-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Scrivener and the TR
- Thread starter Precepts
- Start date
ScottEmerson
Active Member
You don't even know what etymology is, do you? "This is a surreal conversation ... absolutely unbelievable that [the meaning of etymology] is confusing to you." It is no wonder why you can't understand the proofs against the KJV being the only inspired Word of God.
And you are KJVO, by the way. It's clear to everyone here on the board, KJVO's and otherwise.
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.</font>[/QUOTE]I was referring to this discussion. This discussion, that you keep dragging out, is about a mistranslation. The TR says one thing; the KJV says another.
And this is what I have been saying all along. The word is properly translated "Lord." "God" is an improper translation. Sorry, that is just the way it is.
The issue here is about translation of a particular word.
You don't even know what etymology is, do you? "This is a surreal conversation ... absolutely unbelievable that [the meaning of etymology] is confusing to you." It is no wonder why you can't understand the proofs against the KJV being the only inspired Word of God.
And you are KJVO, by the way. It's clear to everyone here on the board, KJVO's and otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, right.
ETYMOL'OGY, n. [Gr. true, and discourse.]
1. That part of philology which explains the origin and derivation of words, with a view to ascertain their radical or primary signification.
In grammar, etymology comprehends the various inflections and modifications of words, and shows how they are formed from their simple roots.
2. The deduction of words from their originals; the analysis of compound words into their primitives.
With hand on hip and pointing finger, Scott Emerson Clark says, "We don't need to know the etymology of a word to know what it means is the Greek."
O.K., so I confused the term and should have used another, but the affinity of the word is uncertain until used in context. Philology instead of etymology. The affinity of a word is how it is joined in meaning to another. Besides, how now will you separate the Lord from God?
You boast contradiction, I proclaim scriptural harmony, now whom is it "Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." best applies? Well, it ain't you.
Your use of the label "KJVO" is arrogant and derogatory and blatant misuse of Christian liberty. It is not comparable to the satirical remarks I have made towards you or any other BB member, I believe they understand my motives, yours on the other hand is contrary and demeaning.
You've proven your hatred for me as I have asked you and everyone else on this board to refrain from lumping me up in some cult, false doctrine, or divider of the body of Christ. It is you Scott Emerson Clark who initiated a thread in a catholic type of attempt to excommunicate me and calling on others to shun me [snipped]. Pardon me Walls and Russell55, I didn't say "Ladies" yall aren't included, unless you want to be.
It's allright though, you hate me, I love you, you say I don't believe you love me, I say I love you anyway, whether you believe me or not.
I believe all too well how some use their liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, your heart is spilling all over the stage, What a crying shame. I'd do my best to avoid getting bogged down in it's tar like consistency.
Brother Ricky
[ February 14, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
What part of your brain can't understand that God and the Lord are both parts of the definiton of both "theos" and "kurios"?
The KJ translators saw this and you elevate yourself to some pedastal above all those who just so happen to use both sides of their brain at one time.
You're straining at a gnat and have swallowed the camel Larry. live with it, you're W R O N G !
I don't mean to pull rank here, but I have had more than 30 hours of NT Greek. On this issue, I know what I am talking about. I am telling you that these words are distinct. Get out your BAGD and look it up if you doubt me. Look at your own definitions above. They agree with me and show you to be wrong!!!! You cite a source that proves your wrong. And then you claim that I don't understand something ... That is a riot
Then why do your own definitions above agree with me???
This continues to amaze me. This is such a simple issue. Find a lexicon that defines "kurios" as "God" and then we will have something to talk about.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Uncertain affinity means, as I've said probably five times before, that we do not know the etymology of the word, NOT that we do not know the meaning of the word. You haven't had Greek, so you don't know these things. Larry and I are trying to help you, but you won't listen to those who know.
Finding a contradiction between Scrivener's and the KJV is not the same as proclaiming that the Scriptures themselves are contradictory, and I think you should know that. You're misapplying a verse here.
Do you not believe that the King James Bible is God's infallible, inerrant word for the English language? Do you not go around claiming that all you need is the "AV 1611 KJV"? Face it, you're KJVO. You may not be a hyper-KJVO, but you're KJVO, nonetheless.
So to claim that you believe that the KJV is the inspired, inerrant word of God in the English language and that you use the KJV and the KJV alone as a valid translation in the English language is contrary and demeaning?
That's like someone who believes in the five doctrines of Grace but says, "Don't call me a Calvinist!" That's like someone who believed that David Koresh was the Messiah but said, "Don't call me a Branch Davidian!" That's like a church who follows the Baptist Faith and Message, gives 10% of their contributions to the Cooperative Program, and allows their pastors to be a part of the SBC retirement program but shouts, "Don't call us a Baptist Church!" Your belief about the KJV being the infallible Word of God, especially when you make comments such as the English of the KJV defines the Greek and Hebrew, show you to be a KJVO. Why not embrace it? Not all KJVO's are Ruckmanite, just like not all Calvinists are hyper-Calvinists.
Go back and read what I wrote. No one said that you should be excommunicated from the board. I just advocated a period where those who followed modern-versions take a week or two from replying to you, as your comments were overboard. Things got better for awhile - and now we have another offensive, misogynistic comment that is antithetical to the body of Christ.
I don't hate you, although I can see what you'd want me to. It'd place you in the position of moral superiority, but that's just not the way it is.
Maliciousness? Go back to the sarcastic remarks you have made on this board. The fact that on this very thread you made a remark that is offensive to half (if not more) of all Christians shows who has culpability here.I believe all too well how some use their liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, your heart is spilling all over the stage, What a crying shame. I'd do my best to avoid getting bogged down in it's tar like consistency.
As Larry posted, "This is such a simple issue." Lord and God are not the same word. You're wrong, your posts have proven you wrong, and your evasion of the issue is a nail in the coffin. Now, will you turn away from your KJVO and believe that the KJV may have a few mistakes in it, but that the Word itself is infallible and perfect - as Larry, myself, and many others on the board...or will you continue to place your fingers squarely in your ears and sound like a broken record, with the occasional (occurring more and more often) spiteful remark intermittedly?
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? </font>[/QUOTE]I wonder, why is the Gospel only, not entire Bible? Dr. Bob Griffin needs to answer your question.
Why not go right to the source? You can ask Kutilek himself. His email address is listed at http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/index.html
Will J. Kinney
Member
Scott says: "Back to the topic, of course, all one has to do is read Scrivener's version of Acts 19:20:
"19:20 outwV kata kratoV o logoV tou kuriou huxanen kai iscuen"
Scrivener's uses the word kuriou, which is translated as Lord, not God, as the KJV translators used. The KJV translators used the text: outwV kata kratoV o logoV tou qeoV huxanen kai iscuen
There it is, in black and white. A mistake by Scrivener.
No Scott, you are again mistaken. All the Greek texts read "so mightily grew the word of Kuriou", not Theou.
Your problem is not recognizing that the Greek word Kurios is used for both God and Lord.
Look at your so-called Septuagint version. Hundreds if not thousands of times Kurios is used to translate the Hebrew word for God.
In fact, the Hebrew word for Jehohah is translated by the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. as both God and Lord.
Now, in Acts 19:20 not only does the KJB say "the word of GOD", but so also do Tyndale, Geneva, Diodati, KJV 21st Century Version, the Third Millenium Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishop's Bible, Wycliffe, Webster's 1833 translation, Wesley's 1755 translation, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, and the Douay-Rheims version.
This is perfectly acceptable Greek to English (as well as Hebrew to English) translation.
While you are at it, you might check out the NASB in Acts 12:24 where all Greek texts say "But the word of GOD (theou) grew and multiplied." What does the NASB say?
Why, lo and behold, it says "the word of the LORD grew..." hmmm. Think about it.
Will Kinney
"19:20 outwV kata kratoV o logoV tou kuriou huxanen kai iscuen"
Scrivener's uses the word kuriou, which is translated as Lord, not God, as the KJV translators used. The KJV translators used the text: outwV kata kratoV o logoV tou qeoV huxanen kai iscuen
There it is, in black and white. A mistake by Scrivener.
