Posted on 03/24/2008 7:29:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here, but here is some more evidence...
KJV Onlyism- Another Christian hate cult which has been exposed which needs to repent:
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/unlearnd.htm
Read what you want I like KJV for the way the poetry reads in ( Psalms, Proverbs et. al. ) the Old Testaments. I use both KJV and NIV.
I love the King James version also. This article is part of an ongoing discussion about whether the King James version is the ONLY valid translation of scripture. That all other translations are flawed including the oldest greek and hebrew manuscripts.
I have six translations of the Bible. I have NRSV and NIV study bibles which I use for Sunday school lesson and bible study prep. I use TEV and TNIV bibles for devotional reading. I have the KJV and NKJV for completeness, but I rarely use them when doing personal study.
Well, you certanily not bringing up anything new, that is for sure.
The King James translators used the right Hebrew and Greek texts.
Modern versions do not.
There are no errors in the King James, and you haven't proven one yet.
But as I said, the King James translators knew that their work would be attacked.
So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home and abroad, who therefore malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; of if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give the liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their own anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and intergity, as before the Lord, and subtained without by the powerful protection of Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.-Epistle Dedicatory
But I am still waiting for you to explain Heb.8:11 in the light of the fact that you say that the New Covenant refers to the believer today.
If we are in the New Covenant today, everyone must know the Lord!
This attack on the King James is simply a red herring to avoid dealing with the issue that this began with, sabbath observance for the Christian.
But don't let scripture get in the way of doing what you want to do!
I am sure there must be some translation somewhere that will twist the verse to make it fit your theology-just keep looking!
And ofcourse, you can always do what alot of your friends do, go to the interlinears and Strongs and just deny what the verse actually says in every translation!
I personally feel the KJV is a more accurate translation, but when I read it in contrast to a more modern translation I have had moments where I better understand the verse I was reading in KJV.
I like the KJV exactness better. An example is the Lord’s prayer. I like the KJV version better but a lot of churches ( at least the Methodist one I used to attend did ) recite/teach the NIV version.
Protestantism began by attacking the Catholic Church for using only the Latin Vulgate instead of making new translations in the vernacular languages (indeed, the Latin Vulgate was treated as almost "more inspired than the originals!"). And now what has happened? English Protestants have adopted the original Catholic outlook with their own "Vulagate" which is "more holy than the originals!" Does this mean translations into non-English languages must be made from the KJV and not from the originals?
"Holy translations" are nothing new. Every religion has them. The Septuagint was (according to the story) the work of seventy (or 72) translators who each went into a separate room and yet they all emerged with the exact same translation. Later the Aramaic Targums were held to have a measure of sanctity (which as a Noachide I acknowledge). The Syrians have the Peshitta, the Greek Orthodox use the Septuagint, and the Latins (until some four decades ago) used the Vulgate. What has happened now is that the KJV has joined this club of "holy translations." And I have heard preachers stumble reading the unfamiliar language of the KJV just as (surely) Irish and Polish peasants once occasionally stumbled over the Latin.
Admittedly I am unique here in that a)I am a Noachide rather than a chr*sitan, and b)I believe the most authentic Word of G-d exists in the scrolls that are written in the original and hand-written according to the Halakhah handed down from Sinai. In other words, if you want to read the Bible and not a translation of the Bible, learn Hebrew and read the original! And it isn't that hard to do (it's certainly easier than Greek).
I find myself often defending American Fundamentalist Protestants from their detractors and am happy to do so. But I must confess that the idea that the Word of G-d did not exist until the 5371st year of creation (1611) and that the original Hebrew was "written by Satan" (as some KJV-only people maintain) really burns my biscuits.
Translations of the Bible are not the Bible. Learn Hebrew (and Aramaic)!
Shakespeare!
I don't mind discussing that issue at all. But it's fruitless because your basic assumption is the only acceptable source text is the English wording of the King James. I can (and have) pulled out various texts that contradict your position. I've also used the King James to contradict your position, but because you insist on assigning your word definitions to the King James english (in essence reading the minds of the translators) you can't see the errors of your thought process.
But I am still waiting for you to explain Heb.8:11 in the light of the fact that you say that the New Covenant refers to the believer today. If we are in the New Covenant today, everyone must know the Lord!
Scripture affirms time after time that Christians are under the new covenant:
Heb 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
Luk 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
2Co 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
2Co 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Now I acknowledge, as Paul does, that not everyone is NOW under the new covenant. Only Christians are.
Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
So no, not everyone knows the Lord now, just as they didn't in Paul's time. But all Christians DO know the Lord.
I would agree that's the best way to truly get a flavor of what was written. I do think that the role of the holy spirit in Christians is to guide us into the truth...which may consist of using multiple translations and multiple sources of information.
