Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Secondly, when those WORDS are translated by faithful men whom God has filled with that wisdom which is from above ... those translated WORDS still carry the authority of what was originally written.
"So, who's to say the makers of newer English Bible versions weren't faithful and filled with wisdom from God?"So, who's to say the makers of newer English Bible versions weren't faithful and filled with wisdom from God?
And still, you have NOT faced the music that there's NO scriptural support for the KJVO myth. As I said, that fact WON'T GO AWAY!
Do you believe that only people who subscribe to the inspiration of all Scripture should be determining what the correct words of Scripture should be?"So, who's to say the makers of newer English Bible versions weren't faithful and filled with wisdom from God?"
Now that is the right question!
You do understand the point of the proverb is that because a person FEARS God, they depart from evil. (Rather than cling to evil.)Proverbs 16:6 "through the fear of God men depart from evil"
check out the NIV:
"through the fear of the LORD evil is avoided."
people reverence God and repent.
they don't avoid evil, they repent of it.
Again I am a believer in the NKJV which is heresy to KJV only.
that is the NKJV you are quoting, the NIV says evil is "avoided" Avoided is not the same as departed. Let me illustrate this. say a building is burning and your baby is inside. You rescue the baby, and depart from the evil. Avoiding is way different. See if there was a fire and you were avoiding the fire, well then the baby would burn, and you would be too cowardice to rescue the baby. I know that the fire, evil is a type of sin and at this point the illustration breaks down, I only say this illustration to illustrate how different depart and avoid is.You do understand the point of the proverb is that because a person FEARS God, they depart from evil. (Rather than cling to evil.)
When people don't fear God, they stay in their evil.
I wasn't aware those TWO words appeared that way in Scripture. Maybe your Greek text is different than mine.
Do you believe that only people who subscribe to the inspiration of all Scripture should be determining what the correct words of Scripture should be?
So, do you have an answer for it?"So, who's to say the makers of newer English Bible versions weren't faithful and filled with wisdom from God?"
Now that is the right question!
The words Φάντασμά ἅγιον are not in the KJ.It is in every King James Bible.
Show it to me in the Greek.
God Bless
Till all are one.
That is NOT what I said.What we are objecting to is your belief that not only were the Apostles "inspired" by the Holy Spirit to write what they did, but that that "inspiration" extended to every scribe that copied the text.
Please think about what you just said. Since we have no proof of the exact wording of the originals (because they are not extant); how then can we be sure of any of the Biblical narrative?And there is no proof to that whatsoever.
God Bless
Till all are one.
I absolutely do, but you didn't answer my question ... Do you believe that only those who believe in the inspiration of all that we refer to as Scripture (the 66 books that make the single volume called the Bible), should be the only people who should be determining the correct words of Scripture?So, do you have an answer for it?
I absolutely do, but you didn't answer my question ... Do you believe that only those who believe in the inspiration of all that we refer to as Scripture (the 66 books that make the single volume called the Bible), should be the only people who should be determining the correct words of Scripture?
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 readerof the KJ would immediately understand the difference (is it the Person, or breath) by the use of "Ghost" or "Spirit".
So the fact that the KJ clarifies the theological difference of the context should be ignored?This avoids the fact that, to a modern English user, "ghost" means the disembodied soul of a dead person, such as in "Ghostbusters" or "Casper" cartoons, simply more proof the KJV is outdated.
I will now begin to unravel why there is a KJVOnly position.Of course.
No.Do you believe that anyone who does NOT believe in such inspiration should determine what is Scripture for us who DO?
Agreed.I believe GOD caused groups of men to determine what's New Testament Scripture. There's little question about Old Testament canon, as God worked directly with the Levites & Jews to make it.
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 readerof the KJ would immediately understand the difference (is it the Person, or breath) by the use of "Ghost" or "Spirit".
The translators of the KJ wanted to show this distinction, and used the Anglo-Saxon form for “spirit” related to the German “Geist".
So the fact that the KJ clarifies the theological difference of the context should be ignored?
I will now begin to unravel why there is a KJVOnly position.
I agree, only those who DO believe that all of the 66 books we call Scripture, are inspired should determine what the words of Scripturs should be.
No.
Agreed.
Now herein is the problem.
The following excerpt is from ...
Johann Salomo Semler | German theologian
"Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form."
What Semler believed was that SOME of the text of Scripture was Divinely inspired, while others, (things like the Genesis account of creation, and many of the miracles Jesus did) were NOT inspired of God.
Semler held a very naturalistic view, and therefore rejected the supernatural things attributed to Christ. He believed it was therefore his purpose to separate what was "inspired" from that which wasn't inspired. By studying the Scripture texts from a scientific perspective, he would determine what should be, and shouldn't be deemed as Scriptural.
Hence, Johann Solomo Semler, a theological professor at University of Halle, was the first to deny that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was Divinely inspired and fully correct, and challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon; yet, it is he who was a major figure in the development of what we now know as Textual Criticism.
If you follow history, you will find that his disciples followed his beliefs, and became the developers of the rules used for Textual Criticism.
Why have we Christian's allowed those who deny the inspiration of all Scripture, and deny its authenticity and authoritativenes, to be the people that make the rules for what the WORDS should be in the Book we call the Bible?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?