Men From The Past Who Used Other Versions

[gb93433]

No, but I can read English. Why do other translations also use the word "was"? Do they also leave Jesus in the past tense?

In Jn. 1:1 they do and that is not correct. The Greek text in Jn. 1:1does not leave Jesus in the past.

 

[Amy.G]

In Jn. 1:1 they do and that is not correct. The Greek text in Jn. 1:1does not leave Jesus in the past.

Yet the only translation you claim is inaccurate is the KJV.

Originally Posted by gb93433
The KJV is not an accurate translation of scripture. It does nothing to accurately translate John 1:1.

 

[gb93433]

Yet the only translation you claim is inaccurate is the KJV.

My point was that if it was inspired then it missed the point of Jesus transcending from eternity to eternity.

 

[Michaelt]

The KJV is not an accurate translation of scripture. It does nothing to accurately translate John 1:1. The word is not in just past tense and translated "was". The verb is in the imperfect tense. Even a number of passages in the English KJV will attest to the fact that Jesus is not just past tense. Therefore it cannot be the word of God. The logos in John's gospel is eternal and was before the beginning and continues on to infinity.

So much for making a KJV God's eternal word. Jn. 1:1 in the KJV leaves Jesus in past tense.

However I told a KJVO recently to take their KJV and win people to Jesus. The problem is that the person has done nothing to do that except argue points.

Question; in the whole of John's gospel, does he write anything that changes the Word of God from past tense to an eternal tense?

 

[gb93433]

Question; in the whole of John's gospel, does he write anything that changes the Word of God from past tense to an eternal tense?

The inspired version left nothing out.

 

[Michaelt]

The inspired version left nothing out.

The inspired version?

 

[TC]

The inspired version left nothing out.

So, tell us non-Greek readers how it should be properly translated into English.

 

[gb93433]

So, tell us non-Greek readers how it should be properly translated into English.

That is a very good question. It is one I have not found in a "literal"word for word translation. To accomplish an accurate translation it must be accompanied with additional words. The real question is how would one translate a word that represents an action as going on in past time and the action is continuing? Generally the past form of the verb "to be" and a participle are sufficient.

 

[Winman]

So what? If it had been published in the early 1850's Spurgeon would have used it. He even suggested a needed revision in the 1850's.

What a silly thing to say, like you know for a fact what Spurgeon would have done. Incredible.

 

[gb93433]

What a silly thing to say, like you know for a fact what Spurgeon would have done. Incredible.

Spurgeon's words are in print. You can read them for yourself.

LECTURE 2
On Commenting

"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability."

 

[Revmitchell]

Some folks on this board are obsessed with versions.

 

[Michaelt]

Some folks on this board are obsessed ....

I would agree if you stopped right there sir. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

Spurgeon's words are in print. You can read them for yourself.

LECTURE 2
On Commenting

"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability."

I knew of these statements before by Spurgeon. I was just saying that Rippon cannot assume what Spurgeon would have done in the 1850's. A man's opinions sometimes change during the course of his life.

I could as easily argue that if Spurgeon had lived longer and became more aware of the criticisms against the newer versions he would have rejected them. After all, that is a possibility. But I am not saying that, just showing how the argument Rippon made is a form of false argument.

 

[Rippon]

I was just saying that Rippon cannot assume what Spurgeon would have done in the 1850's. A man's opinions sometimes change during the course of his life.

Spurgeon did indeed advocate revising the KJV in the 1850's. This was long before the Revised Version was even contemplated by W&H.

Spurgeon approved of several RV translations. He freely acknowledged that they were better than the KJV renderings.

I could as easily argue that if Spurgeon had lived longer and became more aware of the criticisms against the newer versions he would have rejected them. After all, that is a possibility. But I am not saying that, just showing how the argument Rippon made is a form of false argument.

I think Spurgeon was more appreciative of lower criticism than you are.

 

[Rippon]

What a silly thing to say, like you know for a fact what Spurgeon would have done. Incredible.

Not silly at all.Since he advocated a revision of the KJV in the 1850's he would have certainly used it then, as he actually did in the latter 1800's.

 

[Whowillgo]

John 1:1

I believe John took care of leaving Christ in the past in John 1:1 by writing John 1:13, as all scripture is dependent on inspiration and order so should our understanding be.

 

[Winman]

Spurgeon did indeed advocate revising the KJV in the 1850's. This was long before the Revised Version was even contemplated by W&H.

Spurgeon approved of several RV translations. He freely acknowledged that they were better than the KJV renderings.

I think Spurgeon was more appreciative of lower criticism than you are.

Well, that is just what you say, your opinion. You cannot prove what Spurgeon would have done in the 1850s even if the RV existed then. People change over time, Spurgeon would have been much younger and may have held a different view of scripture at that time.

I am not saying you are wrong, perhaps Spurgeon would have preferred the RV if it had existed in the 1850s. What I am trying to show you is a fallacy in logic on your part. It is a false argument.

 

[Rippon]

Since he advocated a revision of the KJV in the 1850's he would have certainly used it then, as he actually did in the latter 1800's.

Winman, listen up.

 

[Winman]

Winman, listen up.

Perhaps you cannot understand that no one can approve of a version that doesn't exist. Perhaps 50 years from now someone will revise the RV, and perhaps a preacher living now will approve of it, but that cannot possibly be known until the revision comes out and is examined.

Or maybe you believe Spurgeon had foreknowledge? Amazing, because most Calvinists will not even admit that God has foreknowledge.

Once again, Spurgeon could not possibly approve a revision that didn't exist until it actually existed and could be examined. If you can't understand this, I can't help you, it is a false argument on your part.

 

[Baptist4life]

I think Rippon is just in shock because someone actually had the nerve to question something he posted! :laugh: