Evolution

[Mallon]

What the original Hebrew audience knew isn't what matters Mallon.

There you have it, then. I think it is extremely important, if not fundamental, to understand the Hebrew context of the Bible in order to interpret it properly. It goes back to that whole analogy about seeing one's own reflection at the bottom of the well. You don't. I guess that's where we differ, then.

 

[crawfish]

What the original Hebrew audience knew isn't what matters Mallon.

Obviously, because the bible wasn't written for anyone before 1611.

 

[Assyrian]

Cabal...you have a beautiful scientific mind and I am in awe of it as well as that of others on this forum but...what you have written above brings to mind....

11 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.​

​

I love that verse. It is worth looking at the context and seeing what Paul is doing here.

2Cor 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Paul is talking about the church as the bride betrothed to Christ and warning about the danger of deception, but he didn't pick just any temptation in the bible, he picked the story of the first bride being deceived. Remember in Romans 5:14 Paul tells us Adam is a figure of Christ? Here Paul is using Adam and Eve as an allegory of Christ and the bride. Whatever Paul means about simplicity, it doesn't exclude allegorical interpretation of Genesis

In fact the 'simplicity' Paul is talking about is the simplicity of the Gospel.
2Cor 11:4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

 

[Assyrian]

Thanks! I didn't think it was the seventh, but I didn't want to do the legwork. Isn't our modern KJV bible a later revision, btw?

Interestingly enough, the first Christians in America rejected the KJV and instead used the Geneva Bible (which was written specifically by and for Protestants, the KJV was written by Anglicans).

How could I miss the Geneva Bible from my list
1 Wycliffe Bible 1395
2 Tyndale Bible 1534
3 Bishops' Bible 1534
4 Coverdale Bible 1535
5 Matthew Bible 1537
6 Taverner's Bible 1539
7 The Great Bible 1539
8 Geneva Bible 1560
9 The Bishops' Bible 1568 (different one)
10 Douay–Rheims Bible 1610
11 King James Version 1611
Purists like AV1611VET insist on the 1611 version, though apparently no in it original inspired spelling, at least you do not often hear them talk of the the oyle of gladneſſe Heb 1:9.
Which is ironic as Jesus said each individual letter and stroke is vital.
Matt 5:18 For verily I say vnto you, Till heauen and earth paſſe, one iote or one title, ſhall in no wiſe paſſe from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Assyrian]

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect 199 (accurate) understanding 3877 (full knowledge) of all things 3956 (everything) from the very first 509) (beginning), to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus.

No. I see it clearly telling us that he had an accurate understanding with full knowledge of everything from the beginning. No mention of researching.
.

Where do you get 'accurate'? Where do you get 'full knowledge'? Knowledge is a noun, The Strong's numbers tell you it is a verb. You said you use the AV so you can have access to the Strong numbers, so why don't you use them? And don't just pick an choose which translations suit you, try to understand the way the word is being used. Fully knowing may be a result of the verb, but if you look at the range of meanings it is talking about coming to that knowledge by searching it out, following all the information.

 

[Assyrian]

Dr. Laurence M. Vance....

(snip)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The information we need is to be found, not in the translators' "The Epistle Dedicatory" or their "The Translators to the Reader," but in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible." These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva." [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1.Tyndale's, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2.Matthew's, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3.Coverdale's,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch),[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5. the Geneva Bible, [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6.the Bishops' Bible,[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7. and the King James Bible. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.[/FONT]
.

So the translators of the AV based their work on 6 bible translations? Isn't 6 one of those dodgy numbers, mark of the beast and all that? It is the symbol of man, which would mean the AV is based on the words of man.

Of course just because a bible isn't on the approved list doesn't mean it didn't have an influence. Wycliffe's phraseology already filled Tyndale's version and while Taverner wasn't on the list and didn't have that much influence we have him to thank for Jesus speaking parables instead of similitudes and celebrating the Passover instead of Easter.

 

[Jase]

So the translators of the AV based their work on 6 bible translations? Isn't 6 one of those dodgy numbers, mark of the beast and all that? It is the symbol of man, which would mean the AV is based on the words of man.

Of course just because a bible isn't on the approved list doesn't mean it didn't have an influence. Wycliffe's phraseology already filled Tyndale's version and while Taverner wasn't on the list and didn't have that much influence we have him to thank for Jesus speaking parables instead of similitudes and celebrating the Passover instead of Easter.

the KJV is a 70-80% word for word copy of Tyndale's Bible (which was notoriously corrupt due to Tyndale's attempts to attack the Catholic Church). The King James ordered his translators to alter everything else to fit Church of England teaching and make it more Christianized.

