Zechariah 13:6

[rbell]

So, you folks here, and in other places, spend all your time deciding which versions are valid and then which words in those valid versions (that you decide are valid based upon your criteria and rules) are inerrant and then you run those words through your conflicting modern versions, lexicons, Greek/Hebrew concordances and dictionaries, then you put them out on these forums for open discussion, then you check to see if these words are in the Geneva, the Bishops;, the dead Sea Scrolls, then you check with your Greek/Hebrew professor, then you compare the different manuscripts and papyrus fragments, and then you forgot what you were doing and you have to start all over again at the top!

You folks hammer me and others on our view of believing the King James is the pure word of God and is God's standard for today and want me to provide "scriptural support" and then you folks make statements like, "God preserves His inerrant Written Words in ALL valid English Translations."! And you expect us to just sit back and accept this as truth because you all agree by your polls!?!?! In "all valild English translations"!?!?!?!?! Even though they all conflict in places, leave key verses out, pick at major doctrines, etc.? And they are ALL the word of God??? Insanity is reigning!!!

Lester Roloff was right when he said, "America is an insane asylum run by the inmates." I would add, "American christianity is an insane asylum run by..."
Absolutely amazing :laugh: :thumbsup: :tonofbricks:

No wonder this age of Christianity is a wipe out.

I have highlighted the outright lie in red.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Insanity is claiming to use the KJV 1611 when you do not.

2. Insanity is believing that the KJV corrects the Greek, Hebrew, and all other languages into which the original languages are translated.

3. Insanity is telling a KJVO missionary in Japan (where that have no equivalent to the KJV) that he can preach from a Japanese translation and God will honor it as long as the missionary has a copy of the KJV on his pulpit and holds his hand on it as he quotes the Japanese translation. (True story- just ask John of Japan).

4. Insanity is calling the KJV 'God'.

5. Insanity is telling someone that they are not saved because they were not led to the Lord using a KJV.

6. Insanity is believing that others are insane because they dare to 'search the ScriptureS' like the Bereans of the New Testament did.

7. Insanity is refusing to accept the fact that God preserves His Word in spite of copyist's errors, translation difficulties, language meaning changes, paraphrases, and KJVOism.

[FONT=&quot]8. This age of Christianity is a 'wipe out' because so many Christians are wasting time arguing about whose 'Sword' is sharpest instead of just using the Sword they have.[/FONT]

I’m trying real hard to refrain from engaging in this type of unedifying dialogue but sometimes it needs to be done.

1. Misunderstanding – when we say AV1611 we are referring to what our current AV came from – of course we do not read the original 1611 – foolish statement.

2. This statement comes from a misunderstanding of another statement made by Dr. Ruckman and others – the truth is the ASV corrects the FALSE Greek/Hebrew manuscripts not the TR or majority texts. My AV corrects the Greek/Hebrew of Wescott/Hort/Origen.

3. The average KJV believer believes nothing like this - don’t lump us all together. We believe any foreign translation is reliable if: 1) Based on the text of an English AV or 2) The Greek/Hebrew texts that the AV came from.

4. Show us where any AV believer believes a book is God – BTW then what do you do with Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.? Go back to Exodus and see that God said that.

5. No AV believer I know believes this – we believe there are some of God’s words even in the modern versions – not much but enough there for God to use. What do you do then with:
Psa 119:50 This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

6. Show us we believe others are insane by searching the scriptures is insanity? Where do you get this?

7. God does not preserve his word through a line of bible rejecting, lost philosophers and scholars who question everything God says.

8. We are wiped because the average saint does not have a real sword nor does he even know his sword well enough to expound the simple doctrines of the faith.

Have a nice day :wavey:

 

[rbell]

No, insanity is believing that God's Word was not available anyplace else before 1611, and then ONLY in English.

Insanity is claiming to use the KJV 1611 when you do not.

Insanity is believing that the KJV corrects the Greek, Hebrew, and all other languages into which the original languages are translated.

Insanity is telling a KJVO missionary in Japan (where that have no equivalent to the KJV) that he can preach from a Japanese translation and God will honor it as long as the missionary has a copy of the KJV on his pulpit and holds his hand on it as he quotes the Japanese translation. (True story- just ask John of Japan).

Insanity is calling the KJV 'God'.

