The "original" Autographs

[HankD]

Actually we don't know that Jesus and the disciples did not converse koine greek, the lingua franca of the world of His day on earth. The language of choice by God for His inspired Word concerning the earthly ministry of His Son.

But I'll amend my question...

Why did the Holy Spirit move the NT writer to use the LXX word katos instead of icthus concerning Jonah and the "whale"?

HankD

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The KJV translated it "Jesus" when it clearly refers to "Joshua" of OT fame.

I am quite surprised that you would call this a translation error!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The KJV translated it "Jesus" when it clearly refers to "Joshua" of OT fame.

I am quite surprised that you would call this a translation error! </font>[/QUOTE]Why is this surprising? Do you think that Stephen was talking about Jesus of the NT or Joshua of the OT?

 

[Johnv]

[Daniel 7:13-14] clearly refers prophetically to the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and His pre-millennial rein.

It's NOT clear when you read it in the Hebrew, instead of in the manner translated by the KJV. The KJV capitalizes "Son" to create an inference to Jesus. as I stated earlier, it referss to an ordinary man, not Jesus. Now, I'm all for messianic prophecy (the Rabbi that I mentioned earlier are in agreement that other prophecies in the OT are Messianic, and that Jesus fits in with them). But I'm not in favor of adding to the Bible, which is what I believe the KJV translators have have done here. They did nto stick to the Hebrew context. Several of the MV's more faithfully stick to the Hebrew intent, and don't add to it in this case.

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 no interest in the site, frankly. Even if it's a site that may have some valid information, it simply wouldn't interest me to visit it.

My findings are that most of their misconceptions are based on not knowing the difference between the flesh and the spirit (imagine that).
I dunno about them, but when I study the Bible, I go by what the intent of the author was. Anything more than that is a matter of the Holy Spirit speaking to me. But the HS speaking to me may be different from what the author intended.

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.
Well, the Jews have been awaiting a Messiah for a long time now, so they'd be the first to seek messianic prophecy. Now, there are Jews who will scoff at any verse that points to Jesus, but the Rabbi I'm referring to is not afraid to point out where Jesus' coming fits several of the OT messianic prophecies. It is his opinion that Jesus might be the Messiah. I believe that in time, he will accept it as surely as you or I. The problem with this verse is, it's not a messianic prophecy. It wasn't written to be one. The KJV translators made it so, IMO, thus violating scripture by adding to it. Discernment does not give us permission to do so.

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.
I would venture the opposite. That failure to study the intent of the writers of the OT and NT blind us to the purpose of scriptures, and we thus end up unintentionally adding to or detracting from scripture. Jesus warned that there are those who blindly follow the letter of the law, while completely missing the heart of the law. Blindly following scripture without a desire to understanding its intent puts one in a position of, though well intended and faithful, to be blind. I do not seek anyone to "follow" me in regards to my views. But I do encourage all people to study the scriptures deply and make their own conclusions without fear of reprisal from those who may hold views that we should not question the Word.

In time, we end up with this arguement that "modern vesions" of the bible take away from the Christian doctrine of the KJV. In cases where the KJV ADDED doctrine to scripture, it is not only right, but fitting for modern translations to do so.

I'm not anti KJV, but I'm anti-KJVO, especially where the KJVO crowd places the KJV above the text from which it was translated.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:
In fact, I say not 1 in 1 million Christians find this to be an apparent error (gnat strainer). Clearly by definition, look in the dictionary, whales are large fish by common usage even today. If anyone thinks this is an error they spend too much time majoring in the minors.

These are incredible statements coming from the KJVO side of things don't you think? If any sect of Baptists majors in minors and gnat straining it is certainly KJVO's in their zeal to prove that MV's aren't the true Word of God.

You know, like what I said earlier in reference to a child knowing a whale is a big fish. Got it?

A whale is not a big fish. Got it? (see the next item before getting any more wild eyed)

I don’t have to account for what you imagine is a discrepancy, nor will I.

It isn't my imagination. KJVOnlyism is completely dependent on making these kinds of (I admit) superfluous, inane comparisons and arguments. If the roles were reversed with the NASB saying 'fish' in Jonah but 'whale' in Matthew while the KJV matched in both places, you guys would be zealously proclaiming a scienfically proven error. Or better yet, if the KJV said 'whale' in both places but the NASB said 'fish' in both places there is no way that you guys would ever allow for the two to mean the same thing. That's the point- for about two pages now of aptly proving that things different are the same within the KJV... it only matters if the difference is between the KJV and a MV. This latter case evokes a whole different set of rules.

I am really surprised that someone whose ministry requires high analytical abilities and attention to detail would have missed the point of this jousting.

