|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/14/2006 4:22:21 PM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 191
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
In the story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac, the angel of the Lord stops him and observes that is willing to give up his "monogenes" uios. But wait, Abe had more than one child, obviously Isaac was not Abe's "mongenes." Um, the word for "only" is the Hebrew Yacheed. ????
I have never heard anyone make the assertation that Abraham spoke Greek. He spoke Chaldean, mother language to Hebrew Aramaic and Arabic.
correction: my bad...its Hebrews 11:17 that uses monogenes for Isaac, which can't be since Abraham had more than one son. Yacheed is translated "only" or maybe "only one" as in no others, so surveying usage in the whole Bible shows it is unsafe to determine the meaning of words soley on etemology alone. Context is key.
< Message edited by manwe -- 4/14/2006 7:02:58 PM >
_____________________________
Zephaniah 3:17 reads, "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/14/2006 7:04:24 PM
|
|
|
schmuel
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phyl2 I wonder if this Michael Penfold is yet another of the KJVO authors who are dishonest in their quotes. (I"m not saying they are all dishonest, but it has been proven that some are.) Michael Penfold is not remotely King James Bible. (He even wrote a book or booklet against). He was just concerned about the NIV abomination, and decided to research. Hmmmm
Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
< Message edited by schmuel -- 4/14/2006 7:07:16 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/15/2006 12:19:40 AM
|
|
|
PeterAV
Posts: 28
Joined: 6/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: figmentPez
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterAV
The modern versions,themselves are forced to use unusual words because of the copyright laws.
So, you're saying there is a conspiracy keeping any other accurate translations from being published?
What I said was;
The modern versions,themselves are forced to use unusual words because of the copyright laws.
If there ever was another accurate translation that ever got published,it would look exactly like the Holy Bible.
It would be a copy of the trustworthy AV.
_____________________________
Holy Bible
Inspired,infallible,imutible.
Preserved,purified,perfect.
Now know as the AV 1611
Thy word is very pure,
therefore thy servant
loveth it.Psalm 119:140
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/15/2006 12:55:17 AM
|
|
|
died4meNu
Posts: 18
Joined: 10/5/2005
Status: offline
|
I can't believe that once again this debate is going on.....this issue will never rest.
For those who believe that the KJV is the best or better Bible.....that's fine by me, every one has their own preference, whether it be the NIV or KJV, McDonald's or Burger King
For those who say the KJV is perfect......this is pure ignorance IMO. There is no need to get into why and how because it's pretty plain and simple. Just because other Bible's are different doesn't make your's perfect....and I am really curious as how the perfect English Bible just happened to be produced in 1611 after the other few......I feel bad for all of those English speaking people before that eh? Too bad God didn't feel like talking to them in perfection since there was no KJV yet......
_____________________________
Sometimes it is hard to remember that there is a plank in my eye, do you have that problem too?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/15/2006 1:10:36 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Michael Penfold is not remotely King James Bible. (He even wrote a book or booklet against). He was just concerned about the NIV abomination, and decided to research. Hmmmm
Well, then, since I saw a letter in which Mollencott gave different testimony, it appears she says something different depending on who she is talking to.
I wonder why KJVOs are so willing to take the word of someone who is admittedly a proud sinner, and so willing to doubt the salvation of another Christian, and discredit his word.
|
|
|
|
|
Tyndale and Geneva far superior to modern versions - 4/16/2006 2:28:13 PM
|
|
|
schmuel
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: died4meNu...and I am really curious as how the perfect English Bible just happened to be produced in 1611 after the other few......I feel bad for all of those English speaking people before that eh? Too bad God didn't feel like talking to them in perfection since there was no KJV yet......