Insanity is telling someone that they are not saved because they were not led to the Lord using a KJV.

Insanity is believing that others are insane because they dare to 'search the ScriptureS' like the Bereans of the New Testament did.

Insanity is refusing to accept the fact that God preserves His Word in spite of copyist's errors, translation difficulties, language meaning changes, paraphrases, and KJVOism.

This age of Christianity is a 'wipe out' because so many Christians are wasting time arguing about whose 'Sword' is sharpest instead of just using the Sword they have.

At the Bema seat there will be many crowns LOST because godly men and women wasted hours and dollars trying to prove that God only spoke through one version, instead of LIVING BY THE BIBLE THEY ALREADY HAVE. Someone has rightly said, "At the Bema seat it won't matter what translation you used if you didn't live by it!"

outstanding post.

Rufus said earlier,

I am not endevouring to prove that the KJV is the only correct version.

But of course, we see this is all that this is about.

The reason I showed the Geneva Bible among the Bibles listed was to illustrate the point: If God "preserved His word for the English-speaking peoples through the King James," then what was it before 1611? And why would God leave English-speaking peoples before 1611 hanging out to dry?

And remember gang...since we have defined "confusion" as "any difference at all," (remember Rufus' examples from several Bibles...most had very small differences in Zech. 13:6), then confusion reigns in the KJV, because there are multiple KJV editions that are different!

Finally, please note that this all started as Rufus mis-understood the scripture anyway...attributing Zechariah 13:6 as a prophecy about Christ, when the context of the passage is clearly talking about a false prophet...so discussions of "differences" take a back seat to proper interpretation.

 

[Rufus_1611]

outstanding post.

Rufus said earlier,

But of course, we see this is all that this is about.

Of course it is, but I did not frame the questions in this vein.

The reason I showed the Geneva Bible among the Bibles listed was to illustrate the point: If God "preserved His word for the English-speaking peoples through the King James," then what was it before 1611? And why would God leave English-speaking peoples before 1611 hanging out to dry?

The Geneva Bible is from Antioch and I nor most KJVOrs have complaints about a successor to the masterpiece. The Geneva and the KJV are aligned on where the wounds are at and this is the relevant piece to this discussion.

And remember gang...since we have defined "confusion" as "any difference at all," (remember Rufus' examples from several Bibles...most had very small differences in Zech. 13:6), then confusion reigns in the KJV, because there are multiple KJV editions that are different!

I'm not sure who "we" is but that's not my definition. I can look past minor differences that do not change meaning. The difference between the hands, the chest, or the back are not minor.

Finally, please note that this all started as Rufus mis-understood the scripture anyway...attributing Zechariah 13:6 as a prophecy about Christ, when the context of the passage is clearly talking about a false prophet...so discussions of "differences" take a back seat to proper interpretation.

According to your interpretation of this verse he misunderstood it. However, according to classical commentaries such as Matthew Henry or Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, this is the accurate interpretation, though there are commentaries that share your view as well. However, it remains irrelevant to the point I am making. Go with your interpretation of the meaning of the passage and explain to me which translation is correct and why.

 

[rbell]

Of course it is, but I did not frame the questions in this vein.

Well, thanks for the admission. 'Preciate you coming to confession, my son. :laugh:

The Geneva and the KJV are aligned on where the wounds are at and this is the relevant piece to this discussion.

But they are not identical, thus "confusion." "Things that are different are not the same..." (Just using a KJVO argument here).

I can look past minor differences that do not change meaning.

Ding ding ding! Could we possibly find common ground here? :tongue3:

The difference between the hands, the chest, or the back are not minor.

Guess not.:tear:

according to classical commentaries such as Matthew Henry or Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, this is the accurate interpretation, though there are commentaries that share your view as well. However, it remains irrelevant to the point I am making.

I don't think it does. In verse 5 (forgive me, for space I'll just print one version:
5 but he shall say, I am no prophet, I am a tiller of the ground; for I have been made a bondman from my youth. (ASV)

Jesus never said, "I'm no prophet." He was not a farmer nor a bondman. Thus, I think the right interpretation is that this scripture is NOT a Jesus prophecy. If it were, then the wound placement would be significant, because it would need to co-incide with Jesus' wounds. But since it is not about Jesus, the wound placement is insignificant.

