-
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-Onlyism Commentary
- Thread starter Jason Gastrich
- Start date
I can't help but think of a Christian who prays for God to provide his daily bread, but isn't willing to find a job.
Certainly it is great to pray for wisdom, but why not pray for wisdom as you study? Things like this need not be an either/or proposition between God revealing the answer and a person studying to find the answer. In my own experience, I have seen God act providentially far more often in things that were beyond my means than in things that I could have done myself. God has given us a brain and the ability to use it, and I think these gifts need to be applied in studying the Scriptures.
Who knows -- perhaps for some, the answer to a prayer for wisdom on this issue will be finding the Versions forum on this board!
The debate over whether it was a whale or a fish is irrelevant if one fails to comprehend why Jonah was swallowed.
</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly! I appreciate you posting that, John. It was not the "swallowing" that was miraculous nor the creature that did so. It was Jonah's (or is it Jonas'?) survival despite the storm, the attempted self-drowning, and the time in the beast's belly that is important to the story.
Besides, Jesus didn't view any of these miracles as being nearly as significant as the repentance of the Ninevites (Luke 11:16, 29-32; Matthew 12:38-41). By nitpicking the various versions apart over insignificant issues like individual words or numbers in an effort to find some human conceived notion of innerancy (seeking a sign?), these critics are missing the overall message and inherent goal that is preserved in all of these texts. Isn't the real perfection of the Bible found in the fact that it can lead the sinner to repentance, faith and Grace? No single translation has a corner on that claim. If one claims that one can only be saved by a particular version, he is promoting "another gospel." If one does not deny that other versions can guide people to salvation, then he or she must admit that they are indeed the Word of God.
Will J. Kinney
Member
Natters>>> translating the word as "Passover" simply is not wrong."
Hi N, I never said Passover is wrong. What I am saying is that Easter is NOT wrong.
Will K
Hi N, I never said Passover is wrong. What I am saying is that Easter is NOT wrong.
Will K
Will J. Kinney
Member
Clint>>>This is an odd argument from one who holds to your position. How many Christians know what these words mean?:
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, knob, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable, sanctum sanctorum, carriage, let, pityful (for full of pity), wot, trow, sod, and swaddling clothes - source: Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Baker Book House, 1981), p. 55."
Hi Clint, this is funny coming from Jack Lewis.
Why not try this simple vocab list from the niv. See how most English speakers will do on this little test.
NIV Vocabulary Test
Ask your son or daughter if they can define these words. It is highly unlikely that most high school students would get a passing grade on such a vocabulary test. In fact, you too would probably not pass it. Try it and see how you do.
Words found in the NIV.
abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.
It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; “The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: "The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."
So you see, the modern versions also have many words that are hard to be understood.
Will Kinney
almug, algum, chode, charashim, chapt, earing, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, knob, ligure, leasing, maranatha, nard, neesed, pate, pilled, rabboni, raca, ring-straked, stacte, strake, sycamyne, thyme wood, trode, wimples, ouches, tatches, brigandine, ambassage, occurrent, purtenance, bruit, fray, cracknels, nusings, mufflers, anathema, corban, talitha cumi, ephrata, aceldama, centurion, quarternion, delectable, sanctum sanctorum, carriage, let, pityful (for full of pity), wot, trow, sod, and swaddling clothes - source: Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV (Baker Book House, 1981), p. 55."
Hi Clint, this is funny coming from Jack Lewis.
Why not try this simple vocab list from the niv. See how most English speakers will do on this little test.
NIV Vocabulary Test
Ask your son or daughter if they can define these words. It is highly unlikely that most high school students would get a passing grade on such a vocabulary test. In fact, you too would probably not pass it. Try it and see how you do.
Words found in the NIV.
abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.
It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; “The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: "The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."
So you see, the modern versions also have many words that are hard to be understood.
Will Kinney
Will J. Kinney
Member
Hi all, when I asked Gina if a translation can be inspired, Clint said: "Chapter and verse, please."
So, since Clint asked so nicely, I will show from the Bible itself that those who tell us "ONLY the originals WERE inspired" are not at all on Biblical grounds.
Can a Translation be Inspired?
I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?
Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.
It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.
So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, it does many times.
In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.
A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.
God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.
Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.
In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.
If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.
Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.
" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.
It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".
So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.
Will Kinney
So, since Clint asked so nicely, I will show from the Bible itself that those who tell us "ONLY the originals WERE inspired" are not at all on Biblical grounds.
Can a Translation be Inspired?
I am frequently told by modern bible version proponents that no translation can be inspired and that only the originals were inspired. This may be what they learned in seminary or from some other Bible teacher they happen to admire, but is it the truth?
Most Christians will affirm that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. It is a little self contradictory to stand in the pulpit and say the word of God is inspired, when in his heart the pastor knows he is not referring to any book here on this earth that people can hold in their hands and believe. He really should say what he believes - that the word of God WAS inspired at one time but we no longer have it, so the best we can do is hope we have a close approximation of what God probably meant to tell us.
It also seems a bit inconsistent to say he believes the originals were inspired, when he has never seen them, they never were together in one single book and they no longer exist anyway. How does he know they were inspired? He accepts this by faith. Yet he seems to lack the faith to actually believe that God could do exactly what He said He would do with His words. God said He would preserve them and that heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away.
So, if the Bible itself is our rule of faith and practice, does it teach us a translation can be the inspired words of God? The answer is an emphatic Yes, it does many times.
In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23 "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter." Joseph spoke in Egyptian yet his words are translated and recorded in another language, which turns out to be the inspired words of God.
A translation does not have to be a "word for word" literal carry over into another language for it to be the inspired word of God. If we have the God given text and the God given meaning of that text communicated by way of another language, as I firmly believe we do in the King James Bible, it is still the inspired word of God.
God's words are like water in a vessel. If the same water is poured out into another vessel, even a vessel of a different shape and size, and there is no addition of foreign matter or subtraction of substance, it is the same water.
Again we see the same thing in Exodus chapters 4 through 14 where Moses confronts Pharoah and speaks with him face to face. Pharoah does not speak Hebrew, so Moses undoubtedly uses the Egyptian language in his verbal exchanges with him, yet the whole series of conversations is recorded in another inspired translation.
In Acts 22 we see another clear example of how a translation can be the inspired words of God. Acts 21:40 tells us: "And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, HE SPAKE UNTO THEM IN THE HEBREW TONGUE, SAYING...". There then follows a lengthly sermon of 21 entire verses preached by Paul in the Hebrew tongue, yet not a word of this sermon is recorded in Hebrew but in inspired Greek. Was Paul's sermon inspired? Undoubtedly. But God also inspired the translation of this sermon into another language.
If no translation can be inspired of God, then how do those who hold this unbiblical position explain all the Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament? They were originally inspired in Hebrew but then the Holy Ghost took these scores of verses and translated them into another inspired language. Not only that, but the Holy Ghost sometimes did not use a strictly literal word for word rendering. God sometimes adds a little more detail or explains further or makes a different application of the original verse to a new situation. This is how God does it and how the Bible itself teaches us about inspired translations.
Which language did the Lord Jesus Christ speak while He was here on earth, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic or a combination of the three? No one knows for sure, but we do know that He spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue yet His words were translated into Greek. "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul. why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." There then follows another four long verses all spoken in the Hebrew tongue by our Lord, yet none of it is recorded in Hebrew but is translated into another language.
" And that from a child thou hast known the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:15,16.
It should be noted that Timothy did not have "the originals" yet what he had in his home is referred to as inspired scripture. In fact, in no case of all the references in the New Testament to the Scriptures that people read and believed, is it ever referring to "the originals only".
So when you hear someone tell you with firm conviction: "No translation can be inspired. Only the originals were inspired" you should know that he didn't get this teaching out of the Bible or from God. If a professing Christian chooses not to believe in the possibility of an inspired translation, he does so contrary to many God given examples in the Bible itself.
