AV, you need to take a different look at inspiration. Take a look at Titus 1:12, "One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." Was the source inspired which mentioned Creatans are always liars? It is a quote and now is inspired by the fact that it is in the NT which is inspired.
-
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!
Continued:Presuppositionalism and KJV Onlyism
- Thread starter AV
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps you do not understand what I am trying to say. Just because something in the NT is quoted from a non-inspired text does not then make the original quote inspired. A translation of an inspired text does not make the translation inspired.
For example just suppose Spanish was the inspired language of the OT and in one passage of a text is the question Como estas and another has Como esta? The English translation is the same for both questions--How are you? But the translation does not come close to accurately conveying the true meaning and impact of the questions. The same thing happens in Greek and other languages. But then suppose I quote that translation and include it in an English text. Will that translation accurately convey the meaning of the source of the original question? Absolutely not.
Languages are tied to culture. To understand a language one must understand the culture in which it came from. For example to translate agapao as love and phileo as love is to completely miss the accurate meaning of those two words in their similarities and differences. Those two words overlap in meaning but the English translation defines both of them the same--love.
You need to stop here a minute. We translate from Greek: Period. We translate from Greek to English; from Greek to French; from Greek to German; from Greek to Arabic, etc., etc. Why do you say that we would have to translate back to Greek again. That sounds kind of ludicrous?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Because if we don't give the Greek speaking people in the world today a true Bible translated from the KJV back into Greek they won't have a real Bible. lol
OK guys, sorry I couldn't resist. I'll not post for a while and sit quietly in the corner and read your posts!!!
gb93433,
You said:
"Not all sources of the quotes in the NT are inspired"
Again, no one imagined anything like that here. This is what I thought you meant.
You again say:
"A translation of an inspired text does not make the translation inspired."
Not by necessary deduction, but when the omnipotent God instructs us to teach 'in all nations' of 'all things whatsoever I have commanded' (Mt.28:19-20) I think the task can be carried out. And these things 'which the Holy Ghost teacheth' are in words (1Cor.2:13) easy to be understood, otherwise how shall it be known what is spoken? Ye shall speak into the air (1 Cor.14:9). Thus we expect God to deliver to us his book of words in no uncertain sound or barbarian unto us.
Finally you add:
"Will that translation accurately convey the meaning of the source of the original question? Absolutely not."
This of course is because you suppose from the start that something is always lost in any translation, and this is what you are expected to prove. Maybe you can narrow the field by giving us one sentence out of the bible that did accurately convey the meaning and how you know this. Like perhaps 'Jesus wept', what was or was not lost here? How do you know? Because of the absolute 'you always lose something' law? Is it even possible for you to give us an example of something lost in translation, when you must by definition (yours) lose something? In other words if it is lost how can you demonstrate (convey) that it was lost (unable to be conveyed) to us now in English, without conveying it in English? I would like some clarification please.
And finally the second time, when the New testament quotes the Old testament, is this an example of an infallible translation that defied your law and lost nothing in the translation?
Thanks,
AV
You said:
"Not all sources of the quotes in the NT are inspired"
Again, no one imagined anything like that here. This is what I thought you meant.
You again say:
"A translation of an inspired text does not make the translation inspired."
Not by necessary deduction, but when the omnipotent God instructs us to teach 'in all nations' of 'all things whatsoever I have commanded' (Mt.28:19-20) I think the task can be carried out. And these things 'which the Holy Ghost teacheth' are in words (1Cor.2:13) easy to be understood, otherwise how shall it be known what is spoken? Ye shall speak into the air (1 Cor.14:9). Thus we expect God to deliver to us his book of words in no uncertain sound or barbarian unto us.
Finally you add:
"Will that translation accurately convey the meaning of the source of the original question? Absolutely not."
This of course is because you suppose from the start that something is always lost in any translation, and this is what you are expected to prove. Maybe you can narrow the field by giving us one sentence out of the bible that did accurately convey the meaning and how you know this. Like perhaps 'Jesus wept', what was or was not lost here? How do you know? Because of the absolute 'you always lose something' law? Is it even possible for you to give us an example of something lost in translation, when you must by definition (yours) lose something? In other words if it is lost how can you demonstrate (convey) that it was lost (unable to be conveyed) to us now in English, without conveying it in English? I would like some clarification please.
