#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

There appears to be some technical difficulty with the last commentary thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=002793

Therefore, I am starting a new thread so that all can post.

This thread is the parallel commentary to the formal debate between Jason Gastrich and Will Kinney:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2766.html

We hope to have the technical issues resolved soon.

 

I am looking for the last three pages of the #2 KJVO debate commentary thread off of my hard drive. If we get the tech issue out of the way, I will delete these posts:

Page 20

Author Topic: #2 KJV-Onlyism Commentary
New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 14, 2004 09:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Will, for your response. It seems there are many others requesting your attention to their questions, so I'll just see what your answers are to them, for now.

Thanks, again, for the time.

I have an open question for others. Aside from the example cited above regarding the word "church" can anyone provide example of the KJV translators having to bend to royal bias in their translation? Are there examples of Anglican bias?

I can agree in that as I read some of the Psalms in the KJV or my Geneva that I see more refined language in the KJV than in the Geneva, but nothing I would see as a bias.

BTW, this is not a challenge. It is a request for information.

Thank you for any responses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 65 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

DHK

Moderator
Member # 152

posted September 14, 2004 10:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by New In Christ:

I have an open question for others. Aside from the example cited above regarding the word "church" can anyone provide example of the KJV translators having to bend to royal bias in their translation? Are there examples of Anglican bias?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word for baptism, "baptidzo," was not translated, but "transliterated. In other words baptism is a made-up word from the Greek taking the Greek letters and making them into an English word. If baptidzo were actually translated they would have put "immersed." That is the meaning of the word. But the translators were bound by political correctness to please the Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as others since there were many that either poured or sprinkled, especially sprinkled. It was the Baptists that immersed. This is another Biblical word that had to be mistranslated because the translators were bound by political correctness to their ecclesiastical authorities.
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5876 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer

Member # 1797

posted September 14, 2004 11:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK: It was the Baptists that immersed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually at this point in history, the Baptists were probably using affusion for baptism. It was certain Anabaptist sects that were practicing immersion.

source

A couple examples of Anglican bias: The use of the term "bishop" instead of "overseer," and the insertion of the phrase "ordained" in Acts 1:22 hinting at Apostolic succession.

The Royal bias is found in the lack of explanatory notes in that the Geneva's extensive use of such was bringing a bit of rebellion about in the Puritans, Baptists and other Seperatists as they discovered the power of sola scriptura.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text."

The motivation behind the KJV translation was in large part due to the Protestant belief that the Bible was the sole source of doctrine (see sola scriptura) and as such should be translated into the local venacular. By the time that the King James Bible was written, there was already a tradition going back almost a hundred years of Bible translation into English, starting with William Tyndale*. At the time of the King James Bible, the authorised version of the Church of England was the Bishops' Bible. The Bishops' Bible, however, enjoyed little popular esteem, and its popularity was eclipsed by the Geneva Bible, whose marginal notes espoused a Protestantism that was too Puritan and radical for King James's taste.

source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*By some reports, William Tyndale was executed because he would not use the word "church" for "congregation". This "heresy" undermined the authority of the established ecclesiastical bodies and led to his martyrdom at the hands of Lord Chancellor Thomas More.

Matthew 16:18
And I saye also vnto the yt thou arte Peter: and apon this rocke I wyll bylde my congregacion. And the gates of hell shall not prevayle ageynst it.

(And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my CONGREGATION and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.) - Tyndale

http://www.reformation.org/thomas-more.html

[ September 14, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6879 | From: Bremo Bluff, Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 15, 2004 01:16 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:
The word for baptism, "baptidzo," was not translated, but "transliterated. In other words baptism is a made-up word from the Greek taking the Greek letters and making them into an English word. If baptidzo were actually translated they would have put "immersed." That is the meaning of the word. But the translators were bound by political correctness to please the Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as others since there were many that either poured or sprinkled, especially sprinkled. It was the Baptists that immersed. This is another Biblical word that had to be mistranslated because the translators were bound by political correctness to their ecclesiastical authorities.
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see the word "baptize" and it's derivatives in The Geneva Bible, too. The translators of the Geneva weren't bound by some pressure to appease Catholic or Anglican influences, were they?

