The KJVO Myth Has NO Scriptural support!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
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.
I hear that each time I tell it to someone ... but that is false.
Bart Erhman is a Textual Critic, who learned under the leadership of the late Dr. Bruce Metzger.

Erhman is at best an Agnostic, more likely an atheist. Erhman was an Evangelical with a BA who went to Princeton to continue his education.

Metzger denied the Genesis account as literal. He also taught that the book of Deuteronomy wasn't written until the Babylonian captivity.

Bart Erhman teaches (and it is becoming more accepted) that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul.

These are but a few of the many examples of the great damage that has been brought to the word y Textual Criticism.

I could provide many more examples. Furthermore, I can provide the family tree of scholarship from the days of Semler, all the way to 1881 Greek text, and show that the rules made for that Greek text, are still in affect today.

This is a subject that I have researched in depth, and you have no idea just how far it reaches.

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.
No, it is a strawman argument.
You argument says that since the King James Bible is not DIECTLY named it has no Scriptural support. If that argument is valid; there is also no Scriptural support for the Trinity, or the rapture, since neither of those words appear in Scripture.

I care no how many text show Christ having the attributes of God, or the same for the HS; IF your argument is that a particular name such as "King James Bible" must be present to have support for a particular Bible that would be true to the original writings, then by the same virtue, the word "Trinity" must be present for you to accept the teaching of the Trinity.

I have repeatedly stated that this is about a translation for English speaking people that God has chosen through preservation to perfectly represent the original writings.

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.

Incorrect, God is not the author of confusion. There are many Scriptures represented by modern versions which change major doctrines, and at the very least cause a contradiction in the English version in which they are applied.

There have been many people who have found such contradictions, and had the faith put in jeopardy. Thanks be to God that at least some of these people found the KJ, which does not have these errors.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Dan61861
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As for "depart - avoid", please check out the meaning of the Hebrew word "cuwr".

the word depart is the Hebrew word Sar, which means to "turn aside" , here is the definition:

"In the simple stem, the verb means to turn aside, as Moses turned aside to see why the bush was not being consumed by the fire (Ex. 3:3, 4); it is used metaphorically to describe turning away from the Lord because of a rebellious heart (Jer. 5:23); or taking time to turn aside and seek someone’s welfare (Jer. 15:5). The word describes leaving or going away literally (Ex. 8:31[27]); or figuratively, the scepter would not leave Judah (Gen. 49:10); but Samson’s strength left him (Judg. 16:19). Its meaning extends further to indicate falling away, as when one is enticed to fall away from following the Lord to pursue other gods (Deut. 11:16; 1 Sam. 12:20; Ps. 14:3). It means to stop something; for example, the banqueting and carousing of Israel would cease at the time of exile (Hos. 4:18; Amos 6:7). It also indicates the act of keeping away from something, such as evil (Isa. 59:15); or when the Lord kept Himself from His people (Hos. 9:12). Wise teaching helps keep a person far from the dangers of death (Prov. 13:14, 19)."

Baker, W., & Carpenter, E. E. (2003). The complete word study dictionary: Old Testament (p. 773). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

Proverbs 16:6 "through the fear of God men depart from evil"

that would be a correct translation, however the NIV says evil is avoided. Making it sound like there is no repentance.

"through the fear of the LORD evil is avoided." NIV

people reverence God and repent of evil

evil is not avoided, the evil is repented of.

the NIV blatantly takes the responsibility away from the christian to repent of evil in this passage.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
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.
Can you provide those "instructions"?

And "the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.
Please provide those "instructions"

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.
Who is the "he" referring to above?



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.
Was not Tyndale's Bible the basis for several revisions, including the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, and then finally the King James Bible? It would only make sense that the King James followed Tyndale's Bible ... so did all the others!

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.
Was there a rule that directly restricted the use of other sources, if the need arose?

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.
The purpose of translation is to convey the intended meaning of what is said in the source language, to the target language. It is my opinion as well as the opinion of many scholars (with, shall I say, very good understanding of the Greek, and English), that the KJ translators did an excellent job with the KJ translators.

Now if you disagree with their work, and wish to 1) show their errors; and 2) correct their errors; a good place to begin would be to present your credentials to show that you are qualified to make such corrections. The funny thing is I have never met a man with the credentials that the translators of the KJ had ... but you just might be that person ... I have no idea!

Sorry. The KJV translators got it wrong. Period.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I hear that each time I tell it to someone ... but that is false.
Bart Erhman is a Textual Critic, who learned under the leadership of the late Dr. Bruce Metzger.

Erhman is at best an Agnostic, more likely an atheist. Erhman was an Evangelical with a BA who went to Princeton to continue his education.