And finally the second time, when the New testament quotes the Old testament, is this an example of an infallible translation that defied your law and lost nothing in the translation?
Thanks,
AV
Problem is that so many people in Christ do not know the seriousness of manipulation in the monority texts and in the septuagynt.
The right texts have been embodied in KJV the most accurately but there is a certain need for updating the language.
If there had been any other modern version than KJV which is so much faithful with Words of God preserved in MT/TR as KJV, we would have competitive alternatives and would not have any problem with any only-ism.
I checked with Luther's Bible and noticed Acts 12:4 has different wording for Passover as Volks fest(folks feast)there, which was expressed as Osterfest in other 28 spots.
In English, as far as I have checked, I have never encountered any other version than KJV which translate Paska into Easter different from Passover, in Acts 12:4. Problem is that such modern version do not explain why Acts 12:3 has Days of Unleavened Bread earlier than Passover.
Aleady we dealt with this in other threads where I mentioned that Ishtar festival was much popular for the kings and for the upper class people at that time which occur 1 day after Passover and finished 1 day later but the focus was in the later part of 8 days for the Orgy's, including Ishtar Sunday.
Also, we discussed on 1 John 5:7 where no one could explain the fatal grammatical error in next verse, if not Johannine COMMA there.
Only a few English versions including KJV have this.
I already pointed out the problems with NKJV, NASV in other threads.
If there arises any really accurate Bible competitive to KJV or better than KJV in the contemporary English, then this matter will be settled down.
Until then KJV itself carries the problem with Language Update plus some minor vocabulary issues.
The right texts have been embodied in KJV the most accurately but there is a certain need for updating the language.
If there had been any other modern version than KJV which is so much faithful with Words of God preserved in MT/TR as KJV, we would have competitive alternatives and would not have any problem with any only-ism.
I checked with Luther's Bible and noticed Acts 12:4 has different wording for Passover as Volks fest(folks feast)there, which was expressed as Osterfest in other 28 spots.
In English, as far as I have checked, I have never encountered any other version than KJV which translate Paska into Easter different from Passover, in Acts 12:4. Problem is that such modern version do not explain why Acts 12:3 has Days of Unleavened Bread earlier than Passover.
Aleady we dealt with this in other threads where I mentioned that Ishtar festival was much popular for the kings and for the upper class people at that time which occur 1 day after Passover and finished 1 day later but the focus was in the later part of 8 days for the Orgy's, including Ishtar Sunday.
Also, we discussed on 1 John 5:7 where no one could explain the fatal grammatical error in next verse, if not Johannine COMMA there.
Only a few English versions including KJV have this.
I already pointed out the problems with NKJV, NASV in other threads.
If there arises any really accurate Bible competitive to KJV or better than KJV in the contemporary English, then this matter will be settled down.
Until then KJV itself carries the problem with Language Update plus some minor vocabulary issues.
And capturing him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four sets of four soldiers to keep him; intending to bring him out to the people after the Passover. (MKJV)
4 So when he had arrested him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover. (NKJV)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (KJV)
There are other alternatives: MKJV and NKJV. The old KJV is not the only Bible that is translated from the majority text, or from the TR. We do have a choice today. If fact in most third world countries that I have been in the KJV is almost non-existent. The NKJV is available as the only Bible that comes from the TR. All the other English translations are MV's translated from the critical text, and their Bibles that are translated into their national langauges are almost always from the critical text. Very few nations have Bibles translated from the TR.
The United Bible Society, once the British Bible Society, has done a marvellous job in getting the Word of God into other nations. Unfortunately the text that they base their translations on is the critical text. The same holds true for the Wycliffe Bible translators. There is not a great deal of translational work going on among those who believe that the Bible should go into every nation translated from the TR.
And, furthermore, no missionary is going to teach another nation (like Chinese for example) Shakespearean English, in order to teach them the Bible.
