Salamander
New Member
Of course you are going to say this, if you say otherwise your whole system falls down. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, not exactly, God has it right and that's all the matters.
-
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!
KJV Mistake Question
- Thread starter Scott J
- Start date
- Status
Salamander
New Member
Nope, that's what the Bible says.
It is understood, by every person who reads the King Jameas that is saved: having the Holy Ghost as his quide into all truth.
No, I'm not "obfusing" anything, damnation is the result of partaking the Lord's Supper unworthily just as the passage clearly states.
Not, especially since God is capable of preserving His Word to all generations and Modern versions tend to be watered down in too many areas that the King James is NOT.
Nothing dishonest about proclaiming the Truth.
Well, do you?
And considering the context, the King James is still best.
Bob Dudley
New Member
Hi Brother Salamander, I think there are too many people posting - I didn't comment on the "damnation" question.
Nope, that's what the Bible says. </font>[/QUOTE] Nope. The learned Doc Cassidy answered this question sensibly. The understood meaning of the word has changed.
Which points out the danger of the KJVO error as illustrated by you. A modern definition is applied to a word that effectively changes the meaning of the Bible.
It is understood, by every person who reads the King Jameas that is saved: having the Holy Ghost as his quide into all truth. </font>[/QUOTE] Nope. God never promised to impart a 17th century vocabulary to everyone who gets saved.
You have aptly demonstrated the problem in your own post. You didn't understand the KJV and it led you to an erroneous assertion.
No, I'm not "obfusing" anything, damnation is the result of partaking the Lord's Supper unworthily just as the passage clearly states.</font>[/QUOTE] Except that it doesn't clearly state that with the understood definition of damnation today. Error breeds error.
This is why KJVO is contradictory to fundamentalism.
Not, especially since God is capable of preserving His Word to all generations and Modern versions tend to be watered down in too many areas that the King James is NOT. </font>[/QUOTE] Without even entering into the erroneous assertion about MV's... God has preserved His Word but not as you have demanded of Him.
And, in this particular case and without respect to general quality, the MV's have it exactly right with respect to modern English usage while the KJV has it wrong (though through no fault of the version or its translators... English has simply changed).
True... except that you aren't.
Well, do you?</font>[/QUOTE] Well, yes. I am not in the habit of saying things I don't mean.
I agree that it is one of the very best. But best and "only" are separated by an immense chasm of truth.
The assertion of best can be supported in many ways. The assertion of "only" cannot.
Yes, and they would be equally wrong.
If I judge myself and am saved, then when I partake of the fruit of the vine as representative of the Blood of Christ, then I cannot be drinking damnation to my soul.
If an unsaved person judges himself and then drinks unworthily, he does invite judgement, but definitely drinks damnation that will result in pending judgement to come.
I love the preciseness of the King James Bible, don't you?</font>[/QUOTE] Preciseness isn't apparent here. The word should be "judgment". The context is believers, not unbelievers... you should re-read it.
I have. I just led my SS class through this passage. I tried to use your reasoning... and it simply violates the context.Well you would, if you'd take time to think about these things!
I thought what Doc said was probably true... but didn't have a good resource to confirm it. So, I simply went to my resources that discuss the original Greek word and informed my class that this was to be understood as "judgment" and not damnation.
Salamander
New Member
have, and the context is what helps decide who is a true believer and those who only have a form of godliness/ church attendence, but deny the power thereof/ changed life, you should know that.
Every passage written to the believer is for his edification and admonishment. Every passage is also for instruction in righteousness and to convict both believer and unbeliever of sin. But are all also to reprove the works of darkness, of which the partaker of the Lord's Supper and one not discerning the Lord's Body, (as only a converted soul can), drinketh damnation as the end resulting into pending judgement; just as the passage states.
Remember the words of Christ, Matthew 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Then you unwittingly misled them. Try offering them ample opportunity without subjectivity?
The context of every passage of Scripture affirms the believer and condemns the sinner, just as I Cor 11:29 does. You seem to be limiting a two-edged sword to only one edge, friend. Besides, you're forming a false doctrine by trying to say this passage states a convert can become unconverted/lose salvation.
Now you might need to consider that judgement is often present, while damnation is pending judgement, because one is still alive, though spiritually dead in tresspasses and sins, and will not repent, yet he will be damned to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire, yet he is not yet judged..
I hope I may have helped you, but you're really grasping at straws to think that "damnation" doesn't fit the context.
Salamander
New Member
I admit he did make a sensible answer, but only a limited one, because although many try to change the Greek to condmen the KJB, the latter defintion still holds true.
The use of "damnation" separates the thought process from making the mistake of thinking in error.
Thanks for pointing out that modernism is so closely linked to apostacy that applying that error to attempt an efficacy upon the Word of God is changing the meaning of the Bible.
It does, and error does breed error, you have obviously got something backwards: modernism effectively misleads the understanding into a state of confusion over what the Bible really says.
You admit there is assertion of erroneous MV's. Thanks again.