Metzger denied the Genesis account as literal. He also taught that the book of Deuteronomy wasn't written until the Babylonian captivity.

Bart Erhman teaches (and it is becoming more accepted) that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul.

These are but a few of the many examples of the great damage that has been brought to the word y Textual Criticism.

I could provide many more examples. Furthermore, I can provide the family tree of scholarship from the days of Semler, all the way to 1881 Greek text, and show that the rules made for that Greek text, are still in affect today.

This is a subject that I have researched in depth, and you have no idea just how far it reaches.


No, it is a strawman argument.
You argument says that since the King James Bible is not DIECTLY named it has no Scriptural support. If that argument is valid; there is also no Scriptural support for the Trinity, or the rapture, since neither of those words appear in Scripture.

I care no how many text show Christ having the attributes of God, or the same for the HS; IF your argument is that a particular name such as "King James Bible" must be present to have support for a particular Bible that would be true to the original writings, then by the same virtue, the word "Trinity" must be present for you to accept the teaching of the Trinity.

I have repeatedly stated that this is about a translation for English speaking people that God has chosen through preservation to perfectly represent the original writings.



Incorrect, God is not the author of confusion. There are many Scriptures represented by modern versions which change major doctrines, and at the very least cause a contradiction in the English version in which they are applied.

There have been many people who have found such contradictions, and had the faith put in jeopardy. Thanks be to God that at least some of these people found the KJ, which does not have these errors.

Still avoiding the FACT of NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH!

Can you **PROVE** God used only the KJV to preserve His word in English? Of course not! And I believe it's quite-obvious that God caused English translations of His word to be made as He caused/allowed the language to change. (While He's done so in other languages, we're all using English here, so that's our focus now.)

As for the Holy Trinity, that doctrine is shown in Scripture by clear implication, while the KJVO myth is not. And we've shown you the MAN-MADE origin of the currently-used KJVO myth. It has no SCRIPTURAL origin whatsoever, as the "Trinity" doctrine does.

Fact: the KJVO myth is based upon man's imaginings, opinion, & guesswork, not the TRUTH.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Still avoiding the FACT of NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE KJVO MYTH!

Can you **PROVE** God used only the KJV to preserve His word in English? Of course not! And I believe it's quite-obvious that God caused English translations of His word to be made as He caused/allowed the language to change. (While He's done so in other languages, we're all using English here, so that's our focus now.)
1) You can no more PROVE any English translation is any more correct than I can do so with the KJ, therefore, that point is moot.
2) What I CAN PROVE is what the people who produced the rules that created the Greek text of every modern version did NOT hold to sound beliefs for inspiration of all Scripture and literary held contempt for particular Scripture teachings. This is of course against what you have already affirmed to believe yourself ... and I as well.

As for the Holy Trinity, that doctrine is shown in Scripture by clear implication, while the KJVO myth is not. And we've shown you the MAN-MADE origin of the currently-used KJVO myth. It has no SCRIPTURAL origin whatsoever, as the "Trinity" doctrine does.
No, you haven't. the KJVOnly position is based upon the doctrines of inspiration and preservation as taught in Scripture.

Fact: the KJVO myth is based upon man's imaginings, opinion, & guesswork, not the TRUTH.
Are you saying then that the inspiration of all Scripture, as well as the preservation of the same is not Scriptural?
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Did the Masorites "faithfully" copy the text as you suggest?

You miss the point. The KJ translators were told by King James to follow the words of the previous bibles unless necessity dictates the change.

And, up until Tyndale and Wycliffe, the phrase used for "Holy Spirit" was hagios pnemua. (Holy Spirit, not hagios phtasma, or Holy ghost)

Fact is, from the early 1st century, our bibles come down to us by way of copying. It can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the scribes made mistakes copying the text down through the ages. Even the Masorites admist they had a corrupt text. There is no way you can start with a corrupt text, and by correcting it, make it a pure text.

The Masoretic Text, is the text for the OT. And it is a corrupted text. Period.

We also know that Luke's writing of the book of Acts, preceeded all the gospels. And the fact that Luke used the word "pneuma" for the Holy Spirit, is followed by the Apostles.

F. F. Bruce writes:

"It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judean authorities, ahd so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule. True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire--that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity.

