The "Originals"

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
God has been using Love (one word) pretty effectively since about 1380 (Wycliffe) in spite of the "army of scholars".

That's not relevant to the charge you made nor the substance of Evan's article. God originally used two different words. The fact that we don't have two English words that are sufficiently alike and different to express the subtle differences in these words changes nothing... God still used two different words.

PS Did you read the arguments made by Herb Evans? Here is a quote

Yes. And God still used two different words... regardless of Evan's apparent desire to make them one word in order to sustain his KJVO beliefs.

The dialogue between Jesus and Peter significantly used those two words. Yes it was pertinent that Jesus asked Peter three times (a fact not lost on non-KJVO preachers BTW) and so was the fact that when Jesus resorted to Peter's word, Phileo... Peter was stricken with shame and guilt.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel David:
It is impossible for one language to perfectly represent another.

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.</font>[/QUOTE] Please don't strip scripture from its context and abuse it. This passage deals with salvation not translations of the Bible.

All things are possible with God but God doesn't do everything He is capable of doing. He does not directly, divinely inspire translations therefore whether it is possible or not is a moot point.

God represented one language (Hebrew) perfectly many many times with another language (Greek) in the autographs.

Do you think Moses' conversations with the Pharaoh (recorded in "perfect" Hebrew autographs) was in Hebrew or Egyptian?

Apples and oranges... Moses and the writers of the NT were under direct inspiration. The KJV translators were not.

 

[mioque]

"God has been using Love (one word) pretty effectively since about 1380 (Wycliffe) in spite of the "army of scholars"."
The problem here is that English is sometimes a rather vague language, compared to Koine Greek or even modern French.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Thanks for the replies. Here's a thought, if there were only one original, why must we have 200+ translations?

200! That's not even close. Just ask Wycliffe Bible Translators.

 

[gb93433]

After reading the previous posts I thought Ruckman is quite a god to himself to usurp the authority of the Holy Spirit in the recording of scripture as it was done originally.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Scott J:
He does not directly, divinely inspire translations therefore whether it is possible or not is a moot point.

Timothy's translation was inspired.

Apples and oranges... Moses and the writers of the NT were under direct inspiration. The KJV translators were not.

It's not me making fruit salad here. I was just answering the statement that one language can't possibly represent another. God can inspire perfectly. God can preserve perfectly.
If indeed it is "scripture", it is inspired, whatever the language. God knows them all. "Scripture" is what is "given", Scott, and "Scripture" is ALWAYS copies, never originals.

Lacy

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by gb93433:
After reading the previous posts I thought Ruckman is quite a god to himself to usurp the authority of the Holy Spirit in the recording of scripture as it was done originally.

All Ruckman has to say about the "originals" is that they are no longer extant. You are putting words in his mouth and believe me he needs no help there. Ruckman says the KJV is better than any existing (extant) Greek manuscript. I am afraid that you guys either don't know the difference between a Greek copy and a Greek "original, or else you actually think that all the autographs are locked away somewhere in a room where everyone but the KJV translators can (could) access them. The "originals" are gone! They aren't coming back. It didn't suprise God that they went away. He has a little thing called Ressurrection (Preservation) that he pulls out when he needs to restore something perfectly. (see Israel, Christ, the Ten Commandments, the doctrine of justification by faith, etc.)

Lacy

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
He does not directly, divinely inspire translations therefore whether it is possible or not is a moot point.

Timothy's translation was inspired.</font>[/QUOTE] You might want to re-read that passage, that isn't what it says. It says all scripture is given by inspiration. It doesn't speak to translations nor copies at all.

I was just answering the statement that one language can't possibly represent another.

Where was that statement made? It wasn't. You are attacking a straw man. The statement was made that one language cannot perfectly translate into another. When God inspired the NT writer in quotes of the OT, they weren't just translations- they were newly inspired scripture every bit as authoritative as the Hebrew.

God can inspire perfectly.

And by scriptural proofs, He did.

God can preserve perfectly.

Can? Yes.

Promised to? No.

Did? The witness of all of the evidence prior to the printing press says no with regard to words and yes with regard to the substance of the message.

If indeed it is "scripture", it is inspired, whatever the language.

I actually agree but only by derivation. Translations derive all of their authority from the original text no matter what book we are discussing. This is especially true of the Bible since the original languages were chosen by God Himself.

"Scripture" is what is "given",

Nope. It was only "given" in the autographs. Scripture was given by God once to the original writers then copied by fallible men operating under God's providential will.

If this is not true then please explain why the over 5300 Greek mss of the NT were all "given" by God with errors in them... not to mention the numerous ancient and modern translations.

and "Scripture" is ALWAYS copies, never originals.

