A KJV question [Archive] - BaptistBoard.com

Gina B

04-22-2001, 12:05 PM

Ok, so I'm the one missing something here. Am I mistaken in believing that only the KJV was translated by the most capable scholars under the direction of God and that it is the only one that translates from the original Greek and Hebrew into any language, whereas the other translations are copied into other languages from other languages, which taints it? Doesn't changing words in the original change meanings of whole verses? Looking up the translators of newer versions, what happened to the people trying to come up with a better version? Didn;t the Bible tell you that would happen to anyone trying to add or take away from the Bible? Of course I may be mistaken, but this is what I've read and studied. I don't remember right off who all the translators were, but the one who sticks in my mind most is Joseph Smith of the Mormons, who was getting ready to fin;ish his "correction" of the "mistranslated" KJV Bible. Also, isn't it interesting that despite the wide trend of churches using other versions, the Mormons, which I consider to be the scariest and most underestimated threat to Christianity still insists on using the KJV. Even though once you get into the church you find out that they don't believe in half of it. This cult is so perfect at looking good and doing everything right on the oustide, and I think the fact that they use a KJV to look good says a lot. They have a frightening amount of truth in their church, which is all subtly used to serve Satan. Check it out. But that's another whole story.
Anyway, am I the only one who thinks this about the KJV?

DocCas

04-22-2001, 12:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by katie:
KJV is an english translation, what about people in other countries? What Bible are they expected to read? If you translate KJV to another language don't you then once again have those same problems translating to another language?
Hope you understand what I am tring to ask? Thats about as clear as I can make it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Many languages, but certainly not all, have bibles translated from the same basic Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the KJV. There are a few radicals who have advocated translating the KJV instead of the Hebrew/Greek into the foreign languages, but most such efforts have been a disaster. One such translation is the McVey Spanish version. It is such a poor translation that native Spanish speakers have been known to laugh when it was read publicly! But most rational people do not expect the KJV to be translated, but that the Hebrew and Greek should be the source language for every new translation. smile.gif

[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

Gina B

04-22-2001, 12:29 PM

Are they being translated from the messoretictext, or however you spell it? I'm just getting confused here now. :confused:

DocCas

04-22-2001, 12:45 PM

Masoretic refers to the Old Testament Texts. In 1516, Daniel Bomberg published a text of the Old Testament under the name "First Rabbinic Bible." This text was followed in 1524 by a second edition that had been compiled from ancient manuscripts by a Hebrew scholar and converted Jewish Rabbi named Abraham Ben Chayyim. Today this work is called the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, and is the text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. The word "masoretic" comes from the Hebrew word "mesor" meaning traditional. The Masoretes were the scribes that were given the responsibility of guarding and keeping the text of the Old Testament.

The Ben Chayyim text was used in the first two editions of "Biblia Hebraica" by Rudolph Kittel, usually referred to as BHK, published in 1906 and 1912. However, in 1937, Kittel changed his Hebrew text from the Ben Chayyim to the Ben Asher text.

The Ben Asher text was based on a text called the Leningrad Manuscript (B19a; also called simply L), which was dated around 1008 A. D. It is presently published in an updated form under the name Biblical Hebraica Stugarttensia, or BHS, and is the Hebrew text which underlies the NKJV Old Testament.

It must be noted there are significantly fewer differences between the OT text and the NT texts. In fact, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia differs from the Ben Chayyim text, (Bomberg) in only eight places which would affect the English translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12.

smile.gif

[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

Gina B

04-22-2001, 01:09 PM

Thank you. Ok, everyone, what he said. :D That's why I originally resolved to stay with the KJV. I have a bad habit of studying things out for myself, coming to a conclusion, sticking with it, and promptly forgetting why, so that I look (and am) quite the fool when I try to explain why I think like I do. :rolleyes:

donnA

04-22-2001, 02:44 PM

Thanks for your input, I was only wondering. I'm not really into the KJVO debate. But I can't see why God would want us to read only a bible version in an antique language that we don't even use a lot of the words anymore, and therefore can't get a good understanding of their meaning. I mean if you can fully understand what you are reading in the KJV, then good, but there are those who don't read that well, or are maybe not as educated, and don't understand all the antique words. And why should they, they are no longer in use, they've never heard them before. If those people nned the simplest version of the bible in order to read God's word and understand God's message, then whats the problem?
As I recall, I do believe the N.T. was written in the most common form off Greek, that no matter if a person was very educated, or could barely read they could read it. If that were true, why should we tell people now they have to read a version they don't undestand, because it is too hard for them to read.

Just my opinion though. smile.gif

Rockfort

04-22-2001, 02:57 PM

< Thank you. Ok, everyone, what he said. That's why I originally resolved to stay with the KJV. I have a bad habit of studying things out for myself, coming to a conclusion, sticking with it, and promptly forgetting why, >

What an example of this KJVO thinking!-- "I know WHAT I believe (KJ's Bible only), now tell me WHY I believe what I believe."

Gina B

04-22-2001, 03:50 PM

You misunderstand. I studied it out, but hadn't remembered the details of it. It was a few years ago, when I was doing quite a bit of studying, and all of my papers are now gone and I'd had some medical problems in the last two years that had some loss of memory involved, and there's still some things I knew that just don't always click right away. Some things I have to start all over again, but most just need some refreshing.
Anyhow, as to the last post before yours, I think that that is exactly what we have pastors and leaders for. To help us understand the parts of the Bible that we don't. Praying before studying will also help increase your understanding of what you're about to read. Not all of us can be scholars, so we have pastors and teachers who are. Also, it seems that for a lot of the original language words in the Bible, there are a number of English words it can translate to. I believe God inspired the writers of the KJV to use the best ones. Why? I have no proof of that. There is no verse in the Bible I can quote to prove this point. I came to that by studying out the history of the differently translated Bibles for myself. Then praying about it. I had the time to do that then. If you trust your pastor or teacher you can just believe what they tell you. Which is why we have them. If you don't feel they've explained it well enough that you can be comfortable with it then you are REQUIRED to study it on your own. And PRAY about it. Otherwise you're being led around by the nose, and are not believing what you do out of free will.

Blade

04-23-2001, 01:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gina:
Ok, so I'm the one missing something here. Am I mistaken in believing that only the KJV was translated by the most capable scholars under the direction of God and that it is the only one that translates from the original Greek and Hebrew into any language, whereas the other translations are copied into other languages from other languages, which taints it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are mistaken in believing that the KJV was the only English translation that was "translated from the original Greek and Hebrew" and that modern versions are merely "other translations [that] are copied into other languages from other languages, which taints [them]."

Even Dr. Cassidy would tell you this: MVs are translated from Greek and Hebrew, like the KJV. We would disagree on which text is the best representation of the original.

You said in a later comment that you had studied all the evidence and come to the conclusion that the KJV was it (but you forgot why). One might call into question the veracity of that comment if you really thought that the KJV was the only English version translated from Greek and Hebrew.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Doesn't changing words in the original change meanings of whole verses? Looking up the translators of newer versions, what happened to the people trying to come up with a better version? Didn;t the Bible tell you that would happen to anyone trying to add or take away from the Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is "changing words in the original?" Instead of assuming the KJV to be right where it differs from MVs, consider this: maybe the KJV is wrong sometimes and the MVs are right. Do the MVs subtract from the word of God (take away from) or does the KJV add to the word of God in those instances (which carries an equal penalty according to Revelation)?

