Another Riplinger video...

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by robycop3, Feb 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    If the video is in pinched-screen, right-click on it & select "Full Screen". The control bar should still be at the bottom of the screen.
     
  3. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh boy....here he goes again.

    Ain't you got another horse to ride SOMEPLACE ELSE???
     
  4. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if this Riplinger video is as truthful as her writings, it belongs in the trash heap. How anyone can pass off such nonsense as fact is a mystery. I know we have freedom of speech in the good ol' US of A, and folks like Riplinger and Ruckman sure take advantage of that freedom to spread error and falsehood. It's good that not that many people are as "off the deep end" as those two. Sheesh!
     
  5. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, av1611jim-

    Nobody holding a gun to your head and making you read it is there?

    #1. It's not your place.

    #2. It's not your horse.

    #3. Actually it is not a horse at all but a unicorn.:)
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Anyone have anything to say about her NKJV-KJV comparisone?
     
  7. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I have watched this whole video. Here is what I noticed in the first minutes...

    First, in front of congregation she is shown holding up a free tract she has developed which she (with a smile on her face) calls "the Death Certificate for the New King James"; I found this attempt at humor to be in poor taste. The document is supposed to have data that proves that the NKJV is actuall "harder to understand" than the KJV. Her data allegedly shows that the KJV is at a 5.8 grade reading level, with the NKJV at a 6.9 level. Studies I have seen place the KJV closer to 12th grade reading level. Without particulars of the studies, I will not speculate the reason for the large discrepancy from her study to the others, but my experience with children (mostly 4-6th grades) has been more consistant with the higher reading level for the KJV. I am myself accustomed the Elizabethan language from years of use, and seems obvious to me that the KJV is more difficult reading than most versions (NASV is an exception).

    Evidently, upon the other side of this sheet is her collated evidence that where the NKJV differs from the KJV, it is "parallel to" and "matches" the Jehovah Witness' NWT version of the Bible. This may well be true (I may do my own comparison at a later date), but it presupposes that the entire NWT is erroneously translated. Untrue; I have read portions of the NWT, and the majority of words are translated accurately... what makes it so dangerous is the dishonest renderings at certain doctrinally imporant passages. A list of renderings where the KJV and NWT agree could make it also 'guilty by association'. She says that the JWs could say that the NKJV is "the same as our Bible" (which, of course, is not true), and again, the same broad accusation could also be thrown at the KJV.

    Next, she flattly states that "millions of dollars" were spent on advertising the NKJV without any supporting evidence. She follows this statement with her personal opinion to the effect that all advertsing is "crooked", implying that any product (the NKJV in this case) advertised is tainted. I also have observed closely and particpated in marketing/advertisng functions and it certainly can be a legitimate business practice, and her comments are an offense to honest people in those occupations. She is just 'mud slinging' here.

    That should almost be enough to characterize this lecture. Possibly, I will comment further.
     
    #7 franklinmonroe, Feb 10, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2007
  8. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I guess we can all see she's a mistress of HALF-TRUTHS, often telling SOME of the truth, adding her own UN-truths to the mix.
     
  9. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still haven't got an email back concerning her education. I wonder how long I'll have to wait?
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Her tract used to claim that the NKJV "copies" the Jehovah Witness Version.

    In her tract attacking and misrepresenting the NKJV, Gail Riplinger claimed that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 by having the rendering "Joshua" instead of having the rendering "Jesus" as the KJV does. Part of this tract was also published in the Church Bus News (April-June, 1996, p. 26). Riplinger had earlier claimed that the “new versions use dynamic equivalencies frequently, such as translating ‘Jesus’ as “Joshua’ in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8” (New Age Bible Versions, p. 127). Riplinger and Beebe asserted that “the NKJV even turns ‘Jesus’ into “Joshua’ in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8” (Church Bus News, July-Sept., 2002, p. 17). Were the KJV translators following a Jehovah Witnesses' reading when they stated in the margin of the 1611 concerning their reading "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 the following: "That is Joshua"? A mark by "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 in the Geneva Bible referred to this marginal note: "He speaketh of Joshua the son of Nun." Waite's Defined KJB gave the following note for "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8: "i.e. Joshua (Heb equivalent of Jesus)" (p. 1589).

