Scrivener and the TR

[Precepts]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
[qb] So? Jesus Christ is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother and He and I are busy telling people how to be saved instead of wasting our time denigrating people's ministries simply because they stand for the KJB.

And then...

BTW, yall love to use that derigatory label and call people like me as promoting a false doctirne and then go around and dig up bones all the time, but i'm glad i bother you so much personally that you have to cast your dirt around to try and discredit your brother in Christ, that is so much more like Jesus I think I'll just start worshipping you instead. Not!

Can you not see the contradiction here? You bash Kutilek, trying to discredit him, then complain about someone doing the same to you? </font>[/QUOTE]I did not bash kutilek, I said others did and it appeared he is discredited, then you asked for it in my own words. When a man is set out to accuse another Brother because he stands on the KJB and then goes all out to the extremes to try and prove his point, I'm sorry, that's when I don't give him any credit, it's just a waste of time. if that bashes your hero then so be it, consider him abashed!

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
I just got thru comparing Scrivener's Interlinear Greek New Testament with the KJB and they agree with the word for Lord: kurios

KJB Greek textutwV kata kratoV o logoV tou kuriou huxanen kai iscuen

Scrivener's Greek textutwv kata kratov o logov tou kuriou huxanen kai iscuen


Are you just a'joshin' me?

The KJV text, again, says: ουτως κατα κρατος ο λογος του θεος ηυξανεν και ισχυεν.

We know this because the text is translated by the KJV translators as "So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed" and not "So mightily grew the word of the Lord and prevailed." Kurios is translated as Lord 725 times and isn't translated as God. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Well let me be the first to inform you Scott Emerson Clark, The Lord is God.

I copied and pasted from my Bible programs the exact text the KJB trnalsators used and the same text from Scriveners, so either my program is lying to me, or Scrivener and the KJB trnaslators used the same, get this, correct MSS. The text fromats are not identical, but the Greek is, so what do you do with that? They both used "kurios" to define Lord/God, uh, they're the same. The Lord is God. You know , equal? "=" ?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Well let me be the first to inform you Scott Emerson Clark, The Lord is God.

Which isn't the discussion. The word "kurios" doesn't translate to "God."

I copied and pasted from my Bible programs the exact text the KJB trnalsators used and the same text from Scriveners, so either my program is lying to me, or Scrivener and the KJB trnaslators used the same, get this, correct MSS.

The EXACT text the KJV translators used? How about looking for the copyright information to let us know which Greek text they are using? Is it Stephens? Beza's? Erasmus'? Why would the translators use the word "God" instead of "Lord," when kurios is translated as Lord 725 times in the KJV?

The text fromats are not identical, but the Greek is, so what do you do with that? They both used "kurios" to define Lord/God, uh, they're the same. The Lord is God. You know , equal? "=" ?

Just because the Lord is God does not mean that kurios is translated as God.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Scrivener wrote in his book, "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives CAMBRIDGE, 1884"

"Most readers will be aware that numberless and not inconsiderable departures from the original or standard edition of the Authorized Translation as published in 1611, are to be found in the modern [KJV] Bibles which issue from the press by thousands every year. Some of these differences must be imputed to oversight and negligence, from which no work of man can be entirely free; but much the greater part of them are deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown." (page 3)

So is this a mistake from Scrivener or is he speaking Truth here? It's a double-bind situation.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Well let me be the first to inform you Scott Emerson Clark, The Lord is God.

Which isn't the discussion. The word "kurios" doesn't translate to "God."

I copied and pasted from my Bible programs the exact text the KJB trnalsators used and the same text from Scriveners, so either my program is lying to me, or Scrivener and the KJB trnaslators used the same, get this, correct MSS.

The EXACT text the KJV translators used? How about looking for the copyright information to let us know which Greek text they are using? Is it Stephens? Beza's? Erasmus'? Why would the translators use the word "God" instead of "Lord," when kurios is translated as Lord 725 times in the KJV?

The text fromats are not identical, but the Greek is, so what do you do with that? They both used "kurios" to define Lord/God, uh, they're the same. The Lord is God. You know , equal? "=" ?

Just because the Lord is God does not mean that kurios is translated as God. </font>[/QUOTE]Take it up with the KJB translators and Scrivener, it makes no difference to me, I know the Lord is God either way, your semantics are taking advantage of you.

 

[ScottEmerson]

And one more note from Scrivener, since you claim to have the literal text from which the KJV was translated on your Bible program. It is well-documented and understood that the KJV translators did not use a specific TR, but used a variety of them. The KJV men followed Beza's TR against Stephanus' TR in 113 places; Stephanus against Beza in 59 places; the Complutensian, Erasmus, and the Vulgate against both Stephanus and Beza in 80 places. Check it out on page 60 of the same book of Scrivener's.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Scrivener wrote in his book, "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives CAMBRIDGE, 1884"

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Most readers will be aware that numberless and not inconsiderable departures from the original or standard edition of the Authorized Translation as published in 1611, are to be found in the modern [KJV] Bibles which issue from the press by thousands every year. Some of these differences must be imputed to oversight and negligence, from which no work of man can be entirely free; but much the greater part of them are deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown." (page 3)

So is this a mistake from Scrivener or is he speaking Truth here? It's a double-bind situation. </font>[/QUOTE]Then I guess you're still wondering why we keep saying AV 1611 King James Bible ?

We've noticed numerous changes in words, whole words with different meanings altogether in what the publishers are calling KJV Bibles.

If one will contact Bearing Precious Seed Ministries they'll find where we all stay with the Cambridge 1762. I have a Nelson "The New Open Bible" When I got it I was told ther were changes in it and didn't know any difference and if it weren't for those with BPSM I probably wouldn't ever have noticed the changes of whole words with completely different meanings in the other published Bibles being called the KJB.

I just love it when yall try to tell me the KJB has mistakes in it and I get to checking it out for myself and can't find what in the devil yall are talking about. My research shows me the KJB is right everytime!

Since the AV 1611 KJB and Scrivener agree so well, I'll just have to stick with them.

BTW, "kurios" is God is Lord, please don't go around trying to tell people any different.

 

[HankD]

Dear QS,

Let us assume that you are correct in the objective content of your debate.

You can not get God's results without using God's methods:

James 3
13 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

2 Timothy 2: 24-26
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

That is, assuming that you believe that they are.

Titus 3:2-3
To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

 

[Precepts]

Rebuke noted Brother, and If I may consider it love, but can you stay with the topic? I'm waiting to see where and why there are any true discrepencies in the Scrivener TR.

Scott Emerson Clark's "mistake" is none, the Lord is God. he said his buddy Kutilek had several mentioned in his book, I'm just waiting to see if he's man enough to come back with more "mistakes".

I believe the issue is worth discussion as the establish Truth and understanding, but you seem to take the initiative to turn this into an opportunity to cast rebuke instead. I thought you stood with the Scrivener TR just like you said in another post?

Are we needing to continue to deal with a long since past misunderstanding?

 

[HankD]

I thought you stood with the Scrivener TR just like you said in another post?

I do, but I believe we need to obey the Word of God (to get His results) as well as "defend" it that is why I posted the passages.

Are we needing to continue to deal with a long since past misunderstanding

I don't know.

BTW Precepts, are you QS?

HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
BTW, "kurios" is God is Lord, please don't go around trying to tell people any different.

So you are saying that the words don't matter as long as we get the right idea???

I for one believe the words do matter. I believe that when God said "kurios," he didn't mean theos. The "kurios" does not mean God. It never has and it never will. To translate "kurios" as "God" is incorrect. Period. It doesn't matter that it refers to the same person. God inspired "kurios" not "theos."

It appears that what we have just seen is someone who doesn't care about what God inspired. He only cares about maintaining his KJVO position.

 

[Precepts]

Yes, I have bowed to the demands of the dear gentiel brethren and made my screen name easier to type, I am ashamed of myself for not doing it at the first rebuke.

If there is something you consider we need to deal with, then let's just get it settled and get back to the topic. I believe this is everyone's desire and if you wish to keep rehashing your accusation against me then may I gently and peaceably suggest you follow your own advice and scripture, Brother.

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
BTW, "kurios" is God is Lord, please don't go around trying to tell people any different.

So you are saying that the words don't matter as long as we get the right idea???

I for one believe the words do matter. I believe that when God said "kurios," he didn't mean theos. The "kurios" does not mean God. It never has and it never will. To translate "kurios" as "God" is incorrect. Period. It doesn't matter that it refers to the same person. God inspired "kurios" not "theos."

It appears that what we have just seen is someone who doesn't care about what God inspired. He only cares about maintaining his KJVO position. </font>[/QUOTE]I love you too, Brother Larry.

I hope you have this proof. My resources show the Greek word "kurios" to be the same text as Scrivener's as in the KJB.

Your referring to me as KJVO is derogatory and an insult to any rational person's intelligence, right along with your demand there be any distinction between the Lord and God. You are blinded by your incessive rants and are attacking the KJB, you know, the Bible you and your cohorts so vehemently admire?

I'm sorry, sir, but this stark raving lunatic was saved not unsimilar to our account in Mark 5 of the madman from Gadera, and I not fooled by your garbage. Now are you telling me this Lord he saw is not somehow God?

The Greek word "theos" is not certain to regard God as the Lord, but can mean any god.

The KJB translators are accurate and precise by using the same "kurios" in Acts 19:20 because there is no other God whose word and it's effects were that which is growing. Unless you expect us to be considering other gods in total disreverence to the Only True God?

