themselves THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD, IN WRITTEN SCRIPTURES, IN ITS ENTIRITY.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is none *in its entirity*. John said in the final verse of his gospel that the world can not contain the books it would require to record all the things Jesus did. So fie upon the idea that ANY version/translation is the Word in its entirity. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I obviously believe that when the Lord said, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matt 24:35that He meant what He said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is not obvious what anyone who posts on message boards believes. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, will these millions of physical bindings of paper 'pass away' when heaven and earth pass away, or, for the words jof ZJesus to remain forever, must these papers bindings remain? Remember, we brought *nothing* into this world and we can take nothing out of it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If the word of God, which you have agreed with, is perfect, infallible, and inerrant…and there are 20 different English versions of it down here (on earth), you are left with two possibilities:

1. None of them are the perfect word of God

2. Only one of them is perfect, because if they all differ in what verses they contain … and some words are changed which changes the meaning of what was said…then one has to be right … the others have to be wrong.

From what you have written, my guess is you will pick #1…yet tell people that the NASB is the word of God. Quite confusing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do some thinking. I cited a truth, referring to the NAS as a written source of that truth. Do I claim the NAS is THE Word of God? No. The best any translation can do is to contain the truth.

Now, you seem to be a Q & A guy. Answer these Q's:

If you were sentenced to solitary confinement (justly or unjustly) and the one book in your cell was a NAS, would you read it, ignore it, destroy it, or discard it?

Do you believe an Anglican Bible must be more accurate than a Baptist Bible?

Do you believe God wants English speakers to identify male human beings as the ones who "pisseth against the wall," in the terminology of I Samuel 25:22 (et al), KJV?

Do you believe the name of God should be inserted into a translation in spots where no Greek manuscripts contain it?

Does scripture say there will be one-- and only one-- Word of God for the English or any language?

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
Do some thinking. I cited a truth, referring to the NAS as a written source of that truth. Do I claim the NAS is THE Word of God? No. The best any translation can do is to contain the truth. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've gotta disagree with you here Rockfort.

As the The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy, Part II, Article X states:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
Do you believe God wants English speakers to identify male human beings as the ones who "pisseth against the wall," in the terminology of I Samuel 25:22 (et al), KJV?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, lets see. The Hebrew reads shathan a hiphil participle, meaning to urinate or one who urinates, and qiyr mean wall. Uh, the English reads just as the Hebrew does! God must have gotten confused with He inspired 1 Samuel 25! :D

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Man of Sword:
One very obvious problem is hundred of deleted or altered verses. Hundreds. If the word of God is perfect, we would assume that its not "missing something" that man has chosen to take out.

In studying manuscript evidence, it is quite obvious that hundreds of verses are taken out of the NIV, NASB, NLT, and such.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Deleted from what? Altered from what? Taken out from what? The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts?

Again I say, you "King James Bible" guys just don't get it. The KJV is a translated English version of the Bible. It is not THE Bible, from which all OTHER translations are made.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
There has never been one proven error in the KJV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shucks, I can think of a couple offhand:

(1) "candlestick"
There were no candlesticks in biblical times. The proper English translation is "lampstand" (oil lamp).

(2) "cherubims"
This is an improper pluralization of the word "cherubim", which itself is the plural of "cherub".

Need more? Of course, what you really meant was there has "never been one proven error in the KJV" that you are willing to accept.

Am I right? ;)

TLB

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
(1) "candlestick"
There were no candlesticks in biblical times. The proper English translation is "lampstand" (oil lamp).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Candlestick, "formerly a general name including chandeliers, simple, or branched, upright or pendent, branches, lusters, etc." Oxford English Dictionary. smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(2) "cherubims"
This is an improper pluralization of the word "cherubim", which itself is the plural of "cherub".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cherub, cherubim, and cherubims are not Hebrew words, they are English words. The Hebrew words are ker-oob' and ker-oobim. The plural of the English Cherubim is Cherubims, just as baptism is an English word, not a Greek word, and the plural is baptisms. smile.gif

If that is the best you caon do in pointing out errors in the KJV maybe you better just retire now. smile.gif

[Pastor KevinR]

Isn't the KJV's "candlestick" from the Hebrew "Menorah" better translated as "lampstand"? I know that the Jewish Menorah had oil in it (the bowls), not wax as candles. As far as baptism is concerned, I thought that "baptize" is a transliteration from the Greek, and in English wouldn't it mean to dip or immerse? Just asking! ;)

[HankD]

&gt;&gt;There has never been one proven error in the KJV&gt;&gt;

There are several "errors" in translation, one of which...

