So, who's to say the makers of newer English Bible versions weren't faithful and filled with wisdom from God?
And still, you have NOT faced the music that there's NO scriptural support for the KJVO myth. As I said, that fact WON'T GO AWAY!
Upvote
0
The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!
- Thread starter robycop3
- Start date
- Status
So, who's to say the makers of newer English Bible versions weren't faithful and filled with wisdom from God?
And still, you have NOT faced the music that there's NO scriptural support for the KJVO myth. As I said, that fact WON'T GO AWAY!
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Proverbs 16:6 "through the fear of God men depart from evil"
check out the NIV:
"through the fear of the LORD evil is avoided."
people reverence God and repent.
they don't avoid evil, they repent of it.
Again I am a believer in the NKJV which is heresy to KJV only.
check out the NIV:
"through the fear of the LORD evil is avoided."
people reverence God and repent.
they don't avoid evil, they repent of it.
Again I am a believer in the NKJV which is heresy to KJV only.
Upvote
0
Dr. Jack
Well-Known Member
- Mar 9, 2019
- 839
- 120
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
You do understand the point of the proverb is that because a person FEARS God, they depart from evil. (Rather than cling to evil.)
When people don't fear God, they stay in their evil.
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
that is the NKJV you are quoting, the NIV says evil is "avoided" Avoided is not the same as departed. Let me illustrate this. say a building is burning and your baby is inside. You rescue the baby, and depart from the evil. Avoiding is way different. See if there was a fire and you were avoiding the fire, well then the baby would burn, and you would be too cowardice to rescue the baby. I know that the fire, evil is a type of sin and at this point the illustration breaks down, I only say this illustration to illustrate how different depart and avoid is.
Upvote
0
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It is in every King James Bible.
Show it to me in the Greek.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
What we are objecting to is your belief that not only were the Apostles "inspired" by the Holy Spirit to write what they did, but that that "inspiration" extended to every scribe that copied the text.
And there is no proof to that whatsoever.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dr. Jack
Well-Known Member
- Mar 9, 2019
- 839
- 120
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
The words Φάντασμά ἅγιον are not in the KJ.
the Greek Φάντασμά (phantasma) is where we get thr Englush "phantom", like "Phantom of the Opera".
It is the Greek word that represents ghost, which would be the visible manifestation of the soul of a dead person.
The only place the Greek Φάντασμά appears in the Greek text that underlies the KJ is ...
14:26 καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ ἐπὶ τήν θάλασσαν περιπατοῦντα ἐταράχθησαν, λέγοντες ὅτι Φάντασμά ἐστι· καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ φόβου ἔκραξαν. ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ
14:26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. Matthew
and ...
6:49 οἱ δέ, ἰδόντες αὐτὸν περιπατοῦντα ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, ἔδοξαν φάντασμά εἶναι, καὶ ἀνέκραξαν· ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ
6:49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out: Mark
1) You are taking the word of modern scholarship that there is A) there is no theological reason to translate Πνεύματος Ἁγίου as Holy Ghost, then Πνεύματι as Spirit.;
Ἰησοῦς δὲ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου πλήρης ὑπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, καὶ ἤγετο ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 4:1
4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, Luke
and B) (because you believe "A"), you wrongfully assume the definition of Φάντασμά to only mean Ghost. (As in the visible manifestation of any spirit.)
Then C) You then try to charge the KJ translators with wrongfully translating Πνεύματος Ἁγίου as Holy Ghost, rather than Holy Spirit.
But then we must examine ...
εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες οἴδατε ἀγαθὰ δόματα διδόναι τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δώσει Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 11:13
11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Luke
Here Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον is rendered Holy Spirit. The question is ... Why?
The difference in rendering the same word Πνευμα two ways "Spirit" or "Ghost", is based upon the theological difference in the context of the text.
If the context is referring to the third PERSON of the Godhead, the rendering is "Ghost"; if the context is referring to the WORK or BREATH of the third Person of the Godhead, it is rendered "Spirit".
The translators of the KJ wanted to show this distinction, and used the Anglo-Saxon form for “spirit” related to the German “Geist".
Anglo-Saxon form for “spirit” related to the German “Geist. Hence, the reader
Upvote
0
Dr. Jack
Well-Known Member
- Mar 9, 2019
- 839
- 120
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
That is NOT what I said.
I said, as long as the WORDS that are inspired were faithfully copied, they are still the same "inspired" WORDS, and therefore carry the same authenticity as the autographs.