Oh, don't feel bad for them. They were using Bibles, as the cost of sweat and blood, like Tyndale and Geneva, that were 1000 times better than what most of the Christians are hoodwinked and cajoled into today by the Version Industrial Complex. In fact, if you are using the alphabet soup, NIV, NAS, HCSB, ESV of alexandrian corrupt versions, and you switch to the Geneva or Tyndale, (because for some reason you just can't quite accept the KJB) you will be making an excellent move in the right direction.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/16/2006 2:32:41 PM
|
|
|
schmuel
Posts: 7
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phyl2 Well, then, since I saw a letter in which Mollencott gave different testimony, it appears she says something different depending on who she is talking to. That wouldn't be surprising. Especially since there was a lot of concern, probably pressure, to downplay her role. You have to watch also for careful word parsing in statements people make.
quote:
I wonder why KJVOs are so willing to take the word of someone who is admittedly a proud sinner, and so willing to doubt the salvation of another Christian, and discredit his word. I might try to answer this if there were some actual names, rather than an ethereal question.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/16/2006 2:49:24 PM
|
|
|
died4meNu
Posts: 18
Joined: 10/5/2005
Status: offline
|
Since Jerome took the same beating for translating the Vulgate...and then it became the standard, then Erasmus took a beating for translating....but then the TR became the standard for KJVO.....is it possible for us to see a NIV Only movement? Or possibly a NASB Only movement? I sure hope not...but it makes you think of how this is just a cycle.
There is really nothing wrong with having traditions but sometimes it gets too confused with the truth. I think some people have become too attached to traditions rather than the truth....and that can lead to a lot of trouble, which it has. People have made traditions a test of one's own standing with God, and judging their relationship with God based off of it and that's where it is wrong.
In Christ,
Adam
_____________________________
Sometimes it is hard to remember that there is a plank in my eye, do you have that problem too?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/16/2006 3:32:34 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4106
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
is it possible for us to see a NIV Only movement? Or possibly a NASB Only movement? I sure hope not. Perhaps an original language only woudl be tolerable. Then we have only "this manuscript vs that manuscript.........."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/16/2006 5:16:17 PM
|
|
|
died4meNu
Posts: 18
Joined: 10/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I sure hope not. Perhaps an original language only woudl be tolerable. Then we have only "this manuscript vs that manuscript.........."
There already is the debate amongst manuscripts...which ones are true, which ones are corrupt, etc. This issue of "the true and pure form" whether it be Bible translations, ancient manuscripts, or writings about certain people (ie. new Judas topic) is endless. This causes so many divisions within the Christian religion that it is frightening.
Mt. 12:25 "..."Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined,..." That is sort of scary when we see so much division amongst Christians...especially with issues of this sort.
In Christ,
Adam
_____________________________
Sometimes it is hard to remember that there is a plank in my eye, do you have that problem too?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/16/2006 6:25:36 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 1548
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: offline
|
I was trying to find the occurrance of "Easter" in scripture the other day in an attempt to understand where the word originated. I remembered seeing the word back when KJV was my primary version. Surprisingly to me, I found that only the KJV has "Easter" in it. Could this be yet another mistake in what some purport to be an inspired translation?
Anywhat, today someone mentioned that the origin of the word "Easter" was Ishtar. I wasn't quite satisfied with that so I did a little further digging and found this snippet of information:
In Acts 12:4 of the King James Version of the Bible, the word "pesach" (passover) is erroneously translated as "Easter", derived from Eostre, an Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, whose name may be etymologically connected to that of Ishtar, though no significant evidence to show such a link has yet been found.
"Erroneously translated" is some pretty strong language to level at the KJV-only camp. Not that I disagree with the statement, at least it wasn't me that made it.
_____________________________
-Euty
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." -John 6:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/16/2006 10:44:15 PM
|
|
|
Ezra
Posts: 1781
Status: offline
|
quote:
"Erroneously translated" is some pretty strong language to level at the KJV-only camp. Not that I disagree with the statement, at least it wasn't me that made it.
So why didn't you tell us who made this bigoted statement, which is simply hitting-below-the-belt to denigrate the KJV? We need to clearly identify the anti-KJV bigots.