KJV Luke 20:16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

"God forbid" is NOT what they said in the koine. They said "MA GENOITO".
Which translated correctly (as do many MVs)
means "may it never be". I know that at least one sincere soul tried to defend this reading when this error in translation came up earlier, but no matter what you do to "may it never be" it is not and cannot be "God forbid" (unless of course one uses and approves of dynamic equivelance).

HankD

[Rockfort]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Well, lets see. The Hebrew reads shathan a hiphil participle, meaning to urinate or one who urinates, and qiyr mean wall. Uh, the English reads just as the Hebrew does! God must have gotten confused with He inspired 1 Samuel 25! :D

[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was not and is not a question as to "pisseth against the wall" being an accurate translation. The question was that-- if in the view of KJVO's that particular translation is *exactly* the way God wants 'His Word' in English presented-- is that how THEY present it? Or, do they change the "perfect, infallible" word in any manner anywhere under any circumstances? You, Cassidy, have already said that you change the wording here. Thus, it is not "perfect; infallible" as it is stated (IYO), and consequently satanic to state that phrase otherwise. I am just asking that question of others who believe changing the wordilng of the KJV is throwing aside the 'true Word of God.'

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RevKevin77:
Isn't the KJV's "candlestick" from the Hebrew "Menorah" better translated as "lampstand"? I know that the Jewish Menorah had oil in it (the bowls), not wax as candles. As far as baptism is concerned, I thought that "baptize" is a transliteration from the Greek, and in English wouldn't it mean to dip or immerse? Just asking! ;)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Hebrew word translated "candlestick(s)" in the KJV is "menoraw'" from "maw-nore'" meaning a beam and "neer" meaning to glisten. Literally it is a "glistening beam." But my point was, the word "candlestick" meant the same thing in 1611. smile.gif

And "baptize" did not come into the English language due to a transliteration of the Greek "baptidzo" in 1611 or at any other time. It comes from the French "baptiste" and arrived in English in 1066 at the time of the Norman conquest under William the Conqueror. It entered French from the Latin several centuries earlier, and the Latin from Greek still more centuries earlier. It was a common English word in use for over 500 years when the KJV was translated. smile.gif

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
[QB"God forbid" is NOT what they said in the koine. They said "MA GENOITO". Which translated correctly (as do many MVs)
means "may it never be". [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, actually, the Greek "me" (pronounced "may") is a primary particle of qualified negation meaning "no." Genoito is a primary verb, second aorist, middle deponent, optative meaning "to become." So, if you want to be picky and translate it literally (and you do seem to want to be picky) it would have to be "no to become." However, the force of the phrase in Greek is much stronger than the literal phrase in English so the translators (correctly, in my opinion) chose a dynamic equivalent that best conveys the force of the Greek phrase. It is not wishful thinking "may it never be" but a very strong "God forbid!" smile.gif

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Hebrew word translated "candlestick(s)" in the KJV is "menoraw'" from "maw-nore'" meaning a beam and "neer" meaning to glisten. Literally it is a "glistening beam." But my point was, the word "candlestick" meant the same thing in 1611.

<LI>....if you want to be picky and translate it literally (and you do seem to want to be picky) it would have to be "no to become." However, the force of the phrase in Greek is much stronger than the literal phrase in English so the translators (correctly, in my opinion) chose a dynamic equivalent that best conveys the force of the Greek phrase. It is not wishful thinking "may it never be" but a very strong "God forbid!" smile.gif
[/list]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Curious... why is it that you insist on slavish literal accuracy being utilized in regard to the personal-pronoun and verb-ending questions, but then turn around and defend the use of idiomatic dynamic equivelences in these and probably many other instances? :confused:

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Candlestick, "formerly a general name including chandeliers, simple, or branched, upright or pendent, branches, lusters, etc." Oxford English Dictionary.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The word "candlestick" implies an object that holds one or more candles. Candles didn't exist in biblical times either. Nice try, but your dictionary definition does not disprove anything I said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Cherub, cherubim, and cherubims are not Hebrew words, they are English words. The Hebrew words are ker-oob' and ker-oobim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what difference does that make?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The plural of the English Cherubim is Cherubims,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is inane and even laughable. :D

Look in any Bible dictionary, commentary or whatever. The word "cherubim" is already plural, and there is NO SUCH THING as "cherubims". "Cherubims" is an error in the KJV -- whether it is an improper translation or improper English usage (or both).