The problem is with these puffed-up, last days, apostate, pseudo intellectuals (Baptists included) that think their enlightenment equips them to make thousand of changes to the word of God based on heretical manuscripts and their wording preferences. Nothing could be more foolish or comical.

Well, maybe anti-intellectualism and making presumptions that fly against the bulk of evidence... Seems like very similar arguments apply to evolutionists whose presuppositions limit where they let the facts lead them.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Johnv,

You said: [It's NOT clear when you read it in the Hebrew, instead of in the manner translated by the KJV. The KJV capitalizes "Son" to create an inference to Jesus. as I stated earlier, it referss to an ordinary man, not Jesus. Now, I'm all for messianic prophecy (the Rabbi that I mentioned earlier are in agreement that other prophecies in the OT are Messianic, and that Jesus fits in with them). But I'm not in favor of adding to the Bible, which is what I believe the KJV translators have have done here. They did nto stick to the Hebrew context. Several of the MV's more faithfully stick to the Hebrew intent, and don't add to it in this case.] What did they add, a capital S? They added nothing; they simply translated the passage correctly.

You said: [This site is not new to me.
I have no interest in the site, frankly. Even if it's a site that may have some valid information, it simply wouldn't interest me to visit it.] It interests me because I am a Bible defender against all comers, whether they are atheists, or liberal professing Christians.

You said: [I dunno about them, but when I study the Bible, I go by what the intent of the author was. Anything more than that is a matter of the Holy Spirit speaking to me. But the HS speaking to me may be different from what the author intended.] Who do you think is the author of scripture, the people who pushed the pens?

You said: [Well, the Jews have been awaiting a Messiah for a long time now, so they'd be the first to seek messianic prophecy. Now, there are Jews who will scoff at any verse that points to Jesus, but the Rabbi I'm referring to is not afraid to point out where Jesus' coming fits several of the OT messianic prophecies. It is his opinion that Jesus might be the Messiah. I believe that in time, he will accept it as surely as you or I. The problem with this verse is, it's not a messianic prophecy. It wasn't written to be one. The KJV translators made it so, IMO, thus violating scripture by adding to it. Discernment does not give us permission to do so.] It was not written as messianic prophecy? You know this from God almighty I guess? The clear translation of this without capitalization is “the son of god”. The S and the G clearly must be capitalized in this context as I stated earlier.

You said: [I would venture the opposite. That failure to study the intent of the writers of the OT and NT blind us to the purpose of scriptures, and we thus end up unintentionally adding to or detracting from scripture. Jesus warned that there are those who blindly follow the letter of the law, while completely missing the heart of the law. Blindly following scripture without a desire to understanding its intent puts one in a position of, though well intended and faithful, to be blind. I do not seek anyone to "follow" me in regards to my views. But I do encourage all people to study the scriptures deply and make their own conclusions without fear of reprisal from those who may hold views that we should not question the Word.] Again, who do you think is the author of scripture, men? You clearly demonstrate that you are the epitome of blindly following the letter of the law without a desire to understand or have translated its intent. God authored scripture, and His intent was to reveal His Son in prophecy, just as Jesus said when He rebuked the Pharisees saying “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:46-47).

You said: [In time, we end up with this arguement that "modern vesions" of the bible take away from the Christian doctrine of the KJV. In cases where the KJV ADDED doctrine to scripture, it is not only right, but fitting for modern translations to do so.] Your opinion, nothing more.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Why is this surprising? Do you think that Stephen was talking about Jesus of the NT or Joshua of the OT?

It is surprising because "Jesus" is the Greek name in the text, which I am sure you know. It is not a mistranslation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Why is this surprising? Do you think that Stephen was talking about Jesus of the NT or Joshua of the OT?

It is surprising because "Jesus" is the Greek name in the text, which I am sure you know. It is not a mistranslation. </font>[/QUOTE]"Iesous" is the name in the text. It should be translation "Joshua" since that is who it refers to. The text is not referring to Jesus of the NT but to Joshua of the OT. "Jesus" is a misleading translation.

 

[rlvaughn]

Is this (Col. 4:11) a mistranslation?

kai ihsous o legomenos ioustos, oi ontes ek peritomhs outoi monoi sunergoi eis thn basileian tou qeou, oitines egenhqhsan moi parhgoria. (Na26)

and also Jesus who is called Justus; these are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision, and they have proved to be an encouragement to me. (NAS)

and so does Jesus who is called Justus. These alone of the circumcision are my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. (HCSB)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Is this (Col. 4:11) a mistranslation?