Anyone who thinks the KJV is God's perfect translation is living on another planet.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Every Bible translation relies on the interpretations produced by a team of scholars working collaboratively, without political influence or bias, with the best available manuscripts and communication tools.

Today's modern translations of the Bible are much superior to the King James Version for a number of good reasons:

1. they use all of the original manuscripts that the King James' was based on, as well as all references that have been found since, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

2. they are able to incorporate the findings of many modern archeological studies that have been completed in the Holy Land since the King James Version was produced.

3. they were developed by teams of Christian scholars with recognized credentials and training, using principles of peer review.

4. they were produced in a free speech, democratic environment, free of political influence.

5. they make use of modern world-wide communication and interaction, something that simply wasn't possible in the days when the King James bible was produced.

6. they use modern, contemporary language that can be much better understood by people compared to a more antiquated language.


Which Bible you use is largely a matter of personal preference. However, for anyone to claim that the KJV is more "authentic" than modern versions is simply not true.

 

[1whirlwind]

WW - What the original Hebrew audience knew isn't what matters Mallon.

There you have it, then. I think it is extremely important, if not fundamental, to understand the Hebrew context of the Bible in order to interpret it properly. It goes back to that whole analogy about seeing one's own reflection at the bottom of the well. You don't. I guess that's where we differ, then.

And, I would agree...it is extremely important. But my point is...it was not written for the "original Hebrew audience." It is written for all time for all of us to understand.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Obviously, because the bible wasn't written for anyone before 1611.

Now Crawfish...is that what I said?

The King James is for the masses so they themselves can pick up and read the Word and not have it shoveled out piece by piece in churches. Does it contain problems? Yes, but as far as I know it is the closest to the original text and with the Strong's we can take the translated words back to the original Greek and Hebrew. That is a wonderful ability when seriously studying.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

How could I miss the Geneva Bible from my list
1 Wycliffe Bible 1395
2 Tyndale Bible 1534
3 Bishops' Bible 1534
4 Coverdale Bible 1535
5 Matthew Bible 1537
6 Taverner's Bible 1539
7 The Great Bible 1539
8 Geneva Bible 1560
9 The Bishops' Bible 1568 (different one)
10 Douay–Rheims Bible 1610
11 King James Version 1611
Purists like AV1611VET insist on the 1611 version, though apparently no in it original inspired spelling, at least you do not often hear them talk of the the oyle of gladneſſe Heb 1:9.
Which is ironic as Jesus said each individual letter and stroke is vital.
Matt 5:18 For verily I say vnto you, Till heauen and earth paſſe, one iote or one title, ſhall in no wiſe paſſe from the law, till all be fulfilled.

"From the law." To me, that tells us His law doesn't change...not the spelling used to write the law.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

Where do you get 'accurate'? Where do you get 'full knowledge'? Knowledge is a noun, The Strong's numbers tell you it is a verb. You said you use the AV so you can have access to the Strong numbers, so why don't you use them? And don't just pick an choose which translations suit you, try to understand the way the word is being used. Fully knowing may be a result of the verb, but if you look at the range of meanings it is talking about coming to that knowledge by searching it out, following all the information.

I disagree. It is written that he "had perfect understanding of all things from the first." So, why would it be necessary to "search it out?"

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
​

Blue Letter Bible - #199 Perfect = exactly, accurately, diligently

Blue Letter Bible - #3877 Understanding = follow, have understanding, attain, fully know.



.

 

[pgp_protector]

"From the law." To me, that tells us His law doesn't change...not the spelling used to write the law.


.

So No Laws from the OT have changed?

 

[1whirlwind]

So the translators of the AV based their work on 6 bible translations? Isn't 6 one of those dodgy numbers, mark of the beast and all that? It is the symbol of man, which would mean the AV is based on the words of man.

Yes, six is a "dodgy number." Seven trumps it. The AV is based on the words of God.

Of course just because a bible isn't on the approved list doesn't mean it didn't have an influence. Wycliffe's phraseology already filled Tyndale's version and while Taverner wasn't on the list and didn't have that much influence we have him to thank for Jesus speaking parables instead of similitudes and celebrating the Passover instead of Easter.

Words being purified.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

So No Laws from the OT have changed?

Have they been "fulfilled." There are laws, statutes and ordinances. Some fulfilled and some not. The commandments stand.