To translate "kurios" as "God" is incorrect.

This statement is one of the most laughable I have ever heard! To say that God is not "kurios" and not the Lord!
LYTS!

Your Greek is maligned to reason, that is all there is to it!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Precepts:
My resources show the Greek word "kurios" to be the same text as Scrivener's as in the KJB.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Scrivener's is a text. I am not sure what resources you are using to show that to be the same text.

The issue here is not about what the text reads. It is about the translation of a particular word.

Your referring to me as KJVO is derogatory and an insult to any rational person's intelligence,

Okay ... you act like one. If you are not, then fine ...

right along with your demand there be any distinction between the Lord and God.

Your struggles stem from a confusion about the actual issue at hand. You later say, This statement is one of the most laughable I have ever heard! To say that God is not "kurios" and not the Lord! Yet anyone who reads what I said knows that I didn't say that God wasn't the Lord.

Can you understand distinctions?? If a person is both a father and a husband, the children refer to him as father and the wife as husband. Is that a distinction? Yes and no. It is a distinction in function, not in being.

To say that God is Lord is true. To say that "kurios" should be translated as "God" is false. The distinction is in the words God inspired, not in the person.

This is really simple and when you see how simple it is you will be embarrassed that you missed it for so long.

You are blinded by your incessive rants and are attacking the KJB, you know, the Bible you and your cohorts so vehemently admire?

I haven't ranted even one time ... And I certainly haven't attacked the KJV.

Now are you telling me this Lord he saw is not somehow God?

Nope, not saying that at all. In fact, if you read my posts, you will see what I am saying and you will see that I am saying nothing of the sort that you are talking about. God is the Lord. That is not at issue.

The Greek word "theos" is not certain to regard God as the Lord, but can mean any god.

The same is true of "kurios." In fact, "kurios" means master. It is often used for men other than Christ.

The KJB translators are accurate and precise by using the same "kurios" in Acts 19:20 because there is no other God whose word and it's effects were that which is growing. Unless you expect us to be considering other gods in total disreverence to the Only True God?

Translating kurios as God doesn't help that. Kurios means master; it is used to refer to men often.

But the issue is bigger than that. No translator has the authority to change the meaning of a word because he doesn't like the word God used. God used the word "kurios." To translate it as "God" is to ignore God's inspiration.

This is a surreal conversation ... absolutely unbelievable that this is confusing to you.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by QuickeningSpirit:
Then I guess you're still wondering why we keep saying AV 1611 King James Bible ?

I really don't know why, since none of the verses you've ever posted have been from the 1611 edutuib,

We've noticed numerous changes in words, whole words with different meanings altogether in what the publishers are calling KJV Bibles.

Notice when Scrivener wrote his paragraph. Which KJV's were out at that point? He wasn't talking about the NKJV here, but those including the 1762 Cambridge Edition.

If one will contact Bearing Precious Seed Ministries they'll find where we all stay with the Cambridge 1762. I have a Nelson "The New Open Bible" When I got it I was told ther were changes in it and didn't know any difference and if it weren't for those with BPSM I probably wouldn't ever have noticed the changes of whole words with completely different meanings in the other published Bibles being called the KJB.

Then why don't you say KJV 1762? Why be dishonest and say that you use the 1611 version?

I just love it when yall try to tell me the KJB has mistakes in it and I get to checking it out for myself and can't find what in the devil yall are talking about. My research shows me the KJB is right everytime!

Perhaps you're not looking in the right places? Considering your de facto rejection of Scrivener's actual work, it is no wonder.

Since the AV 1611 KJB and Scrivener agree so well, I'll just have to stick with them.

Just because your eyes are closed doesn't mean that they agree.

BTW, "kurios" is God is Lord, please don't go around trying to tell people any different.

It really is a sad thing that you believe this, when literally every dictionary, lexicon, and published source disagrees with you. Just because you believe something doesn't make it so - postmodernism doesn't work here.

I will echo what Pastor Larry said: "This is a surreal conversation ... absolutely unbelievable that this is confusing to you."

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Doug (Kutliek) is a friend of mine and a soldier in the front line to discredit the devisive teaching of the "only" sect. He is considered a godly scholar to many of us.

Doug Kutilek believes both the inspiration and the preservation of the Bible are human enterprises by and by large. He is denying the verbal inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If he does not understand the Bible inspiration, then he does not understand the Bible preservation. Is he a godly scholar?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Doug (Kutliek) is a friend of mine and a soldier in the front line to discredit the divisive teaching of the "only" sect. He is considered a godly scholar to many of us.

But somehow I knew he would not be highly regarded by some on the BB!

Dr. Bob, allow me to ask your opinion regarding something Brother Kutliek wrote. How would you understand his statement:

"God willed that His Church should enjoy the benefit of His written word, at once as a rule of doctrine and as a guide unto holy living. For this cause He so enlightened the minds of the Apostles and Evangelists by His Spirit, that they recorded what He had imprinted on their hearts or brought to their remembrance, without the risk of error in anything essential to the verity of the Gospel. But this main point once secured, the rest was left, in a great measure, to themselves."

Is he saying, as he seems to be, that after the verity of the Gospel was given, the rest of the bible, those portions not dealing with the Gospel message, were left in the hands of men and not as fully inspired as those portions dealing with the Gospel message? If so, doesn't that smack of Neo-Orthodoxy?

 

[Precepts]

The issue here is not about what the text reads. It is about the translation of a particular word.

Larry? Larry! The issue is the Bible, not limited to just one Greek word. This is the Bible Versions/ Translations forum, not the limited view of just one word forum.

AV-Lord 667

2962 kuriov kurios koo’-ree-os

from kuros (supremacy); TDNT-3:1039,486; n m

NOT lord 54, master 11, sir 6, Sir 6, misc 4; 748

1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
1a) the possessor and disposer of a thing
1a1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
1a2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
1b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
1c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah

Larry, we are talking about the Bible, not just the Greek word "kurios"

2316 yeov theos theh’-os

of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; TDNT-3:65,322; n m

AV-God 1320, god 13, godly 3, God-ward + 4214 2, misc 5; 1343

1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
3a) refers to the things of God
3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a) God’s representative or viceregent
4a1) of magistrates and judges

of uncertain affinityOooo! There's that nasty word again!

The affinty of the Greek word "theos" becomes certain when we're talking about the Bible, not just a Greek defintion of the word, thus "theos" is "kurios" just as the Lord is God is the Lord.

So in Acts 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. Whose Word grew? the Word of God, uh, the Lord's Word grew, uh, as in the meaning and context of what thus saith the Lord God is what overcomes the misnomers and misguided convoloutions of the Bible and it's true meaning found in our AV 1611 KJB.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Still can't get a handle around the meaning of uncertain affinity, huh? Just because we cannot trace the etymology of a word does not mean that we cannot know what it means.

Again, as Larry said, "No translator has the authority to change the meaning of a word because he doesn't like the word God used. God used the word "kurios." To translate it as "God" is to ignore God's inspiration. This is a surreal conversation ... absolutely unbelievable that this is confusing to you."

 

[Precepts]

I really don't know why, since none of the verses you've ever posted have been from the 1611 edutuib,

I must post them in the 1762 Cambridge text, by the which my OnLine Bible Program is as the matter of . And O, please don't confuse it with the www.Online Bible, they're not exactly the same.

The 1762 Cambridge is the AV 1611 KJB with updated punctuation and spellings, besides, if I posted the AV 1611 original type and spelling yall would mock and make sport and God just might do this to you

Notice when Scrivener wrote his paragraph. Which KJV's were out at that point? He wasn't talking about the NKJV here, but those including the 1762 Cambridge Edition.

If Scrivener was including or singling out the 1762 Cambridge, then why do they line up? I can tell you why, they're both right!

Then why don't you say KJV 1762? Why be dishonest and say that you use the 1611 version?

I'm not being dishonest. It's all to plain and simple for you to see the AV 1611 and the 1762 are both the Word of God. Yall keep getting off on this KJVO kick and it goes about 40 yards backwards.

Perhaps you're not looking in the right places? Considering your de facto rejection of Scrivener's actual work, it is no wonder.

No, I just don't look in the wrong places, I've tried to tell yall that but you keep looking for love in all the wrong places.

I have not rejected Scrivener's Greek text, seems pretty accurate to me, right in line with the accurate and precise AV 1611 KJB/ 1762 Cambridge KJB

Just because your eyes are closed doesn't mean that they agree.

Quit eating up bandwidth and prove it.

It really is a sad thing that you believe this, when literally every dictionary, lexicon, and published source disagrees with you. Just because you believe something doesn't make it so - postmodernism doesn't work here.

I will echo what Pastor Larry said: "This is a surreal conversation ... absolutely unbelievable that this is confusing to you."

I'm not the one who throws common sense to the four winds and strains at a limited definition of just one little Greek word.

It's not "post-modernism" to have simple common sense, you know, that common sense that works where the ism's are directed by the influence of Ishmael, along with the invention of certain
KJVO-ism's?

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

You know? Isaac walked in the ways of Abraham his father, Ishmael is still walking in rebellion, why even Jacob repented of his contrariness to God and became Israel. Ishmael? Well, he's still opposed to himself. Little rascal, the fellow never did use common sense, you know, the kind common to the promised seed?


Yall go ahead and dig new wells, we'll go and redig the wells Ishmael filled in, the ones Abraham dug in his sojourn while looking for a city whose Maker is God.

Ishmael:

Israel:

See Mephibosheth sitting there with Isaac?