Thus, your hyper-educated attempt at correcting me is not only lame, it is utter nonsense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
just as baptism is an English word, not a Greek word, and the plural is baptisms.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fail to see to the logic in comparing "cherubim" (plural) with "baptism" (singular). The issue here is superfluous pluralization, in case you didn't notice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
If that is the best you caon do in pointing out errors in the KJV maybe you better just retire now. smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that the best you caon spell? :D

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
So, if you want to be picky . . . (and you do seem to want to be picky)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're one to talk, Thomas.

TLB

[Pastor KevinR]

I think the question ought to be, when the original Jewish readers saw this word, "Menorah", what did it mean then? In 2001, should we read "candlestick" or "lampstand"? Virtually all versions disagree with the KJV's translation of the word "candlestick", and to insist on keeping it as such (imho), begs the issue. :rolleyes: ;)

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
Curious... why is it that you insist on slavish literal accuracy being utilized in regard to the personal-pronoun and verb-ending questions, but then turn around and defend the use of idiomatic dynamic equivelences in these and probably many other instances? :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are comparing apples and oranges. The Greek makes a distinction between the case/number of the pronouns. The use of idiomatic language to describe a candlestick is simply that, and is essentially the same thing as "God forbid." I find it odd that you object to "God forbid" because it is idiomatic, then defend the must greater use of idiomatic language in the newer versions. smile.gif

[DocCas]

Terry, you seem confused (as usual). I suggest you go back to 2nd grade and study English. You will note that 2nd graders understand that the way of making a word into a plural in English is by adding an "s." As the word cherubim is an English word, not a Hebrew word, the way to make it a plural is to add an "s." If you are still having trouble understanding that very simple fact, just ask any 2nd grader, he will be more than happy to explain it to you.

Oh, and by the way, if you have nothing better to do than mock a man's typing ability, especially in light of the fact I suffer from a neurological disorder called BET or Benign Essential Tremor which causes my hands to tremble resulting in a loss of fine motor control, then you need to see someone other than that 2nd grader. Perhaps you should seek some counseling, both emotional and spiritual.

I certainly hope this post is typed better than the last one. I asked my wife to type it for me to avoid offending your delicate sensibilities.

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas,

On the cherub/cherubim deal, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Cherub/cherubim are essentially transliterations of Hebrew words. Therefore the plural in English is the same as the plural in Hebrew -- Cherubim. There is no plural of cherubim; it already is plural.

A similar though not identical analogy would be goose and geese. No second grader should say that the plural of geese is geeses ... unless they are educated in the modern day public school system. They understand that geese is already plural. So no "second grade Hebrew student" is going to say that the plural of cherub is cherubims.

[TomVols]

Thomas,
Slow down and take a deep breath my friend. No need to stoop to a derogatory level as we make a point. We all have our moments, but let's not get too chippy, okay?

And as for you, Terry Burnett, let's stick to the facts and cut the "nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo" stuff that my six year old niece would scoff at, okay?

From Baptist Board's resident equal opportunity offender,
Tom :D

[ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
On the cherub/cherubim deal, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Cherub/cherubim are essentially transliterations of Hebrew words. Therefore the plural in English is the same as the plural in Hebrew -- Cherubim. There is no plural of cherubim; it already is plural.

A similar though not identical analogy would be goose and geese. No second grader should say that the plural of geese is geeses ... unless they are educated in the modern day public school system. They understand that geese is already plural. So no "second grade Hebrew student" is going to say that the plural of cherub is cherubims.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Pastor Larry. It seems that Mr. Cassidy would rather enjoy a game of Ad Hominem rather than acknowledge my point. With luck, maybe he'll understand your explanation. smile.gif

TLB

[Ransom]

Thomas Cassidy said:

Terry, you seem confused (as usual). I suggest you go back to 2nd grade and study English. You will note that 2nd graders understand that the way of making a word into a plural in English is by adding an "s."

And those same second-graders learn pretty quickly that "mouses," "foots," "boxs," and "childs" are not proper plurals. Come on, Thomas, you know that the pluralization rules in English are more complicated than that.

Besides, I thought the KJV translators were of such great erudition that they were supposedly able to read Hebrew from the age of five? They should have known better than the average second grader, should they not?