Since the AV is indeed a very faithful and accurate translation of the Hebrew and Greek traditional texts, let's see if this accusation of "erroneously translated" has any merit whatsoever. No doubt "Easter" is an anachronism for "Passover" but let's examine the reasons (and let's remember that modern translators are full of such anachronisms). An anachronism is not an error, but the placement of something in a time to which it does not belong.
1. Firstly, the translation was made in the early 17th century, when Europe as well as the entire Mediterraean region and the Byzantine Empire had already been under Christian influence for centuries, and Easter was a major -- if not the major -- Christian festival in the Eastern and Western Churches (Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic). Britannica calls Easter "the principal festival of th church year... Easter is central to the whole Christian year".
2. All connections of Easter with paganism had long since disappeared, and had you stopped to asked the average Englishman or woman who Eostere or Ishtar were, they would have given you a blank look. Anglo-Saxon paganism at that point in history was a thing of the past.
3. Passover was a Jewish festival and restricted to the Jews, who themselves were a very small minority in Europe. Those who were reading Bibles in English and Latin at that time would have had little or no familiarity with Passover (other than descriptions in the Bible). In any event, Easter and Passover generally overlapped, as they do even today.
4. The KJV translators could have assumed that while Passover was being observed by Jews, Easter was being observed by Christians as early as 42 A.D. (the setting of Acts 12) since Eusebius, writing in the 4th century in his Ecclesiastical History says "The Christian communities in all Asia... thought ACCORDING TO A VERY OLD TRADITION, that the feast of the Saviour's pascha ought to be kept on the 14th day of the moon..." Notice how he speaks of "the Savior's pascha" (as opposed to the pesach of Moses).
Under the circumstances, was it completely legitimate for the KJV translators to use the word "Easter" to denote pesach? Absolutely. Easter had already been the major Christian festival for centuries (perhaps even from the 2nd), while the Jewish Passover was of limited significance to Christianized countries. Since the KJV mentions "the days of unleavened bread" in Acts 12:3, there is no "error" whatsoever. What we learn here is that Passover and Easter are concurrent.
However, it is these kinds of bigoted and prejudiced attacks against the KJV over nothing that have caused many Christians to erroneously conclude that it is inferior to the modern translations. But just as all the attacks on our Lord and Savior were simply an expression of hatred, so are those against the KJV. We should remind ourselves that a few hundred years ago, the Roman Catholic Church was burning and destroying English translations of the Bible (including the KJV). Today we have the attacks of so-called scholars.
One will find numerous similar anachronisms in the NIV, for example, yet no one will point out the blunders of this modern version. I wonder why? We read in the NIV in John 21:15 "So when they had finished BREAKFAST, Jesus said to Simon Peter...".
The Greek word there is aristao, which means "to take the principal meal, or the best meal, i.e luncheon, dinner" (Strong's) and is therefore translated correctly in the AV as "dined" since it corresponds to the same Greek word in Jn. 21:12 "come and dine".
To see how else it is used in Scripture we go to Luke 11:37 "And as he spake a certain Pharisee besought Him to DINE (aristao) with him". THe NASB translates this as "lunch" while the Amplified translates it as "dinner". As we can see, this word is never translated as "breakfast" (which is a modern invention) in Scripture. In fact, the word breakfast is absent from Scripture.
< Message edited by Ezra -- 4/16/2006 10:49:02 PM >
_____________________________
And whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely. Revelation 22:17
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2006 1:32:19 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
That wouldn't be surprising. Especially since there was a lot of concern, probably pressure, to downplay her role. You have to watch also for careful word parsing in statements people make.
But, it doesn't seem that Miss Mollencott would cave to pressure to downplay her role. She's too proud of herself.
quote:
I might try to answer this if there were some actual names, rather than an ethereal question.
It wasn't an ethereal question. Notice the context in which it was made. We were just talking about someone who says one thing to one group, and something entirely different to another group. She has to be lying to at least one of those groups. And, given that she is blatant about her sin, we know her moral character is not one that we can trust. Yet, the KJVOs will take her word over the word of Christians whom they disagree with.
quote:
Since Jerome took the same beating for translating the Vulgate...and then it became the standard, then Erasmus took a beating for translating....but then the TR became the standard for KJVO.....is it possible for us to see a NIV Only movement? Or possibly a NASB Only movement? I sure hope not...but it makes you think of how this is just a cycle.