No Scott, you are again mistaken. All the Greek texts read "so mightily grew the word of Kuriou", not Theou.
Your problem is not recognizing that the Greek word Kurios is used for both God and Lord.
Look at your so-called Septuagint version. Hundreds if not thousands of times Kurios is used to translate the Hebrew word for God.
In fact, the Hebrew word for Jehohah is translated by the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. as both God and Lord.
Now, in Acts 19:20 not only does the KJB say "the word of GOD", but so also do Tyndale, Geneva, Diodati, KJV 21st Century Version, the Third Millenium Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishop's Bible, Wycliffe, Webster's 1833 translation, Wesley's 1755 translation, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac, and the Douay-Rheims version.
This is perfectly acceptable Greek to English (as well as Hebrew to English) translation.
While you are at it, you might check out the NASB in Acts 12:24 where all Greek texts say "But the word of GOD (theou) grew and multiplied." What does the NASB say?
Why, lo and behold, it says "the word of the LORD grew..." hmmm. Think about it.
Will Kinney
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Will J. Kinney
Member
While on the subject of Doug Kutilek, he has no inspired Bible except the mystical one that exists in his own mind, just like his friend Doktor Bob.
Doug thinks the worst mistake in the KJB is using the word "it" when referring to the Holy Ghost. He merely shows his own bias and ignorance of English, let alone the Greek.
Here is a rebuttal to his "worst mistake bordering of blasphemy" in the KJB. Kutilek is a Klown.
The Spirit ITSELF
“The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”
Is referring to the third person of the of the blessed Trinity, as “itself” a major error in the King James Bible, which borders on blasphemy?
Doug Kutilek is a well known critic of the KJB. He has both printed, and posted an article on the internet, which harshly criticizes this “supposed” error in the King James Bible.
Mr. Kutilek states: “Any honest evaluation of the King James Version leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun “it” to refer to the Holy Spirit.”
He continues, “I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” He closes his article with these words. “Those who imagine that the KJV. . . is faultless and error-free are compelled to address the matter.”
The purpose of this article is to “address the matter”. I believe Mr. Kutilek’s objections to the use of “it” or “itself” in referring to the Holy Ghost are both hypocritical and ignorant. Hypocritical because there are many versions, including the modern ones, that use “itself” in either the very same verses or in the very same manner; and ignorant because he doesn't know the English language very well.
First, see how the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary of 1999 defines the use of the words “it” and “itself”. The second definition given for “itself” is: “used to represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context - Who is it? It is John. . . Did you see the baby? Yes, isn’t it cute. . . the cat likes to sun itself in the window.”
The Websters 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines “it”, as “a PERSON or animal whose gender is unknown or disregarded.” The Father and the Son are clearly masculine, but the Spirit is sometimes referred to as masculine and sometimes as neuter, not because He is neuter, but rather because the gender is disregarded or not taken into account in that particular context.
The four verses in the KJB that Mr. Kutilek criticizes are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26, and I Peter 1:11. We will examine these verses with other translations and then look at some examples in the new versions.
The first verse is John 1:32. “And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and IT abode upon him.” Other Bible versions that agree with the KJB in their use of “it” are Tyndales , the Geneva Bible of 1599 and 1602, Bishops Bible, Daniel Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Darby, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version of 1901, Douay of 1950, Henry Alford’s, Young’s, 21st Century KJB, William’s New Testament 1937, Lamsa 1933, Daniel Webster’s of 1833, 20th Century New Testament, Weymouth’s, Goodspeed’s American 1943, the Third Millenium Bible, the Revised Standard Version , the NRSV of 1989, and the 2001 English Standard Version.
The second verse is Romans 8:16. “The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Versions that agree with the KJB are the 21st Century KJB, Alford’s, Bishop’s, Darby, Webster’s, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Goodspeed 1943, Third Millenium, and the NRSV.
