Christ's body, broken for you

God chose to inspire His Word in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic... to preserve copies of His Word in those languages for 1900 years giving every generation the opportunity to translate from the original languages into their own tongue... and you dismiss these things!!!

How can you claim to know anything? You're sticking your head in the sand and saying "it doesn't matter if I ignore it." On what basis do you claim the KJV is the "preserved Word of God" to the exclusion of all others? Because it satisfies your insecurity and lack of faith to believe that there is a single set of words that exclusively represents God's Word in English? Because it is mentally and emotionally easier to believe a simple but false idea rather than a more complex one that is true?

God chose the original languages. I think we should give His choices due respect. He could have chosen 17th century English to inspire His Word into... but He didn't.

It is not an act of faith to willfully ignore facts.

But I do believe in a perfect Bible. I believe the one God inspired is perfectly worded and I believe that faithful descendants of those originals are perfect in the sense that they communicate the same meanings God intended.

Because of the proof Dr. Bob cited. On the other side, there is evidence that suggest that it should be included. But this is an academic, critical thinking exercise, not some guess.

 

Typical response from Alexandrians; they think people who use/trust the KJV are un-informed,ignorant,misguided,simpletons just because they cannot read the original languages ;or dont see things there way.

Because of the hatred of the KJV & the people who use/believe in it. Already proven in a previous post..

Is it not an act of faith when one believes that God ALMOST preserved his word.

Ah, so you admit the KJV is nonsense.

For more on what would happen to the original(if they were around even today)see Jeremiah chapter 36!

 

John Calvin has no problem equating "broken" and
Christ's death on the cross:

"For although no bone was broken, yet the body itself having been subjected, first of all, to so many tortures and inflictions, and afterwards to the punishment of death in the most cruel form, cannot be said to have been uninjured. This is what Paul means by its being broken."

Calvins Commentaries XX pg 381.

-kman

 

Consider this excerpt from the Geneva Bible:

I Cor. 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is (i) broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

(i) This word "broken" denotes to us the manner of Christ's death, for although his legs were not broken, as the thieves legs were, yet his body was very severely tormented, and torn, and bruised.

 

Calvin didn't know Greek?

 

Are you saying God did not preserve his word?

 

I agree that Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthians in Greek. I also understand that he would use a symbolic word, to demonstrate to these carnal, immature Christians, that would present them with the imagery that Christ suffered immensely to secure their salvation.

Just as the bread was torn in pieces, so was the body of our Lord when they scouraged Him, when they plucked out His beard, and when they thrust the spear in His side.

Do you really believe that no flesh was separated from our Lord's body in the entire ordeal leading up to and including Calvary?

 

We are not Alexandrians. We are Bible believers who believe what God said about his word rather than what some man said about God's word. The issue at hand is not one of namecalling but one of revelation. Let's stick to what God said.

Because of the hatred of the KJV & the people who use/believe in it. Already proven in a previous post..</font>[/QUOTE]The KJV is the preserved word of God because people hate it?? What kind of argument is that? There are all kinds of things that people hate that are not the preserved word of God. Furthermore, you have yet to demonstrate this hatred of the KJV. Can you show someone here who has said that?

[/qb]We do not believe that God almost preserved his word. We believe that he did. We believe that he did so prior to 1611 and that it will remain preserved long after the English language is dead, should God tarry. This is a non issue. The disagreement between us is not about whether he preserved his word; it is about how he preserved it.

 

The Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon is
online. Here is the results it gives for
klao:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2357742

I'm not sure if I'm reading all that goop correctly..but it appears that under #3 the word can be used in a metaphorical sense (break, weaken, frustrate) and was used by Josepheus in that manner (J.BJ3.7.13).

Am I reading it right?

-kman

 

Therein lies the problem, we are not breaking bread in this verse, we are speaking of the broken body of the Lord.

In John 19:31, it speaks of breaking the legs of those on the cross. The literal meaning of the word "broken" (katagnumi) means to "rend in pieces." To you think that was the intentions of the Jews that day to tear their legs into tiny pieces, or to "break" them?

 

I agree. I'm not convinced it was in the original either.

I guess I get squimish arguing textual variants based upon "internal" evidence.

Some KJO claim Mark 1:2 has to be "the prophets" (TR/MT) instead of "Isaiah the prophet"(CT) because they say it introduces an "error". (Which CT advocates have
an explaination for).

I personally feel textual variants should be examined based upon Greek Textual Evidence, Version evidence, and Early Father quotation evidence and go on that.
Too much speculation when you start down the internal evidence trail (in my opinion).

JMHO
kman

 

...they think people who use/trust the KJV are un-informed,ignorant,misguided,simpletons just because they cannot read the original languages ;or dont see things there way.</font>[/QUOTE] No. I do however think that anyone who ignores facts in order to preserve a false assumption are ignorant and misguided as well as in rebellion to scripture that tells us to "prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

KJVOnlyism is impossible to "prove" in this sense because it is not supported by scripture, logic, or historical facts.

Because of the hatred of the KJV & the people who use/believe in it. Already proven in a previous post..</font>[/QUOTE] Therefore since you hate MV's and the people who use them, they must also be the preserved Word of God.

Probably, except that isn't what I believe. It is dishonest of you to imply I believe something I don't in order to demonize me and my beliefs.

Ah, so you admit the KJV is nonsense.</font>[/QUOTE] No. I assert that it is not directly inspired by God... a fact acknowledged by the translators themselves. I admit nothing more, nothing less.

For more on what would happen to the original(if they were around even today)see Jeremiah chapter 36!</font>[/QUOTE]You know, that's an interesting thought. Of our two sides of this argument, which of us do you think would be more willing to burn the other's Bibles? Do you think those of us who think MV's as well as the KJV are the Word of God would be more willing to burn the KJV? ... or do you think those of you who think that MV's are perversions would be more willing to burn them?

[ December 17, 2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

ScottJ - I am going to answer your questions using a several postings because using one would be too large.

"μη γενοιτο" comes from words meaning "not" and "to come into existence” translated into "God forbid."

One translator may use something to the effect "may it not come into existance." And even "May it never be"

However, the KJV uses "God forbid." This could have been because of the fact that God determines whether something comes to existence or not. I know that is simply a guess, however it is plausible.

Is there other ways to translate this phrase? Obviously, Yes. Is this phrase an error? No, because both phrases are equal in meaning. I am not concerned with which is a "better" translated phrase. I am concerned with an accurate translation. One that contains no actual (as opposed to perceived) false or misleading translating. This phrase translation of the KJV is neither. I will in a different thread point to definite errors in the NIV. I want to finish this discussion first.

The NIV and many other modern translations use Dynamic Equivalence. This method is concerned with not only the meaning but also the impression of the text. Its chief concern is to try to create the same influence the same way as the original text influenced those readers. (This is highly subjective). Does this KJV translation equal Dynamic Equivalence? No, it used a phrase that the translators thought was equivalent in meaning.

Revelation 22:19 - I cannot find the "book" instead of "tree" translation. Please send either the Greek transliteration or other verse if you accidentally wrote the wrong one.

1 John 5:7-8 - if you do not have that "added" portion, then you have a masculine "hoi" with nouns that are neuter in gender "pneuma", "hudor", and "haima." This is a grammatical problem. If you have the "addition," then the grammatical problem is solved. You would need to explain this grammatical problem when in verse 6 the neuter "pneuma" uses the neuter "to."

"Textus receptus" - O.K. you are right I said that wrong. Would you accept "the line that is called 'textus receptus'" I was just trying to group manuscripts together that would include MT and Byz. I am not trying to be misleading (I do understand that there are variants between these, but submit that they do not add up to the differences between TR an Alex.) I just do not know a better way to say what I mean. Unlike the Bible I have a lot of errors.

I will answer the other questions later (It is past midnight). If you want we can start a new thread to finish this discussion. I do not know how to do that.

[ December 18, 2002, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: 2peter1_10 ]