Bibical Texts: to be or not to be

[Epiphoskei]

you are the one that said your text said IF jesus comes back in 1 John 3:2. and what is the name of your bible, please!!

I'm translating directly out of Greek. All Greek texts use the Greek word for "if." Including all the texts of your preferred Byzantine family.

and I guess you know the english language better than Ole man Webster did>


IF, v.t. It is used as the sign of a condition, or it introduces a conditional sentence. It is a verb, without a specified nominative. In like manner we use grant, admit, suppose. Regularly, if should be followed, as it was formerly, by the substitute or pronoun that, referring to the succeeding sentence or proposition. If that John shall arrive in season, I will send him with a message. But that is now omitted,and the subsequent sentence, proposition or affirmation may be considered as the object of the verb. Give John shall arrive; grant,suppose, admit that he shall arrive, I will send him with a message. The sense of if, or give, in this use, is grant, admit, cause to be, let the fact be,let the thing take place. If then is equivalent to grant, allow, admit. "If thou wilt, thou canst make me whole," that is, thou canst make me whole, give the fact, that thou wilt.

Webster agrees with me. Or have I not said a dozen times that "If" expresses the conditionality of the apodosis upon the protasis?

not only would you use a bible that twists if Jesus will return or not, you also try to twist the meanings of english words? talk about going to the extreme the prove you are right!! hey I know let's start a poll and see How many thinks that If 1 John 3:2 says "If Jesus will come back" means that He may or may not come back? according to 1 John 3:2

You may start a poll if you like, but it's not going to change the rules of grammar that are involved here. I have said that in the vernacular, the word "if" has been taken more and more often to imply more than simple conditionality. The vernacular, however, is not what the KJV was written in, so if you're not prepared to use language according to its classical parameters, you're not prepared to read the KJV.

What's ironic is that while the "if" of simple conditionality drops out of the vernacular, it forms the backbone of every computing language, and thus the purely conditional if is more important than it ever has been before, despite the fact that fewer and fewer people grasp it. Let's write I John 3:2 as a piece of pseudocode:

Define Apocalypse(Jreturns)
{if Jreturns = 1 then belikehim()}

Nothing in the use of the term "if" restricts what can be passed to the function, rather, it simply conditions the calling of the belikehim function on the return of Christ.

 

[His_disciple3]

I'm translating directly out of Greek. All Greek texts use the Greek word for "if." Including all the texts of your preferred Byzantine family.



Webster agrees with me. Or have I not said a dozen times that "If" expresses the conditionality of the apodosis upon the protasis?


You may start a poll if you like, but it's not going to change the rules of grammar that are involved here. I have said that in the vernacular, the word "if" has been taken more and more often to imply more than simple conditionality. The vernacular, however, is not what the KJV was written in, so if you're not prepared to use language according to its classical parameters, you're not prepared to read the KJV.

What's ironic is that while the "if" of simple conditionality drops out of the vernacular, it forms the backbone of every computing language, and thus the purely conditional if is more important than it ever has been before, despite the fact that fewer and fewer people grasp it. Let's write I John 3:2 as a piece of pseudocode:

Define Apocalypse(Jreturns)
{if Jreturns = 1 then belikehim()}

Nothing in the use of the term "if" restricts what can be passed to the function, rather, it simply conditions the calling of the belikehim function on the return of Christ.

woe you really don't get it do you. yeah "ean" can mean if, but it also has different meanings, you are like a broken record in that you keep insisiting that in translating "Ean" to english that it must mean "IF" so when translating scriptures you have to get the right english word to represent the greek word used, or you will tamper with the context. in the contents of 1 John 3:2 "IF" is the wrong english word for the greek word Ean as it is used in 1 John 3:2, because according to other scriptures it is not a matter of "If" Jesus returns but "When" He returns, so could you show me where it is etched in Blood that "ean" has to mean "if" then If you can concept that ean does mean something else then hopeful you can see that tere would be a better English word to translate ean to in the contents of 1 John #:2 , and then maybe you could admit that the KJB translators use a better word when for ean than If.
NT:1437
NT:1437
<START GREEK>e)a/n
<END GREEK> ean (eh-an'); from NT:1487 and NT:302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:

KJV - before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-) soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, [who-] so (-ever). See NT:3361.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 

[Epiphoskei]

You cannot cite a concordance of the KJV as if it were a lexicon of possible translations, given that the KJV's validity in the matter of translation is a point of contention. That's begging the question.

