The ONE QUESTION KJVOs can't correctly answer...

[TCassidy]

The KJVO myth is TAUGHT in more than one congregation, which makes it a DOCTRINE.

So something being taught in more than one church is the definition of doctrine? Silly me! I always thought "doctrine" was the translation of διδαχή (didachē) meaning "teaching" or "something taught."

And i still believe that KJVO's lack of support or authority from GOD makes it false.

What makes it false is that it is not true. It is non-factual. There are a lot of things that lack support or authority from God which are, nevertheless, true.

 

[Salty]

So something being taught in more than one church is the definition of doctrine? Silly me! I always thought "doctrine" was the translation of διδαχή (didachē) meaning "teaching" or "something taught."

What makes it false is that it is not true. It is non-factual. There are a lot of things that lack support or authority from God which are, nevertheless, true.

so in ,essence, you are agreeing with Roby
You say TOE-mato
he says TA-mato

 

[TCassidy]

All the KJVO people I talk with base everything on what the KJV literally says.

That is certainly their "jumping off" point.

They believe God inspired His word. And provide scripture to support that belief.

They believe God did and has preserved His word. And provide scripture to prove that belief.

They they make the leap to the assertion that the KJV is an English bible (true) so it must be the KJV the above supporting scriptures point to (untrue).

I have met KJVOs who make no attempt to support their position from Scripture. They simply say "I believe it by faith." Of course my immediate response is "faith in what?" Your faith is no better than the object you place that faith in. So what are you placing your faith in?

So it is not at all a matter of faith. It is a matter of scholarship. God has given us minds to think with. He has given us the ability to learn things and retain that learned information. He has given us the ability to reason - to correlate the individual factual points we have learned into one cohesive whole. A body of knowledge.

To deny the effectiveness of our scholarship is to deny the very image of God in which we were created.

 

[TCassidy]

so in ,essence, you are agreeing with Roby
You say TOE-mato
he says TA-mato

No. I am showing that he doesn't have a clue what "doctrine" means. Or what proves or falsifies an assertion.

 

[HankD]

logic is important in determining the truth.

true God's thoughts are not our thoughts and God's thinking and His logic can elude us.

I don't want to set off any useless KJVO debates but I would like to show one logical exercise (among others) that led me away from the KJVO error.

KJVO folks once had a cutsie word meme - "Things that are different are not the same".

There are two KJV bibles circa 1611 - The Oxford and the Cambridge editions.

You guessed it - they are different.
And even if they are different by only by one word in case, number or gender (Jeremiah 34:16) much less meaning (Nahum 3:16) they are therefore two different "bibles" according to KJVO logic.

After all secondary inspiration supposedly means that the Holy Spirit granted the gift of flawless, error free inspiration to the KJV translators in the manner He did with the prophets and apostles.

Or does God only make small mistakes? Do locust "fly away' or "flee" (Nahum 3:16)?

Remember, I am using KJVO logic.

Which edition therefore is the one inspired of God? Yes, the KJVO community is still debating this issue.

At very least they have similar textual variant issues as those who prefer the CT based English bibles.

Then there is the issue of the 1769 edition.

My conclusion - God inspires prophets/apostles but not translators.
Related issue: Scribal errors are not inspirational errors.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

It must be remembered that the King James Version, as good as it is, was for the New Testament based on the so called "Received Text", which had its textual basis of the Greek Text by Dutch humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, who had no problem with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. His Greek text was based on very late Greek manuscripts, and also made use of the Latin Vulgate. The name "Received Text", does not mean that it was an official "text" to be used in the Church, but comes from words written in a preface of a Greek Text published by Bonaventure and his nephew, Abraham Elzevir, which reads, "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum".

Since this time there has been much discovered in the field of textual studies, and older and better Greek manuscripts have been discovered. A very important textual variant in these earlier Greek manuscripts, is John 1:18, where, instead of the reading, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son"; we have, "No one has ever seen God; the Unique God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known". Here we have the Father and the Son, both equally GOD, where "θεός," is use in each case, without the Greek article, but the meaning is the same for both. Even the wrong rendering of the Greek "μονογενής", which versions like the KJV translate, "only begotten", has been corrected to reflect what the Greek actually means, "one of a kind, unique", rightly used for God Incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ. The word "μονογενής" has nothing of any "begetting" in its use. Had John wished to show this, then he would have used the right Greek word, "μονογέννητος".