Scripture's authority is always derived from the original Author. God gave one exemplar. All copies and translations derive their authority from there.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by LarryN:
I say "Yes, the original autographs of Scripture were inerrant & perfect".


Now, someone like Peter Ruckman would say that they were not, but required "correction" during the translation of the KJV.

Ruckman is quite an authority to judge the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Where was that statement made? It wasn't. You are attacking a straw man. The statement was made that one language cannot perfectly translate into another.

I think you tend read the posts about as carefully as you read 2 Timothy. Go back and read my post and Daniel David's post (the very one you responded to). While you are at it Go back and read 2 Timothy too, but take off the extra-Biblical-inspired-in-the-original colored glasses. It doesn't say the original autographs were given. It says "Scripture" and the previous verse defines the term. (As does EVERY other Biblical occurrence of the word "scripture.")

Scripture's authority is always derived from the original Author. God gave one exemplar. All copies and translations derive their authority from there.

There is the reason I will always be KJV-only. You have no extant authority.

Lacy

 

[LarryN]

Lacy wrote:

There is the reason I will always be KJV-only. You have no extant authority.

Lacy

Lacy, I'm not even going to bother replying to your lengthy earlier reply to me. I wouldn't even know where to begin, and it's simply not worth my time. Suffice it to say, the Scripture references that you believe apply to translations (ONE translation in particular), I believe refer to the original Autographs. I also think you need to be more familiar with Ruckman's position before you chastise me for allegedly not knowing it. His rag, the BBB, clearly represents his beliefs.

Since you say that non-KJVO's have no "extant authority", why not tell us exactly WHERE your extant authority is? Where are the original translator's manuscripts of the King James Version? Surely you know they are nowhere known to be found? Please then answer this question: When differences exist among editions of the KJV (and differences have existed since first-printing), by what authority is it determined which is the correct reading? (I'd love for a KJVO to simply give me a straightforward answer to this question JUST ONCE, without dodging the question and going off on some complete tangent.)

 

[Lacy Evans]

Originally posted by LarryN:
I also think you need to be more familiar with Ruckman's position before you chastise me for allegedly not knowing it. His rag, the BBB, clearly represents his beliefs.

Scott I could be wrong. (I checked the whole thread.), but I don't recall discussing Ruckman with you at all (ever). I responded to LarryN a couple of times. I am right about Ruckman's views on the "originals". (It is clearly proven from the Ruckman Quotes provided by RSR on this very thread.) I don't feel the need to defend Ruckman. (In my opinion, he doesn't take it far enough.

)

Since you say that non-KJVO's have no "extant authority", why not tell us exactly WHERE your extant authority is?

I have it right here on my desk. (Just like Timothy did.)

Where are the original translator's manuscripts of the King James Version? Surely you know they are nowhere known to be found?

That "original manuscript" thing is your deal not mine. I could honestly care a less about originals. Neither could God. (see Jeremiah's roll, the Ten Commandments, and "Scripture"-any where you find the word.)

Please then answer this question: When differences exist among editions of the KJV (and differences have existed since first-printing), by what authority is it determined which is the correct reading? (I'd love for a KJVO to simply give me a straightforward answer to this question JUST ONCE, without dodging the question and going off on some complete tangent.)

1769. Happy? But then I have answered this many times.

Lacy

 

[robycop3]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Yes but just because they have found older mss does not make them correct. If God can preserve his word perfectly in the originals, why not a translation?

And, if He can preserve His word perfectly in many translations in many languages, none of which, if translated into a common language, would read the same, can He not preserve it perfectly within several translations within the same language?

 

[HankD]

Please then answer this question: When differences exist among editions of the KJV (and differences have existed since first-printing), by what authority is it determined which is the correct reading? (I'd love for a KJVO to simply give me a straightforward answer to this question JUST ONCE, without dodging the question and going off on some complete tangent.)

Response:

1769. Happy? But then I have answered this many times.

Actually Lacy there were two versions available in 1769, The Oxford and the Cambridge which had some minor differences (but differences nonetheless).

The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concordances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.
Online at : http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

Most knowledgeable KJVO that I have communicated with lean toward the 1769 Oxford Edition. But, I haven’t ever been told why.

HankD

 

[LarryN]

Quotes from Lacy:

I have it right here on my desk. (Just like Timothy did.)

So Timothy had a copy of the KJV, eh?

I could honestly care a less about originals.

Then why did you make a point of saying that non-KJVO's "have no extant authority"? If it doesn't matter to you, then why critique others regarding it?

1769. Happy?

No, NOT happy. You DIDN'T answer the question. The 1769 is far different from the AV1611. What you're essentially telling me (without extant KJV 1611 originals to compare to) is that your faith rests in the accuracy of the printing company which has produced your 1769, which itself is clearly far different than the original 1611 (and without any way to know exactly the FULL extent of those differences, without the original translator's manuscripts).