As far as I know, nothing out of the ordinary had happened to translators of the modern versions in a proportion greater than that which might be explained by chance. (Some may have died, some may have gotten cancer, etc., but this isn't anything out of the ordinary [contrary to what some KJVOs would have you to believe]; it isn't a punishment for translating--if so, then one must remember that the KJV translators are all dead!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Of course I may be mistaken, but this is what I've read and studied. I don't remember right off who all the translators were, but the one who sticks in my mind most is Joseph Smith of the Mormons, who was getting ready to fin;ish his "correction" of the "mistranslated" KJV Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you might consider better sources. Joseph Smith was not a translator. To my knowledge, he did not even know Greek or Hebrew. He fabricated a book (separate from the Scriptures) and called it "inspired."

Furthermore, even if he were a translator, he is still from a cult. The translators of the NIV, NASB, and other reputable translations are all Christians (although they are not all Baptist, but neither were any of the 1611 boys).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Also, isn't it interesting that despite the wide trend of churches using other versions, the Mormons, which I consider to be the scariest and most underestimated threat to Christianity still insists on using the KJV...I think the fact that they use a KJV to look good says a lot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go figure. Isn't the KJV supposed to be all "good?" Yet, it produces 'fruit' like the Mormon Church! :eek:

Before anyone gets too excited, I am only kidding; anyone can twist scriptures.

The Jehova's Witnesses also used the KJV until they came up with their own translation (Adventists still use only the KJV). Its inferior rendering of passages where the Granville Sharp rule applies lends credence to their heretical view of Jesus by detracting from his deity in some passages.

Sincerely,

[ April 23, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

Gina B

04-23-2001, 02:38 AM

I am not referring to the book commonly known as the book of Mormon when referring to Joseph Smith. He actually had a KJV Bible he corrected the so called errors in. It is not very widely known among non-Mormons that this exists, and up until recently the reasons cited for not using his new version was that it wasn't completed. According to Mormon rumors, the book, which is the KJV almost word for word, with what J.S. calls the plain and precious parts which were lost in the great falling away of the church, restored. Of course this includes the prophecy of his birth, and some "minor" word changes.
I believe it's the actual text itself that I'm thinking of that were used, instead of copies of it.
Sometimes I really do just wonder if I'm wrong. Please don't attack me for asking. I enjoy learning and re-learning, which is what I believe most of us are here for. Often times I have been so stubbornly stuck on a belief I failed to even consider where I might be wrong. It's much better to get info. from as many sources as possible and occasionally review what you've always considered to be fact all over again.
Gina

Psalm145 3

04-23-2001, 05:30 AM

It's really very sad to see so many "Christians" pushing the modern versions. It's to be expected, though, considering the last days apostasy predicted in the Bible.

We have the preserved Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible. The text from which it is translated from is dependable. The new versions on the market today are translated from corrupted text, not the same text that the translators of the King James Bible used.

Also, the King James Bible was translated from the very words of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text by way of verbal and formal equivalence. The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase.

If you want to have a Bible that is a paraphrase of corrupted text, then use the new versions. If you want the inerrant Word of God, then keep your King James Bible !

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Ye Must Be Born Again (http://www.fortunecity.com/boozers/bridge/277/index.htm)

Chris Temple

04-23-2001, 07:48 AM

Here's some nit-pickin' for ya :rolleyes:

The JWs used the KJV until the ASV came out. They loved the fact that Lord was translated Jehovah. Eventually they translated their own NWT translation. ;)

Chris Temple

04-23-2001, 08:14 AM

It's really very sad to see so many "Christians" pushing the modern versions. It's to be expected, though, considering the last days apostasy predicted in the Bible.

By your use of quotations around "Christians" you are propagating the usual KJVO implication that those who use and recommend modern, scholarly, readable versions are not Christians. The same implications can be made against KJVOs who demand that the KJV is the only reliable word of God, and who thereby attempt to put Christians under a yoke of legalistic bondage.

We have the preserved Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible.

True; we also have the preserved Word of God in all reliable translations. The KJVO errs in believing the preserved Word of God must be in one monolithic text or version only. If that is true, then the KJV is not the word of God, for there have been various editions of the KJV, as well as the TR which underlies the NT.

The text from which it is translated from is dependable.

Dependable, yes. Perfect, no.

The new versions on the market today are translated from corrupted text, not the same text that the translators of the King James Bible used.

Not the same text, yes. Corrupted, no. Corrupted is a pejorative term without grounding. It could be said that the TR is corrupted through scribal additions.

Also, the King James Bible was translated from the very words of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text by way of verbal and formal equivalence. The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase.

You are really regurgitating much KJVO nonsense here, and are betraying that you really have not personally investigated the translation issue. ALL translations I am aware of (except the LB paraphrase) are translated from the Hebrew and Greek texts. It is true the KJV was translated from the traditional texts, but so is the NKJV, MKJV, KJ21, KJ2000, and LITV. If underlying texts were really the issue with KJVOs, then these other versions would be acceptable to them as well.

As for verbal and formal equivalence, it is also found in the ASV, RSV, NKJV, NASB, MKJV, NKJV, LITV, KJ21, and KJ2000. In fact, the KJV uses more dynamic equivalence than do the ASV, NKJV, MKJV, LITV which are all fairly literal.

The real underlying reason for KJVOism is not that the KJV is believed to be a better version based on better manuscripts using a better translation method, but rather simple traditionalism of wording, shown by the fact that the errant readings, minority readings, paraphrases and verses unsupported by any Greek texts are defended as vigorously as are the majority text and literal renderings. The KJVO splits churches for the same reason changing the color of the carpet does - people don't like change, regardless if its for the better.

Rockfort

04-23-2001, 01:37 PM

< The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase. >

Check out Romans, beginning with Ch. 3, vv. 4, 6, and 31. That phrase the KJV misstranslates "God forbid" is closer in all of these translations referred to in the above pasting, with NAS expectedly the most accurate, "May it never be." The KJV has been defended here as using a "dynamic equivalent." The fact that in the world the name of God is often inserted to make a point (e.g., 'Oh my God!; 'Oh God, no!') does not justify throwing His name into a passage, in which it is not there, to make a point.

Psalm145 3

04-23-2001, 02:50 PM

I said, "Christians" because many professing believers today are really not believers at all.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Ye Must Be Born Again (http://www.fortunecity.com/boozers/bridge/277/index.htm)

Blade

04-23-2001, 03:49 PM

Blade

04-23-2001, 03:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gina:
I am not referring to the book commonly known as the book of Mormon when referring to Joseph Smith. He actually had a KJV Bible he corrected the so called errors in. It is not very widely known among non-Mormons that this exists, and up until recently the reasons cited for not using his new version was that it wasn't completed. According to Mormon rumors, the book, which is the KJV almost word for word, with what J.S. calls the plain and precious parts which were lost in the great falling away of the church, restored. Of course this includes the prophecy of his birth, and some "minor" word changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still, Joseph Smith was not a translator. He may have a revised KJV to his name, but there is no "Joseph Smith Version" of the Bible. This is a very important difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sometimes I really do just wonder if I'm wrong. Please don't attack me for asking. I enjoy learning and re-learning, which is what I believe most of us are here for. Often times I have been so stubbornly stuck on a belief I failed to even consider where I might be wrong. It's much better to get info. from as many sources as possible and occasionally review what you've always considered to be fact all over again.
Gina<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gina, please read the "Former KJVOs?" thread. I feel that you may be where I was when I used to be KJVO. I would certainly not intentionally attack you and I am sorry if I seemed a bit short. Most KJVOs would never entertain the idea that KJVO might be wrong; I am used to dealing with them. The biggest obstacle I overcame was learning to weigh both sides of the argument. I'll post some links for you later that really helped me see the other side (I am sure you are already abundantly familiar with the KJVO side).

