Damnation?

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Personally, I don’t accept the blanket statement that modern translations are to be discarded because they perhaps have some defects. This is in the very same attitude of the King James translators who said even the worst (meanest) of them are the Word of God. In this they were correct and I agree with them. In fact one of their favorites was the Latin vulgate of the Mother Church, The Church of Rome.
--------------------------------------------------

Thank you Hank for answering some of my questions. I am still confused as to why you neglect the translators comments upon the corrupt texts from Alexandria? These are the very texts that the translators themselves made mention of, and to which they were in no way referring to being of the "meanest" translations. The KJB translators were referring to the "meanest" of the line of the TR, not the Alexandrian texts. In fact, the KJB translators quite often referred to "their" bibles to "our" Bibles, specifically in referrence to the Roman Catholic Church as opposed to the Protestant. The "meanest" translations were according to those from the same stream of texts. And the KJB translators also made it known that they were not the meanest, but that they were good, to which they were only making better. Modern version Bibles are based upon those texts that the KJB translators acknowledged being corrupt. The KJB translators knew of them, and rejected them. There is a difference between a mean translation, and a corrupt one. The KJB translators were against corruptions. Read the full preface and editors notes. They make this quite clear.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Are you now saying that these people don't "have all their marbles"?
Why is it an insult? You agree with them concerning "easter", etc.

--------------------------------------------------

No, what it is saying is that we don't, for virtue of the implication that we are their disciples and follow every thing that they have said and believe, just because they believe it. That we believe everything they say and believe blindly (implying we do not think the matter out first our own selves), and follow them blindly as their disciples, even though many of us do not even know or agree with everything they believe. I believe only what the scriptures say. I test everything to what God has said in the scriptures. The link I gave the other day was one that I recently found and purposely searched for one that would mirror exactly what I was shown by the Lord in the scriptures prior to reading this article and the debate, concerning the word Easter, and because I wasn't explaining it that well. I do not believe this, because some man/woman has said so. I believe this based upon the scriptures and what the Lord has shown me regarding this. To blankly label us as being a Ruckmanite, or Riplinger disciple says that we follow them and their teachings, rather than God. We do not. We follow the good Shepard, who is Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. It is stupid to follow man, and not Christ Jesus.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by michelle:
the corrupt texts from Alexandria?

MVs were derived from them. Also the W/H text.

The KJV was derived from the accurate texts from Antioch.

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by michelle:
Modern version Bibles are based upon those texts that the KJB translators acknowledged being corrupt. The KJB translators knew of them, and rejected them. There is a difference between a mean translation, and a corrupt one. The KJB translators were against corruptions.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Absolutely yes! Correct! These KJV translators' quailification is higher THAN anyone today. They understood these MSS, but these translators risked their life. If one translator, for example, did wrong, he must be put to DEATH! Today none! Why?

 

[natters]

Askjo said "These KJV translators' quailification is higher THAN anyone today."

Says who? BTW, the KJV translators did NOT have access to many manuscripts available today. Some hadn't been discovered yet, some were unavailable for their examination.

Askjo said "They understood these MSS, but these translators risked their life. If one translator, for example, did wrong, he must be put to DEATH! Today none! Why?"

What are you talking about????

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by michelle:
The language isn't changing, but rather many people do not understand it

So, "to suffer" still means to allow, "to prevent" means to precede, and "to let" means to hinder?

It should be noted that the KJV translators did NOT consider their work to be something revolutionary, but simply a revision of the Tyndale version (see the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 112). The difference in how the language changed in just 75 years (the time between the Tyndale and the KJV) was dramatic. Dr. Sattergood updated the KJV 71 years later to make it current for the readers of his day. Dr. Blayney updated the KJV 86 years after Sattergood's revision to make it current for his day. Those KJVOists who claim "400 years" of preservation with the KJV are quite mistaken. At best, the only claim that comes close would be one of 235 years. Revision of the KJV has been ongoing, as demonstrated by Blayley and Sattergood. That there has been 235 years since the Blayney revision only argues that the English of the KJV should have been updated many years ago. The gradual falling away from the use of the KJV during the last 65 years lends credence to the need to update its language as has been done in the past, contrary to the footstomping of the KJVOists.

[ August 16, 2004, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[natters]

michelle said "I am still confused as to why you neglect the translators comments upon the corrupt texts from Alexandria?"

The LXX was from Alexandria. They said it was corrupt, but that it was still the word of God. They also said that it pleased the Lord to have it made, and that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to have the early church use it.