The plain fact is, the KJV made an editorial oops with "cherubims." The word "cherub" is an English transliteration of a Hebrew singular, and "cherubim" would have been the proper transliteration of the plural. "Cherubims" is just plain sloppy and, all KJV-only pretensions aside, a clear error - of style, if not of fact.

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Terry, you seem confused (as usual). I suggest you go back to 2nd grade and study English . . .

Oh, and by the way, if you have nothing better to do than mock a man's typing ability . . . Perhaps you should seek some counseling, both emotional and spiritual.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, I must confess that I have failed to turn the other cheek, and have unfortunately returned evil for evil. In that regard, I have not been spiritual, and I apologize.

I'm not going to justify my own lapse of spirituality, but you have a very annoying habit of ridiculing my posts and questioning my intelligence. In fact, I have yet to find one post from you that is complimentary or edifying toward anyone. :(

When I responded in kind ("if that is the best you can do"), you call it "mocking". I regret that, but what is it called when YOU do it? ;)

TLB

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Thomas,
Slow down and take a deep breath my friend. No need to stoop to a derogatory level as we make a point. We all have our moments, but let's not get too chippy, okay?

And as for you, Terry Burnett, let's stick to the facts and cut the "nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo" stuff that my six year old niece would scoff at, okay?

[ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Sniff, sniff.) But, Mommy . . . HE started it! :D

TLB

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
And those same second-graders learn pretty quickly that "mouses," "foots," "boxs," and "childs" are not proper plurals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right, Ransom. The correct form should be "mices", "feets" and "childrens". :D

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The plain fact is, the KJV made an editorial oops with "cherubims." The word "cherub" is an English transliteration of a Hebrew singular, and "cherubim" would have been the proper transliteration of the plural. "Cherubims" is just plain sloppy and, all KJV-only pretensions aside, a clear error - of style, if not of fact.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. Very well said. smile.gif

TLB

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I find it odd that you object to "God forbid" because it is idiomatic, then defend the must greater use of idiomatic language in the newer versions. smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I don't object... or at least I don't strenuously object anyway. I do admit, that I'm little uncomfortable with inserting the name of God where it's not located, but as far as using an idiomatic phrase, I don't object in principle. So I guess I would have more of a problem with the God Forbid example than I would with the candlestick example.

The objection here is not as much with the validity of the choices that the KJV translators made; one can criticize any translation. It is the hypocrisy of formal equivalent KJV-Only crowd who typically say that one cannot use dynamic equivalence because it is a corrupt way to translate.

I'm glad to see, as a text-critical scholar, that you affirm the general validity of dynamic equivalence, and presumably see it as a red-herring, when KJV-Onlyites raise the issue against it.

Based purely on my own crude sense of the matter, I would think a combination of formal and dynamic equivalence would be the prudent course to follow... something like literal when possible, dynamic when necessary. I know I don't have any technical expertise to make a definitive opinion on the matter, but I think I understand the spirit of the disputes.

codially,

CNM

[ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

[DocCas]

It seems patently obvious that you have made up your mind and will not be swayed by any facts. The exceptions to the plural rule not only don't prove your assertion, they prove mine! Note that foot is changed to feet. One double vowel is changed to another. Note also that mouse becomes mice, a change of vowel. Child becomes children, a unique suffix. Nowhere in the English language do we ever see "im" used to indicate a plural. One last time, cherubim is an English word and it follows the rules of English grammar. What is so hard about that to understand?

It is obvious that this threat has come to an impass. You insist that the translators made an error somehow because they applied the rules of English grammar to an English word instead of applying the rules of Hebrew grammar to an English word. Go figure!

Now, just some facts. Not opinions, but facts. The English words cherub, cherubin, cherubim, cherubs, cherubins, and cherubims are English words of long standing, not transliterated from the Hebrew in 1611, but coming into English from French, which got it from Latin, which probably got it from the Greek translations of the OT. In Middle English (1100-1500) the forms were cherubin and cherubins (as in French). Wyclif introduced the word cherub into the bible in his version of 1382, and that survived in the subsequent English translations. The Coverdale version has the word cherubims as does the Bishop's Bible, and of course, this reading was carried forward into the version of 1611. Milton, in the 17th century, was the first to use "cherubim" to indicate a plural of "cherub." The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that "cherubims" is the individual plural while "cherubim" is the collective. (OED, "C" volume, page 325)

Briefly then, cherubin and cherubins are the original English forms (from French). Those later evolved into cherub and cherubims, which later was supplanted by cherubim while concurrently, cherub has popularly been fitted with a new plural cherubs. (ibid)

Ignorance is not a virtue.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CorpseNoMore:
Based purely on my own crude sense of the matter, I would think a combination of formal and dynamic equivalence would be the prudent course to follow... something like literal when possible, dynamic when necessary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is exactly the position I take, and that taken by the KJV translators themselves, and most of the KJV defenders I associate with. Literal whenever possible, and dynamic when necessary to preserve meaning. smile.gif

[HankD]

Dear Dr Tom,

RE: May Genoito and Dynamic Equivalence.

