"The Message" revisited

Desiderio,

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from calling my wife a liar.

Your post says I answered and yet you say she lied when she said I answered?

 

Was Jesus wrong with answering a question with a question?

I think not.

I will follow in His example.

 

I apologize upon the condition that you name one other English version that you accept as valid and acknowledge that the technical accuracy of the KJV can be improved upon.

You have given strong evidence by not simply dealing with the FACTS Doc Cass set out before you.

Are you accusing me of being Satan or his instrument now? And you want to whine that I am an accuser of the brethren?

I have approached you with objective correction. If any of my facts are wrong, I will gladly accept correction of them.

You say you aren't KJVO but behave like one so if I am wrong you can easily prove it by behaving different from one.

 

Are you once again implying that I am an instrument of Satan for taking a stand against your error?

 

If you were following the example of Jesus you wouldn't be using questions to evade the truth.

 

Scott,

You certainly are being used [personnal insult deleted] when accusing the brethren. [insult deleted]

And did not Jesus tell Peter in the book of Matthew, Matthew 16:23 Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men?

So, rather than say I am wrong in saying you are [insult deleted], why not ask God to show you a more wise way to speak to the brethren?

Proverbs 21:23 Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soul from troubles.

BTW, I am not KJVO. I study using many different versions. I prefer the KJV because I do believe it is most accurate, as I have stated many times before.

I have the complete BibleWorks suite on my PC and refer to many texts on it.

[ May 17, 2006, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

I agree with you because he loves to ask KJV defenders many times. We realized he prefers W/H method rathar than TR method.

 

OKAY, OKAY, BACK ON SUBJECT EVERYBODY OR I WILL CLOSE THIS DOWN WITHOUT WARNING.

QUIT CALLING NAMES. This is obviously an emotional subject by all those who are posting, but no reason to be insulting.

C4K and I have had many people who wanted to shut this forum (translations) down due to threads just like this. PLEASE, let's don't give them the ammunition and also please understand why C4K and I edit posts.

Thank you,
Phillip

 

This thread has reached the optional five page limit, and as we have had about 40 pages of discussion on this topic in the recent past, this thread will be closed no earlier than 0030 EDT on Thursday, the 18th May.

 

Since when does defending the KJV put one in darkness? KJVOnlyism is a misrepresentation of the people who love and defend the KJV and are falsely linked to Peter Ruckman in Pensacola, FL.

What darkness is in the KJV?

There is NO victimhood defense being assumed here. SFIC simply points out errors in The Message and backs them up with the KJV--and that makes him a KJVO???????????? Get real. ScottJ, you are the one who continually comes against SFIC each time he uses the KJV to show the errors in The Message.

SFIC has NEVER said that he is KJVO, so why continually bring that up? Like I said, since when is defending the KJV being KJVO? You have not even defined what a KJVO is--

Accusation? How about accusations (in the plural). All you and Dr. Cassidy have been doing is accusing SFIC of being something he never claimed to be in the first place.

 

Before I share I again state as did TCassidy that the Message is poor, I say it is not even a translation, but a poor paraphrase, that does not just change archaic words to modern equivalent, but changes the meaning all together.

Now, in Linda's reply we have the whole matter stated and shown completely. Where one attempts to point out the errors in another version or translation using a translation. To do such is to make the KJV not the original Hebrew and Greek your final authority. When there seems to be a dispute among the translations it is prudent to go to the original language and let it speak for itself, not a translation of the original language.

Our English language has change over the years, you don't believe me? I would suggest many of you take a trip to England today. For the most part you would have trouble understanding what they say or mean. Anyone know what a bonnet is? Here it is a hat, there it is the hood of a car. TCassidy has shown what the KJV word for "comprehend" means by going back to the language of origin. To refuse to accept this is just being stubborn and contrary, and is a clear indicator that one is prefering the KJV over and in some case in place of the original manuscripts.

So once again with the circular reasoning shown by some in this forum---If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, swims like a duck-----it must be a sparrow.

Bro Tony

 

Since when does defending the KJV put one in darkness?</font>[/QUOTE] It is not accurately defined as "defending" when one heaps scorn on it by making demonstrably false claims about it.

Nope. It is much broader than Ruckman.

This forum has a pretty good set of definitions posted by Dr Bob. I would say that #1 and #2 do not qualify as KJVO but rather only KJV.

SFIC appears by his posts to fall in the 3-5 definitions.

What darkness is in the KJV?</font>[/QUOTE] None nor did I say there was. Look at what you did. You changed KJVOnlyism to KJV... Why would you do that? It isn't honest.

There is NO victimhood defense being assumed here.</font>[/QUOTE] Yes there is. I challenged him and he went completely off the deep end and accused me of being "an accuser of the brethren"- a thinly veiled charge that I am an instrument or minion of Satan himself.

I have no use for the Message translation. However, the KJV is not the standard by which the Message or any other translation must be judged. They should be judged by their faithfulness to the original language texts. The original language texts should be judged by the merits of their methods and adherence to the evidence God providentially provided.

No I haven't. I have never engaged SFIC on the Message before.

SFIC has NEVER said that he is KJVO, so why continually bring that up?</font>[/QUOTE] One very good reason for bringing it up is that he used the KJV to judge the Message by. Another is his denial of a simple technical error in spite of the fact that the totality of the evidence as presented by Doc is against his opinion.

Never said it was. Doc Cassidy is one of the best and most consistent defenders of the KJV I have ever seen... he simply isn't delusional about it... well, not normally

Feel free to refer to the definitions provided by Dr Bob at your leisure.

Accusation? How about accusations (in the plural). All you and Dr. Cassidy have been doing is accusing SFIC of being something he never claimed to be in the first place. </font>[/QUOTE]The cliche "actions speak louder than words" came roaring to mind as I read this.

 

Linda said he answered the question.

I asked a yes or no question, and he avoided it by asking a question of his own.

What part of her statement was truth?

Now, back to the OP, yes, the Message is a paraphrase, and those who try to treat it as a real bible are misled. However, can Petersen be blamed for that? If I write a commentary, and others try to make it into authorative scripture, then am I now to blame? Where does that end?

Now, what use is it to compare the Message to the KJV? This is where the problem always begins, the false assumption that the KJV is the final standard on what is scripture. It just shows a lack of knowledge about the KJV.

 

Why are you so fired up to attack the KJV, Desiderio?

 

KJV
John 1:4-5 In him was life;
and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not.

The Message
What came into existence was Life,
and the Life was Light to live by.
The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness;
the darkness couldn't put it out.

Standing firm in Christ:
//The message paints a picture here that Life just
came into existance in Christ, as if Christ had
no life before. The Bible does not say that
Also, the word comprehended means 'understood',
not 'could not put it out'.//

TCassidy: //The best way to translate the Greek is

"In Him life was,
and the life was the light of men
and the light in the darkness shines,
and the darkness did not overtake it." //

TCassidy, a BB dignity (IAW 2 Peter 2:10),
you know, the DDV (Doctor of Divinity), like
Dr. Tom Cassidy DDV -- anyway, Bro Tom is correct
here.

I see that I am also correct:
In the Old Testament things were established by
two or more witnesses. The understanding* of a Scripture
is enhansed when we have several people discussing it
and several Bibles to witness to the translation.

* Caveat: people whose understanding is increased
must of necessity first be trainable.

John 1:4-5 (HCSB = Christian Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ ):

Life was in Him,
and that life was the light of men.
5. That light shines in the darkness,
yet the darkness did not overcome* it.

*HCSB Translator Footnote:
OR, grasp, or comprehend, or overtake

TCassidy: //Your problem is that you don't understand what "comprehend"
means in the KJV. It does not mean "understand"
it means "surround" or "encompass" or "enclose" or
"come upon" or "overtake."
The word "comprehend" is built from two words you
might be familiar with. The first is "com" which means
to surround. It is the word we get our word "compass" from.
The other is "prehend" which is a form of "apprehend"
which means to stop or arrest. When we combine
them we get the meaning of "stopping or arresting by surrounding."
Buy a dictionary!//

Amen, Brother TCassidy -- Preach it!

Thank you Bro./Dr. TCassidy. I'm making a collection of
misunderstandings of the English in the KJV which lead
to doctrinal errors.

My dictionary has an entry for 'comprehended' which includes
both the 21st Century misunderstanding and the 17th Century
correct understanding. Don't you find it strange that
an errant dictionary can help one understand the
inerrant Bible?

THE RANDOM HOUSE COLLEGE DICTIONARY (Random HOuse, 1982):

COMPREHEND - v.t.
1. to understand the nature or meaning of;
grasp with the mind; perceive
2. to take in or embrace; include; comprise

The Doctrine of the Unjust not Understanding Christians
is NOT valid. It comes from a meaning of COMPREHEND
that didn't exist in the 17th Century (1601-1700)
but existed in the 20th Century (1901-2000).
Some of the unjust are smart and understand Christians
lot better than the Christians understand thier
own Bible.

At least many (up to 99.98%) of the unjust never embrace this
loose's doctrine: The willingly untrained/inept are
naturally closer to God than folks with Doctor Degrees.


Selection from Matthew 6:9-13
(the Model Prayer):

KJV1769:
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil:

THE MESSAGE
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.

I think many under 40s would understand the
prayer in the words of THE MESSAGE better than
the words from the KJV1769. Both 'temptation'
and 'evil' are largely unused words in
the 21st century (2001-2000). But most
English speakers in the
21st century understand 'safe from ourselves'
and 'safe from the Devil'.

BTW, I might mention this 'and' here
which comes from the Greek 'Kai'. I've found many
Christian brothers & sisters on this very Baptist
Board (BB) who don't understand 'and'.
How many of us known the literary device (do you
get surprised when prophetic Bible passages use
literary devices?) known as the polysyndeton?
IT was used in Greek instead of the outlining we
use today.

 

Closed a few minutes early at 0020 EDT