The reason I am KJBO

[robycop3]

TCassidy:I couldn't help but notice Cranston did not reply to my comments on the verse.

The verse in question is 1 Tim. 6:10.

I'll reply to them in the next post. I saw RSR's first, as I was scanning the posts in reverse order.

I cannot see any hyperbole in that verse. I see where a definite article is used ("the" root) where it's not in the Greek.

And I also know of a zillion evils committed for other reasons besides lova $$. The Columbine HS shootings & the diaper-head suicide bombers are prime examples.

 

[robycop3]

So Cranston, may I assume you have done more than just "a little study" on the issue of Greek articles and come to the conclusion the Jehovah's Witnesses are correct about John 1:1, the word was a God? After all, your "little study" surely discovered the exact same grammatical construct exists in John 1:1 as in 1 Timothy 6:10, didn't it?

The difference is...REALITY. There's only one real Godhead, consisting of God The Father, God The Son, & God The Holy Spirit. As John 1:1 is clearly about JESUS, & there's only one Godhead, then calling Him "God" is correct. Calling Him "A" god assumes there's more than one God.

OTOH, we easily see many other rootsa evil besides lova $$.The 9-1-1 plane hijackers clearly didn't do their great evils for lova $$ & neither did Klebold & Harris in shooting up Columbine HS. So, plainly, the lova $$ is "A" roota ALL SORTS of evil(s). Since Scripture is always true & cannot be broken, "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" is the CORRECT rendering, which reality matches.

 

[RAdam]

That is how all is often used in the bible, meaning all sorts or all kinds. Man tries to place a universal meaning to the word all in the bible and it just doesn't fit. Is every single king of the earth in hell? Did Jesus draw every single person without exception unto Him?

 

[jbh28]

That is how all is often used in the bible, meaning all sorts or all kinds. Man tries to place a universal meaning to the word all in the bible and it just doesn't fit. Is every single king of the earth in hell? Did Jesus draw every single person without exception unto Him?

Good point RAdam. I don't believe "sorts of" or "kinds of" are in the Greek but are understood. That's why translations like the NASB and ESV put "sorts of" and "kinds of" there as it is understood, but literally the Greek just has "all evils."

 

[TCassidy]

The difference is...REALITY. There's only one real Godhead, consisting of God The Father, God The Son, & God The Holy Spirit. As John 1:1 is clearly about JESUS, & there's only one Godhead, then calling Him "God" is correct. Calling Him "A" god assumes there's more than one God.

OTOH, we easily see many other rootsa evil besides lova $$.The 9-1-1 plane hijackers clearly didn't do their great evils for lova $$ & neither did Klebold & Harris in shooting up Columbine HS. So, plainly, the lova $$ is "A" roota ALL SORTS of evil(s). Since Scripture is always true & cannot be broken, "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" is the CORRECT rendering, which reality matches.

So, you are saying that God made a mistake in John 1:1 by not using the definite article?

You can't have it both ways. Either the definite article is correct in Timothy or the indefinite article is correct in John. Same rule of Greek grammar.

The point is, obviously, the rule of Greek grammar makes it clear there is a definite issue - "all evil" - in mind, thus requiring the definite article, and, when read in proper context, we can see the statement is hyperbolic and thus not intended to mean "all evil everywhere, without exception."

It seems so clear to me, not to mention equally clear to W. Hall Harris, the General Editor, Daniel B. Wallace, Senior New Testament Editor, and Robert B. Chisholm, Senior Old Testament Editor, of the NET Bible. All three are professors at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Not to mention Dr. Richard Brett (who was one of the world's foremost experts in Latin, Greek, Chaldee, Arabic and Ethioptic languages), Dr. John Harmer ( Professor of Greek at Oxford), Dr. Henry Savile (you remember him! The guy who was so famous for his translation of the mathematical work of Euclid on geometry from Greek into English and for his editing and translating of the complete works of John Chrysostom from the Greek into English?), and, of course, Dr. John Bois (I'm sure you remember him too, the guy from Cambridge who assisted Henry Savile with the translation of the works of John Chrysostom?).

Are you claiming to be a better textual/Greek scholar than these august men?

Sorry, but I don't think so.

 

[Jim1999]

All this just shows to me that us blokes who are less proficient in Greek and Hebrew have fewer problems understanding what is being said than those who claim more proficiency.

Oh boy!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[sag38]

Very true Jim. Tom won't like it but maybe I'm better off without the knowledge of Greek.