Beyond which, you have yet to interact with the grammatical argument. Ean with the subjunctive indicates specifically a third-class conditional sentence, which by the point of Koine Greek indicates contingency of a future apodosis upon a future protasis of any kind of potentiality. The proper way to express a simple future conditional like that in English is with an "if" - "when" doesn't even denote a conditional sentence. The translators have made an interpretational decision to move past simple contingency because of concerns that people may take simple contingency the way you're presently taking it. That doesn't change the fact that it's an interpretational decision for the sake of accommodating people who don't even understand the rules of their own language.

 

[His_disciple3]

You cannot cite a concordance of the KJV as if it were a lexicon of possible translations, given that the KJV's validity in the matter of translation is a point of contention. That's begging the question.

Beyond which, you have yet to interact with the grammatical argument. Ean with the subjunctive indicates specifically a third-class conditional sentence, which by the point of Koine Greek indicates contingency of a future apodosis upon a future protasis of any kind of potentiality. The proper way to express a simple future conditional like that in English is with an "if" - "when" doesn't even denote a conditional sentence. The translators have made an interpretational decision to move past simple contingency because of concerns that people may take simple contingency the way you're presently taking it. That doesn't change the fact that it's an interpretational decision for the sake of accommodating people who don't even understand the rules of their own language.

let me put it this way then, I don't care what your man made grammer rules are. It AIN"T a matter of if Jesus returns But a matter of When, and with other scriptures confirming That indeed He will return. !! then to translate a word to if in the 1 John 3:2 text is just wrong spiritually, and I would rather be spiritually correct than to go by any man made grammer rules :
Acts 4:19
19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
KJV

 

[Hupomone10]

It AIN"T a matter of if Jesus returns But a matter of When, and with other scriptures confirming That indeed He will return. !! then to translate a word to if in the 1 John 3:2 text is just wrong spiritually, and I would rather be spiritually correct than to go by any man made grammer rules :

I'm trying to read this thread from a neutral standpoint as best I can. Please back up and read your post here.

People with this attitude are the reason for the New World Translation and any other of the intentional mistranslations that have occurred. The JW hierarchy, for example, because they knew the truth as you say you do, decided to deceptively translate Matt. 25:46 "these shall go away into eternal 'cutting off,' but the righteous to eternal life" and John 1:1 as "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 'a God' ", and many others, because they wanted "to be spiritually correct rather than to go by" common sense rules of language, rules that can be agreed on by all those not having brain damage, just as math can be agreed on. You are doing your cause harm by such a suggestion, a suggestion that when followed has led to all sorts of heresies down through the centuries.

Acts 4:19
19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
KJV

It is an issue of honesty in translation, not an issue of following God or man. God never told translators to determine 'spiritual' truth themselves and dishonestly go against the clear meaning and translation of a word all for the sake of one of their doctrinal points. This is an unfortunate and bad misapplication of Scripture, and again does harm to your point.

I'm really interested in good points from both sides, but please don't sound like Jehovah's Witnesses, both of you...

 

[Hentenza]

Doctrinal problem in Matthew 26:27 based on an inaccurate translation by the KJV writers.

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

What happens if you leave a drop in the communion cup?

The highlighted portion above should read: "Drink ye, all of you" not all of "it". I actually know some folks that have taken this verse to mean that there can not be even a drop left in the cup so they lick the inside of the cup to make sure that they do not violate communion. Of course, there will always be "some" left.

 

[Epiphoskei]

let me put it this way then, I don't care what your man made grammer rules are.

Then you don't care what the Bible says, inasmuch as texts communicate meaning by obeying grammatical convention.

It AIN"T a matter of if Jesus returns But a matter of When, and with other scriptures confirming That indeed He will return.

That's a false dichotomy. "When" is not the definite version of "if."

then to translate a word to if in the 1 John 3:2 text is just wrong spiritually, and I would rather be spiritually correct than to go by any man made grammer rules :
Acts 4:19
19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
KJV

You have just denied the doctrinal correctness of the Greek text of I John.

As I have already told you, it may be appropriate to cross out the "if" that's actually in the text and write in a "when" to prevent persons such as yourself who are driven to apoplexy by the concept of a simple conditional from misunderstanding, but that's a matter of interpretation, not a matter of translation.

 

[His_disciple3]

I'm trying to read this thread from a neutral standpoint as best I can. Please back up and read your post here.

People with this attitude are the reason for the New World Translation and any other of the intentional mistranslations that have occurred. The JW hierarchy, for example, because they knew the truth as you say you do, decided to deceptively translate Matt. 25:46 "these shall go away into eternal 'cutting off,' but the righteous to eternal life" and John 1:1 as "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 'a God' ", and many others, because they wanted "to be spiritually correct rather than to go by" common sense rules of language, rules that can be agreed on by all those not having brain damage, just as math can be agreed on. You are doing your cause harm by such a suggestion, a suggestion that when followed has led to all sorts of heresies down through the centuries.

It is an issue of honesty in translation, not an issue of following God or man. God never told translators to determine 'spiritual' truth themselves and dishonestly go against the clear meaning and translation of a word all for the sake of one of their doctrinal points. This is an unfortunate and bad misapplication of Scripture, and again does harm to your point.

I'm really interested in good points from both sides, but please don't sound like Jehovah's Witnesses, both of you...

well according to your bibical knowledge which one would be true "IF JESUS COMES BACK" or " WHEN JESUS SHALL APPEAR" in 1 John 3:2, even man made the dictionary, man made the concordance that says ean means if. man made my strong's concordance that says ean can also mean "when". but only Epiphoskei's text and concordance is correct according to the them that is. I don't know if I have ever read anywhere that dictionaries and concordances are inspired by God, but for a God that can't lie, I know that there can't be any lies and/or contradictions in His word. and there is no condition to His return, For He said if it were not so I would have told You, if I go away I will return! so for a manuscript or text or bible to say If he shall return that manuscript, text or bible is wrong. the only thing i was saying is that I am going to believe the 400 year old authorized Bible over what ever they are supporting as truth. man has made both concordances, so there is a contradiction between concordances if you use a bad concordances then you get a bad translation in all my little Biblical knowledge If Jesus Comes back is a very bad translation. so No matter whom I sound like let me say it again; I don't care what their made man concordance has stated I will Believe God Over It , and Know That He will appear, NO IF"S ABOUT IT!!

 

[His_disciple3]

Then you don't care what the Bible says, inasmuch as texts communicate meaning by obeying grammatical convention.


That's a false dichotomy. "When" is not the definite version of "if."


You have just denied the doctrinal correctness of the Greek text of I John.

As I have already told you, it may be appropriate to cross out the "if" that's actually in the text and write in a "when" to prevent persons such as yourself who are driven to apoplexy by the concept of a simple conditional from misunderstanding, but that's a matter of interpretation, not a matter of translation.

Let me explain it this way. What i believe about your perverted text has nothing to do with what I believe about the Holy Bible. a computer is only as good as the input that is programmed into, so if the programmer inputs that 4 + 4 = 10, then the computer will always be wrong as it calulates 4+4. the same with translations and esp. those that uses the Alexandria text, the text that was consider corrupt by people that knew more about the greek and English languages than you will ever hope to know, no matter how many big words you use, and it comes down to not what Bible is correct but which concordance is used How is My concordance wrong and yours right, only because you say so??

NT:1437
NT:1437
<START GREEK>e)a/n
<END GREEK> ean (eh-an'); from NT:1487 and NT:302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:

KJV - before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-) soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, [who-] so (-ever). See NT:3361.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

what makes mine right is the Bible; for it says that He will return in other places, so there is no IF to his return but WHEN!! so let me ask again are we to listen to man or to God ??

I ain't denied nothing but your corrupt text, and I ain't the first christian to ever deny it!

 

[His_disciple3]

Doctrinal problem in Matthew 26:27 based on an inaccurate translation by the KJV writers.

27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

What happens if you leave a drop in the communion cup?

The highlighted portion above should read: "Drink ye, all of you" not all of "it". I actually know some folks that have taken this verse to mean that there can not be even a drop left in the cup so they lick the inside of the cup to make sure that they do not violate communion. Of course, there will always be "some" left.

REALLY DUDE? I DIS AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION ACCORDING THAT VERSE. oops sorry didn't know caps lock was on. I am not too sure that it was meant for Judas to drink of it, if it was not then Jesus would have not said all of ye drink it. and as far as what if you leave a drop, I wouldn't even considering leaving a drop/wasting a drop of that precious wine that represents His precious Blood, not that it is a law or something. but because it is so precious. of course there will always be some luke warm. however I still believe the KJB has it right and you being man are wrong!

 

[Hentenza]

REALLY DUDE? I DIS AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION ACCORDING THAT VERSE. oops sorry didn't know caps lock was on. I am not too sure that it was meant for Judas to drink of it, if it was not then jesus would have say all of ye drink it. and as far as what if you leave a drop, I wouldn't even considering leaving a drop/wasting a drop of that precious wine that represents His precious Blood, not that it is a law or something. of course there will always be some luke warm

Is not my opinion that you are disagreeing with. The facts are undeniable. Even the writers of the NKJV using the same TR text rendered it correctly.

NKJV
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, &#8220;Drink from it, all of you.

 

[Hentenza]

Here is another translation error by the KJV writers.

Songs of Solomon 2
12The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

The Hebrew word &#1514;&#1465;&#1468;&#1512; defines a turtledove not a turtle. A turtle is not a bird that sings.

Turtle:

Turtledove:

See the difference?

 

[Epiphoskei]

Let me explain it this way. What i believe about your perverted text has nothing to do with what I believe about the Holy Bible. a computer is only as good as the input that is programmed into, so if the programmer inputs that 4 + 4 = 10, then the computer will always be wrong as it calulates 4+4. the same with translations and esp. those that uses the Alexandria text, the text that was consider corrupt by people that knew more about the greek and English languages than you will ever hope to know, no matter how many big words you use, and it comes down to not what Bible is correct but which concordance is used How is My concordance wrong and yours right, only because you say so??

NT:1437
NT:1437
<START GREEK>e)a/n
<END GREEK> ean (eh-an'); from NT:1487 and NT:302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:

KJV - before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-) soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, [who-] so (-ever). See NT:3361.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

what makes mine right is the Bible; for it says that He will return in other places, so there is no IF to his return but WHEN!! so let me ask again are we to listen to man or to God ??

I ain't denied nothing but your corrupt text, and I ain't the first christian to ever deny it!

This is silly on three fronts. First of all, I don't know how many times you have to be told, this is not a textual issue - your TR or Byzantine texts say just the same thing. The idea that the scholars of the early modern era rejected the "Alexandrian text" is nonsense - look up the discovery date of all the papyri, the major Alexandrian and Western uncials - it's a patent lie that western scholars knew about these texts until recently, and that they ever rejected these texts after they were discovered. You're being deceived by KJVO propaganda. And the translators of the KJV language didn't even understand the rules governing Koine Greek - they translated the Bible as if it were a Classical Greek text.

Second, a concordance is not a lexicon. You're citing a book which simply gives a list of how a Greek word was translated by the KJV. We all agree, the KJV uses "when" to translate "ean." That is not an argument in its favor, that is a restatement of your thesis. You're begging the question.

Third, your If vrs Then dilemma is false. "If" is not the less certain version of "then." If is the conditional. You're trying to translate a conditional with something which is not a conditional. Your reading is not doctrinally incorrect, but the simple conditional is also not doctrinally incorrect, and is what the text actually says. And frankly, if you can't read the simple conditional without seeing it as implying doubt, you aren't qualified enough in English to read the KJV.

I will remind you of the reason we got on this tangent. You argued that an "if" in Matthew 18:13 implied that God may not find his sheep. The simple conditional implies no such thing, as its use in I John proves. You really can't have this both ways.

 

[phoenixdem]

Here is another translation error by the KJV writers.

Songs of Solomon 2
12The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

The Hebrew word &#1514;&#1465;&#1468;&#1512; defines a turtledove not a turtle. A turtle is not a bird that sings.

Turtle:

Turtledove:

See the difference?

Today, my wife bought for me a Parallel KJV/NKJV Bible. The NKJV corrected the error and states turtledove instead of a turtle.

I like using the American Standard, the New King James, and the New American Standard. I understand the New International Version is also good and I have a copy of that, but I seldom use it. All of that didn't stop me from buying the 1611 King James. Comparing the different versions can be a good thing. I even have the Geneva Bible.

 

[Hentenza]

Today, my wife bought for me a Parallel KJV/NKJV Bible. The NKJV corrected the error and states turtledove instead of a turtle.

I like using the American Standard, the New King James, and the New American Standard. I understand the New International Version is also good and I have a copy of that, but I seldom use it. All of that didn't stop me from buying the 1611 King James. Comparing the different versions can be a good thing. I even have the Geneva Bible.

Yes, the NKJV did correct several of the KJV errors including the two that I cited earlier. I use several bibles including the KJV and NKJV. My go to bible is the NASB. I have issues with the NIV though simply because it is a paraphrase bible but many people seem to like it. I would not use it for in depth study though.

 

[His_disciple3]

Here is another translation error by the KJV writers.

Songs of Solomon 2
12The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

The Hebrew word &#1514;&#1465;&#1468;&#1512; defines a turtledove not a turtle. A turtle is not a bird that sings.

Turtle:

Turtledove:

See the difference?

