Presuppositionalism and KJV onlyism

gb93433,
Reread my post. You've ignored the Providential hand of God with respect to English.

In the early 90's, using A.T. Robertson textbooks and several others, I set out to learn Greek. To this day, I can still 'read' it, but I don't have the 5000 N.T. vocab words put to memory. It was interesting in that word derivatives and etymologies became clear. However, these are the type of things from which dictionaries can bring just as much enlightenment.

I would be interested in what advanced revelation you have obtained by studying Hebrew or Greek that the dozens of KJV translators missed.

If plural versus singlular personal pronouns are a revelation, this is covered by the King's English (thou, thy, thee, thine being singular, and you, your, and ye being plural). I would agree that new versions obscure this revelation, but what have you honestly found in your Hebrew and Greek studies that couldn't be found in the English text?

 

Let's all be praying for gb93433.
Apparently in an earnest endeavor to grab his final authority from his bookshelf, he pulled his back out (L1,L2,L3 in the lowar lumbar region).
He was trying to grab all of his multitudes of final authorities.
We pray for a speedy recovery, gb93433, both physically and spiritually.

 

Just out of curiosity:
How do you define the word "conversation" in Philippians 3:20

Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

And how do you know your "translation" or interpretation is correct?

Likewise in the Old Testament how do you define the word "unicorn" in

Deuteronomy 33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Today a unicorn is a mythological Greek creature. What about then? What was it?
DHK

 

I work at home and have been quite busy, but want to answer your questions, DHK. I will answer 'unicorn' later, but I first want to know how you will prove a universal negative? And how you will prove a universal negative (there are no unicorns) past, present, and future? Are you saying there could never have been a unicorn? You have perfect knowledge of all creatures past and present?
Wow.
On Philippians 3:20 and 'conversation,' this is not virgin territory for me b/c I had a Free Will Baptist preacher challenge me on this back in the 90's. Funny thing is, he needed his wife's help to pronounce the Greek words while attacking my KJV. I would like to point out that the word for "commonwealth" is actually found in Ephesians 2:12 and IS NOT THE SAME WORD FOUND HERE. Go and check. There is quite a difference between 'commonwealth' and the 'ADMINISTRATION' of a commonwealth. The word 'conversation' allows for this thought and distinction, whereas "citizenship" or even "commonwealth" certainly doesn't. The Smith Bible Dictionary defines "conversation" as "The whole tenor of one's life, acts, and thoughts." But I don't have time now, so...
I will let Will Kinney (who has posted out here many times in times past) thoroughly answer your Philippians 3:20 objection...


First of all, the King James Bible is not the only one to translate this word as "conversation" in Philippians 3:20. So do Tyndale 1525, Cranmer, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, the Douay- Rheims version, and Webster's 1833 translation.

Geneva Bible - "But our conuersation is in heauen, from whence also we looke for the Sauiour, euen the Lord Iesus Christ"

Webster's 1833 - "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"

Other versions have translated this word in a variety of ways.

Third Millenium Bible - "For our ABIDING is in Heaven..."

NKJV, Holman, NRSV, NASB, NIV - "For our CITIZENSHIP is in heaven..."

Revised Standard Version 1952 "But our COMMONWEALTH is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"

Bible in Basic English 1960 - "But our COUNTRY is in heaven..."

Darby - "But our COMMONWEALTH HAS ITS EXISTENCE in the heavens..."

Weymouth - "We, however, ARE FREE CITIZENS of Heaven..."

New Century Version - "But our HOMELAND is in heaven..."

Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "But our LABOURS are in heavenly things.."

James Murdock's 1852 translation of the Syriac - "But our CONCERN is in heaven..."

Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the 1999 Las Sagradas Escrituras - "Mas nuestra VIVIENDA es en los cielos". The word "vivienda" means "living quarters".

Bible Commentaries:

John Wesley comments: "Our conversation - The Greek word is of a very extenslve meaning: our citizenship, our thoughts, our affections, are already in heaven."

Matthew Henry notes: " For our conversation is in heaven. Observe, Good Christians, even while they are here on earth, have their CONVERSATION in heaven. Their citizenship is there, politeuma. As if he had said, We stand related to that world, and are citizens of the New Jerusalem. This world is not our home, but that is. There our greatest privileges and concerns lie. And, because our citizenship is there, our CONVERSATION is there; being related to that world, we keep up a correspondence with it. THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN IS IN HEAVEN, where his head is, and his home is, and where he hopes to be shortly; he sets his affections upon things above; and where his heart is there will his CONVERSATION be."

I have capitalized certain words above to show that Matthew Henry still uses the word "conversation" to bring out both senses of this word. One meaning is "citizenship" and the other is "manner of life". The Christian's very life and home are in heaven.

Other modern commentators also bring out the two meanings of this word. I will again capitalize several words to highlight the meaning as found in the King James Bible.

Ron Cook, in The Christian Lifestyle, says of this passage: "A verse that sheds more light on this is Philippians 3:20: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" It is not as it was, where our CONVERSATION in times past were in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others (Eph. 2:3). As Christians there has been a radical change in position for we now function as citizens of heaven and OUR PERFORMANCE AND MANNER OF LIFE is from a heavenly perspective and not an worldly one... This is emphatic; we are to have such a LIFESTYLE that allows us to patiently await the return of Christ. Our affections have been changed; our corrupt nature has been change to a glorious nature; we have been translated from this world to reside in heavenly places. The union that we have in Christ has placed us in a new position, a legal position. This new position requires A NEW LIFESTYLE. If we are to reside in "heavenly places" we must be a stranger to the old lifestyle and a pilgrim in this world. We must reject that which rendered pleasure in this world and seek after the high calling of God. Our dreams, aspirations, and goals are now defined from a spiritual standpoint and not a self-seeking, self-gratifying, self-fulfilling worldly view.

John Gill aptly wrote, "the city whereof we are freemen is heaven, and WE BEHAVE OURSELVES here below, as citizens of the city above;" Although we have not yet obtained to that heavenly city, our mind, heart, desire, is be on that which we most long for. And what is it that the Christian is longing for? We seek, we desire, we await, to be with Christ. Contrast the difference of the desires of the world’s LIFESTYLE with the desires of the Christian. One is a selfish pleasure seeking carnality while the other is a desire to be complete in Christ. Such completeness can only be realized in its fullness when we reside with Christ upon our departure from this world. Yet, we are TO CONDUCT OURSELVES in such a manner and we are TO LIVE AS THOUGH WE ARE ALREADY THERE.. Our desires are not worldly but heavenly."

Mr. Cook refers to both meanings of the word, one being our citizenship and the other being our lifestyle or manner of living.

The meaning of the word in both English and Greek.

Conversation

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

1. General course of manners; behavior; deportment; especially as it respects morals.

Let your conversation be as becometh the gospel. Philippians 1:27.

Be ye holy in all manner of conversation. 1 Peter 1:15.

2. A keeping company; familiar intercourse; intimate fellowship or association; commerce in social life. Knowledge of men and manners is best acquired by conversation with the best company.

3. Intimate and familiar acquaintance; as a conversation with books, or other object.

4. Familiar discourse; general intercourse of sentiments; chat; unrestrained talk; opposed to a formal conference.

Websters modern dictionary con·ver·sa·tion

Etymology: Middle English conversacioun, from Middle French conversation, from Latin conversation-, conversatio, from conversari to associate with, frequentative of convertere to turn around

1 obsolete: conduct, behavior

2 oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas : an instance of such exchange: talk.

The Greek word

As John Wesley noted, the Greek word has a variety of meanings. According to Wigram's Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, the word used in Philippians 3:20 is politeuma. It is found only one time and it comes from the verb politeuomai which is used twice in the New Testament. The verb is used in Acts 23:1 "I HAVE LIVED in all good conscience before God until this day."