Matthew 5:17-19 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


.
​

 

[Assyrian]

I disagree. It is written that he "had perfect understanding of all things from the first." So, why would it be necessary to "search it out?"

Because that is what the word the Greek means. The verb Luke used tells us how he came to that knowledge.

Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
​

Blue Letter Bible - #199 Perfect = exactly, accurately, diligently

Notice how all of these uses are adjectives, it is not an adjective 'perfect' describing a noun 'knowledge', it is an adverb describing a verb, the process by which Luke came to the knowledge.

Before we get to you analysis of 'knowledge', you seem to be inconsistent in you use of the Blue Letter Bible's language resources.

You quote the Blue Letter Bible's 'Outline of Biblical Usage' for G199 'perfect'
but switch to the 'Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count'
for G3877, which isn't a lexicon explaining the meaning of the word, but a list of the different words it was translated as in the AV

G199 Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Outline of Biblical Usage
​

1) exactly, accurately, diligently

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 5
​

AV — diligently 2, perfect 1, perfectly 1, circumspectly 1
​

.....
G3877 Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Outline of Biblical Usage
​

1) to follow after
a) so to follow one as to be always at his side
b) to follow close, accompany
2) metaph.
a) to be always present, to attend one wherever he goes
b) to follow up a thing in mind so as to attain to the knowledge of it
1) to understand, (cf our follow a matter up, trace its course)
2) to examine thoroughly, investigate
c) to follow faithfully i.e a standard or rule, to conform one's self to

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 4
​

AV — follow 1, have understanding 1, attain 1, fully know 1
​

Blue Letter Bible - #3877 Understanding = follow, have understanding, attain, fully know. .

A list of words and phrases the AV uses to translate a Greek word does not explain what the Greek word means, especially when if you are trying to show the AV's translation is accurate. you would have been much better off following the Blue Letter Bible's 'Outline of Biblical Usage' which gives you a series of meanings, one is literally to follow someone around, which doesn't fit here, neither does the idea of following a set of rules faithfully. Which leaves
b) to follow up a thing in mind so as to attain to the knowledge of it1) to understand, (cf our follow a matter up, trace its course)
2) to examine thoroughly, investigate
In each case it is the knowledge you arrive at by a thorough investigation, either thinking it through yourself or following the evidence.

And Luke says that he had done this 'diligently'.

"From the law." To me, that tells us His law doesn't change...not the spelling used to write the law.
.

You know what 'jot and tittle' or 'iote and title' mean? Tittle is a stoke on a Hebrew letter and iota is the Greek letter i, and ironically, when the changed the spelling of 'iota' to 'jot' they got rid of the letter i

Yes, six is a "dodgy number." Seven trumps it. The AV is based on the words of God.

Are you saying God's mystical sevens are built on the foundation of fallen human sixes?

Words being purified.
.

So there weren't 'seven purifications' then.

 

[1whirlwind]

Because that is what the word the Greek means. The verb Luke used tells us how he came to that knowledge.

Notice how all of these uses are adjectives, it is not an adjective 'perfect' describing a noun 'knowledge', it is an adverb describing a verb, the process by which Luke came to the knowledge.

Before we get to you analysis of 'knowledge', you seem to be inconsistent in you use of the Blue Letter Bible's language resources.

You quote the Blue Letter Bible's 'Outline of Biblical Usage' for G199 'perfect'
but switch to the 'Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count'
for G3877, which isn't a lexicon explaining the meaning of the word, but a list of the different words it was translated as in the AV

G199 Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Outline of Biblical Usage
​

1) exactly, accurately, diligently

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 5
​

AV — diligently 2, perfect 1, perfectly 1, circumspectly 1
​

.....
G3877 Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Outline of Biblical Usage
​

1) to follow after
a) so to follow one as to be always at his side
b) to follow close, accompany
2) metaph.
a) to be always present, to attend one wherever he goes
b) to follow up a thing in mind so as to attain to the knowledge of it
1) to understand, (cf our follow a matter up, trace its course)
2) to examine thoroughly, investigate
c) to follow faithfully i.e a standard or rule, to conform one's self to

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 4
​

AV — follow 1, have understanding 1, attain 1, fully know 1
​

A list of words and phrases the AV uses to translate a Greek word does not explain what the Greek word means, especially when if you are trying to show the AV's translation is accurate. you would have been much better off following the Blue Letter Bible's 'Outline of Biblical Usage' which gives you a series of meanings, one is literally to follow someone around, which doesn't fit here, neither does the idea of following a set of rules faithfully. Which leaves
b) to follow up a thing in mind so as to attain to the knowledge of it1) to understand, (cf our follow a matter up, trace its course)
2) to examine thoroughly, investigate
In each case it is the knowledge you arrive at by a thorough investigation, either thinking it through yourself or following the evidence.

