1 Cor 14 -entire chapter, verse by verse

[Presbyterian Continuist]

We are never going to agree on this issue. I think I will move on to more productive activities.

I do have a concern when you are labelling our English translations of the Bible as the work of man and not the Word of God. You seem to be relying on the Greek language testament based on manuscripts that existed at least 100 years after the events described in them. They themselves were copies of earlier texts. If we are discounting translations, we might as well put the same test on copies as well. The only way to really get to the bottom of what was actually written by Paul, Luke, John, Peter and the others is to locate the original manuscripts, but we cannot because they are lost to us. The earliest manuscripts we have are copies of the originals, and there is no objective proof that they were actually penned by the authors they are attributed to. The canon itself was approved and put together by a council of scholars and theologians in 400 AD, so if you apply your own rule as you have to the translations, you would have to say the formation of the canon itself was the work of man.

So you can see that when you start doubting the words of the translations that we have, regardless of the calibre of the scholars that put them together, you get into a quicksand and end up wondering whether the Bible is written accurately at all.

At some point we have to apply faith and accept what we believe is the Word of God to us. It seems that you have set a milestone for your faith in a different place to me. Even then, it comes down to your interpretation of the words against mine. In fact, it is just your word against mine in how the scripture is interpreted, because if you try and quote scholars to back your views from now on, I can quite justly say that you are relying on the words of men, in the same way that you are saying that our English translations of the Bible are just the works of men.

We also have to remember that in the early church, all they had was Paul's word for it, other than the Old Testament scriptures, and much of what he taught was oral, without any textual backup at all. That posed a problem for another congregation down the road who had not heard Paul in the flesh. They had to be taught from someone who learned from Paul. For example, Timothy. He would not have had much textual material on which to base his ministry. Therefore you would have to doubt the truth of Timothy's ministry, because he would have had no textual backing to prove what he taught was the actual truth. I wonder how he would have got around that one?

 

[zeke37]

Well, whether you want to admit it or not, there are some mistakes in the KJV. Now, with a little hard work we can easily spot the "seeming inconsistencies" and clear them up.

Luke 14:26

KJV
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

This is in direct confliction with the 10 Commandments.

NIV
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.


Amplified
If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his [own] father and mother [[g]in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God] and [likewise] his wife and children and brothers and sisters--[yes] and even his own life also--he cannot be My disciple.


NKJV
If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.


NASB
(O)If anyone comes to Me, and does not [a]hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

the first footnote leads us to Mat10:37
the second, on hate: I.e. by comparison of his love for Me

So, there are mistakes made in the tranlations, which wouldn't be possible if it were fully inspired. This is exactly the way God wanted it to be. The truth is there, but we must reprove it with the scriptures itself.

We are NOT to hate our parents.
the word in the greek text is...

G3404
μισέω
miseō
mis-eh'-o
From a primary word μῖσοςmisos (hatred); to detest (especially to persecute); by extension to love less: - hate (-ful).


We are to love our Father more than our parents. But we are still to love our parents, and putting God 1st, allows us to love our loved ones even more than we did before.

So, all the translations were wrong, but some scholarly work seems to have been done in the NASB, not that I know much about that translation.

So, translations can be wrong, and built to suit, even purposefully misdirecting. The letter in the front of the authorised 1611 KJV is a letter from the translators, written to the king of England, stating that they tried to do the best work that they could, but it is not inspired. There are errors. But we can spot them and learn the truth.

in His service
c

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

What you have outlined here are the differences in word meanings between 1611 when the KJV was translated and the present time. In 1611, according to the Oxford Shorter English Dictionary, the meaning of the word 'hate' was have a lesser love than someone else. The present day meaning 'dislike intensely' was not known in 1611.

Even in our current time the meanings of words have changed. 'Gay' used to mean happy and carefree. 'Coming out' used to mean accompanying someone on a social outing. We now use the word 'out' to reveal something that was secret about ourselves.

The word 'conversation', meaning a style of speech, meant 'a manner of conduct or lifestyle' in 1611.

So, in 1611, the translators of the period were correct in their word meanings. The New KJV was compiled to try and correct those anomalies (obviously it missed your example word). But they were anomalies caused by the passage of time and the way language changes over time.

I don't think that you can base an argument that the translators were wrong on the examples you are giving.

Did I mention to you that I did my MA thesis on translating a 5 Act play written in 1610 to present day language? I spent 15 months doing it, and got to know the 10 volume Oxford Dictionary very well.

Just a piece of useless information...

 

[zeke37]

Cool about the play.

I know that the KJV was revised in the 1800's and much of the old english was replaced with modern english, mostly.

But I stand by my statement that some of the translations contain mistakes, quite possibly honest mistakes, however our current generations ability to study the manuscripts and compare them with each other...leads to the truth....with honest study.

I think that the KJV is a great work, and part of the plan of God. But it is not verbatim, close though....IMO closer than any other interpretation.

in His service
c

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think that you are correct about the KJV. It would be the same for any translation. That is why I think that it is good to have several translations at our fingertips so we can compare them. A lot of errors can be dealt with that way. Even the earliest Greek manuscript is a translation. We don't know what language Luke used to write his gospel and Acts, or what language was originally used in the other gospels. For all we know, Paul could have written his original letter to the Romans in latin, and it was later translated into Greek. We know that someone at some stage compiled what we know of the Canon just after the first century (Polycarp, I think) and wrote it all out in Greek. I used to know when the Septuagent was compiled, but I have forgotten. You might be able to give us that information. But the Septuagent itself was a compilation copy of all the other manuscripts that existed at the time. Of course, I am only guessing, and there would be those here who can enlighten me. I would be very interested to know.