DHK
[ January 01, 2006, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]
4 So when he had arrested him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover. (NKJV)
4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (KJV)
There are other alternatives: MKJV and NKJV. The old KJV is not the only Bible that is translated from the majority text, or from the TR. We do have a choice today. If fact in most third world countries that I have been in the KJV is almost non-existent. The NKJV is available as the only Bible that comes from the TR. All the other English translations are MV's translated from the critical text, and their Bibles that are translated into their national langauges are almost always from the critical text. Very few nations have Bibles translated from the TR.
The United Bible Society, once the British Bible Society, has done a marvellous job in getting the Word of God into other nations. Unfortunately the text that they base their translations on is the critical text. The same holds true for the Wycliffe Bible translators. There is not a great deal of translational work going on among those who believe that the Bible should go into every nation translated from the TR.
And, furthermore, no missionary is going to teach another nation (like Chinese for example) Shakespearean English, in order to teach them the Bible.
DHK
[ January 01, 2006, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]
Guys,
I appreciate the posts, but I am hoping to avoid much of the blow for blow specific complaints and focus more on the presuppositional aspect. Basically if the bible verses must be authenicated one by one based on various forms of scientific investigation then science must prop up the veracity of the bible. This is a problem for the presuppositional method.
What say ye?
AV
I appreciate the posts, but I am hoping to avoid much of the blow for blow specific complaints and focus more on the presuppositional aspect. Basically if the bible verses must be authenicated one by one based on various forms of scientific investigation then science must prop up the veracity of the bible. This is a problem for the presuppositional method.
What say ye?
AV
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Ah what might work in theory will not work
in practice. So let us just go back to
the impractial theory?
in practice. So let us just go back to
the impractial theory?
To carry out the great commission has been done in many communist countries without a complete Bible.
To say that a translation can always convey the full meaning of the original text is false for one main reason. Languages are tied to culture and historical context.
Just in our lifetime take for example the words “gay” and “computer”.
Since you asked for one verse I will give you two but there are many more. Almost every first class conditional sentence in the NT is translated as a third class conditional sentence in English.
Fir example James 1:5 is a first class conditional sentence and the English reflects a third class conditional sentence. The same thing is true of James 1:26. So many times in the English translation the word since “should” be used instead of “if”
James 2:2 is a third class conditional sentence. See any difference between the first class conditional sentences in James 1:5, 26 compared to a third class conditional sentence in James 1:26. There is a huge difference in the meaning between a first class conditional sentence and a third class conditional sentence.
Being limited to English is like using a 10 watt light bulb to light up a room. Knowing and understanding Greek is like using a 100 watt light bulb to light up a room. Having a decent handle of Greek prevented many doctrinal disputes while I was pastoring.
Another simple example is found in Ex. 3:14, “4 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, `I AM has sent me to you.” The verb tense for “"I AM WHO I AM" is in the imperfect tense which is an incomplete action. But the English translates it as a perfect tense verb.
I do understand exactly where you are coming from because I struggled with that many years ago. The way I resolved that was to think about the word of God as a living, breathing message such as Heb. 4:12 describes.
Heb. 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
The word of God is still active today and not a dead message. It is vibrant and alive and doing its work. God will use whatever He wants. Certainly he uses a translation. But He does not use a wrong message done by a wrong translation which really is not a translation at all.
Simply put if those of us who have studied the biblical languages found it a waste of time would never recomend it because it requires a lot of study time and effort. In fact when I was in seminary languages took 1/2 of my time devoted to studies each week while it comprised about 1/6 of my total number of units toward graduation.
Ed,
The 'impractical theory' is downgrading to God. It says that man does not need God to be in all his thoughts (Ps.10:4), and the fear of the LORD is not the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Prv.1:7,9:10). Man can lean unto his own understanding and not acknowledge God in all his ways (Prv.3:5-6).
Basically man looks at the bible and says 'Let me look into this thing and see if it really is the word of God'. Van Til showed how the fear of the LORD really is the beginning of wisdom, because the would be, self flattering sinner is in no position to 'take a look' at the word of God and judge it for truthfulness. He needs the Christian God to be real in order that his use of logic and science can be justified. If he cannot make any judgment about any fact, he cannot even identify a fact unless the bible is true.