Which comments were you referring to?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I tried to show you where some of these problems were “baptize with water” should be “baptize IN water”, the improper use of “bishop” ,etc but you calumniated me in return (as a compromiser of error) as did the Anglican bishops who perpetrated atrocities upon us (dissenters against the Church of England) before you.
--------------------------------------------------


What you tried to show me was what you thought was an error, and what you assume to be the bias of the translators views evidenced in the translation. I tried to show you how your assumption was wrong. You took that as an insult to your intellect and Hebrew and Greek language abilities. I am sorry for that, but the truth is that how the KJB translated that is correct. One is baptized with water, but one is also baptized with the Holy Spirit. We are not baptized with wine, or vinegar, or dirt, or any other such thing, but water, just as we are baptized with the Holy Spirit. We are not baptized with familiar spirits, or evil spirits, etc. The word "baptize" denotes the "submersion/immersion in" a liquid substance and the word "with" denotes "as a result of" or "by means of" water and the Holy Spirit. We are not immersed in in water, nor are we immersed in in the Holy Spirit. We are immersed in as a result of/by means of water or we are immersed in as a result of/by means of the Holy Spirit. We are immersed in the faith of the Son of God who is our Saviour as a result of/by means of the Holy Spirit.

As for you objection to the term "Bishop" Lacy answered this for you, and even gave you a link to look up.

You are trying to state errors in God's words that are not at all errors.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
michelle said "I am still confused as to why you neglect the translators comments upon the corrupt texts from Alexandria?"

The LXX was from Alexandria. They said it was corrupt, but that it was still the word of God. They also said that it pleased the Lord to have it made, and that it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to have the early church use it.

Which comments were you referring to?
--------------------------------------------------


The following:


--------------------------------------------------
7 Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by.
• 8 It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men?
• 9 Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations as though they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.
• 10 This may be supposed to be some cause, why the translation of the Seventy was allowed to pass for current.
• 11 Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no, not of the Jews.
• 12 For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the authors whereof were not known.
• 13 These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.
• 14 Howbeit the edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen, (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathereth) [Epiphan. de mensur, et ponderibus.] but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries. [See S.August. 2°. de doctrin, Christian. c. 15° Novell, diatax, 146.]
• 15 Yea, Epiphanius above-named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof not only for interpreters, but also for prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperor, enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were, as it were, enlightened with prophetical grace. [profhtikhV wsper caritoV perilamyashV autouV.]
• 16 Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet [Isa.31:3] to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome [S.Hieron. de optimo genere interpret.] affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
• 17 This may suffice touching the Greek translations of the Old Testament.


.......


11 The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?
• 12 Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and the most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.
• 13 And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics, forsooth, were the authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so.
• 14 We are sure Tertullian [Tertul. de præscript. contra hæreses.] was of another mind: Expersonis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Do we try men's faith by their persons? we should try their persons by their faith.
• 15 Also S.Augustine was of another mind: for he, lighting upon certain rules made by Tychonius, a Donatist, for the better understanding of the Word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S.Augustine's third book De Doctrinâ Christianâ. [S.August. 3. de doct. Christ. cap. 30.]
• 16 To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the translation of Aquila, a proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined them together with the Hebrew original, and the translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.
• 17 But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.
--------------------------------------------------

from the link:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm#s11


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[natters]

michelle, yes that's what I was talking about. Here is some of the text you quoted, with bold added to reflect my comments:

7 Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house, or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by.
• 8 It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work as the Apostles or apostolic men?
• 9 Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to them to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true and sufficient) rather than by making a new, in that new world and green age of the Church, to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations as though they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.


.......


11 The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?
• 12 Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and the most learned men to confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the Word of God.


They also said "it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal."

Yes, the LXX is quite corrupt. No one disputes this. It much more dislike the KJV than "modern versions" are. Yet the KJV translators, despite recognizing its great imperfections, still called it "the word of God".

 

[HankD]

The KJB translators were against corruptions. Read the full preface and editors notes. They make this quite clear.

Everyone is against "corruptions" michelle, IMO you have been sold a bill of goods as I have said before.

Does anyone here on the BB want corrupted texts?

The Douay-Rheims Church of Rome Bible is word for word the same as the AV1611 in about 80% of the NT passages.

However the Douay-Rheims came out about 30 years before the AV1611, guess who copied who?

In fact they brought over the unique vulgate RCC readings and the Apocrypha intact without missing a Roman/alexandrian "jot" or "title".

How's that for avoiding corruptions?
And just to remind you again people went to jail for complaining about the Apocrypha. Believers were tortured and put to death by King James for dissenting against the King James Bible and/or the Church of England.

John Bunyan (Pilgrims Progress) spent 12 years in prison (though he had 5 children, one of them blind) because He resisited the crown baptising believers by immersion "in water", preaching with out a Church of England license, holding worship services not in accord with the rules and liturgy of the worship of the Anglo-Catholic Church of England, etc, etc.

Your opinions are your own and the Church of Rome/England and not from God about baptism from the departure of the pure Word of God of the original language texts as well as the blunder of "pascha" to "easter" to appease King James.

The error of the KJV "with the Spirit" instead of the greek reading of "in the Spirit" in Matthew 3:11 has facilitated the error of the charismatic movement.