God demands we accept His Word and that without changing it, that is why we are given the KJB that holds a discerning flame against all effects of modernism in that the old paths are established paths, and every new freeway allows faster passage but more horrendous accidents incurred. (Including yours demanding there is some "mistake")
Modernism also effects a hasty response as yours too. Your opinion isn't the authority here, but the Bible is. Since the KJB translators were correct timewise, then they are still correct today, by definition,
and according to Truth.
You consistently prove the dangers of modernism as a detour to the Truth already established.
OK, but you have developed a habit of misunderstanding that Truth already established doesn't change with every wind of doctrine either.
Best, not one of the best, concerning English that is, I have proven it countless times, but of course to many objections, but that is only by some one trying to promote modernism.
Yes, according to men, but according to God?
"Only" is only something demanded by many, but we both know that the Originals and everything since them that agrees with them,
and does not contradict itsself in it's very pages,
would then become ONLY the Word of God. thus the KJB being "only"? No, we have many texts that do not disharmonize the Word, but then we have many,many, many more available today that do.
I
would be admonished to think that the devil would be in
the practice of mass production in the attempt to dissolve the true identity of the Original, being I am wise to his devices.
The KJB is just plain reliable, just as we can rely upon God to preserve His Holy Bible.
Salamander
New Member
BTW< Please excuse me for answering your previous post second.
Then you unwittingly misled them. Try offering them ample opportunity without subjectivity?</font>[/QUOTE] "Without subjectivity"? You mean like the purely erroneous and subjective assertion that the KJV must be right because it must be right?
Sorry, but God chose specific men speaking specific languages to reveal His Word. If I had my rathers then maybe He would have written it in English... but He didn't consult either one of us. So we are left to either show respect for His choices or to try and foist ours on Him.
He chose Greek, not English, for 1 Corinthians. The meaning of the Greek is therefore authoritative above the English... of any translation or time.
Nope. I am arguing the opposite. We've had our calvinist v arminian run-ins before... and calvinists like me don't believe a believer can lose their salvation.
The problem is that a plain reading of the KJV with today's definition of "damnation" indicates that you can.
BTW, you are obfuscating again concerning to the context. You are trying to generalize the context rather than dealing with the direct implications of the immediate context. The specific section of 1 Cor 11 this text appears in is related to believers who take communion unworthily, not unbelievers.
Notice the words used, "you" and "we". Paul is referring to those in the Corinthian church as well as those he would call "we", ie believers.
Verses 30 and 31 virtually demand that verse 29 refer to believers who face the judgment of chastisement and not unbelievers who face condemnation. Why would God chastise unbelievers for eating the bread and drinking the cup? They aren't His.
No. Frankly Sal, I think you are grasping at straws to preserve an unbiblical belief in KJVOnlyism.
I am not encumbered by that false belief and have no reason not to accurately inform my class that the proper understanding is "judgment" and to warn them that if we don't reflect on Christ's sacrifice, our salvation, and our relationship to Him especially when observing the Lord's Supper then we are subject to chastisement and perhaps even death... because that is what the passage teaches.
This has nothing to do with modernism... nor do the faithful translations of the Bible made since the KJV. Modernists aren't any less opposed to the NASB as they are the KJV... They don't respect God's Word period.
What can lead to misunderstandings is applying modern understandings of word definitions to 17th century word usage... you have demonstrated that.
Salamander:God demands we accept His Word and that without changing it,
Then, how come that there are no two English Bibles alike, old or new?
that is why we are given the KJB that holds a discerning flame against all effects of modernism
The KJV was as modern a Bible in its day as there was in any language. And you cannot prove that it is the apex of God's provision of His word to us.
in that the old paths are established paths,
Then, why did the KJV "correct" the Bishop's Bible?
and every new freeway allows faster passage but more horrendous accidents incurred.
So according to your analogy, we should abandon aircraft and Interstate highways?
According to the KJVO doctrine, there is a "line" of English Bibles that culminates in the KJV. This could only be true if the language itself hadn't changed since the early 1600s. The reality is that the language HAS changed, and that the line of English Bibles continues. This is the fact of reality as opposed to the guesswork and wishful thinking of the advocates of a certain doctrine.
Then, how come that there are no two English Bibles alike, old or new?
that is why we are given the KJB that holds a discerning flame against all effects of modernism
The KJV was as modern a Bible in its day as there was in any language. And you cannot prove that it is the apex of God's provision of His word to us.
in that the old paths are established paths,
Then, why did the KJV "correct" the Bishop's Bible?
and every new freeway allows faster passage but more horrendous accidents incurred.
So according to your analogy, we should abandon aircraft and Interstate highways?
According to the KJVO doctrine, there is a "line" of English Bibles that culminates in the KJV. This could only be true if the language itself hadn't changed since the early 1600s. The reality is that the language HAS changed, and that the line of English Bibles continues. This is the fact of reality as opposed to the guesswork and wishful thinking of the advocates of a certain doctrine.
IveyLeaguer
New Member
FWIW: I love the KJV, it is an outstanding translation, and my personal favorite.
Here's a relatively unknown KJV mistake: Deuteronomy 32:8 "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel."