I knew this one was coming. watch this, I"M not sure what country you are from but you should do a little more research on the english language before you try to blast the ole English authorized version of the Holy Word of God. watch and learn :

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)

ARTFL > Webster's Dictionary > Searching for turtle:
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:

TUR''TLE, n. [L. turtur.]
1. A fowl of the genus Columba; called also the turtle dove, and turtle pigeon. It is a wild species, frequenting the thickest parts of the woods, and its note is plaintive and tender.
2. The name sometimes given to the common tortoise.
3. The name given to the large sea-tortoise.

as I have been saying about "ean" can have more than one meaning such as "IF" or "WHEN" . "turtle" also has more than one meaning, so once again the KJB holds true and you as man has falling short. and your pictures has shown both meanings, got any more shots at the Holy Word of God, oh wait I know your going to tell me the webster dictionary is wrong just as the other person says the strong concordance is wrong too!! seems like everything is wrong but you too, and you guys are aways right! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Epiphoskei]

Today, my wife bought for me a Parallel KJV/NKJV Bible. The NKJV corrected the error and states turtledove instead of a turtle.

I like using the American Standard, the New King James, and the New American Standard. I understand the New International Version is also good and I have a copy of that, but I seldom use it. All of that didn't stop me from buying the 1611 King James. Comparing the different versions can be a good thing. I even have the Geneva Bible.

Quite a lot of these errors have been slowly weeded out in modern versions. The dirty secret of old OT translations is that so many words in the OT are Hapax Legomenon - words that only appear once, or only appear in scripture - that we had little to no understanding of what they meant until the advent of modern archaeology and the decoding of other ancient Semitic languages.

An example - in I Sam 28, the KJV says that the witch of Endor had a "familiar spirit." The word in question, "owb," turns out to have been a loanword from Hittite, where it refers to a pit that sorceresses enter to contact the dead. Why did the KJV translators translate it as "familiar spirit"? Because they had no idea what it meant, because Hittite wasn't deciphered until around 1900.

 

[Epiphoskei]

as I have been saying about "ean" can have more than one meaning such as "IF" or "WHEN"

"when" does not introduce a conditional sentence. Ean with the subjunctive is always a third class conditional.

 

[Hentenza]

I knew this one was coming. watch this, I"M not sure what country you are from but you should do a little more research on the english language before you try to blast the ole English authorized version of the Holy Word of God. watch and and learn :

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)

ARTFL > Webster's Dictionary > Searching for turtle:
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:

TUR''TLE, n. [L. turtur.]
1. A fowl of the genus Columba; called also the turtle dove, and turtle pigeon. It is a wild species, frequenting the thickest parts of the woods, and its note is plaintive and tender.
2. The name sometimes given to the common tortoise.
3. The name given to the large sea-tortoise.

as I have been saying about "ean" can have more than one meaning such as "IF" or "WHEN" . "turtle" also has more than one meaning, so once again the KJB holds true and you as man has falling short. and your pictures has shown both meanings, got any shots at the Holy Word of God, oh wait I know your going to tell me the webster dictionary is wrong just as the other person says the strong concordance is wrong too!! seems like everything is wrong but you too, and you guys are aways right! NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is what you are not understanding. The translation to turtle is exclusive to the KJV. All subsequent translations have corrected the translation to meet the current usage and understanding (not the one in 1828 as the Websters version that you presented). None of the English speaking world uses turtle to mean a dove, consequently, all that read the archaic English still used (and not corrected) of the KJV needs to compare it to either the original language or a modern translation to get the modern meaning. There are a plethora of archaic words in the KJV that now have different meanings with some even having the opposite meaning. If one does not understand that then one can misunderstand the meaning.

The same issue is with leaving the word unicorn instead of correcting it in the many revisions since the 1611 version to the modern usage. In the 1600 England unicorn was sometimes used to denote an ox but the problem is that it was a regional use not universal among the English speaking nations. It is even physically inaccurate since an ox has two horns not one. Thankfully the NKJV fixed that error also.

 

[His_disciple3]

Today, my wife bought for me a Parallel KJV/NKJV Bible. The NKJV corrected the error and states turtledove instead of a turtle.

I like using the American Standard, the New King James, and the New American Standard. I understand the New International Version is also good and I have a copy of that, but I seldom use it. All of that didn't stop me from buying the 1611 King James. Comparing the different versions can be a good thing. I even have the Geneva Bible.

see above post,
if it ain't broke don't fix it
let's talk the Nas for second here what do you think about what it did to john 4:29 where the woman at the well, went back the towns people talking about Jesus and in the KJB it reads. "is this not the Christ" ? implying that this is the Christ. but the NASV takes "this" out of the middle of the sentence, and puts at the first of the sentence so that part reads "this is not the Christ, is it" ?