E.g. See Dick kick the red ball up the hill. (The autograph)
See Dick kick the red ball up the hill. (Copy)
The words of the copy are faithful to the words of the original, hence, we still have the "inspired" words.
Please think about what you just said. Since we have no proof of the exact wording of the originals (because they are not extant); how then can we be sure of any of the Biblical narrative?
Upvote
0
Dr. Jack
Well-Known Member
- Mar 9, 2019
- 839
- 120
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
I absolutely do, but you didn't answer my question ... Do you believe that only those who believe in the inspiration of all that we refer to as Scripture (the 66 books that make the single volume called the Bible), should be the only people who should be determining the correct words of Scripture?
Upvote
0
Of course.
Do you believe that anyone who does NOT believe in such inspiration should determine what is Scripture for us who DO?
I believe GOD caused groups of men to determine what's New Testament Scripture. There's little question about Old Testament canon, as God worked directly with the Levites & Jews to make it.
Upvote
0
This avoids the fact that, to a modern English user, "ghost" means the disembodied soul of a dead person, such as in "Ghostbusters" or "Casper" cartoons, simply more proof the KJV is outdated.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dr. Jack
Well-Known Member
- Mar 9, 2019
- 839
- 120
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
I will now begin to unravel why there is a KJVOnly position.
I agree, only those who DO believe that all of the 66 books we call Scripture, are inspired should determine what the words of Scripturs should be.
No.
Agreed.
Now herein is the problem.
The following excerpt is from ...
Johann Salomo Semler | German theologian
"Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form."
What Semler believed was that SOME of the text of Scripture was Divinely inspired, while others, (things like the Genesis account of creation, and many of the miracles Jesus did) were NOT inspired of God.
Semler held a very naturalistic view, and therefore rejected the supernatural things attributed to Christ. He believed it was therefore his purpose to separate what was "inspired" from that which wasn't inspired. By studying the Scripture texts from a scientific perspective, he would determine what should be, and shouldn't be deemed as Scriptural.
Hence, Johann Solomo Semler, a theological professor at University of Halle, was the first to deny that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was Divinely inspired and fully correct, and challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon; yet, it is he who was a major figure in the development of what we now know as Textual Criticism.
If you follow history, you will find that his disciples followed his beliefs, and became the developers of the rules used for Textual Criticism.
Why have we Christian's allowed those who deny the inspiration of all Scripture, and deny its authenticity and authoritativenes, to be the people that make the rules for what the WORDS should be in the Book we call the Bible?
Upvote
0
DeaconDean
γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
From the first writing of Luke's book of Acts, every "gospel" used his term in reference to the third person of the Trinity. "Holy Spirit".
There are no references prior to AD 1200 of the phrase "Holy Ghost" in reference to the third person of the Trinity.
I could care less about:
Which, as it is, isn't correct.
Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. And "the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.
However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate. For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.
The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own. John Bois's notes of the General Committee of Review show that they discussed readings derived from a wide variety of versions and patristic sources; including explicitly both Henry Savile's 1610 edition of the works of John Chrysostom and the Rheims New Testament, which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes.
So as it turns out, the KJ Translators were not as diligent as thought.
Whatever a certain passage read, say like that of Tyndale or Wycliffe, it remained.
Luke was the first to use "pneuma" as "Spirit" in connection with the Third Person of the Trinity. And as ealy as AD 67, when Mark wrote his Gospel, he used Luke's term "pneuma".
Proper usage should always be "Holy Spirit". In fact, there are some 8 or 9 verses which properly use the correct Greek phrase, but the KJV Translators did not remain faithful to the Greek, and used Tyndale's or Wycliffe's wording verbatim.
Sorry. The KJV translators got it wrong. Period.
God Bless
Till all are one.
Upvote
0
The Holy Spirit is who He is. When the Holy Spirit acts, it's an act of the Holy Spirit's, simple as THAT.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Well, ACTUALLY, that has nothing to do with the KJVO myth. And textual criticism has come a LONG way from the ideas of a man who died over 200 years ago.
And there's still that big ole bear of a FACT that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support. That fact kills the whole KJVO myth. I've worked against that myth for over 40 years, and no KJVO has any answer for the fact of "no Scriptural support". That's the ace of trumps in any discussion or debate about the validity or lack thereof of the KJVO myth.
KJVOs act as if God can't say what He wants. Had he wanted us to be KJVO, He woulda said so in unmistakable fashion. The KJVO myth is an invention of SATAN'S, made to cast doubt upon God's word in English & to create strife & dissension between & within congregations.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
