Rock of Ages Study Bible

[Johnv]

I hold to the etymology of words

That's part of your problem. Etymology is not definition. Otherwise, you'd have to define "disaster" as "bad star".

The Greek supports the term "worship" in any day's use.

No, it doesn't.

Liberalism is a progressive attribute of modern men, of which you cling to with your teeth clinched.

Yes, single-translation-onlyism is a progressive attribute of modern men, to which you cling with your teeth.

... any word brought under the control of it's slang...
...of which you cling to with your teeth clinched...

Again, before you accuse others of liberalism in use of the English language, you might want to try using it correctly yourself.

 

[Harold Garvey]

That's part of your problem. Etymology is not definition. Otherwise, you'd have to define "disaster" as "bad star".

I don't have a problem, I understand that a disaster can be a bad star or a supernova, it all depends upon the locale.

You are a hoot to try and deny the etymology of any word.

No, it doesn't.

According to you, no, according to Strong's, yes.

Yes, single-translation-onlyism is a progressive attribute of modern men, to which you cling with your teeth.

Um, show me where conservatism is ever progressive?

Again, before you accuse others of liberalism in use of the English language, you might want to try using it correctly yourself.

Correct according to you and your insolency?

I guess now you'll have to start correcting Strong's too. But then you'll have to admit the Greek doesn't incorporate the word defined as "worship" and OMIT that too!:laugh::tongue3::laugh:

 

[Harold Garvey]

BTW, why is it you repeatedly try to bring KJVO into every discussion?

 

[Johnv]

Um, show me where conservatism is ever progressive?

Since your adherence to single-translation-onlyism categorically disqualifies you from being conservative, that's your claim to make.

I guess now you'll have to start correcting Strong's too.

Stongs doesn't denote context, nor does it claim to. It gives deninitions without regard to context.

...why is it you repeatedly try to bring KJVO into every discussion?

That would be you who is doing so. I don't think I've mentioned KJVOism more than once ot twice in this thread, if that.

... you and your insolency ...

Please cite which posts are insolent in nature. Failing that, you'll need to retract your statement. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Jerome]

My old Dutch and Spanish bibles render the phrase "... got down on his knees and began begging..."

Which "old" Bibles are you referring to?

 

[Harold Garvey]

Since your adherence to single-translation-onlyism categorically disqualifies you from being conservative, that's your claim to make.

Nice of you to judge.:love2: But whoever said i hold to your dogmatic accusative vitriole towards anyone who holds to the KJV?

Stongs doesn't denote context, nor does it claim to. It gives deninitions without regard to context.

It gives the applied usage in whatever context the word is found in, your point is pointless, again

That would be you who is doing so. I don't think I've mentioned KJVOism more than once ot twice in this thread, if that.

You were the first and the last as far as I see. Hmmmph! You see to have the entire spectrum covered with....well, I shouldn't say that.

Please cite which posts are insolent in nature. Failing that, you'll need to retract your statement. I'm not holding my breath.

Um, do you always say things without regard to the words you speak?

 

[Harold Garvey]

So, you cannot show me where conservatism is ever progressive without insolency. The fact is that conservatism is the opposite of progressivetism when it's obvious of the downward trend associated with new versions.

 

[Trotter]

Word changes will always happen, but the original meaning is still intact. Society will always try to make words mean something different than the original meaning. The word of God does not change to meet the demands of people or society. People are to be changed to meet the demands of the scripture. Changing the words of scripture is a yeilding to the pressures of society to dumb down the Bible. Changing the words of the Bible does nothing to clarify the meaning, especially the matter we have been discussing. In fact removing the word "worship" does not clarify the meaning. No one has said anything about the reference of Matt. 27:29 where bowing the knee did not constitute worship but mockery.

You are equating the English translation as being the same as the manuscripts it was translated from in the first place. No big deal as we all do it, but we are all mistaken in doing this. Greek is very different from English in many different ways. I am nolinguist and so won't go into details (try Googling it), but I can show you why equating the translation with the underlying language will trip us all up.

When the KJV (or any other translation) was translated, the translators took the Greek and translated it into English. Sounds simple but it is not. Greek does not cross over directly into English (sentence structure, thoughts encompassed in single words, tenses, etc.). The translators have to take the whole of it and put it into the English structure, while preserving exactly (or as close as possible) what the Greek says. In doing so, the translators choose the English words that say what the Greek says. The translators can only use the English words and meanings that are currently available to them. This means the KJV translators used the English words and meanings of the early 1600's... many of which have changed in the 400 years hence.

Also, the KJV translators went with a higher form of English than what was commonly spoken by the common man in the early 1600's. This was done on purpose to acknowledge that God's words are not common, but it also served to use words that were not common (or even known) to the common man of the time. These words, too, have changed in meaning and usage in 400 years.

None of this means the KJV is no longer viable by no means. It does mean, however, that a common man has to have something to help him understand these words. Yes, yes, yes... I can hear the screams of, "The Holy Ghost will do it!", and He will with what can be read and understood, but the vast majority have no clue as to what a 'bishoprick' is, along with a lot of other archaic words.

Basically, the Greek remains unchanged, but the English it is/was translated into has not remained unchanged.

I'd be intewrested where you get the definition of a faggot to be a piece of wood? My faggots are made of metal and have feet to elevate the wood so it can get air underneath to allow it to burn effectively.

I don't recognize the slang term as proper English!

Yet another example of multiple meanings of English words, my friend. And, proper English or not, it is still in common use by common people. A "faggot" can also be a cigarette to those in the UK.

So you think the word of God has to keep up with the depravity of man?

Nope. The translating of the word of God needs to keep up with the common usage of the language it is translated into, pure and simple. Not all of the English language has slipped into depravity, but it has changed in usage and meaning. As I said above, the underlying Greek remains unchanged but the English has changed in usage and meaning.

 

[DHK]

Yet another example of multiple meanings of English words, my friend. And, proper English or not, it is still in common use by common people. A "faggot" can also be a cigarette to those in the UK.

Not a good word just to throw around at will, is it?

 

[Harold Garvey]

You are equating the English translation as being the same as the manuscripts it was translated from in the first place. No big deal as we all do it, but we are all mistaken in doing this. Greek is very different from English in many different ways. I am nolinguist and so won't go into details (try Googling it), but I can show you why equating the translation with the underlying language will trip us all up.

How is it you know this?

When the KJV (or any other translation) was translated, the translators took the Greek and translated it into English. Sounds simple but it is not. Greek does not cross over directly into English (sentence structure, thoughts encompassed in single words, tenses, etc.). The translators have to take the whole of it and put it into the English structure, while preserving exactly (or as close as possible) what the Greek says. In doing so, the translators choose the English words that say what the Greek says. The translators can only use the English words and meanings that are currently available to them. This means the KJV translators used the English words and meanings of the early 1600's... many of which have changed in the 400 years hence.

So you know what the Greek says contrary to what we have in the KJV and by what process, and how could you possibly know this since you say we can't know exactly what the Greek says and be able to translate it into English so we can al understand?

Also, the KJV translators went with a higher form of English than what was commonly spoken by the common man in the early 1600's. This was done on purpose to acknowledge that God's words are not common, but it also served to use words that were not common (or even known) to the common man of the time. These words, too, have changed in meaning and usage in 400 years.

yet we have many resources to let us all know what the KJV says and without the progressive ( new word for some of us) dumbing down of the general populous and thus causing rampant illiteracy we all have come to see and know today.

this means the KJV is no longer viable by no means. It does mean, however, that a common man has to have something to help him understand these words. Yes, yes, yes... I can hear the screams of, "The Holy Ghost will do it!", and He will with what can be read and understood, but the vast majority have no clue as to what a 'bishoprick' is, along with a lot of other archaic words.

yet you would leave the common man to depend upon a working knowledge of greek or at least depend on today's Greek scholars?

ly, the Greek remains unchanged, but the English it is/was translated into has not remained unchanged.

The KJV remains unchanged.

ther example of multiple meanings of English words, my friend. And, proper English or not, it is still in common use by common people. A "faggot" can also be a cigarette to those in the UK.

Context deems the proper usage and understanding. If you were a sodomite, then the word means in that context you are one. If i asked you for a faggot in Britain I might expect a cig, but if you were a fireplace furniture dealer you'd start showing me firedogs.:wavey:

translating of the word of God needs to keep up with the common usage of the language it is translated into, pure and simple. Not all of the English language has slipped into depravity, but it has changed in usage and meaning. As I said above, the underlying Greek remains unchanged but the English has changed in usage and meaning.

Society slips off into depravity and carries the language with it, just look at the hiphop culture.

So you think we can have the Bible translated into English and we are a slave to language changes as societies change due to depravity
being on the increase and all the time we don't even have an inspired Bible anymore.

Lord? help mine unbelief!

 

[DHK]

So you think we can have the Bible translated into English and we are a slave to language changes as societies change due to depravity
being on the increase and all the time we don't even have an inspired Bible anymore.

Lord? help mine unbelief!

What was inspired: the KJV, or the Greek and Hebrew MSS that the Prophets and Apostles wrote?