The third verse is Romans 8:26. “But the Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Again the 21st Century KJB, Alford’s, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Daniel Mace's N.T 1729, Wesley's 1755 translation, Coverdale 1535, Darby, Webster’s 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Goodspeed 1943, the Third Millenium Bible, and the Geneva of 1599 and 1602 agree with the KJB.
The fourth verse is 1 Peter 1:11. “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” Versions that agree with the use of “it” here are Alfords, Revised Version of 1881, ASV of 1901, Webster’s, Berkeley, Basic Bible in English, and the NRSV of 1989.
So we see that many Bible versions which both predate and follow the KJB have used “it” and “itself” to refer to the Spirit of God. This is perfectly acceptable English.
The NASB and NIV have two interesting and parallel verses in the New Testament. Both Matthew 12:45 and Luke 11:26 speak of a “spirit that takes along with IT seven other spirits more wicked than ITSELF”.
Here is a case of a spiritual entity that can see, hear, speak, and has a personality, yet the gender is disregarded in the NAS and NIV, and is referred to as “itself”. This spirit was not an inanimate object, but rather a spiritual being with a distinct personality.
In Luke 8:29, the same thing occurs in the KJB, NKJV, NIV, and NASB. “For he had commanded the unclean SPIRIT to come out of the man. For oftentimes IT had caught him.” Here again is a spirit that talks, reasons, hears, and knows that Jesus is the Son of God and that torment awaits him. This is clearly a personality and yet all the above mentioned versions refer to him as an “it”. The gender is disregarded, and this is perfectly acceptable English.
Another instance of the Lord Jesus Christ using the little word “IT” to refer to himself is found in the NASB, NIV, and NKJV in Luke 24:39 where He says: “Behold my hands and my feet, that IT is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”
Again in Revelation 12:4, a multitude of Bible versions, including the NKJV, NIV, and the brand new English Standard Version of 2001, all refer to the child Jesus as IT. “And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as IT was born.”
All of the modern versions use “itself” when referring to both animals and groups of people. The NKJV has the donkey itself in Hosea 8:9, the goat itself in Lev. 16:22; Israel itself in Judges 7:2. Numbers 23:9 speaks of “a people dwelling alone, not reckoning itself among the nations”, and Zechariah 12:12, “the family of the house of David by itself.”
All Bible versions at times speak of Jesus Christ as being a thing or something neuter. In Matthew 1:20, the angel of the Lord says to Joseph: “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for THAT WHICH is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Notice the angel does not say “he”, but “that which”: it is neuter both in Greek and in English. In Luke 1:35, the angel says to Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also THAT HOLY THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” That holy thing is neuter, yet we all know that Jesus Christ is a person, in fact, God manifest in the flesh.
The book of 1 John opens with a reference to Jesus Christ, yet it refers to Him as a thing. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” Yet Christ is not a thing, but a person. In I John 5:4 we are told: “WHATSOEVER is born of God overcometh the world.” This is a neuter. Are we to assume that everyone who is born of God is a thing?
Mr. Kutilek’s objections to these four verses in the KJB seem to be unfounded. God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. He has revealed Himself to us in His inspired words, and I believe He has faithfully kept them for us today in the English language of the King James Bible.
Will Kinney
Doug thinks the worst mistake in the KJB is using the word "it" when referring to the Holy Ghost. He merely shows his own bias and ignorance of English, let alone the Greek.
Here is a rebuttal to his "worst mistake bordering of blasphemy" in the KJB. Kutilek is a Klown.
The Spirit ITSELF
“The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”
Is referring to the third person of the of the blessed Trinity, as “itself” a major error in the King James Bible, which borders on blasphemy?
Doug Kutilek is a well known critic of the KJB. He has both printed, and posted an article on the internet, which harshly criticizes this “supposed” error in the King James Bible.
Mr. Kutilek states: “Any honest evaluation of the King James Version leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun “it” to refer to the Holy Spirit.”
He continues, “I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” He closes his article with these words. “Those who imagine that the KJV. . . is faultless and error-free are compelled to address the matter.”