I have no idea who he is referring to here. I do not believe this man is known elsewhere in the NT so I cannot comment on this. I think you are missing my point perhaps (or perhaps not). In Act 7, Stephen is referring to someone very specifically who is always known as "Joshua." To translate his name "Jesus" is misleading because it does not accurately identify the referent. It confuses the reader by using the wrong name as is evidenced by its usage in other biblical passages. Other people may well be known by "Iesous." Not knowing anything about them, I cannot comment on this.

Do you believe that Acts 7 is referring to Jesus or to Joshua?

 

[timothy 1769]

Do you believe that Acts 7 is referring to Jesus or to Joshua?

y'shua ha'moshiach

 

[Johnv]

The clear translation of this without capitalization is “the son of god”.

As I posted earlier, the KJV translators altered the doctrine in Daniel 3:25 to imply a reference to Jesus, when that reference is absent from the Hebrew text used by the translators. According to the Hebrew, Shadrach, Meshach, Abendnego were not with a man who looked like "the Son of God", but rather a son of a god (in Hebrew, bar elahh). The fact that Nebuchadnezzar was not a monotheist lends credence to this as well. While the KJV translation does strengthen messianic doctrine, it does so by adding to the OT, something that we're biblically forbidden from doing. This is an error on the part of the KJV translators, albteit possibly unintentional.

The "son of man" phrase used in Dan 7:13 is k'var enash (the equivalent of k'ven adam), which is properly translated "like a man". Again, by the KJV authors attibuting "son of man" to the Messiah, whether unintentional or not, it results in an addition to scripture, which we're forbidden from doing.

You can make an arguement that the KJV translators were working on Spiritual Discernment, but Spiritual Discernment does not give anyone licence to add to scripture. Not the KJV translators, not us.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I have no idea who he is referring to here.

I did not ask to whom it is referring, I asked if it is a mistranslation. You said in an early post that "[t]he name 'Iesous' is found all throughout the NT. The transliteration of it is 'Jesus'."

Do you believe that Acts 7 is referring to Jesus or to Joshua?

Your question tries to taint the answer, because you evidently mean by the first name "Jesus" to mean only Jesus the son of Mary, the Messiah of God. But the name "Jesus" can also be Jesus the son of Nun, or Jesus surnamed Justus, or anybody else called "Iesous" in the Greek. But I have not claimed that the referent in Acts 7:45 (or Heb. 4:8) is different from Joshua the son of Nun in the O.T. Nevertheless, judging by your own statement (The name "Iesous" is found all throughout the NT. The transliteration of it is "Jesus"), it is NOT a mistranslation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I did not ask to whom it is referring, I asked if it is a mistranslation. You said in an early post that "[t]he name 'Iesous' is found all throughout the NT. The transliteration of it is 'Jesus'."

This is where we differ perhaps on translation. I think the purpose of translation is to say what the author intended his reader to understand. With that perspective, I believe that "Jesus" is a mistranslation because the intent of the author was Joshua of OT fame and he is never called "Jesus." It should be translated "Joshua."

Your question tries to taint the answer, because you evidently mean by the first name "Jesus" to mean only Jesus the son of Mary, the Messiah of God. But the name "Jesus" can also be Jesus the son of Nun, or Jesus surnamed Justus, or anybody else called "Iesous" in the Greek. But I have not claimed that the referent in Acts 7:45 (or Heb. 4:8) is different from Joshua the son of Nun in the O.T. Nevertheless, judging by your own statement (The name "Iesous" is found all throughout the NT. The transliteration of it is "Jesus"), it is NOT a mistranslation.

The point of translation is clarity of the author's intented meaning. This is place where the KJV falls short. Notice above where Timothy1969 says it is referring to Jesus the Messiah. It isn't. That is to make the text stand on its head and that is the problem with the translation in the KJV. It is misleading IMO.

 

[Faith Fact Feeling]

Johnv,

You said: [As I posted earlier, the KJV translators altered the doctrine in Daniel 3:25 to imply a reference to Jesus, when that reference is absent from the Hebrew text used by the translators. According to the Hebrew, Shadrach, Meshach, Abendnego were not with a man who looked like "the Son of God", but rather a son of a god (in Hebrew, bar elahh). The fact that Nebuchadnezzar was not a monotheist lends credence to this as well. While the KJV translation does strengthen messianic doctrine, it does so by adding to the OT, something that we're biblically forbidden from doing. This is an error on the part of the KJV translators, albteit possibly unintentional.] As I pointed out in my exposition on Daniel 3 earlier, Nebuchadnezzar became a monotheist in verse 25. He makes this abundantly clear in the following 4 verses. How are you missing this??? You don't have a problem with capital G God in the following 4 verses do you???? It’s the same Aramaic word (translated God or gods) used all 12 times in Daniel 3. Your continuing argument shows you to be short on facts, and long on saving face.