You said...

&gt;&gt;That is exactly the position I take, and that taken by the KJV translators themselves, and most of the KJV defenders I associate with. Literal whenever possible, and dynamic when necessary to preserve meaning&gt;&gt;

Great, that's my position also.
So dynamic equivalence is not an "error" in translation when it truly does perserve the meaning.

There is a danger however when dynamic equivalence becomes dynamic deception.
(Such as the NWT John 8:58 "before Abraham was I have been- The NWT dynamic equvalent of ego eimi - Literally - I AM).

HankD

[DocCas]

The silence regarding cherubims is deafening! I wonder where all the "experts" are? I guess they lack the character to admit they were wrong. Rather sad. :(

[HankD]

Dear bro Cassidy,

Just couldn't leave it alone ey? smile.gif

&gt;&gt;The silence regarding cherubims is deafening! I wonder where all the "experts" are? I guess they lack the character to admit they were wrong. Rather sad&gt;&gt;

OK , my Webster's has:
Cherub (n. pl cherubim) 2. Pl cherubs.
But I can't find cherubims listed anywhere as a word, singular or plural.

Secondly, seraph (singular) and seraphim (pl)
with a secondary seraphs as plural.
Webster's takes note of the Hebreww origin of this word.

KJV Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

KJV Isaiah 6:6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:


HankD

[HankD]

Here is another, two words neither of which is an English word with double (Hebrew and English) pluralization.

Someone should fine out OFFICIALLY if double pluralization is or was (in 1611 or 1769) an allowable practice of English grammar under the umbrella of transliteration.

Personally it doesn't seem like a big deal, but Tom did put forth the challenge to the "experts". Hmm, I wonder if that means me?

KJV Genesis 14:5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,

HankD

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas,

You are one to talk about admitting when you are wrong. I have yet to see you do it in the face of evidence that you appear to be wrong on different issues. Simply refusing to answer does not constitue accuracy. However, I am not going to start a spitting match with you over it. But be that as it may ...

Cherubim is still the plural of cherub. The OED is probably citing an ancient or little used variant would be my guess but since I don't have one so I can't check it out. I don't think it matters. In the interest of accuracy, cherubim is the proper rendering of the plural form of the angelic beings referred to.

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[CorpseNoMore]

I have an Idea, Dr. Cassidy let's close this topic. I'll start a new thread.

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The silence regarding cherubims is deafening! I wonder where all the "experts" are? I guess they lack the character to admit they were wrong. Rather sad. :(
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not many of us can afford to buy the $1000 set of volumes which comprise the Oxford English Dictionary, and I doubt that many of us have had the opportunity within the last 24-48 hours to make a special trip to the local library to see if they have it.

In other words, I am momentarily unable to verify your suspicious assertions about "individual" and "collective" plurals. The OED appears to be the only dictionary in existence which says such a thing, which I find a little strange.

But, once I have a chance to verify your OED reference, I will concede that "cherubims" appears to be an obsolete archaism instead of an error, and admit that I was wrong.

Unfortunately, just like a juvenile, you can't resist attacking the character of other members, merely because we are temporarily forced to take your word for something and cannot offer a timely reply.

Quite frankly, I think you "lack the character" to be moderator of this Christian group.

TLB

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
OK , my Webster's has:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My quotes come from the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard reference work for the English language, 16 volumes. I suspect it is a lot more comprehensive then Websters. smile.gif

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
Quite frankly, I think you "lack the character" to be moderator of this Christian group.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, of course. Proving you wrong shows an terrible lack of character on my part! LOL! :D

[HankD]

TC says...

&gt;&gt;My quotes come from the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard reference work for the English language, 16 volumes. I suspect it is a lot more comprehensive then Websters&gt;&gt;

Mama Mia! (is that good English)? smile.gif

OK, then what about Rephaims, Zuzims and Emims, (all double plurals) are they in Oxford's?