The argument that there is nothing in Acts--or even in Luke--that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work--early in the twentieth century by Adolf Harnack and over sixty years later by J. A. T. Robinson. Indeed, it has been further argued, since there is no allusion to two earlier events--the Neronian persecution and the execution of Paul--that the composition of Luke-Acts should probably be dated not later than A.D. 65. So far as the Neronian persecution is concerned, even Tacitus (no friend to Christians) admits that it was the action of one man's malignity rather than an expression of public policy, and the official reprobation of Nero's memory and actions at his death could have been held to cover his persecution of the Christians of Rome. So Luke's recording of favorable judgments which had been passed on Christianity by other Roman authorities might have been intended to suggest that Nero's anti-Christian activity was an irresponsible and criminal attack by that now excrated ruler on a movement whose innocence had been amply attested by many worthier representatives of Roman power."

F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, pp. 10-12

Source

So, again, sorry to disagree but in every instance in the Greek, the Holy Spirit is always referenced to as "pneuma".

Here is another instance where the KJ translators could have used the correct word, but got it wrong.

""Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." -Mt. 27:50 (KJV)

The Greek reads:

"ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα." -Mt. 27:50 (GNT)

Here, on the cross, this scripture shows us what happened the minute Christ died.

Here, the correct word is used: "pneuma".

"πνεῦμα,n \{pnyoo'-mah}
1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son 1a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the \\Holy\\ Spirit) 1b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of \\Truth\\) 1c) never referred to as a depersonalised force 2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated 2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides 2b) the soul 3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting 3a) a life giving spirit 3b) a human soul that has left the body 3c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel 3c1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men 3c2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ 4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one 4a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc. 5) a movement of air (a gentle blast) 5a) of the wind, hence the wind itself 5b) breath of nostrils or mouth"

Source

“Ghost” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “pneuma” which means breath or spirit. The KJV inconsistently translated the word pneuma as spirit or ghost, with 91 instances of Ghost or ghost referring to God. The word “Ghost” with reference to God, which is used in all English Bibles predating the King James Version, can be traced to the Wycliffe translation (1395). Although the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, Jerome used the Latin term “Spirtu Sancto” for the Holy Spirit and “spiritum” for Jesus’ spirit. Wycliffe did not actually translate the Bible that bears his name; it was translated by other Lollard scholars at Oxford University while Wycliffe led the Lollard movement politically.

Application of the word “Ghost” to God the Holy Spirit may qualify as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 12:31) The word “ghost” means “spirit” in a demonic sense; it is the pagan term for the spirits of dead people who are believed to roam on earth. “Ghost” is derived from the Old English word gæstan (‘to frighten’) and, apparently, from the Gothic word usgaisjan. It is a West Germanic word for a terrifying ‘supernatural being.’ Needless to say, the pagan connotation of the word “ghost” (i.e., Halloween ghosts) makes it an inappropriate term to identify God. This pagan usage may influence some unconverted persons to misunderstand the nature of God and to view Him as a Satanic being with evil intentions. In fact, Gnostic doctrine teaches that the God of the Bible is Satan, and that the true God is Lucifer. (See: “The Gnostic Gospel”)"

Source

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
1) You can no more PROVE any English translation is any more correct than I can do so with the KJ, therefore, that point is moot.

So, in effect, you're admitting the KJVO myth is false. I was hoping you'd "wise up".


2) What I CAN PROVE is what the people who produced the rules that created the Greek text of every modern version did NOT hold to sound beliefs for inspiration of all Scripture and literary held contempt for particular Scripture teachings. This is of course against what you have already affirmed to believe yourself ... and I as well.

But, can you prove the manuscripts they used are wrong?


No, you haven't. the KJVOnly position is based upon the doctrines of inspiration and preservation as taught in Scripture.

Well, ACTUALLY, it's based upon some mens' preferences, opinions, and guesswork, without one word of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT behind it. As I said, Satan created the KJVO myth to cause trouble. The proof? The cultic, dishonest beginning of that myth's current edition.


Are you saying then that the inspiration of all Scripture, as well as the preservation of the same is not Scriptural?

No; I'm saying that the translation of Scripture into English is NOT limited to the KJV nor any other one translation.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Did the Masorites "faithfully" copy the text as you suggest?

You miss the point. The KJ translators were told by King James to follow the words of the previous bibles unless necessity dictates the change.

And, up until Tyndale and Wycliffe, the phrase used for "Holy Spirit" was hagios pnemua. (Holy Spirit, not hagios phtasma, or Holy ghost)

Fact is, from the early 1st century, our bibles come down to us by way of copying. It can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the scribes made mistakes copying the text down through the ages. Even the Masorites admist they had a corrupt text. There is no way you can start with a corrupt text, and by correcting it, make it a pure text.

The Masoretic Text, is the text for the OT. And it is a corrupted text. Period.

We also know that Luke's writing of the book of Acts, preceeded all the gospels. And the fact that Luke used the word "pneuma" for the Holy Spirit, is followed by the Apostles.