So what do the newly wedded scholars and oldest most reliables bring into the equation? They inform us that the bible must be examined to determine whether or not every verse is valid. Lets use the latest in scientific thought to determine the authenticity of each portion of scripture. Thereby reinstituting the self styled would be autonomous sinner as judge of the infallible word of God Almighty.
It seems to me that presuppositionalism is only consistent with the 'received text, singular book of the Lord, final authority' approach to the real world. And the 'everyman construct and translate his own bible for himself' (Judg.21:25) approach to the real world, is consistent with the modern versions and modern Laodiceans full of their own ways and ready to be spued out of the mouth of the Lord.
What sayest thou?
The 'impractical theory' is downgrading to God. It says that man does not need God to be in all his thoughts (Ps.10:4), and the fear of the LORD is not the beginning of wisdom and knowledge (Prv.1:7,9:10). Man can lean unto his own understanding and not acknowledge God in all his ways (Prv.3:5-6).
Basically man looks at the bible and says 'Let me look into this thing and see if it really is the word of God'. Van Til showed how the fear of the LORD really is the beginning of wisdom, because the would be, self flattering sinner is in no position to 'take a look' at the word of God and judge it for truthfulness. He needs the Christian God to be real in order that his use of logic and science can be justified. If he cannot make any judgment about any fact, he cannot even identify a fact unless the bible is true.
So what do the newly wedded scholars and oldest most reliables bring into the equation? They inform us that the bible must be examined to determine whether or not every verse is valid. Lets use the latest in scientific thought to determine the authenticity of each portion of scripture. Thereby reinstituting the self styled would be autonomous sinner as judge of the infallible word of God Almighty.
It seems to me that presuppositionalism is only consistent with the 'received text, singular book of the Lord, final authority' approach to the real world. And the 'everyman construct and translate his own bible for himself' (Judg.21:25) approach to the real world, is consistent with the modern versions and modern Laodiceans full of their own ways and ready to be spued out of the mouth of the Lord.
What sayest thou?
gb93433,
I made this request:
"Maybe you can narrow the field by giving us one sentence out of the bible that did accurately convey the meaning and how you know this."
I think the examples you gave :
"So many times in the English translation the word since “should” be used instead of “if”...But the English translates it as a perfect tense verb."
Seem to be more in line with this request for clarification:
"Is it even possible for you to give us an example of something lost in translation, when you must by definition (yours) lose something? In other words if it is lost how can you demonstrate (convey) that it was lost (unable to be conveyed) to us now in English, without conveying it in English? I would like some clarification please."
If that is the case you only demonstrated that they can be conveyed in English. I am seeking for detail related to your claim that something is always lost. Is it even possible to demonstrate something lost in translation without translating it and destroying the claim that you always lose something?
You again state:
"To say that a translation can always convey the full meaning of the original text is false for one main reason. Languages are tied to culture and historical context.
Just in our lifetime take for example the words “gay” and “computer”."
The bible transcends culture and history by design of God, so I don't think it is appropriate to try and constrain his words with superficial reasons about language barriers. The bible is to be taken as a unit. If you study to show yourself approved, and search the scriptures as they are designed you will save yourself from such trivialities. For example someone earlier complained about the KJV rendering of Luke 14:26 'hate'. If they studied the bible as a unit not from personal private interpretation they would have located Genesis 29:30-31 and perhaps have had a different perspective
And finally you completely avoided this question:
"when the New testament quotes the Old testament, is this an example of an infallible translation that defied your law and lost nothing in the translation?"
Thanks for your clarification,
AV
I made this request:
"Maybe you can narrow the field by giving us one sentence out of the bible that did accurately convey the meaning and how you know this."
I think the examples you gave :
"So many times in the English translation the word since “should” be used instead of “if”...But the English translates it as a perfect tense verb."
Seem to be more in line with this request for clarification:
"Is it even possible for you to give us an example of something lost in translation, when you must by definition (yours) lose something? In other words if it is lost how can you demonstrate (convey) that it was lost (unable to be conveyed) to us now in English, without conveying it in English? I would like some clarification please."