KJV Genesis 14:5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim.

HankD

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HankD:
OK, then what about Rephaims, Zuzims and Emims, (all double plurals) are they in Oxford's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The first two are not but Zuz, with a plural of Zuzim, is, but is identified as a quarter of a silver shekel. smile.gif

By the way, I have long contended that a man cannot consider himself a theologian until he first becomes a philogian. A dictionary with a good philology section is a must for any serious student of the bible. The OED is the most exhaustive reference book on the English language containing both an etymology and philology section. As to the cost, don't let the nay-sayers scare you off. I have several copies, including one which I keep on my desk. Rather than buying the large library edition, you can opt to purchase the "Compact Edition" which puts four pages on each page, using what they call "micro print." You may need a good pair of reading glasses or a magnifying glass to read some of the small print, but it shrinks the dictionary down to a managable and affordable 2 volumes. If you purchase them new they are about $525, but if you live in or near a college town, many used book stores sell them for around $75. It seems that parents of college students give them to their kids as gifts, and the kids promptly sell them to the used book stores. Their loss is our gain! smile.gif

Look around where you live, and if you can't find one, let me know and I will check the book stores here in San Diego and ship it to you. smile.gif

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The OED is the most exhaustive reference book on the English language containing both an etymology and philology section. As to the cost, don't let the nay-sayers scare you off. I have several copies, including one which I keep on my desk. Rather than buying the large library edition, you can opt to purchase the "Compact Edition" which puts four pages on each page, using what they call "micro print." You may need a good pair of reading glasses or a magnifying glass to read some of the small print, but it shrinks the dictionary down to a managable and affordable 2 volumes. If you purchase them new they are about $525, but if you live in or near a college town, many used book stores sell them for around $75.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Has Dr. Cassidy or anybody else ever ran across the OED on CD-ROM?

cordially,

CNM

[Chris Temple]

OED Online

The world's greatest dictionary is now available online at http://www.oed.com/public/publications/online.htm :D

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
OED Online The world's greatest dictionary is now available online...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Chris, I found this page at the site...

Questions and answers: OED (Second Edition) on CD-ROM, OED Online FAQs (http://www.oed.com/public/publications/cdfaq.htm)

[Pastor Larry]

I agree with Thomas that a good theologian needs to be a good philologian. However, the emphasis needs to be on the original languages. I question the wisdom of investing in an OED to study the English language translation of the Bible. An OED, helps out to define the out-dated words or the ones that have changed meaning in order to defend the KJV, but does not help all that much to learn more about the Scripture itself. Besides, if you would surround yourself with a NKJV, NIV, and NASB you would virtually do away with the need for the OED since the modern versions usually use common words and lessen the need for an English dictionary. While it is perfectly good and fine to have an OED, one who wants to study the Scripture would be much better off with a good original language set such as NIDOTTE, NIDNTT, TDNT, TDOT, TWOT, EDNT, TLOT, TLNT, etc. Being able to defend why KJV translators chose the words they did helps to defend the supposed lack of "error of fact" in a translation but does but is not of great value for anything else. As I say, modern versions would eliminate the problem and free up time to spend on theological study rather than outdated English study. What we need to study is why Paul, Peter, Isaiah, etc. chose the words they did. These types of works mentioned above usually give theological syntheses as well as definitions and prove much more helpful. I suspect that Thomas's affinity for the OED is driven by his use of the KJV in which there is a great need to find out what words meant 400 years ago.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Cherubim is still the plural of cherub. The OED is probably citing an ancient or little used variant would be my guess but since I don't have one so I can't check it out. I don't think it matters. In the interest of accuracy, cherubim is the proper rendering of the plural form of the angelic beings referred to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let me see if I follow you. The OED can't possibly be right because you disagree. But, even if it is right, it doesn't matter. And, just to be on the safe side, it does matter but it is wrong, and you are right. Sure. Okay!

As you your willingness to check out the OED, don't you think the time to do your research was before you ex-cathedra announcement that you were right and the KJV translators were all wrong?

Oh, and, by the way, in reference to your post just above this one. By all means, everybody, throw away any dictionary you may own that may prove Larry to be wrong. After all, I did not attack any of the new versions, but Larry did attack the KJV and claim there was an error in the translation of cherubims. He castigates me for using a good dictionary to prove him wrong, but fails to realize that I would not have had to prove him wrong if he had not made a false claim regarding the word ccherubims. As my grandmother used to say, "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terry Burnett:
In other words, I am momentarily unable to verify your suspicious assertions about "individual" and "collective" plurals. The OED appears to be the only dictionary in existence which says such a thing, which I find a little strange.