F. F. Bruce writes:

"It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judean authorities, ahd so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule. True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire--that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity.

The argument that there is nothing in Acts--or even in Luke--that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work--early in the twentieth century by Adolf Harnack and over sixty years later by J. A. T. Robinson. Indeed, it has been further argued, since there is no allusion to two earlier events--the Neronian persecution and the execution of Paul--that the composition of Luke-Acts should probably be dated not later than A.D. 65. So far as the Neronian persecution is concerned, even Tacitus (no friend to Christians) admits that it was the action of one man's malignity rather than an expression of public policy, and the official reprobation of Nero's memory and actions at his death could have been held to cover his persecution of the Christians of Rome. So Luke's recording of favorable judgments which had been passed on Christianity by other Roman authorities might have been intended to suggest that Nero's anti-Christian activity was an irresponsible and criminal attack by that now excrated ruler on a movement whose innocence had been amply attested by many worthier representatives of Roman power."

F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, pp. 10-12

Source

So, again, sorry to disagree but in every instance in the Greek, the Holy Spirit is always referenced to as "pneuma".

Here is another instance where the KJ translators could have used the correct word, but got it wrong.

""Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." -Mt. 27:50 (KJV)

The Greek reads:

"ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα." -Mt. 27:50 (GNT)

Here, on the cross, this scripture shows us what happened the minute Christ died.

Here, the correct word is used: "pneuma".

"πνεῦμα,n \{pnyoo'-mah}
1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son 1a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the \\Holy\\ Spirit) 1b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of \\Truth\\) 1c) never referred to as a depersonalised force 2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated 2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides 2b) the soul 3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting 3a) a life giving spirit 3b) a human soul that has left the body 3c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel 3c1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men 3c2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ 4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one 4a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc. 5) a movement of air (a gentle blast) 5a) of the wind, hence the wind itself 5b) breath of nostrils or mouth"

Source

“Ghost” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “pneuma” which means breath or spirit. The KJV inconsistently translated the word pneuma as spirit or ghost, with 91 instances of Ghost or ghost referring to God. The word “Ghost” with reference to God, which is used in all English Bibles predating the King James Version, can be traced to the Wycliffe translation (1395). Although the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, Jerome used the Latin term “Spirtu Sancto” for the Holy Spirit and “spiritum” for Jesus’ spirit. Wycliffe did not actually translate the Bible that bears his name; it was translated by other Lollard scholars at Oxford University while Wycliffe led the Lollard movement politically.

Application of the word “Ghost” to God the Holy Spirit may qualify as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 12:31) The word “ghost” means “spirit” in a demonic sense; it is the pagan term for the spirits of dead people who are believed to roam on earth. “Ghost” is derived from the Old English word gæstan (‘to frighten’) and, apparently, from the Gothic word usgaisjan. It is a West Germanic word for a terrifying ‘supernatural being.’ Needless to say, the pagan connotation of the word “ghost” (i.e., Halloween ghosts) makes it an inappropriate term to identify God. This pagan usage may influence some unconverted persons to misunderstand the nature of God and to view Him as a Satanic being with evil intentions. In fact, Gnostic doctrine teaches that the God of the Bible is Satan, and that the true God is Lucifer. (See: “The Gnostic Gospel”)"

Source

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Certainly, "Holy Ghost" , if used in a modern Bible translation is completely wrong, and may be blasphemy. The meaning of 'ghost' has changed since 1611.

Another such booboo is "Thou shalt not "KILL", Ex. 20:13. This goof has been exploited by pacifists and anti-capital-punishment people for a long time. They forget that the very next chapter calls for the death penalty for certain sins/crimes. The above is a prime example of yanking a KJVO goof outta context to fit one's own agenda.

Just more proof that the KJV is an outdated "Model T" version.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Certainly, "Holy Ghost" , if used in a modern Bible translation is completely wrong, and may be blasphemy. The meaning of 'ghost' has changed since 1611.

Another such booboo is "Thou shalt not "KILL", Ex. 20:13. This goof has been exploited by pacifists and anti-capital-punishment people for a long time. They forget that the very next chapter calls for the death penalty for certain sins/crimes. The above is a prime example of yanking a KJVO goof outta context to fit one's own agenda.

Just more proof that the KJV is an outdated "Model T" version.

Here again, if a person comes out and says they prefer the KJV, that's one thing. The KJV is my preferred bible. But to believe the KJVOnly myth is a total different matter.

The Masorites did use the Seder Olam Rabbah. It was for easiler terms, the dateline for Jews.

If you follow the Masoretic line of recording history, and they did use the Seder Olam Rabbah, then by their accounting, Seder Olam reduces the age of the earth so that Jesus is born too early at 3761 years after creation.