Generally, I do see your point about "baptize" being one of those weird transliterations we see from time to time, where the word was assimilited instead of being translated. I just had never seen it as an Anglican, or other bias.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the input.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 65 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer

Member # 1797

posted September 15, 2004 02:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New in Christ -

It should be noted that many words that appear in Tyndale's version, and then consequently in the Geneva were words that were in common usage by the time of these writings. You will also find the word "bishop" in both translations. The etymology of the word is as follows:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etymology: Middle English bisshop, from Old English bisceop, from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos, literally, overseer, from epi- + skeptesthai to look
Merriam-Webster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, like the implications of "church" being an edifice or centrally controlled entity, the implications of the word "bishop" in the common vernacular brought to mind some type of clergyman who oversaw other clergymen. This was NOT the New Testament model that was put forth in the Scriptures (see Acts 20:28). Though the elders oversaw the flock from a council, there is no heirarchy mentioned. If any heirarchy is implied by the New Testament, it was that the Apostles held sway over the elders. We also know that charges could be brought against an overseer from 1Timothy 5:19.

The Geneva was a "grass roots" translation completed in two years borrowing heavily from the wording of Tyndale. Tyndale's manuscripts were outlawed translations based on Erasmus' work. Erasmus was a Catholic scholar heavily persuaded by the pope (Leo X, I think). Thus, words like "baptize," "bishop" and "church" found their way into later translations.
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0biblehistory.htm

The KJV translators had time and resources enough to know that these words were an exageration of the original languages. James, a learned man, likely also recognized this (remember, as king of England he was also head of the church). This was a large part of the reason that James I instructions to the translators included the clause:

The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

source 1
source 2

Note also that the Anglican church was not born of reformation theology, but as a Protestant movement in order that Henry VIII could grant himself a divorce. Though they pulled away from Rome, they maintained Catholic traditions. The term "Roman" Catholic was born from this separation. The Anglicans wanted to retain the name "Catholic" and therefore added the adjective to the RCC.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q072.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6879 | From: Bremo Bluff, Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

Johnv

Baptist Board Addict
Member # 1897

posted September 15, 2004 03:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by New In Christ:
I have an open question for others. Aside from the example cited above regarding the word "church" can anyone provide example of the KJV translators having to bend to royal bias in their translation? Are there examples of Anglican bias?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dunno about Anglican bias, but Elizabethan bias, definitely. The phrase "God forbid" and "God save the King" are strictly Elizabethan in origin. The phrases in scripture are actually "let it not be so" and "may the King live". Interestingly, KJVO's often accuse newer translations of removing the word "God" from scripture in these phrases, even though they were added by translators of the 1600's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10328 | From: Southern California | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 15, 2004 04:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
The KJV translators had time and resources enough to know that these words were an exageration of the original languages. James, a learned man, likely also recognized this (remember, as king of England he was also head of the church).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Johnv:
I dunno about Anglican bias, but Elizabethan bias, definitely. The phrase "God forbid" and "God save the King" are strictly Elizabethan in origin. The phrases in scripture are actually "let it not be so" and "may the King live". Interestingly, KJVO's often accuse newer translations of removing the word "God" from scripture in these phrases, even though they were added by translators of the 1600's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Clint and JohnV, for the examples and links.

I see similar phraseology as that noted above in other, older translations, too (Geneva and Tyndale). So, is the real issue that the KJV translators bowed to the pressure to retain phraseology that had already become a part of the hierarchy of the church?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 65 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

michelle
2,000 Posts Club
Member # 7469

posted September 15, 2004 04:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it is worth, my husband (he is still unsaved) has said that the KJB translators were consigned, or in other words, hired to do this job of translation. Therefore they were employees, to do the work, in a much less severe bias, than that of those today of the mv's. In other words, they didn't do this of or for their own personal reasons, as they thought other versions were/are valid. This is the opposite of the baised reasons for those responsible for the mv's who had/have personal motives with much more bias. Also, if one reads the preface to the KJB, they tell you exactly why the King ordered this translation, and hired them so to do this. It was to appease the Puritans.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2073 | From: St. Charles, MO | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer

Member # 1797

posted September 15, 2004 05:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, Michelle, it is practically impossible to avoid translator bias and cultural influence in ANY version. Hence the need for study.

As for James attempting to appease the Puritans, he fell far short of his goal in that matter. There is an abundance of material on the web relating to the Hampton Court conference held in 1604 at which the decision was reached to culminate a new version. The Puritans sought to abandon Catholic practices retained by the Anglicans. Instead James figured a Bible that would replace the Geneva would get these folks out of their reformist mindset. The Bishop's Bible was the first attempt at this same political/religious maneuver but it never caught on.

The Puritans never did accept the KJV but still clung to their Geneva Versions. It was the first Bible with verse numbering, the first "study Bible", and the first to come to American shores during the time of early colonization. The King James Version took many years to catch on as the standard but eventually it did.

Understanding the history of these versions is important to the modern Christian. It destroys the false sense of mysticism that surrounds the KJV and shows us that it did not fall from Heaven like dew.
A good translation? Yes.
A great translation? Yes.
The best translation? Maybe.
A perfect translation? No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6879 | From: Bremo Bluff, Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

DHK

Moderator
Member # 152

posted September 15, 2004 06:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle,
A KJVO, speaking of the KJV translators in this way speaks out both sides of his/her mouth.

