Bible debate

[humblethinker]

It does....therefore I have far less problem with NASB than I do with others....Many people here seem to find the NASB un-gainly...so they don't like it. I actually do like it.

however: unless I am mistaken (I may be)..there is likely a footnote which casts doubt upon the passage. If not, then I have little complaint about NASB.....
I've always thought rather highly of it....

I like the NASB as well. HoS, is it that you would have a problem with any notes in the margin that "casts doubt" or just that verse and or verses like it. Also, do you think that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit in the work of translating the inspired Hebrew and Greek into English?

 

[Yeshua1]

I like the NASB as well. HoS, is it that you would have a problem with any notes in the margin that "casts doubt" or just that verse and or verses like it. Also, do you think that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit in the work of translating the inspired Hebrew and Greek into English?

Those who hold to KJVO have the Spriit inspire the translators in same fashion as the Apsotles, for they were seen as making the perfect translation into English, in fact, if there was any difference between what greek text said and the KJV, the KJV has priority and change greek text to reflect KJV rendering!

 

[humblethinker]

Those who hold to KJVO have the Spriit inspire the translators in same fashion as the Apsotles, for they were seen as making the perfect translation into English, in fact, if there was any difference between what greek text said and the KJV, the KJV has priority and change greek text to reflect KJV rendering!

I don't think that's completely accurate, Yeshua, and I think HoS would rightly take exception to that... perhaps if you prepended your comment with "Some of" that would be more accurate.

 

[Herald]

I have no issue with a preference for the KJV. KJVO (the type of KJVO that considers the AV to be the only true version) on the other hand is rank idolatry.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't think that's completely accurate, Yeshua, and I think HoS would rightly take exception to that... perhaps if you prepended your comment with "Some of" that would be more accurate.

You are correct! Best to have said some do hold to that!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have no issue with a preference for the KJV. KJVO (the type of KJVO that considers the AV to be the only true version) on the other hand is rank idolatry.

agreed, KJVP is fine, as i am a Nasp myself!

butto elevate any version of the Bible to same level as the God of the Bible....

 

[HeirofSalvation]

There are forms of KJVO who take a doctrinal position along the lines of the KJV being Divinely "Preserved"...and they take exception to the idea that the translators were "inspired"....They would say that there is an essentially perfect body of manucripts available that we can count on with 100% surety that has been "preserved". Obviously, this would NOT be Hort and Westcotts. :tongue3: They tend to believe that there was a working of Providence when the KJV was translated to translate it perfectly or VERY close to it.

What they would NOT say, is that it was "inspired". In fact, I think the VAST majority of KJVO's would not say that. They make a distinction quite often between "Preserved" and "Twice-Inspired". I doubt you would actually find anyone on this board who believes that the KJV was "inspired"...That's what many people call a Ruckmanite, and such types are rare.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Yeah Brother...you are bragging and now I'm full of jealous envy and need to go confess!:smilewinkgrin: But I bet you're glad that's over with...carrying around 600 pounds would make me tired!

Just to mention....just need to remember that neither the footnotes nor Dr. Scofield's notes nor any other study Bible's notes are part of the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved text of the Word of God. They can be helpful (or not)!

I'd love to SEE that 1631 you have. Is it an "original" or 1st edition for that year or just a reproduction? By the way...check out this link:
Treasuring the Word Mininistries International This is a link to a Bible Museum that is located in Sevierville TN just outside of Gatlinburg. It is well work going to see if you are in the area. My wife and I have been and he has a collection of very old Bibles which are fascinating. The man that runs it, Bro.Mike Grant, is a BJU grad and a very nice guy. Check out his website. I love old Bibles and Hymnbooks.

Bro.Greg:saint:

It is a remarkable book...If it were 20 years younger, it would be worth about a million dollars! :laugh:
It appraises for about 600-700$
It was actually printed by assignment by the King's Printer (John Bill) and is in pretty good condition (They made books with quality then)

On the front page, someone chronicled the birth of their daughter in 1770, The book was 140 years OLD THEN!
If you ever travel to the U.K. look at antiquated bookstores, they are everywhere!

Thanks for the link! I'll try to check it out if I can get to Tenn!

