But your tried and true KJV does exactly the same, differs with other versions in hundreds of places as well as differs from the Greek and Hebrew. Since you have chosen that standard to reject the MVs, you must also reject the KJV for the same reason.
-
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!
Jeremiah 8:8 the pen of the scribes is in vain
- Thread starter Will J. Kinney
- Start date
My 2 cents:
NAS Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
This to me is the closest to a literal translation of the Hebrew.
This indicates to me that this is referring to what became know as midrash or talmudic commentaries and interpretations of the law (torah). Jesus called them the commandments, traditions and precepts of men.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Scribes became keepers and perpetuators of these writings as well as the copies of the originals come down from Moses and the Prophets.
Also, possibly of scribes who consorted with the "false prophets among the people" in manufacturing false prophetic documents and/or altering legitimate copies of Scripture.
Why the KJV is not exacly square on this passage is anyone's guess.
Perhaps because the Hebrew says literally "of the pen of the lie of the scribes", they felt a literal translation would impune the righteous scribes as well as the liars who forged and altered His Word.
My opinion of course.
HankD
NAS Jeremiah 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.
This to me is the closest to a literal translation of the Hebrew.
This indicates to me that this is referring to what became know as midrash or talmudic commentaries and interpretations of the law (torah). Jesus called them the commandments, traditions and precepts of men.
Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Scribes became keepers and perpetuators of these writings as well as the copies of the originals come down from Moses and the Prophets.
Also, possibly of scribes who consorted with the "false prophets among the people" in manufacturing false prophetic documents and/or altering legitimate copies of Scripture.
Why the KJV is not exacly square on this passage is anyone's guess.
Perhaps because the Hebrew says literally "of the pen of the lie of the scribes", they felt a literal translation would impune the righteous scribes as well as the liars who forged and altered His Word.
My opinion of course.
HankD
Hank,
I think you got it exactly right.
I think you got it exactly right.
timothy 1769
New Member
This indicates to me that this is referring to what became know as midrash or talmudic commentaries and interpretations of the law (torah).
one problem is that these teachings were only passed down orally till well after jesus' time, according to today's orthodox jews at least. in any event i suppose that people might have taken personal notes.
one problem is that these teachings were only passed down orally till well after jesus' time, according to today's orthodox jews at least. in any event i suppose that people might have taken personal notes.
That is why I said "became know as" the midrash/talmud.
It is uncertain as to when these interpretations first began to be written down and then at some later time codified.
That is also why I added the part about the possibility of scribes which forged manuscripts and altered others.
HankD
It is uncertain as to when these interpretations first began to be written down and then at some later time codified.
That is also why I added the part about the possibility of scribes which forged manuscripts and altered others.
HankD
timothy 1769
New Member
That is why I said "became know as" the midrash/talmud.
It is uncertain as to when these interpretations first began to be written down and then at some later time codified.
at the time this scripture was written, likely the oral law was still, well, oral
so it wouldn't make sense to refer to pens, imo. assuming jewish tradition can be trusted on this matter, of course. who can say?
That is also why I added the part about the possibility of scribes which forged manuscripts and altered others.
very insightful possibility, given your translation.
It is uncertain as to when these interpretations first began to be written down and then at some later time codified.
at the time this scripture was written, likely the oral law was still, well, oral
That is also why I added the part about the possibility of scribes which forged manuscripts and altered others.
very insightful possibility, given your translation.
Dear HankD,2/3rds of what Satan told Eve was truth.The Douay-Rheims came from Catholic Manuscripts, and the translators were talking about Bibles( ENGLISH ) by men of their profession,not RC's;to think that the Bible that came from the texts of the protestant reformation is on the same level as somthing from RC texts is a deviation from the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]You know JYD- sometimes I wonder if you aren't really an anti-KJVO intent on making KJVOnlyism look foolish.
The D-R was translated from the Latin Vulgate and was referenced by the KJV translators.
The Bible used by Baptists which owes the most to the RCC is the KJV. The TR came from an RCC scholar who used the Latin Vulgate along with a few late mss to develop the TR. In fact, the original TR was interlinear with the Latin Vulgate.