 

[Jim1999]

Sag, I am not knocking those who are able to learn the languages. I did take Greek and Hebrew, rarely used it in all my ministry. I could read it for me, but was never proficient in all the nuances. I do ok in English. My theology never suffered.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[TCassidy]

The point is, of course, that Cranston is saying there is an error of translation in the verse in question. As translation is a function of taking a word or phrase in a donor language and translating it into a receptor language, it is required that the person making the allegation be knowledgeable in both languages. Those who are knowledgeable in both languages know the definite article is correct. Those who are not knowledgeable in both languages make an unsubstantiated claim of error. Such is, in my opinion, hubris.

As Cranston has no expertise in Greek all he is doing is ignorantly passing on what someone else said, which is exactly what the KJVOs do.

 

[Jim1999]

English has rules too!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Phillip]

English has rules, but that certainly doesn't mean that a translation into English that is only a few hundred years old compared to a couple of thousand needs to be studied. I am not saying one text form is better than another, but when we do discover new text forms that are older, I think it is up to us to determine the likelihood of the accuracy of the older document.

As you said, there are nuances in Greek that you could not read, therefore, you don't know whether or not your theology suffered by the lack of. Therefore, you argument is moot.

English cannot and does not express all of the tenses used by the Greek, so obviously you cannot do a direct translation that is word-for-word. There must be some dynamic translation in there somewhere to get the point of the author across.

 

[Phillip]

Just because the English translation says what you want it to say, then it fits your theology. This is not a good way to study the Bible. I agree with Doc in that unless you know the transmitted language and the receptor language, then you must take your trust in English translators which further degrades the accuracy of the originals.

Many people are KJVO because it fits what they have grown up learning as the perfect truth when it is a KJVO issue and not an issue of whether or not you understand what the Bible is actually trying to tell you.

Again, I ask, how do you know your theology is correct if you can only read English? You have to take the word of the translators and cannot learn on your own as to whether or not the translators did a good job or not.

 

[Phillip]

Because.......I realize, that I need a Bible that I can trust.......
Jeremiah 17:9-10
V.9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
V.10 I the LORD search the heart, try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, [and] according to the fruit of his doings.

If God’s Word tells me that I can’t even trust my own heart, why in the world would I trust my eternity, to some theologian or scholar, to tell me what God’s Word really says.
--------------------------------------------------
Now I know, that some here will be tempted to respond with.......


Well, the KJB, has been tested by the fire of time and attack, for hundreds of years.
(If even 1% of what people say about the KJB having errors, was true, than it would have been cast away long before I came on the scene.)

I need a Bible that I can trust, to tell me the truth about myself, that I won’t even tell myself.

Yep, it was tested by fire alright when the King of England persecuted and had executed people who used another Bible translation. I would call that a government monopoly forced on the English people. Then the King tried his best to keep it from being translated in the United States because he would not get a royalty in his private pocket. Wonder how kings used to get rich? Sad, but true, yes, it was tested by fire and time. Only since 1769 and then forced printing and reading and attempted litigation on the American's for printing it.

 

[Jim1999]

Sorry mate, but you don't understand royalty, the English government or the rights of Oxford and Cambridge universites to print and publish the King James Version.

Those people were killed for other reasons than reading a KJ Version........The KJV was made available to the public as no Bible was ever made available to the people.

I am tired of American garbage to be honest with you.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[TCassidy]

I have to go with Jim on this. History does not indicate anybody was executed for reading the wrong bible. It is true that England outlawed the Geneva bible, which was most popular with the literate, but that was more likely due to the nature of the notes, which showed a strong bias against the monarchy, as opposed to any profit motive.

And the rights of the Royal Patent in Perpetuity were assigned to Robert Barker, Printer to the Crown, and to the university presses of Oxford and Cambridge. If anyone profited from printing KJVs in England it was those three.

 

[robycop3]

Winman:I agree, the KJB is a personal preference for me.

So far, so good. You shoulda stopped right here.


I examined the many versions of scripture and how they came to be and was persuaded the KJB was the preserved word of God in English.

Persuaded by false info and horse feathers.


I believe this by faith, as it is impossible to know for an absolute certainty. The debates here prove that.

In this case, "I believe this by faith" actually means, "I am GUESSING". The KJV sez faith is substance & evidence; KJVO has neither.

 

[robycop3]

So, you are saying that God made a mistake in John 1:1 by not using the definite article?

You can't have it both ways. Either the definite article is correct in Timothy or the indefinite article is correct in John. Same rule of Greek grammar.

The point is, obviously, the rule of Greek grammar makes it clear there is a definite issue - "all evil" - in mind, thus requiring the definite article, and, when read in proper context, we can see the statement is hyperbolic and thus not intended to mean "all evil everywhere, without exception."

It seems so clear to me, not to mention equally clear to W. Hall Harris, the General Editor, Daniel B. Wallace, Senior New Testament Editor, and Robert B. Chisholm, Senior Old Testament Editor, of the NET Bible. All three are professors at Dallas Theological Seminary.