Shortly after the Seder Olam was written, the Jews systematically adjusted the chronological numbers in their Hebrew Tanakh (Masoretic Text) so as to have Jesus born 4114 years after creation (AC), which was still 178 too early, since the messiah cannot come before 4292 AC.

Now, you must remember that every KJV Bible today has the Old Testament based on the Masoretic text (MT).

I can also show that there was a conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans.

In or around BC 610, we have the Samaritan Pentateuch. Ezra began translating the ancient Hebrew into the now known Hebrew.

What seems to be "anti-Samaritan" sentiments, Ezra appears to have made several changes in the "Torah".

Deut. 27:4, appears to have changed Gerizim to Ebal.
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc, (there are 21 texts total) Ezra changed future tense for "past tense".
Lev. 26:31, "sanctuary' changed from singular to plural.
Deut. 11:30, Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oak" of Moreh" it appears Ezra deleted "opposite Shechem"

This reflects changes contrary to The Samaritan Pentateuch:

Deut. 27:4 "Joshua will build an altar on Mt. Ebal"
Deut. 12:5,11,14, etc: "God will choose a place for the name of God to dwell"
Lev. 26:31: "sanctuaries" (plural- i.e.: Joshua's altar, Shiloh, Jerusalem)
Deut. 11:30: "Mt. Gerizim and Ebal are opposite Gilgal, beside the "oaks" of Moreh opposite Shechem".

Not only that, but changes were also made to the genealogies.

"Masoretic Chronology like Seder Olam, is an extreme compression of real Jewish history so that every descendant of Noah down to Abraham (except Peleg), was alive when Abraham was born. This means that Noah, Shem, Pachshad, Shelah, Eber, Rau, Serug and Nahor may have attended Abraham’s first birthday party and might have helped Abraham blow out his one birthday candle. Every descendant of Noah after the flood not only lives to see Abraham, but in some cases outlives Abraham!" (Source)

Point: what "text" is used in every KJV Bible for the OT?

The MT! (Not to be confused with the Majority Text)

Sorry, I just cannot abide the KJVOnly crowd.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Did the Masorites "faithfully" copy the text as you suggest?

You miss the point. The KJ translators were told by King James to follow the words of the previous bibles unless necessity dictates the change.

And, up until Tyndale and Wycliffe, the phrase used for "Holy Spirit" was hagios pnemua. (Holy Spirit, not hagios phtasma, or Holy ghost)

Fact is, from the early 1st century, our bibles come down to us by way of copying. It can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the scribes made mistakes copying the text down through the ages. Even the Masorites admist they had a corrupt text. There is no way you can start with a corrupt text, and by correcting it, make it a pure text.

The Masoretic Text, is the text for the OT. And it is a corrupted text. Period.

We also know that Luke's writing of the book of Acts, preceeded all the gospels. And the fact that Luke used the word "pneuma" for the Holy Spirit, is followed by the Apostles.

F. F. Bruce writes:

"It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judean authorities, ahd so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule. True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire--that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity.

The argument that there is nothing in Acts--or even in Luke--that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work--early in the twentieth century by Adolf Harnack and over sixty years later by J. A. T. Robinson. Indeed, it has been further argued, since there is no allusion to two earlier events--the Neronian persecution and the execution of Paul--that the composition of Luke-Acts should probably be dated not later than A.D. 65. So far as the Neronian persecution is concerned, even Tacitus (no friend to Christians) admits that it was the action of one man's malignity rather than an expression of public policy, and the official reprobation of Nero's memory and actions at his death could have been held to cover his persecution of the Christians of Rome. So Luke's recording of favorable judgments which had been passed on Christianity by other Roman authorities might have been intended to suggest that Nero's anti-Christian activity was an irresponsible and criminal attack by that now excrated ruler on a movement whose innocence had been amply attested by many worthier representatives of Roman power."

F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, pp. 10-12

Source

So, again, sorry to disagree but in every instance in the Greek, the Holy Spirit is always referenced to as "pneuma".

Here is another instance where the KJ translators could have used the correct word, but got it wrong.

""Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." -Mt. 27:50 (KJV)

The Greek reads:

"ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα." -Mt. 27:50 (GNT)

Here, on the cross, this scripture shows us what happened the minute Christ died.

Here, the correct word is used: "pneuma".