    Furthermore, Riplinger seemed to be unaware of the fact that several of the early good Bibles have this same rendering as the NKJV. At Hebrews 4:8, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, Taverner's, and Whittingham's have "Joshua." At Acts 7:45, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "Joshua." Were the majority of the earlier 1500's English Bibles which have "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 copying the 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Did the old Peshitta Syriac follow a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? The Peshitta even adds "the son of Nun" to make sure that it is clear that Joshua is referred to in Hebrews 4:8. Did John Wesley in 1754 copy a Jehovah Witnesses' reading in these verses? All the editions of Luther's German Bible published during Luther's lifetime have "Josua" (Joshua) at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Would Ruckman claim that Tyndale and Luther purposely mistranslated Acts 7:45?

    The 1833 Webster's Bible has the center column note "or, Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and "That is, Joshua" at Hebrews 4:8. The 1917 Scofield Reference Bible has the center column note "Joshua" at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. The 1657 Dutch Annotations has at Jesus at Acts 7:45 the following: “That is Joshua, the son of Nun, whereby we see that the names Joshua and Jesus are all one name.”

    The fact should be obvious that a 1950's Jehovah Witnesses' Version did not even exist when the old Syriac, Luther's German Bible, and several of the early English Bibles had the reading "Joshua" in these verses. It is also interesting to note that Wally Beebe's 1975 Bus Worker's Edition of the KJV has "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45 and that it has a note listing "Joshua" as an alternative translation at the end of Hebrews 4:8. Would Riplinger say that Beebe's Bus Worker's Bible copied from the Jehovah Witnesses? The Liberty Annotated Study Bible [KJV], the Criswell Study Bible [KJV], and the Rice Reference Bible [KJV] also have "Joshua" in the text at Acts 7:45.

    The evidence is clear and overwhelming that it was wrong and false to claim that the NKJV copies the Jehovah Witnesses' Version at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Check these verses in my second appendix. In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke, G. Campbell Morgan observed that "Jesus is merely the Anglicising of the Greek name; and the Greek name rendered Jesus is the Greek form of a very well known and common Hebrew name, Joshua; and Joshua is really an abbreviation of the name Jehoshua" (p. 40). In his commentary on Acts, J. Vernon McGee noted about 7:45: "Jesus in this passage refers to Joshua. Joshua is the Hebrew name, and Jesus is the Greek" (p. 83). In his 1857 commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander stated: "Jesus, the Septuagint form of Joshua, occurs also in Heb. 4:8, and in both cases creates some confusion in the minds of English readers" (p. 294). Bullinger maintained that “Jesus=Joshua, the son of Nun” at Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 (Lexicon, pp. 422-423). In his commentary on Acts, H. A. Ironside wrote: "The word 'Jesus' here of course is really Joshua. It is the same name, but we somehow think of 'Jesus' as applying only to our blessed Saviour" (p. 173). Concerning this verse in the 1839 Baptist edition of the Comprehensive Commentary edited by William Jenks and Joseph Warne, this is stated: “The tabernacle was brought in by those who came with Jesus, that is, Joshua, as, for distinction-sake, and to prevent mistakes, it ought to be read, both here and Hebrews 4:8” (p. 38). The ABS’s Committee on Versions commented: “Thus in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8, we find the name Jesus, which the common reader will naturally refer only to the Saviour; while in reality it is simply the Greek form for Joshua, and should properly have been so written” (Statements, p. 7). It could also be noted that the New Testament used the name "Jesus" to refer to a man also called "Justus" (Col. 4:11).