There is no basis for any Christian to assume that any version is more blessed than the other, as they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Only the original Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament (with the possible exception of Matthew's Gospel, which could have been originally in Hebrew), are directly "θεόπνευστος", and therefore, Infallible and Inerrant. No "version", including the Greek LXX, can claim this.

 

[TCassidy]

Dutch humanist

This is a typical attack made by those who dislike the Majority Text in hopes that the readers will be too stupid to know that the meaning of "humanist" has changed since the 16th century when it meant the principle of ad fontes, or back to the sources, seeking out manuscripts of Patristic literature to enhance their understanding, and thus Erasmus's interest in ancient bible manuscripts.

had no problem with the teachings of the Roman Catholic church

Uh, well, no. Hugh Pope, a Roman Catholic Historian, said, writing under a Papal Imprimatur, Erasmus expressed doubts “about almost every article of Catholic teaching” Pope listed six dogmas in particular that Erasmus questioned, including the mass, confession, the primacy of the Pope, and priestly celibacy.

His Greek text was based on very late Greek manuscripts

His Greek text agreed with the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts of the New Testament including those which predate Aleph and B.

Since this time there has been much discovered in the field of textual studies, and older and better Greek manuscripts have been discovered.

Well, no. Modern papyrus discoveries have disproven Hort's claims that no "distinctive" Byzantine reading could have existed before AD 350. (See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984) 55-69, 145-208 and New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority by Maurice A. Robinson

A very important textual variant in these earlier Greek manuscripts, is John 1:18, where, instead of the reading, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son"; we have, "No one has ever seen God; the Unique God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known". Here we have the Father and the Son, both equally GOD, where "θεός," is use in each case, without the Greek article, but the meaning is the same for both. Even the wrong rendering of the Greek "μονογενής", which versions like the KJV translate, "only begotten", has been corrected to reflect what the Greek actually means, "one of a kind, unique", rightly used for God Incarnate, the Lord Jesus Christ. The word "μονογενής" has nothing of any "begetting" in its use. Had John wished to show this, then he would have used the right Greek word, "μονογέννητος".

You should probably stick to English. Greek is way beyond your present knowledge.

The variant in John 1:18 is that the Byzantine textform reads υιος (Son) and the Alexandrian textform reads θεος (God).

The Byzantine textform, when translated into English reads:
Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

The Alexandrian text reads, when translated into English:
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

And you are equally wrong about the meaning of μονογενής. The Greek word is a construct, two words stuck together to form one new word. Mono = one. Genas = generated, or begotten.

See Thayer, where he says when "used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God." Thayer also says it is a word that refers to only children of parents.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

This is a typical attack made by those who dislike the Majority Text in hopes that the readers will be too stupid to know that the meaning of "humanist" has changed since the 16th century when it meant the principle of ad fontes, or back to the sources, seeking out manuscripts of Patristic literature to enhance their understanding, and thus Erasmus's interest in ancient bible manuscripts.

Uh, well, no. Hugh Pope, a Roman Catholic Historian, said, writing under a Papal Imprimatur, Erasmus expressed doubts “about almost every article of Catholic teaching” Pope listed six dogmas in particular that Erasmus questioned, including the mass, confession, the primacy of the Pope, and priestly celibacy.

His Greek text agreed with the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts of the New Testament including those which predate Aleph and B.

Well, no. Modern papyrus discoveries have disproven Hort's claims that no "distinctive" Byzantine reading could have existed before AD 350. (See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984) 55-69, 145-208 and New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority by Maurice A. Robinson

You should probably stick to English. Greek is way beyond your present knowledge.

The variant in John 1:18 is that the Byzantine textform reads υιος (Son) and the Alexandrian textform reads θεος (God).

The Byzantine textform, when translated into English reads:
Joh 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

The Alexandrian text reads, when translated into English:
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

And you are equally wrong about the meaning of μονογενής. The Greek word is a construct, two words stuck together to form one new word. Mono = one. Genas = generated, or begotten.

See Thayer, where he says when "used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God." Thayer also says it is a word that refers to only children of parents.

I will only respond to your last comments on the meaning of "μονογενής", to show that you are wrong.

"μονο-γενής,
1. and Ion. μουνο-, (γένος) the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, παῖς Hes. Op. 376, Hdt. 7.221, cf. Joh_1:14, Ant.Lib. 32.1; of Hecate, Hes. Th. 426.
2. unique, of τὸ ὄν, Parm. 8.4; εἷς ὅδε μ. οὐρανὸς γεγονώς Pl. Ti. 31b, cf. Procl. Inst. 22; θεὸς ὁ μ. Sammelb. 4324.15.
3. μ. αἷμα one and the same blood, dub. l. in E. Hel. 1685.
4. Gramm., having one form for all genders, A.D. Adv. 145.18.
5. name of the foot, Heph. 3.3.
II
1. Adv. - νῶς, φέρεται μ. ἐν ἑνὶ τόπῳ grows only in one place, Peripl.M.Rubr. 56, cf. 11.
2. in a unique manner, Aët. 15.13,14. "

(Liddell and Scott)

"μονογενής, μονογενές (μόνος and γένος) (Cicero,unigena; Vulg. (in Luke unicus, elsewhere) and in ecclesiastical writings unigenitus), single of its kind, only (A. V. only-begotten); used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents), Hesiod theog. 426, 448; Herodotus 7, 221; Plato, Critias 113 d.; Josephus, Antiquities 1, 13, 1; 2, 7, 4; μονογενές τέκνον πατρί, Aeschylus Ag. 898. So in the Scriptures: Heb_11:17; μονογενῆ εἶναι τίνι (to be one's only son or daughter)"

(J H Thayer, forget Thayer's comments which have nothing to do with the meaning of this word. remember that Thayer was a Unitarian!)

"μονογενής is literally “one of a kind,” “only,” “unique” (unicus), not “only-begotten,” which would be μονογέννητος (unigenitus), and is common in the LXX in this sense (e.g. Jdg_11:34, Psa. 21:21 [MT Psa_22:21] , Psa. 24:16 [MT Psa_25:16], Tob_3:15). It is similarly used in the NT of “only” sons and daughters (Luk_7:12; Luk_8:42; Luk_9:38), and is so applied in a special sense to Christ in Joh_1:14; Joh_1:18; Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18, 1Jn_4:9, where the emphasis is on the thought that, as the “only”Son of God, He has no equal and is able fully to reveal the Father."

(Moulton and Milligan)

"monogenhv", ev" ( Hes. +; LXX ; Joseph. ; loanw. in rabb. ) only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34 ; Tob 3:15 ; 8:17
) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son ( Jos. , Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17 . Of an only son ( Plut. , Lycurgus 31, 8; Jos. , Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12 ; 9:38 . Of the daughter ( Diod. S. 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42.—Also unique ( in kind ) of someth. that is the only example of its category ( Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 ei|" k. monogenh;" oJ kovsmo" ejstiv. monogenh` k. movna ejstivn =‘unique and alone’; Pla. , Timaeus 92 C ). Of the mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl25:2.—In the Johannine lit. m. is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may"

(Arndt and Gingrich)

Here we have clear evidence from leading Greek authorities on the use of Greek words, who show that your theological meaning is just that, theological, and not what the actual Greek says. before you make arrogant statements like, "You should probably stick to English. Greek is way beyond your present knowledge"; check your own facts and don't show your own biased ignorance!

I will add for John 1:18, that the earliest evidence that we actually have, and not some "conjecture", for μονογενὴς θεὸς , is. You will note the two very early Papayri Greek manuscripts, far older than any other Greek mss, that read, υἱὸς.

"μονογενὴς θεὸς] p66 ‭à* B C* L pc syrp syrh(mg) geo2 Diatessarona ValentiniansAccording to Irenaeus ValentiniansAccording to Clement Ptolemy Heracleon Origengr(2/4) AriusAccording to Epiphanius Apostolic Constitutions Didymus Ps-Ignatius SynesiusAccording to Epiphanius Cyril1/4 WH NRtext Nv NM
ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς] p75 ‭à2 33 pc copbo TheodotusAccording to Clement(1/2) Clement2/3 Origengr(2/4) Eusebius3/7 Serapion1/2 Basil1/2 Gregory-Nyssa Epiphanius Cyril3/4

have a good day/night!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

TCassidy says:

And you are equally wrong about the meaning of μονογενής. The Greek word is a construct, two words stuck together to form one new word. Mono = one. Genas = generated, or begotten.

