Help

[rmwilliamsll]

in reply to:

Nope --- they all say the same thing.

setting the context:

I've given the entire line of authorized versions many times, but for the record, here it is again:

* 96AD --- completed Scriputres
* AV100 Koine Greek Version
* AV330 Gothic Version
* AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
* AV1389 Wycliffe Bible
* AV1530 Tyndale Bible
* AV1568 Bishops' Bible
* AV1587 Geneva Bible
* AV1611 King James Version

So if you don't speak English or ancient greek you are hosed, eh?

Nope --- they all say the same thing.

To believe that they are all the same thing is to completely ignore the depth of disagreement between Christians over the meaning of the Scriptures for two millennium.

Here is a sophisticated example. this blog is an excellent example of a discussion based on the Greek text of Romans. it is well worth reading if you have any desire at all to understand theology.

Augustine, who did not know Greek well, set interpreters to misreading the phrase eph hō pantes hēmarton as though it were equivalent to ev hō pantes hēmarton. Augustine made two mistakes. First, he misunderstood eph hō as equivalent to en hō, thus his Latin translation, in quo. Second, he misunderstood the relative pronoun to refer to the one man (anthrōpou), Adam, rather than to death (thanatos), thus yielding his translation in whom rather than upon the basis of which.

Following Augustine theologically but not exegetically, most interpreters take the phrase eph hō in a causal sense—so death came to all, because all sinned (cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, NASB95, ESV). Many take the all sinned to refer to solidarity with Adam when he sinned. Some who take the phrase causally also take the all sinned as referring to imitation of Adam by sinning as individuals in the likeness of Adam’s sin. The problem with this, as Schreiner rightly observes, is that “it suggests a Pelagian understanding of the relationship between Adam’s sin and the sin of the rest of humanity” (p. 275). Of course, if indeed Paul’s theological formulations in Romans 5:12ff support Pelagius’ teaching, we ought to follow such formulations. The remainder of the passage (5:15-21) is against Pelagius’ view. This includes especially verse 14 which, as we will see below, makes it expressly clear that death reigned over all from Adam until Moses even though they did not sin in the same way that Adam had sinned.

from: http://crosstalking.blogspot.com/2006/03/comments-on-romans-512-14.html

note carefully that this part of the posting involves comparision of a tremendously important verse in Latin and Greek in the hands of one of the most important theologians ever. and it revolves around the usage and meaning of one word......

No, they are not the same. not by a long shot. to believe so is to ignore the data.
most of all it does not do justice to either church history or to the revelation of God in the Bible.

 

[Skaloop]

George Bush is the author of the memo, which was typed by SL.

Just like Capt. Kirk authored both memos above, but in the first one, he typed it; in the second one Yeoman Janice Rand typed it.

Get the point, now?

Captain Kirk is not real. He didn't author anything. Regular people just made up stories about him.

Now replace "Captain Kirk" with "God" and you can see where I'm coming from.

 

[Ondoher]

In other words, I hold science up to a much higher standard than others.

"Science must agree with me or it is wrong." You call that a higher standard. I'm sorry, you don't understand science at all.

 

[Ondoher]

Thank you for the compliment, but may I suggest, if you're going to post in a Christian Forum, you learn the doctrine first?

This section of the forum is specifically for addressing the scientific arguments in the debate between evolution and creation. If you want to make theological arguments, you might be in the wrong place.

 

[[serious]]

Matthew 22:14: For many are called, but few are chosen.

Good thing the call went out in relatively modern English, eh? I'd be screwed if God's divinely inspired scripture was divinely translated at the order of the king of Spain rather than the king of Scotland.

Nope --- they all say the same thing.

yes, but none of them say it in German. Hence, Germans can't recieve the true word of God, right?

Also, i notice that you have neither the Textus Receptus nor the Masoretic text of the old testament are cited as "authorized" That means that the 1611 KJV is a dive translation fo non-divine translations. Did God "resanctify" it following it's creation?

 

[Tomk80]

Wrong branch --- U.S. Navy --- Vietnam Era Vet.

Relevance? Theologically, you have a number of viewpoint not shared by any of your community. You are indeed a group of one.