“And it isn’t that hard to do (it’s certainly easier than Greek).”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hebrew really is easier than Greek, you know. No kidding.
I don't mind discussing that issue at all. But it's fruitless because your basic assumption is the only acceptable source text is the English wording of the King James. I can (and have) pulled out various texts that contradict your position. I've also used the King James to contradict your position, but because you insist on assigning your word definitions to the King James english (in essence reading the minds of the translators) you can't see the errors of your thought process.
You have shown nothing of the kind!
The word 'Easter' was used as late as 1916 in Luther's 1916 edition and recently in KJ21 (1994).
What you have to prove is that Easter cannot be used in Acts.12:4, that would make it an error.
Since Easter was used in all of the versions before 1611, it can be used for that verse as well.
That it was kept in the AV1611 for a purpose is evident by the parenthesis around vs 3.
But the word 'Easter' for any usage of the Greek word 'pascha' is not an error since they can be used interchangeably as well.
So, once again, you have to actually show that Easter cannot be in that passage, it is not an error just because you cannot figure out why it is in that passage.
[ But I am still waiting for you to explain Heb.8:11 in the light of the fact that you say that the New Covenant refers to the believer today. If we are in the New Covenant today, everyone must know the Lord! ]
Scripture affirms time after time that Christians are under the new covenant: Heb 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
You had better read that passage in the King James, it says New Testament.
You know why?
Because in Heb.9:16 it states that no Testament can be made without the shedding of blood and the death of the testator.
Covenants do not require the deaths of anyone.
So, the NASB goes right off the cliff saying 'covenant' instead of 'testament' for Heb.9:16, which even the NIV doesn't (they put in will).
That is why the Bible is the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.
The New Covenant has nothing to do with the Church, it is for Israel in the Millennium.
Hence, Heb.8:11, which you still haven't answered or explained.
1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
Not covenant, Testament
Luk 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 2Co 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 2Co 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now I acknowledge, as Paul does, that not everyone is NOW under the new covenant. Only Christians are.
all of those verses should be translated Testament not Covenant, as they are correctly translated as such in the King James.
Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. So no, not everyone knows the Lord now, just as they didn't in Paul's time. But all Christians DO know the Lord.
Well, that is not what Heb.8:11 says now is it?
Moreover it says that no one is to teach others to know the Lord, so I guess you don't tell unbelievers how to get saved.
Clearly, as I suspected, you pick those verses you want to and simply ignore what is inconvenient to your theology.
Because covenant and testament meant the same thing?
Testament: From Merriam -Webster:
1 archaic : a covenant between God and the human race bcapitalized
Is Merriam-Webster in on this conspiracy?
From The Free Dictionary
5. Archaic A covenant between humans and God.
From dictionary.net
2. One of the two distinct revelations of God's purposes toward man; a covenant; also, one of the two general divisions of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures, in which the covenants are respectively revealed; as, the Old Testament; the New Testament; -- often limited, in colloquial language, to the latter.
From The Bible Glossary:
Covenant between man and God or Jesus. The word means testimony. Because covenants are a central issue in the Jewish Bible, they were at one point being referred to as testamentum. These covenants are made through Noah (after the deluge) and Moses (during his journey to the promised land) and are repeated several times in the Old Testament. The covenant in the New Testament is not so much entered upon by equal partners - it is closer to a disposition of God's grace.
From Eastons 1897 Bible Dictionary:
Testament occurs twelve times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15, etc.) as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided. (See BIBLE.)
I could go on and on and on, but expert wordsmiths all agree that their the same. I quote evidence, you quote your opinion.
Covenants do not require the deaths of anyone.
So, the NASB goes right off the cliff saying 'covenant' instead of 'testament' for Heb.9:16, which even the NIV doesn't (they put in will).
Okay, let's say you're right, that Christ meant it as a "last will and testament".
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
1. Why does he call it "new". Did he have an "old" testament? If so what was it?
2. What did he "leave" to his disciples if this is a "will"? Some wine that wasn't his? His blood which nobody actually received? If you want to say it's the same as a "will" then you have to treat it as a "will" and show me that he left some physical things for the people left behind. That's what a "will" is after all.
3. If it is a "will", then it's no longer effective because Christ isn't dead. He's alive and alive eternally. If someone is supposed dead and then is discovered to be alive then I would suspect his last "testament" is null and void.
That is why the Bible is the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Again, what is the "first" testament? The word "testament" is found nowhere in the in the "old testament" books.
A testament IS a covenant. The books of the "old" testament are called that because the central focus in on the "old" covenant. The books of the "new testament" are called that because it focuses on the new covenant ushered in under Christ.
