-
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!
The "original" Autographs
- Thread starter Pure Words
- Start date
But the point is that in the verse, it is clearly referring to Joshua from the OT, not Jesus as the KJV says. Joshua is the one connected with Moses and the conquest. The KJV says "Jesus" when the text refers to "Joshua" and should read "Joshua."
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
HankD,
What does a child say when they see a whale? I can tell you what they say, the say "look at the big fish". The scientific definition of a whale as a mammal has no bearing on what it really is, it is a big fish. Only those educated out of common sense cannot see this. I deal with this sort of Tom Foolery all the time in my creation science ministry. Oh, since the great god science has said it is a mammal, then it is a mammal. Big deal. It's a fish.
What does a child say when they see a whale? I can tell you what they say, the say "look at the big fish". The scientific definition of a whale as a mammal has no bearing on what it really is, it is a big fish. Only those educated out of common sense cannot see this. I deal with this sort of Tom Foolery all the time in my creation science ministry. Oh, since the great god science has said it is a mammal, then it is a mammal. Big deal. It's a fish.
timothy 1769
New Member
But the point is that in the verse, it is clearly referring to Joshua from the OT, not Jesus as the KJV says. Joshua is the one connected with Moses and the conquest. The KJV says "Jesus" when the text refers to "Joshua" and should read "Joshua."
hmmm.... since you disagree with me on this important matter i guess it's time for me to bring your salvation into question.
just kiddin' there pastor.
i think joshua is the appropriate transliteration when translating from hebrew and jesus is the appropriate transliteration when translating the same name from greek. i guess that's why we have a similar thing with jeremy, jerimiah, yirmeyahu, etc.
the fact is if i were sitting in a room with both jesus and joshua and suddenly called out "hey yehoshua" they both would look up.
if this was recorded in greek later translated into english, it would say i called out "hey jesus", but if the original account was written in hebrew the english version would say "hey joshua". at least that's my position. this isn't an error, imo.
[ March 11, 2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]
hmmm.... since you disagree with me on this important matter i guess it's time for me to bring your salvation into question.
just kiddin' there pastor.
the fact is if i were sitting in a room with both jesus and joshua and suddenly called out "hey yehoshua" they both would look up.
[ March 11, 2003, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Johnv,
Ok John, now I’m going to give you my 2 cents. rlvaughn posted a link to a skeptics website that has over 800 perceived contradictions in the Bible hyperlinked and paned for comparison. This site is not new to me. I have spent many hours reviewing their information in the past. My findings are that most of their misconceptions are based on not knowing the difference between the flesh and the spirit (imagine that). Literally hundreds of them can be explained by that alone. Many more are just stupid, half-baked, concoctions that don’t hold water, and anyone with an elementary school education can see through them. rlvaughn said if we wanted a fight, here was a good place to go. Now I’ve considered it in my mind and my conclusion is that the very same fight is occurring here. John, when you go to a Jewish Rabbi (unsaved I assume?) to help you determine the meaning of an obvious messianic prophecy in the OT, that shows me you have little or no spiritual discernment. Our church has a saved Jew who was born in Israel. He is in the process of going back to Israel as a missionary. I have talked with him about the OT and there is a distinct difference between a messianic Jew and an orthodox Jew. Daniel is a masterpiece of messianic prophecy. In fact, many attribute knowledge of the prophecy of this book to the recognition and acceptance of our Lord and Savior when he came 2000 years ago. It is amazing to me that there are professing Christians, 2000 years after the Lord came, that still do not understand the significance of these verses. Clearly Daniel 7:13 is prophecy about our Lord’s eminent return. You mentioned: [The human-like figure is a symbol for the collective people of God, just as the individual beasts each stood for an empire.]. If you will notice in the passages that follow that the four bests are explained as symbolism, but not the Son of man. The Son of man is not a symbol, He is Christ. John, I view your writings as being little different from the skeptics. There is a good reason for that. Your form of Christianity is one that is leavened with the rationalism that has crept in unawares for the past couple of centuries in the seminaries. The human rationalistic, skeptical reasoning has blinded you and many modern scholars to spiritual insights. I would advise anyone on this board to not follow you in your blind rationalism. As Jesus said, if the blind follow the blind, they will both fall in the ditch.