Yes, I know some baptists support the word "bishop" in the KJV but I don't and neither did the dissenters against the romish Church of England and their bejewled Bishops who split the noses and cut off the ears of anabaptists who dared speak against the Church of England definition of "bishop".

that's the price they were willing to pay to keep the purity of the Word of God. Others in the 21st century seem happier to invade chat rooms and promote strife.

Many of these atrocities happened after 1611, so they must be relevant (in your words).

While I realize the same problems and no doubt to greater extent exist from translations from the Alexandrian uncials, you are in a state of denial concerning the fact that those same problems existed in the KJV with the added sin of the bloodshed of believers perpetrated by certain "bishops" on the KJV high council.


HankD

 

[michelle]

Why are you ignoring these comments?


--------------------------------------------------

• 11 Notwithstanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no, not of the Jews.
• 12 For not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fifth and a sixth edition, the authors whereof were not known.
• 13 These with the Seventy made up the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.
• 14 Howbeit the edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen, (for the worth and excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathereth) [Epiphan. de mensur, et ponderibus.] but also was used by the Greek fathers for the ground and foundation of their commentaries. [See S.August. 2°. de doctrin, Christian. c. 15° Novell, diatax, 146.]
• 15 Yea, Epiphanius above-named doth attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof not only for interpreters, but also for prophets in some respect: and Justinian the Emperor, enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were, as it were, enlightened with prophetical grace. [profhtikhV wsper caritoV perilamyashV autouV.]
• 16 Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet [Isa.31:3] to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit: so it is evident, (and Saint Hierome [S.Hieron. de optimo genere interpret.] affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were interpreters, they were not prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
• 17 This may suffice touching the Greek translations of the Old Testament
--------------------------------------------------


and ......


--------------------------------------------------
16 To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the translation of Aquila, a proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined them together with the Hebrew original, and the translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.
• 17 But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.
--------------------------------------------------


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
John Bunyan (Pilgrims Progress) spent 12 years in prison (though he had 5 children, one of them blind) because He resisited the crown baptising believers by immersion "in water", preaching with out a Church of England license, holding worship services not in accord with the rules and liturgy of the worship of the Anglo-Catholic Church of England, etc, etc.

--------------------------------------------------


These things have nothing whatsoever to do with the translation of the KJB, to which is the word of God in our language.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Your opinions are your own and the Church of Rome/England and not from God about baptism from the departure of the pure Word of God of the original language texts as well as the blunder of "pascha" to "easter" to appease King James.

--------------------------------------------------

This is due to you lack of understanding the scriptures due to not rightly dividing the word of God.

As for your comment on baptism, this is your own fault for not understanding what Baptism really is. It might be good for you to reference:

Acts 8

35. Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by michelle:
Origen

He was an unChristian.

 

[HankD]

These things have nothing whatsoever to do with the translation of the KJB, to which is the word of God in our language.

They have everything to do with it michelle because this is King Henry (who founded the Church of England and I can get you the name of the document if you want) and King James and the Church of England through whom God "AUTHORISED" (so say the KJVO) the Holy Spirit to flow through (in spite of the blood on their hands) to give us the "pure" words of God.

Let me repeat, the King James Bible is a translation of the inspired Word of God, inspired by derivation from the texts written by "HOLY" men of God and not the likes of King Henry, King James and/or the KJV High Council who shed the blood of believers.

HankD

 

[superdave]

They do speak directly to the theological heresy of the church that translated the AV. As Dr. Bob calls it the Anglican Version of the word of God

Or are we not supposed to concern ourselves with the theology and morals of the translators as long as they faithfully and accurately translate the word of God?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Let me repeat, the King James Bible is a translation of the inspired Word of God, inspired by derivation from the texts written by "HOLY" men of God and not the likes of King Henry, King James and/or the KJV High Council who shed the blood of believers.

HankD
--------------------------------------------------

Those Greek and Hebrew texts were copies of the origionals and to which were also translated into other languages including our own. They are still the inspired words of God, regardless of what language they are in. God speaks to me in my own language, not a foreign one that I do not understand.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[HankD]

This is due to you lack of understanding the scriptures due to not rightly dividing the word of God.

As for your comment on baptism, this is your own fault for not understanding what Baptism really is. It might be good for you to reference:

Yes, yes michelle I know that I'm ignorant you've told me so many times, how could I forget, but I do at least know that about myself.

You forgot verse 38-39

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water

The Bishops did manage to get it right here michelle.

HankD

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Or are we not supposed to concern ourselves with the theology and morals of the translators as long as they faithfully and accurately translate the word of God?
--------------------------------------------------

If you want to know what the KJB translators thought of the word of God specifically and their love for Jesus Christ, and their beliefs, read the preface to the KJB of 1611. Then do a comparison of the translators of the ERV of 1881 preface, and while your at it, check out Westcott and Hort and those before them involved of their morals and beliefs, and concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and you will see a very big difference.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle