Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
It is an excellent paper. Thank you for posting it!
-
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
IveyLeaguer
New Member
What do you make of it?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Michael Heiser is a gifted but somewhat eccentric Old Testament scholar (see some of his other writings for the substantiation of my belief that he is a tad bit on the eccentric side). From my point of view, the value of this present article is largely in the data that he pulls together and less in his analysis of the data, as interesting and thought provoking as it is. I believe that the conclusion that he draws from the data and his analysis of it is quite reasonable, but I believe that he is too dogmatic in writing,Originally posted by IveyLeaguer:
What do you make of it?
‘In light of the evidence, there exists no textual or theological justification for preferring the MT reading. Deuteronomy 32:8 should read "sons of God," not "sons of Israel."’
IveyLeaguer
New Member
Actually, I concur with your analysis of Heiser, save that I'm not certain he is too dogmatic about Deuteronomy 32:8. The data itself was an impressive thing, I couldn't help but notice, either. I like Heiser because his eccentricities are maintained within orthodoxy (at least as far as I know).
I thought his case quite compelling. But that's as far as I can go with it given my limitations of Greek & Hebrew, notwithstanding other scholarship on the point (some of which I've read), and to the extent that the Holy Spirit sheds light.
I sure would like to know the thoughts of the ESV translators re. Deuteronomy 32:8-9.
Salamander
New Member
Uhoh, you forgot that God's plan didn't include Jacob until AFTER he became Israel!
Salamander
New Member
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.
Talking 'bout subjectivity! No, God chose to inspire some one who spoke Greek to pen down I Cor with a full understanding of Hebrew, and those who understood both, coupled with their understanding of English to translate the Bible into English.
"Damnation" ONLY carries a negative conotation that harmonizes with the other negative UNworthily.
"Judgement" rather carries either positive or negativity and could fit the context, but "damnation" fits the context alot more accurately.
I can receive judgement in my favor, BUT no one ever receives damnation in their favor.
English 102
The KJB has it right, again. That is why so many "prefer" and those who are "only" stick with the KJB. And since the heading of this forum designates anyone having either preference or the only stance as being KJVO, I, and you, would both be KJVO.
Your arguement lacks substance, though it is very subjective.
Yes.
No.
The first statement is biblical. The original writers were marked as prophets and Apostles by God. He validated them and their writings.
The KJV translators did not qualify biblically to receive inspiration. Period. They simply didn't. In fact, some taught false doctrines including Andrewes who supervised the translation committee. He taught that communion was both sacrament and sacrifice (after the false RCC doctrine of resacrificing Christ in the Mass).
What they were was very good but also very fallible human translators.
You should take this as an opportunity to check your beliefs rather than distorting the text to make it agree with your beliefs.
The context is believers that take communion unworthily. All you have to do is read this scripture in context and there can be little doubt of it.
Simply put NO. The context is that the believer should examine themselves. If they don't then they face judgment or chastisement. Some had died or gotten sick as a result. The conclusion is that believers should judge (ie examine) themselves so they won't be judged/chastised.
You are simply twisting. It is obvious that the judgment in question is not being presented positively.
Only if one bought into your twisted, text manipulating reasoning. I don't.
Doc Cassidy has a legitimate point. You don't. If take by today's definition, "damnation" would be an error in this context. Anyone who reads it with today's definition will derive a false meaning from it unless they intentionally read a presupposition that believers can't lose their salvation into the text... but we are supposed to be about deriving our beliefs from scripture not distilling scripture into supporting our presuppositions.
That's an interesting statement... but NO. Nothing you wrote proves anything other than you will even distort context and the very words of the KJV in order to maintain your false KJVO beliefs.
Uhoh, you forgot that God's plan didn't include Jacob until AFTER he became Israel!
</font>[/QUOTE]Uhoh, you forgot that he was chosen by God before he was born, & the plan was in place before any of the principals were born. And no one knew Jacob would be called Israel until GOD revealed it.Salamander
New Member
Uhoh, you forget, that Jacob was chosen as Israel and never as Jacob.
Salamander
New Member
Wrong. You have our Merciful,Longsuffering God taking vengence against one's ignorance. The context is that those regarding the Body of Christ should be found worthy by the Blood of Christ alone. Those unworthily partaking, yet believers, not being blood-washed, are drinking damnation.
You should learn that many are only professing Christians without repentence. The passage teaches a continual repentence as the mode of Christian life.
Now you're writing into the passage a penal sense of chastisement tio try and justify your notion, which is only a notion and very dishonest.
As our English language demands harmonizing of verbage to make emphatic sense, and anything else is illiteracy, of which the ideal you propose is definitely illiterate.
