william s. correa
New Member
The KJVO myth is dying by the hands of KJVO!!!! Your opinion! I'm sure that [personal attack deleted!]
[ May 11, 2006, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
-
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!
Revelation 17:8
- Thread starter DesiderioDomini
- Start date
- Status
[ May 11, 2006, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
DesiderioDomini
New Member
OK William, I'll bite....
How can this reading be inspired by God if it is a typographical error?
Who made the mistake, the apostle John, by forgetting to write this phrase, or Erasmus/KJV translators, by mistakenly importing it into the KJV?
Please answer this: Do you agree that the reading in question is not found in any manuscript of any kind before 1516? YES or NO.
I'll go from there.
Very well, you have stated that you think this reading is inspired by God. Now, why do you think this? Are you aware that this reading simply does not exist on this planet before 1516? Did you know it is not in a single ancient witness of any kind? Now I ask this, and I will make it bold so you dont miss is, because this is the most important question:
How can this reading be inspired by God if it is a typographical error?
Who made the mistake, the apostle John, by forgetting to write this phrase, or Erasmus/KJV translators, by mistakenly importing it into the KJV?
Do you realize what you are stating here? the inevitable consequence is that NONE of the manuscripts on the planet can be trusted for ANYTHING, and basically all evidence for th bible is mush. If this reading, which simply does not exist in any form of fashion in the manuscript record, is authentic, then GOD FAILED IN PRESERVING HIS WORD.
Please answer this: Do you agree that the reading in question is not found in any manuscript of any kind before 1516? YES or NO.
I'll go from there.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
No where did I claim to be Jesus. I see you twist my words to further your cause.
DesiderioDomini
New Member
Standingfirm,
Will you address the issue of Revelation 17:8 or not?
Do you support readings which have never existed in any source of the word of God until they were created by Erasmus' mistake?
Will you address the issue of Revelation 17:8 or not?
Do you support readings which have never existed in any source of the word of God until they were created by Erasmus' mistake?
william s. correa
New Member
How can this reading be inspired by God if it is a typographical error? Who said it was a Typogrphical error? With out the text it just dosent Sound right in English So God gave the Words Him to Erasmus that meant what it means from Hebrew to English. John did Put it into a Language where only the Spirit can Interpret into what it "REALLY" means in "ENGLISH" So to answer your Question Yes! it was there all along from the foundation of the world and will always be there!
Do you agree that the reading in question is not found in any manuscript of any kind before 1516? YES or NO. No I was there from the beggining and like I said God Wrote it for us!
Will you address the issue of Revelation 17:8 or not? Yes and I have
Do you support readings which have never existed in any source of the word of God until they were created by Erasmus' mistake? There were no mistakes only interpretations that were inspired by God!Next!
Do you agree that the reading in question is not found in any manuscript of any kind before 1516? YES or NO. No I was there from the beggining and like I said God Wrote it for us!
Will you address the issue of Revelation 17:8 or not? Yes and I have
Do you support readings which have never existed in any source of the word of God until they were created by Erasmus' mistake? There were no mistakes only interpretations that were inspired by God!Next!
william s. correa
New Member
It was there
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
God gave the words to Erasmus?
I realise that I am not near as intellegent as william, but in my igonorance that sounds like secondary inspiration.
If secondary inspiration is true, perhaps God is giving men the right words today as well? Why would He stop with giving words to Erasmus?
Of course, like I said, I am totally ignorant - I thought Revelation was in Greek, not Hebrew as william told us in his post.
I don't have a clue, but if the phrase was added by Erasmus, it was an error to continue including it.
william s. correa
New Member
Ya' see there, C4K, we can all learn something every day!
Seriously, I suggest that you are not the one that doesn't have a clue, on this one.
Ed </font>[/QUOTE]well was John Greek? or Erasmus? or are You? why cant you try and translate from Hebrew the book of Revelation Why cant you try and use the KJB to figure out you delema? Why are you asking Me?
No. He was Jewish. But he more than likely spoke Aramaic, Greek, and possibly Hebrew. It appears that he wrote in Greek or else it was translated so early on before distribution that the Aramaic text has been forever lost.
BTW, the only way any translation into any language is the "Word of God" is if word=meaning and not word=perfectly and exclusively worded.
Erasmus was one of western civilization's best and most important scholars. He knew several languages to include biblical Greek.
Does not matter. God chose the languages that He would inspire His Word into. If you don't like it that He used a language other than English then your argument is with Him not us.
Because it was probably written in Greek.
Because a translation ALWAYS derives its authority from the text and language from which it was translated. If there is a question about what is meant, you go to the original language to avoid errors due to incorrect assumptions about possible implications in the receptor language.
That is an exceptionally good question. Why would anyone ask anything of you since you have not demonstrated wisdom nor charity nor even a willingness to directly answer questions?
PS- Interesting that you capitalized "Me". Since you equate your unfounded opinions about the KJV to scriptural authority... Have you now taken up capitalizing pronouns that refer to you like we do pronouns that refer to God?
John was a Jew. Was he a Greek speaker? Yes. All of that area of the world used Greek as the common language.
Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus was Dutch (which probably explains why they tacked Roterodamus which is Latin for Rotterdam, onto his name!). Was he a Greek speaker? Yes, he was, along with Latin, Dutch, English, French, and several other European languages.
I am a mutt. French and German on my mother's side, Hispanic and Irish on my father's side. Do I speak Greek? I don't speak it in the sense of conversing in it, but I can read and understand it. I read and understand the New Testament in Greek, the language in which God inspired His New Testament word.
Because the book of the Revelation was not given in Hebrew. It was given by inspiration of God in Greek.
I don't have a dilemma (or a delema either). It seems to be you who is dangling from the horns of the proverbial dilemma.
That has got to be the best question anybody ever asked on this forum! LOL! Why ask william a question? You will never get a coherent answer, so why bother to ask the question? ROFLOL!
Scott, it looks as if I was typing when you posted. "Great minds think alike." Well, maybe not, but you get the point!
I would like to take one small exception to how you stated your case regarding translation. I do not believe that "word=meaning" is entirely accurate, although in the added context of "not word=perfectly and exclusively worded" I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
However, there are two translational philosophies currently being championed by bible translators. One is Dynamic Equivalence which tends to focus on the meaning sometimes at the expense of the grammar and syntax of the original. The other is Verbal and Formal Equivalence which focuses on the grammatical and syntactical qualities of the original and attempts, whenever possible, to bring the word into the receptor language in the same form as found in the original.
I tend to be a "Verbal and Formal whenever possible" kind of guy. I believe that philosophy better maintains the concept of verbal inspiration (which, of course, cannot be applied to translations) and gives a more accurate, but sometimes less understandable, rendering of the original in the receptor language. Granted verbal and formal equivalence translations will sometimes require more study, but that study will be, in my opinion, much more fruitful than a dynamic equivalence "here is what the writer probably meant" type of translation.
(I know, this has nothing to do with the thread, but there has been so little posting containing any intelligent thought at all on this forum lately I thought I would try to raise the bar a bit!)
- Status