Sincerely,

DocCas

04-23-2001, 04:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Blade:
The biggest obstacle I overcame was learning to weigh both sides of the argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You still have that problem. You have simply gone from one extreme to the other. smile.gif

Blade

04-23-2001, 06:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
You still have that problem. You have simply gone from one extreme to the other. smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who are you to say that I still have the same problem I had as a KJVO (you didn't know me then)? I may not be perfect, but I can assure you that I am far more objective than I used to be. There are KJVOs on this board who are extremely loose with the facts and you don't criticize them in this way (I am guilty of the same). I suspect it is because you disagree with me on points of Biblical preservation that you make this comment.

I've got news for you, we might be more alike than either of us would care to admit... :eek:

Sincerely,

Gina B

04-23-2001, 07:10 PM

I will visit that thread tomorrow morning.
Actually, Joseph Smith did claim to translate golden plates, which is what they call the Book of Mormon. It's a long story. Would anybody be interested in starting a discussion on what Mormonism is and how to deal with it? I may start one tomorrow morning-if you see it come visit!
As far as this subject goes........I plead the fifth until further notice.

try hard

04-30-2001, 07:32 PM

Are you a Greek scholar? If you are, you should know better than to say this, as it can be translated this way too. That is not the definition of a Mistranslation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> That phrase the KJV misstranslates "God forbid" is closer in all of these translations <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris Temple

04-30-2001, 07:59 PM

One does not need to be a Greek Scholar to check this phrase (hey , I thought KJVOs didn't like scholars?)

Using the NASB Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionary one can find the phrase translated "God forbid" in the KJV to be "May it never be" in the NASB. The phrase is a combination of the Gk meµ; a prim. particle; not, that … not, lest (used for qualified negation), and ginomai; from a prim. root gen- gen-; to come into being, to happen, to become. Of all the possible translations, God forbid is not one of them - other than as a dynamic equivalent. The best translation would be "Let that not happen" or "may it not come into being" or "may it never be", just as the NASB has it. smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
Are you a Greek scholar? If you are, you should know better than to say this, as it can be translated this way too. That is not the definition of a Mistranslation. That phrase the KJV misstranslates "God forbid" is closer in all of these translations <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

try hard

04-30-2001, 08:44 PM

Interesting...Are you a Greek Scholar? :D

The word "me genoito" literally means may(God) make it not be. This proves that that the translation in the KJB is not incorrect. As any one can see, God forbid means exactly that. The KJB does not need to
be corrected.

Heres a good reason for not using a NASB.

II Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

In second Peter it says that some things are hard to be understood. Modern versions which constantly attempt to lower the vocabulary level of the Scriptures are conviently ignoring the fact. A person cannot oversimmplify the Bible's language without beginning to lose the truth.

[ April 30, 2001: Message edited by: Trinity26 ]

Chris Temple

04-30-2001, 09:08 PM

No...once again you are wrong. Get a source, its not hard. A Young's, A Strong's..they're on the internet as well, just check it out.

As for your ludicrous citation of II Peter 3:16 you had better throw out your KJV and stick to the Hebrew and Greek. Just rely on the Lord to illuminate it for you :rolleyes:

Blade

05-01-2001, 01:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
The word "me genoito" literally means may(God) make it not be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice you had to put "God" in parenthesis to get His name into the verse. You have proven the argument against you. "God" isn't in the original Greek. By the strictest definition, the KJV is "adding to" the original Word of God.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As any one can see, God forbid means exactly that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"As any one can see," you are affording the courtesy of exception to the KJV when you would not afford the same courtesy to MVs under similar circumstances. DOUBLE STANDARD.

To me, "God forbid" means that God is actively preventing something. In the Greek, His is not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In second Peter it says that some things are hard to be understood. Modern versions which constantly attempt to lower the vocabulary level of the Scriptures are conviently ignoring the fact. A person cannot oversimmplify the Bible's language without beginning to lose the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some things are difficult to understand because of their nature (i.e., spiritual things), not because of vocabulary.

This is a point when KJVOism seeks to make things that are difficult to understand in the Bible even more so.

Someone else has well said elsewhere on this board that a non-Christian Shakespearean scholar can easily understand the language of the KJV (better than you or I), but they will not understand the spiritual content of it.

Sincerely,

Alex H. Mullins

05-01-2001, 10:11 AM

Katie:

I can understand the problem of translating God's word into other languages and have often thought about that myself.

First, I believe God can and has inspired believers, those who are born again, born of the spirit to translate his word into foreign languages. Those who are not born of the spirit will not be able to translate His word in the same manner as those who are directed by the Holy Spirit.

Second, if any translator is beginning with a corrupt version, that is, any version other than the KJV which we have today, he/she , in turn will produce a corrupt translation no matter what language. It will contain some of Gods word, perhaps even enough to be effective, but it will not BE God's perfect word.

There will be some, several on this board, many of whom sound like very wise bible school graduates, who will tell you there is no perfect, preserved word today. That the perfect word was contained only in the original Greek/Hebrew manuscripts and they do not exist today. Please do not believe that!

God has preserved His word perfect for us today in the KJV, every word exactly where He wants it to be, saying exactly what He wants it to say. Furthermore, looking back at the chain of translations from the Textus Receptus to our KJV today was perfectly reliable. God can do that!! God did do that!!

If the translators begin with that perfect word, and are guided by the Holy Spirit, they will have no difficulty translating that Word into any language used on planet earth, perfect and without error.

It does not take a Greek/Hebrew scholar, even a bible school graduate to know that we serve a God who is able. He did preserve His word without error for all to read, believe and apply. Be thankful we do not have the original today. Somebody would be making a lot of money on that!! As it is, book publishers are making a lot of money on every new "Bible" that comes off the presses each day. Only the KJV (Auth 1611) does not have a copyright.

We must also never forget that Satan, the greatest manipulator, conn artist, deceiver of all time, is directly responsible for all this confusion. What better way to confuse believers in the way that he has? He is the one who has said "God's word is no longer clear, I will give you a new "God's Word" that will be easy to read and, furthermore, I will give you a new one every year or two that says different things so you can have one that says whatever you want it to say".

Satan, through unholy men has done that, while God, the final champion, the victorious one, has provided for us the perfect translation in our language.

The KJV has been sufficient for me, a salesman of average intelligence, an average guy on the street, saved by grace. I love the old language of the KJV and have no problem in determining what God is saying to me from that reliable Word.

It is, however, going to be nigh unto impossible to get our young people back into the word, memorizing verses, etc as they once did prior to all this confusion.

This is one more sign of the end-times.

If you ask for Godly discernment to be able to distinguish between truth and error...God will give you that.

He is able.

Praise God.

Kiffin

05-01-2001, 12:46 PM

Actually the KJV did at one time have a copyright from the crown of England but it has run out. It was the Authorized version of the Church of England and was intended to promote the Anglican faith meaning it had the seal and copyright of the Throne of England. The Puritans would not even bring it on the Mayflower. There are many translation errors in it as with any translation. No translation can be error free. The King James has neen a great translation but I believe the KJV translators would be embarassed over the idolatry shown to it by KJV Onlyites. You can depend on the KJV but do not uplift it over the Greek and Hebrew else you claim the KJV translators to have more authority than the Biblical writers. It should be noted that King James himself certaintly was a ungodly king over England and many historians state he was a homosexual.