On the Greek "γένος" we have

"γένος, εος or ους, τό,
1. race, stock, kin, ἀμφοτέροισιν ὁμὸν γ. ἠδ' ἴα πάτρη Il. 13.354; αἷμά τε καὶ γ. Od. 8.583; ὑμετέρου δ' οὐκ ἔστι γένεος βασιλεύτερον 15.533; γένος πατέρων αἰσχυνέμεν Il. 6.209; γ. ἀπόλωλε τοκήων Od. 4.62; ὅθι τοι γένος ἐστὶ καὶ αὐτῇ 6.35: freq. abs. in acc., ἐξ Ἰθάκης γένος εἰμί from Ithaca I am by race, 15.267, cf. Il. 5.544, 896, S. Ph. 239, etc.; in Att. freq. with the Art., ποδαπὸς τὸ γένος εἶ; Ar. Pax 186, cf. Pl. Sph. 216a: so in dat., γένει πολῖται D. 23.24; γένει υἱός, opp. an adopted son, Id. 44.2; οἱ ἐν γένει, = συγγενεῖς, S. OT 1430; οἱ ἔξω γένους Id. Ant. 660; οὐδὲν ἐν γένει Id. OT 1016; γένει προσήκειν τινί X. An. 1.6.1; γένει ἀπωτέρω εἶναι D. 44.13: in gen., γένους εἶναί τινος to be of his race, ἄναγνος καὶ γένους τοῦ Λαΐου S. OT 1383, cf. X. HG 4.2.9; ἐγγυτέρω, ἐγγύτατα γένους, nearer, next of kin, Isa 8.33, A. Supp. 388.
2. direct descent, opp. collateral relationship, γένος γάρ, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ συγγένεια Isa 8.33; αἱ κατὰ γένος βασιλεῖαι hereditary monarchies, Arist. Pol. 1285a16, 1313a10.
II
1. offspring, even of a single descendant, σὸν γ. Il. 19.124, 21.186; ἡ δ' ἄρ' ἔην θεῖον γ. οὐδ' ἀνθρώπων 6.180; ἁμὸν Οἰδίπου γ. A. Th. 654; Διὸς γ., of Bacchus, S. Ant. 1117 (lyr.); Τέκμησσα, δύσμορον γ. Id. Aj. 784.
2. collectively, offspring, posterity, ἐκεῖνοι καὶ τὸ γ. τὸ ἀπ' ἐκείνων Th. 1.126; ἐξώλη ποιεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ γ. καὶ οἰκίαν D. 19.71.
III
1. generally, race, of beings, θεῶν Ar. Th. 960; ἡμιθέων γ. ἀνδρῶν Il. 12.23; ἡμιόνων, βοῶν γ., Il. 2.852, Od. 20.212; ἵππειον γ., i.e. mules, S. Ant. 342; ἰχθύων πλωτὸν γ. Id. Fr. 941.9. clan, house, family, Hdt. 1.125, etc.; Φρὺξ μὲν γενεῇ, γένεος δὲ τοῦ βασιληΐου ib. 35; τοὺς ἀπὸ γένους men of noble family, Plu. Rom. 21; ἱερεὺς κατὰ γ. IG 5(1).497, al.; also ἱέρεια ἀπὸ γένους, διὰ γένους, ib.607.29,602; esp. at Athens and elsewhere as a subdivision of the φρατρία, Arist. Ath. Fr. 3, Pl. Alc. 1.120e, etc.; = Lat. gens, D.S. 4.21, Plu. Num_1:1-54. tribe, as a subdivision of ἔθνος, Hdt. 1.56, 101. caste, Id. 2.164. of animals, breed, Id. 4.29.
2. age, generation, Od. 3.245; γ. χρύσεον, etc., Hes. Op. 109: hence, age, time of life, γένει ὕστερος Il. 3.215, cf. Arist. Rh. 1408a27. sex, Epich. 172.1, Pl. Smp. 189d; gender, Arist. Rh. 1407b7, Diog.Bab.Stoic. 3.214, etc.
1. class, sort, kind, τὰ γ. τῶν κυνῶν ἐστι δισσά X. Cyn. 3.1; τὸ φιλόσοφον γ. Pl. R. 501e; τὸ τῶν γεωργῶν [γ. ] Id. Ti. 17c, cf. R. 434b, Arist. Pol. 1329a27; τῶν ἰχθυοπωλῶν γ. Xenarch. 7.4; τὸ τῶν παρασίτων γ. Nicol. Com.1.1, etc.
2. in Logic, opp. εἶδος (species), Pl. Prm. 129c, al., Arist. Top. 102a31, 102b12, al.; τὰ γ. εἰς εἴδη πλείω καὶ διαφέροντα διαιρεῖται Id. Metaph. 1059b36.
3. in the animal kingdom, τὰ μέγιστα γ., = the modern Classes, such as birds, fishes, Id. HA 490b7, cf. 505b26; so in the vegetable kingdom, γένη τὰ μέγιστα, = σιτώδη, χεδροπά and ἀνώνυμα, Thphr. HP 8.1.1. genus, τὸ τῶν καρκίνων γ., τὸ τῶν περιστερῶν γ., etc., Arist. HA 487b17, 488a4; τῶν δένδρων καὶ τῶν φυτῶν εἴδη πλείω τυγχάνει καθ' ἕκαστον γένος Thphr. HP 1.14.3; τοῦ αὐτοῦ γένους [πίτυς] καὶ πεύκη Dsc. 1.69, al. γένος τι a species of plant, Thphr. HP 4.8.13; so later, γένη, = crops, ἄλλοις γένεσι τοῖς πρὸς πυρὸν διοικουμένοις PTeb. 66.43, al. (ii B. C.); οἷς ἐὰν αἱρῶμαι γένεσι πλὴν κνήκου PAmh. 2.91.15 (ii A. D.); produce, POxy. 727.20 (ii A. D.); materials, ib.54.16 (iii A. D.); ἐν γένεσιν in kind, opp. ἐν ἀργυρίῳ, PFay. 21.10 (ii A. D.).
4. τὰ γ. the elements, Pl. Ti. 54b. (Cf. Skt. jánas, gen. jánasas; Lat. genus, -eris, v. γίγνομαι.)

(Liddell and Scott)

"γένος, γένους, τό (ΓΑΝΩ, γίνομαι), race;
a. offspring: τίνος, Act_17:28 f (from the poet Aratus); Rev_22:16.

b. family: Acts (Act_4:6, see ἀρχιερεύς, 2 at the end); (others refer this to c.); .

c. stock, race: Act_7:19; 2Co_11:26; Php_3:5; Gal_1:14; 1Pe_2:9; (Gen_11:6; Gen_17:14, etc. for òÇí); nation (i. e. nationality or descent from a particular people): Mar_7:26; Act_4:36; Act_18:2; Act_18:24.

d. concrete, the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort, species: Mat_13:7; Mat_17:21 (T WH omit; Tr brackets the verse); Mar_9:29; 1Co_12:10; 1Co_12:28; 1Co_14:10. (With the same significations in Greek writings from Homer down.)

STRONGS NT 1085a: ΓερασηνόςΓερασηνός, Γερασηνου, ὁ, Gerasene, i. e. belonging to the city Gerasa (τά Γέρασα, Josephus, b. j. 3, 3, 3): Mat_8:28 (Lachmann); Mar_5:1 (L T WH Tr text); Luk_8:26; Luk_8:37 (L Tr WH) according to very many manuscripts seen by Origen. But since Gerasa was a city situated in the southern part of Peraea (Josephus, the passage cited, cf. 4, 9, 1), or in Arabia (Origen, Works, iv. 140, De la Rue edition), that cannot be referred to here; see Γαδαρηνός, and the next word. "

( J Thayer)


"gevno", ou", tov ( Hom. +; inscr. , pap. , LXX , Ep. Arist. , Philo , Joseph. , Test. 12 Patr. ; Sib. Or. 3, 193; loanw. in rabb. ) race, stock.

1. descendants of a common ancestor ejk gevnou" ajrcieratikou` of high-priestly descent ( s. Jos ., Ant. 15, 40) Ac 4:6 ( PTebt. 291, 36 ajpevdeixa" seauto;n gevnou" o[nta iJeratikou` , cf. 293, 14; 18; BGU 82, 7 al. pap .). uiJoi; gevnou" jAbraavm 13:26 ( s. Jos ., Ant. 5, 113); g. DauivdRv 22:16 ; IEph 20:2; ITr 9:1; ISm 1:1. tou` ga;r kai; gevno" ejsmevn we, too, are descended from him Ac 17:28 (quoted fr. Arat ., Phaenom. 5; perh. as early as Epimenides [RHarris, Exp. 8th Ser. IV ’12, 348-53; ChBruston, Rev. de Théol. et des Quest. rel. 21, ’13, 533-5; DAFrøvig, Symbol. Osl. 15/ 16, ’36, 44 ff ; MZerwick, Verb. Dom. 20, ’40, 307-21; EdesPlaces, Ac 17:28 , Biblica 43, ’62, 388-95]. Cf. also IG XIV 641; 638 in Norden, Agn. Th. 194 n. ; Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 4 [ Stoic. I 537] ejk sou` ga;r gevno"
. . . ; Dio Chrys. 80[30], 26 ajpo; t. qew`n to; tw`n ajnqrwvpwn gevno" ; Ep. 44 of Apollonius of Tyana [
Philostrat. I 354, 22] gevno" o[nte" qeou` ; Hierocles 25 p. 474, v. 63 of the Carmen Aur.: qei`on gevno" ejsti; brotoi`sin ), cf. vs. 2 9.—Also of an individual descendant, scion ( Hom. ; Soph. , Ant. 1117 Bacchus is Dio;" g .). Jesus is to; gevno" Dauivd Rv 22:16 ( cf. Epimenides [VI BC ] 457 fgm.3 Jac. , the saying of Musaeus : ejgw; gevno" eijmi Selhvnh" ; Quint. Smyrn. 1, 191 sei`o qeou` gevno" ejsti ).

2. family, relatives ( Appian , Bell. Civ. 5, 54 §228; Basil. 1a §1; BGU 1185, 18; Jos. , Ant. 17, 22; 18, 127) to; g. jIwshvf Ac 7:13 .

3. nation, people ( Appian , Bell. Civ. 2, 71 §294 JEbraivwn gevno" ; 2, 90 §380 jIoudaivwn g. , the latter also Diod. S. 34+35 fgm. 1, 1; 40, 3, 8; Maximus Tyr. 23, 7b; Ael. Aristid. 45 p. 108 D.: tw`n JEllhvnwn g .; Achilles Tat. 1, 3, 1; 3, 19, 1; Synes. , Ep. 121 p. 258 B to; jEbraivwn g .; Test. Levi 5:6 to; gevno" jIsrahvl ; Jos. , Bell. 7, 43, Ant. 10, 183 to; JEbraivwn g .) Ac 7:19 ; Gal 1:14 ; Phil 3:5 ; B 14:7 (Is 42:6 ). Of the Christians: gevno" ejklektovn a chosen nation 1 Pt 2:9 (Is 43:20 ; cf. Esth 8:12 t; s. JCFenton, CBQ 9, ’47, 141 f ); kaino;n g. Dg 1; trivtw/ gevnei as a third people(beside pagans and Jews) PK 2 p. 15, 8 ( s. Harnack, Mission 4 I ’24, 259-89); g. tw`n dikaivwn MPol 14:1; 17:1; Hs 9, 17,
5. qeofile;" qeosebe;" g. tw`n Cristianw`n godly and pious race of the Christians MPol 3 ( Plut. , Mor. 567 f : the Greeks acc. to the divine verdict are to; bevltiston k. qeofilevstaton gevno"). tw`/ gevnei w. name of a people to denote nationality ( Menand. , Per. 9 J.; Plut. , Dem. 28, 3; Jos. , Ant. 20, 81; BGU 887, 3; 15; 937, 9 dou`lo" gevnei Pontikov" ; cf. 2 Macc 5:22 ; 3 Macc 1:3 ) Mk 7:26 ; Ac 4:36 ; 18:2 , 24 . Pregnant constr. kivndunoi ejk gevnou" perils from the people =my countrymen, the Jews 2 Cor 11:26 .

4. class, kind (Ps.-Xenophon, Cyneg. 3, 1 ta; gevnh tw`n kunw`n ; PGiess. 40, 9 panto;" gevnou" politeumavtwn ; Wsd 19:21 ; Philo ) of plants (BGU 1119, 27 [I BC ] taujta; gevnh ‘the same species of plants’; 1120, 34; 1122, 23) Hs 8, 2, 7; of fish (Heniochus Com. 3; Jos. , Bell. 3, 508) Mt 13:47 ; of demons 17:21 ; Mk 9:29 ( Herm. Wr. 13, 2 tou`to to; gevno" ouj didavsketai). gevnh glwssw`n (glw`ssa 3) 1 Cor 12:10 , 28 ; g. fwnw`n14:1 0. Cf. Hs 9, 1, 8; 9, 19, 1; 9, 24, 1; 9, 30, 3. M-M. B. 85;
1317.*"

(Arndt and Gingrich)

Do you see any BEGETTING in the use of the Greek noun, γένος in these Greek authorities?

 

[TCassidy]

Wow! 8 paragraphs to say exactly the same thing I said. More proof you have no idea what you are talking about, and don't even understand what you are posting!