The second instance is in Philippians 1:27 where we see the same English word as found in the King James Bible. "Only LET YOUR CONVERSATION BE as it becometh the gospel of Christ.". Here most modern versions translate this as "live your life" - Holman; "conduct yourselves" - NASB, NIV; "let your conduct be" - NKJV; "let your manner of life be" - ESV.

The purely secular Diury's Modern Greek Dictionary shows that the verb, from which this noun is taken, still means today "to act" or "to conduct onself".

Many older Bible versions read the same as the King James Bible with "Let your conversation be...". These include Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', and the Geneva Bibles.

There are differing opinions among scholars as to what this Greek word, both the verb and the noun, means. According to Kittel's nine volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume VI page 526, the verb as used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament means "to walk" rather than "to be a citizen", and the author says the noun politeia does not mean civil rights, constitution or state, but rather it is "the pious order of life".

On page 534 he discusses the use of the verb politeuomai in the New Testament as found in Acts 23:1 and Philippians 1:27. He says: "In both cases it is used with no political implications" but it describes "a walk which is shaped by religion." These definitions would agree more with the sense of the King James Bible reading.

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon lists several meanings for the Greek words used. Among them are: 1. to be a citizen or a freeman; 2. to take part in government, 3. to deal with others in private affairs, and 4. to behave - then it references Philippians 1:27 as an example of this use. The last two meanings would be the sense found in the KJB.

Thayer's Greek-English lexicon also lists several meanings, including: 1. to be a citizen, 2. to behave as a citizen, 3. to conduct oneself as pledged to some law of life. The last two definitions also fit the KJB meaning.

Finally Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich also list the same various meanings of the verb and noun, one of which is "to live", to "conduct oneself", "to live one's life".

If we follow the context of Philippians 3 we see that the apostle Paul is exhorting the Christians regarding their practical, everday walk with the Lord. "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample...."For our conversation (our manner of life, our walk, our behaviour) is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body..."

Actually it is the King James Bible that brings out the better of the two meanings rather than the newer versions that limit the context merely to the place of our "citizenship". We can be citizens of heaven but live like the world in which we find ourselves. Most of us do this too much now. The King James rendering follows the context of the passage; reminds us that our true life, behaviour and affections are in heaven, and exhorts us to live accordingly.

We find the same positional truth expressed in such verses as Colossians 3:1-4 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."

Ephesians 1:4-6 also tell us that we are now seated in heaven with Christ - "But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us...hath quickened us together with Christ...And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus."

Our life is hid with God in Christ. We are seated in the heavenly places, and our life or "conversation" - to use an older and now archaic word - is in heaven. The apostle exhorts us to live now as we will be living then. This is the truth presented in the King James Holy Bible.

Will Kinney


Phil. 3:20 Our conversation is in heaven

* Amen, Will. God bless you, dear brother. *

 

Good question, gb93433... (You previously asked, "What if someone reads the NASB academically and applies it spiritually?")

What if somebody reads THIS in the NASB academically and applies it spiritually? --

Psalms 78:36: "But they DECEIVED Him with their mouth And lied to Him with their tongue." NASB

Do what?!!!! Ha,ha,ha. NOBODY - AND I DO MEAN NOBODY DECEIVES GOD ALMIGHTY!!!!

Another lie in the modern versions.

KJV to the rescue:

Psalms 78:36 "Nevertheless they did FLATTER him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues."

Let's hope nobody takes the NASB too seriously and tries to apply it spiritually. The world is filled with people who think they can deceive God. Ha,ha.