Ok John, now I’m going to give you my 2 cents. rlvaughn posted a link to a skeptics website that has over 800 perceived contradictions in the Bible hyperlinked and paned for comparison. This site is not new to me. I have spent many hours reviewing their information in the past. My findings are that most of their misconceptions are based on not knowing the difference between the flesh and the spirit (imagine that). Literally hundreds of them can be explained by that alone. Many more are just stupid, half-baked, concoctions that don’t hold water, and anyone with an elementary school education can see through them. rlvaughn said if we wanted a fight, here was a good place to go. Now I’ve considered it in my mind and my conclusion is that the very same fight is occurring here. John, when you go to a Jewish Rabbi (unsaved I assume?) to help you determine the meaning of an obvious messianic prophecy in the OT, that shows me you have little or no spiritual discernment. Our church has a saved Jew who was born in Israel. He is in the process of going back to Israel as a missionary. I have talked with him about the OT and there is a distinct difference between a messianic Jew and an orthodox Jew. Daniel is a masterpiece of messianic prophecy. In fact, many attribute knowledge of the prophecy of this book to the recognition and acceptance of our Lord and Savior when he came 2000 years ago. It is amazing to me that there are professing Christians, 2000 years after the Lord came, that still do not understand the significance of these verses. Clearly Daniel 7:13 is prophecy about our Lord’s eminent return. You mentioned: [The human-like figure is a symbol for the collective people of God, just as the individual beasts each stood for an empire.]. If you will notice in the passages that follow that the four bests are explained as symbolism, but not the Son of man. The Son of man is not a symbol, He is Christ. John, I view your writings as being little different from the skeptics. There is a good reason for that. Your form of Christianity is one that is leavened with the rationalism that has crept in unawares for the past couple of centuries in the seminaries. The human rationalistic, skeptical reasoning has blinded you and many modern scholars to spiritual insights. I would advise anyone on this board to not follow you in your blind rationalism. As Jesus said, if the blind follow the blind, they will both fall in the ditch.
I choose to take the word of the One who created Jonah and the whale.
Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (KJV) </font>[/QUOTE]I choose to acknowledge that this is a place where the KJV is incorrect as relating to modern English usage:
"Matthew 12
40For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." NKJV
It is NOT established that the one who made both said it was a whale. It is only established that the KJV translators translated it that way.
A whale is not a fish and God most certainly knows that. Either "the one who made..." is incorrect or the KJV is incorrect.
By the credo "things different are not the same", KJVO's (not necessarily you, Pastor Bob) must recognize this error.
This is not doctrinal but it does fly in the face of anyone who would assign word for word perfection to the KJ version.
We are not talking about the musings of a child. We are talking about the Word of God.
It is not a fish and you as a person involved in Creation apologetics should know that more than anyone. A whale does not have gills. It does not reproduce like a fish. They provide milk to their young and raise them to maturity. They show intelligence well beyond the level of any fish. In short, they are a sea mammal distinct from fish.
Oh yeah... my kids learned this distinction early on and aren't confused by it.
Only those blinded by their presuppositions would make such an assertion.
Case in point. I surmise that you are doing the cause of Creation Science more harm than good at this point. The KJV translation of this word does not convey the accurate meaning of the original. There is a contradiction here in the KJV.
But this is more simple than that. Joshua and Jesus are very clearly two different people in Scripture. There is no ambiguity in our usage of it. In this verse, it very clearly refers to Joshua, not to Jesus. This can be said to be, in fact, an error of fact. Jesus did not do the things listed in this verse; Joshua did. It should have been translated Joshua, as every modern version does. The fact that the have the same name, does not excuse referring to one when the other is in view.Originally posted by timothy 1969:
the fact is if i were sitting in a room with both jesus and joshua and suddenly called out "hey yehoshua" they both would look up.if this was recorded in greek later translated into english, it would say i called out "hey jesus", but if the original account was written in hebrew the english version would say "hey joshua". at least that's my position. this isn't an error, imo.
Now I grant that it is not a serious problem. If I were preaching that from the KJV, I would simply explain what it means and have them jot a note in their margin that it is referring to Joshua of OT fame; If I were preaching that text from a modern version, I would not even have to mention it.
timothy 1769
New Member
1828 webster's dictionary:
FISH, n. [L. piscis.]
