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

[1689Dave]

"Better" is an entirely subjective assessment. What makes a translation "better?" Is there a rational basis for the subjective assessment of "better?" If so, what would that be?

I can think of some improvements over the KJV where Nestle Aland 27-28 used Granville Sharp's rule in some christological passages making them clearer than the KJV.

 

[1689Dave]

Not to derail the thread, but only to point out that the Scriptures do make remarks concerning intoxicants.

We as believers are priests and rulers. We are to one day to sit as judges over even the angelic hosts.

The Scriptures state: "It is not for kings, Lemuel-- it is not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,..."

I think we are missing the point. If it bothers the conscience it is sin, even if it is not actually sinful. Because you cannot have faith if you think you are sinning. So even good things are sin if not done in faith.

 

[atpollard]

"Better" is an entirely subjective assessment. What makes a translation "better?" Is there a rational basis for the subjective assessment of "better?" If so, what would that be?

I tend to start by looking for a Bible that does not translate John 1:1 as "... and the Word was a god." as a definite indication of a "better" translation.

 

[agedman]

I think we are missing the point. If it bothers the conscience it is sin, even if it is not actually sinful. Because you cannot have faith if you think you are sinning. So even good things are sin if not done in faith.

The "conscience" is as fallen as the will.

Such decisions as to the Scriptures and as to all matters of faith and practice are not up to personal expressions or opinions, but are principles placed in Scriptures.

For example, this business of the Scriptures is not unrelated to the same line of thinking when it comes to intoxicants. Again, not to derail the thread, but to state that a principle is involved.

The high priests, while serving, were not to take any intoxicants. Are not the believers of a higher calling than even those who brought sacrifice before the God of Heaven?

So, too it is with the Scriptures. They (as were the lambs) should be examined for consistent purity, for righteousness in presentation, and for the lack of stain from abuse of sin.

The principles of the Scriptures are what drive the believer, not the conscience.

Another example is stewardship. The principle of stewardship would require to use the funds entrusted to me wisely and according to the advancement/support of the work of Christ, that the believer is to be a living sacrifice in not squandering what God has blessed them to be sustained. That would include such items as food, clothing, shelter, ... The principle would also exclude such things that are worldly such as the Hollywood movie houses, the dance halls, the professional athletic events... in which the funds go to support what is anti-christ both message and attributes.

There are other examples, were the believer must take the statements of Scriptures and present a principled life in choices.

That same principle applies to selecting a Bible, not from that which is convenient, easy, likable, or even that which is appealing as far as size. But that which is the most faithful as can be presented to the manuscripts.

That excludes none, but tempers the choosing from preference to what is best for that believer.

To the child, the NIV may be better than the NASB or the KJB.

I personally have a problem with the ESV in comparison to some others, but that may mean I have not grown in the Lord to the point of discerning the credibility some place in it.

 

[1689Dave]

The "conscience" is as fallen as the will.

This is why Paul tells us to take it easy on those who are not enlightened in certain areas. If it bothers your conscience, it is sin even if it is not, because you cannot have faith in that state of mind. And whatever is not of faith is sin.

 

[agedman]

This is why Paul tells us to take it easy on those who are not enlightened in certain areas. If it bothers your conscience, it is sin even if it is not, because you cannot have faith in that state of mind. And whatever is not of faith is sin.

Whatever is not of faith is sin does not exclude that deeds done in the flesh may also be sin.

The iniquity and trespasses are both held accountable to the believer.

 

[TCassidy]

I can think of some improvements over the KJV where Nestle Aland 27-28 used Granville Sharp's rule in some christological passages making them clearer than the KJV.

That seems to me to be a pretty meager rational. I never had a problem understanding the reference to the Deity of Christ even without the Granville Sharp rule (which is inconsistently applied in some of the "better" versions).

 

[TCassidy]

I tend to start by looking for a Bible that does not translate John 1:1 as "... and the Word was a god." as a definite indication of a "better" translation.