 

DHK, Ever read a book called the 'Lore of the Unicorn'? Your library may have it if you are really and geniunely intersted. They state evidence to support that there HAVE BEEN ONE-HORNED GOATS (reminding one of Daniel 8:5 by the way), and one-horned marine animals. The Rhinocerous has ONE horn if you look at the BASE OF THE SPIKES. You don't have any problem believing a Triceratops lived (3 horns), but you have trouble believing a one-horned animal exists. It could have been a horse with one horn. I don't know. I wasn't there. I don't try to prove universal negatives or pretend to have universal knowledge past, present, and future. Many things in heaven are likenesses to things upon earth. For example, in Ezekiel 10 it says a cherub has the face of an ox, a man, an eagle, and a lion (not these little plump, naked, Cupids people dangle on their Xmas tree). Do you deny 'horses of fire' in 2 Kings 2:11 and 2 Kings 6:17. Do you deny their existence too? I don't see why you'd have a problem, for instance, believing in at least the potentiality of a horse with a horn.
But time fails me again (I have 6 kids under age 11 to tend to), and brother Will does a more thorough job of answering this objection. Here's his rebuttal...

UNICORNS
Is the word “unicorn” an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 “Jerusalem, and ‘it shall be lifted up’ and inhabited in her place.” This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way in our Lord’s prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.

This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?” This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all and used in farming. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as “wild ox”. The wild ox is nothing more than a “wild guess” and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God’s question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a ‘Yeah, I can do that.’

Those who criticize the KJB’s unicorns try to muster a group of “scholars” who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carfully to their words. Henry Morris - “The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct.” W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) “the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct.” Charles Spurgeon wrote “The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct.” William Houghon “we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended.”

Eastons’ Bible dictionary says: “The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct.”

All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible translators do not know what this animal was, and they say it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, until they are tamed or domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as “buffalo”, while the Douay Rheims sometimes has “rhinoceros” and other times “unicorns”.

Unicorn means literally, “one - horned”, and it was a one horned animal. Daniel Webster’s first Dictionary of 1828 defined unicorn as “an animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” There have been fossils found, and are now in museums, of a giant one horned beast or dinosaur. There are also the unicorn bird, the unicorn fish, the unicorn moth, the unicorn shell, plant, root and the unicorn constellation. So several things, both plants and animals have the word unicorn attached to them to describe some physical characteristic.

There are even historical accounts of the unicorn. In 416 BC, the Greek physician Ctesias set out to attend to the Persian King Darius II, where he spent 18 years. He later wrote a book called Indica, in which he said: “There are in India certain wild asses which are a large as horses, and larger. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length.”

Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, describes “an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros (one - horned)...It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive.” Aristotle frequently mentioned the unicorn. He said in one passage: “I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India. It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length..” Julius Caesar said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest, and Alexander the Great is said to have seen one before attempting to invade a certain territory, and took it as a sign not to attack, because the land was protected. Are these reports true? I do not know, but I mention them only to show that there are many conflicting views as to what this animal was and in what form it existed.

Justin Martyr writes concerning the unicorn in Psalm 22. In his book "Dialogue with Trypho" this early church fathers says: "And what follows of the Psalm,--'But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from THE HORNS OF THE UNICORNS,'--was also information and prediction of the events which should befall Him. For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Moreover, it is similarly foretold that He would die by crucifixion. For the passage, 'Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from the horns of the UNICORNS,' is indicative of the suffering by which He should die, i.e., by crucifixion. For the 'horns of the, unicorns,' I have already explained to you, are the figure of the cross only."

In chapter 16 Justin Martyr continues his reference to the unicorn, saying: “And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, 2‘From the blessing of the Lord is his land; for the seasons of heaven, and for the dews, and for the deep springs from beneath,... Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is like the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an UNICORN: with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.' Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an UNICORN represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns."

The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating the Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible 1535, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation, the 21st Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible, published in 1833, Lamsa’s 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Peshitta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX) - Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.

One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of “wild ox”, besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. ‘But my HORN shalt thou exalt like the HORN of AN UNICORN.” The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: “You have exalted my HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX.” Now, I ask you a simple question. How many horns does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.

Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel. He says: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his HORNS are like the HORNS OF UNICORNS: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth.” The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew - unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural “unicorns” not only by the KJB but also by Websters Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB. Those who criticze the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are really showing their ignorance of the Hebrew language.

All Bible translations frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the NKJV, NIV and NASB do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 “nachash” & “aqrab” (singular nouns) are translated by all as “serpents & scorpions”, in Deut. 1:19, 20 “har” is mountains in the NKJV, Deut 1:1, 2:37 “bahar” and “har” as hills or mountains in NKJV, KJB, and NIV. Deut. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places “ish” as “men”; Dt. 3:3 “sarid” as survivors in NIV, NKJV; Deut. 5:15 “ebed” slaves in NIV, Deut. 7:9 “dowr” generations in NIV & NKJV; Deut. 8:8 “rimmown” as pomegranates in NASB, NIV and NKJV; Deut. 9:ll, 18, 25 “layil” as “nights” in NASB, NIV and NKJV; and Deut. 10:19 “gare” as strangers or aliens in NIV, NKJV, and NASB.

So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Because of the “horns” plural, the KJB has made the singular nown as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.

The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the NKJV, NASB, NIV have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, and the wild ox has two horns, not just one.

One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS.

In the original 16ll edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else but God, what the unicorn was or is.

It was a one horned animal of great strength; it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.

Will Kinney

 

Sorry Bubba Bookborn, you Psalms 78:36 gambit
is a loosing battle. You should know by now that
EVERY KJVO
ARGUMENT you bring in from somewhere else has already
been demolished here at BB. And 98% of the KJVO arguments
you discover on your own
will have already have their back broken here.

"Psalm 78:36" gives 5 Google results if you look only
in baptistboard.com. One of these is my own document
about the double standards of KJV-onlyists:

//Double Standard:
---703 - It is not misleading in the slightest for the KJV reader
to have to read "tried to" into the "did flatter" in Psalm 78:36,
but the NASV is of course really, really misleading
because "tried to" has to be read into the "deceived".//

 

Don't you think he had already preserved his word long before the KJV? You have written a lot to say nothing. So, what's your point?

 

Bookborn:

What is the original source of that long quote by Will Kinney?

 

Look for half a sentence in Google.
I looked for:

"Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb"
and found 7 matches, one at his site at:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html


But that was the Unicorn post. Ah well, you
get the idea. We live in a new world
called Google

 

You would miss a lot too if you only had about a dozen manuscripts to work with. I think they did the best they could with what they had. I certainly do have trouble with an Anglicanized (transliterated) word by pedobaptists for immersed--baptism. Don't you?

Don't they have about over 5000 today?

You did fail to answer my earlier question. Which translation is perfect?

 

Is your name W. F. Albright?

 

absolute temperature is the BTU or BRITISH THERMAL UNIT;

No, it is Kelvin

absolute location or absolute latitude/longitude on a map is ENGLISH - Greenwich, England...

A simple course in surveying, geograhy, or GIS will help you a lot to understand that there are many coordinate systems used and not all have the same starting point. Longitude and latitude is one of many.

Absolute truth is your KJV if you speak English - and you do).

So you proclaim it is a perfect translation and no need to study Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic?

I have dozens of Greek texts in my library as a book collector, but I wouldn't waste the church's time, God's time, or the world's time ministering Greek and Hebrew ("Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, REDEEMING THE TIME."

I am not sugesting that you do that. However, I am suggesting that you study to get it right before talking to others so you speak from your study and not ignorance.

 

Exactly right. Seems simple enough, but yet so many think they know better.

 

Bookborn,

Thank you very much for your Info about Mike Maynard, debate over 1 John 5:7.
Also, your post about Unicorn was very useful even though it was originally posted by other person. Thanks again.
Simply I thought Re-em was between Buffalo and Horse with Uni-horn. There are some animals which are extinct now, like Leviathan, Dragon, etc. Re-em was said to be called Bubbalos in Arabia, I heard. Anyway I don't see any problem with KJV in the matter of UNICORN.

