A good ensample

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by stilllearning, Aug 29, 2015.

  1. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    This morning, I was studying in 1Peter 5: and came across the word “ensample”, and as usual, I simply read it as “example” and started to move on....
    Then I thought that I should make sure, that “ensample” us indeed identical to our word “example”, so I dug into it some more.

    First of all, I nailed it down that they are identical: But I continued studying this word, when I found that this English word example, was translated from 4 or 5 different Greek words. Then I made a marvelous discovery in 1 Peter 2:21.....
    “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:”

    The Greek word used for the English word “example” in this verse, is only found “one time” in the Bible and it has a specific and unique definition in the application of this verse.(I will leave it to you, to discover this application for yourself;)
    ------------------------
    But in this discovery, I realized how VALUABLE it is, for every serious Bible student to have a copy of Strong’s concordance available to them, for situations just like this.

    Then it came to mind, that this “could be”, a reason to compare other English translations(in my study of the Bible): Maybe..., some other version could actually be more “scholarly” than the KJB. Therefore, even though I am a KJB man(all the way), I went to the internet and looked up, how a few of the most popular modern versions, would state 1Peter 2:21, to see if any of them would give any hint, of the unique quality of the word “example”, found in this verse.

    I am here to report, that for all the effort that is put into all these other modern translations, it is just a bunch of hooey. We have not been missing ANYTHING, by sticking to our old KJB.
     
  2. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,836
    Likes Received:
    115
    Hi, stilllearning,

    I looked in Strong’s and Biblegateway and I only found the word ensample in four places and none of them were in 1 Peter 5 that you said you were studying. [Philippians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 1:7, 2 Thessalonians 3:9, and 2 Peter 2:6.]

    I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

    Yes, the word example in 1 Peter 2:21 is unique and it means a "writing copy containing all of the alphabet for the beginner to use in learning to write". So this verse is saying that Jesus suffered for us, leaving us a "copy to emulate" in him so that we could follow in his steps.

    So the King James uses the word "example" and that word has deeper meaning than can be superficially observed. Well, the modern versions all use the same word that also has deeper meaning. I don't see the difference in the King James and any other version here.

    I went to biblehub.com and looked at many of them. They all say "example". http://biblehub.com/1_peter/2-21.htm

    I not following what you are trying to say here.
     
  3. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Good morning Scarlett O.

    The verse that I was talking about in 1Peter 5:, was verse 3.....
    “Neither as being lords over God’ s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

    And the point that I am making with this thread is the unwise practice, that so many Christians have fallen into, of regularly using “more than one English version of the Bible”, in their daily study of God’s Word.

    This practice is “unwise” for several reasons; But at the top of the list, is the subtle effect it will have upon a Christians “attitude” toward the Word of God. The bad attitude that I am referring to, is gradually getting away from a belief in the “supernatural quality” of God’s Word.

    The Bible, has existed for ever(Psalms 119:89), and it never changes nor can it be improved upon. Therefore, this practice of continually producing more and more versions of the Bible in the same language(English), is both foolish and hurtful. It’s foolish, because of man’s idea that they know more than God; And it’s hurtful because it paints a picture of “the Bible” as being an imperfect document, that must be constantly revised.

    Now I have heard all the arguments about the KJB having been repeatedly revised from it’s 1611 state to the 1769 version that we now use. This argument does not hold water, because all of these changes were made to correct “human errors” in that first version.(Removing the Apocrypha and correcting spelling errors & typos, etc.)

    The point made by our mutual observation of the word “example”(being repeatedly used in modern versions), is the “useless waste of time” it is, to compare multiple versions of the Bible. Also, every time someone does this, they are being subtly reminded that God was unable to perfectly preserve His Word for us. This is an attack upon our faith.
     
  4. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,836
    Likes Received:
    115


    Ok, I was looking up ensample (singular), not ensamples (plural). Thank you.

    That's what I didn't understand. If the modern versions use the same word, example, as the King James, I didn't see where the "unwise practice" comes in.

    I read mostly modern versions and my preacher uses modern versions occasionally, but mostly preaches from the King James. I've never "gotten away" from my firm belief that the God's Word is supernatural. I've never heard a modern version reader claim that either.

    If you don't believe that the English translation should be improved upon, then why do you read the King James? There were MANY English bibles long before the King James - the Geneva being one of them.

    Why don't you read the Geneva?

    God's Word has been preserved in it's truthfulness all across the centuries - from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Greek again to English to German and to all sorts of languages.