Will Kinney
Will J. Kinney
Member
Clint>>>Does it really matter which day the men of the Philistine city approached Samson's wife? Is it not conceivable that an additional three days passed after they "plowed with [his] heifer" (verse 18)? Verse 14 supports the notion that the "fourth" day is entirely plausible to the story as it was after three days that the men of the city approached the woman. The story in all versions returns to the climax of the event culminating on the seventh day (verse 17). <<<
Clint, it may not matter to you, but it does to me and to many others, and apparently it matters to God a great deal if His words, every single one of them, is true or not.
Your favorite non-inspired bibles reject the Hebrew reading because they don't have the spiritual discernment to see the truth of the Scriptures as they stand in the Hebrew texts and the KJB.
When they change it to the 4th day, from the Syriac, they then contradict the clear statement in verse 17 that she wept before Samson the whole 7 days while the feast lasted.
Try again,
Will K
I could just as easily throw the question back to you: what was the animal that swallowed Jonah? Was it a "fish" as supported by the Masoteric? Or was it a "whale" as supported by the Septuagint. Answer carefully as the answer may be in the New Testament of any version, including the KJV.
Clint, it may not matter to you, but it does to me and to many others, and apparently it matters to God a great deal if His words, every single one of them, is true or not.
Your favorite non-inspired bibles reject the Hebrew reading because they don't have the spiritual discernment to see the truth of the Scriptures as they stand in the Hebrew texts and the KJB.
When they change it to the 4th day, from the Syriac, they then contradict the clear statement in verse 17 that she wept before Samson the whole 7 days while the feast lasted.
Try again,
Will K
I could just as easily throw the question back to you: what was the animal that swallowed Jonah? Was it a "fish" as supported by the Masoteric? Or was it a "whale" as supported by the Septuagint. Answer carefully as the answer may be in the New Testament of any version, including the KJV.
Will J. Kinney
Member
Clint>>>
I could just as easily throw the question back to you: what was the animal that swallowed Jonah? Was it a "fish" as supported by the Masoteric? Or was it a "whale" as supported by the Septuagint. Answer carefully as the answer may be in the New Testament of any version, including the KJV."
Clint, this is typical of you fellas that have no inspired Bible. You think, "Well, if my bible has errors in it, so does yours. Na, na, na, na, nah, yah."
Whale, big fish, or sea monster?
Matthew 12:40
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
The word correctly translated as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It is just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up ketos it simply says whale. If you look up whale, it says ketos.
In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two Englsih words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The correct translation of this word is not "fish", as the NKJV and some others have it. "Fish" would be a different Greek word which is ixthus.
ce·tol·o·gy
NOUN: The zoology of whales and related aquatic mammals.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin cetus, whale;
Ce·tus
NOUN: A constellation in the equatorial region of the Southern Hemisphere near Aquarius and Eridanus.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin cetus, whale, from Greek ketos.
Jonah 1:17 refers to a great fish. "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."
The whale, though technically a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined in the Dictionary as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. The modern "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is really of little relevance. Most people even today, when they see a big whale, think: "Wow, what a huge fish!" - until some pedantic type says: No, that's a mammal, not a fish.
God's classification of animals is a bit different than man's. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."
First Corinthians 15:39.
In a Bible club I belong to, one member criticized the King James Bible for listing the bat among the fowls or birds in Leviticus 11:13-19. "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the FOWLS; they shall not be eaten..the eagle...the vulture...every raven after his kind..the stork, the heron...and the BAT."
He pointed out that the bat is a mammal and not a bird. When I mentioned that not only the King James Bible lists the bat among the fowls, but so also do the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and all Hebrew translations, because this is what God Himself says in the Hebrew tongue, he actually replied to me that ALL the versions were corrupt and wrong! I guess he'll have to take this up with God at the Judgment Seat to find out Who is right.
Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than actually correctly translating what the word really means - "a whale" - , the NKJV, and the ESV have "the great fish", the NIV and Green's MKJV have "the huge fish", Young's has "the fish", the ISV reads "sea creature" while the NASB, NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, and New English Bible have "the sea monster"!
Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Italian Diodati 1607, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, St. Joseph's New American Bible of 1970, KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and even the Revised Standard Version of 1952. What big fish would have swallowed Jonah except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER?
As always, the King James Bible is correct in properly rendering this word as "whale" and the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB and others are not.
Will Kinney
I could just as easily throw the question back to you: what was the animal that swallowed Jonah? Was it a "fish" as supported by the Masoteric? Or was it a "whale" as supported by the Septuagint. Answer carefully as the answer may be in the New Testament of any version, including the KJV."
Clint, this is typical of you fellas that have no inspired Bible. You think, "Well, if my bible has errors in it, so does yours. Na, na, na, na, nah, yah."
Whale, big fish, or sea monster?
Matthew 12:40
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
The word correctly translated as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It is just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up ketos it simply says whale. If you look up whale, it says ketos.
In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two Englsih words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The correct translation of this word is not "fish", as the NKJV and some others have it. "Fish" would be a different Greek word which is ixthus.
ce·tol·o·gy
NOUN: The zoology of whales and related aquatic mammals.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin cetus, whale;
Ce·tus
NOUN: A constellation in the equatorial region of the Southern Hemisphere near Aquarius and Eridanus.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin cetus, whale, from Greek ketos.
Jonah 1:17 refers to a great fish. "Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."
The whale, though technically a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined in the Dictionary as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. The modern "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is really of little relevance. Most people even today, when they see a big whale, think: "Wow, what a huge fish!" - until some pedantic type says: No, that's a mammal, not a fish.
God's classification of animals is a bit different than man's. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."
First Corinthians 15:39.
In a Bible club I belong to, one member criticized the King James Bible for listing the bat among the fowls or birds in Leviticus 11:13-19. "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the FOWLS; they shall not be eaten..the eagle...the vulture...every raven after his kind..the stork, the heron...and the BAT."
He pointed out that the bat is a mammal and not a bird. When I mentioned that not only the King James Bible lists the bat among the fowls, but so also do the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and all Hebrew translations, because this is what God Himself says in the Hebrew tongue, he actually replied to me that ALL the versions were corrupt and wrong! I guess he'll have to take this up with God at the Judgment Seat to find out Who is right.
Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than actually correctly translating what the word really means - "a whale" - , the NKJV, and the ESV have "the great fish", the NIV and Green's MKJV have "the huge fish", Young's has "the fish", the ISV reads "sea creature" while the NASB, NRSV, Jerusalem Bible, and New English Bible have "the sea monster"!
Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Italian Diodati 1607, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, St. Joseph's New American Bible of 1970, KJV 21st Century, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and even the Revised Standard Version of 1952. What big fish would have swallowed Jonah except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER?
As always, the King James Bible is correct in properly rendering this word as "whale" and the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB and others are not.
Will Kinney
Will J. Kinney
Member
That is why "inspiration" can only apply to the original autographs. They were the ones that were God-breathed.
No translation of the Bible is inspired.
DHK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks DHK, you summed up your position very well. The originals WERE inspired, No translation is inspired. I can only logically conclude that you never refer to the Bible as being right now the inspired word of God.
Viola. You have no inspired, inerrant, complete Bible.
Even though God says over and over again that He will preserve His wordS, I guess He was just kidding or using hyperbole.
Congratulations. You just accomplished what Satan wanted to do from the very beginning. Yeah, hath God said...?
Will K
No translation of the Bible is inspired.
DHK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks DHK, you summed up your position very well. The originals WERE inspired, No translation is inspired. I can only logically conclude that you never refer to the Bible as being right now the inspired word of God.
Viola. You have no inspired, inerrant, complete Bible.
Even though God says over and over again that He will preserve His wordS, I guess He was just kidding or using hyperbole.
Congratulations. You just accomplished what Satan wanted to do from the very beginning. Yeah, hath God said...?
Will K
Will J. Kinney
Member
Clint>>> Isn't the real perfection of the Bible found in the fact that it can lead the sinner to repentance, faith and Grace? No single translation has a corner on that claim. If one claims that one can only be saved by a particular version, he is promoting "another gospel." If one does not deny that other versions can guide people to salvation, then he or she must admit that they are indeed the Word of God. "
Clint, I do not deny but affirm that God can and does use inferior bible versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NKJV, and Holman, and foreign language versions to bring His people to a saving faith in Christ.