There are certain good needs to study the original languages like Hebrew and Greek, because many translations are still found to contain mistakes and errors. We have to be vigilant to study and preserve the Words of God, so that we may preach the Gospel in truth.

Bible was written by the Inspiration of Holy Spirit and there is no error in His Word, but One single translated book of Bible may contain certain errors. God has preserved His Words, but not necessarily in one book, instead in His own way, because, otherwise, Satan would have destroyed that single book as we can see no autographs available. However, from my own study, I have found no other versions or translations better than or more accurate than KJV so far!

I have translated NT based on Majority Texts and TR from Greek into Korean and am working for translating Ben Chayyim Masorah from Hebrew into Korean since 7 years ago as the current one is rather similar to NIV. It may take some more years for me to finish it, then I may pursue some friends to work with me for updating KJV so that I may have it paralleled with my Korean version, Lord willing. I have noticed hundreds of Modern Versions are based on Minority Texts which I believe contains many modifications by human thoughts, and many omissions and misunderstandings, and human modifications, etc. even though they were translated by many scholars. I believe that any scholars or degrees or titles are not important from the point of God's view.


Anyone who buys a house should pay a good attention and carefulness in checking the defects of it. Choosing a Bible or its basic texts is not less important than that. If anyone choose other than TR/Majority Texts or KJV, it is up to him or her. But there will be the results, rewards, or something else at the end.

As I pointed out many verses above, KJV is still the best, even though it is not perfect!

 

I notice that we are on page 15 of this
discussion and nobody has addressed the
following (it has been brought up, just
not addressed by the Anglophiles {English
Lovers} yet):

I have three KJV paper Bibles on the shelve
over my Computer. They are all different.
Which one is best?

1. KJV1611 Edition
2. KJV1769 Edition*
3. KJV1873 Edition (could be much like
a KJV1850 Edition)

Actually the KJV came out in one
edition in 1762 and another in 1769
but by 1776 the colonies that now make
up the USofA were in open rebellion
against the crown. One of the sticky parts
that read to the rebellion was the King
of England's BIBLE TAX. So there were also
some unauthorized AUTHORIZED VERSIONS floating
around All these are pretty much the
same (except for pesky printing errors)
so i lump them together and call them
the KJV1769.

 

As I listen to both sides of this argument often it will come up that the KJV is wrong at this particular translation or the NIV is wrong at this point and on and on. Those accepting the modern versions will point to the Greek and say see the KJV is wrong and the NIV or whatever is right or vise-versa.

Here is my question. Why after 400 years of translating is there not a inerrant translation yet? And why do people believe there can be no such thing as a inerrant translation?

I don't want to hear because humans are imperfect, that is simply a dumb answer. 400 years of thousands of "scholars" puring over all the available manuscripts, and they have not figured out how to perfectly state in English that which was said in the Greek??!

Both sides will say that a translation is right at one point but wrong at another. SO here we have folks on both sides of the issue declaring what parts are right and what parts are wrong. So if people KNOW what parts are right and what parts are wrong then why has there not been a perfect translation written? And why can't there be a perfect translation written?

Will Kinney had a debate once with a brother named Jason Ga-something I think, his name escapes me at the moment, but he declared to know with exact certainty every mistake ever made in every translation and therefore was going to write his own.

Now don't say that it cannot be inerrant because we lose "total" meaning when jumping from Greek to English, this doesn't leave "error". It might not be as "perfect" as you would like, but don't call it error.

Can one person, any person, here give me one verse of Scripture that YOU would say is uncertain as to what the translation should be. By uncertain I mean we just can't be sure just how it should read in English. Anyone?

God Bless!

 

Ed, are they not all orthographical or scribal errors and corrections?

