Matthew 6:27 and 33

Will I find it interesting what you wrote. Could help us to solve the problem presented when reading Mt. 8:28; Mk. 5:2; and Luke 8:27?

There are two in MT. and one in the others.

So why the differences?

 

While I agree with you that some of the modern translations go overboard with dynamic equivalence, the rhetoric following your anlysis is faulty because it is destructive to your own cause.

All of these accusations can be applied to the KJV and the translators of the same.

The KJV translators went to seminaries which were for the most part founded and perpetuated by the Church of Rome. This fact influenced their work, they applauded "saint Jerome" and acknowledged our debt to him for the Latin Vulgate (of which they chose several readings to include in their work).

These men must have had their "brains scrambled" because they were educated in the "original languages" and loudly proclaimed the same in the introduction of their work. Later they shamelessly revised their work and came out with different "corrected" editions (things which are different are not the same).

In spite of their "scrambled brains" one of the revisions was a very good thing in that it was to eliminate the heretical RCC Apocrypha from "the King James Holy Bible" (although certain die-hard publishers will sell you (and make a profit) a KJV with the Apocrypha) as well as the monthly almanac which honored several RCC saints, two of whom were past "popes".

No doubt the Crown received an abundance of profit from the sale of this Bible in that it was THE "Authorized Version" of a Church which (at the time) violated all the Baptist distinctives, persecuted and killed Baptists and other anti-establishment and dissenting Christians.

FWIW, Had you left out the last paragraph I would not have responded.

HankD

 

Will Kinney:The NASB is interesting in that from 1960 to 1977 it read as the RSV: "Which of you BY BEING ANXIOUS can add one CUBIT to his LIFE SPAN?" Now, a cubit is a measurement of length or height, but not of time. The NASB is clearly wrong.

Will, you're trying to sneak one by us again. When you told us that the Greek 'peexun' is "cubit", why didn't you also mention that the Greek word 'helikia', rendered "life span", actually MEANS "life span. or age"?

This seems to be a problem to many translators, since the LOGICAL statement would be "stature", but don't fault those versions which made a LITERAL translation of the Greek. The AV translators & others made a LOGICAL rendering of what was in front of them, while others translated it LITERALLY.

As for Matthew-Can you prove that some later scribe didn't ADD the material you say is OMITTED?

All you need to know what God REALLY said, is go to some seminary where they will take your money, rob you of your faith in a God-inspired Bible, scramble your brains learning "the original languages", and then you too can come out with your own different bible version and make a lot of money peddling the words of God. - OR you can believe God's promises to have preserved His inerrant words and that they are found today in the King James Holy Bible.

OR-we could believe your half-truth "scholarship" without checking for ourselves, and be as deeply stuck in a man-made false doctrine as YOU are.

 

"focused on man" - the KJVO are focused on man as well the KJV translators were men, King James was a man, etc...

Some KJVO are not only focused on man but are their clones spreading division, insult and innuendo among the brethren.

Personally Will, I happen to believe that the TR and the Masoretic text are the preserved Word of God and not any of the translations of the same including the KJV which has "a multiplicity of conflicting versions" between 1611 and 1853.

HankD

 

More attacks on God's word from someone with an unbelieving mindset about Scripture. Will, you love your own too much to submit it to God's word. You love the sound of your own voice to listen to Scripture on this matter. You continually engage in blatant attacks on God's word because you will not take the time to learn the doctrine of Scripture. How long must we put up with this nonsense? You are creating confusion in the minds of people and ruining their faith by telling them that God's words can't be trusted because you don't understand them. Your mind is not the test of truth. And God's word will be God's word no matter how many times you attack it.

 

“All you need to know what God REALLY said, is go to some seminary where they will take your money, rob you of your faith in a God-inspired Bible, scramble your brains learning "the original languages", and then you too can come out with your own different bible version and make a lot of money peddling the words of God. - OR you can believe God's promises to have preserved His inerrant words and that they are found today in the King James Holy Bible.”

Will Kinney

Will I find it interesting what you wrote. Could help us to solve the problem presented when reading Mt. 8:28; Mk. 5:2; and Luke 8:27?

There are two in MT. and one in the others.

So why the differences?
=====================================================================
By asking a question I stayed as close to the topic as you did by the statements you made. I just responded to your comments by asking a simple question that would demand a simple response. I thought that perhaps it would give you a chance to shine. But instead you chose not answer the question. Does that mean you do not know the answer? I’ll bet there are a few who would like an answer to that question.

You do know that the pedobaptists who translated the KJV had to scramble their brains learning "the original languages". They had to do this for people like you who would not have been able to read the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. I wonder how much money the pedobaptists have brought in as a result of the sale of their translation over the years? And you people like you still support them?

Sometime it would be good if you would start a topic on the textual variants among the manuscripts used to transalte the KJV. I'll bet all of us would be interste in that topic.

[ April 04, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

Will Kinney:It should be clear that "knowing the Greek" is not sufficient for giving us a perfect Bible. Your modern scholars are blinded by God because of their unbelief.

I see you've passed "Mind-reading 101" from Calvin U.


The whole structure is built on the foundations of men like Bruce Metzger and other liberal apostates who do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Actually, it's built by men who wanted to know what God REALLY said to His writers, as much as language differences will allow. They were NOT content to accept a 400-yr-old opinion made long before some 5000 Scriptural mss were found.

As for not knowing who added what or omitted what, that is the Whateverists problem, not mine.

That's quite evident it's not YOUR problem. You don't wanna know the truth, so you settle for a man-made myth. In ways, it reminds me of the drunk who say, "I don't got no probs with anyone else-THEY have probs with ME."

 

OK. Will, get yourself (if you haven't already) a First Edition 1611 AV facsimile of the King James Bible and you will see the names of the translators in the Introduction/Prologue. For your reading pleasure you can learn about each of them at this website: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm

They were mortal human beings prone to error (and indeed even guilty of heresy) unless of course you attribute to them the endowment of Plenary Verbal Inspiration which is normally reserved for prophets and apostles and those who had an historical first hand experience with God of being "god-breathed".

Since with God all things are possible, so is this. But it seems highly unlikely since it was not so mentioned in His Word and these men denied infallibility to themselves and later proved it by humbly correcting their work (and those who filled up their ranks) over the centuries.

HankD

 

It's obvious that either way, the meaning is the same - worrying will not add one single thing to your life. Nothing conflicting - or confusing - about that.

 

So also the KJV conflict between the revisions 1611/1769.

Often when KJVO have to admit to "errors"
they make much ado about the "small" number
and "unintentional" type of "errors" which
the later KJV revisions correct over the
earlier ones.

However, God is not capable of making ONE
error of the SMALLEST kind. If so, we could
trust neither God or His Word.

All errors are introduced by man both in the
mv's as well as the TR based Bibles including
the KJV.

What difference does it make in the final
analysis whether the scribal and/or printer
errors are intentional or not?

We have the resource and tools to virtualy
re-construct the NT. Why waste time and energy
with useless rhetoric and even worst, name
calling (directly or implied)?

HankD