    The Word of God in English that the Tyndale readers had, that the Coverdale readers had, that the KJOnlyists have, that the modern readers have is the same Word of God. They are just written in the vernacular of the day.

    The King James translators themselves said that they weren't saying that other English bibles weren't scripture or that future translations won't be necessary. They were just trying to put the Word of God in the vernacular of the people of that day.

    In fact, they said, "Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
     
  5. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello again
    You said....
    That is the case here, but there are thousands of examples(all over the Bible), of words being changed or removed and verses being removed or shortened. Therefore the point is, when comparing one version to anther, where a word or verse is removed, “we” are left to decide which one we are going to accept. God’s Word should NEVER be view in this light. It means what is says and says what it means.
    ------------------------
    Next you said......
    This is the danger: These changes are so “subtle”, that our faith can be effected, without us even being aware of it.....
    Jeremiah 17:9-10
    V.9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    V.10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.”

    ------------------------
    You also said......
    For the same reason I don’t read the oldest English version “the Wycliffe Bible”: (Because of the typos and the miss-spelled words). I have a PDF copy of Wycliffe’s Bible and it contains all of the verses & variant translations that all the modern versions have removed. The point here is, if God’s people(who speak English), (who also had God’s indwelling Holy Spirit), accepted this as God’s Word for over 600 years. We can know for sure, that if this was not God’s preserved Word, than God’s people would not have universally accepted it, for all those centuries.
    ------------------------
    Finally you said......
    The argument that purpose of modern versions of the Bible are to put it into “the vernacular of the day”, is just the party line. “If” that was the case, than we could have had a new version in 1900 then another one in the year 2000, and that would have been enough. “But” that is not the purpose of the over 200 versions that exist today. It has been going on for 6000 years, but the latest and most effective attack upon God’s Word was unleashed in 1891, by Wescott & Hort, how had a documented hatred of the KJB, and laterally came up with “there own” Greek New Testament, to discredit it.

    The true purpose of the modern translations, is much more sinister, than we will every know.
     
  6. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    What does this mean? Laterally?
     
  7. wpe3bql

    wpe3bql
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    12
    I'm not sure what our friend meant when he used the word "laterally" either.

    I'm inclined to believe that he might have meant to use the word literally, but considering all the rambling he uses to prove his point that the KJV is somehow more inspired of God than any other English Bible that came off the presses subsequent to the KJV, you can't really be certain.

    He uses the very same sort of circular reasoning that all the other KJVO folks here on BB have used in the past.

    I suppose he is convinced that if, out of the clear blue sky, he posts what he did to defend the AV, maybe those that weren't impressed by the same tired arguments that those other pro-AVists used in the past will now somehow be so impressed with his rather weak arguments that we'll now all become hard-core KJVOists as well.

    He himself admits that the line of Divine inspiration began with the original autographs on to other contemporary languages of the day, but then he's convinced that the line of Divine inspiration eternally stopped in anno domini 1611.

    Likewise he makes a rather broad-brushed indictment that anyone who uses any English Bible after 1611 is making an "unwise choice." To use that same line of reasoning, he must also be indicting the translators of the KJV itself because on the cover page of the AV I have right before me, the KJV translators clearly state that the AV is, "translated out of the original tongues and with previous translations diligently compared and revised.

    I suppose he believes that it was right for the AV translators to compare and revise previous translations, but it borders on heresy if we do the same today.

    I also note that he uses the proof text that most of the other KJVO advocates use as well, namely Psalm 119:89 which indicates that God's Word stands firm in heaven. While the text says that His word may be settled in heaven, but nowhere does the text state that the word that is translated into any other language than the original--which in this case would mean the OT Hebrew.

    Moreover, if you apply his line of reasoning to its fullest extent, you would also have to believe that not only both the chapter divisions (Some of which many reputable scholars down through the centuries have questioned their placement in various parts of the autographed text.) for the OT were inserted c. 586 BC--almost 190 after the OT autographs ceased; and, in the case of the NT, first appeared c. AD 350 in--of all places, the Codex Vaticanus, which is almost unilaterally despised by those in the KJVO camp.

    As far as the verse indicators go, it wasn't until c. AD 900 that they were standardized for the OT--some 1,300 years after the OT autographs were written. The chapter indicators for the NT didn't appear in our English language Bibles till Stephanus began printing them in AD 1551--some 1,450 years after the NT autographs were completed.

    It's easy to see that neither these text indicators are clearly not divinely inspired because none of them appear in either the OT or NT autographs as well as the fact that they were added on by humans thousands of years after the autographs of either testament ceased.

    Furthermore, no KJVOist has ever explained to me that if the KJVO is so divinely inspired more than previous English language versions were, and therefore is THE ONLY TRUE WORD OF GOD IN ENGLISH, how then were English-language readers saved prior to AD 1611? Doesn't Paul clearly state in his epistle to the Romans that saving faith comes by hearing the word of God? If there was no divinely inspired word of God in English prior to AD 1611, how then could they have possibly been saved?

    Our friend appears to be convinced that the AD 1611 needs no changing of the English text at all. If that's the case, I suppose that when Hebrews 4:8 quotes Psalm [Which he oftentimes erroneously refers to as PsalmS.] 95:7, Jesus giving the OT saints rest, he never needs to explain that the OT autographs clearly state that it was JOSHUA, to which the psalmist was referring, not Jesus Christ Himself.

    Additionally, I suppose he would never have to explain what James meant when he wrote in 2:3 about a man wearing GAY clothing.

    Four times in the OT KJV and once in the KJV NT one comes across the word holpen. No explanation for today's English language readers is needed in these five places either, right?

    Hopefully our friend has very logical and well-thought-out responses to the items in this post.
     
  8. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    They rejected the Textus Receptus and used two corrupted manuscripts, the “Vaticanus and Sinaiticus”(that don’t even line up with one another), and combined them, and “Laterally” came up with "there own" Greek New Testament.
     
  9. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello wpe3bql

    Did you even read my posts? (Undoubtedly not). Most of what you stated that “he said”, was not even hinted at, in my posts?!?
     
  10. wpe3bql

    wpe3bql
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2015
    Messages:
    979
    Likes Received:
    12
    stilllearning,

    Of course I read your posts!

    How else do you think I arrived at the statements you made?

    All you have to do is to replace my third person singular masculine pronoun with stilllearning and you'll come up with your BB name.

    Simple as that!

    Now it's your turn to disprove each and every point I made in my post in your thread by giving very specific and reputable documentation (to include the evangelical scholars' name, the complete title of these scholars written works, name and date of the publishers {including copyright material}, and a complete list of the reputable evangelical institute of higher learning from which each and every reputable evangelical scholar that you used to help you to formulate your thesis on the AV that everything I stated in my post in your thread) is absolutely and completely false and utterly without merit.

    Should you fail to do this, I will conclude that you really don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to your position that the AV KJB is the only divinely-inspired Bible for today's English-language readers.

    Have a nice day.:thumbsup:

    ---WPE3BQL, AAS, BA, MA :wavey:
     
  11. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Your phrase "all over the Bible" needs to be fleshed-out. Do you mean in the Old Testament as well as the New? If so, give some examples.

    This removal business has to be dealt with. No verses have been removed. You can find verses that the KJV added in the footnotes or put in brackets in most modern Bible translations.
    The Latin Vulgate, in one form or another has been around for a lot longer than a mere 600 years --about 1,600 years. Therefore, it should be accorded even more authority given your line of reasoning.
    Erasmus, who compiled what later became known as the Textus Receptus, believed the Scriptures should be put into the vernacular. It just makes common sense. Purvey, Luther and so many others have always said that the Bible should be put into the language of the people.

    Who says? You? That would be woefully inadequate.
    You are equating God's Word as being the KJV. You do not recognize that a plethora of English translations are also God's Word.

    The Greek New Testament by Westcott and Hort was published a decade earlier --1881. They did not attack God's Word. That was a terrible thing for you to say. They thought that the Textus Receptus (in its many incarnations) was deficient.
    Properly it's their own. You know of course, that Erasmus came up with his own Greek New Testament.
    Only conspiracy theorists could come up with that wicked spin.
     
  12. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    Give us the examples of changes, omissions, shortenings that concern you. We can discuss the differences between the KJV and the "Sinister" translations that "attack God's word".

    The NASB, NIV84* and ESV are excellent modern day translations. The process that is behind the Nestle-Aland Greek text is well thought out. Variants in the Greek are listed. Which makes it hard to say they are hiding something.

    List you concerns specifically and we can address them.

    *I list NIV84 since I have little experience with the current edition of the NIV. I just bought the new NIV Zondervan Study Bible recently, but will not commit either way yet to the new NIV.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  13. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ironically, we heard the same attacks on the TR and KJV by the defenders of the Vulgate.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  14. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    Let's see. Stilllearning found that επακολουθησητε means "example," as most modern versions also render it. Upon this basis he has pronounced the superiority of the KJV. Of such molehills are KJVO mountains made.

    BTW: There is a cottage industry of KJVO who maintain that ensample and example have distinct meanings, but I cannot find any linguist who follows suit. Ensample is from the French, example is from Latin. My conjecture is that the KJV men, who were well-versed in the Vulgate, simply picked it up from the exemplum found in the Vulage.
     
  15. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hello Rippon, I didn’t think you were still here.

    First you asked.....
    Of course your right(I’m glad flesh it out). When I said “all over the Bible”, I was really only talking about the New Testament. One example that comes to mind, is the last 12 verses in Mark 16:
    Now, although those verses have not actually been removed from most modern versions, the footnote that is attached to them, is something like this... “these verses are not found in the best Greek manuscripts”.
    This casting of doubt upon the validity of God’s Word, is tantamount to removing it.
    ------------------------
    Next you said.....
    This is crux of the argument. I choose to believe the Bible and you chose to believe men who say these verse were added by the translators of KJB. Should we believe God’s Word or man’s words?
    Oh by the way, 229 years before the KJB, the last 12 verses of Mark 16:(along with 1John 5:7), were securely preserved in God’s Word(in Wycliffe’s Bible). It wasn’t until 1891, that they were removed.
    ------------------------
    Then you said.........
    You clearly misunderstood my statement, when referring to this 600 year period.
    Although I was talking about the first 600 years that the Bible in the English language had been in existence. I was not referring to that document; I was talking about God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, within the hearts of English speaking believers, who were reading this document.
    I was pointing out, how God put His stamp of approval upon this English Bible, by way of the great revivals that covered the English speaking world, during that same time period, that this Bible was looked upon as “God’s Word”!
    Now, when you put that record up against the state of the Church, from about 1900 to the present, you can clearly see, that God is not blessing the way things are now.
    We can see this same example throughout the Old Testament. Every time God’s people got away from God’s Word, their walk with the Lord suffered, the same way it is today.
    ------------------------
    You also stated.....
    This still doesn’t explain why groves of new versions are being produce every year? Is our language changing that much on a daily basis?
    ------------------------
    Then again.....
    Yes, the KJB, is God’s Word! Are “all” of the other English versions also God’s Word?...
    Well, yes they are; But I prefer a complete Bible myself.
    ------------------------
    At this point you seemed to praise Westcott and Hort, for their work.
    I respectfully disagree.
     
  16. stilllearning

    stilllearning
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2
    Good evening McCree79
    Thank you for your respectful response.

    You asked......
    As touched on before, here is a good example.....
    The Bible says in 1 John 5:7.....
    “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

    While the NIV states that 1 John 5:7 says.....
    “For there are three that testify:”
    ------------------------
    As for my use of the word “Sinister”(suggestive of evil intent), this goes back to my OP.
    I genuinely searched modern versions, in hopes that any of them might be useful in helping me to get a deeper understanding of what that verse said. After not finding any of them giving more light in this area, I saw their omissions in areas that spoke to the Deity of Christ, as “Sinister”!
     
  17. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,196
    Likes Received:
    374
    Can you tell us which manuscripts (and what years they are from) have the extended version of 1 John 5:7? Can you tell us which manuscripts "removed" it?
     
  18. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,136
    Likes Received:
    34
    I agree with the NIV on this verse. In fact so would Erasmus. Erasmus's first two editions didn't not have the Comma Johanneum. He didn't include it, because he could not find a single Greek manuscript that had the Comma. Under pressure and a promise that if some one good show him a one Greek text with it. He would include it in his 3rd edition. After his promise to Edward Lee, a Irish Manuscript, that is highly subject showed up. The manuscript is now believed to be a product of the Grey Friars, whose provincial, Henry Standish, was an old enemy of Erasmus whose intention was simply to refute Erasmus*. As for today, only 8 late manuscripts have the Comma in it. 4 of them include it in the margin only. Only 629, 2318, 2473, 918 include it inside the textual body. All of these plus the 4 that list it in the margin are from the 16th century. The Comma Johanneum does not exist in a single Greek Manuscript before then.

    I would say, as the Nestle-Aland does, that the Comma was not original. There is just no evidence to support it. It is a beautiful verse full of Biblical truth, but not original. The Trinity also does not stand or fall on this addition.

    *Metzger "The text of the new testament"

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
    #18 McCree79, Aug 30, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2015
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    Just to note that Metzger retracted details of that story in his Third Edition.

    The original:

    From the Third Edition:

    This does not affect Metzger's opinion on Comma, of course.
     
  20. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,258
    Likes Received:
    187
    You really do need to look at this link: Bible Translation Guide

    Look closely for the one that is rated as the most accurate translation.
     

Share This Page

Loading...