1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

English

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Salamander, Feb 3, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 8 of 10
  1. Abell

    Abell New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many, many, many changes found in the NWT are the same as found in the MV. When differences affect Christian doctrine, would you not call them heretical?


    I would agree with this. But, how many cults hold to the KJV alone?

    What differences would you be talking about? Other than corrections made in spelling, punctuations, and errors in printing, I know of no differences.

    Gotta go for today. My wife and I are celebrating our 15 year anniversary today. I get to take her out to a nice restraunt tonight. Just didn;t want anyone thinking I was side stepping anything posted later. Walmart eatery, Look out, here we come!!
     
    #141 Abell, Feb 5, 2009
  2. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    True! Jesus and Lucifer are not the same person. By the way, who is "Lucifer"?

    In Isaiah 14:12 the Hebrew word heylel (Strong's #1966) is translated by the ESV as "Day Star". The ESV treats it as a simple noun meaning approximately 'shining one'.

    Proper names are most often simply transliterated (usually adding some vowels). For example, the proper name "David" is three Hebrew letters that roughly correspond to D-V-D. If the Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12 were a name it might be spelled H-E-Y-L-E-L in English characters. So, how exactly did you derive the spelling of L-U-C-I-F-E-R from heylel?
     
    #142 franklinmonroe, Feb 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2009
  3. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    With so many multiple persons with the same name in the Bible (more than one Joseph, Sauls, Jeremiah, James, Mary, even Jesus) it seems perfectly reasonable to think that there could have been more than one Philistine with this name. But it may have not even have been a personal name. So, what does Sunday School have to do with this?

    The Masoretic Text which represents the Hebrew from more than 2000 years before 1611 doesn't have words for "the brother of". Yes, its fair to say that it was added later.
     
    #143 franklinmonroe, Feb 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2009
  4. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJB is written in what is viewed as the Pinnacle of English in its form.

    I could not call it a modern version in any form of the word.

    I have yet to see any version "properly" translated since the KJB. It's poetic form has no equal, neither is there a more eloquent rendition since or before in English.

    The English of the KJB holds to the intent of the Lord as the living word, not that version, but that it remains alive, speaking in many different applications of the interpretation.

    Be patient and kind, for I will not always meet the criteria for which one demands.
     
    #144 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  5. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why not the KJB and the NASV? Isn't it the NKJV and the ASV?

    My Bible has "The King James Bible", I find that there is the NKJV, why is it wrong in your eyes that I call the latter version of the ASV the NASV!:tongue3:

    I can paraphrase the two by simple comparison, why can't you?
     
    #145 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  6. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, you preach from Is 7:14 as the "maiden birth", or the
    "young girl birth", I will continue to preach about the Virgin Birth!

    Luke 1:48 states she to be a handmaiden, but we're dealing withn the prophecy. Are you suggesting God didn't know the difference when He made the prophecy through the pen of Isaiah?:tongue3:
     
    #146 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  7. thegospelgeek

    thegospelgeek New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ther's Sal. I was wondering were you went.

    I have never heard this term, but there are a lot of things I haven't heard of of. What is your source for this statement?

    I agree with the statement of poetic form, but that is subjective and only my opinion. Someone else may disagree.

    I do feel that the KJB holds to the intent of the Lord, but do not see how this eliminates others from doing so also[/quote]
    It is always my intent to be patient and kind. However, sometimes I do fail. God forgive me.

    I appreciate the direct answers and look forward to continuing our discussion. I will soon be signing off to get ready for our Thursday night bible study. I am not on line as much over the weekends due to church commitments, so be patient as my responses may be slow in coming.
     
    #147 thegospelgeek, Feb 5, 2009
  8. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maiden: an unmarried girl or woman

    All girls or women who are unmarried are virgins. God made the distinction "virgin". This could only apply to all girls and women that are unmarried if they are all virgins, but they are not.

    Virgin: 1 a: an unmarried woman devoted to religion bcapitalized : virgo2 a: an absolutely chaste young woman b: an unmarried girl or woman3capitalized : virgin mary4 a: a person who has not had sexual intercourse

    If we look close enough, and without the blinders that come with every modern version, we see that a maiden is in the context of a virgin, but we do NOT see, in all cases, that a virgin falls into every application of a maiden!:tongue3:
     
    #148 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  9. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Funny, I can accept that you do not hold to my position, but you cannot accept my position. Just who is being the divisive person?YOU!:sleep:
     
    #149 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  10. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, I was only answering his folly. My mistake, but I could not let it go unchallenged.:smilewinkgrin:
     
    #150 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  11. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, do you, as moderator, care to get back on topic?
     