First, they castigate people as Westcott and Hort for being heretics and tampering with the texts. Obviously they had their agendas and could not possibly be fair and unbiased.

Second, if a group of translators that has translated one of the modern translations all claim to be born again and are evangelical Christians, you will still degrade the translation because they used the wrong texts, were blind to the truth, left out the deity of Christ deliberately, etc. etc. And in so doing you end up attacking their very character.

You can't have it both ways.
You say that the KJV translator were unbiased even though they were Anglican/Catholic possibly unsaved.
But look at some of the literature your own people have written about Westcott and Hort. WoW!!
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5876 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |

Johnv

Baptist Board Addict
Member # 1897

posted September 15, 2004 06:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by New In Christ:
I see similar phraseology as that noted above in other, older translations, too (Geneva and Tyndale). So, is the real issue that the KJV translators bowed to the pressure to retain phraseology that had already become a part of the hierarchy of the church?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIC, I think the issue comes down more to this:

The language used in the KJV includes syntax and terminology that was in regular use in the 1600's, but is no longer in use, or has changed meaning, since then. The word "brass" and "corn" are good examples. The words we would use in these instances today are "bronze" and "grain".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10328 | From: Southern California | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

michelle
2,000 Posts Club
Member # 7469

posted September 15, 2004 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
The language used in the KJV includes syntax and terminology that was in regular use in the 1600's, but is no longer in use, or has changed meaning, since then. The word "brass" and "corn" are good examples. The words we would use in these instances today are "bronze" and "grain".
--------------------------------------------------


Even though they may be archaic, doesn't make them in error.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2073 | From: St. Charles, MO | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

DHK

Moderator
Member # 152

posted September 15, 2004 11:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
The language used in the KJV includes syntax and terminology that was in regular use in the 1600's, but is no longer in use, or has changed meaning, since then. The word "brass" and "corn" are good examples. The words we would use in these instances today are "bronze" and "grain".
--------------------------------------------------


Even though they may be archaic, doesn't make them in error.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly right. Archaic words may not be wrong. The word "conversation" for example is an archaic word that although today means "speech," then it meant "behaviour," or "manner of life." But we come to a problem in Phil.3:20.

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

Is our speech in Heaven? No.
Is our behaviour, our way of life in Heaven? No.

Then what is in Heaven? What is meant by "conversation" that the KJV so poorly translated here, and for all intent and purposes were in error.

Perhaps Michelle can enlighten us. I know that the ASV can. (as well as a good Greek lexicon)
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5876 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |

New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 16, 2004 06:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Johnv:
NIC, I think the issue comes down more to this:

The language used in the KJV includes syntax and terminology that was in regular use in the 1600's, but is no longer in use, or has changed meaning, since then. The word "brass" and "corn" are good examples. The words we would use in these instances today are "bronze" and "grain".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. That is true,and I thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I think those are really examples of usage. I'm more looking for examples of some bias or pressure being exerted on the translators, by King James, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or otherwise.

If I'm understanding properly what's being said here, some of the ecclesiastical language in the KJV was not so much inserted by the KJV translators (the word "ordained" in Acts 1:22 being a possible exception), rather, the translators, who should have known better, were under pressure to preserve the ecclesiastical status-quo. Thus they avoided translations of words that, while potentially more accurate, may have threatened it. Is this a fair assessment?

It seems to me this has to be the case, if one is to suggest a bias in the KJV since some of the same ecclesiastical language (bishop instead of overseer, church instead of congregation or assembly, etc.) is found in older translations, such as Geneva and Tyndale, which were not at all beholden to the Anglican or Catholic church.

Again, thank you for the information and responses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 65 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

Bro. James
Junior Member
Member # 9545

posted September 16, 2004 07:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings and Salutations in the name of the Lord,

I am new to this format of dialogue. Please bear with my learning curve which may be rather lengthy.

In as much as there seems to be no specific question on the floor, I will adddress the subject: KJV-Only. This will be done in a commentary format.

The Apostle(one sent by God with a specific message)Paul(formerly called Saul)dictated these words to someone who could see to write: "Study to show thyself approved unto God; a workman who needth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." See letters to Timothy in the Holy Writ. There are at least two things that seem obvious from this scripture: 1. God approves of a studious child, and 2. There is a right way and a wrong way to study.

Jesus in John Ch. 3 chided a rabbi, Nicodemus: a paraphrase would be: 'you are a master of Israel and know not of what I speak: YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN TO SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD.'