You have no evidence on your side, other than to keep stating your opinion. Even your definition of testament doesn't jibe with reality.
There are those who think KJV is actually the original scriptures! That just amazes me. (Not a translation in other words)
To be fair I don't think they believe they're original scriptures. But they do believe it's the one and only perfect translation of scripture. If an error is found or pointed out, they must deny it's an error despite all evidence to the contrary.
Because covenant and testament meant the same thing? Testament: From Merriam -Webster: 1 archaic : a covenant between God and the human race bcapitalized Is Merriam-Webster in on this conspiracy? From The Free Dictionary 5. Archaic A covenant between humans and God. From dictionary.net 2. One of the two distinct revelations of God's purposes toward man; a covenant; also, one of the two general divisions of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures, in which the covenants are respectively revealed; as, the Old Testament; the New Testament; -- often limited, in colloquial language, to the latter. From The Bible Glossary: Covenant between man and God or Jesus. The word means testimony. Because covenants are a central issue in the Jewish Bible, they were at one point being referred to as testamentum. These covenants are made through Noah (after the deluge) and Moses (during his journey to the promised land) and are repeated several times in the Old Testament. The covenant in the New Testament is not so much entered upon by equal partners - it is closer to a disposition of God's grace. From Eastons 1897 Bible Dictionary: Testament occurs twelve times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15, etc.) as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided. (See BIBLE.) I could go on and on and on, but expert wordsmiths all agree that their the same. I quote evidence, you quote your opinion.
No need to go on because a Testament is different from a Covenant, a Covenant doesn't require the death of anyone, a testament does.
That is why wills are called, 'the last will and testament and not last will and covenant.
That is why God put Heb.9:16-17 in the Bible and that is why the Bible is called the Old and New Testament, it is based on blood, not just a promise.
[ Covenants do not require the deaths of anyone. So, the NASB goes right off the cliff saying 'covenant' instead of 'testament' for Heb.9:16, which even the NIV doesn't (they put in will). ]
Okay, let's say you're right, that Christ meant it as a "last will and testament".
No, lets say the scripture is right and that is what Heb.9:16-17 actually says.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 1. Why does he call it "new". Did he have an "old" testament? If so what was it?
Christ was bringing in something new, which made everything that preceded it, old.
He was ending the need for the Old Testament sacrifices, which couldn't pay for sins, only cover them.
[ 2. What did he "leave" to his disciples if this is a "will"? Some wine that wasn't his? His blood which nobody actually received? If you want to say it's the same as a "will" then you have to treat it as a "will" and show me that he left some physical things for the people left behind. That's what a "will" is after all. ]
He left us His Holy Spirit (Jn.14-16) and gave us a New Testament to live by.
Neither of which you seem to know anything about.
3. If it is a "will", then it's no longer effective because Christ isn't dead. He's alive and alive eternally. If someone is supposed dead and then is discovered to be alive then I would suspect his last "testament" is null and void.
No, He died, and because He did die, the Testament went into effect.
His coming back to life doesn't negate His death and burial which paid the price of mankind sins, making all of the Old Testament sacrifices unnecessary (Heb.10)
[ That is why the Bible is the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.]
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Again, what is the "first" testament? The word "testament" is found nowhere in the in the "old testament" books.
Because in the Old Testament, they weren't the 'old' Testament until the new came which made the 'old' old.
A testament IS a covenant. The books of the "old" testament are called that because the central focus in on the "old" covenant. The books of the "new testament" are called that because it focuses on the new covenant ushered in under Christ.
No, you had better read Heb.9:16-17 again, a covenent doesn't demand the death of anyone to be active but a testament does.
It is just that simple.
You have no evidence on your side, other than to keep stating your opinion. Even your definition of testament doesn't jibe with reality.
It most certainly does since covenants were made all the time and went into force without anyone dying.
Heb.9:16 states very clearly,
for where a testament is, there must also be of necessity the death of the testator.
Clear enough?
A covenant doesn't require the death of the one making the covenant as the NASB states.
That is made evident in the Old Testament time and time again.
Thus, even the NIV saw that they couldn't use covenant for that verse since one can make a covenant that goes into effect without anyone dying.
That is shown clearly in the Old Testament many times!
A testament however requires the death of the testator before it goes into force.
Thus, Christ had to die to pay for the sins of the world.
So, you have to ignore two clear verses, Heb.8:11 and Heb.9:16 to maintain your false theology.
'Men loved darkness rather than light'
Of course there's no need to go on. I post proof after proof from dictionary after dictionary and you still insist your opinion is the correct one. There's no accounting for stubbornness.
I've more than made my point so I'm not going to argue with you anymore since you just keep repeating the same things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.