Yes, but why do you consider "The word was God" to be "better" than "the word was a god?" After all, there is no definite article before θεος (God) so does not the rule of Greek grammar demand the indefinite article?

 

[agedman]

Yes, but why do you consider "The word was God" to be "better" than "the word was a god?" After all, there is no definite article before θεος (God) so does not the rule of Greek grammar demand the indefinite article?

You answered your own question in the post above this one.

The Granville Sharp Rule states, “When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle” (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 3).
​

In other words, because the definite article is present before the first noun (ho Logos) then it follows that the second related noun is "related to that same person."

But you knew this, and I am merely wanting the casual reader to become aware of both the rule and why the JW rendering is in error.

 

[Yeshua1]

That seems to me to be a pretty meager rational. I never had a problem understanding the reference to the Deity of Christ even without the Granville Sharp rule (which is inconsistently applied in some of the "better" versions).

They did not know of that Rule, but they should have translater some passages to show that God and Jesus meant same person, not 2 separate Ones!

 

[Yeshua1]

You answered your own question in the post above this one.

The Granville Sharp Rule states, “When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle” (Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article, 3).
​

In other words, because the definite article is present before the first noun (ho Logos) then it follows that the second related noun is "related to that same person."

But you knew this, and I am merely wanting the casual reader to become aware of both the rule and why the JW rendering is in error.

That seems to me to be a pretty meager rational. I never had a problem understanding the reference to the Deity of Christ even without the Granville Sharp rule (which is inconsistently applied in some of the "better" versions).

I think it was Dr Wallace who showed that the times when it looks like the Rule was not true, was due to misapplication of the rule!

 

[TCassidy]

But you knew this, and I am merely wanting the casual reader to become aware of both the rule and why the JW rendering is in error.

Except that is not the reason the JWs are wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

Julius R. Mantey: Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament: The Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar
Especially his point 1

 

[1689Dave]

That seems to me to be a pretty meager rational. I never had a problem understanding the reference to the Deity of Christ even without the Granville Sharp rule (which is inconsistently applied in some of the "better" versions).

Yes, but not too many have your education.

 

[1689Dave]

Whatever is not of faith is sin does not exclude that deeds done in the flesh may also be sin.

The iniquity and trespasses are both held accountable to the believer.

This is true. But if something OK bothers your conscience because you think it is sin, it becomes sin because whatever is not of faith is sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well, martin, for one thing, anything from Mr. Kinney must be taken with a grain of salt. And I read that article very carefully years ago. There's not one Scripture in it supporting the KJVO myth & whenever Mr. Kinney is pressed on any website or social media forum about it, he goes silent.

He has no more backing for his KJVO myth than any other KJVO has.

I'm a bit disappointed with is! I thought you were desperate to take apart some hapless KJV-only guy and when I give you the chance you bottle it. There's not one Scripture in your post either.

 

[rlvaughn]

This is true. But if something OK bothers your conscience because you think it is sin, it becomes sin because whatever is not of faith is sin.

A lot of people don't seem to get this. If I make a conscious decision to do something that I think is a sin -- even if it is not -- then I am making a decision in my own mind to commit a sin. It breaks down the conscience. Compounded it increases my lack of aversion to commiting more sin.

 

[Salty]

A lot of people don't seem to get this. If I make a conscious decision to do something that I think is a sin -- even if it is not -- then I am making a decision in my own mind to commit a sin. It breaks down the conscience. Compounded it increases my lack of aversion to commiting more sin.

Here is the basic OP: BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe and preach the KJVO myth???????????? It's not found in Scripture whatsoever, so it CANNOT be true!


We have gotten away from the OP - as far as "what is sin" click on this link

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:15 PM Pacific.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Here is the basic OP: BY WHAT AUTHORITY do you believe and preach the KJVO myth???????????? It's not found in Scripture whatsoever, so it CANNOT be true!


We have gotten away from the OP - as far as "what is sin" click on this link

There is no support for KJVO, period...end of discussion.