I would contend that one must be BORN FROM ABOVE to rightly divide, translate, transliterate, or anything else regarding the Word of God. There is another qualification here: the Scripture is understandable only through spiritual discernment. Does this mean one has to be a "right reverend doctor" to understand it? No, Jesus said a little child could understand.

Now that I have insulted those with letters. Let me clarify: there is nothing wrong with a child of God being a Doctor of Theology provided such is not being a "respecter of persons" or a "Nicolaitian' (an overthrower of the people).

I see this will have to be in segments.

Brotherly,
Bro. James
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2 | From: Denham Springs, Louisiana, USA | Registered: Sep 2004 | IP: Logged |

 

Page 22

Author Topic: #2 KJV-Onlyism Commentary
Jason Gastrich
Member
Member # 8973

posted September 17, 2004 04:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you have defined the unicorn in your website as rhinocerous, then you ought to have the integrity to come forth and say that the KJV translators made a mistake when they translated this word "rheem" as unicorn, and should have translated it "rhinocerous" (in your opinion), or wild ox (in the opinion of others).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I second this notion.

JG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 92 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Jul 2004 | IP: Logged |

Will J. Kinney
Active Member
Member # 1018

posted September 17, 2004 05:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnv posts:

"Jesus" in Heb. 4 should be "Joshua".
"Easter" in Acts 12 should be "Passover".
"Made" in John 1:3 should be "came into being".
"Firmament" in Gen. 1 should be "expanse".
"Wind" in John 3:8 should be translated "Spirit" (pnuema is so translated everywhere else in the Bible - there is another word for wind).
"comprehended it not" in John 1:5 should read "did not overtake it".
--------------------------------------------------
Sister Michelle>>>And these of course, are your own opinions, and not at all the truth. There are not errors in the scriptures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope Johnv>>>No, those are matters of fact, not simply my opinion. This is a clear case of where you unfortunately choose to stick your head in the sand and believe a lie, rather than the truth. ..
Kindly show me scriptural support for this view (I think that's the 45th time I've asked). <<<


John, sister Michelle is right. These examples are only your own opinions. Go to any site where there are more than 20 English Bible translations and take the time to look up the passages you suggest are errors in the KJB.

See how other "scholars" probably far more qualified than you have translated those passages. You will find that many other translators have translated exactly as found in the KJB, and maybe a few might even agree with a couple of yours, but not all the ones you suggest.

You will also find other ways these translators have rendered those passages.

You, like everyone else I have seen here who does not believe the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God, have made your own mind to be the final authority and are making up your "bible" as you go wherever it is you're going.

Have a nice trip.

Will Kinney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 534 | From: Thornton Colorado | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged |

Will J. Kinney
Active Member
Member # 1018

posted September 17, 2004 06:20 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More falsehoods from people who don't have a clue.

"A couple examples of Anglican bias: The use of the term "bishop" instead of "overseer," and the insertion of the phrase "ordained" in Acts 1:22 hinting at Apostolic succession."


If anyone cares to take the time to actually look at the New Testament translations, they will find that the word "bishop", as in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, is found in the following "Anglican" versions:

Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's, John Wesley 1755-another good Anglican-, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard, and the Third Millenium Bible to name a few.


As for the "ordained" in Acts 1:22 this is also the reading of Tyndale, Bishops' Bible, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The reason the word "ordained" is used there is because the context demands it. They were filling the spot vacated by the death of Judas and they looked to God to appoint who would fill his ministry and apostleship. Reading the context will go a long way to help us understand why things are phrased the way they are.

As for the alleged Catholic influence, the Catholic Douay-Rheims version reads "must one BE MADE a witness".

Just thought I would toss in a few verifiable facts in the midst of all this rampant speculation and hubris.

Have a good day,

Will K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 534 | From: Thornton Colorado | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged |

New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 17, 2004 07:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
The reason the word "ordained" is used there is because the context demands it. They were filling the spot vacated by the death of Judas and they looked to God to appoint who would fill his ministry and apostleship. Reading the context will go a long way to help us understand why things are phrased the way they are.

As for the alleged Catholic influence, the Catholic Douay-Rheims version reads "must one BE MADE a witness".

Just thought I would toss in a few verifiable facts in the midst of all this rampant speculation and hubris.

Have a good day,

Will K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will,

Thank you for adding your comments. I read them, as I do the others, with interest. Your above observation leaves me with a couple of questions. First, I can't say I think the context demands the term "ordained." Granted, I'm no expert, but the text is very straightforward and readable with just "made". Second, if the manuscript does not have the word, "ordained," should it not simply be translated as it appears in the manuscript?