Adam, I don't think it will happen now. I don't think the conditions are right. For one thing, we don't have a state run church like the Catholics of Jerome's day or like 17th century England.
quote:
I was trying to find the occurrance of "Easter" in scripture the other day in an attempt to understand where the word originated. I remembered seeing the word back when KJV was my primary version. Surprisingly to me, I found that only the KJV has "Easter" in it. Could this be yet another mistake in what some purport to be an inspired translation?
The KJV has only one instance where pascha is translated as Easter, the rest of the time they used the more correct "Passover". Pascha is a Greek transliteration (not translation) of the Hebrew word "Pesach". Apparantly, no one knew how to translate that word. Jerome transliterated it "Pask". In his New Testament, Tyndale translated it as Easter because in his day, Easter referred to both what we know now as Easter (the Christian celebration of the resurrection) and also Passover. When he was working on the Old Testament, he coined the word "Passover". Later English translations gradually began to use the word "Passover" until the later editions of the Geneva translation used "Passover" for every instance of pascha. But, the Bishop's Bible retained the word "Easter" in two instances. For some reason, the KJV translators kept one. If I remember correctly, there are 8 instances of "pascha" in all.
In Germany, as I understand it, they still use the German form of the word Easter to refer both to Resurrection day and Passover.
quote:
What we learn here is that Passover and Easter are concurrent.
However, what Luke wrote and was referring to, was the celebration of Passover, not our Easter. By the time the KJV translators published the KJV, Passover was the accepted translation for pascha. And now, in our day, it can cause confusion. That's not their fault, and I wouldn't call it an error, but it wasn't the best translation even in their day.
quote:
The Greek word there is aristao, which means "to take the principal meal, or the best meal, i.e luncheon, dinner" (Strong's) and is therefore translated correctly in the AV as "dined" since it corresponds to the same Greek word in Jn. 21:12 "come and dine".
If I'm not mistaken, "principle" can also mean "first". At any rate, the online lexicon in Bible Study tools states: "1. to breakfast 2. by later usage, to dine". The lexicon in the back of my GNT states: "eat breakfast; eat a meal". My husband's analytical lexicon states: "the first meal, breakfast; afterwards extended to signify a slight midday meal, a luncheon". My dad's Thayer's states: "the first food taken early in the morning before work, breakfast; dinner was called 'deipnon'. My grandpa's Liddell & Scott's Lexicon (1878) states: "to take the morning meal (generally) to take any meal".
Thayer's lexicon goes on to explain that later Greek's used something else to refer to breakfast and "ariston" to refer to dinner.
But, the clincher is that the passage itself makes it clear that they were eating breakfast, not lunch or dinner. It is clear to see that NIV is accurate with this translation.
(But you are wrong, plenty of people point out what they believe to be "errors" or weak translation in the NIV.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2006 8:19:23 AM
|
|
|
cjwpastor
Posts: 502
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
So why didn't you tell us who made this bigoted statement, which is simply hitting-below-the-belt to denigrate the KJV? We need to clearly identify the anti-KJV bigots.
...steps forward 
Ezra, all you have accomplished by your argument to Euty's post is to rationalize and justify a very clear example of why the KJV (nor any translation) is perfect. What you have done is exactly what every other defender of a translation is doing and will continue to do until Christ returns: using the oh-so-loathed scholoarship you deplore to justify a position. The only difference on this thread that I see between everyone is you and the other KJVO'ers seem to think only you can be right and everyone else is either a pagan, a bigot or "spiritually crippled" because they don't agree with you.
Let me be very clear: I think the KJV is a wonderful transtlation. God can and does speak to me and others through it. But it is not perfect. Nor is my NRSV version that I am using now. Yet God can and does speak to me and others through it.