    Riplinger's false claim, which seems to attempt to condemn the NKJV by associating it with a cult, is based on the ad hominem (poisoning the well) fallacy. Did Riplinger intend or desire to injure the good name and reputation of the NKJV translators by making these false, and perhaps even slanderous, or libelous statements concerning the NKJV? Does not Riplinger's claim "bear false witness" against the NKJV and its translators (Exod. 20:16, Prov. 6:19, 14:5, Rom. 13:9)? Riplinger wrote: "Anything based on a false premise will eventually have to resort to lies to defend itself" (Blind Guides, p. 58). Did Riplinger possibly assume or start with a false premise that the NKJV copied the Jehovah Witnesses' Version? Defending Riplinger, Waite wrote: "If she has made an error of fact or quotation, she is willing to admit it and correct it" (Foes, p. 55). Have these errors been corrected or are these false claims still being published in her tract? In her new book, Riplinger seemed to tone down her claim to "how the NKJV matches Jehovah Witness Version" (Language of the KJB, p. 148). Has the false claim actually been corrected or has a synonym been substituted for "copy?" Is her new claim still misleading? By using her faulty reasoning, a comparison could be made entitled "how the KJV matches the Jehovah Witness Version" or "how the KJV matches the Latin Vulgate."

     
  11. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    There is no time stamp evident (this is from possibly 2 minutes into the video). Here are my comments--

    She continues by admiting that the NKJV is based upon the same underlying Greek text as the KJV (the TR). However, she dismisses the NKJV immediately by saying that the footnotes indicate that the "longer readings" shouldn't really be there, and that these notes will cause a new christian to be "totally confused and have their faith taken away". Wow, who knew that endnotes were more powerful than the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

    In her next revelation she tell us that the modern Bibles evolve; that the NIV and NKJV are not the same now as they were when they first came out. Of course, the implication is that new editions are necessarily a bad thing (and never a mention that the KJV has also had several editions). According to Ms. Riplinger, this the fault of "not very perceptive" pastors when reviewing new versions. An insult to all pastors (I guess present company was excluded). Concerning 2000 places were the NKJV allegedly doesn't follow Scrivner's TR, she now makes the following misstatement: "they use dynamic equivalency, in other words, they do not follow the Greek text". This doesn't seem to be simply her misspeaking, because as she goes on it seems she must have a complete misconception of what dynamic equivalency really is... she says "they do not follow any Greek text in the whole world".

    Whatever her specific degrees are in, or wherever they are from, she is still an intelligent woman and she should know what she is doing, and what she is doing is intentionally misrepresenting the facts. I understand about emphasising the positive when promoting something, but when it comes to spiritual matters a fair and more balanced approach should be expected.
     
    #11 franklinmonroe, Feb 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2007
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Logos, it appears the NWT is a doctored version of the RV, changed to conform to JW doctrines. And it's inevitable that most versions have similar readings at most verses.

    Franklin, she fails to mention that the KJV has "evolved"; I believe we all know there were several editions of it floating around before 1650. This is why I say she's a Misterss of Half-Truths.

    While the NKJV basically uses the same sources as the KJV, it woulda been quite disingenuous of its translators to have ignored either the current-English renderings or the thousands of mss discovered since the 1600s.

    And yes, GAR IS intelligent. She knew howta parlay a man-made doctrine into a cash cow, using her writing talent. She's banking on the hope that mosta her readers won't bother to check out her claims and assertions. I hope the readers HERE, especially the KJVOs, will take the time to investigate her various claims for themselves, so they will realize she's misled them.
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    G. A. Riplinger now (about 3 minutesinto this video) supposedly gives us an example of the how the NKJV doesn't follow the TR; it allegedly omits the word "sober" at Titus 2:4--

    That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,​

    Error #1: She clearly trys to make this a NKJV issue. Yet, it seems that many versions have not included "sober", and for some time. For example, a quick check of versions that have no trace of it: ESV, NASB, NLT, RSV, NIV, ASV (1901), and Darby (1890).

    The ommission is not due to a Greek-text variant; other TR-based versions that do not have "sober" include The People's Bible (Chenault), and KJV2 (by Jay P. Green, Sr.). Neither does the ALT (a Majority Text based version).

    Error #2: Misinterpretation and misapplication of verse.

    She relates that the word "sober" was important because she wanted to advise her female students at Kent State concerning "alcohol abuse". Well, here is yet another case of a KJV 'expert' unfamilar with the archaic meaning of its words. The word "sober" here is not even about intoxication. The 1611 edition actually has a sidenote which is a clue to the meaning of this very word--

    That they may teach the young women to bee \\ sober, to loue their husbands, to loue their children,
    \\ Or, wise.​

    The thought seems to be that the young women should be earnest and wise, not just moderate drinkers. Perhaps some one else will contribute the old Oxford definition later. Other TR-based versions: Young's Literal version also has "sober-minded" (which has the meaning of seriousness or temperate), and The Last Days Bible (by Life Messengers) has "wise and sensible".

    Riplinger continues to try to support her assertion by naming three or so other versons that allegedly have the word "sober", one was Tyndale (which I happen to have the 1534 English in modern-spelling). So, my Tyndale does not have just "sober", it actually has "sober-minded".

    Error #3: The word "sober" is not translated into English because its not really there in the Greek.

    She also asserts that the Greek word in Titus 2:4 (she never did give the book or reference) by first saying that it is "perfect translation of the Latin" which is something that means "stay away from" plus "inebrias" (sp?), that is, inebriation. Why she eludes to a Latin explanation, I do not know. Frankly, I don't see anything like it in Jerome's Vulgate--

    ut prudentiam doceant adulescentulas ut viros suos ament filios diligant​

    She sheepishly admits that the word is an "expanded word in that case", that is, the KJV has translated several English words out of one Greek word. They get both the "they may teach" and "sober" from sophronizo (Strong's #4994). Thayer's defines this word four ways: 1) restore one to his senses; 2) to moderate, control, curb, disciple; 3) to hold one to his duty; 4) to admonish, to exhort earnestly. Another word translated "sober" in the KJV is sophroneo (Strong's #4993) which means to be of sound mind (either to be in one's right mind, or to exercise self control); to put a moderate estimate upon one's self, think of one's self soberly, or to curb one's passions.

    She may have been confused; she seems to think the Greek word is sophron (Strong's #4998) which is translated by the KJV in v.5 as "discreet". It is also rendered in Titus 1:8 as "sober", and in Titus 2:2 as "temporate" but these verses are not about young women. There is one other word that the KJV renders as "sober", that is nepho which means either: 1) to be sober, to be calm and collected in spirit, or 2) to be temperate, dispassionate, circumspect. These definitions do not support her argument either.

    A similar exhortation occurs just two verses prior (v. 2). The men are told to be "sober", but this is an entirely different Greek word. The word is nephaleos and means: 1) abstaining from wine, either entirely or at least from its immoderate use; or 2) of things free from all wine, as vessels, offerings.
    That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.​
    Therfore, this is a proper translation, although many versions still render it here as self-control, or temporate. The 1611 KJV again has an alternate word: \\Or, vigilant. I think its possible that the KJV revisors were attempting to add some symmetry to the passage by extracting the word "sober" without cause otherwise. So, it seems that rarely does the word "sober" in the KJV actually mean an abstainance from alcoholic beverages. Notice that in v.3 the writer certainly knows how to explicitly express "not given to much wine" when he wants to address the matter of drunkenness.

    Error #4: She states that "the notion of sobriety, you cannot teach a young lady with a New King James Bible". Untrue; there are many passages remaining in the NKJV which can be used to show proper conduct.

    She concludes that she doesn't know why the NKJV translator have left "sober" out, so we get another jest in poor taste: "unless they like to have cocktails during the translation process".

    That's a lot of errors in about 60 seconds.
     
    #13 franklinmonroe, Feb 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2007
  14. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Riplinger begins to speak about the underlying Hebrew texts (this is about 6 minutes into this video). She correctly tells us that the OT of the KJV is based upon the Ben Chayyim (I think this is also known specifcally as the Daniel Bomberg second Rabbinic edition, 1524-25), but she then claims this is "the traditional Masoretic Hebrew text". I cannot really challenger her on the OT Hebrew text issue as I know it less well than the NT Greek text issue.

    Meanwhile, the NKJV readily advises on inside pages that they use the Stuttgart Edition, updated from Ruldolph Kittle's work (I believe this is may be the 1937 Biblia Hebraica, the Ben Asher text based on the 1008 A.D. Leningrad manuscript B19a, also called "L"). She does NOT present any evidence that the Ben Chayyim text is better, only that that Kittle "took the traditional Hebrew text and changed it" in some unspecified ways. She does not acknowledge that there were two Masoretic traditions, the Ben Asher becoming more accepted by the Jewish community.