    #151 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  12. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can prove from the NWT that Jesus is Jehovah, can you?
     
    #152 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  13. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, this is very subjective, just as we find all of God's commandments to be as subjective.

    I've learned to be dogmatic when it comes to traqnslations due to my studies of other versions. Most typically the accusations of "mistakes" in the KJB. Each one holds no water.

    Here's something of interest concerning English: http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/16-07/st_essay

    When one studies the Bible in the English of the KJB he not only finds the interpretation, but finds a plethora of applications.

    It's easy, one is best and others are good, and some others being worthless.

    I have never said other versions are not good, I have always said the KJB is best!
    I'm in the same frame, somtimes just too busy.
     
    #153 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  14. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Salamander, Amen! Preach it!
     
    #154 Askjo, Feb 5, 2009
  15. Jim1999

    Jim1999 <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    1
    If you think the Church of England got the translation of the King James VERSION so right, why do you fault them when it comes to church history and theology?

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
    #155 Jim1999, Feb 5, 2009
  16. Salamander

    Salamander New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe it's WHO was behind the translation and not who was behind the CoE.:tongue3:
     
    #156 Salamander, Feb 5, 2009
  17. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    I don't even need to use Isa. 7:14 to preach about the virgin birth. There's plenty of other verses that make it quite clear that Jesus was virgin born.

    My Bible college teacher used to say that if you cannot prove your doctrines with more than one verse then you better check your doctrine.
     
    #157 Mexdeaf, Feb 5, 2009
  18. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    You must then have a problem with the KJV translators because they too used "day starre" in the margin as an equally valid translation of the word. A large problem with the subsequent KJVs is that they took out the marginal notes which were extremely important and contained the readings that were just as valid as the ones they used. Maybe a reading of the preface and a copy of the 1611 would help you out with that. Your argument isn't just with the translators of the modern versions. You instead agree with the Latin Vulgate which was the first version to translate the word to Lucifer. ;)
     
    #158 annsni, Feb 5, 2009
  19. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    As I pointed out, the word "Lucifer" is from the Latin Vulgate. The KJV translators put in "Lucifer" as was commonly used at that time but then put in the margin notes "or day starre" (or some such spelling). Guess they were calling Jesus "Lucifer" too.

    Here's an image of a 1611 KJV:

    [​IMG]

    I got this and there's more great information at http://www.kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html

    Have you noted the italics of "the brother of"? That means it was ADDED to the Word of God. Hmmmm......

    http://www.kjv-only.com/2sam21_19.html

    Yes, it is from Malachi 3:1 and from Isaiah 40:3. "Isaiah the prophet" is found in the earliest Greek manuscripts. It's the same as in Matthew 27:9-10 where Matthew attributes the reading to Jeremiah (actually, I just looked at my Oxford KJV and it says "Jeremy" - never saw THAT before - wonder who Jeremy was other than that annoying kid from youth group years ago), when it is also in Zechariah. It is common to state the major prophet rather than the major and minor prophet. If you have a problem with Mark 1, then you have a problem with Matt. 27 too.

    There is no evidence of this addition in the early Greek manuscripts or papyri. Sorry. ;) It's not that it's removed - it's added in the newer manuscripts.
     
    #159 annsni, Feb 5, 2009
  20. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    I have never heard an acknowledgement to the consequences of insisting that "virgin" was the precise intent of the Hebrew word at Isaiah 7:14 - - because if the true prophet of God (Isaiah) proclaimed to the king of Judah (Ahaz, and probably in the presence of other persons) that a "virgin" was to bear a son, and that "virgin" (as we understand the term in the sexual sense today) is exactly the way the Hebrew word was understood in their time of history (approximately the same time as the written record of the event, which has now been transmitted down to us), then Jesus was actually the SECOND virginal conception on this Earth. There must have been a "virgin" birth in the OT (or else Isaiah becomes a false prophet).

    Please confirm, or explain how giving "you [Ahaz] a sign" that "the Lord himself shall give" (v.14) benefited Ahaz when it didn't occur until hundreds of years after his death; and about how "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (v.16) and the rest of the details of the prophecy applies in time of Christ.
     
    #160 franklinmonroe, Feb 5, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2009
Page 8 of 10
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...