If this wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Greek witnesses
Codex A - Alexandrinus (5th C.)
Codex C3 - "corrector" of Eprhraemi Rescriptus
Codex Θ - Tiflis (9th C.)
Codex Ψ - Athos (8/9 C.)
063 = 9th C. Greek uncial
f1, 13 - "families" of 18 Greek minuscle mss
= majority Byzantine text
Willoughby manuscript - 250AD

Versions
Old Latin (Prior to the Vulgate of 386AD)
Curetonian Syriac (5th C.)

 

[Logos1560]

the KJV

#2. It was translated using a verbal and formal equivalence technique whenever possible while using dynamic equivalence when necessary to preserve colloquialisms etc.

Has it been clearly demonstrated or proven that the KJV used "a verbal and formal equivalence technique whenever possible"?

Would one example where a verbal and formal equivalence was not used when it was possible to be used be a problem for this broad-sweeping assertion?

Would the case of a Greek verb, which the KJV translators typically translated verbally or formally either by the English verb "serve" or the verb "minister," that was translated by what could be regarded a dynamic-equivalent-type rendering at 1 Timothy 3:10 and 3:13 "use the office of a deacon" or "have used the office of a deacon" be a possible example?

Did some of the pre-1611 English Bibles have a more verbal or formal type rendering than the KJV at these two verses?

While the assertion may be generally true, is it possible that the qualification "whenever possible" was an overstatement?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Wow! 8 paragraphs to say exactly the same thing I said. More proof you have no idea what you are talking about, and don't even understand what you are posting!

If this wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Greek witnesses
Codex A - Alexandrinus (5th C.)
Codex C3 - "corrector" of Eprhraemi Rescriptus
Codex Θ - Tiflis (9th C.)
Codex Ψ - Athos (8/9 C.)
063 = 9th C. Greek uncial
f1, 13 - "families" of 18 Greek minuscle mss
= majority Byzantine text
Willoughby manuscript - 250AD

Versions
Old Latin (Prior to the Vulgate of 386AD)
Curetonian Syriac (5th C.)

so you ignore the earliest Greek Papyri manuscripts? You also failed to respond to my Greek evidence which clearly shows that you do not understand the meaning of "μονογενής", nor of "γένος", after accusing me of not knowing Greek. Further, you again post false information when you list the Willoughby manuscript as support for "υιος", which is IMPOSSIBLE, as the manuscript ONLY has six lines, which is from John 1, verses 50-51! the text we are dealing with, is John 1:18!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...estament-manuscript-spotted-sale-eBay-99.html

The Text of the Gospels: The Willoughby Papyrus of John 1:50-2:1

I would like to see your response for adding this manuscript evidence for John 1:18, when you must know that it DOES NOT even include this verse!

 

[Logos1560]

logic is important in determining the truth.

KJVO folks once had a cutsie word meme - "Things that are different are not the same".

There are two KJV bibles circa 1611 - The Oxford and the Cambridge editions.

You guessed it - they are different.

Yes, there are varying editions of the KJV, more than two.

There is actually not one Cambridge edition of the KJV that has stayed the same from 1629 until today. There have been and are a number of varying Cambridge editions of the KJV. Some examples include the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1817 Cambridge, the 1873 Cambridge, the 2005 Cambridge edition by David Norton; and each one would have its own differences from the others.

Some of the renderings that some assume to represent the 1900's Oxford KJV text actually came from earlier Cambridge or London editions.

Many overlook the Edinburgh editions of the KJV, which differed in some places from typical Cambridge or typical Oxford editions.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Wow! 8 paragraphs to say exactly the same thing I said. More proof you have no idea what you are talking about, and don't even understand what you are posting!

If this wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Greek witnesses
Codex A - Alexandrinus (5th C.)
Codex C3 - "corrector" of Eprhraemi Rescriptus
Codex Θ - Tiflis (9th C.)
Codex Ψ - Athos (8/9 C.)
063 = 9th C. Greek uncial
f1, 13 - "families" of 18 Greek minuscle mss
= majority Byzantine text
Willoughby manuscript - 250AD

Versions
Old Latin (Prior to the Vulgate of 386AD)
Curetonian Syriac (5th C.)

You say that you have more proof that I don't understand what I am posting? Then here is a perfect chance for you to prove that I don't know Greek, or understand textual studies.

Firstly, prove me from the Greek LXX, or the Greek NT, or from the early Greek writers, like Homer, Herodianus, Pindar, Philo, etc, or from the Greek papyri, where the Greek noun "γένος", is used, for, as you say, "Genas = generated, or begotten".

Secondly, on the matter of textual studies, show here that the Willoughby manuscript reads "υιος" in John 1:18.