The purpose of this article is to “address the matter”. I believe Mr. Kutilek’s objections to the use of “it” or “itself” in referring to the Holy Ghost are both hypocritical and ignorant. Hypocritical because there are many versions, including the modern ones, that use “itself” in either the very same verses or in the very same manner; and ignorant because he doesn't know the English language very well.
First, see how the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary of 1999 defines the use of the words “it” and “itself”. The second definition given for “itself” is: “used to represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context - Who is it? It is John. . . Did you see the baby? Yes, isn’t it cute. . . the cat likes to sun itself in the window.”
The Websters 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines “it”, as “a PERSON or animal whose gender is unknown or disregarded.” The Father and the Son are clearly masculine, but the Spirit is sometimes referred to as masculine and sometimes as neuter, not because He is neuter, but rather because the gender is disregarded or not taken into account in that particular context.
The four verses in the KJB that Mr. Kutilek criticizes are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26, and I Peter 1:11. We will examine these verses with other translations and then look at some examples in the new versions.
The first verse is John 1:32. “And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and IT abode upon him.” Other Bible versions that agree with the KJB in their use of “it” are Tyndales , the Geneva Bible of 1599 and 1602, Bishops Bible, Daniel Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Darby, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version of 1901, Douay of 1950, Henry Alford’s, Young’s, 21st Century KJB, William’s New Testament 1937, Lamsa 1933, Daniel Webster’s of 1833, 20th Century New Testament, Weymouth’s, Goodspeed’s American 1943, the Third Millenium Bible, the Revised Standard Version , the NRSV of 1989, and the 2001 English Standard Version.
The second verse is Romans 8:16. “The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Versions that agree with the KJB are the 21st Century KJB, Alford’s, Bishop’s, Darby, Webster’s, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Goodspeed 1943, Third Millenium, and the NRSV.
The third verse is Romans 8:26. “But the Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Again the 21st Century KJB, Alford’s, Bishop’s Bible 1568, Daniel Mace's N.T 1729, Wesley's 1755 translation, Coverdale 1535, Darby, Webster’s 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Goodspeed 1943, the Third Millenium Bible, and the Geneva of 1599 and 1602 agree with the KJB.
The fourth verse is 1 Peter 1:11. “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” Versions that agree with the use of “it” here are Alfords, Revised Version of 1881, ASV of 1901, Webster’s, Berkeley, Basic Bible in English, and the NRSV of 1989.
So we see that many Bible versions which both predate and follow the KJB have used “it” and “itself” to refer to the Spirit of God. This is perfectly acceptable English.
The NASB and NIV have two interesting and parallel verses in the New Testament. Both Matthew 12:45 and Luke 11:26 speak of a “spirit that takes along with IT seven other spirits more wicked than ITSELF”.
Here is a case of a spiritual entity that can see, hear, speak, and has a personality, yet the gender is disregarded in the NAS and NIV, and is referred to as “itself”. This spirit was not an inanimate object, but rather a spiritual being with a distinct personality.
In Luke 8:29, the same thing occurs in the KJB, NKJV, NIV, and NASB. “For he had commanded the unclean SPIRIT to come out of the man. For oftentimes IT had caught him.” Here again is a spirit that talks, reasons, hears, and knows that Jesus is the Son of God and that torment awaits him. This is clearly a personality and yet all the above mentioned versions refer to him as an “it”. The gender is disregarded, and this is perfectly acceptable English.
Another instance of the Lord Jesus Christ using the little word “IT” to refer to himself is found in the NASB, NIV, and NKJV in Luke 24:39 where He says: “Behold my hands and my feet, that IT is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”
Again in Revelation 12:4, a multitude of Bible versions, including the NKJV, NIV, and the brand new English Standard Version of 2001, all refer to the child Jesus as IT. “And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as IT was born.”
All of the modern versions use “itself” when referring to both animals and groups of people. The NKJV has the donkey itself in Hosea 8:9, the goat itself in Lev. 16:22; Israel itself in Judges 7:2. Numbers 23:9 speaks of “a people dwelling alone, not reckoning itself among the nations”, and Zechariah 12:12, “the family of the house of David by itself.”