To me, it doesn't matter very much because I believe KJV was not perfect from the beginning, but that the translators did a very good job and KJV is still the best considering the dotrinal issues.

 

Steaver, I think eventually the choice of the texts are the pre-requisite for all considerations. It is not the matter of translation but the choice of the right texts.

Group A:
OT: Moses-Ezra-Ben Chayyim-Gintsburg : Masorah texts
( I believe these are all born-again Messianic Jews)
NT: Majority Texts(5,321 texts)-TR organized by Erasmus-Stephanus: TR

Group B:
OT: Ben Asher or Septuagynt -Kittel-BHS ( Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia)
NT: Minority texts- Westcott/Hort-Neslte/Aland

Most of the modern versions are based on this Group B.

Only in NT there are 7500-8000 differences among 7800 verses,which means one difference per verse as an average.

Group A and Group B are far each other like East and West, Winter and Summer, and their advocators are fighting vehemently. Only their fighting tactics are different!

I don't want to recall very much about Westcott/Hort concerning whether they were ghost society members, or Maria worshippers, or disbelieved the resurrection, whether they were truly born-again believers or not. You can check about those things. But I often wondered what those group of people had done before KJV came out available.
For example, in 1229 Roman Catholic declared that no one should read the bible without the permission from Pope and they eradicated the Bible from the western Europe. Why don't they continue their policy? Why the infallible Pope, the Agent of Christ, The Holy See doesn't continue such policy now, but changed the policy since the second Council of Vatican, 1962?

Can we see not the change of the policies from the side of oppponents to KJV since 1611? RC condemned KJV vehemently as vulgar langauage or vulgate Bible at that time. They realized that they could not stop KJV despite their struggle, then they changed their strategy!

I believe that RC was behind the revision committee during 1880-1883. Apparently Ha-Satan changed his strategy about the Bible from restricting to spreading many looks-the same-fakes! as we can see many liberalism in many other fields of the world life like freedom for homo-sexuality, freedom for Marijuana, freedom for abortion, freedom for euthanasia, gun possession, stem cell research etc.
In the past, I had a great trust on any version of Bible, thinking that the difference is not much. However, after I finished the translation of NT from the Greek majority texts/TR, I have concluded that I made a very much right and necessary decision to start the job because I found so many ridiculous errors and intentional distortions in the most of modern versions.

Again East and West are not the same, as Winter is different from Summer. There lies more difference between Minority texts and Majority texts than that between Winter and Summer.

Herein we find a good need for being vigilant in defense of Truth.

 

PASTORSBC1303 (since you agreed with gb93433) and gb9343,
Originally posted by gb93433:
However, I am suggesting that you study to get it right before talking to others so you speak from your study and not ignorance.

Your statement has a lofty, grandiose ring to it, inSINuating that when YOU witness, the recipient REALLY gets truth. I'm all eyes for concrete examples. You haven't provided the advanced revelations that you allege are gleaned from Hebrew or Greek that the KJV translators, or a person using the KJV, have missed.
Are you suggesting that the KJV will lead a person astray? When I witness to others, I use scripture, and specifically, KJV. What specifically are you suggesting with regards to using the KJV in witnessing? In other words, demonstrate how you are superior to the KJV in your testimony.
I have shown examples of how the NASB can potentially lead a person astray (They may think they are A LITTLE LOWER THAN GOD in Psalms 8:5, and they may think THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IDOL in I Cor. 8:4, they might miss Jesus' attribute as deity in John 3:13, etc. As a Christian, you might underestimate the importance of fasting using an NASB, seeing that is completely removed from Mark 9:29, Matthew 17:21, I Cor. 7:5, and Acts 10:30 for example.)
Please don't just make grand unsubstantiated claims. Show the KJV folk out here what nuggets of revelation the KJV translators and users have missed over the centuries (of course, you have your hand on the pulse of such things) and show us where we, by using the KJV, would lead a sinner astray.