What might cause me to be spiritually crippled has nothing to do with the translation of God's Word I use but only in how I appropriate and apply the teachings of God's Word to my life.
What I see being done by the KJVO camp is quite frankly deplorable. The good intentions of your beliefs (preserving and exalting God's Word) are distorted and twisted to the point of bibliolatry, where God's Word is no longer something first and maximally instituted and applied and made true through the working of the Holy Spirit but instead rises or falls with the abilities of dead men in centuries past to translate and you today to defend their mistakes. This is utter foolishness, if you ask me, and the non-christian, rational person is watching with keep observation, and asking questions like, "where is the power of God is all of this? If God is so powerful, and it's the Holy Spirit that teaches us, why can't God teach me through the NIV just as well as the KJV?" The KJVO camps only answer to such honest questions is: God can't, but my Bible can.
btw, Ezra, I am still awaiting a response to my question to you in post 162. Thank you.
Blessings,
Chad
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2006 9:38:25 AM
|
|
|
manwe
Posts: 191
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ezra
However, it is these kinds of bigoted and prejudiced attacks against the KJV over nothing that have caused many Christians to erroneously conclude that it is inferior to the modern translations. But just as all the attacks on our Lord and Savior were simply an expression of hatred, so are those against the KJV. We should remind ourselves that a few hundred years ago, the Roman Catholic Church was burning and destroying English translations of the Bible (including the KJV). Today we have the attacks of so-called scholars.
To clarify the above quote in bold: having differences with the KJV is to HATE GOD.
Did I read that right? If so, all I can say is UNBELIEVABLE!!
also, anachronisms are exegetically fallicious. it is wrong to read back into the biblical text a later reading.
I find it interesting that Easter is an accepotable anachronism yet "breakfast" isn't. I don't know what Bible you're reading, but if you would have noticed John 21:4 it clearly states "Just as day was breaking Jesus stood on the shore." Perhaps there is no clairity in how much time passed between verse 4 and verse 15 where it say they had "breakfast" but it seems entirely appropriate to me to put in the "anachronism" "breakfast" if it is fully appropriate to put in the anachronism "easter" for passover. No?
Lord have mercy on us all!!
_____________________________
Zephaniah 3:17 reads, "The LORD your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2006 10:16:48 AM
|
|
|
Saved34
Posts: 122
Joined: 1/5/2006
Status: offline
|
You know, you non KJO brothers and sisters really need to stop with the sly insults and games. Maybe I missed something, but I haven't read one post that implied that those of you who do not hold our beliefs about the KJV are somehow not Christians or you're spiritually inferior. Yet some of you have gone so far as to say we're "prideful" or we're a "cult".
Again I'd like to reiterate that some of my favorite Bible teachers are non KJO. I'm talking about some spiritual giants of the faith. Our gripe is not with the believers who read 10 different translations, it's with the crowd that's behind discrediting the AV.
_____________________________
"My friend, there is danger of just wanting the information and knowledge from the Bible but failing to translate it into shoe leather, not letting it become part of our lives" - J Vernon Mcgee
|
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] - 4/17/2006 11:12:16 AM
|
|
|
Deleted User
|
[Deleted by Admins]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2006 11:34:49 AM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2846
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
KWIM -- Know What I Mean
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2006 11:39:36 AM
|
|
|
cjwpastor
Posts: 502
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline
|
Ahhhh....Thank you Laura. TMPS (That Makes Perfect Sense)
Chad
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2006 1:58:04 PM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 245
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
You know, you non KJO brothers and sisters really need to stop with the sly insults and games. Maybe I missed something, but I haven't read one post that implied that those of you who do not hold our beliefs about the KJV are somehow not Christians or you're spiritually inferior. Yet some of you have gone so far as to say we're "prideful" or we're a "cult".
Yes, you did miss something. I don't like to speak in generalities, but that seems to be a characteristic of KJVOs. It can also be a characteristic of non KJVOs, but in my experience, to a lesser percentage. After sitting here and thinking about it for about half an hour, I can't remember a single incidence where a KJVO has admitted making a personal attack on another person and apologized. Apologies are also rare from the non-KJVO side, but they do happen.