 

[The Archangel]

It does....therefore I have far less problem with NASB than I do with others....Many people here seem to find the NASB un-gainly...so they don't like it. I actually do like it.

however: unless I am mistaken (I may be)..there is likely a footnote which casts doubt upon the passage. If not, then I have little complaint about NASB.....
I've always thought rather highly of it....It wasn't well-done (in the sense of accuracy vs. readability) on some levels, but, I am partial to NASB... I was raised with the NASB...NOT the KJV.

However, I have NO appreciation for a Translation which has a footnote which casts doubt upon the Validity of Acts 8:37...Truth is...NASB was translated not from the T.R....

This is an issue worthy of investigation to me.....
Thank you for your imput Amy

The ESV includes the verse in the footnote. However, there is a deeper issue here with the translation of the KJV as a whole.

If you take, for example, John 3:16, there are translation errors in that particular verse--and some have taken the "whosoever believeth..." to mean it is primarily the will of man that makes the difference in salvation.

In reality, the verse, in the instance of the above example, says "all the ones believing." It makes no statement as to "whosoever" and, when properly translated, neither supports nor thwarts either the Arminian or Calvinist arguments.

As it is in the KJV, it seems to support the Arminian arguments, but the support is based on a faulty translation.

One of the great things about the modern translations, no matter which textual tradition they stem from, is that we now have slightly over 400 years more research into language (Koine Greek, to be specific, in this case) and textual research.

It still frustrates me that my ESV doesn't rightly translate John 3:16. The HCSB does and the ISV does. Perhaps so many translators leave the more beloved verses alone, even if they shouldn't. That too is error, but that's another discussion.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[convicted1]

Those who hold to KJVO have the Spriit inspire the translators in same fashion as the Apsotles, for they were seen as making the perfect translation into English, in fact, if there was any difference between what greek text said and the KJV, the KJV has priority and change greek text to reflect KJV rendering!

Whoa there a minute.......I live amongst a bunch of churches, and associations that hold to the KJVO position, but they won't go so far as you just stated. You need to cut that brush down to size, because you're painting with one that faaaaaar too wide.......

 

[convicted1]

The ESV includes the verse in the footnote. However, there is a deeper issue here with the translation of the KJV as a whole.

If you take, for example, John 3:16, there are translation errors in that particular verse--and some have taken the "whosoever believeth..." to mean it is primarily the will of man that makes the difference in salvation.

In reality, the verse, in the instance of the above example, says "all the ones believing." It makes no statement as to "whosoever" and, when properly translated, neither supports nor thwarts either the Arminian or Calvinist arguments.

As it is in the KJV, it seems to support the Arminian arguments, but the support is based on a faulty translation.

One of the great things about the modern translations, no matter which textual tradition they stem from, is that we now have slightly over 400 years more research into language (Koine Greek, to be specific, in this case) and textual research.

It still frustrates me that my ESV doesn't rightly translate John 3:16. The HCSB does and the ISV does. Perhaps so many translators leave the more beloved verses alone, even if they shouldn't. That too is error, but that's another discussion.

Blessings,

The Archangel

edited to add the webpage: http://bible.cc/john/3-16.htm


New International Version (©2011)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
"For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.

International Standard Version (©2012)
"For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.

NET Bible (©2006)
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
For God loved the world in this way: so much that he would give up his Son, The Only One, so that everyone who trusts in him shall not be lost, but he shall have eternal life.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
God loved the world this way: He gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

American King James Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

American Standard Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Darby Bible Translation
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal.

English Revised Version
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Webster's Bible Translation
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Weymouth New Testament
For so greatly did God love the world that He gave His only Son, that every one who trusts in Him may not perish but may have the Life of Ages.

World English Bible
For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Young's Literal Translation
for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.


Nope. It sure sounds like "whosoever believes". Now, I am not going to get into a deep battle with you, seeing that you have studied the languages, whereas I haven't. By doing so, it would be like me bringing a seal to a polar bear fight......:laugh:

 

[The Archangel]

Nope. It sure sounds like "whosoever believes". Now, I am not going to get into a deep battle with you, seeing that you have studied the languages, whereas I haven't. By doing so, it would be like me bringing a seal to a polar bear fight......:laugh:

A seal to a polar bear fight? Yummy!