But these other versions are not "the word of God" in its complete, inerrant form. Rather, they "contain" some of the words of God and are sufficient to get people saved and they can learn a great deal about God and His ways.
Why do you people always capitalize Word of God when referring to the Bible. The Word of God is Christ incarnate. The "words" of God are His words and thoughts.
Though your other bibles "contain" some of God's words, they also omit many thousands (NIV, ESV, NASB, Holman) or call them into question. They also reject the inspired Hebrew texts and use corrupted texts in the N.T.
They also without exception contain false doctrines and foolish statements, thus proving themselves to be inferiour bible versions.
Which version do you personally think comes the closest to "the originals"? Do you believe any particular Bible out there is infallible in every detail?
Don't accuse us KJB believers of things we do not believe. A person can get saved using any bible version out there in any language in print.
As for earlier translations done by people like Carey, they were using the texts that underlie the King James Bible, not the Vaticanus stuff used today.
Just some thoughts.
Will K
Clint, I do not deny but affirm that God can and does use inferior bible versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NKJV, and Holman, and foreign language versions to bring His people to a saving faith in Christ.
But these other versions are not "the word of God" in its complete, inerrant form. Rather, they "contain" some of the words of God and are sufficient to get people saved and they can learn a great deal about God and His ways.
Why do you people always capitalize Word of God when referring to the Bible. The Word of God is Christ incarnate. The "words" of God are His words and thoughts.
Though your other bibles "contain" some of God's words, they also omit many thousands (NIV, ESV, NASB, Holman) or call them into question. They also reject the inspired Hebrew texts and use corrupted texts in the N.T.
They also without exception contain false doctrines and foolish statements, thus proving themselves to be inferiour bible versions.
Which version do you personally think comes the closest to "the originals"? Do you believe any particular Bible out there is infallible in every detail?
Don't accuse us KJB believers of things we do not believe. A person can get saved using any bible version out there in any language in print.
As for earlier translations done by people like Carey, they were using the texts that underlie the King James Bible, not the Vaticanus stuff used today.
Just some thoughts.
Will K
Will said "Hi N, I never said Passover is wrong. What I am saying is that Easter is NOT wrong."
"wrong" is not about what is factually correct or not, but it's about what scripture meant when it was originally written. If Luke meant the Jewish holiday, then the anniversary of Christ's resurrection is wrong - and vice versa. If they are both not wrong, then it would also not be "wrong" to have the verse say "...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Jesus is really wonderful. It would be great if everyone repented and accepted him as Saviour, but that likely won't happen. Two plus two is four and acceleration due to gravity on earth is approximately 9.8 m/s². It hurts when you hit your thumb with a hammer." - we could accept any reading in any verse of scripture as long as we could rationalize a way of showing that it is factually correct. Such readings, even though "correct", would be WRONG.
Your explanation is still that the typical KJV-only arugment is wrong, you still have the Holy Spirit changing the meaning of scripture, and you still have Herod waiting for the anniversary of the resurrection of Christ.
Your article avoids the simple and obvious truth: since "pascha" can refer to the entire Passover week (as you admit Luke 22:1 tells us), then Herod waiting for "pascha" ("Passover") to end makes complete and total sense. Does it not bother you that such a simple fact needs oodles of "imaginative" explanations to show how the simple facts need to be disregarded so that you can cling to the man-made concept of KJV inerrancy?
"wrong" is not about what is factually correct or not, but it's about what scripture meant when it was originally written. If Luke meant the Jewish holiday, then the anniversary of Christ's resurrection is wrong - and vice versa. If they are both not wrong, then it would also not be "wrong" to have the verse say "...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Jesus is really wonderful. It would be great if everyone repented and accepted him as Saviour, but that likely won't happen. Two plus two is four and acceleration due to gravity on earth is approximately 9.8 m/s². It hurts when you hit your thumb with a hammer." - we could accept any reading in any verse of scripture as long as we could rationalize a way of showing that it is factually correct. Such readings, even though "correct", would be WRONG.
Your explanation is still that the typical KJV-only arugment is wrong, you still have the Holy Spirit changing the meaning of scripture, and you still have Herod waiting for the anniversary of the resurrection of Christ.