All Bible versions at times speak of Jesus Christ as being a thing or something neuter. In Matthew 1:20, the angel of the Lord says to Joseph: “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for THAT WHICH is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
Notice the angel does not say “he”, but “that which”: it is neuter both in Greek and in English. In Luke 1:35, the angel says to Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also THAT HOLY THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” That holy thing is neuter, yet we all know that Jesus Christ is a person, in fact, God manifest in the flesh.
The book of 1 John opens with a reference to Jesus Christ, yet it refers to Him as a thing. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” Yet Christ is not a thing, but a person. In I John 5:4 we are told: “WHATSOEVER is born of God overcometh the world.” This is a neuter. Are we to assume that everyone who is born of God is a thing?
Mr. Kutilek’s objections to these four verses in the KJB seem to be unfounded. God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. He has revealed Himself to us in His inspired words, and I believe He has faithfully kept them for us today in the English language of the King James Bible.
Will Kinney
skanwmatos
New Member
Orvie, I think you may have missed the point. The Greek pronoun is neuter, not masculine. Although we, in English, associate sex with the gender of a word, Greek does not. The Greek is neuter, and the KJV translators, just as with many other English versions, maintained the neuter nature of the pronoun when they brought it over into English. It may sound strange to our ears, but it is a correct translation of the neuter pronoun.Originally posted by Orvie:
willie, call your Mom an "it" or your wife an "it" and see if you get dinner tonight. Now, do ya get it?
Pastor KevinR
New Member
I think I'm in agreement w/ Orvie on this one, simply because "it" is too literal (in my view). As your quote says, our tongue is English, not Greek, that's why the Holy Spirit in Rom 8 should be called, "He" or "Himself" respectively. Having said that, in verse 27, the KJV says, "he (He) maketh intercession"...the Holy Spirit is called "He" here, right?
skanwmatos
New Member
I agree that "he" is better English than "it" but the point is the Greek pronoun is neuter and the KJV translators (as well as others) using a more stringent "form equivalence" opted not to change the gender of the pronoun. We can't say that is an "error" for it agrees with the Greek. We can say it is awkward for English speakers.
No. The verses read:
It is generally understood that the "he" who searches the heart is God, who knows the mind of the Spirit.
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi all, my main point with Kutilek's artilcle about "it" is that he doesn't even know English and there is nothing wrong with using "it" to refer to the Holy Ghost, or Jesus or even God in certain contexts.
Almost all versions do this, as I pointed out.
Here is the ENGLISH language again for those who apparently have missed it.
First, see how the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary of 1999 defines the use of the words “it” and “itself”. The second definition given for “itself” is: “used to represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context - Who is it? It is John. . . Did you see the baby? Yes, isn’t it cute. . . the cat likes to sun itself in the window.”
The Websters 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines “it”, as “a PERSON or animal whose gender is unknown or disregarded.” The Father and the Son are clearly masculine, but the Spirit is sometimes referred to as masculine and sometimes as neuter, not because He is neuter, but rather because the gender is disregarded or not taken into account in that particular context.
Kutilek has no inspired Bible anywhere on this earth and he is his own final authority. So too with the people who follow in the footsteps of guys like him.
Will K
Almost all versions do this, as I pointed out.
Here is the ENGLISH language again for those who apparently have missed it.
First, see how the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary of 1999 defines the use of the words “it” and “itself”. The second definition given for “itself” is: “used to represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context - Who is it? It is John. . . Did you see the baby? Yes, isn’t it cute. . . the cat likes to sun itself in the window.”
The Websters 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines “it”, as “a PERSON or animal whose gender is unknown or disregarded.” The Father and the Son are clearly masculine, but the Spirit is sometimes referred to as masculine and sometimes as neuter, not because He is neuter, but rather because the gender is disregarded or not taken into account in that particular context.
Kutilek has no inspired Bible anywhere on this earth and he is his own final authority. So too with the people who follow in the footsteps of guys like him.
Will K