Actually, it is a grammatical impossibility to correctly translate it "whosever believes." And, as I mentioned, many of the modern versions kowtow to the KJV because John 3:16 is a beloved verse. By the way, this is not the only place where the KJV messes up this particular Greek construction.

Here is the phrase in question in the Greek:

ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν

Here's a translation: ἵνα (so that) πᾶς (all) ὁ πιστεύων (the believing ones) εἰς αὐτὸν (in Him)...

"The believing ones" is a Present Active Participle, Singular Nominative Masculine. This will be important later.

In Greek, there must be agreement with the article (ὁ, in this case) and the participle (πιστεύων, in this case). And, as it stands there is perfect agreement.

Some people, notably the translators of the KJV, have misread the article (ὁ) and have desired to read "ὁ"as the relative pronoun "whosoever."

But, here's the problem: In Greek the relative pronoun is this: ὅ

Here's where things get very tricky and very deep.

The masculine singular definite article in Greek is ὁ. (Notice the "rough" breathing mark...it looks like an apostrophe over the letter)

The neuter singular relative pronoun in Greek is ὅ. (Notice the accent mark next to the rough breathing mark)

The neuter relative pronoun might be translated "whosoever;" the definite article cannot be.

The participle "the believing one" (which is essentially made plural by the "πᾶς) is a masculine singular participle. The relative pronoun that couples with a masculine singular noun is ὅς, not ὅ. ὅ is the relative pronoun that would be used for a neuter singular noun.

So, it is not possible to take ὁ as a relative pronoun because to do so would break the Greek grammatical rules related to gender. Therefore, this participle cannot be translated "whosoever believeth." The proper translation is "the believing one" or "the one who believes."

The text makes no statement in verse 16 as to how one came to believe (it actually does that earlier because "born again" is passive, meaning the subject cannot act upon himself and must be acted upon).

So, a general Arminian argument can be made from certain passages of scripture, this just isn't one of them.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[convicted1]

A seal to a polar bear fight? Yummy!

Actually, it is a grammatical impossibility to correctly translate it "whosever believes." And, as I mentioned, many of the modern versions kowtow to the KJV because John 3:16 is a beloved verse. By the way, this is not the only place where the KJV messes up this particular Greek construction.

Here is the phrase in question in the Greek:

ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν

Here's a translation: ἵνα (so that) πᾶς (all) ὁ πιστεύων (the believing ones) εἰς αὐτὸν (in Him)...

"The believing ones" is a Present Active Participle, Singular Nominative Masculine. This will be important later.

In Greek, there must be agreement with the article (ὁ, in this case) and the participle (πιστεύων, in this case). And, as it stands there is perfect agreement.

Some people, notably the translators of the KJV, have misread the article (ὁ) and have desired to read "ὁ"as the relative pronoun "whosoever."

But, here's the problem: In Greek the relative pronoun is this: ὅ

Here's where things get very tricky and very deep.

The masculine singular definite article in Greek is ὁ. (Notice the "rough" breathing mark...it looks like an apostrophe over the letter)

The neuter singular relative pronoun in Greek is ὅ. (Notice the accent mark next to the rough breathing mark)

The neuter relative pronoun might be translated "whosoever;" the definite article cannot be.

The participle "the believing one" (which is essentially made plural by the "πᾶς) is a masculine singular participle. The relative pronoun that couples with a masculine singular noun is ὅς, not ὅ. ὅ is the relative pronoun that would be used for a neuter singular noun.

So, it is not possible to take ὁ as a relative pronoun because to do so would break the Greek grammatical rules related to gender. Therefore, this participle cannot be translated "whosoever believeth." The proper translation is "the believing one" or "the one who believes."

The text makes no statement in verse 16 as to how one came to believe (it actually does that earlier because "born again" is passive, meaning the subject cannot act upon himself and must be acted upon).