But, once I have a chance to verify your OED reference, I will concede that "cherubims" appears to be an obsolete archaism instead of an error, and admit that I was wrong. [vicious ad hominem snipped]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The OED disagrees with you so my quote of the OED is "suspicious." And the OED, because it gives the etymology of "cherubims" is "a little strange" again, because it disagrees with your authoritative statements.

I ask you also, don't you think the time to do your research into the word was before your authoritative pronouncements regarding the "error" of the KJV translators? Shouldn't you have verified your "facts" before you posted them?

[Pastor KevinR]

Dear Friends, the OED is the Final Authority on the English language and Bro Thomas's reading of it as well.Methinks that almost all MV's disagree with this silliness about Cheribim and Cheribims that has been stated by our dear brother, T. Cassidy. Virtually all MV's are wrong, and the KJV, and Dr Cassidy are the only ones right, don't any of us stubborn people get that? I simply am missing the point appararently, but after reading these post the last few days, I will throw out all my MV's, Ryrie Study Bible, MacArthur Study Bible, New Geneva Study Bible, Nelson Study Bible, NIV Study Bible, Life Application Study Bible, any Bible that mistranslates"Cheribims" as Cheribim or Cherubs and seek to buy a KJV Cassidy Study Bible with OED attached.I've sown the wind, now I'm gonna reap the whirlwind! Whew! :eek:

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: RevKevin77 ]

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: RevKevin77 ]

[CorpseNoMore]

I guess I was wrong when I suggested this thread should be closed (since it looked like it was becoming an all-purpose KJV thread). It appears that this thread is about definitions after all, just not the original definitions Dr. Bob asked for. tongue.gif

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas, man, it appears that you have something stuck in your craw. I hope you find it soon. I have not deceived anybody and you know it. You have misrepresented what I said.

Read again what I said. I said that “cherubims” was probably an archaic form and that the plural of cherub was still cherubim. I was commenting on the Hebrew and calling cherubim a transliteration. I don’t really care one way or the way. It doesn’t matter. I didn’t even say that the OED was wrong. That was your incorrect assertion. You are deceiving people as to what I did say. Read it again: I said it was probably an archaic form but you didn’t reference that. You misquote it to say what you want it to say and then castigate me unfairly. I don’t have an OED but the dictionaries I have checked do not give “cherubims” as a modern form further supporting my claim that “cherubims” is probably archaic. Furthermore, I didn’t make any ex-cathedra announcement. I simply said you were barking up the wrong tree. This part of this conversation is just a dumb conversation to be having. It seems to me that your problem is that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong. In another thread, I asked some simple questions and showed my reasoning and your response was to claim the KJV was right and my exegesis was wrong.

Furthermore, if you read my above post I didn’t say anything about throwing out any dictionary that “proved” I was wrong. In fact, I said that owning one was good and fine. (You failed to quote that too.) I said simply that there was a bigger issue and that is the original language text. I further said that rather than defending an English translation, we should primarily be going to original language sources. I do not need an OED because I am concerned with what the original author wrote, not how someone in 1600 translated it. This is so simple I can’t believe it is being discussed or that you are arguing with it. If your seminary classes are devoted to defending (400 year old) English renderings, perhaps you should reconsider your curriculum. We need to be teaching our pastors to use the original language and the appropriate sources whether we use the MajT, the TR, or the eclectic text.

Additionally, I didn’t attack the KJV. I don’t know if it uses cherubims or not. I haven’t looked and I don’t care. I said the plural of cherub was cherubim in the Hebrew. Your accusing me of deception is completely and totally uncalled for. I didn’t deceive anybody. I made a comment on Hebrew and said that I believed cherubim to be a transliteration. You said it wasn’t a transliteration and I dropped it. However, I was right on the plural form of a Hebrew word and you know it. Your education is better than you are letting on here. I don’t have a problem with the KJV even if it does say “cherubims.” My issue with the KJV is that I simply think there are some places where the KJV could use a better text or render the text it uses in a more precise fashion. Four hundred years of linguistic study has been a great profit. We should avail ourselves of it.

