When is the definite article important?

At the time of the translation of the KJB, the Book of Common Prayer used the word dip to decribe baptizing (baptize was not a "translitteration" innovation by Bible translators, it had been an English word meaning dip for centuries).

You can thank the Westminster 'divines' for muddying the water by dumping dip and replacing it with sprinkle in their baptism liturgy.

 

So we baptists can 'blame" the reformed for this happening?
(JUST kidding!)"

 

But they did so because they inherited the Latin version from RCC.

 

They used the Vulgate?

 

Quite reminiscent of LDS founder Joseph Smith's 'insight' on Jacob/James from his King Follet sermon:

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/kingfolletsermon.htm

 

The Greek is not "Immanuel." It is Iesous. Immanuel would be more properly translated "God with us" and is in essence (but not in etymology) contained in Meshiach -- Messiah, "Annointed One -- Christ.

 

Not quite. There was an earlier version of "old Latin" that predates the Vulgate and extends right down to the patristic period. Jerome used the old Latin "versions" (there were many) as the foundation for the Vulgate, which the Reformers also used.

But the Reformers also "used" the original Hebrew and Greek, which by the time of the Reformers had been restored. It was "missing" for generations in the west (still present in the east). The Reformers were also very interested in translations into the language of the people. Luther translating into German (from Erasmus' Greek version), Tyndale into English (from Greek and Hebrew), Coverdale also into English (but instead of from the Greek and Hebrew, he worked with the German and "new" Latin). Other languages published at roughly the same time were French, Spanish, Italian, and Swedish, Hungarian, etc. Of course, all this predated King James by around 100 years.

 

So one could say with reasonable truth that the KJV was built upon primarily prior English versions like the Tynsdale/Geneva, not dropped out of heaven like manna, and those 2 versions could claim to be just as "inspired?"

 

Yup... That is indeed the case. Something like 70+ % of the KJV is plagurized from earlier English versions where the persons who did the work were persecuted -- sometimes to death -- for their efforts.

 

Yes, such as the example of "Easter" in Acts 12:4. Now, while the Greek "pascha" now means either Easter or passover, DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT, it meant only "passover" in Luke's day,when he wrote what would become the Book of Acts. EASTER DID NOT EXIST at that time, and even if it would've existed then,no orthodox Jew would've observed it.

We must remember that ALL translations of Scripture in any language, old or modern, are the products of God's perfect word being manipulated by imperfect men, no matter how well-intentioned those translators are.

 

I thought that in NT greek was called ÅEmmanouhvl/Emmanuel!

Agree with you that the meaning of that name/title would be incorporated inthe name Messiah, as Jesus is indeed annoited one, chosen one of God!

 

Matt 1:1 Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ


Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"

1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate

2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ

3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses' successor (Ac. 7:45, Heb. 4:8)

4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Lu. 3:29)

5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col. 4:11)


Used as:
Jesus 972, Jesus (Joshua) 2, Jesus (Justus) 1


Hebrew:

Vines:

 

was there any significance to Paul addressing Jesus as either Jesus Christ, or as Christ Jesus inn Epistles?

 

"Jesus Christ" is not a name in the way we use names, i.e., first and last name.

Christ means "annointed one." When one says the name of Jesus and also says "Christ" what they are in fact saying is "Jesus, the annointed one" or "The annointed one, Jesus." Same difference once you know what is actually being said and why.

 

Understand that Christ is a 'title" placed upon yeshua , as evidenced of his position/role of being the Messiah of prophency, the "servant of God"...

So Paul would have had no real reason to switch around those two "names?"
Would it be based upon IF he was addressing and using name of Jesus to different situations that he was answering?

 

Paul "seems to" place emphasis on the Godhood of Jesus when he turns the words the other way around into Christ Jesus or just Christ.

Some out there (that I do not agree with) have actually stated that using the name of Jesus Christ backwards was a satanic insertion into the text. That is just a tad left of the planet Pluto in my opinion...

 

So much for God being to preserve his word to us for today, Eh?

just curious as to why we could not reverse this. and say its modern versions only for today?