1. An animal that lives in water. Fish is a general name for a class of animals subsisting in water, which were distributed by Linne into six orders. They breathe by means of gills, swim by the aid of fins, and are oviparous. Some of them have the skeleton bony, and others cartilaginous. Most of the former have the opening of the gills closed by a peculiar covering, called the gill-lid; many of the latter have no gill-lid, and are hence said to breathe through apertures. Cetaceous animals, as the whale and dolphin, are, in popular language, called fishes, and have been so classed by some naturalists; but they breathe by lungs, and are viviparous, like quadrupeds. The term fish has been also extended to other aquatic animals, such as shell-fish, lobsters, &c. We use fish, in the singular, for fishes in general or the whole race.
FISH, n. [L. piscis.]
1. An animal that lives in water. Fish is a general name for a class of animals subsisting in water, which were distributed by Linne into six orders. They breathe by means of gills, swim by the aid of fins, and are oviparous. Some of them have the skeleton bony, and others cartilaginous. Most of the former have the opening of the gills closed by a peculiar covering, called the gill-lid; many of the latter have no gill-lid, and are hence said to breathe through apertures. Cetaceous animals, as the whale and dolphin, are, in popular language, called fishes, and have been so classed by some naturalists; but they breathe by lungs, and are viviparous, like quadrupeds. The term fish has been also extended to other aquatic animals, such as shell-fish, lobsters, &c. We use fish, in the singular, for fishes in general or the whole race.
AV Defender
New Member
"Original" what??
"Original" what?? </font>[/QUOTE]The original language of the Bible which can be found by comparing the evidence God has providentially provided to us.
This stands in direct contradistinction to the idea that God directly inspired the KJV (therefore whale must be right
) which has no evidence at all.You have just provided a good proof that as the English language evolves new translations are needed. People of today might be confused into believing a false teaching if this were a doctrinal concern. As it is, a modern reader might be tempted to think of this as an error where it might simply be an archaic use of a word.
The term 'fish' today sets a distinction with sea mammals.
AV Defender
New Member
Looks like the "King's English" was 400 years ahead of it's time.Go figure..
RaptureReady
New Member
I wonder when the word mammal was created? When did science figure out the makeup of whales. What other great fish is out there? I think the KJB is correct, whale it is.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Scott,
My point is a very simple one, gills or no gills, a whale is a big fish. This is gnat straining at its best on your part. And the musing of a child often reveals a truth that the wise cannot grasp, which is my very point, and your lack of understanding of this clear Biblical concept is demonstrated in your response. Or have you not read that glorious things proceed from the mouths of babes? Or have you not read that God hides things from the wise and prudent and reveals them unto babes? Furthermore, you have no idea what I do for the cause of creation science. My point about Tom Foolery was about how these unsaved scientists and skeptics always challenge the word of God on their own terms. Who appointed science the god of terminology? God didn’t.
My point is a very simple one, gills or no gills, a whale is a big fish. This is gnat straining at its best on your part. And the musing of a child often reveals a truth that the wise cannot grasp, which is my very point, and your lack of understanding of this clear Biblical concept is demonstrated in your response. Or have you not read that glorious things proceed from the mouths of babes? Or have you not read that God hides things from the wise and prudent and reveals them unto babes? Furthermore, you have no idea what I do for the cause of creation science. My point about Tom Foolery was about how these unsaved scientists and skeptics always challenge the word of God on their own terms. Who appointed science the god of terminology? God didn’t.
timothy 1769
New Member
You have just provided a good proof that as the English language evolves new translations are needed.
i'd have no problem with only updating the archaic language, but that's what they were supposed to have done back in 1885, right? (of course they didn't
). and that's what they were supposed to have done with the nkjv (but of course they didn't
). i guess at this point i doubt the ability of evangalicalism to reliably update the kjv. of course with god all things are possible so i guess we'll see but i'm not holding my breath.
but even then, i have more confidence in my ability to use a dictionary and learn the relatively few archaisms than i do in my ability to competently evaluate an across the board update of the kjv. so, an updated version might do my grandchildren some good, assuming god chose to use it for his work, but i'd still likely stick with the good ol' kjv to be safe.
[ March 11, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]
i'd have no problem with only updating the archaic language, but that's what they were supposed to have done back in 1885, right? (of course they didn't
but even then, i have more confidence in my ability to use a dictionary and learn the relatively few archaisms than i do in my ability to competently evaluate an across the board update of the kjv. so, an updated version might do my grandchildren some good, assuming god chose to use it for his work, but i'd still likely stick with the good ol' kjv to be safe.
[ March 11, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: timothy 1969 ]
I choose to take the word of the One who created Jonah and the whale.
Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (KJV)
Well, that stumps me. In Genesis, whales are mentioned, yet in Jonah, it's a fish. So the KJV translators must have known the difference between a fish and a whale.
Yet in Matthew, they contradict themselves with Jonah by calling it a whale and not a fish. Either the transators were in error, or the manuscripts they used were in error, which they failed to "correct" in their "spiritual discernment".
Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (KJV)
Well, that stumps me. In Genesis, whales are mentioned, yet in Jonah, it's a fish. So the KJV translators must have known the difference between a fish and a whale.
Yet in Matthew, they contradict themselves with Jonah by calling it a whale and not a fish. Either the transators were in error, or the manuscripts they used were in error, which they failed to "correct" in their "spiritual discernment".
No. It is a distinction made in the OT yet confused by the KJV in the new. The Hebrew word translated 'fish' in Jonah is used 20 times. Each time it is translated fish. 'Whale' appears twice in the KJV OT and is translated from a completely different word.
The fact is that to the modern reader this appears as an error.
Which "clear" biblical concept are you referring to? The one that says that 'whale' must be correct since that was the choice of the KJV translators?
Yes... and this has absolutely nothing to with anything except your desire not to deal with the real issue.
If you are going to declare and demand that the KJV is perfect in every way then you must account for this discrepancy by something more substantial than an accusation that I just don't understand this grand spiritual concept.
If you demand that a whale is a fish because 17th century scholars who were not marine biologists translated a Greek word that way then you are weakening the position on this point. Matter of factly, no, I don't know what you do for the creation science movement. I just hope you don't approach it in the same way you do the versions debate.
I suppose the same person who appointed 17th century scholars that pointed to the king of England as their prelate and imprisoned Baptists for practicing biblical Christianity.
Has the smoke cleared?
I should have added (INCOMING!) to my response to Pastor Bob.
I was looking for an explanation but was swallowed up in the wrath of the KJV "whalers".
Actually the word for "fish" in Hebrew in Jonah 2:1 is DAG.
According to the Hebrew Scriptures, these are creatures which are found in the sea, rivers lakes and ponds. "fishers" fish for, catch them and eat them (DAG). This is probably why the KJV translators used "fish" in Jonah 2:1.
Normally they are fish as we know them with gills.
Probably with fins and scales since they the only underwater creatures which the Hebrews were allowed to eat.
However (and its a big one), the common OT cross-word for "fish" or DAG in the NT is icthus or opsarion. Jesus used both of these words but not when He refered to Jonah 2:1.
He used the Septuagint (LXX) word used in Jonah 2:1: katos.
Which by the way is a general purpose word, something like "monster" but refering to a sea creature. It is used ONLY by Jesus in Matthew 12:40.
Now can there be a civil discussion about this?
Why did Jesus use the LXX word katos and not icthus?
HankD
I should have added (INCOMING!) to my response to Pastor Bob.
I was looking for an explanation but was swallowed up in the wrath of the KJV "whalers".
Actually the word for "fish" in Hebrew in Jonah 2:1 is DAG.
According to the Hebrew Scriptures, these are creatures which are found in the sea, rivers lakes and ponds. "fishers" fish for, catch them and eat them (DAG). This is probably why the KJV translators used "fish" in Jonah 2:1.
Normally they are fish as we know them with gills.
Probably with fins and scales since they the only underwater creatures which the Hebrews were allowed to eat.
However (and its a big one), the common OT cross-word for "fish" or DAG in the NT is icthus or opsarion. Jesus used both of these words but not when He refered to Jonah 2:1.
He used the Septuagint (LXX) word used in Jonah 2:1: katos.
Which by the way is a general purpose word, something like "monster" but refering to a sea creature. It is used ONLY by Jesus in Matthew 12:40.
Now can there be a civil discussion about this?
Why did Jesus use the LXX word katos and not icthus?
HankD
Why did Jesus use the LXX word katos and not icthus?
Don't forget, Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we don't really know what OT word he actually used. We only know what the Gospel writers wrote, which is a greek account of what occured in Hebrew/Aramaic. The Gospel writers used ketos, but since Jesus wasn't speaking in Greek, we don't actually know what Hebrew or Aramaic word Jesus used.
Don't forget, Jesus spoke Aramaic, so we don't really know what OT word he actually used. We only know what the Gospel writers wrote, which is a greek account of what occured in Hebrew/Aramaic. The Gospel writers used ketos, but since Jesus wasn't speaking in Greek, we don't actually know what Hebrew or Aramaic word Jesus used.