 

[robycop3]

Lacy Evans, quoting Dr. Herb Evans:It says that Jesus said to Peter the "THIRD TIME, Lovest (PHILEO) thou me?" Now, poor ignorant Bible believers understand this to mean that the first and second time were the same as the third time. Either the Greek matching words are in error or it doesn't make a hill of beans worth a difference which Greek words, "AGAPAO" or "PHILEO," are used in either place. Selah!

Since Dr, Evans cannot really explain away the fact that Jesus DID use a different word & the KJV does not point out that difference in the Greek, he calls it "a hill of beans". Typical KJVOese for something that refutes their myth & that they have no REAL answer for. it may not make any difference to Dr, Evans, since he's trying to justify the KJV's failure to distinguish between the Greek words, but it apparently made a lotta difference to JESUS, who uttered both words!

Are you related to Dr. Evans? If so, you may know that I've dialogued with him & his #1 fan, Paul Gruendler, more than once, under this very same handle, robycop3. From his replies, I wonder if his doctorate is in basket weaving. He CANNOT explain why he advocates a doctrine about Scripture(KJVO) that has NO Scriptural support. He CANNOT explain why, since he believes God has Preserved His word, why no two English BVs are alike, not can he tell us BY WHOSE AUTHORITY he can proclaim only the KJV valid from among all those versions, new or old. Like all who profess to be KJVO, he's long on spin, short on facts. His above words you've quoted bears this out to all the other readership.

 

[robycop3]

Lacy Evans:It's not me making fruit salad here. I was just answering the statement that one language can't possibly represent another. God can inspire perfectly. God can preserve perfectly.
If indeed it is "scripture", it is inspired, whatever the language. God knows them all. "Scripture" is what is "given", Scott, and "Scripture" is ALWAYS copies, never originals.

Then you must surely realize that there are no two versions of Scripture exactly alike in ANY language. Even within Scripture itself, the differences in the narrations of the same events shows this fact. Is this fact lost to God? Absolutely NOT! In fact, it's GOD who causes the various editions of His word to appear. Don't think so? Then please show us SCRIPTURAL PROOF that we English speakers should use the KJV or any other one version only.

 

[robycop3]

Lacy, I don't know to what mathematical power were Timothy's copies of the Scriptures removed from the originals, but there are several facts that a person with any common sense at all must accept:

1.) At various times, God gave His words directly to various people to write down in whatever languages each of these writers used. Those writings were the 'originals'.

2.) None of these very first human writings of God's words to all mankind are known to exist today. This is a fact whose significance is often ignored by KJVOs.

3.) There's absolutely NO Scriptural authority for the existence of the KJVO myth. It's a totally man-made thing, started in 1930 by a big shot in a KNOWN CULT. That's a PROVEN FACT, not guesswork!

4.) JESUS HIMSELF read from a different copy of the Scriptures from that which is translated into the KJV. Simply compare Luke 4:16-21 with Isaiah 42:7-8 & Isaiah 61:1-3 in the KJV.

KJVO is a lose-lose man-made myth.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Where was that statement made? It wasn't. You are attacking a straw man. The statement was made that one language cannot perfectly translate into another.

I think you tend read the posts about as carefully as you read 2 Timothy. Go back and read my post and Daniel David's post (the very one you responded to). While you are at it Go back and read 2 Timothy too, but take off the extra-Biblical-inspired-in-the-original colored glasses. It doesn't say the original autographs were given. It says "Scripture" and the previous verse defines the term. (As does EVERY other Biblical occurrence of the word "scripture.")

Scripture's authority is always derived from the original Author. God gave one exemplar. All copies and translations derive their authority from there.

There is the reason I will always be KJV-only. You have no extant authority.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]So where is the location of your extant authority? Where is the original KJV? Isn't that kind of like Buddhism? Trust in a man.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Lacy Evans:
Herb Evans blew that up years ago. I hope you will read this because you are dead wrong about "agape" and "phileo".

Well then, Herb Evans is purposefully being ignorant of Greek, in order to advance a KJVO agenda.

In English alone, it is impossible to understand in complete context what the following is about:

... when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

We must understand that Jesus is asking Peter" Do you agapao (love unconditionally) me? And Peter replies "You know I phileo (love like a brother) you. Jesus asks him again with agapeo, and Peter replies again with phileo. Finally, Jesus lowers himself to Peter's level of understanding, asking him, "do you phileo (love like a brother) me? And Peter gets frustrated, but replies in like affirmation. Peter never got it, but to the reader in Greek, it's clear that Jesus lowers himself to Peter's level. In the English (be it KJV or other), that meaning is vitrually lost, due to inhierent nature of what happens when translating from one language to another.