Your article avoids the simple and obvious truth: since "pascha" can refer to the entire Passover week (as you admit Luke 22:1 tells us), then Herod waiting for "pascha" ("Passover") to end makes complete and total sense. Does it not bother you that such a simple fact needs oodles of "imaginative" explanations to show how the simple facts need to be disregarded so that you can cling to the man-made concept of KJV inerrancy?
This may be a rather lengthy post so I apologize in advance to the forum participants and moderators. In the interest of brevity (and the wear and tear on my scroll mouse) I will post Mr. Kinney's time stamp in eastern time and the briefest possible quote to convey at what point in his diatribe I am addressing.
adder, admonishing, advocate, algum (common to both lists), aloes, appease, arrayed, awl (although the archaic spelling of "aul" is used)
I think that just going through the "A"s is sufficient lest I be an unwilling researcher for your verbose essays. I believe that the point has been made. Should you encounter more difficulties in your Bible reading, here is an online dictionary you can use, at least for the modern versions: http://www.m-w.com/home.htm
Here's one for most of the archaic terms: http://www.cbtministries.org/resources/webster1828.htm
I also believe that it is quite proper for a Christian who is studying Scripture to learn the exacty meanings of the words "atonement," "exodus," and "sovereignty." Don't you?
By the way, I think I would have "passed". One that threw me was "goiim." It should have been capitalized.
References: Ez. 35:6; Jer. 10:22; 1 Sam. 19:4; Prov. 1:21; Esther 8:8; Mk. 1:45; Prov. 25:14; Jas. 3:2, Psa. 4:2; Lk. 24:37; Acts 25:27; 1 Tim. 5:13; 2 Cor. 6:12; Mt. 4:20; Gen. 20:18; Psa. 35:15; Num. 23:8; Job 9:33; Gen. 31:37; Lam. 3:36; Prov. 14:15.
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/readkjv.htm </font>[/QUOTE]
Pray tell, from what verse do you gather that Joseph's discourse with his brothers and father are "the inspired words of God?" Where do you see the phrase "Thus sayeth the LORD" or "the Spirit moved upon him" or "the Lord was with Joseph" or any such other indicator in these chapters?
Yes, the accounts that you give speak of Biblical figures speaking foreign languages. Yes, the accounts were recorded by inspired authors. No one here is contending that the inspiration given the authors was limited to the original languages. In all probability, Christ and the Twelve spoke Aramaic but wrote in Greek. It was the norm for the time.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html
By the way, you'll notice at that link that even the online versions include footnotes, a practice the KJV publishers got away from some time back. That and the removal of the preface are a large part of the reason, IMO, that we have these ridiculous debates today.
http://www.remnantofgod.org/kjvpreface.htm
Genesis 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
As for the rest of this post, I'll let some of the others have a turn. It has been rehashed so often on this board they can simply cut and paste from the last time…
Or the time before that…
Or the time before that…
The difference is, of course, between the list I presented and the list you have presented is that by and far the majority of the words in Jack Lewis' list are completely archaic. The list you give from the NIV is for the most part a matter of vocabulary, many on a very elementary level. However, even at that, some of the words that you consider "difficult" are common to the KJV,
adder, admonishing, advocate, algum (common to both lists), aloes, appease, arrayed, awl (although the archaic spelling of "aul" is used)
I think that just going through the "A"s is sufficient lest I be an unwilling researcher for your verbose essays. I believe that the point has been made. Should you encounter more difficulties in your Bible reading, here is an online dictionary you can use, at least for the modern versions: http://www.m-w.com/home.htm
Here's one for most of the archaic terms: http://www.cbtministries.org/resources/webster1828.htm
I also believe that it is quite proper for a Christian who is studying Scripture to learn the exacty meanings of the words "atonement," "exodus," and "sovereignty." Don't you?
By the way, I think I would have "passed". One that threw me was "goiim." It should have been capitalized.
To borrow from Jack Lewis' work once again, from Questions You've Asked About Bible Translations (ISBN 0-945441-04-5),
How many of you had a little difficulty following the conversation?