"πνεῦμα,n \{pnyoo'-mah}
1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son 1a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the \\Holy\\ Spirit) 1b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of \\Truth\\) 1c) never referred to as a depersonalised force 2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated 2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides 2b) the soul 3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting 3a) a life giving spirit 3b) a human soul that has left the body 3c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel 3c1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men 3c2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ 4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one 4a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc. 5) a movement of air (a gentle blast) 5a) of the wind, hence the wind itself 5b) breath of nostrils or mouth"

Source

“Ghost” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “pneuma” which means breath or spirit. The KJV inconsistently translated the word pneuma as spirit or ghost, with 91 instances of Ghost or ghost referring to God. The word “Ghost” with reference to God, which is used in all English Bibles predating the King James Version, can be traced to the Wycliffe translation (1395). Although the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, Jerome used the Latin term “Spirtu Sancto” for the Holy Spirit and “spiritum” for Jesus’ spirit. Wycliffe did not actually translate the Bible that bears his name; it was translated by other Lollard scholars at Oxford University while Wycliffe led the Lollard movement politically.

Application of the word “Ghost” to God the Holy Spirit may qualify as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 12:31) The word “ghost” means “spirit” in a demonic sense; it is the pagan term for the spirits of dead people who are believed to roam on earth. “Ghost” is derived from the Old English word gæstan (‘to frighten’) and, apparently, from the Gothic word usgaisjan. It is a West Germanic word for a terrifying ‘supernatural being.’ Needless to say, the pagan connotation of the word “ghost” (i.e., Halloween ghosts) makes it an inappropriate term to identify God. This pagan usage may influence some unconverted persons to misunderstand the nature of God and to view Him as a Satanic being with evil intentions. In fact, Gnostic doctrine teaches that the God of the Bible is Satan, and that the true God is Lucifer. (See: “The Gnostic Gospel”)"

Source

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Please , DeaconDean, let's not do the "poison the water" fallacy ordeal, (it's unbecoming).

So let's deal with some of your points ...

Most scholarship believes that Mark preceded Luke, but that really matters not to me. They believe the other gospel writers "borrowed" from mark, especially Luke because of his wording in Luke 1:2

1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; Luke

The phrase, "Even as they delivered them unto us" ... I believe no one "borrowed" from anyone except the HS.

What about the Masoretic Text?

You may have any opinion of the text you wish. Here is my opinion.

God has watched over His words from the time He gave them to us. Has He seen the nasty work of men that handle His Words? Of course. The question is, is He powerful enough to move in the lives of His faithful stewards to keep a pure text, inspire of the (shall I say) worst efforts of men?

My Bible is a Bible of faith in my God. No DeaconDean, I cannot prove critically that God preserved His words; but then again, God never said I had to. God only asks me to believe what He says is true.

Now if you want to enter the world of corruption (pertaining to God's word), we can talk about the theological views of those who brought us Textual Criticism.

I have spent decades researching, and teaching on this subject. Today, men who aren't even Christian's serve as Textual Critics, using rules made my scoffers of the inspiration of Scripture, as well as its authoritativenes. Bart Erhman is such an example. Taught by the late Bruce Metzger, Bart was once an Evangelical, now an Agnostic at best. The Christian community is loosing faith in the Christian Bible because men like Erhman tell them there was no Jesus, and most of Scripture is a fraud.

You end each of your comments with ...

"Sorry" as though you have driven the final stake into the heart of the KJVOnly position.

I will now say to you "Sorry", but poisoning the waters by telling me that gnostics used the word ghost, is like me telling you that Catholics use the word Trinity, and partake of Holy Communion.

Does that mean you will no longer teach the Trinity, or will no longer take Communion?

God has used the KJ Bible to bring some of the greatest revivals this world has seen, both in Europe, and in America ... Do you really think He would use a Bible in such a manner if it was "blaspheming" the Holy Spirit?

Besides, why would even you "prefer" the KJ, if you felt it was blasphemous?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Dan61861
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

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Did the Masorites "faithfully" copy the text as you suggest?

You miss the point. The KJ translators were told by King James to follow the words of the previous bibles unless necessity dictates the change.

And, up until Tyndale and Wycliffe, the phrase used for "Holy Spirit" was hagios pnemua. (Holy Spirit, not hagios phtasma, or Holy ghost)

Fact is, from the early 1st century, our bibles come down to us by way of copying. It can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the scribes made mistakes copying the text down through the ages. Even the Masorites admist they had a corrupt text. There is no way you can start with a corrupt text, and by correcting it, make it a pure text.

The Masoretic Text, is the text for the OT. And it is a corrupted text. Period.

We also know that Luke's writing of the book of Acts, preceeded all the gospels. And the fact that Luke used the word "pneuma" for the Holy Spirit, is followed by the Apostles.