[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

Blade

05-01-2001, 02:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Alex H. Mullins wrote:
First, I believe God can and has inspired believers...to translate his word into foreign languages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you get this theology? God doesn't inspire translations. This is an unscriptural belief.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." It says scripture is given (originally) by inspiration, it doesn't say translations will be given by inspiration. Translations are only "inspired" so far as they accurately reflect what the origninal says.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Those who are not born of the spirit will not be able to translate His word in the same manner as those who are directed by the Holy Spirit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, where do you get this? Greek is Greek. It doesn't take a believer to translate it; it is a language. How did we get Homer, etc. translated into English from the Greek? It is entirely possible that the best translator from Greek to English might not be a Christian. However, you are proceeding on the premise of "inspired" translation, which does not exist except in the mind of the KJVO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There will be some, several on this board, many of whom sound like very wise bible school graduates, who will tell you there is no perfect, preserved word today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, there are many who will tell you that there is no perfect translation of the original Greek. Furthermore, your words betray your contempt for things intellectual that is typical of hard-line KJVOs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Be thankful we do not have the original today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, I'm sure you and all of KJVOdom is glad; it would disprove your man-made doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Only the KJV (Auth 1611) does not have a copyright.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, but it did. See the following link:

The KJV Is A Copyrighted Translation (http://kjvonlyism.tripod.com/doug/king_james_copy.htm)

The new translations have copyrights. So what?! This is to protect their work from alteration, not to make them money, as you suggest (every MV that I know is put out by a non-profit organization).

Alex, you have a habit of bringing up a point and then going into a diatribe similar to this,

"MVs are evil...they cause confusion...MVs are of the devil because they came from Westcott & Hort who were evil...the texts behind the MVs are corrupt and of Satan...God preserved his one word in the KJV...it is the Bible for the English speaking people...yada, yada, yada."

You never give any evidence. You bring up a difference between the KJV and MVs and proclaim the KJV correct/pure/preserved/inspired and the MV corrupt/evil/of the devil. You will not get into an argument about specifics because you can't defend your position with the facts.

We know you believe it. Stop saying it over and over again and get on with proving it! Let's talk specifics. You want to talk Westcott & Hort, let's to it. You want to talk TR vs. CT vs. MT, let's do it. Simply repeating your opinions without evidence over and over does not validate them.

Let's talk specifics,

Blade

05-01-2001, 02:22 PM

Trinity,

One more quick link for you about the "God forbid" issue. You seem to believe that the Greek supports this reading. Read this and then we'll discuss it. BTW, if you take out the 15 'God forbid's in the KJV, there are 15 of your "omissions" from the KJV that turn out to actually be correct.

God Forbid! (http://kjvonlyism.tripod.com/doug/god_forbid.htm)

Let it [not] be,

DocCas

05-01-2001, 03:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Actually the KJV did at one time have a copyright from the crown of England but it has run out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not so. The "Crown Patent In Perpetuity", according to British Law, will remain in force in Great Brittain until 50 years after the demise of the British Crown. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There are many translation errors in it as with any translation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Would you care to post them to the "Bible Versions/Translations - Errors in the Bible" forum? I have cleaned out a lot of the dead wood from the topic and brought it back to the top so it will be easy to find. I look forward to a good discussion of the KJV and its perceived strength and short comings. smile.gif

[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

try hard

05-02-2001, 11:18 PM

Blade,
One last thing. Why should I go to that sight after the wrong way you responded to the post before you? God Forbid, amen.

Blade

05-02-2001, 11:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trinity26:
Blade,
One last thing. Why should I go to that sight after the wrong way you responded to the post before you? God Forbid, amen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about "the wrong way you responded to the post before you?" Am I missing something here. Was I offensive or are you asserting I was in error?

As to the sites, it is abundantly clear to me that you have read [exclusively] KJVO material. Here is a chance to look at the other side and respond to it. I have studied both sides very well (although I lack expertise in Greek and Hebrew, but have a Strong's and other references) and I am familiar with the popular arguments of both sides.

You should look at the other side of the argument, regardless of your opinion of me. To do anything less is not research.

In fact, I believe that part of you may be scared; I was. You will see that KJVOism, as you seem to hold to it, often distorts the facts about Westcott & Hort, modern scholars, previous scholars, the Greek itself, and a great many other things.

At the very least, even if you don't change your mind on one detail, you will be able to argue from substance (actually having seen anti-KJVO arguments) rather than ignorance.

Enlighten yourself,

DocCas

06-08-2001, 03:32 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
[QBCheck out Romans, beginning with Ch. 3, vv. 4, 6, and 31. That phrase the KJV misstranslates "God forbid" is closer in all of these translations referred to in the above pasting, with NAS expectedly the most accurate, "May it never be." The KJV has been defended here as using a "dynamic equivalent." The fact that in the world the name of God is often inserted to make a point (e.g., 'Oh my God!; 'Oh God, no!') does not justify throwing His name into a passage, in which it is not there, to make a point.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are correct in saying the word "God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek. However, the words "me genoito" in the second aorist middle deponent optative are a very, very strong statement referring to something that is eternally forbidden. The KJV translation committee, recognizing the impotence of man, while believing in the Omnipotence of God, understood that no man could eternally forbid something from happening, but the Eternal God could, thus their very appropriate translation "God forbid." A much better, because much stronger, rending then the modern versions (which sounds almost like wishful thinking), and completely in keeping with the unique meaning of the Greek term.

smile.gif

TomVols

06-08-2001, 05:54 PM

TomVols

06-08-2001, 05:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
I said, "Christians" because many professing believers today are really not believers at all.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Ye Must Be Born Again (http://www.fortunecity.com/boozers/bridge/277/index.htm)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Especially those of you who love and talk about the King of England more than the King of Kings and pollute the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ through attacking God's Word. Reminds me of what the difference is between KJVOnly folks and Bible hating liberals - NOTHING.

[ June 08, 2001: Message edited by: TomVols ]

HankD

06-08-2001, 09:42 PM

>>You are correct in saying the word "God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek. However, the words "me genoito" in the second aorist middle deponent optative are a very, very strong statement referring to something that is eternally forbidden. The KJV translation committee, recognizing the impotence of man, while believing in the Omnipotence of God, understood that no man could eternally forbid something from happening, but the Eternal God could, thus their very appropriate translation "God forbid." A much better, because much stronger, rending then the modern versions (which sounds almost like wishful thinking), and completely in keeping with the unique meaning of the Greek term.>>

But... but... but...

Dear Bro Thomas, your explanation could
have been lifted from an introductory
page of a Modern Version giving the justification(s) for their "dynamic equivalence" of certain words, phrases.

HankD

HankD

06-08-2001, 10:22 PM

Another expression used by the KJV translators with little or no support from the Hebrew and Greek both is "would God" or
"Would to God ..."

KJV 1 Corinthians 4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God
ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

HankD

DHK

06-10-2001, 03:29 AM

Quote:
"? You are correct in saying the word "God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek. However, the words "me genoito" in the second aorist middle deponent optative are a very, very strong statement referring to something that is eternally forbidden. The KJV translation committee, recognizing the impotence of man, while believing in the Omnipotence of God, understood that no man could eternally forbid something from happening, but the Eternal God could, thus their very appropriate translation "God forbid." A much better, because much stronger, rending then the modern versions (which sounds almost like wishful thinking), and completely in keeping with the unique meaning of the Greek term."