Try dealing with the issue instead of inventing other ideals by suggesting something wrong with my beliefs. Mine are Biblical, your's are less than contextual in intent and biased in the beginning of your objection.
You fail countless times to understand the context by limiting the koine Greek of that day to not be definable as damnation, but only by your modernistic belief that the Greek word can only mean judgement as only you define it.
You fail miserably again.
Salamander
New Member
Only one problem with that lie: Today's definition includes both damnation and judgement, you've even said so yourself. Besides, antiquity over-rides modernism.
There is no presupposition that many believe but are not born again as evidenced by a life of contiual repentence.
Modern English cannot deny ancient understanding, unless modern English is a deception in it's origen.
Hmmm? Reminds me of something I read before, "Hath God said?"
1Co 5:1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you,
This "fornication" can be either physical or spiritual, as in "Whoring after other Gods".
not discerning showing no respect, for the lord's supper will bring chastisement/Condemnation of a believer, God only chastises his own, (saved),
And the "Condemnation" can result in the flesh being given to satan, (damnation) but not the soul.
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Turning either the flesh/souls over to satan is "Damnation",
The KJ got it right, the "DEEP" meaning of scripture isn't always obvious.
This "fornication" can be either physical or spiritual, as in "Whoring after other Gods".
not discerning showing no respect, for the lord's supper will bring chastisement/Condemnation of a believer, God only chastises his own, (saved),
And the "Condemnation" can result in the flesh being given to satan, (damnation) but not the soul.
1Co 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Turning either the flesh/souls over to satan is "Damnation",
The KJ got it right, the "DEEP" meaning of scripture isn't always obvious.
Only one problem with that lie: Today's definition includes both damnation and judgement, you've even said so yourself.</font>[/QUOTE] No. I trusted the learned Doc Cassidy when he said that the terms were synonomous in the early 17th century.
The original word has contextual definitions... like the word "word" does or even the term "judgment".
Based on what? Cite your scripture.
Please show through any means at all that the word choice OPINIONS of 17th century Anglo-catholic scholars are superior with regard to modern English diction to current conservative, fundamentalist Bible scholars like the ones who worked on the NKJV or NASB.
Your statement is so grossly ridiculous that I a surprised that you didn't catch yourself before posting it.
Something being old doesn't make it right or wrong. Just old.
True. But not relevant to the text. Paul didn't call pretenders "brethren".
That statement makes no sense.
Modern understanding can contradict "ancient" understanding with regard to English. Definitions change. Usage changes. Common understanding changes.
1 Cor 11 was not intended to indicate that one of the "brethren" could suffer damnation but rather chastisement. But a person with a good grasp of contemporary English could easily derive a false meaning from the word "damnation".
Your mental gymanastic not withstanding, you dishonor the KJV itself by not recognizing the truth of Doc Cassidy's statement and the falsehood of your KJVO presuppositons.
Me too... since you are the one who is twisting the words of the version you claim to revere in order to preserve a wholly unbibilical and false belief about that particular translation.
Correct.
Let's get this straight. You equate damnation with destruction of the flesh without rhyme or reason then promote that as an apology for "damnation" in 1 Cor 11.
You would be better off just to accept what the learned Doctor had to say and acknowledge that some of the KJV's words have changed in ways that can lead to misunderstandings. Through no fault of the version or its translators, modern readers can read it and get a different understanding than the one communicated in the original inspired writings.
There needs to be an update, comparison of translations, or at least enough study to understand that "damnation" here doesn't mean "damnation" as the modern reader understands it.
Ummmm, No.
What you posted isn't obvious because it isn't there.
The KJV itself translates this Greek word "judgment" 12 or 13 times. The proper answer given by Doc Cassidy recognizes that "damnation" had an expanded definition in 1611.
It is wrong to attempt to change the meaning of this scripture to accommodate KJVOnlyism the way you and Sal have done. These are actions that dishonor God's Word and the KJV translation of it.
Salamander
New Member
You've got that backwards: "Doc" recognises something, but it is correct to understand the Greek as "damnation" in context, again.
M4H has it right, but only to the degree applied to the born again. Now if we consider the REST of the Bible, specifically with that well-known account of the life and times of Judas Iscariot, we'll LEARN what and why the word in English is CORRECTLY translated as "damnation".
The question, "Did Judas partake of the original institution of the Lord's Supper?"
Yes.
Did Judas partake worthily?
No.
Was Judas saved?
NO!
Did Judas drink damnation to his soul?
Definitely! He went and hung himself and his insides were burst asunder, going to his own place, that place being hell.
Right! ( if that is what either of us had done, but we did NOT!)
The only problem is that we didn't change anything. M4H applied one edge of the Sword, you made reference as if one can understand the passage as if one could lose their salvation, I offered the other side accurately according to harmony and the word defined correctly.