    Her "anti-Semite" and later "Nazi" comments about Kittle are supporting by a secular reference Enyclopedia Judeaica, and also bringing up his son, Gerhard (whom I have been unable to obtain much information about). Although, she later admits they were "brilliant scholars", but also "it makes no sense" for them to be working on Jewish text.

    She brings up more OT manuscripts have been discovered and that "so much more information has come forward" to discredit "L" (but somehow this doesn't also apply to any updating needed for the underlying Hebrew text of the KJV?).

    She invokes Numbers chapter 4, that Levitical priests were the only one allowed to touch the Temple holy things. She extrapilates from this passage that born-again Christians are now the priesthood "to guard and keep" the text (regardless of ability or skill) and she makes her point explicit by saying "that we cannot have people who are not born-again Christians working with the Word of God". Then there must be some conclusive testimony to the salvation of each and every one of the 47 (or more) men that worked on the KJV that I have not heard.

    She does not recommend any one getting involved with "interlinears" (Bibles), lexicons, and those sorts of things" (hey, that could put her out of a job in more ways than just one). She laughs and says "Kohlenberger's interlinear is a total fraud" because "he took the NIV and translated it into Hebrew". I've seen this book, and I didn't see where he claimed to actually translate anything (just paralleled the NIV words below the Hebrew). She says the only other Hebrew interlinear is basically random extracts from Marshall's (CT text) and Berry's (based on TR) but because Green didn't know "Greek well or Hebrew at all" he made mistakes especially in the NT (I though she was speaking about the OT? but I'll look into this if its verifiable).

    It was several more minutes of mostly insulting, inaccurrate, or illogical monologue.
     
    #14 franklinmonroe, Feb 14, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2007
  15. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's quite obvious Ms. Riplinger's elevator doesn't go to the top floor...and, as Cranston says, she's a few fries short of a Happy Meal...

    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
     
  16. rsr

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    Not having a copy of the Encyclopedia [SIZE=-1]Judaeica [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]handy, I don't know the exact reference to Rudolph Kittel. He was, as you said, the editor of the Ben Asher text and author of [/SIZE]The History of the Hebrews and The Religion of the People of Israel. I may be mistaken, but his "antisemitism" is usually described a "theological" variety in that he considered Judaism, as outlined in the Law, a works-based religion rather than the faith-based religion more prevalent in the Prophets and, later, the New Testament.

    There is much more information available on his son Gerhard, who did in fact become a Nazi and an apologist for the regime. This came as a surprise to many of his colleagues because he had come from a Hebraist tradition. He also was author of [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which is still in us.

    My suspicion is that many of the anti-Kittel quotes on the Internet involve a conflation of father and son, which would be in keeping with the standards of "research" involved.
    [/FONT]
     
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    My intention is to eventually comment on the entire video; however, I'm going to pass over a brief section (where she sidetracks away from the NKJV to the NIV) that requires more research on my part, to come to what she likes to call the KJV's "Self-Contained Dictionary".

    She is simply recognizing the fact that the KJV revisors used multiple English words in different instances for the same single Greek or Hebrew word, which they stated they did in their preface to the readers. This practice is not wrong under the proper circumstances. Many foreign words have more than meaning depending upon the context, and therefore would justify the use of different translated words. If a sysnonym can be used without disturbing the author's intented message then they may be properly used, and my enhance the reader's comprehension or pleasure (with a variety of words). She clearly presents this as a translational advantage, without the balancing of mentioning the possible disadvantages.

    She gives two examples: the first is at Acts 17:19... she hestitates a bit to pronounce "Areopagus" and chuckles "I don't know what that is" (a quick look into almost any encyclopedia gives the answers). She says that "Areopagus is a place or something like this". I will not quibble with her inadquate explaination of what it is. This is a transliterated word that many ordinary readers would not necessarily know the definition (although a featured speaker should be better prepared). She is able to correctly point out the same Greek word is translated as "Mar's Hill" three verses later (v.22). I could argue that the "Areopagus" and Mar's Hill" are not precisely synonymous (a geographic location, or an established judicial council). It seems more logical to me that "they took (Paul), and brought him unto" a place called Mar's Hill, and then Paul having arrived to speak "stood in the midst of" a group of people called Areopagus (but it could go either way I suppose).

    She asserts that "whenever the King James has a kinda difficult thing there, if you look within the parameters up or down just a little bit, I guarantee they will define that for you". By contrast, of course, the NKJV uses the the word "Aeropagus" in both instances.

    The disadvantage is that there is no certainty given by the context that would assure the reader that the two different KJV renderings are, in fact, describing the exact same thing. A problem of most translations is there is no way to to know whether any two different English words represent the same underlying original language word. In some cases its just better to be consistant, and if the reader needs to use a dictionary, then so be it (most regular KJV readers insist that a dictionary is an absolute necessity anyway).

    In fact, the same English word articulated in the KJV in several places may actually represent multiple Greek words. For example, in John 6:10 the KJV has the word "men" twice in the verse, when the Greek has two different words (first anthropos Strong's #444 and then aner Strong's #435); either could be rendered "men", however anthropos generically includes all human individuals (men, women and children), while aner is male gender specific. Were only the men told to sit down, while the women and children were expected to stand? Here is a case where the KJV revisors could have properly used two different English words but did not (and slightly skews the understanding of the scene). Parallel passage in Matthew avoids the issue with "multitude".
     
    #17 franklinmonroe, Feb 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2007
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Concerning the NKJV, James D. Price observed: “Constant reference was made to the printed edition of the Hebrew Bible used by the translators of 1611, the second Bomberg edition edited by Jacob ben Chayyim. In those few places where the Bomberg text differed from the Stuttgart edition, the Bomberg reading was followed” (King James Onlyism, p. 307).
     
  19. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Riplinger's second example of "the self-contained dictionary" in the KJV is at Mark 15:16 with the word "Praetorium". Well, her guarantee of finding the definition nearby isn't as easy as it seems, as this is the only occurrance of this word in the book of Mark.

    However, she says the KJV defines this for you three times: as "common hall" in Matthew 27:27 (not verse 77, as she misspoke) and "gives you a picture of sorta what's happening in this place" (I don't know about you, but that didn't help me very much); as "hall of judgment" twice in John 18:28 (not verse 25, as she errs again); and as the "judgement hall" in John 19:9. By contrast, of course, the NKJV uses the the word "Praetorium" in all three instances. I suppose that if a reader always flipped to all parallel passages, this might work.

    It is unknown why she is silent about two other occurrances (John 18:33, Acts 23:35), but she conveniently avoids Philippians 1:13 where this Greek word praitorion (strong's #4232) is articulated by both the KJV and the NKJV identically as "palace" and thus makes her assertion false that there is "no place where (the NKJV) is going to expalin or expound on what that is".

    Frankly, I find the individual 'definitions' of "common hall", "judgement hall", and "palace" to all be distinct from each other, if not cumulatively contridictory. The online Bible Encyclopedia states that "Praetorium" is properly a military word and that it denotes: 1) the general's tent or headquarters; 2) the governor's residence (palace); 3) the praetorian guard, or the camp or quarters of the praetorian cohorts (Acts 28:16), the imperial guards in immediate attendance on the emperor, who was 'praetor' or commander-in-chief. The online Bible Dictionary states that "Praetorium" is simply the headquarters of the Roman military governor, wherever he happened to be; and in Philip. 1:13 it probably denotes the body of judges forming the supreme court at Rome.

    Perhaps, an archaic meaning of "hall" is "palace"?
     
    #19 franklinmonroe, Feb 17, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2007
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Franklinmonroe: //Perhaps, an archaic meaning of "hall" is "palace"?//

    Yep:
    Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

    HALL, n. [L. aula; Heb. a tent, a palace.]

    Note the Dictionary was much easier to understand
    here than the Bible.

    BTW, even if Ms. Riplinger PROVES that the
    Bible is self-defining of difficult terms, then
    many will be right behind her to show that
    other wonderful Bible Versions are also self-defining.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...