Go back and read through this whole thread and look in others where the translation debate has occurred.
KJVOs = Bible Believers Non=KJVOs = apostates, non-believers, hereticks, "scholars" (as if being a scholar were a sin, they should study what the Bible says about knowledge, they might be very surprised!)
We are continually accused, "You don't believe God preserved His word!". We do believe God preserved His word, we just believe He did it differently from the way the KJVOs state that He did.
Here are some examples, going back a few pages:
Sunnymom post 126:
quote:
You choose to believe that God did not preserve His Words perfectly. I choose to believe He did.
PeterAV post 130:
quote:
take it then that you do not believe that there is such thing as a pure Holy Bible that we can read and hold in our hand?
quote:
This is not an arbitrary accertion,however,concerning the Bible believers knowing that the other versions are not correct;it is plain fact.The other versions are tainted,some more than others,and it is the direction they are headed that concerns us.
quote:
Yes all translations do give us access to the words of God,but most of them are tainted by heretics.Who would you trust as your oracles treasury,the heretics and those that would murder thousands and prevent the Holy Bible to be given to the publick;or those that gave their life for the publishing of God's word?
(funny thing about this one is that the KJV translators did not give their lives for the publishing of God's word and the modern translators have not murdered thousands and tried to prevent the Holy Bible to be given to the public. Some of the KJV translators were, however, guilty of torturing and executing English Christians who refused to become Anglican.
quote:
The revolving door happens simply because you do not believe that God has preserved his pure inspired word in a book that we can read and preach and teach with.
We,however DO believe that God has provided us with a pure, preserved Holy Bible.
PeterAV post 183:
quote:
The Alexandrian manuscripts were punped out by heretics.
Namely Origen,Macion,Eusebius,Westcott Hort.....
PeterAV has been shown proof that Westcott and Hort did not beleive what he has read what they believed. But, he refuses to check it out, and as you can see, continues his accusations of heresy against them.
PeterAV post 186:
quote:
NIV wouls read MONO_MONO must have been watching too much TV comercials at the time.
Saved34:
quote:
Our gripe is not with the believers who read 10 different translations, it's with the crowd that's behind discrediting the AV.
Part of the problem is, in some KJVO's eyes, just using modern translations means we're discrediting the KJV. I've been accused of discrediting the KJV, even when I haven't said a word against it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - 4/17/2006 3:21:55 PM
|
|
|
cjwpastor
Posts: 502
Joined: 4/27/2005
Status: offline
|
great points, phyl2.
Thank you for elaborating.
Chad
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 4/17/2006 4:11:08 PM
|
|
|
37818
Posts: 371
Joined: 4/24/2005
From: Mira Loma, California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
quote:
ORIGINAL: Olympian
How else besides context or reading the Greek (which adamant KJVO people say is no longer necessary or that the KJV supercedes the Greek) might one distingusih between "you" singular and "you" plural?
KJV John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
NAU John 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
In the KJV example, thee is singular and ye is the plural. In the NAS example one might not notice the difference. I would think both are singular. Strongs has soi for thee and humas for Ye. I do not know greek at all but Jesus was only talking to one person - Nicodemus - at the time.
Jesus was addressing the individual, Nicodemus, and telling him, everyone "Ye" being plural in persons, must be born over.
_____________________________
Jesus Christ God's only-begotten Son. Incarnate, both fully God and fully man and one and the same God with His Father. God is neither begotten nor made. Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three Persons who are one God. This is not negotiable - no discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
, I don't think less of people who don't believe the same way I do. Rather, God often shows us different things at different times in our lives so that we can minister in some particular way, meet a special need. It is a weird balance to maintain, and I admit it sounds contradictory. I can't help that. I love and admire and respect lots of people that I disagree with on some point or other. The KJV issue is one of them, and like everybody else, on either side of the fence- I think I'm right and you're wrong, and you think you're right and I'm wrong- but that doesn't make us enemies. 