And Luke says that he had done this 'diligently'.

This is much as not seeing that the circle of the earth is....round.

You know what 'jot and tittle' or 'iote and title' mean? Tittle is a stoke on a Hebrew letter and iota is the Greek letter i, and ironically, when the changed the spelling of 'iota' to 'jot' they got rid of the letter i

The written letter is changed from language to language (jots and tittles included) but not the meaning of the letter which is...the jots and tittles of the law.

Are you saying God's mystical sevens are built on the foundation of fallen human sixes?

No. The foundation has nothing to do with fallen man.

So there weren't 'seven purifications' then.

I see seven.


.

 

[shernren]

Alright, alright, I accept that the 1611AV is the true inspired English word of God!

But which printing?

Perhaps the Wicked Bible from 1631:

Thou shalt commit adultery (Exodus 20:14).
​

Indeed, many other printings of the Authorized Version hold immorality in a positive light, such as the Wicked Bible (yes, another one!) from 1653:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God? (1 Cor 6:9)
Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness into sin ... (Romans 6:13)
​

In 1716, Jesus' instructions became very titillating:

Go and sin on more ... (John 8:11)
​

And in 1763 all this came to a grand conclusion:

The fool hath said in his heart there is a God ... (Psalm 14:1)
​

So yes, the inspired word of God in its only faithful English translation tells me to be a sinful, adulterous atheist. Isn't Christianity just awesome?

 

[Assyrian]

This is much as not seeing that the circle of the earth is....round.

Well, just because a circle is round and a sphere is round, it doesn't mean a circle is a sphere. But there is a common theme in the two discussions, it is how do we use dictionaries and lexicons to understand the bible. You have an even bigger problem with the circle question because you were trying to use an English dictionary to understand a Hebrew word. In our discussion you were picking at random from different study tools to support the AV translation, without looking at the real meaning of the words. Given that you were trying to show the AV translation was superior to modern translations, it was odd that you never tried to come to grips with the meaning I showed you from the lexicons, the meaning which the modern translations you disagree with bring out.

The written letter is changed from language to language (jots and tittles included) but not the meaning of the letter which is...the jots and tittles of the law.

Changing from language to language is one thing, but the AV and its updates are both supposedly in English, they are both supposedly the same divinely inspired translation, if God inspired the translators to write iota, why change it to jot? Why leave out the divinely inspired i?

No. The foundation has nothing to do with fallen man.

So nothing to do with fallen men's translations like Wycliffe Tyndale and Coverdale either.

I see seven.
.

A different seven to the website you quoted, though as you include Wycliffe being refined by Tyndale. But seriously, it is one thing to look at the use of sevens in the bible where the symbolism is divinely inspired. It is quite another to catalogue sevens outside the bible and think that is God inspired too. Don't you realise if the list had seven other translation instead of six he would be claiming the AV as the eighth, the number of resurrection, or if he couldn't play with that number he would have picked his own list of seven translations?

 

[Assyrian]

We really need to try to avoid mixing up the image being true, with the meaning of the imagery being true.

If I can use the example of a ugly bit of Nazi propaganda, (I don't think this is falling foul of Godwin's law as I am not comparing anybody with Hitler

) The film used scenes of rats running through the sewers and alleyways as a symbol of the Jews. The message was pure slander, ugly and misleading. But look at the imagery used. Those were genuine films of rats. The lie was not in literal meaning of the film but in the metaphorical message.

On the other hand you can have imagery where the symbol used is not literally true, but the meaning of the metaphor is. Jesus said he was a grape vine and his disciple branches. He wasn't literally, but the metaphorical meaning was true. It is not calling Jesus a liar to say it is a metaphor and that he wasn't really a tree.

I don't call Him a liar. I say those putting evolution before what is written are believing a lie. Your example isn't apt for there is no imagery suggesting evolution. That is my point. There is no hint of evolution given so accepting man's idea over that of God is the discussion here.
.

Why should there be imagery suggesting evolution? There is no mention of atomic theory, DNA, heliocentrism, nuclear fusion, the moon reflecting light. God choses the imagery to teach the message he wanted to convey. It is only if the message the imagery is teaching is false that we can call it a lie, not if the symbol isn't literal like Jesus being a tree, or if the imagery only teaches certain aspects and not others.