Changing Doctrines

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Jul 23, 2004.

  1. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] Iesus is my Lord and Sauiour! [​IMG]

    I got this elsewhere and will comment on it later:

    Right now i've got a few preliminary comments.

    1. One who bases their
    doctrine on ONE AND ONLY ONE verse is a fool. One who bases
    thier doctrine on one phrase of one verse is even a
    bigger fool :(

    2. One who gets overly concerned about
    a number in a sequence "missing" must rember
    that the numbering of the verses was done
    on a line of manuscripts in which much was
    added that may not be scripture. The
    numbers denoting the chapters and
    verses are NOT scripture.

    3. Please, please don't call something missing
    when it is in the verse before or the verse
    after.

    [​IMG] Iesus is my Lord and Sauiour! [​IMG]

    [ July 23, 2004, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]
     
  2. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good point Ed!

    Since according to our KJVO friends something "changed" or "taken" out creates doctrinal differences then I guess we should look at these two examples in the KJV:

    Titus 2:13,"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" KJV

    and

    2 Peter 1:1,"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" KJV

    Do any of you KJVOist see a problem with these two verses? If not then ask the next JW you meet why they love these two verses in the KJV. Most KJVOist are silent about these two passages as rendered in the KJV.

    This is why we don't base doctrine on one or two passages in context or out of context.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG] Iesus is my Lord and Sauiour! [​IMG]

    No doctrinal difference between Jesus being
    born of a virgin or being born of
    a young woman?


    One of the problems of having lists like this with
    no Bible address, i can't seem to find a MV that uses
    "young woman" where the KJV1769 uses "virgin".

    I did find something interesting though:
    Luke 1:34. The KJV1769 uses the
    meaning of "virgin" which is
    "know not a man" where
    the NIV uses "virgin",
    the NLT uses "virgin",
    and the NASB uses "virgin".

    "Virgin" is used in all four versions
    at Luke 1:27.

    [​IMG] Iesus is my Lord and Sauiour! [​IMG]
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,574
    Likes Received:
    10
    I reckin that's some of the difference between the Hebrew "almah" & the Greek "parthenos".

    A Jew told me that an "almah" was a fine, virtuous young unmarried Jewish woman whose virginity is a gimme, & if it's known that a woman is not a virgin she cannot be an "almah". However, I'll agree that "young woman" is not the most thorough rendering for "almah" in English, as it doesn't express the special good qualities of an almah.

    'Parthenos', on the other hand, means "virgin". The Parthenon in Greece was named after their goddess Athene who was said to be a perpetual virgin. To render parthenos any other way but 'virgin' is incorrect, so a Greek acquaintance tells me.

    An almah must be a virgin AND a righteous person, while a parthenos must be a virgin. Shoot, a lesbian can be a virgin. However, we have the context of the rest of the Scriptures as well as direct wording showing us Mary was both an almah and a parthenos.
     
  5. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be really surprised if a KJVO comments on this topic. I have yet to have a KJVO comment on what I posted without drifting away in the KJVO "Outer Limits" [​IMG]
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not actually. IN Isa 54:4 (I think), a form of almah was used for barren women, i.e., those who had the chance to bear children and were unable. They clearly were not virgins. In Prov 30, there is a use of almah that many believe could be a non virgin.

    Again, not entirely correct. Gen 34 uses parthenos to describe Dinah, someone who had been raped, and was thus no longer a virgin.

    Most agree that parthenos in NT greek means virgin; but not in the classical Greek of hte LXX which both Isaiah and Gen share. The context is more determinative. We know Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin because God said so in Matt 1.
     
  7. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    The LXX is definitely NOT classical Greek!
     
  8. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen, Brother David J. -- Preach it! [​IMG]

    The doctrinal variations coming from
    different understandings of the
    King James Version are much more than
    doctrinal variations (if any) coming
    from cross version phraseology.

    In 2 Peter 1:1 the key is the AND.
    Which are made equal by the 'and'?

    1.A. the righteousness of God
    1.B. the righteousness of our Savior Jesus Christ

    OR

    2.A. God
    2.B. our Saviour Jesus Christ

    The J.W.s must have #1 correct and #2
    cannot be correct or else thier Christology
    shatters. For Christ is Superman, not God
    in their view.

    Again, the variation in doctrine is the
    understanding of the KJV not the a variance
    of versions. For the JW got their beliefs
    from the King James Version. It was only
    later that they made thier own version
    so there would be no mistake of what they
    believed.

    Personally i like the KJV because it
    supports better my eschatology than do
    many of the Modern Versions.
    Call me KJVO Type One ;)
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And what do you think it is?
     
  10. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,181
    Likes Received:
    326
    It's complicated, the LXX is what some call "Attic" Greek with hebraisms. Not many will come right out and say that the LXX is "Attic" but it has "atticisms" or more resembles the attic dialect than koine.

    In reality and IMO it is unique, neither "koine" or true "attic"

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/machan.html

    HankD
     
  11. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, i thought i could easily refute the
    contentions in the initial post.
    But i'm having a hard time finding just
    exactly what is being referred to.

    Again, another double standard of the KJVOs,
    don't let anybody check the Word of God
    like those Bereans did [​IMG]

    It may take awile, i'll be back.
     

Share This Page

Loading...