This will show my complete incompetence in my knowledge for the Greek language, and textual studies. If you cannot, then I expect that you will offer a full apology, as a believer and follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, for falsely accusing another brother in the Lord.

 

[TCassidy]

LOL! Once again you demonstrate your inability to even understand my simple explanation of a construct!

This just keeps getting better and better!

 

[TCassidy]

so you ignore the earliest Greek Papyri manuscripts?

LOL! Once again you display your utter failure to understand rather simple concepts.

the meaning of "μονογενής", nor of "γένος"

ROFLOL! Duh! Can you spell "construct?"

I would like to see your response for adding this manuscript evidence for John 1:18,

I didn't.

 

[TCassidy]

Has it been clearly demonstrated or proven that the KJV used "a verbal and formal equivalence technique whenever possible"?

That would depend on what you consider sufficient evidence.

Would one example where a verbal and formal equivalence was not used when it was possible to be used be a problem for this broad-sweeping assertion?

I don't see why.

While the assertion may be generally true, is it possible that the qualification "whenever possible" was an overstatement?

I don't think so, unless you would rather discuss semantics rather than the actual topic.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

LOL! Once again you display your utter failure to understand rather simple concepts.


ROFLOL! Duh! Can you spell "construct?"
I didn't.

I seriously think that your old age is having a very bad affect on your judgement and understanding. Can you show me which Greek lexical authorities, that the part of the compound word, "μονογενής", which includes, "γένος", where it is used for "begetting"? I have also shown from leading Greek scholars, that "μονογενής", does NOT include any "begetting", unless it is taken for theological purposes. You have FAILED to do so! I have asked to show the evidence that you have given, for the Willoughby manuscript, as you claimed to support "υιος", and you say in # 36, "I didn't", whereas in # 30 you say:

Greek witnesses
Codex A - Alexandrinus (5th C.)
Codex C3 - "corrector" of Eprhraemi Rescriptus
Codex Θ - Tiflis (9th C.)
Codex Ψ - Athos (8/9 C.)
063 = 9th C. Greek uncial
f1, 13 - "families" of 18 Greek minuscle mss
= majority Byzantine text
Willoughby manuscript - 250AD

which you gave for the textual evidence for "υιος", for John 1:18. are you now admitting this was a MISTAKE? Or is this textual evidence that you gave in # 30, not to do with John 1:18? If not, then what does it relate to?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Wow! 8 paragraphs to say exactly the same thing I said. More proof you have no idea what you are talking about, and don't even understand what you are posting!

If this wasn't so sad it would be funny.

Greek witnesses
Codex A - Alexandrinus (5th C.)
Codex C3 - "corrector" of Eprhraemi Rescriptus
Codex Θ - Tiflis (9th C.)
Codex Ψ - Athos (8/9 C.)
063 = 9th C. Greek uncial
f1, 13 - "families" of 18 Greek minuscle mss
= majority Byzantine text
Willoughby manuscript - 250AD

Versions
Old Latin (Prior to the Vulgate of 386AD)
Curetonian Syriac (5th C.)

Can you clarify what this textual evidence is for, if not for John 1:18?

 

[robycop3]

So something being taught in more than one church is the definition of doctrine? Silly me! I always thought "doctrine" was the translation of διδαχή (didachē) meaning "teaching" or "something taught."

The conversation here, of course, is about doctrines of faith/worship. There are many doctrines among men not from God or found in Scripture, such as the old Monroe Doctrine or the Truman Doctrine at the beginning of the "Cold War" And we all know the KJVO myth is, & has been, TAUGHT.

What makes it false is that it is not true. It is non-factual. There are a lot of things that lack support or authority from God which are, nevertheless, true.

But not matters of faith/worship. I believe any TRUE doctrine. practice, or belief of faith/worship must come fron Scripture, either directly, such as the Deity of Jesus, or by clear implication, such as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. There's simply NOTHING in Scripture whatsoever supporting the KJVO myth. KJVO is a myth invented outta thin air by MEN, same as "regenerational baptism", "name it-claim it", etc. & is simply another false doctrine that should be abandoned & fought against til it vanishes.

Unfortunately, Satan has a "scratch" for every "itching ear" in the form of false doctrines of faith/worship, & I believe we have a D-U-T-Y as Christians to expose and scorn them, and the KJVO myth is one of them, and is the subject of this thread, whose purpose is to show there's simply NO authority to believe or spread that myth, and to prove it false one more time.