References: Ez. 35:6; Jer. 10:22; 1 Sam. 19:4; Prov. 1:21; Esther 8:8; Mk. 1:45; Prov. 25:14; Jas. 3:2, Psa. 4:2; Lk. 24:37; Acts 25:27; 1 Tim. 5:13; 2 Cor. 6:12; Mt. 4:20; Gen. 20:18; Psa. 35:15; Num. 23:8; Job 9:33; Gen. 31:37; Lam. 3:36; Prov. 14:15.
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/readkjv.htm </font>[/QUOTE]
You aren't used to debating people who look up your references, are you?
Pray tell, from what verse do you gather that Joseph's discourse with his brothers and father are "the inspired words of God?" Where do you see the phrase "Thus sayeth the LORD" or "the Spirit moved upon him" or "the Lord was with Joseph" or any such other indicator in these chapters?
Yes, the accounts that you give speak of Biblical figures speaking foreign languages. Yes, the accounts were recorded by inspired authors. No one here is contending that the inspiration given the authors was limited to the original languages. In all probability, Christ and the Twelve spoke Aramaic but wrote in Greek. It was the norm for the time.
Ah! So this is your belief! There is no certain Scripture to back this up, it is merely your own doctrine. Just admit that and this could all be over.
An excellent apologetic for the modern versions, even those that paraphrase and use dynamic equivalence. Well done!
The quotations of the Old Testament are inspired. Not everyone who quotes Scripture, in whatever language, is inspired. Only the original authors. As for the "unbiblical position", I would refer you back to the exposition on 2Peter 1:21 provided by DHK, a study of Romans 3:2, and Acts 7:38.
This was addressed on page 11. Ignoring arguments does not negate them.
You should modify your online essays before you post to match the situation in which you are debating. Else folks will get the impression that you're just not listening to them.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html
Wow! Did God tell you this from a Burning Bush or something?
Let's let the reader decide that, shall we? Here's a link that shows the KJV next to my personal favorite "non-inspired" Bible, the ESV: http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Judges+14%3A12-18&KJV_version=yes&ESV_version=yes&language=english&x=14&y=12
By the way, you'll notice at that link that even the online versions include footnotes, a practice the KJV publishers got away from some time back. That and the removal of the preface are a large part of the reason, IMO, that we have these ridiculous debates today.
http://www.remnantofgod.org/kjvpreface.htm
Perhaps I am not typical. If that is what I was saying, that's what I would have posted. I do, hoewever, admit that all the Bibles I use have errors, including the KJV.
Your entire argument for this post was quite a tap dance. Since the Scriptures were written for man by God, through man by God, why would God not use man's classification of animals?
Genesis 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Praise the Lord! I am glad to see you say this as, as we know, a house divided against itself can not stand.
As for the rest of this post, I'll let some of the others have a turn. It has been rehashed so often on this board they can simply cut and paste from the last time…
Or the time before that…
Or the time before that…
"Voila!" What I have is your human reasoning and no Scriptural basis for what you have said at all. God never promised that any translation would be inspired, though you made an assertion--a false one at that--that He did. Back it up with Scripture or back down and retract the foolish statement. God does not inspire translations.
Learn your definitions. What is inspiration? I have already defined that for you, and the Bible defines it itself. However, if you take the time to look in the Greek you will get a better understanding of the word.
Preservation is not the same as inspiration. God did say that he would preserve His Word. The Psalmist said "Thy word is forever settled (preserved) in Heaven." Thus God alone knows where the original manuscripts are. Thankfully we don't or some people would be bowing down in front of them and worshipping them, just as some do with the KJV.
Regardless, I do believe that God has preserved His Word on earth in the various manuscripts that he has left us, primarily in the majority text. The Scripture itelf demands that only the words of the prophets and Apostles are inspired. Thus no translation can be inspired. I didn't say preserved; I said inspired.
DHK
It appears you guys are hopeless in this issue. I never seen anyone totally close their minds to the truth as you have!
Will clearly used scripture to prove that translating is part of inspiration and you continue to cry out for biblical proof!
I have no idea how your minds are wired on this!
God Bless!
Will clearly used scripture to prove that translating is part of inspiration and you continue to cry out for biblical proof!