I believe the KJV is the inspired word of God. But I don't believe that about Matthew Henry, et al. I think they missed that one. Thus, the wound placement has no effect upon Christological prophecy.

Go with your interpretation of the meaning of the passage and explain to me which translation is correct and why.

Just did.
:thumbs:

 

[AVBunyan]

No, insanity is believing that God's Word was not available anyplace else before 1611, and then ONLY in English.

Forgot this one...

No AV believer believes the word of God was not available prior to 1611 and then only in English - :BangHead:

Please document who said or believes this before you just toss it out expecting myself and others to simply believe this.

Now - I am finished answering that post. Back to the business at hand Mods.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I believe the KJV is the inspired word of God. But I don't believe that about Matthew Henry, et al. I think they missed that one. Thus, the wound placement has no effect upon Christological prophecy.

So be it. What significance does it have then and which translation is correct?

 

[rbell]

So be it. What significance does it have then and which translation is correct?

I believe I answered the "significance" question above. Restating:

Since this is a "general prophecy" (one whose fulfillment doesn't seem to appear in the scriptural record) and is not a prophecy about Christ (in which, because His wound placement was recorded, would make it significant), wound placement is not significant.

My opinion: Since the Hebrew word is not clear to us, all of those translations, with the exception of the Message (which is not a translation but a paraphrase) is faithful to the Hebrew and is a valid translation. The Message takes some liberties here with the Hebrew word (but as I have said, it does not belong in the "translation" family. I would view it more as a commentary).

 

[robycop3]

Don't forget...It was GOD who chose what languages to originally place His word, languages that have many words/phrases with multiple correct meanings in English. Therefore WE have no right to arbitrarily choose just one meaning as the ONLY correct one, when context or reality offers no help.

 

[Mexdeaf]

1. Misunderstanding – when we say AV1611 we are referring to what our current AV came from – of course we do not read the original 1611 – foolish statement.

Not foolish on my part, just 'false advertising' on the part of the KJVO's who would have us believe that the version now in use is a word-for-word copy of the 1611, which it isn't.

2. This statement comes from a misunderstanding of another statement made by Dr. Ruckman and others – the truth is the ASV corrects the FALSE Greek/Hebrew manuscripts not the TR or majority texts. My AV corrects the Greek/Hebrew of Wescott/Hort/Origen.

But it does not correct it. Well, maybe in your mind it does.

3. The average KJV believer believes nothing like this - don’t lump us all together. We believe any foreign translation is reliable if: 1) Based on the text of an English AV or 2) The Greek/Hebrew texts that the AV came from.

So you are saying that the folks in Japan do NOT have a Bible because they do not have one translated from an English AV or the Greek/ Hebrew? How nice!

4. Show us where any AV believer believes a book is God – BTW then what do you do with Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.? Go back to Exodus and see that God said that.

From this link- http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36847

5. No AV believer I know believes this – we believe there are some of God’s words even in the modern versions – not much but enough there for God to use. What do you do then with:
Psa 119:50 This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Oh, but many KJVO's DO believe this, to wit:

Herb Evans, a KJV-only advocate, in an article "Did Our Inspired Bible Expire?" wrote: "Almost without exception (and we are not sure about the exceptions) any births, resulting from the above perverted bibles [English Bibles other than the KJV], are perverted also--spiritual cripples" (The Flaming Torch, January-March, 1992, p. 10). In Ruckman's Bible Believers' Bulletin, Evans declared: "We have been born of incorruptible seed," and he claimed that this incorruptible seed is the 1611 KJV (October, 1978, p. 3). As noted earlier, Ruckman himself had claimed that “the AV was incorruptible in 1611, and it is incorruptible now.” Michael O’Neal also stated: “I believe that this (the King James Bible) is incorruptible seed” (Do We Have, p. 13).