All you have done is present an enigma, but the Truth has it's way of exposing error.
Your assumption could only hold true if we didn't have the account of Judas Iscariot, something which any Christian of that day would soon learn of, being he it was who betrayed the Lord.
Judas drank damnation to himself, alright, just as anyone who rejects Christ and then betrays Him in the same fashion as Judas: that is a clear precept found within the pages of our Bible, why it's even found in your fav version, but the problem occurs in the mistranslation due to corrupting the Greek in a fashion that is intended to try and corrupt the emphatic and unadultereated TRUTH!
Main Entry: 1damn
Pronunciation: 'dam
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): damned; damn·ing /'da-mi[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English dampnen, from Old French dampner, from Latin damnare, from damnum damage, loss, fine
transitive senses
1 : to condemn to a punishment or fate; especially : to condemn to hell
Main Entry: pun·ish·ment
Pronunciation: 'p&-nish-m&nt
Function: noun
1 : the act of punishing
2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
Main Entry: 1fate
Pronunciation: 'fAt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin fatum, literally, what has been spoken, from neuter of fatus, past participle of fari to speak -- more at BAN
1 : the principle or determining cause or will by which things in general are believed to come to be as they are or events to happen as they do : DESTINY
2 a : an inevitable and often adverse outcome, condition, or end b : DISASTER; especially : DEATH
3 a : final outcome b : the expected result of normal development
The defintion applies directly to the example afforded by Judas Iscariot.
Anninias and Saphira are examples of punishment for attempting to deceive the apostles in the form of judgement.
There is both edges of the Two-edged Sword.
May I introduce to you a specific Scripture?
Why certainly!
II Timothy 2:13If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
2Ti 2:14 Of these things put [them] in remembrance, charging [them] before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, [but] to the subverting of the hearers.
VERSE 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
Because Israel rejected Jesus, their flesh is turned over to Satan (AC) for it's destruction (killed) but their souls are saved.
Re 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
What Paul wrote for the church to so, is what God does to Israel.
The "Actions" that dishonor God is teaching man's doctrine rather than doctrine taught by the "Spirit".
Salamander
New Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no presupposition that many believe but are not born again as evidenced by a life of contiual repentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern English cannot deny ancient understanding, unless modern English is a deception in it's origen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ONLY way one comes up with a "new" version is to change definitions, it's always been the practice of satan! "Hath God said?"
What you say is "common" is uncommon o the truth; therefore it is bifurcating common knowledge in the attempt to cause a delusive result.
Both apply, it is still a Two-Edged Sword!
One would HAVE to limit his Bible reading to this one particular passage( and void of the Spirit) to deduce what you say, that is never advisable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no presupposition that many believe but are not born again as evidenced by a life of contiual repentence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only problem you have is that Paul was speaking to a church full of brethren and non-brethren alike, so it is relevent, just as God's Word is relevent and to all generations.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern English cannot deny ancient understanding, unless modern English is a deception in it's origen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure it does,modern English cannot deny ancient understanding.
Ah! Now we see the result of corruption: modern understanding denying the ancient Truth.
The ONLY way one comes up with a "new" version is to change definitions, it's always been the practice of satan! "Hath God said?"
What you say is "common" is uncommon o the truth; therefore it is bifurcating common knowledge in the attempt to cause a delusive result.
Not coupled with the Spirit there is no misunderstanding that the brother suffers judgement for unconfessed sins and the unconverted will suffer damnation for unworthily partaking of the Lord's Supper not discerning/understanding that self judgement, is the precedence afforded by the self-ssame Spirit!
Both apply, it is still a Two-Edged Sword!
One would HAVE to limit his Bible reading to this one particular passage( and void of the Spirit) to deduce what you say, that is never advisable.
Salamander
New Member
You're being very dishonest.
The question in point has been exposed for it's error in that it is not rightly dividing the Word.
I must admit that I held back the elements that show just how the harmony of Scripture mandates what is actually being said and why certain words are most accurate to the context as to relate the full understanding by the examples of Judas and Annanias and Sapphira.
Though the wording does imply that only Christians are spoken to in regards of judgement pending erroneous ideals and failing to exmaine onesself fully as to repent of any sin, one must also consider the passage in light of the offender that has denied Christ to the point of selling Him out.
The biggest and most often mistake committed by new versionists is they seem to forget that His Word is a two-edged Sword and even sharper than any witty inventions of men.
You must attack the person because you cannot prove otherwise. At least Scott J had the decency to back out of a debate in which he knows he lost.
Now if you have something substancial to say about the question in point, then espouse it, otherwise you're in quite a disgraceful position to do anything else.
- Status