[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[Pastor KevinR]

A word that we should consider is "synagogue". It is found in the OT in Psalm 74:8(KJV). When this Psalm was written, synagogues did not exist, they came into being during the Intertestmental Period. Now it's true that in 1611 that it has become an English word, but when Asaph penned this Psalm, it referred to meeting places, especially the Temple. :D

[Ransom]

Thomas Cassidy said:

It seems patently obvious that you have made up your mind and will not be swayed by any facts.

Au contraire: the facts are on my side. You are simply trying to confuse the issue.

Nowhere in the English language do we ever see "im" used to indicate a plural. One last time, cherubim is an English word and it follows the rules of English grammar.

Oh, come on!

By the same argument, "cherub" is also an English word and follows the rules of English grammar. By your own argument, therefore, the plural of "cherub" in English is not "cherubims," but "cherubs." Because by your own argument, nowhere in the English language do we see -ims used to indicate a plural, either!

But let's just take your "argument" to its logical conclusion. If:

"cherub" = 1 cherub

and

"cherubims" = many cherubs

then how many cherubs in a "cherubim"? how many "cherubim" do you need before you have "cherubims"? Is "cherubim" singular or plural?

Please explain which "rules of English grammar" allow for two levels of plurality. Apparently this one managed to escape the attention of all those English and linguistics profs I had to listen to through university.

What is so hard about that to understand?

The only thing hard to understand is your stubborn insistence on defending a weird copyediting error.

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I agree with Thomas that a good theologian needs to be a good philologian. However, the emphasis needs to be on the original languages.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An excellent point.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I question the wisdom of investing in an OED to study the English language translation of the Bible. An OED, helps out to define the out-dated words or the ones that have changed meaning in order to defend the KJV,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I wondered about that, too.
Even though I have agreed to accept the (alleged) appearance of "cherubims" in the Oxford English Dictionary, I do find it interesting that Oxford has been a major printer of KJV Bibles for several centuries. That doesn't seem to be the case with other well-known dictionary publishers.

No doubt, Oxford felt it necessary for their comprehensive OED to be an Oxford KJV Bible dictionary as well. That means all of the words contained in the KJV have to be official English words, because Oxford put them in the OED! ;) What a deal . . .

Question: What does that do to Oxford's objectivity on the "cherubims" issue? Can anybody guess? smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Besides, if you would surround yourself with a NKJV, NIV, and NASB you would virtually do away with the need for the OED since the modern versions usually use common words and lessen the need for an English dictionary.
&lt;snip&gt;
As I say, modern versions would eliminate the problem and free up time to spend on theological study rather than outdated English study.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, brother!

TLB

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Terry Burnett ]

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The OED disagrees with you so my quote of the OED is "suspicious." And the OED, because it gives the etymology of "cherubims" is "a little strange" again, because it disagrees with your authoritative statements.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The professor knows very well that is not what I said. Either he has a reading deficiency, or he is being intentionally deceptive. My guess is the latter, which means he should consider hiring out as a Gore campaign spin-meister.

If he could somehow learn to read whole sentences, and not make lame assumptions from the parts he cuts out and throws back at people, he would see that I have already accepted the "disagreement" between me and the OED.

And, what I said was "suspicious" and "strange" is that the OED appears to be the only dictionary in existence which mentions any double-talk about "individual" and "collective" plurals!

Of course, the above statement means little to a someone like the professor who is OED-ONLY. It seems that no other English dictionary counts for anything, and since he knows that most people don't have access to a 16-volume set, he wins by default. And, that gives him a perfect opportunity to gloat about it shamelessly -- ad nauseam.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I ask you also, don't you think the time to do your research into the word was before your authoritative pronouncements regarding the "error" of the KJV translators? Shouldn't you have verified your "facts" before you posted them?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are valid questions. The answer is yes, I should have, and actually I believed that I did so. I have a veritable multitude of dictionaries and reference tomes in my library, and NOT A SINGLE ONE of them provided ANY indication that "cherubims" is a valid English word.

Now, I ask the professor again, isn't that strange?

TLB

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RevKevin77:
. . . and seek to buy a KJV Cassidy Study Bible with OED attached.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or vice versa, depending on which one is inspired. :D

[Terry Burnett]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Thomas Cassidy said:
"Nowhere in the English language do we ever see "im" used to indicate a plural. One last time, cherubim is an English word and it follows the rules of English grammar."

By your own argument, therefore, the plural of "cherub" in English is not "cherubims," but "cherubs." Because by your own argument, nowhere in the English language do we see -ims used to indicate a plural, either!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point, Ransom! smile.gif

TLB