You said: [The "son of man" phrase used in Dan 7:13 is k'var enash (the equivalent of k'ven adam), which is properly translated "like a man". Again, by the KJV authors attibuting "son of man" to the Messiah, whether unintentional or not, it results in an addition to scripture, which we're forbidden from doing.] I would like to point out that even MVs disagree with you here. The NIV and NASB translate this "son of man" not "like a man". The word son is there in the Aramaic, it does not have to be added. In fact, the NASB uses capital letters for both son and man. I believe this shows your argumentation to be your own private interpretation, and not sound exegesis.

 

[Johnv]

As I pointed out in my exposition on Daniel 3 earlier, Nebuchadnezzar became a monotheist in verse 25.
I agree. He BECAME a monotheist AFTER v25. This does not equate to him seeing Jesus in the fire.

I would like to point out that even MVs disagree with you here. The NIV and NASB translate this "son of man" not "like a man". The word son is there in the Aramaic, it does not have to be added. In fact, the NASB uses capital letters for both son and man.
The arguement is not the verbage "son of man", it's what "son of man" means textually. It means an ordinary man, not the Messiah, in this verse. I don't know why the NASB capitalizes it. But that doesn't change the original meaning, which is not a Messianic prophecy.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
This is where we differ perhaps on translation. I think the purpose of translation is to say what the author intended his reader to understand. With that perspective, I believe that "Jesus" is a mistranslation because the intent of the author was Joshua of OT fame and he is never called "Jesus." It should be translated "Joshua."

This, IMO, shows that you are using your philosophy of translation as the standard whereby to judge the KJV in Acts 7:45 as a mistranslation. You take that philosophy, then add that readers cannot understand who "Jesus" is in Acts 7:45 (which is fallicious), and then declare a mistranslation. This is the same thing that you and others have decried in the KJV-Onlyists. Though you will not use the words "this is not mistranslated," you have basically shown that it is not a mistranslation by saying, "The name 'Iesous' is found all throughout the NT. The transliteration of it is 'Jesus'." Is that statement true? Of course it is. If so, "Jesus" is not a mistranslation. You are adding to the concept of what constitutes a mistranslation. To me this would be as silly as arguing whether "thou" (OE) or "you" (contemporary) is a mistranslation. Neither one would be a mistranslation, though arguments could be made pro or con as to which is "best". BTW, I am not disagreeing with this statement of yours - "I think the purpose of translation is to say what the author intended his reader to understand." I am disagreeing that the KJV fails to do this.

Notice above where Timothy1969 says it is referring to Jesus the Messiah. It isn't...

I don't know Timothy1969, or even if he knows "y'shua ha'moshiach" means Jesus the Messiah. But his misconception does not prove Acts 7:45 is mistranslated. Mistranslations do not stand or fall based on your finding an example of someone misunderstanding what it means. If so, we could probably prove that almost all of the Bible (any version) is mistranslated, since different people misunderstand all portions of it. And I'm sure for every "Timothy1969" that you can find, I can find a person, with only a KJV and a working knowledge of English, who understands exactly to whom Acts 7:45 refers. If a person doesn't study the Bible, they won't know who "Joshua" is either.

 

[Ransom]

I seem to recall only a few days ago that a couple of KJV-onlyists got their noses out of joint because I labelled the movement "anti-intellectual."

Well, regarding the fish/whale controversy, and the one or two KJV-onlyists on this thread who are trying to lump the cetaceans in with the fish instead of the mammals, seemingly for no other reason than a superficial similarity and because the KJV allegedly says so: I rest my case.

 

[Ransom]

rlvaughn said:

Mistranslations do not stand or fall based on your finding an example of someone misunderstanding what it means.

I could argue that a translational choice that could lead to an easily avoided misunderstanding is an error.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
This, IMO, shows that you are using your philosophy of translation as the standard whereby to judge the KJV in Acts 7:45 as a mistranslation.

I would disagree with your assessment of my position. I haven't used "my philosophy of translation" as the standard. I have merely said that the purpose of translation is to render the author's intent from the parent language to the daughter. If that intent is not rendered, it is a mistranslation.

What I am saying is that Stephen's intent was for the reader of whatever langauge to know that he was referring to Joshua. If the translation does not reflect that, I don't see how we can call is accurate at that point. I think all translations have some issues like this of varying degree. This is admittedly a minor one.

BTW, I never said that readers "cannot understand who 'Jesus' is in Acts 7:45." My point is that is makes it ambiguous when the context is not ambiguous.

But we have probably said enough on this one.