Micah 5:2 Did the Son have an origen? ESV, NIV error

Nowhere has the KJV been attacked. KJV-onlyism has been attacked, and rightly so.

So you think it's a good idea to run to fallible dictionaries to help us understand the infallible?

 

You have apparently not been reading the thread. Here is what I was responding to:

Yes, I believe it is a good idea to look up words we don't understand. Anyone who refuses to do so will wallow in his own ignorance, and probably think it is a virtue!

 

What KJVO supporters are you referring to? I am the one who suggested that a good dictionary could go a long way in clearing up the confusion, not a KJVO supporter.

 

Yes, I believe it is a good idea to look up words we don't understand. Anyone who refuses to do so will wallow in his own ignorance, and probably think it is a virtue! </font>[/QUOTE]It isn't the words or phrases that a KJV reader doesn't understand and knows it that are of concern. It is the words and phrases that have a common modern meaning (ie. conversation) that are of concern. A person can read these things, think they understand them, and get the message wrong or else incomplete.

 

Which is exactly why the preacher who chooses to preach from the KJV MUST explain such words to his congregation, just as I said in my initial post, for which I was so gleefully pilloried. Glad to see you have come around to my point of view!

 

Which is exactly why the preacher who chooses to preach from the KJV MUST explain such words to his congregation, just as I said in my initial post, for which I was so gleefully pilloried. Glad to see you have come around to my point of view! </font>[/QUOTE]...which makes me question whether my apology was warranted or not.

It isn't the "good preacher" I have concern with. It is the poor, modern reader. God's Word is to the individual believer, not the church or clergy alone.

Were/are you saying that a person must have a "good preacher" to understand the Bible? Or would you agree with me that each individual is responsible to know/study God's Word for themselves?

 

I am saying that if a preacher chooses to preach from the KJV it is incumbent upon him to explain the archaic words. For the individual believer, I think a Parallel New Testament is an excellent resource for his personal daily reading and bible study.

 

I am saying that if a preacher chooses to preach from the KJV it is incumbent upon him to explain the archaic words. For the individual believer, I think a Parallel New Testament is an excellent resource for his personal daily reading and bible study. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks. Amazing that it took this long to reach the end of this road. I actually agree completely with what you state above.

 

I am not so that is a moot point.

The KJV allows for Christ to be someone other than God in several different places, but you are not bent out of shape about that. Why not?? Becuase you are inconsistent. You are applying a standards to some translations that you are not applying to others.

Remember, all kinds of doctrines can be supported by the KJV. The question with the KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, or anything else is not "What doctrine might this be twisted to support?" It is rather, "What did the author say here?" That is the only question that matters. Get the rest of this clutter about what unbelievers might do out of your mind. Focus on what matters: What did the author say and what did he mean?

I don't know that that is true or that it matters. The question again is What did the author say and what did he mean by it?

The JWs have a lot better verses than this in the KJV where Christ is the firstborn of creation and the like. But you are not decrying the KJV because it can support the JW doctrine. Why?? BEcause you are inconsistent.

You just ruined it by praising it

You have never heard me. I don't do any of this. All of the versions I use teach the same thing.

Then you should come and learn with us here. We don't have those doubts. We are very clear on what the word of God is. If you are confused then find a good Bible preaching church and get to studying. We are not confused here.

The Spirit working through the word and diligence in study confirms to us. It is not rocket science. It is much easier than the convulutions you go through to defend this KJVOnly stance.

I have actually explicitly denied that claim before. As I have said, the word of God is the final authority. Unlike you, I do not assert as truth things that are not defensible from Scripture.

You picked an unfortunate occurrence because it is a glaring problem in teh perfect preservation theory. Along the way, the number omitted by the RSV and ESV got left out of the text. The KJV, NIV, and NASB all inserted numbers than they thought were correct. The one thing we know for sure is that the KJV and NKJV are wrong.

The text, literally translated, reads, "The son of years Saul in his reign." Those who know Hebrew know that "bene sana" (son of years) is a Hebrew idiom for age. I don't know of any place it ever means anything other than an age. So whatever the first line is saying, it is something about Saul's age. Unless Scripture makes on sense, we know it is not one year. There is no relative (when) in the verse. And we know that Saul reigned much longer than two years. The correct numbers are probably 30 and 40 (I can't remember all the details) but it is obvious that God did not see fit to preserver those numbers for us.

As I say, this is a case that blows the KJVO and "perfect preservation" theory right out of the water. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

Your reply doesn't make sense. In showing this place where something has been dropped disproves the notion of perfect preservation. So my statement is exactly true because it conforms to the reality of the state of affairs. I haven't called light darkness or darkness light. You know that.

Yes, I have. And upon further study, I found that I am right and you are the one who has missed something.

I read this article quickly. Whoever the author is, he is very unqualified to write on this subject. For instance, he cites Lev 12:6 as proof of his position. In so doing, he proves my position. Lev 12:6 says ben sanoto (form of ben sana). Remember what I said earlier?? Ben sana alwasy refers to an age. This author in support of the defective translation of 1 Sam 13:1, cites a place that refutes his own understanding. This author does not know enough Hebrew to recognize it.

No one disputes that the word "ben" by itself might refer to an individual. It properly means "son." There are a whole lot of things it can mean. but when "ben" is connected with "sana" it always means an age. In 1 Sam 13:1, ben sana is referring to the age at which Saul began to reign. Do you really believe he began to reign at 1 year old??? Of course not. That would be a silly proposition for a number of reasons.

This article is proof yet again of my long standing contention that the internet has led anyone with a phone line and computer to believe they ought to be heard. This article is proof that such is not the case. When you write an article about something, you should at least know a little bit about what you are talking about. This author is no exception.

This verse shows that God's promise of preservation does not mean what the KJVOs would like for it to mean. They must change the doctrine of Scripture and even Scripture itself to make their doctrine stand. Those who love God and his word should stand against such a cavalier attitude towards the Bible.

 

Ring the bell! Run up the flag! See! Consensus IS possible if we just keep discussing the issue in a civil manner!

 

Please don't waste space with a repeat. I don't need it repeated. I read it quite well the first time.

Name them. So far, you haven't shown any scholar who disagree with me. YOu have cited a bunch of translations without providing any notes from those translations about this passage. Why not do the study, and then start talking. You have a habit of talking first.

[This verse shows quite clearly that God's promise of preservation does not guarantee every single word. There is a word lost. Now either you have made God a liar or God meant something different than you say he did (which means you make God a liar as well).

Go with God. When you do, you will agree with me.

You fail yet again to show even one place where God says what you say. You keep saying that you believe God, but you are saying something God didn't say. I have long said, just as soon as you show us where God said what you say, then I will believe it. Until then, it is only the opinion of your mind. And the only thing worse than modern scholarship is no scholarship. When you don't know what you talking about, you and this author you reference show a great disrespect for the handling of God's word.

You'll be back ... And when you come back, you won't show us where God said what you say. The reason why you won't show us that is because you and I both know that God did not say what you believe. You have made it up; you have followed the opinions of men who have told you some things which are not true. And rather than put down your shovel and quit digging your hole, you just dig it deeper. Get back to the Word; abandon your philosophy of following the teachings of men.