If that is the case you only demonstrated that they can be conveyed in English. I am seeking for detail related to your claim that something is always lost. Is it even possible to demonstrate something lost in translation without translating it and destroying the claim that you always lose something?
You again state:
"To say that a translation can always convey the full meaning of the original text is false for one main reason. Languages are tied to culture and historical context.
Just in our lifetime take for example the words “gay” and “computer”."
The bible transcends culture and history by design of God, so I don't think it is appropriate to try and constrain his words with superficial reasons about language barriers. The bible is to be taken as a unit. If you study to show yourself approved, and search the scriptures as they are designed you will save yourself from such trivialities. For example someone earlier complained about the KJV rendering of Luke 14:26 'hate'. If they studied the bible as a unit not from personal private interpretation they would have located Genesis 29:30-31 and perhaps have had a different perspective
And finally you completely avoided this question:
"when the New testament quotes the Old testament, is this an example of an infallible translation that defied your law and lost nothing in the translation?"
Thanks for your clarification,
AV
When the Bible says
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
For all have sinned is an accurate translation. No meaning is this. It is the same in the Greek, the KJV, and even the mv's. It is a basic truth that you will find in any Bible. However, in the rest of the verse, as accurately as the KJV may have translated "and come short of the glory of God," the meaning of the phrase in Greek is not perfectly portrayed in English, no matter what version you use. "Coming short of the glory of God" has the sense of missing the mark. When one sins they have missed the mark that God has set (His glory). They have fallen short of that mark. They have missed it. They have sinned. There is meaning that is lost in translation. It cannot be perfectly translated. Meaning is always lost in translation--that is, in going from one translation to another. Obviously we can communicate with each other from different linguistic backgrounds so no here is saying "All" meaning is lost. There is not so much meaning that is lost that any doctrine is greatly affected. But meaning is lost in that one's understanding of the Bible is affected. Numerous examples of this have been given in the past. Definitions of words such as "unicorn," "baptism." "church," etc.
I realize this isn't directed to me. But I think you are misunderstanding what is being said. "Something is always lost" generally speaking. I gave you a good example. I also gave you another example (on page one) with Paul quoting Isa.28:11,12 in 1Cor.14:21. Was something lost? Absolutely! The quote was partial. It wasn't accurate. Things were changed within the quote, and yet the quote (as it was quoted) was inspired inspite of all of the changes, simply because it is recorded in the New Testament. It is the New Testament that is inspired in this case, not Paul's rendition of the Old. In the same way, I quote the Bible as my authority, not my explanation of what the Bible says.
It has been amply demonstrated that the culture is so intrically tied to the language that without going back to the language there are many things that would be impossible for the average reader (KJVO especially) to understand. Let me ask you (at this Christmas season) What was happening when:
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
--And you know the rest of the story--why Mary and Joseph ended up in Bethlehem, and then in a stable. But why? For the reason of taxation. That is what the KJV says. But that is not what the Greek actually conveys. It wasn't a tax at all. It was a census that was being taken.
Luke 2:1-2 But it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census should be made of all the habitable world. The census itself first took place when Cyrenius had the government of Syria. (DARBY)
Most people overlook this fact entirely as their little children recite the "Christmas story" from the KJV and enact it in a play, portaying the taxation of Mary and Joseph. There was no tax. But then how would you know that if you never went to the Greek? There is an obvious loss of meaning in translation, if not here an obvious error in translation. How important is it, to check the original source and not to confine oneself to a translation that is not inspired, and cannot be infallible.
Whatever is quoted from the Old Testament is inspired (in the original Greek Manuscript) simply because it is in the original Greek manuscript, and for no other reason. Meaning is often lost in translation (as I have poinnted out to you in 1Cor.14:21). That is a now a moot point when considering the New Testament, for all that is recorded in the New Testament is inspired.
In the New Testament:
Paul quotes from various prophets.
Paul quotes from a Greek poet.
Paul quotes from a Cretian philosopher.
Jude quotes from an uninspired apocryphal book, the Book of Enoch.