So, a general Arminian argument can be made from certain passages of scripture, this just isn't one of them.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Like I said, you having studied this, and I haven't, I have no ammo to refute what you just said......neither would I try to in a rude way if I could. I do agree that the "believeing ones" are the ones who are saved.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Archangel:

Then again....I wouldn't really use John 3:16 to make an Arminian argument anyways. EVEN IF..."Whosoever Believeth" is accurate, that doesn't serve as a defeater for Calvinism anyways. Calvinism can easily be understood as consistent with a rendering of "Whosoever Believes". Similarly, Arminianism could be understood as consistent with the rendering you state is accurate as well. :thumbsup:

editted to add: I agree with what you said here

In reality, the verse, in the instance of the above example, says "all the ones believing." It makes no statement as to "whosoever" and, when properly translated, neither supports nor thwarts either the Arminian or Calvinist arguments.

 

[psalms109:31]

Whosoever believes is a very good translation, because of God so loved the world. God in His sovereignty had the Holy Bible translated that way.

The translation is there so many decide they want to fight generation after generation the translation that will always be there to haunt them.

I think it is ridiculous and is truly fighting against God.

Then when that truth comes out then they want to say when God says world He means the same world as men see it in other passages. This isn't man saying that He loved the world, sinners that He sent His son that whosoever will, whosoever or what ever you want to make your stand believes will be saved.

Jesus or John by the Holy Spirit said world, not the world that we as man know, but the world and everyone in it as He knows and we are all sinners.

Does that mean all will be saved no, that is where the whosoever believes come in.

We do not have to go to a mystery so we can plug in our own elect in there, it is whosoever believes.

If the argument was right there would of been a retraction a long time ago. God is not a God of confusion.

 

[saturneptune]

Like I said, you having studied this, and I haven't, I have no ammo to refute what you just said......neither would I try to in a rude way if I could. I do agree that the "believeing ones" are the ones who are saved.

Verily, verily, I say unto you and behold, thou shouldest change to the WVT (West Virginian Translation). For example, Genesis 1:1 says "Long before the first trailor was put on that mountain top over yonder, God created..........Then there is Genesis 2:24 that reads "A man shall leave his mother and father and marry his sister...." Then of course there is 2 Thes 3:10 "If a man shall not work, he shall collect food stamps and eat prime rib................."

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

A I think I have told you before....

Verily, verily, I say unto you and behold, thou shouldest change to the WVT (West Virginian Translation). For example, Genesis 1:1 says "Long before the first trailor was put on that mountain top over yonder, God created..........Then there is Genesis 2:24 that reads "A man shall leave his mother and father and marry his sister...." Then of course there is 2 Thes 3:10 "If a man shall not work, he shall collect food stamps and eat prime rib................."

SN...I think I have told you before...you sir....are incorrigible!:smilewinkgrin::laugh:
However..my personal favorite is the one about the trailor (which by the way you spelled WRONG) You being from KY...I would have at least figured you'd know how to spell trayler! Even guys like myself froom South Cacalacky no beter then taht!:tongue3:

Bro.Greg:type:

 

[convicted1]

Verily, verily, I say unto you and behold, thou shouldest change to the WVT (West Virginian Translation). For example, Genesis 1:1 says "Long before the first trailor was put on that mountain top over yonder, God created..........Then there is Genesis 2:24 that reads "A man shall leave his mother and father and marry his sister...." Then of course there is 2 Thes 3:10 "If a man shall not work, he shall collect food stamps and eat prime rib................."

:laugh::thumbs: That's a good'un right thar.


I heard that you also played on the Lona Oak Jr. High baseball team(from ages 26-35). Your nickname was "rally killer", because you only played when the team was up by a lot of runs, and to keep from running up the score, they'd put you in for an instant out....therefore the moniker "rally killer". They'd also put you in the infield because you were a bad fielder as well. Anytime you committed an error(pick one of about 3,000), you'd blame the infield wasn't smoothed out, there was a gravel, and you even blamed the sun for not fielding a grounder.

I heard that someone had to walk through the line for you at your Jr. High graduation because you knew that when they handed you the diploma(at age 35), you'd drop it.


Also, your valedictorian(special ed girl with the bird named "sammy") had her pet bird come up missing around thanksgiving one year, never to be seen again. The police knew it was you who took it and had dinner with it, but never could get the proof necessary to bring you to trial. They knew you were miffed at her because she wouldn't go out with you.....hey in Kentucky, it's kosher for a 35 y/o 8th grader to go out with a 13 y/o 8th grader, but she turned you down. You, being a CHRISTian at age 35, instead of giving her the bird, took it.