Versions Not Considered?

Uh, its spelled T-E-M-P-L-E.

And don't email me privately with your insults again, or I will contact your email provider.

 

Ephes. 1:7 (ESV)
In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Col. 1:20 (ESV)
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Hebrews 9:14 (ESV)
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Hebrews 13:12 (ESV)
So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

1 Cor. 10:16 (ESV)
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Ephes. 2:13 (ESV)
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

1 Peter 1:2 (ESV)
accord ing to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood:
May grace and peace be multiplied to you.

1 Peter 1:19 (ESV)
but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

Rev. 1:5 (ESV)
and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

Another KJVO lie bites the dust.

 

Kevo,

Big deal, I was saved in 1965 and have spent many years studying the Word of God preserved in the English language: KJV1611.

There is no works salvation in the OT, the OT saints were looking forward to what we look back to; a RISEN SAVIOUR

Study Hebrews, the faith chapter, no works there.

You Kevo have much to learn yet, you are the one promoting false doctrine.
Ernie

[ April 09, 2002, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

Yes

Not in my KJV its not. Notice how salvation by faith is attributed to both Abraham and David in the NT. Salvation is never by works in any age for that would denigrate the perfect sacrifice of Christ. Hebrews tells that Christ appeared once at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, not by the sacrifice of himself and the works of man. This position is an affront to Christ.

If you believe this, then you know nothing about dispensations. If you want to talk dispensations, then let's do that in the theology forum. Start by reading some of the old threads so you can catch up on the issues.

Then where are you picking these false teachings up from? I don't care what your pastor's name is and I don't care what he claims. If what he preaches does not line up with SCripture then you need to get out of there. The more I hear from you the more I am concerned.

No their not. The changes are in words. They include the changing of pronouns, the adding and subtracting of the name of God, etc. FHA Scrivener, who was a big proponent of the Byz/TR text type detailed these changes in a book he wrote in the 1800s.

Besides, if God is perfect, why couldn't he get the punctuation, spellings, printers errors, etc. right the first time? Why did he take God so many times to get a perfect word? And where was the final authority before God finally got it right?

Interesting you bring this out because this is a clear translational error. The text of the TR says one thing and teh KJV translators said something else. Which one is right? The TR is right here. Strain out and strain at are two different things (remember things that are different are not the same). Christ said one; the KJV has the other.

To call someone an idiot is not inline with the kind of treatment you are to give your enemies. If you love the KJV, then practice it.

Moreoever, if you think I am a complete idiot, let's talk the facts. Don't make charges that you can't back up. You come sit in my church for a month and do some discipleship with me and then let's see where we stand.

 

We are not talking about changing doctrine, but of changing the words of the KJV. If it is okay to change the words of the KJV to different words meaning essentially the same thing, why is it wrong to change the words of, say, the NKJV or KJV21 or Millennium Bible to words which mean essentially the same thing? If you believe in "perfect preservation" wouldn't changing even one word violate that principle?

 

Amen Brother Ernie! One way of Salvation throughout all the bible, grace alone through faith alone!

 

Strain out and strain at are simply two ways of saying the same thing. To pickat this verse and characterize it as a "translational error" is to be guilty of the same sort of folly as the Ruckmanites.

 

Not by any definition that I have ever seen. Strain out is to remove something. Strain at to to try to achieve something. If I strain out my tea, it is a far cry from straining at my tea. In the context of Christ's word, the Pharisees were straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. Straining at does not really make a lot of sense here. There weren't struggling to try to reach a gnat, they were being pedantic about minor points while ignoring major ones. The word Christ used is the idea of "filter."

 

I provided you with one the last time you obsessed over this one little word. Did you forget? Here it is again, at: Occupied with. --idiom. American Heritage Dictionary. They were occupied with straining the gnat while ignoring the camel! Makes perfect sense to me.

Sounds familiar. Oh, yes, of course! It is what you are doing right now!

 

Except being occupied with is not the same as filtering. I can't find any Greek lexicon that agrees with your position and since the NT was written in Greek I think we should use Greek lexicons to establish the meaning of words. But we will not agree on this yet and that's fine.

My point in saying this is not to address you. I am addressing those who argue that the KJV is perfect. To those who argue for a perfect translation, a word shoudl be translated for what it means. Therefore, it is an incorrect, if minor, error and should be corrected.

[ April 10, 2002, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Chris,you misunderstood the question,but I was talking to Mr.Cassidy anyway,he understood what I was talking about.

 

I can't believe this! You deny that "at" can mean "to be occupied with" even though the dictionary clearly so states, then you say the word "strain" should say "filter" even though διυλιζω clearly means "to strain" and is clearly a well known and often used synonym for filter! Check any thesaurus for "strain" and you will read:

Good grief! Talk about obsessions, and badly mistaken obsessions at that! At doesn't mean at, and strain is not a synonym for filter! What will you say next? Give it up! You are simply wrong! You have read a web page somewhere without bothering to check the facts and have make a fool of yourself. It is not too late to recover your creditability but it is getting pretty close!

 

i'm confused; which (if any) of the following was said in jest. surely diulizw doesn't mean BOTH "occupied with" and "to strain"?

 

I can’t believe you can’t read what I wrote. I did not deny that “at” could mean, “to be occupied with.” What I denied is that “strain at” means the same thing as “filter.” In fact, here is my exact quote from my post.

You will notice the words very carefully because they mean something. They communicated exactly what I meant and not what you would like them to say.

Then you cite a thesaurus for “strain” when “strain” is not the issue. I did not deny that “filter” is a synonym for “strain.” In fact, if I may take the liberty of quoting myself again, notice this line from the post dated, “April 09, 2002 01:13 PM .”

So quite clearly when you say that the idea is to filter, you are parroting what I have said from the beginning. That Christ was talking of filtering something is not the issue. At issue is the phrase “strain at” vs. “strain out.” In common English usage they mean two different things and no amount of dictionary citations will change that.

Miriam Webster cites the following definitions for strain:

Notice how the dictionary tell us that these are two different things that do not mean the same. I bolded a part that you should find interesting in view of your contention that “straining at” means “to filter.” How does a dog filter his leash????

I am not obsessed about it but I do believe that we should translate words properly. However, I do get a bit miffed when you attribute things to me that I did not say, as I clearly showed in this post. I am not “badly mistaken.” I have previously given evidence and will give some more evidence that clearly supports my contention. Every modern translation including the NKJV translates it properly as “strain out.” (There is no textual variant here.)

Let me reference the “web pages” that I have looked for this topic:
1. The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 vols, 1:337, not available on the web.
2. Bauer, Ardnt, Gingrich, and Danker, 3rd edition, p. 200. This one might be in your favor when it says, “The KJ ‘strain at’ is widely considered a misprint [omit citation] , but for the view that it is an archaic usage s. Murray … [omit evidence].”

NIDNTT, TDNT, and TLOT do not address this word.

I have not seen this on the web. I don’t look that much for stuff like this on the web though. It may well be out there. If you find it, let me know.

I have not made a fool of myself in the least. I have simply cited the evidence of language and lexical works that show your position to be wrong. Your argument is not with me but with diulizo.

And “creditiability” is not damaged by citing evidence in support of the facts. I prefer to have credibility anyway.

[ April 10, 2002, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

So, now you are saying that there is a difference between "strain at a gnat" and "occupied with straining a gnat?"

Notice how the dictionary tell us that these are two different things that do not mean the same.</font>[/QUOTE]Now I see! You chose the wrong definition of "strain" and suggest the KJV says that it means something other than filter! Good grief! You just keep getting worse and worse! To be occupied with straining a gnat while swollowing a camel is the intent of the verse! It is just that simple! Because you don't know what "at" means, and pick the wrong definition of "strain" is not the fault of the KJV translators! It is yours!

 

Nope, I am saying what I have said all along .. .that strain at and strain out mean two different things. Strain at involves, as MW puts it, violent effort; Strain out involves filtering.

Man alive ... how do you suggest I chose the wrong definition of "strain"? I said that strain means "filter" (see above quotes); I showed a definition of "strain" from MW using "strain at" as an example that shows "filter" is not among the concepts communicated by "strain at."

I agree with your first sentence. Yet your miscitation of the KJV proves my point. You conveniently left out the word "at" to arrive at the same point that I have been arguing all along. I do know what "at" means and I did not pick the wrong definition of "strain." If you read above you will see that I have had that definition since the beginning.

However, this is useless. My point was simply this: If someone (not you) is going to claim that the KJV is a perfect translation, then they must be able to account for mistranslations such as this one (as well as others). You can disagree that it is a mistranslation; that is fine. Most of the English speaking world disagrees with you as do most of those English speaking people who also know Greek, including those who write the Greek lexicons.

[ April 10, 2002, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

This just keeps getting funnier and funnier! In the first paragraph you say that strain at involves violent effert, which is the wrong definition of "strain" which is a synonym for "filter" then in the next paragraph you admit that "strain" means "filter!" You can't have it both ways! Either your understanding in the first paragraph is wrong, or your opposite understanding in the second paragraph is wrong!

This folly has gone on long enough. You just can't seem to admit that your lack of vocabulary regarding word meaning does not make the bible wrong.

This thread is now locked.