A very good explanation Dr. Cassidy. However, the real question at hand here is one of translation. A translater's duty is to translate, not paraphrase. "God forbid," however accurate a paraphrase it maybe is just that, a paraphrase, and no more. If its paraphrases that we are looking for we could read the Living Bible, couldn't we? The work of a translater is to translate from the original into his language as accurately and literally as possible. This was not done by the KJV translation committee. They inserted words (such as "theos") that were not in the original. If they had simply translated the phrase "may it not be," the onus would be up to the reader (as it always is) to find out the sense of the phrase or words in question. It is not the duty of the translater to interpret, but rather to translate.
DHK

Chris Temple

06-10-2001, 03:52 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DHK:
A very good explanation Dr. Cassidy. However, the real question at hand here is one of translation. A translater's duty is to translate, not paraphrase. "God forbid," however accurate a paraphrase it maybe is just that, a paraphrase, and no more. If its paraphrases that we are looking for we could read the Living Bible, couldn't we? The work of a translater is to translate from the original into his language as accurately and literally as possible.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points and I agree with you. But then the KJV is more accurate than most all other versions in 1 Samuel 25:22; 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; etc where it translates shathan ( to urinate) qirah (a wall) as "any that pisseth against the wall", which is more accurate than the NKJV's "males".

Interestingly, the KJ21 translates it as "any who urinates against the wall."

DocCas

06-10-2001, 07:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Interestingly, the KJ21 translates it as "any who urinates against the wall."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is exactly how I read it when I come to that passage. smile.gif

Rockfort

06-10-2001, 09:03 PM

< Interestingly, the KJ21 translates it as "any who urinates against the wall."
--------------------------------------------

Which is exactly how I read it when I come to that passage. >

Alright KJVO's--- is the general alarm sounding? Is the fact that Cassidy (among others) 'reads' "urinates" instead of "pisseth" (I Samuel 25:22, et al)-- thus changing the "true preserved Word of God," the KJV-- grounds to condemn him and his message for proclaiming a "perversion?"

[ June 10, 2001: Message edited by: Rockfort ]

HankD

06-10-2001, 09:33 PM

Isn't this expression in I Samuel a figure of speech? Sort of like "he's a chip off the old block" which means he's just like his father. The expression in I Samuel was a slang figure of speech, was it not?
Do we have to be painfully literal to be honest to the Word of God or can we translate the figure into the underlying reality.
It's obvious they were "males".
I guess another question qould be why did God allow this figure of speech in His word?

There are other "coarse" figures of speech in the Bible in the original Hebrew which the KJV translators sanitized. Why here and not there?

HankD

John Wells

06-26-2001, 10:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
It's really very sad to see so many "Christians" pushing the modern versions. It's to be expected, though, considering the last days apostasy predicted in the Bible.

We have the preserved Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible. The text from which it is translated from is dependable. The new versions on the market today are translated from corrupted text, not the same text that the translators of the King James Bible used.

Also, the King James Bible was translated from the very words of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text by way of verbal and formal equivalence. The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase.

If you want to have a Bible that is a paraphrase of corrupted text, then use the new versions. If you want the inerrant Word of God, then keep your King James Bible !

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, what you say is wrong on every count! The NASB is considered by most open-minded biblical scholars to be the best word-for-word translation.

The KJV of 1611 was translated from what were called the great codecs, and no more than 25 copies of Greek new testament manuscripts. On the other hand, translations written in modern times have well over 5000 manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate any codec by at least 200 years. In this environment, older means closer to the original in terms of accuracy.

Regarding your condemnation of adding words, the KJV is as guilty as any other English translation. Case in point:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Readers of the Authorized or King James Version will notice that in the NIV and other modern translations 1 John 5:7 does not contain the three who “testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit.” The reason for this omission is quite simple. The clause appears in late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, not in the early ones. And in the Greek manuscripts it does not appear before the sixteenth century. As a result, scholars universally conclude that the original text of 1 John lacked this statement, which was probably added by a pious scribe in the margin at some later time as a “Praise the Lord” and got copied into the text by a still later scribe (doubtless thinking that the first scribe was putting in the margin something that he had unintentionally left out). Hard Sayings of the Bible - One-volume edition © 1996 by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ultimate translation is one that influences the behaviors in readers’ lives and brings them hope.

The translation effort in all its forms is a sincere effort on the part of many people of many different religious persuasions to make the Bible accessible and understandable to people to whom it might otherwise be a closed book. A diligent study of any of the efforts will increase one’s understanding of the Bible.

I have nothing against the KJV, in fact have a couple. It's poetic-like old English is beautiful. But saying that God only had a hand in one translation effort and frustrated thousands of biblical experts in other efforts is extremely narrowsighted and pure and simple prejudice!

[ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]

DocCas

06-27-2001, 01:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
The NASB is considered by most open-minded biblical scholars to be the best word-for-word translation.

The KJV of 1611 was translated from what were called the great codecs, and no more than 25 copies of Greek new testament manuscripts. On the other hand, translations written in modern times have well over 5000 manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate any codec by at least 200 years. In this environment, older means closer to the original in terms of accuracy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The NASB is a very good, and very literal, translation of a very poor underlying text type.

The KJV is based on a text type (the Traditional Text) which is represented by over 5200 Greek manuscripts (regardless of how many were available to the translation committees). The NASB, on the other hand, is based on a text type that reflects the readings of only about 50 Greek manuscripts.

The testimony of the ancient versions, the Old Latin, Old Coptic, and Old Syriac give strong testimony to the antiquity of the readings found in the Traditional Text.

Don't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that the "oldest" extant MSS are necessarily the "best." Remember, there were manuscripts prior to these "oldest" MSS from which the ancient vernaculars were translated, and those ancient vernaculars give strong witness to the antiquity of the Traditional Text readings. smile.gif

CorpseNoMore

06-27-2001, 02:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
? You are correct in saying the word "God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek. However, the words "me genoito" in the second aorist middle deponent optative are a very, very strong statement referring to something that is eternally forbidden. The KJV translation committee, recognizing the impotence of man, while believing in the Omnipotence of God, understood that no man could eternally forbid something from happening, but the Eternal God could, thus their very appropriate translation "God forbid." A much better, because much stronger, rending then the modern versions (which sounds almost like wishful thinking), and completely in keeping with the unique meaning of the Greek term. smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won't argue whether "God Forbid" is technically possible or not, but as you have framed this explanation, it is a theological choice more than a scholarly one, it it not? Is this not what the NIV gets much of it's flak for? :confused:

Pastor Larry

06-27-2001, 09:42 AM

In the interest of equal representation:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The NASB is a very good, and very literal, translation of a very poor underlying text type.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most would argue,as would I, that this is a misstatement. The NASB is a very literal translation of a very good text type. It is the TR that is a very poor text.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The KJV is based on a text type (the Traditional Text) which is represented by over 5200 Greek manuscripts (regardless of how many were available to the translation committees). The NASB, on the other hand, is based on a text type that reflects the readings of only about 50 Greek manuscripts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A commonly asserted but fallacious statement. It is true the the TR resembles very closely the majority text type. But the TR and the MajT differ in some 1800 places and the where they differ the KJV sides with the TR, not the MajT. It is simply wrong to say that the KJV is based on the majority text (which I know is not technically what Thomas said) since the TR was edited from a extreme minority of the 5200 manuscripts and was changed many times as more texts became available. Furthermore to say that the eclectic text is based on 50 or so manuscripts is a clear misstatement as well. The eclectic text, whether right or wrong in its methods and conclusions, takes into account 100 percent of the manuscript evidence. It gives differing weights based on certain factors. The TR and the MajT advocates automatically eliminate certain witnesses without any consideration. While is is fashionable in some circles to say that the KJV is based on 95% of the evidence and the MVs are based on the other 5%, it is a lie. The MVs take into account the 95% plus the 5%. And by the way, on occasion the eclectic text sides with the majority text type.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Don't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that the "oldest" extant MSS are necessarily the "best." Remember, there were manuscripts prior to these "oldest" MSS from which the ancient vernaculars were translated, and those ancient vernaculars give strong witness to the antiquity of the Traditional Text readings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good reminder; but don't forget the other side. Do not be too hasty to jump on the MajT bandwagon but repetition of an error does not change its fact. If 1000 people agree that 2+2=5 and only one states that 2+2=4, the rules of mathematics will not change. One thousand people are simply wrong and we would not hesitate to say so. While in text critical method, the MajT may have some valid arguments, the fact they are in the majority is not among their strongest.