I've given the entire line of authorized versions many times, but for the record, here it is again:

• 96AD --- completed Scriputres
• AV100 Koine Greek Version
• AV330 Gothic Version
• AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
• AV1389 Wycliffe Bible
• AV1530 Tyndale Bible
• AV1568 Bishops' Bible
• AV1587 Geneva Bible
• AV1611 King James Version

And yet, if someone points out to you that other versions exist or that the original hebrew does not agree with the AV1611 KJV, you claim those versions are incorrect. So you effectively claim that the KJV is the only accurate version and all other versions are inaccurate. No amount of trying to rephrase this is going to alter that fact.

 

[USincognito]

I don't think you'd find many scientists who'd give two hoots about the Hittites or the Egyptians.

There word you are grasping for is Historian, or perhaps Archaeologist.

I keep hearing Creationists make this claim about the Hittites, but I have never seen any evidence supporting it, just ad hoc assertions. Of course since AV is the one who made it in this thread, I don't expect any evidence to be forthcoming, but it would be nice at some point to see a citation of some sort.

My main problem with this assertion is that Hieroglyphics had been translated long before Hattusas was unearthed, and there are plenty of writings of Rameses II's battles with the Hittites and his victory at Kadesh.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, they are not the same. not by a long shot. to believe so is to ignore the data.

Augustine had nothing to do with rewording Romans 5:12.

Romans 5:12 says the same thing in the AV330 Gothic Version than it does in the AV1611, not to mention the AV100 Koine Greek.

If you're suggesting that Augustine (354-430) had anything at all to do with changing the wording of the authorized line, you're incorrect.

Had he introduced Pelagianism into the Word of God in his time, most certainly the AV100 Koine edition would have nailed him.

Look at it this way: You're a Byzantine student of Scripture living in, say, 500 AD. You just read Romans 5:12 in the AD330 Gothic Version, then you set it down and picked up Augustine's version and read it quite differently.

What would you have done? Just shrugged your shoulders and switched to Augustine's version, or would you have compared the AV330 to the AV100 to check its accuracy?

When you put yourself in the place of someone living then (called role-playing), it makes a difference in your perspective.

 

[AV1611VET]

Captain Kirk is not real. He didn't author anything. Regular people just made up stories about him.

Now replace "Captain Kirk" with "God" and you can see where I'm coming from.

God authored the Scriptures, men simply wrote them down; but unlike mechanical dictation, God used what is called inspiration. In other words, He allowed them to write it down in their own words.

The full term is verbal plenary inspiration.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Science must agree with me or it is wrong." You call that a higher standard. I'm sorry, you don't understand science at all.

Please read my signature. I don't say "science must agree with me...", do I?

The reason it's a higher standard is because I put science on a higher plane than Atheists --- specifically, I contend that God is the author of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to make theological arguments, you might be in the wrong place.

Not if Theology and Creation are inseparable.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Look at it this way: You're a Byzantine student of Scripture living in, say, 500 AD. You just read Romans 5:12 in the AD330 Gothic Version, then you set it down and picked up Augustine's version and read it quite differently.


this would be a neat trick. The Byzantines spoke and read the Greek, the Goths were Germanic tribes to the north of Constantinople. They were the barbarians who adopted an Arian form of Christianity and conquered from Poland to Spain, including Rome. Why in the world would a sophisticated urban Greek Orthodox know Gothic? even more so, why would he go to a translation when he has the original Greek text of the New Testament? on top of that, why would he consult the enemies(both religion and politics) version of the NT?

"Augustine's version" is called the Vulgate and it is in Latin.

and you completely missed my point. a not uncommon occurrence.

do you make this up as you go along, or is there actually people teaching this **** in fundamentalist baptist independent churches?

more:
f you're suggesting that Augustine (354-430) had anything at all to do with changing the wording of the authorized line, you're incorrect.

Had he introduced Pelagianism into the Word of God in his time, most certainly the AV100 Koine edition would have nailed him.

google is your friend. at least show the desire to engage with the topic and do some little research. Augustine wrote ""De peccatorum meritis et remissione libri III" (P. L., XLIV, 109 sqq.) and "De spiritu et litera" (ibid., 201 sqq.)" (see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm) against Pelagianism.
try to get some of the facts right, at least about Church history.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good thing the call went out in relatively modern English, eh? I'd be screwed if God's divinely inspired scripture was divinely translated at the order of the king of Spain rather than the king of Scotland.

Why?

yes, but none of them say it in German. Hence, Germans can't recieve the true word of God, right?

Why not?

Also, i notice that you have neither the Textus Receptus nor the Masoretic text of the old testament are cited as "authorized"

That's because they aren't.