None of the original sources (apart from the OT Prophets): Greek poetry, Cretian philosopy, or the Book of Enoch are inspired works. But God inspired those portions of that which was quoted once it was recorded as Scripture.
Here are two important things to consider:
1. Here is the traditional definition of "inspiration" which was never really challenged until just recently when the KJVO movement came along.
Notice in this definition that it is the influence of the Holy Spirit on the writers of Our Sacred Books not the translators. It has never been disputed that only the original manuscripts are the inspired Scriptures.
2. But inspiration is different than "Preservation."
God has promised to preserve his Word. What God did not tell us is how he would preserve His Word and we have no right to presume upon God that we know better than He on how He has preserved His Word. How arrogant of man to say to God "Thank you for presrving your word in the KJVO." You don't know that. It is as arrogant as saying: "Thank you Lord for lying to me." The simple fact is that God never said to anyone of us HOW he has preserved His Word; he only promised that he would preserve it. Personally, to even think that he would preserve it in a translation is a bigoted and arrogant view that excludes 90% of the world's population.
God has preserved His Word. It is only natural to assume that it is preserved in the original languages that it can be translated (as accurately as is humanly possible) into every language of every nation, which is a part of the great commission (teaching them all things).
DHK
The Bible is a unit made up of many books and passages which are set in a historical context at a point in time. The application and message of the Bible transcends time, culture, and history but its correct interpretation is always past tense. However some messages do not even apply to today so they are always tied to the past and are never applied to today. Scripture must always be interpreted in light of it historical context.
"when the New testament quotes the Old testament, is this an example of an infallible translation that defied your law and lost nothing in the translation?" No translation is completely accurate and faithful to the original text. Parts of a translation may be an accurate translation but they are small in number. The Greek and Hebrew use idiomatic expressions which mean nothing to an English speaker. To be accurately translated so that it has the same meaning to an English speaking person can be very difficult and sometimes virtually impossible.
Problem is that even among the Bibles based on TR, only KJV separated between Passover and Easter (Ishtar Festival) and there are some more spots like that even though I feel they are far better than any other MV's.Originally posted by DHK:
There are other alternatives: MKJV and NKJV. The old KJV is not the only Bible that is translated from the majority text, or from the TR. We do have a choice today. The NKJV is available as the only Bible that comes from the TR. All the other English translations are MV's translated from the critical text, and their Bibles that are translated into their national langauges are almost always from the critical text. Very few nations have Bibles translated from the TR.
The United Bible Society, once the British Bible Society, has done a marvellous job in getting the Word of God into other nations. Unfortunately the text that they base their translations on is the critical text.
And, furthermore, no missionary is going to teach another nation (like Chinese for example) Shakespearean English, in order to teach them the Bible.
DHK
If there were no UBS today, maybe the much more people could have learned about Jesus because there would be more chances for the people to read the correct bible KJV. Such flood of MV's have produced the millions of Fake Christians.
It is not too difficult for the foreigners to read KJV English if they have a certain passion for the truth. In any case they start to read Bibles in their own language first.
DHK,
You bring up this contention:
"It has been amply demonstrated that the culture is so intrically tied to the language that without going back to the language there are many things that would be impossible for the average reader (KJVO especially) to understand. Let me ask you (at this Christmas season) What was happening when:
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
--And you know the rest of the story--why Mary and Joseph ended up in Bethlehem, and then in a stable. But why? For the reason of taxation. That is what the KJV says. But that is not what the Greek actually conveys. It wasn't a tax at all. It was a census that was being taken."
I take issue with this, why do you think they were 'taking a census'? So they could determine if the number of represenative in Congress was fair? No, come on, the Romans were only concerned with who was who to extract taxes from them. They probably had the census records from some prior time (example-2 Sam.24:9), and wanted to make sure everyone was counted and no revenue was missed. If they were only counting people, why would they have to return to their own city? Would the Romans be concerned where you lived in order to count you? I trow not. It seems to me that 'taxation' make better sense in the context.