I have no idea how your minds are wired on this!
God Bless!
artbook1611
New Member
Never before have I ever seen such an attack on a literary masterpiece as we are seeing right now.
This fact alone speaks volumes that the devil would love to stamp out the KJ forever. "Let God be true but every man a liar".
This fact alone speaks volumes that the devil would love to stamp out the KJ forever. "Let God be true but every man a liar".
Well, seeing as how Timothy was the recepient of at least two of the Episles and is cited in the first verse of a few others as "co-author", then yes, he saw first hand inspiration in those documents. It is also indicated in the New Testament that the Pauline Letters were circulated among the churches. He may or may not have seen an original of James and/or of Jude. It is also possible he saw a copy of Mark. As for the other New Testament works it is difficult to say.
However, in 2Timothy, Paul is not speaking of New Testament Scriptures but Old. Timothy's father was Greek and is not cited by Paul as being "in the faith" like Lois and Eunice, Timothy's grandmother and mother. Since these two women were Jews and Jewish women were repressed from participating in worship, it is highly likely that they did not have any of the scrolls of the Old Testament. Owning copies of the Scriptures entotale as we do today is a luxury we take for granted and one that was not afforded to most ancient Jews.
Even if they did, the antiquity of the documents would surely suggest that they were not original. In addition, if Timothy had been asked to read, as Christ did in Luke 4:16-21, the fact that he was from Lystra excludes the possibility that his local synagogue had any original documents.
The Scriptures were passed to Timothy, in all likelihood, through discussion in the synagogue and informal training at home. Nonetheless, I will contend once again that it was not the documents that were inspired or not inspired, it was the oracle as relayed by the Old Testament writers. That was the Scripture that Timothy had "known" since childhood.
So, yes, Timothy knew the inspired Scriptures. No, he never laid eyes on the actual texts (excluding the New Testament documents aforementioned). The same is true today of those who study God's word rather than accepting man's doctrines and interpretation of it.
I did not ask you how God would answer. I asked you if He would answer?
</font>[/QUOTE]Matthew 7
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
James 1
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
No, Will showed that conversations that occurred in other languages were recorded in inspired Scripture. He did nothing towards proving that translations of inspired oracles into other languages can also be inspired.
Yes, God is true. Until we see Scriptural proof that God would re-inspire His original revelations to mankind throughout time, the position of preservation over inspiration remains firm.
No one here is attacking the King James Version. We are attacking the idolatry that has arisen in the past century around it.
This fact alone speaks volumes that the devil will still try to use Scripture to draw the faithful away from following the 2nd Commandment (Matthew 4:6).
artbook1611
New Member
Yes, God is true. Until we see Scriptural proof that God would re-inspire His original revelations to mankind throughout time, the position of preservation over inspiration remains firm.
end quote
Who said anything of "re-inspire"?
God "inspired" the originals which were flawless and He also has "preserved" His word flawless right to this present day and forever. Therefore it is somewhere today still in a flawless form.
As it says in PS 12:6, they were pure words. If He has preserved them, then they are "still" pure words, no errors, no flaws, no corruption.
My God is able to and has preserved His Word flawless.
This attack is only the continuation of "Yea,Hath God said"?
end quote
Who said anything of "re-inspire"?
God "inspired" the originals which were flawless and He also has "preserved" His word flawless right to this present day and forever. Therefore it is somewhere today still in a flawless form.
As it says in PS 12:6, they were pure words. If He has preserved them, then they are "still" pure words, no errors, no flaws, no corruption.
My God is able to and has preserved His Word flawless.
This attack is only the continuation of "Yea,Hath God said"?
GrannyGumbo
<img src ="/Granny.gif">
Hiya broClint~I see you're still just as cute as ever, you lil ol'teddy bear!
What is a century-100 yrs? So, this 'idolatry' thingie has been around 100 yrs or so, tho' someone else here has said it's only been 30 yrs. What did folks use for their Bible all those other years back to 1611? (I KNOW what my kith and kin used, but just wondering what others used.) So WHY/WHO is/made this idolatry? See, it FEELS like the ONLY Bible I've ever known or used is being attacked.