Not to mention Dr. Richard Brett (who was one of the world's foremost experts in Latin, Greek, Chaldee, Arabic and Ethioptic languages), Dr. John Harmer ( Professor of Greek at Oxford), Dr. Henry Savile (you remember him! The guy who was so famous for his translation of the mathematical work of Euclid on geometry from Greek into English and for his editing and translating of the complete works of John Chrysostom from the Greek into English?), and, of course, Dr. John Bois (I'm sure you remember him too, the guy from Cambridge who assisted Henry Savile with the translation of the works of John Chrysostom?).

Are you claiming to be a better textual/Greek scholar than these august men?

Sorry, but I don't think so.

I AM claiming to know what COMMON SENSE is. And apparently, more than one translator, august or otherwise, believed/believes "all sorts" or "all kinds of evil(s)" is the most-correct translation, the one that reality fits.

As for the definite article...If I write here, "I replied to Dr. Thomas Cassidy", every reader here would know I was referring to YOU. It's not necessary for me to say, "I replied to THE Dr. Cassidy" or "A Dr. Cassidy", & even though it's likely there are other Dr. Thomas Cassidys in the world, YOU are the only one here at this time. And John and his intended reader(s) believed only in the one real God, so using the title "God" as a stand-alone word could only be referring to the one God within his circle of readers. He most likely didn't know this writing was to become Scripture. (Been too long since I had high school grammar; I don't remember what such stand-alone references are called.)

 

[robycop3]

The point is, of course, that Cranston is saying there is an error of translation in the verse in question. As translation is a function of taking a word or phrase in a donor language and translating it into a receptor language, it is required that the person making the allegation be knowledgeable in both languages. Those who are knowledgeable in both languages know the definite article is correct. Those who are not knowledgeable in both languages make an unsubstantiated claim of error. Such is, in my opinion, hubris.

As Cranston has no expertise in Greek all he is doing is ignorantly passing on what someone else said, which is exactly what the KJVOs do.

Is it not common sense to see that the love of money is but ONE cause for all kinds of wickedness?

 

[robycop3]

Just because the English translation says what you want it to say, then it fits your theology. This is not a good way to study the Bible. I agree with Doc in that unless you know the transmitted language and the receptor language, then you must take your trust in English translators which further degrades the accuracy of the originals.

Many people are KJVO because it fits what they have grown up learning as the perfect truth when it is a KJVO issue and not an issue of whether or not you understand what the Bible is actually trying to tell you.

Again, I ask, how do you know your theology is correct if you can only read English? You have to take the word of the translators and cannot learn on your own as to whether or not the translators did a good job or not.

As I said on another thread, that's why I use multiple translations. While the translators of the KJV most likely did their best, their work bears some marks of their opinions, same as earlier and later translations do. They had to make many choices for what they believed was the one meaning among many possible correct ones for the same word or phrase that best fit the context of the moment. All translators of Scripture are faced with those choices. Since we cannot have a translation that includes all possible meanings for every word, the next-best course of action is to use several translations.

Back to the 1 Tim. 6:10 thingie, the KJV's translation is not an incorrect one, but it's certainly not the only one possible, and the translation in most later versions best matches REALITY. Scripture cannot be broken; reality must match Scripture, and since the reality is that lova $$ is but one cause of all kinds of wickedness, the rendering of that verse in later versions such as the NKJV is the MORE-CORRECT rendering.

 

[TCassidy]

As for the definite article...If I write here, "I replied to Dr. Thomas Cassidy", every reader here would know I was referring to YOU. It's not necessary for me to say, "I replied to THE Dr. Cassidy" or "A Dr. Cassidy", & even though it's likely there are other Dr. Thomas Cassidys in the world, YOU are the only one here at this time. And John and his intended reader(s) believed only in the one real God, so using the title "God" as a stand-alone word could only be referring to the one God within his circle of readers. He most likely didn't know this writing was to become Scripture. (Been too long since I had high school grammar; I don't remember what such stand-alone references are called.)

I am sorry, Cranston, but you cannot force the rules of English grammar into Greek. English is an analytical language and Greek is a synthetic language. The rules of grammar are incompatible one to the other.

The fact stands, you can't have it both ways. If the definite article is wrong regarding "THE root" then John 1:1 is wrong in all but the JW "bible."

In fact, most English translations get it right. The ones that get it wrong are the ones that favor a dynamic or concept methodology of translation. Those that tend toward a more formal/verbal methodology get it right. See the NET bible and the notes on this verse. They are spot on.

I am sorry, Cranston, and I don't mean to seem unkind, but your uninformed opinions are no better than the uninformed opinions of the KJVO crowd. You don't understand the grammar of Koine Greek any more than they do, so your, and their, opinions regarding technical aspects of translation are, quite frankly, irrelevant to the discussion.