As far as the inspiration/ preservation comment, I don't really know anyone who believes the KJV translators were moved by the Holy Ghost in the same fashion as the orignal writers spake. I think most of us believe that it is inspired in the sense that it is spirit and it is life, as the words of Christ. It is given by inspiration and we are begotten again by it, and it effectually works in us who believe.
But when you claim that God gives us no indication of how his words will be preserved, I take issue again. Are you saying that the bible itself is no indication? If God in the bible preserved his words in books by his priests, that were accessible to his people as opposed to scraps scattered abroad, would this be of no significance to us today? Not written for our sakes? Not profitable for our doctrine? Again, I trow not. And you have yet to refute this point.
And no one is asserting it is preserved to us English folk to the exclusion of everyone else. Even if someone was saying that we have an infallible translation in English, but everyone else around the world has translations as accurate as DHK thinks they are. Why would you be upset with what they think the rest of the world has, since it agrees with you? Are you only mad because they don't think the English people have a good translation instead of a perfect one? And that they should think less of their translation like everyone else?
You bring up this contention:
"It has been amply demonstrated that the culture is so intrically tied to the language that without going back to the language there are many things that would be impossible for the average reader (KJVO especially) to understand. Let me ask you (at this Christmas season) What was happening when:
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
--And you know the rest of the story--why Mary and Joseph ended up in Bethlehem, and then in a stable. But why? For the reason of taxation. That is what the KJV says. But that is not what the Greek actually conveys. It wasn't a tax at all. It was a census that was being taken."
I take issue with this, why do you think they were 'taking a census'? So they could determine if the number of represenative in Congress was fair? No, come on, the Romans were only concerned with who was who to extract taxes from them. They probably had the census records from some prior time (example-2 Sam.24:9), and wanted to make sure everyone was counted and no revenue was missed. If they were only counting people, why would they have to return to their own city? Would the Romans be concerned where you lived in order to count you? I trow not. It seems to me that 'taxation' make better sense in the context.
As far as the inspiration/ preservation comment, I don't really know anyone who believes the KJV translators were moved by the Holy Ghost in the same fashion as the orignal writers spake. I think most of us believe that it is inspired in the sense that it is spirit and it is life, as the words of Christ. It is given by inspiration and we are begotten again by it, and it effectually works in us who believe.
But when you claim that God gives us no indication of how his words will be preserved, I take issue again. Are you saying that the bible itself is no indication? If God in the bible preserved his words in books by his priests, that were accessible to his people as opposed to scraps scattered abroad, would this be of no significance to us today? Not written for our sakes? Not profitable for our doctrine? Again, I trow not. And you have yet to refute this point.
And no one is asserting it is preserved to us English folk to the exclusion of everyone else. Even if someone was saying that we have an infallible translation in English, but everyone else around the world has translations as accurate as DHK thinks they are. Why would you be upset with what they think the rest of the world has, since it agrees with you? Are you only mad because they don't think the English people have a good translation instead of a perfect one? And that they should think less of their translation like everyone else?
gb93433,
You stated:
"However some messages do not even apply to today so they are always tied to the past and are never applied to today. Scripture must always be interpreted in light of it historical context."
This is slightly off topic but do you have examples of this phenomenon, I am curious.
AV
You stated:
"However some messages do not even apply to today so they are always tied to the past and are never applied to today. Scripture must always be interpreted in light of it historical context."
This is slightly off topic but do you have examples of this phenomenon, I am curious.
AV
So you are insinuating people that have any Bible other than the KJV are going to be unsaved or spiritually shallow at the best. How ridiculous. I got saved by someone leading me to the Lord through the "Good News For Modern Man." I had that for about a year, until someone gave me a "Living Bible," which I read for another few months. The Lord used both of those "paraphrases" in my life, even though I speak today against to the point where I myself don't even consider them Bible's but man's opinion about what the Bible is saying (i.e., a paraphrase). But those where the only "Bibles" I had for the first two years of my Christian life. Are you going to tell me that I wasn't saved; that my Christian life was very shallow. You know nothing of me. Remember that. You don't know how much I grew as a Christian during those first two years of my Christian life. It would be wise for you to put brain in gear before computer in motion.
DHK
- Status