F. F. Bruce writes:

"It is necessary, then, to look for an appropriate life-setting for a work which strikes the apologetic note in just this way. One attractive suggestion points to the period A.D. 66 or shortly afterward, when the chief accusers of Paul, the Judean authorities, ahd so completely discredited themselves in Roman eyes by the revolt against imperial rule. True, Paul himself was dead by then, but the accusations against him, especially that of fomenting public disorder, continued to be brought against Christians in general, and his defense, which could have been seen as vindicated in the event, might be validly pleaded on their behalf. In those years it would have been quite effective to emphasize that, unlike the rebellious Jews, Christians were not disloyal to the empire--that, in fact, it was the rebellious Jews themselves who had always done their best to disown Christianity.

The argument that there is nothing in Acts--or even in Luke--that presupposes the Jewish revolt and the resultant destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) has been used in defense of a pre-70 dating for the twofold work--early in the twentieth century by Adolf Harnack and over sixty years later by J. A. T. Robinson. Indeed, it has been further argued, since there is no allusion to two earlier events--the Neronian persecution and the execution of Paul--that the composition of Luke-Acts should probably be dated not later than A.D. 65. So far as the Neronian persecution is concerned, even Tacitus (no friend to Christians) admits that it was the action of one man's malignity rather than an expression of public policy, and the official reprobation of Nero's memory and actions at his death could have been held to cover his persecution of the Christians of Rome. So Luke's recording of favorable judgments which had been passed on Christianity by other Roman authorities might have been intended to suggest that Nero's anti-Christian activity was an irresponsible and criminal attack by that now excrated ruler on a movement whose innocence had been amply attested by many worthier representatives of Roman power."

F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, pp. 10-12

Source

So, again, sorry to disagree but in every instance in the Greek, the Holy Spirit is always referenced to as "pneuma".

Here is another instance where the KJ translators could have used the correct word, but got it wrong.

""Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." -Mt. 27:50 (KJV)

The Greek reads:

"ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα." -Mt. 27:50 (GNT)

Here, on the cross, this scripture shows us what happened the minute Christ died.

Here, the correct word is used: "pneuma".

"πνεῦμα,n \{pnyoo'-mah}
1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son 1a) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his personality and character (the \\Holy\\ Spirit) 1b) sometimes referred to in a way which emphasises his work and power (the Spirit of \\Truth\\) 1c) never referred to as a depersonalised force 2) the spirit, i.e. the vital principal by which the body is animated 2a) the rational spirit, the power by which the human being feels, thinks, decides 2b) the soul 3) a spirit, i.e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, deciding, and acting 3a) a life giving spirit 3b) a human soul that has left the body 3c) a spirit higher than man but lower than God, i.e. an angel 3c1) used of demons, or evil spirits, who were conceived as inhabiting the bodies of men 3c2) the spiritual nature of Christ, higher than the highest angels and equal to God, the divine nature of Christ 4) the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one 4a) the efficient source of any power, affection, emotion, desire, etc. 5) a movement of air (a gentle blast) 5a) of the wind, hence the wind itself 5b) breath of nostrils or mouth"

Source

“Ghost” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “pneuma” which means breath or spirit. The KJV inconsistently translated the word pneuma as spirit or ghost, with 91 instances of Ghost or ghost referring to God. The word “Ghost” with reference to God, which is used in all English Bibles predating the King James Version, can be traced to the Wycliffe translation (1395). Although the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, Jerome used the Latin term “Spirtu Sancto” for the Holy Spirit and “spiritum” for Jesus’ spirit. Wycliffe did not actually translate the Bible that bears his name; it was translated by other Lollard scholars at Oxford University while Wycliffe led the Lollard movement politically.

Application of the word “Ghost” to God the Holy Spirit may qualify as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 12:31) The word “ghost” means “spirit” in a demonic sense; it is the pagan term for the spirits of dead people who are believed to roam on earth. “Ghost” is derived from the Old English word gæstan (‘to frighten’) and, apparently, from the Gothic word usgaisjan. It is a West Germanic word for a terrifying ‘supernatural being.’ Needless to say, the pagan connotation of the word “ghost” (i.e., Halloween ghosts) makes it an inappropriate term to identify God. This pagan usage may influence some unconverted persons to misunderstand the nature of God and to view Him as a Satanic being with evil intentions. In fact, Gnostic doctrine teaches that the God of the Bible is Satan, and that the true God is Lucifer. (See: “The Gnostic Gospel”)"

Source

Sorry.

God Bless

Till all are one.
NKJV pretty much corrects 90% of failures of the KJV. But the NKJV is heresy to a KJV only. It's the manuscripts behind the KJV that I like, the byzantine manuscript family. But the KJV is still one of the great classics of literature in the united states, and it's that version that gets taught in the "Bible as literature classes" in colleges throughout the united states. (note some classes do offer other translations, but I think the Shakespearean language of the KJV makes it a top pick)
 
Upvote 0

Phil W

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2019
3,187
675
69
Mesa, Az
✟67,340.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I have read the first and last pages of this thread...only, so if this question has already been asked, i plead for a "catch-up".
There has been a lot of mention of the translation of "spirit", (pneuma), vs "ghost".
What is the Greek word for "ghost"?
How different is that word from the pneuma for "spirit"?

(Frankly, I think the words are interchangeable.)
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have read the first and last pages of this thread...only, so if this question has already been asked, i plead for a "catch-up".
There has been a lot of mention of the translation of "spirit", (pneuma), vs "ghost".
What is the Greek word for "ghost"?
How different is that word from the pneuma for "spirit"?

(Frankly, I think the words are interchangeable.)
yeah, I agree. I think it's just a gotcha point, that someone is trying to make, that frankly is not a very good point.
 
Upvote 0

Dr. Jack

Well-Known Member
Mar 9, 2019
839
120
63
Pennsylvania
✟26,705.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I have read the first and last pages of this thread...only, so if this question has already been asked, i plead for a "catch-up".
There has been a lot of mention of the translation of "spirit", (pneuma), vs "ghost".
What is the Greek word for "ghost"?
How different is that word from the pneuma for "spirit"?

(Frankly, I think the words are interchangeable.)
This is what I stated in an earlier comment.

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 of the KJ would immediately understand the difference (is it the Person, or breath) by the use of "Ghost" or "Spirit".

This is how Strongs defines πνεῦμα

G4151
Greek: πνεῦμα Transliteration: pneuma Pronunciation: pnyoo'-mah Definition: From G4154; a current of air that is breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit that is (human) the rational soul (by implication) vital principle mental disposition etc. or (superhuman) an angel daemon or (divine) God Christ´ s spirit the Holy spirit : - ghost life spirit (-ual -ually) mind. Compare G5590 .

Ghost (meaning the visible manifestation of a dead person's spirit would be Φάντασμά and that is why we see it in Scripture as such.

I believe the purpose of the KJ translators is just, and there isn't anyone who doesn't understand that the term "Holy Ghost" refers to the third Person of the Trinty.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
NKJV pretty much corrects 90% of failures of the KJV. But the NKJV is heresy to a KJV only. It's the manuscripts behind the KJV that I like, the byzantine manuscript family. But the KJV is still one of the great classics of literature in the united states, and it's that version that gets taught in the "Bible as literature classes" in colleges throughout the united states. (note some classes do offer other translations, but I think the Shakespearean language of the KJV makes it a top pick)

I have never argued against:

the KJV is still one of the great classics of literature in the united states

Now as of 2003, I was in seminary and there was no "standard" such as the KJV. Whatever version you used, that was OK.

However, I did get into a very heated debate with one of my teachers over the NIV.

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

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I believe the purpose of the KJ translators is just, and there isn't anyone who doesn't understand that the term "Holy Ghost" refers to the third Person of the Trinty.

But that is not a faithful translation of the Greek as it is suggested throughout this thread.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Phil W

Well-Known Member
Apr 15, 2019
3,187
675
69
Mesa, Az
✟67,340.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This is what I stated in an earlier comment.



This is how Strongs defines πνεῦμα

G4151
Greek: πνεῦμα Transliteration: pneuma Pronunciation: pnyoo'-mah Definition: From G4154; a current of air that is breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively a spirit that is (human) the rational soul (by implication) vital principle mental disposition etc. or (superhuman) an angel daemon or (divine) God Christ´ s spirit the Holy spirit : - ghost life spirit (-ual -ually) mind. Compare G5590 .

Ghost (meaning the visible manifestation of a dead person's spirit would be Φάντασμά and that is why we see it in Scripture as such.

I believe the purpose of the KJ translators is just, and there isn't anyone who doesn't understand that the term "Holy Ghost" refers to the third Person of the Trinty.
While I can appreciate all of your study, the end result, in this case, is a mole hill instead of a mountain.

The factor I always consider in my judgement of a "new" interpretation of the KJV is the word used for "perfect" in 2 Tim 3:17.
"That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
When I see a version with the word "perfect" transcribed as "complete" it denies the ability of Christians to actually be perfect in Christ.
It leads to a less than perfect man...with the bible's authority behind it.
A work certainly not of God.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
But that is not a faithful translation of the Greek as it is suggested throughout this thread.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Of all the mistranslations, this is minor. However the NIV mistranslations seem to affect doctrine.
 
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
Status
Not open for further replies.