Thank you, Will, for your patience and input.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 66 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

Bro. James
Junior Member
Member # 9545

posted September 17, 2004 07:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From whence I cometh: Perhaps the following set of paradigms will explain my basic stand on the subject of translations as well as a majority of the subjects on this forum. Forgive my chasing of conies and verbosity.

1. God is. He is the creator of the everything. He was not an evolutionist. He created Mankind in His image--not a monkey's. The first family, Adam and Eve contained the gene pool for every human (past and present) on this planet.

1a. Corollary: God as referenced above is not Allah, GAOTU, Krishna, Baal, Ashtoreth, Ra, Bacchus, etc. etc. ad infinitum. While it is true that God is infinite in every holy regard, mankind knows not how to describe Him. In fact, man has serious problems with the concept of omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. On the other hand, many men have tried and continue to strive to become god. Man has serious difficulty with: God is the potter--man is the clay. The reason for man's difficulty: he is totally depraved in every regard of his triune being. His mind is corrupted, his body is corrupted and the Spirit of God which God breathed into Adam is dead(separated from God) in trespasses and sin. It is written: "All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." "The wages of sin is death."
The next paradigm will follow later:

Brotherly,

James
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3 | From: Denham Springs, Louisiana, USA | Registered: Sep 2004 | IP: Logged |

michelle
2,000 Posts Club
Member # 7469

posted September 17, 2004 09:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Since you have defined the unicorn in your website as rhinocerous, then you ought to have the integrity to come forth and say that the KJV translators made a mistake when they translated this word "rheem" as unicorn, and should have translated it "rhinocerous" (in your opinion), or wild ox (in the opinion of others).
--------------------------------------------------

Actually it has been shown, that the word unicorn is the most accurate word for this, as a unicorn means a one-horned beast. No one knows for sure, just what beast is being referred to.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2083 | From: St. Charles, MO | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

LarryN

Active Member
Member # 6891

posted September 17, 2004 10:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Since you have defined the unicorn in your website as rhinocerous, then you ought to have the integrity to come forth and say that the KJV translators made a mistake when they translated this word "rheem" as unicorn, and should have translated it "rhinocerous" (in your opinion), or wild ox (in the opinion of others).
--------------------------------------------------

Actually it has been shown, that the word unicorn is the most accurate word for this, as a unicorn means a one-horned beast. No one knows for sure, just what beast is being referred to.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michelle,

Perhaps you could tell us what you believe "satyr" to mean in this verse in the KJV:

Isaiah 34:14 (KJV)
"The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest."

------------------------------------------

Here's how the Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "satyr":

SA'TYR, n. [l. satyrus; Gr. a monkey, a fawn.]

In mythology, a sylvan deity or demi-god, represented as a monster, half man and half goat, having horns on his head, a hairy body, with the feet and tail of a goat. Satyrs are usually found in the train of Bacchus, and have been distinguished for lasciviousness and riot. They have been represented as remarkable for their piercing eyes and keen raillery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 515 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2003 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer

Member # 1797

posted September 17, 2004 10:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
If anyone cares to take the time to actually look at the New Testament translations, they will find that the word "bishop", as in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, is found in the following "Anglican" versions:

Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's, John Wesley 1755-another good Anglican-, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard, and the Third Millenium Bible to name a few.


As for the "ordained" in Acts 1:22 this is also the reading of Tyndale, Bishops' Bible, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, and the Third Millenium Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So is this perhaps a good example of where the KJV is simply a revision of Tyndale's Bible? I thought your contention was that it used the TR, the "pure water poured from vessel to vessel."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason the word "ordained" is used there is because the context demands it. They were filling the spot vacated by the death of Judas and they looked to God to appoint who would fill his ministry and apostleship. Reading the context will go a long way to help us understand why things are phrased the way they are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demands it, huh? So the KJV translators had to clarify God's perfect word? The first inspiration was not adequate to do so? Did the TR manuscripts have a "mistake" by omitting the word "ordained"?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Will September 06, 2004 02:03 PM Eastern:

The KJB is not re-inspired. I never said that. God's words are like water. If I take this same water and put it into another vessel, even of a different shape, and there is no addition or subtraction of the water, it is the same water.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2767/16.html#000234
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6882 | From: Bremo Bluff, Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

 

If anyone can find page 21 in their temporary internet files, please post it.

Again, we hope to have this issue resolved soon.

You can locate the specified temp files in a Windows system by following this procedure:

Go to Start > Find (or Search) > Files or Folders

On the "Name and Location" tab fill in the field marked "Named" with "ultimatebb".

In the field marked "Containing Text" type in "page 21".

Click the "Advanced" tab and in the "Of Type" field, find HTML document from the dropdown box.

Click "Find Now".

[ September 17, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Pieces I can reconstruct of page 21 of the failed thread from my hard drive:

Bro. James:

Clint:

However, like the implications of "church" being an edifice or centrally controlled entity, the implications of the word "bishop" in the common vernacular brought to mind some type of clergyman who oversaw other clergymen. This was NOT the New Testament model that was put forth in the Scriptures (see Acts 20:28). Though the elders oversaw the flock from a council, there is no heirarchy mentioned. If any heirarchy is implied by the New Testament, it was that the Apostles held sway over the elders. We also know that charges could be brought against an overseer from 1Timothy 5:19.

The Geneva was a "grass roots" translation completed in two years borrowing heavily from the wording of Tyndale. Tyndale's manuscripts were outlawed translations based on Erasmus' work. Erasmus was a Catholic scholar heavily persuaded by the pope (Leo X, I think). Thus, words like "baptize," "bishop" and "church" found their way into later translations.
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0biblehistory.htm

The KJV translators had time and resources enough to know that these words were an exageration of the original languages. James, a learned man, likely also recognized this (remember, as king of England he was also head of the church). This was a large part of the reason that James I instructions to the translators included the clause:

The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

souce 1
source 2

Note also that the Anglican church was not born of reformation theology, but as a Protestant movement in order that Henry VIII could grant himself a divorce. Though they pulled away from Rome, they maintained Catholic traditions. The term "Roman" Catholic was born from this separation. The Anglicans wanted to retain the name "Catholic" and therefore added the adjective to the RCC.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions </font>[/QUOTE]Clint:

Speaking for myself, yes, in large part the translators' bias is shown in the retention of those words. The use of the term "ordained" is one exception of an insertion of a word that introduced Anglican bias into the text. Another example building upon the same premise is found in verses such as 1Timothy 3:10, 13 in which the word "office of" is inserted before "deacon". There is nothing in the Greek that supports this translation. The diaconate in Catholicism and Anglicanism is considered a tie and stepping stone towards the clergy.

While most Protestant denominations term "deacon" as an "office," churches (congregations? ) are always in danger of the diaconate becoming a "ruling board" which is completely counter to their intended purpose.

The thing is, these terms WERE and ARE beholden to the Catholic Church. Just as Tyndale and the Geneva authors inherited these terms, many of us still call the auditorium of a church building a "sanctuary." We have "altar" calls. Some still use the term "sacrament" for the Lord's Supper. These are all Catholic teachings that we inherited and have yet to leave our vocabulary, despite our knowledge that such are non-Sciptural.

Hello Brother James and welcome to the Baptist Board. Your input is appreciated.

In the quote above you make a good point. Jesus promised us Spiritual discernment in John 8:47 and 18:37. As for your reference to children, the context was that our faith in Christ was to be like that of a child (c.f. - Matthew 18:2-5; 19:13-14). I do not see in these Passages that rightly discerning the Scriptures requires the mind of a child. To the contrary, Paul speaking on this same issue (Spiritual discernment) said in 1Corinthians 13:

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Paul also said of his audience in Corinth:

1 Corinthians 3
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Yes, a saving faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior requires the faith of a child. Rightly dividing the truth of the Scriptures, however, requires a maturing of the spiritual man.</font>[/QUOTE]

 

More:

Clint:

It is indeed the Holy Spirit which calls one to salvation and those who have not the faith will not be saved.

Hebrews 4
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

Indeed, the KJV translators were Anglican scholars overseen by Anglican clergy commissioned by a monarch who believed in the doctrine of the "divine right of kings." It is truly amazing that God can such fragile and faulty vessels to bring about His Will! Even Cyrus, a Gentile, pagan king was called "messiah" by Isaiah in 45:1 of his Book.

Well said, well quoted and amen!

If by "rhetoric" you mean statements that can not be backed, opinions projected as doctrines, misrepresentations of the truth in order to prove a sentimentality towards a translation of the Bible, I would have to agree.

If by "rhetoric" you mean presenting convincing arguments dispelling untruths about honest, scholarly efforts to bring to the Christian reader an accurate translation of the word of God, I would say that you are in error. If a translation of the Scriptures can bring about the repentance, confession, and regeneration of a sinner, it can not have the devil as its author. The Pharisees accused Christ of being Beelzebul when He cast the demon from that poor soul in Galilee. His reply:

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? Matthew 12:25-26

Actually, satan asked Eve what God had said about eating from trees. It was Eve who misquoted God in Gensis 3:3. Satan then straight out denied what God had said.

But, yes, his tactics are quite the same today.

Best? I'll accept your opinion on that and have no qualms with it. As for the Received Text part of your quote, well, that needs a little more clarity. We discussed the TR back on pages 10-14 or so of this thread and I posted this quote from the strongly proKJV Way of Life site:

The modern counterparts to it, yes, and the margin notes still contain a great deal of insight that should not be overlooked. It was indeed a great, scholarly effort.

For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. John 3:16 Geneva

Since James I "authorized" the work on the Bible translation and he was an Anglican, it contained the Apocrypha. This was removed in 1769 and that text is what most folks refer to when they say the "Authorized Version."

While I recognize the passion with which you make this assertion, it is totally erroneous. The TR was developed by the work of Erasmus, a Catholic monk and scholar working under the close scrutiny of Leo X. That Greek translation which underwent many transformations and was not even called the Textus Receptus until 1633, 22 years after the KJV 1611.

[added note: the statement that the Douay-Rheims version does not use the TR is accurate. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate. - CK]

Brother James, I can tell by your writing style that you must be a great orator and I would dearly love to hear you preach. But please understand that the search for clarity through translations is nearly as old as Christianity:

michelle:

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

More:

DHK:

Well that's good logic Will. "The KJV translator's made a mistake. Let me show you other translations that made the same mistake. That will prove to you that the mistake that they made was not a mistake." Do two wrongs make a right? Perhaps that is why the mv advocates are showing you in other versions how it is better translated, and you are not paying attention. You have your head in the sand, and will not admit there is a mistake just because some others made the same mistake. That's not very good logic.

They were indeed very good scholars. I won't doubt that. But they were high Anglican/Catholic people with very biased opinions in certain areas, and were limited in their scope of translation because they had to be "politically correct" according to the authorities that were in power at that time.

Surely you can do better than this. You are showing your ignorance here. The word for "church" is "kuriokos." The word for assembly is "ekklesia." The problem here is that the KJV translators rarely translated ekklesia correctly, but because their hands were tied to political correctness they were forced to translate the word "church." It does not mean church; it means assembly. This is shown in Acts 19:

Acts 19:39-41 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse. And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

Why wasn't the word "church" used here. The answer is obvious isn't it. They were in a theatre, gathered as an assembly. They were assembled together. The word ekklesia, in every case, means assembly. The KJV translators translated ekklesia wrong every time they used the word "church," a grievous error on their part. It means assembly or congregation. Kuriokos means church, not ekklesia. Ekklesia means assembly.

I already answered this for you. I believe you failed to understand my answer. The translators job is to translate. The readers job is to study and find out the sense of the meaning. It is not the job of the translator to paraphrase and interpret.

Get over what? That two wrongs make a right?
That just because you can find others that make the same mistake that makes it right. Is this a game in who can find the most mistakes, or who can render the correct translation from the original languages. I think I know the answer from your point of view. Pitiful!

You are right. What I presented as my preference as the translation of unicorn is not the widely accepted preference. It was, for the sake of argument, YOURS--the one you claimed on your own website. You were the one that said the unicorn was probably a rhinocerous. I gave YOU the benefit of the doubt and went with that. So even with your translation of the word, why didn't the KJV translator's use the word "rhinocerous" instead of the mythological Greek pagan word of "unicorn?" FYI I prefer the more accepted definition of wild ox. Check other translations. But the fact stands, the KJV translator didn't translate the word either way. They mistakenly translated the word "unicorn" appealing to Greek mythology--a definite mistake. Accept it!

You have shot yourself in the foot. If the word for church is wrong. If the word for unicorn is wrong. If the word for so many others that have been presented to you have been translated wrong, and you have no good answer (which you have not presented yet), then you do not have an inerrant, infallible, inspired Bible, anywhere on this earth, except in your own mind, and you little "bible" differs radically from every other "bible" out there. Too bad that is the way you think. It is too bad that 2,700 languages of the world don't have the Word of God. It is too bad that 90% of the world doesn't have the Word of God. Your God is one of the most cruel Gods I have ever known. Only those that can understand KJV English can understand God. You have a very limited view of God.

As already answered, they are correctly translated assembly. It is the word church that is wrongly translated. How many mistakes does the KJV have. Since the word "church" is mentioned over 100 times that makes more than 100 errors in the KJV.

I love it. An accurate translation, accurately translating the word ekklesia, for once. Why didn't they do it the other 100 plus times?

It certainly wasn't a church was it?

It was an assembly just like the word means. I hope you have learned a little Greek by now.

A lot more accurate!!
DHK [/QUOTE]

 

A fuller reply to Will Kinney's post of September 17, 2004 06:20 AM:

Here's an example of theological translator bias to chew on:

The Douey-Rheims has many verses and phrases in common with other versions. This happens to be one they got right.