The correct translation, I believe the evidence shows, is "according to the number of the sons of God". Interestingly enough, of the 30 translations I have (my Moffatt is not with me), only the ESV gets it right.
The thing is this is a very important scripture. Some scholars believe many of the KJV translators actually knew the correct translation, but lacking understanding of its significance, chose the standard translation in order to 'protect' the MSS, and the Word of God as a whole. This view I hold to be the most likely.
IMHO, the correct translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 opens up the OT writings like nothing else. It also explains and accounts for much of human history. As if that isn't enough, it also sheds light on NT and current events and eschatology.
Though there are many others, particularly in the 20th century, it is also a terrific example, I believe, of the infallibility of the Word of God. As it turns out, there was never any need to 'protect' God's Word - though it could not be seen at the time.
There's more scholarship available but a very well written paper on the subject is linked below. I highly recommend it to everyone, especially those who have never studied Hebrew (as I had not) - it's a great read. Just don't lose patience, it gets easier as it goes along and it makes the complicated application of ancient Hebrew seem simple, that's how well-written it is. This is a PDF file.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the sons of God
Here's a relatively unknown KJV mistake: Deuteronomy 32:8 "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel."
The correct translation, I believe the evidence shows, is "according to the number of the sons of God". Interestingly enough, of the 30 translations I have (my Moffatt is not with me), only the ESV gets it right.
The thing is this is a very important scripture. Some scholars believe many of the KJV translators actually knew the correct translation, but lacking understanding of its significance, chose the standard translation in order to 'protect' the MSS, and the Word of God as a whole. This view I hold to be the most likely.
IMHO, the correct translation of Deuteronomy 32:8 opens up the OT writings like nothing else. It also explains and accounts for much of human history. As if that isn't enough, it also sheds light on NT and current events and eschatology.
Though there are many others, particularly in the 20th century, it is also a terrific example, I believe, of the infallibility of the Word of God. As it turns out, there was never any need to 'protect' God's Word - though it could not be seen at the time.
There's more scholarship available but a very well written paper on the subject is linked below. I highly recommend it to everyone, especially those who have never studied Hebrew (as I had not) - it's a great read. Just don't lose patience, it gets easier as it goes along and it makes the complicated application of ancient Hebrew seem simple, that's how well-written it is. This is a PDF file.
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and the sons of God
I believe you're right, Ivey, up to a point. This is speaking of a time before Israel(Jacob) was born.
However, God had already decided upon how He was gonna divide the land as each nation grew large enough to have its own land, and, of course, this included the future nation of Israel.
However, God had already decided upon how He was gonna divide the land as each nation grew large enough to have its own land, and, of course, this included the future nation of Israel.
IveyLeaguer
New Member
Yes, good point, roby.
Another good point. Sure, He had already decided, from eternity past I suppose. If I understand it correctly, physical Israeli territory was not set aside, but conquered, and of course, Israel's God is not one of the 70 deities (which are created and fallen angels of high rank) over the nations.
The reading "angles of God" is found only in the Septuagint which is based on the Vorlage Hebrew text. And even then there is only one Vorlage manuscript which so reads.
The reading "sons of God" is found only in a few minor LXX manuscripts and in a scribal gloss in a commentary by Aquila.
The Septuagint reading, "according to the number of the angels of God," is of no critical value, - in fact, is probably nothing more than an arbitrary interpretation based on the late Jewish notion of guardian angels watching over the different nations (See: The Jewish Encyclopedia, Angelology, Guardian of the Nations), which probably originated in a misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 4:19, as compared with Daniel 10:13, 10:20-21, 12:1.)
The readings "angels of God" and "sons of God" are both spurious and without merit.
The reading "sons of God" is found only in a few minor LXX manuscripts and in a scribal gloss in a commentary by Aquila.
The Septuagint reading, "according to the number of the angels of God," is of no critical value, - in fact, is probably nothing more than an arbitrary interpretation based on the late Jewish notion of guardian angels watching over the different nations (See: The Jewish Encyclopedia, Angelology, Guardian of the Nations), which probably originated in a misunderstanding of Deuteronomy 4:19, as compared with Daniel 10:13, 10:20-21, 12:1.)
The readings "angels of God" and "sons of God" are both spurious and without merit.
IveyLeaguer
New Member
I've never heard "angels of God", though I guess it's the same thing - interesting.
Did you read Heiser's paper? If so, I'd be very interested in what you disagree with generally - and specifically as well, when you have the time.
Thanks.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Where in the article that you gave us the link to does it suggest that there is a “translation” error in the KJV at Deut. 32:8? As the article points out, there are a multitude of difficulties to be considered in establishing the most likely genuine text of Deut. 32:8-9 and several difficulties to be considered in establishing the most correct translation of the various readings of the text.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
That is a very bold and audacious statement for one to make unless one has the academic background to back it up. And those who do have that academic background would not make such a rash statement.
IveyLeaguer
New Member
Point well taken. I agree. It's been two years or so since I read it, but without looking at it 'error' might not be the right description. Thanks.
What did you think of the paper?
- Status