That means that the 1611 KJV is a dive translation fo non-divine translations.

No it's not --- only when a word or phrase was in question was a non-authorized writing used. In other words, the TR and MT were used only as a reference tool.

Did God "resanctify" it following it's creation?

No --- God "polished" it following its creation.

 

[Chalnoth]

No --- God "polished" it following its creation.

Oh, so God messed up the first time around, and fixed the problems. Amazing that there are still so many inconsistencies. God must really suck.

 

[Skaloop]

God authored the Scriptures, men simply wrote them down; but unlike mechanical dictation, God used what is called inspiration. In other words, He allowed them to write it down in their own words.

The full term is verbal plenary inspiration.

Actually, the proper term is load of bullplop.

God inspired me to write that, but I used my own word, "bullplop," because the profanity filters won't allow the use of what He actually wanted me to write.

Case closed! God Himself says your argument is bullplop!

 

[AV1611VET]

Relevance? Theologically, you have a number of viewpoint not shared by any of your community. You are indeed a group of one.

Where do you think I learned them?

And yet, if someone points out to you that other versions exist or that the original hebrew does not agree with the AV1611 KJV, you claim those versions are incorrect.

The King James is profitable for correction - (2 Timothy 3:16).

If I had a dollar bill that was in question, how could I verify it's not a counterfeit?

So you effectively claim that the KJV is the only accurate version and all other versions are inaccurate.

No, I don't claim that. Wow --- let's go through this again.

There are 7 (seven) other translations just as accurate as the King James:

1. AV100 Koine Greek Version
2. AV330 Gothic Version
3. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
4. AV1389 Wycliffe Version
5. AV1530 Tyndale Version
6. AV1568 Bishops' Bible
7. AV1587 Geneva Bible

No amount of trying to rephrase this is going to alter that fact.

I don't even understand what you're saying here.

Look at 1 - 7 above as "legal tender", so to speak. Any other translation is a counterfeit.

Does that help?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay --- guys --- now I'm beginning to suspect you're just pulling my chain to rile me, so I'll do us all a favor and leave this thread for awhile.

You're making no effort at all to understand, and like I say, I can teach it, but it's YOUR job to learn it.

Have a good night, and don't forget church tomorrow.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

That means that the 1611 KJV is a dive translation fo non-divine translations.
No it's not --- only when a word or phrase was in question was a non-authorized writing used. In other words, the TR and MT were used only as a reference tool.

i sure wish you would spend a little bit of time studying what you talk about.
the KJV NT IS translated from the textus receptus, ie. the TR.
but at least you are partially right about the majority text, ie. the MT, the problem is that the MT is opposed to the CT or critical text, and is basically the same thing as the TR. The only difference is that the TR is associated with Erasmus and the MT with Hermann von Soden, derived from the TR with help from another set of manuscripts that Erasmus did not have.

now it is possible that you are using MT for Massoretic Text. in that case you are again wrong, for the KJV uses the Massoretic Text for the OT rejecting the LXX that underlaid the Vulgate for the better Jewish canon of the MT from the 8thC. hence the origin of the protestant vs. roman canons.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There are 7 (seven) other translations just as accurate as the King James:

1. AV100 Koine Greek Version
2. AV330 Gothic Version
3. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
4. AV1389 Wycliffe Version
5. AV1530 Tyndale Version
6. AV1568 Bishops' Bible
7. AV1587 Geneva Bible

more factual errors in independent fundamental baptists in rewriting history.
the KJV is was commissioned because the Geneva Bible, esp. the marginal notes, was too Calvinistic for King James

In addition to being the reason for its popularity, the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible were also the reason for its demise. These strongly Protestant notes so infuriated King James that he considered it "seditious" and made its ownership a felony. James I was particularly worried about marginal notes such as the one in Exod 1: 19, which allowed disobedience to Kings. Consequently, King James eventually introduced the King James Version, which drew largely from the Geneva Bible (minus the marginal notes that had enraged him). During the reign of James I and into the reign of Charles I the use of the Geneva Bible steadily declined as the Authorized King James version became more widely used. In 1644 the Geneva Bible was printed for the last time.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/GenevaBible.htm

however the words in the KJV are about 60% the same as in the Geneva.

 

[sodapop112]

so its not actually what god wrote that people have been reading for hundereds of years? its just some guy who translated it?