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. John 3:16 Douay Rheims

The end of Revelation in the KJV likely agrees with the Douay-Rheims as well seeing as how they both had the same base source: Jerome's Vulgate. It's all Erasmus had to make his translation. Aleph and B did not contain it.

I will take this as an admission that your previous speculation and hubris was nonverifiable. Else you would have answered the questions I posed.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2793/7.html?#000100

Once again, I am not holding my breath for you to answer these new questions either. You seem to be skilled at not allowing yourself to be trapped into contradiction against your own posts too often. Perhaps you have been called to account before on another forum? Anyone who follows these threads, however, recognizes that your silence speaks volumes.

 

A reissue of my challenge to Will Kinney originally posted September 13, 2004 06:39 PM Eastern:

Will Kinney of Thornton Colorado -

In good faith, I knocked down the straw man you had set up on page 8 of this thread [#2 KJVO commentary]. In doing so I said, "If you have other "reasons" for not answering these questions after this post, please let me know. Since I have answered your questions in good faith, I would ask that you do the same before going on a tangent over these new answers."
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2793/8.html?#000110

As I anticipated, you have no intention of giving me any answers to the refutations I made of your errant points throughout these two threads. You claim to be a defender of the Bible, but you do not act in accordance with the virtues it proclaims.

Just so you know, I am not a seminarian. I have NO formal training in the Bible nor on the subject OF the Bible. I do, however, know what it says and am a faithful student of it. I attempt to live a life that demonstrates that I am not just a hearer of word, but a doer of the word as well. That, sir, is my testimony of what I really think about the Bible. What about you?

If you do not have answers to my questions, then say so. I will appeal to you one more time to show some integrity. You will not even tell me which New Testament verses support Mosaic authorship of Genesis. My 11-year-old could do that. Here, once again, is my list in full quote. I am quite sure you will not answer it. A leopard can not change his spots.

I'm glad to see that you are looking to tie up some loose ends with unanswered questions and with both commentary threads becoming so long it would be easy to miss specific questions addressed to specific individuals. In an effort to aid you, I have compiled a short list of the queries I have presented to you that remain unanswered.

The challenge was made to you September 06, 2004 01:12 PM Eastern:

In an attempt to answer this, you made a post on September 07, 2004 03:00 PM Eastern, which was answered here in full quote: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2793/2.html?#000025

Further refutation to your post was presented here http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2793/3.html#000032

These refutations prompted these questions (in paraphrase):


</font>

• Using the example of the SBC's "fundamental resurgence," how was such done through democratic process at the convention if so many of the pastors of the churches of the messengers were apostates trained at SBC seminaries?</font>
• Were you aware that the examples of "turning from the truth" that you presented are older (sometimes by centuries) than the modern versions that you condemn and can not be credited to modern theological teaching nor modern versions? (By the way, the assertion that Genesis has multiple authors was first credited to Spinoza.)</font>
• Do you still think that the question over the term tachash (badger skins) is new or due to Bible versions?</font>
• If I were to present to you a conflict between the Masoretic text and the KJV, would you be willing to admit that the KJV has an error(s), or would you denounce the Jewish manuscripts as "corrupt" and "not accurate"?</font>
• To which modern versions specifically do you attribute a "turning away" from the "truth"?
  Should you answer this last one and your position has not changed, can you cite specific footnotes, introductions, or any other texts within the specified book that would confirm your position?</font>

Further questions that have been left unanswered:

</font>

• Can you provide PROOF that the use of archaic terminology in the KJV, without the use of an older or unabridged dictionary, does not impede understanding of the Scriptures?</font>
• Can you provide PROOF that the KJV translators did not use the Septuagint for the purpose of translating the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament, especially in Job?</font>
• Can you provide PROOF that Hebrew translations of the Bible, specifically of Job, agree with the KJV?</font>

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767/16.html?#000233

</font>

• Including the many italicized words? Including the preface? Or are these "impurities" in the water?</font>
• What of the changing of the graecized Hebrew name "Iakobos" (Jacob) to "James" in three different New Testament individuals*? Is that the "same water"?</font>

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767/16.html?#000236


*Note - Depending upon interpretation, it may have actually been more than three Iakobos/Jacob/James changes in the New Testament.
</font>[/QUOTE]http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2793/7.html?#000100

[ September 17, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Hi Jason -

While technology fails us, I think we can all post with the same degree of assuredness as before. The problem may have occurred from the thread becoming too long. (Another admin had warned me but, alas, I did not heed it.) I have written the webmaster about it and still hope it can be salvaged.

Saving important posts to one's own hard drive is always a good back up. It, at least, prevents one from haveing to repeat their research.