Changing Doctrines

Good point Ed!

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

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

and

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

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

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

 

I reckin that's some of the difference between the Hebrew "almah" & the Greek "parthenos".

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

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

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

 

I would be really surprised if a KJVO comments on this topic. I have yet to have a KJVO comment on what I posted without drifting away in the KJVO "Outer Limits"

 

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

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

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

 

The LXX is definitely NOT classical Greek!

 

And what do you think it is?

 

It's complicated, the LXX is what some call "Attic" Greek with hebraisms. Not many will come right out and say that the LXX is "Attic" but it has "atticisms" or more resembles the attic dialect than koine.

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

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

HankD