KJV-only advocate Al Hughes acknowledged: "There is a movement afoot that claims 'no one can get saved by hearing one of the devil's perversions'" (Flaming Torch, Oct./Nov./Dec., 1999, p. 16). William Byers claimed: "I've said that I've never heard of a sound conversion coming from a modern translation" (The History of the KJB, p. 5). J. J. Ray wrote: "Only an unaltered Bible can produce a perfect, soul-saving faith" (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 10). In his fundamentalist publication Church Bus News (July-Dec., 1993), Wally Beebe stated: "My constant reference to the King James Version, being in fact the inspired Word of God and our authority, is very important as a prerequisite to salvation" (p. 11). Jack Hyles, well-known fundamentalist pastor, wrote: "Then, if corruptible seed is used, one cannot be born again. I have a conviction as deep as my soul that every English-speaking person who has ever been born again was born of incorruptible seed; that is, the King James Bible" (Enemies of Soul Winning, p. 47). Hyles also claimed: "This means that the New King James Bible is not precious seed because it is not incorruptible" (Ibid., p. 46). Hyles noted: "If all a person has ever read is the Revised Standard Version, he cannot be born again, because corruptible seed is used" (Ibid., p. 47). In a recorded sermon, Hyles stated: "The King James Bible is necessary for anybody to be saved in the English language."

Gail Riplinger claimed: "The new birth occurs from the KJV seed" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 12). Riplinger even seemed to imply that people may "receive a false salvation or a false spirit from reading them" [other translations instead of the KJV] (Ibid., p. 80). In his booklet entitled Another Bible Another Gospel, which is published by The Bible for Today, Robert Baker implied that other translations teach another gospel when he wrote: "Removing or adding to Jesus' words results in preaching 'another gospel'" (p. 5). Chick Salliby asked: "Will not a defective Bible produce a defective faith?" (If the Foundations Be Destroyed, p. 93). Pastor Raymond Blanton declared: "Faith is not produced in the heart of the sinner by a powerless perversion of God's Word" (The Perilous Times, June, 1995, p. 7). In another issue of his publication, Blanton also claimed: "No one is saved through counterfeit Bibles. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, Good News for Modern Man, Amplied New Testament, NIV, etc., etc., are dead imitations and corruptions, and no one is saved through them" (Feb., 1997, p. 4). Douglas Stauffer wrote: "Our relationship with Jesus Christ is based upon a particular Bible translation" (One Book, p. 97).


6. Show us we believe others are insane by searching the scriptures is insanity? Where do you get this? From YOU. To quote-

You folks hammer me and others on our view of believing the King James is the pure word of God and is God's standard for today and want me to provide "scriptural support" and then you folks make statements like, "God preserves His inerrant Written Words in ALL valid English Translations."! And you expect us to just sit back and accept this as truth because you all agree by your polls!?!?! In "all valild English translations"!?!?!?!?! Even though they all conflict in places, leave key verses out, pick at major doctrines, etc.? And they are ALL the word of God??? Insanity is reigning!!!

(Caveat: I consider the Greek and Hebrew as well as all valid translations to be 'Scripture'. I do not consider the NWT or paraphrases to be 'Scripture'.)

7. God does not preserve his word through a line of bible rejecting, lost philosophers and scholars who question everything God says.

Proof is on you here. I believe God preserves his Word IN SPITE OF those things.

8. We are wiped because the average saint does not have a real sword nor does he even know his sword well enough to expound the simple doctrines of the faith.

Don't agree with the 'real sword' part but agree 100% on the second part.

Forgot this one...

No AV believer believes the word of God was not available prior to 1611 and then only in English - :BangHead:

Please document who said or believes this before you just toss it out expecting myself and others to simply believe this.

Well, let's see... the KJVO's say we don't have the 'original MSS' so we cannot rely upon them. So throw out the Greek and Hebrew. We don't have the Word in any other language unless it was translated from the same MSS as the KJV, or from the KJV, so that throws out a bunch of foreign language translations. Is what I was trying to say clearer now?
Have a nice day :wavey:

You, too!

 

[AVBunyan]

Have a nice day :wavey:You, too!

I'm glad you got all that out - I'm happy for you - I will graciously let you have the last say for all to see.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: //Footnotes are not inspired scripture.//

However, in the case of Zechariah 13:6, the footnotes help
us understand this passage of
scripture more than all the pastors who
posted on this topic did collectively.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: //How is soul competency relevant to the verse in question?//

The whole discussion is still here. Should I dig it all out and
embarass you?

Rufus_1611: //As far as I am aware, there is no authority
on what is "valid" vs. "invalid", accept
for individual opinions.//

Ed Edwards: //Yet you ignore that I showed right in this Fourm that
any group of Bible readers have the authority and
ability to determine what is 'valid' or 'invalid'.
Can you spell 'Soul Compentancy'?//

Of course, 'Compentancy' here should be 'competency'
You said there is no authority on what is 'valid' or 'invalid'.
I said that each Christian Soul is competent to decide that
for themselves. So maybe it is all individual opinions, but
it is a doctrinally significant opinion for the very
Doctrine of Soul Competency says we not only must make
our own way to God (i.e. receive Christ as Savior), we need
to decide which Bible or Bibles we will each count as
VALID. Some accept only one Valid Bible: The King James
Version, 1769 Edition. Many more accept all KJVs as
valid. Others will realise that Bibles
such as the NIV or nKJV are very VALID Bibles.- needless to
say, we who do don't take kindly to the bashing of our Bible
or Bibles. I personally agree that the KJV1769 Edition is a
Valid Bible. I personally take the moral high ground that other
Bibles that I've used for over 10 years each such as the
NIV and nKJV are also VALID Bibles. Now I'm prone to use
the KJV1611 Edition (4 years) and HCSB (two years) - which,
if the Lord Tarries, I'll be using over ten years also.

 

[Eliyahu]

This was dealt with on this BB before. At that time I mentioned Zechariah 13:6 is another precious prophesy of Messiah.
"These are the wounds with which I was smitten at the house of my friends." Messiah calls Israel as His friends.
"The wounds in the middle of the hands" nailed at the Cross.
Again KJV is very much accurate with word- to- word translation.
Complete Jewish Bible translate the quotation of Zech 13:7 in Matthew as "smite to death" So the translation can be These are the wounds with which I was smitten to death at the house of my friends.
I have never heard that false prophets die for the friends or are seriously wounded for his friends.
I can see Jesus Christ who loved Israel calls Israel as His friends, and HIs love toward us.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Ed Edwards: //Yet you ignore that I showed right in this Fourm that
any group of Bible readers have the authority and
ability to determine what is 'valid' or 'invalid'.
Can you spell 'Soul Compentancy'?//

Of course, 'Compentancy' here should be 'competency'
You said there is no authority on what is 'valid' or 'invalid'.
I said that each Christian Soul is competent to decide that
for themselves. So maybe it is all individual opinions, but
it is a doctrinally significant opinion for the very
Doctrine of Soul Competency says we not only must make
our own way to God (i.e. receive Christ as Savior), we need
to decide which Bible or Bibles we will each count as
VALID.

That sounds awfully like moral relativism for Bible selection. It also sounds like a good argument for the NWT, the Message, or even the Revolve Bible as being a Bible so long as there is a group of Christians somewhere who, in their soul competency, believes these books are Bibles.

Where will the wounds be Ed?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Rufus_1611: "Where will the wounds be Ed?"

I already answered the question.
I won't take further advantage of you by doing
your research for you.

Rufus_1611: //That sounds awfully like moral relativism for Bible selection.
It also sounds like a good argument for the NWT,
the Message, or even the Revolve Bible as being a Bible
so long as there is a group of Christians somewhere
who, in their soul competency, believes these books are Bibles.//

That sounds like you can't hold your side of this conversation.
If you are a clergy & I'm a laiety and I know more about
the Baptist Distinctive of Soul Competency - it makes it appear
you have bought into the Cult of Ignorance that A FEW
Baptists have bought into as they ABANDON the Fundamentals
of the Christian Faith.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus_1611: "Where will the wounds be Ed?"

I already answered the question.
I won't take further advantage of you by doing
your research for you.

Rufus_1611: ;/That sounds awfully like moral relativism for Bible selection.
It also sounds like a good argument for the NWT,
the Message, or even the Revolve Bible as being a Bible
so long as there is a group of Christians somewhere
who, in their soul competency, believes these books are Bibles.//

That sounds like you can't hold your side of this conversation.
If you are a clergy & I'm a laiety and I know more about
the Baptist Distinctive of Soul Competency - it makes it appear
you have bought into the Cult of Ignorance that A FEW
Bapatists have bought into as they ABANDON the Fundamentals
of the Christian Faith.

Alright Ed. Grace and peace to you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Alright Ed. Grace and peace to you.

And may God grant you double, nay TRIPLE, (what you prayed for
me) back unto you. Amen.