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Harold Garvey]

What was inspired: the KJV, or the Greek and Hebrew MSS that the Prophets and Apostles wrote?

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

OK, let me answer your question with this question: is the verse you used as a reference point inspired or not? If not, when did it lose inspiration?

Now, does God ever "move you"?

 

[DHK]

OK, let me answer your question with this question: is the verse you used as a reference point inspired or not? If not, when did it lose inspiration?

Now, does God ever "move you"?

No translation is inspired, not even the KJV. Only the original MSS are inspired, as the Word of God teaches. If it were any other way we would have Bible worshipers (which unfortunately has happened in many cases).
God did not intend for the Bible to be worshiped. That is idolatry. He gave it to us as his revelation to mankind; as a guidebook for life.

God promised to preserve His Word. We have the preserved Word of God. Only the original MSS are inspired. There are mistakes in translations. There is loss of meaning in translations. No translation is perfect. I am a missionary. I must preach in a different language. Sometimes it is impossible to translate one idiom exactly the same into another language. The same is true when going from Greek to English or from Hebrew to English. Meaning is lost. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. There is always loss of meaning in a translation. There are mistakes done by translators, for translators are human frail men prone to sin, as well as their own bias. No Bible is perfect.

God's Word is preserved. Only the originals are inspired.

 

[Amy.G]

God's Word is preserved. Only the originals are inspired.

I have seen this statement frequently posted on the BB and quite frankly it confuses me. Is there no bible in existence that is inspired? And if there isn't, then we do not have God's word, but man's word instead.

Did God not preserve His inspiration as well as His word?

Did He preserve His words, but without inspiration? Are the "words" in our bibles uninspired?

 

[DHK]

I have seen this statement frequently posted on the BB and quite frankly it confuses me. Is there no bible in existence that is inspired? And if there isn't, then we do not have God's word, but man's word instead.

Did God not preserve His inspiration as well as His word?

Did He preserve His words, but without inspiration? Are the "words" in our bibles uninspired?

We have over 5,000 MSS, some of them dating right back to the second and third centuries. It would be a mistake to say that we do not have the Word of God today. We do. And yet the Bible teaches that God inspired the Prophets and the Apostles to pen the words of Scriptures. Inspiration is not transferable. Those words were copied down throughout the ages, and were preserved just as if they were inspired. They are preserved for us today.
It remains important to us therefore, to be able to go back to the Greek and Hebrew to find out what the text is really saying. Often there is miscommunication or misunderstanding simply because it is a translated work. We do have God's Word. It is important to realize that. God promised to preserve it, and He did.

 

[EdSutton]

[Sign-in of Trotter]

It's good that most can discuss back and forth... but a few continue to be nuisances.

Glad to be of assisstance. Now that you stopped banging your head long enough to read this, continue.

Hunh??

A zeal uncovers itsself by the actions of those who say one thing and do something adversely different.

Didn't men originally translate the moving of the Spirit in the original autographs? Or do you hold to the stance that God spoke to them in angellic tongues???:BangHead:

Uh- What is the qualitative difference between one person "banging your head" (Trotter) and a second person "banging your head" (Harold Garvey)??

Ed

 

[Bayouparson]

No translation is inspired, not even the KJV. Only the original MSS are inspired, as the Word of God teaches. If it were any other way we would have Bible worshipers (which unfortunately has happened in many cases).
God did not intend for the Bible to be worshiped. That is idolatry. He gave it to us as his revelation to mankind; as a guidebook for life.

God promised to preserve His Word. We have the preserved Word of God. Only the original MSS are inspired. There are mistakes in translations. There is loss of meaning in translations. No translation is perfect. I am a missionary. I must preach in a different language. Sometimes it is impossible to translate one idiom exactly the same into another language. The same is true when going from Greek to English or from Hebrew to English. Meaning is lost. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. There is always loss of meaning in a translation. There are mistakes done by translators, for translators are human frail men prone to sin, as well as their own bias. No Bible is perfect.

God's Word is preserved. Only the originals are inspired.

Since you say no translation is inspired, then consider Acts 22:1-21 which was spoken in Hebrew by the Apostle Paul (see Acts 21:40). You won't find a manuscript anywhere that has this message by Paul in Hebrew, only in Greek. If your statement is true then what Paul said in the Greek is not inspired and the whole message was nothing more than a cornered Jew that had to talk his way out of a mess. There are other examples in case you are interested. One other point. If only the original [autographs] are inspired then you have never seen a verse of inspired scripture since there is not an original manuscript in captivity anywhere on this earth.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Finally - page 20