The Alexandrian texts which you so quickly malign originated before the Dark Ages and the worst of RCC heresies. In fact, the oldest Alexandrian mss were probably affected less by the infant RCC.
None of this makes the Alexandrian text better, it simply makes your claim that they are Catholic or more Catholic than the KJV/TR, emphatically false.
AV Defender
New Member
Yep,Jerome's Latin Vulgate.Have you studied Church history egnough to know what kind of fruit it produced? including the D-R? The D-R(the persicution of Christians,Inquisition,ect.) is a Catholic Bible;everything from 1881 on reads just like it.
Yep,Jerome's Latin Vulgate.Have you studied Church history egnough to know what kind of fruit it produced? including the D-R? The D-R(the persicution of Christians,Inquisition,ect.) is a Catholic Bible;everything from 1881 on reads just like it. </font>[/QUOTE]75% of the KJV was taken directly from it, fact. Not baseless conjecture like you post above about "everything from 1881 on."
The Bible currently used by Baptists with the most owing to the RCC is the KJV, hands down, period... even the Church of England was only a generation removed from the RCC. Remember, they separated from Rome not because of doctrinal issues but because the Pope would not grant a divorce to the English king.
AV Defender
New Member
Where is the proof that the KJB translators copied from somthing outside the TR.Like I said before,poly-versions must look legit in order to $ell.
I think you are so deep in the kool-aid you don't know what flavor it is;Everything produced with the intentions of replacing the KJB from 1881 on is a RC bible,based on RC Alexandrian texts,bar none.
[ March 13, 2003, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: JYD ]
neal4christ
New Member
Except for the NKJV and a couple of others. I guess you just forgot them.
Neal
But JYD, so does the KJV read "just like it" (the DR) produced by the Church of England who persecuted Baptists.
Shouldn't we use the same standard for all, the Church of Rome as well as the Church of England?
KJV John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Douay-Rheims John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.
8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.
9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.
10 He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.
Among the major translations The Douay-Rheims, The KJV and the NKJV include the Johannine Comma as Scripture. None of the other major MVs from 1881 and later "read just like it" (concerning 1 John 5:7-8).
No extant Alexandrian text, bar none (to use your own words) includes the Johannine Comma.
So where did the RCC get 1 john 5:7 if it is based upon Alexandian manuscripts?
Douay-Rheims 1 John 5
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world. And this is the victory which overcameth the world: Our faith.
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth.
7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.
KJV 1 John 5
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
[6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
HankD
AV Defender
New Member
The D-R was produced by Catholics(not to be confused with the protestant Bibles) who had to flee England due to persicution.The D-R is a Catholic Bible.To compare Bibles that came from the protestant texts of the reformation with Bibles that are Catholic, is a pretty desperate attempt to try and shake the faith of Bible believers; that is nothing but incoherant drivel!
[ March 14, 2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]
Dear JYD,
My point is that the DR has its roots in the Old Itala translation manuscripts used by the persecuted early Church.
The Latin Vulgate included 1 John 5:7 from them NOT from the Alexandrian mss (although some believe that there were supporting Greek manuscripts used for the Vulgate).
The Waldenses and other dissenter churches grew out of the persecuted early church which used the Old Itala.
Another point JYD, it is difficult to build a case from English translations because they are all different (including the several KJV editions and revisions) in words, grammar and syntax because in reality every translation is by definition an "equivalent" of the original language down to the words, syntax and grammar.
I will say this, that if God did grant translational inspiration to the Church of England, then you are correct concerning the doctrine of the radical KJVO group. But which edition or revision of the KJV?
And even of greater importance, what does that make the Church of England who persecuted our forefathers?
It makes them the "true" Church (like the Church of Rome insists they are) and that we are heretics worthy of the cruel deaths which they inflicted upon our spiritual forefathers.
But a case can be built from the different text types of the original language where there can be no question as to "equivelance" or the specific words selected in translation or transforming the grammar from Greek to English.
The only real problem is the faithful reproduction of the words back to the original autographs.
I, like you feel that the Alexandrian texts are defective. However others of like mind (conservative) and faith do not.
Somehow you believe that those who promote MVs are not sincere in their desire to know the Word of God or worst are in league with the devil.
Is that within the realm of possiblity? Yes according to the Scripture, it is.
However, by scriptural standards there seems to be considerable evidence that there are tares among the KJVO as well (I don't mean you).
Peace to you brother...
HankD
My point is that the DR has its roots in the Old Itala translation manuscripts used by the persecuted early Church.
The Latin Vulgate included 1 John 5:7 from them NOT from the Alexandrian mss (although some believe that there were supporting Greek manuscripts used for the Vulgate).
The Waldenses and other dissenter churches grew out of the persecuted early church which used the Old Itala.
Another point JYD, it is difficult to build a case from English translations because they are all different (including the several KJV editions and revisions) in words, grammar and syntax because in reality every translation is by definition an "equivalent" of the original language down to the words, syntax and grammar.
I will say this, that if God did grant translational inspiration to the Church of England, then you are correct concerning the doctrine of the radical KJVO group. But which edition or revision of the KJV?
And even of greater importance, what does that make the Church of England who persecuted our forefathers?
It makes them the "true" Church (like the Church of Rome insists they are) and that we are heretics worthy of the cruel deaths which they inflicted upon our spiritual forefathers.
But a case can be built from the different text types of the original language where there can be no question as to "equivelance" or the specific words selected in translation or transforming the grammar from Greek to English.
The only real problem is the faithful reproduction of the words back to the original autographs.
I, like you feel that the Alexandrian texts are defective. However others of like mind (conservative) and faith do not.
Somehow you believe that those who promote MVs are not sincere in their desire to know the Word of God or worst are in league with the devil.
Is that within the realm of possiblity? Yes according to the Scripture, it is.
However, by scriptural standards there seems to be considerable evidence that there are tares among the KJVO as well (I don't mean you).
Peace to you brother...
HankD
Will J. Kinney
Member
Larry, I drop in every once in awhile to see what is going on. I noticed a couple of your comments.
"Let Larry have his multiple, contradictory versions. He can have them. I'll stick with the tried and true KJB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry says: "But your tried and true KJV does exactly the same, differs with other versions in hundreds of places as well as differs from the Greek and Hebrew. Since you have chosen that standard to reject the MVs, you must also reject the KJV for the same reason.
Larry, could you give us an example of where you think the KJB does not follow the Greek or the Hebrew? I would be interested in your examples. Just one of each will do. Thanks.
Larry says regarding Jeremiah 8:8: "Looking at the words in the Hebrew, I am curious as the why the KJV translated it the way they did. I am not being argumentative here in the least. I am simply curious what their reasoning was. Hopefully some of you guys who study the KJV can give some reason for this."
Larry, as I understand it, the word "in vain" is what your nasb has as "lying". However, your NASB as well as the NIV have both translated this word as "in vain" and as "useless" in other places. It is a matter of interpretation. The NASB sees it one way and the KJB another. Not only does the KJB translate it as I pointed out, but so do the Hebrew translations of 1917 and 1936 - and that is their native tongue.
Both meanings cannot be what God intended, since they are opposite in meaning.
Will
"Let Larry have his multiple, contradictory versions. He can have them. I'll stick with the tried and true KJB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry says: "But your tried and true KJV does exactly the same, differs with other versions in hundreds of places as well as differs from the Greek and Hebrew. Since you have chosen that standard to reject the MVs, you must also reject the KJV for the same reason.
Larry, could you give us an example of where you think the KJB does not follow the Greek or the Hebrew? I would be interested in your examples. Just one of each will do. Thanks.
Larry says regarding Jeremiah 8:8: "Looking at the words in the Hebrew, I am curious as the why the KJV translated it the way they did. I am not being argumentative here in the least. I am simply curious what their reasoning was. Hopefully some of you guys who study the KJV can give some reason for this."
Larry, as I understand it, the word "in vain" is what your nasb has as "lying". However, your NASB as well as the NIV have both translated this word as "in vain" and as "useless" in other places. It is a matter of interpretation. The NASB sees it one way and the KJB another. Not only does the KJB translate it as I pointed out, but so do the Hebrew translations of 1917 and 1936 - and that is their native tongue.
Both meanings cannot be what God intended, since they are opposite in meaning.
Will