I think the call in this discussion is to moderation in rhetoric since there is no way of reaching a unchallengeable conclusion.

TomVols

06-27-2001, 01:07 PM

It is also worth remembering that witnesses are not counted; they are weighed. I know this has been alluded to but thought it bore stating flat out.

John Wells

06-27-2001, 02:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I think the call in this discussion is to moderation in rhetoric since there is no way of reaching a unchallengeable conclusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree! KJVO advocates are not moderate and intolerable about which translations are "of God's doing." It's a "my way or the highway" mentality. Some even say people who study and use other translations are going to eternal torment. On the other hand, non-KJVO advocates typically accept the KJV as an acceptable representation (for the most part) of the original message from God. Our main objection is that it inhibits comprehension because of its difficult readability. This turns many seekers away from discovering the truth.

I believe God's hand has been in numerous (not all) translations, and the student who avails him/herself to them achieves more depth of meaning and understanding than one who sticks to a single translation, no matter which one they choose.

DocCas

06-27-2001, 05:53 PM

Pastor Larry, you seem to have missed the point of my post. I never mentioned the Majority Text nor the TR. I do not stand behind either of them completely. Perhaps you would like to read with I actually wrote and respond to that instead of responding to what you wish I had written. smile.gif

DocCas

06-27-2001, 05:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
This turns many seekers away from discovering the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Pastor Larry

06-27-2001, 06:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Pastor Larry, you seem to have missed the point of my post. I never mentioned the Majority Text nor the TR. I do not stand behind either of them completely. Perhaps you would like to read with I actually wrote and respond to that instead of responding to what you wish I had written. smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read what I wrote instead of responding to what you wish I had written, you will notice that I put a disclaimer that what I said was not tecnically what you said. smile.gif I know you know that difference and I realized you were referring to a "text type." It is not inconceivable that there are those who do not even know what a text type is, even in this august gathering.

However, I have heard men say (even in published tapes and books) that there are 5000+ perfectly matching manuscripts that the KJV was translated from and the others completely disagree in thousands of places. More often I have heard thme say that the TR is the MajT - that they are identical. Most do not realize there are significant differences. To them the TR is the MajT that was passed down from God to the authors to Erasmus to King James.

I was simply addressing a common and loudly shouted misconception. smile.gif

MagicDar

06-27-2001, 07:39 PM

I still believe in the leading and conviction of the Holy Spirit and the discernment the spirit gives to me on what to read and what not. I read niv and others, that is what I go by and I have no problem with it. I don't think it is right for other christians to refere to those who don't use KJVonly as "christians", refering that they are only christians in name, that is really wrong. Just my opinion. :cool: -dar

DocCas

06-27-2001, 09:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I was simply addressing a common and loudly shouted misconception. smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is very interesting, because, preceeding ever refutation of each "loudly shouted misconception" was a quote from my post. You were addressing my post, not a "common and loudly shouted misconception." If you were not addressing my post, you had no business quoting my prior post. You can't have it both ways. And, as to your disclaimer, you said, in reply to the quote from my post, "A commonly asserted but fallacious statement." The only possible context for that statement was the quote from my prior post which immediately preceded it. You then say, "It is simply wrong to say that the KJV is based on the majority text (which I know is not technically what Thomas said) since the TR was edited from a extreme minority of the 5200 manuscripts and was changed many times as more texts became available." You hide behind the word "technically" as if to say, "he didn't say that, exactly, but that is what he meant." Sorry, but no cigar. You then changed my statement in which I said the CT was "based" on about 50 MSS to "takes into account." I never claimed they did not "take into account" all the MSS, my claim was they rejected the vast majority of the readings in favor of the readings contained in only about 50 MSS and based their text on those readings. smile.gif

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

Pastor Larry

06-28-2001, 09:10 AM

Thomas,

A basic hermeneutical principle that everyone (except Covenant theologians) accept is that words have a single meaning determined by authorial intent. As the author of my words, it is my prerogative to say what they mean and when they are misunderstood, to clarify as needed. I was misunderstood and I clarified. You do not accept my clarification, instead deciding for yourself what they mean.

The common misconception I was correcting that you were citing is that the eclectic text is based on 50 manuscripts. It is not. It is asserted or implied by many, including you it seems, that it is 5200 vs. 50. It is not that way and you know it. The “50” is really 100% and the 5200 do have differences that require text critical choices. (I know you know that but for the sake of those who might not be as familiar). On that point you misrepresented the issue. You can claim the eclectic text is based,on those 50 but I think you are still wrong. They are not based on the 50, IMHO though we might differ on the meaning of based. When I say that they take into account all the manuscripts I mean that they consider all the readings and give weight to the manuscripts on a clearly defined objective basis. The MajT does not take into account all the evidence. The TR does not even take into account a majority of the evidence. I know you do not totally agree with either text. I am sure that there are places in the eclectic text where I would reject their reading, but I depart very carefully since they know far more than I. Most places it makes no significant difference as you well know. Furthermore they (the committee) do not, as you say "reject the vast majority of readings." They reject many of the readings of the majority text type because those readings most likely spring from a later source. They actually include some form of the vast majority of readings, actually omitting only very few. You are familiar enough with the apparatus to know that many times they do side with a portion of the majority text type against another portion of the majority text type. You could just as well say that the MajT excludes a majority of the readings since they choose only one for every variant, sometimes rejecting 3 or more. Furthermore, they reject all of the Alexandrian readings that are not repeated in the Byzantine or Western text types.

The earlier point of the paragraph was dealing with text types. My point was that the TR and the MajT are not identical (and you were not technically saying that). Whether or not you would say that the KJV is based on the majority of manuscripts is something only you can answer. I haven't seen you address it yet that I know of though I may have forgotten it. As for my hiding behind the word technically, I do not know for sure what you meant. I know what you said and I clarified my post to say that you were not saying what I was addressing. Technically meant that I could read the words and say that they did not say expressly what I said. By my parenthetical remark I was trying to avoid this very conversation because it is a non-issue. Of course, it is a pretty easy discussion because no one can prove conclusively one way or the other. We can go back and forth and gain no ground.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

TomVols

06-28-2001, 10:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Thomas,

A basic hermeneutical principle that everyone (except Covenant theologians) accept is that words have a single meaning determined by authorial intent. [ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with your premise here. Could you cite evidence for your statement?

Pastor Larry

06-28-2001, 11:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I disagree with your premise here. Could you cite evidence for your statement?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that you understood what I just said. Your ability to disagree requires that you understand what you are disagreeing with. If there was more than one meaning, you would not know what you disagreed with.

Chris Temple

06-28-2001, 02:05 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

A basic hermeneutical principle that everyone (except Covenant theologians) accept is that words have a single meaning determined by authorial intent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is one HUGE strawman! CTs also believe "words have a single meaning determined by authorial intent." They just don't hold to the wooden idea of dispensationalism that the same author always means the same thing by the same words in every context. :eek:

Pastor Larry

06-28-2001, 02:16 PM

Chris,

With all due respect, if you believe that CT holds that words have a single meaning dependent on authorial intent then you don't understand CT. CT openly admits that it necessitates a "sensus plenior," a deeper meaning or double fulfillment of certain texts. It is called spiritual meaning, the deeper meaning, etc. Furthermore they admit that the author did not always intend this deeper meaning and was not conscious of it. This is not really disputed in CT. In fact, you are the only one who professes to be a CT that ever even questioned this point.

You also misunderstand both what I said and what DT says. I was not referring to the use of the same word in another context. I was referring to the use of a word in a given context. Normal interpretation says that words have only one meaning in a given context. It does not deny that a word might have a different meaning in a different context.

For further info, read Milton Terry, Grant Osborne, WAlter Kaiser, E. D. Hirsch (for the secular philosophical defense of single meaning), etc. No dispensationalist believes what you just said.

Speaking of straw men, wooden is a perjorative term that has no bearing in the discussion. DT does not believe in a wooden use of language. DT believes in a normal use, that the language of Scripture should be interpreted just like any other language. If I say I am so hungry I could eat a horse, no one actually believes I am going to eat a horse; they understand the figurative use. However, if I say that I am so hungry that I am going to have to go to Burger King to get something to eat, no one thinks that I am going to go buy a house. That is the principle of language or the laws of language, the univocal nature of language. We use it every day.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

TomVols

06-28-2001, 11:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

The fact that you understood what I just said. Your ability to disagree requires that you understand what you are disagreeing with. If there was more than one meaning, you would not know what you disagreed with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

HUH? How is my ability to understand your unqualified allegation proof of the same?

pawn raider

06-28-2001, 11:44 PM

Kiffin wrote: "It should be noted that King James himself certaintly was a ungodly king over England and many historians state he was a homosexual."
In the book: "KING JAMES:UNJUSTLY ACCUSED" the author shows by using quotes and sources from King James himself that he was certainly not a homosexual. I fail to see why King James should be a part of this since he had nothing to do with the translation except for authorizing it.

HankD

06-29-2001, 01:03 PM

>>The fact that you understood what I just said. Your ability to disagree requires that you understand what you are disagreeing with. If there was more than one meaning, you would not know what you disagreed with>>

Dear Pastor Larry,

I thoroughly enjoy your posts and would give you 5 stars (if I could).
But your statement above is the finest example of Orwellian doublespeak I have ever seen. smile.gif

HankD

Pastor Larry

06-29-2001, 05:17 PM

My point on meaning is that Tom disagreed with what I said. Yet how could he disagree if I had more than one meaning. Perhaps there could have been a deeper meaning that he did not know about and actually agreed with. The fact that he understood what I said and meant means that communication works because he assumed I only had one meaning and he assumed that he could understand that one meaning from the words I chose to convey it. It is a simple principle that is used everyday by anyone who communicates verbally.

Consider this from something I have written in the past:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
The philosophical difficulty of this position is easily demonstrable. In order to communicate their objection to the single intent model, the opponents have chosen a particular set of signs that communicate their singular intent to refute the single intent construct. In so doing, they are expecting that the reader/interpreter of their objections will understand the words in the sense in which the authors have intended them. Should their theory of sensus plenior be true, it is indeed possible that while these opponents might believe they are communicating a well-reasoned and incontrovertible presentation of their objections, a reader might see a deeper meaning. The interpreter might then say to the author, “It seems that you are defending a single intent model for hermeneutics. Is that what you are trying to do?” The author responds with amazement that the plain meaning of the words on the page can be so misunderstood. “Of course not,” he replies. “Can you not understand the plain meaning of the words that are formulated to communicate my intention to you?” The interpreter might then reply, “Well yes, I can read your words, but I see in them a deeper meaning.” The author is caught in his own system. If he says there is no deeper meaning which he has the right to do as the author, he has lost the battle. If he says that there might be a deeper meaning as yet uncomprehended even by himself, it is possible that the deeper meaning is indeed the single intent model of communication. In short, the author has lost the battle either way for he depends on the single intent theory to communicate his objection to the single intent theory. It is philosophically untenable. Kaiser puts it well:

"Had we not used just such a hermeneutic [the single intent model], we would never have heard the complaint against our own position with any degree of accuracy. It never ceases to amaze me how those interpreters who wish to fight the theory that meaning is singlefold and always a return to the author’s own meaning demand that all who read their own paper and books do so with the understanding that their meaning is singlefold and must be understood literally. But though we have granted this privilege to them, they then wish us to resume interpreting all other texts as they advocate—with this new polyvalence theory of meaning" (Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology, p. 113).

Even [E.D.] Hirsch, for all his defense of the single intent model [cf. Validity in Interpretation] retracted his earlier position. While the details of his retraction are not significant, his own retraction assumed that his initial writing had a singular intent that needed to be corrected. For Hirsch it was not even to simply say that his initial words had deeper meaning. Such meaning had to be given in a new presentation in order to dissociate himself with his former intent. Thus, even in retraction or modification of his single intent model, Hirsch presupposed the single intent model by publishing a modification (it assumed that his initial writing communicated a meaning he no longer wished to espouse) and it depended on a single intent model to communicate his new position. So in reality, his initial theory stood the test; he was right the first time.
Thus, the validity of the arguments of the opponents of single intent depend on the very foundation they are trying to discredit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While this might be a bit hard to follow in its limited context, I have purposely limited this 40 page paper to a couple of paragraphs to illustrate the inherent belief that everyone has in single meaning. It is impossible to communicate without it. Tom depended on single meaning of his words to communicate his disagreement with me. Hank depended on the single meaning of his words to communicate his disagreement with me. Had there been more than one meaning, I could have understood that Hank and Tom really meant to congratulate me on a well-reasoned post; or that they meant to invite me over to their house for a cookout. If those words can have more than one meaning in that context, then rational communication becomes virtually impossible.

HankD

06-29-2001, 06:17 PM

Dear Pastor Larry,

You wrote...

>>Hank depended on the single meaning of his words to communicate his disagreement with me>>

Yes, I knew what I meant but wasn't clear as to what you were saying. It seemed to me you were doubting some one's sincerity as to their questioning of an inquiry this individual had made and making a pedantic statement to bewilder him. smile.gif

I was confused but sincere and viewed you response as double-talk.
Perhaps my IQ is somewhat lacking for this discussion. I read your longer post and I think the light is dawning.

Let me ask this to see if I am at least on my way to understanding this "single intent"
maxim and disengenuousness (if that is a word).

When the Devil said to Jesus in the temptation "if thou be the Son of God..." he fully understood that He was indeed the Son of God, but he "pretended" or wanted to give the impression that he wasn't sure of the "single intent" of what he had heard about Jesus being the Son of God.
He also used this method of deception when he said to Eve
"Yea, hath God said, thou shalt not eat...?" knowing full well that that is what He had indeed "intended" to say.
Eve should have answered with "Yes, thats what He said and you know exactly that's what He said by the way you asked the question".

According to what I am understanding you to say in your longer post I can ask the question because of my ability to give examples of what you are saying.

However are the examples correct?
If not, then I am still confused (but sincere).

BTW, you may come over for a cookout anytime.

smile.gif

HankD

Chris Temple

06-29-2001, 06:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Chris,

With all due respect, if you believe that CT holds that words have a single meaning dependent on authorial intent then you don't understand CT. CT openly admits that it necessitates a "sensus plenior," a deeper meaning or double fulfillment of certain texts. It is called spiritual meaning, the deeper meaning, etc. Furthermore they admit that the author did not always intend this deeper meaning and was not conscious of it. This is not really disputed in CT. In fact, you are the only one who professes to be a CT that ever even questioned this point.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, fact is Larry, I am not CT (they are my intials, but I'm much more NT).

But I do hold to a deeper meaning or double fulfillment of certain texts; don't you?

smile.gif

Pastor Larry

06-30-2001, 09:12 AM

Hank,

Sorry to have confused you. I will try to clarify without being too long. If this doesn't clarify I will try again.

I wasn't being trite with my response to Tom. I was simply demonstrating how basic this idea of single intent is. While your examples may be true, (I haven't thought about it), I don't think it really captures the intent. Maybe this will clarify: There are those who come to a text of Scripture and say "Isaiah meant X but there is a deeper spiritual meaning that Isaiah neither knew nor intended." I assert that once you enter that realm of deeper, unintended meaning, you have jeopardized the ability to communicate. For instance, the restoration to the land in Jeremiah meant the physical land because that is what Jeremiah intended and what his readers would have understood. However, many claim a deeper, spiritual meaning that supercedes the textual meaning. The land is really some ideal place of spiritual relationship with God for all eternity. I suggest that there is nothing in the text that asserts that; it is purely imposed on the text by outside forces. A simple axiom is that a text only has one meaning and it cannot mean what it never meant. That is what single intent is. It is the way you treat the language of your wife, your employer, your friends, etc. When your wife says, "I love you," you take it at face value without looking for a deeper meaning (not to be confused with implications--the application of the single meaning to any given situation). The single intent meaning located and determined by the text goes all the way back to the garden of Eden. When God said you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they did not go around looking for a deeper meaning. They took it at face value as God intended them too. No CT disagrees with that. The problem is when we come to prophetical passages that don't fit their system. They must find a deeper meaning, becuase the normal one that jumps out from the text is incompatible with their system.

By the way, I found the discussion of the New covenant interesting (whether in this thread or another I can't remember). Someone quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 with great authority on the regenerative nature of the NC. I was disappointed, but admittedly not surprised, to see that passage ripped from its context. Vv. 35-38 make some very forceful statements about the ramifications of the NC that no CT wants to accept. I have never had anyone explain what those verses mean and what the impact is. They are an example of the type of verses that seem to render CT without any basis in Scripture. I hope some CT will comment on Jer 31:35-38 in its context of the NC.

Pastor Larry

06-30-2001, 09:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Well, fact is Larry, I am not CT (they are my intials, but I'm much more NT).

But I do hold to a deeper meaning or double fulfillment of certain texts; don't you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope ... There are stage fulfillments (Zech 13), or typological fulfillments (This is like that ...). But there are not multiple fulfillments.

HankD

06-30-2001, 12:49 PM

Dear Pastor Larry,

OK I think I see what you are saying. However, If Scripture can not have a deeper spiritual meaning than the "surface" intended meaning of the human author, what about the following Scripture concerning the literal historical children of Sarah and Hagar as being an allegory of a spiritual truth.

Galatians 4:24ff
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

BTW I'm not CT or strictly Dispensational.

As for the New Covenant and Jer 31:31ff, either Israel-Judah must be restored and partnered with the "gentile nation" or the "gentile nation" has displaced Israel-Judah. And yes, CT would have to allegorize all the promises to Israel-Judah as being fulfilled in said gentile nation.

With God all things are possible, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Personally, I lean towards restoration of the nation of Israel-Judah.

HankD

Pastor Larry

06-30-2001, 08:30 PM

In Gal 4:24 you quoted the important words that answer your question. Paul says it was an allegory. He took a historical situation and used it as an illustration for his point. He is not saying the original occurrence was an allegory or for the purpose of an allegory. He said his illustrative usage of it was for an allegory. It would be similar to any preacher today taking a contemporary occurrence and illustrating a Scriptural truth with it. Well, similar except Paul was inspired; we are not.

As for Jer 31, I am not sure why you say Israel must be partnered with a Gentile nation. I see no evidence in Scripture that God's promises are fulfilled to a Gentile/Israelite partnership. Israel and Judah are the focus of the promises and it involves restoration to a place of preeminence. For instance Isaiah 61 (among other passages) says that Israel will be served by other nations. Clearly, since the time of Isaiah (8th century BC), Israel has never been able to be described by those words. It is not enough to say that it will be fulfilled in the church for the following reasons (of which there are many but I will list only a few).

1) The church is not the nation of Israel.
2) The church has not been in the position of honor described there.
3) The church is made up of people from all nations (Gal 3), the very people that are supposed to honor Israel. They are honored because of their calling as a nation and because of their returning to God.
4) The church has never been rejected by God as Israel was (v. 10). Therefore, the church cannot fit the qualifications.

HankD

07-01-2001, 12:22 AM

Dear Pastor Larry,

You responded…

>>In Gal 4:24 you quoted the important words that answer your question. Paul says it was an allegory. He took a historical situation and used it as an illustration for his point. He is not saying the original occurrence was an allegory or for the purpose of an allegory>>

OK we are on the same page.

>>As for Jer 31, I am not sure why you say Israel must be partnered with a Gentile nation. I see no evidence in Scripture that God's promises are fulfilled to a Gentile/Israelite partnership>>

To fulfill both the promise to Abraham (in your seed shall all nations be blessed) and the New Covenant promise to saved Israel. Perhaps "partner" is the wrong terminology.

Ephesians 2:12ff
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off (gentiles), and to them that were nigh (Israel).

>>1) The church is not the nation of Israel.
Agreed.

>>2) The church has not been in the position of honor described there.
OK but I don't see that as a prerequisite.

>>3) The church is made up of people from all nations (Gal 3), the very people that are supposed to honor Israel. They are honored because of their calling as a nation and because of their returning to God.>>

If you mean saved Israel then I agree (For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel).

However, as a nation they failed God repeatedly.

Matthew 21:42ff
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Acts 13:46ff
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

If Israel is restored as a nation it will be by the grace of God and/or His promise. And in fact they are in the land (unbelieving) as we speak as you know.

Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

>>4) The church has never been rejected by God as Israel was (v. 10). Therefore, the church cannot fit the qualifications. >>

True, but it is presented in Scripture as a possibility.

Romans 11:21-22
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Revelation 2:5
5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Revelation 3:16
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

I'm wondering if the confusion is related to the fact that there is a saved Israel and a flesh nation of Israel.

Saved Israel and the Church (wheat not tares)
according to Ephesians 2:16 are or will be one body, no?

HankD

Pastor Larry

07-01-2001, 08:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>To fulfill both the promise to Abraham (in your seed shall all nations be blessed) and the New Covenant promise to saved Israel. Perhaps "partner" is the wrong terminology.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes all the nations are blessed in the seed of Abraham but that is only 1 of the 3 provisions. The other two relate directly to the genetic seed of Abraham through Sarah and Isaac. The Eph 2 passage you quote does put saved Israelites and Gentile in the same body but it is the church that Paul is talking about, not the nation. I think that is the mistake people make. When you fail to make that fundamental distinction that Scripture makes, things get confused.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
>>2) The church has not been in the position of honor described there.
OK but I don't see that as a prerequisite.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a prerequisite for those who say that we are currently in the millennium (Post mill) or that there is no millennium (amill). If there is no millennium then this passage means absolutely nothing. It becomes a promise with no fulfillment. The church cannot fulfill the promise because all nations are not honoring the church. In fact, all nations despise the church.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you mean saved Israel then I agree (For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel).[/quote

Saved Israel is the only Israel that will exist at the time of the restoration. They did fail God repeatedly and for that God cast them off but not forever (cf Isa 60:10 and Jer 31:36-37). I think the great failure of replacement theology is in dealing with these types of promises. The church just doesn't fit the description.

[quote]>>4) The church has never been rejected by God as Israel was (v. 10). Therefore, the church cannot fit the qualifications. >>

True, but it is presented in Scripture as a possibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, but the church is not promised restoration after being cut off.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Saved Israel and the Church (wheat not tares)according to Ephesians 2:16 are or will be one body, no?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Saved Israel and the church ARE one body NOW. But not in the past and not in the future.