Posted on 04/02/2003 11:56:15 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
Amen! Thanks for the post!
That is correct, because Jerminah did not write he said it.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost
Alot more was said by the prophets then was written down, and Jeremiah said what Zechariah later wrote down.
Moreover, if the 'lesser' prophets were part of a scroll with a 'greater' prophet Zechariah should have been found in the same scroll with Malachi since they would be together, thus, it would have been in the 'Isaiah' scroll, not the Jeremiah one.
OTOH, Zecharaiah says, 12 I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 13 Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD. Seems to me that's a quotation of Zechariah, not Jeremiah.
No, it is a quotation of what Jeremiah said not wrote!
As for the Goliath thing, I'm shooting from the hip, but I'm assuming Goliath wasn't an uncommon name, especially amongst a family of giants.
No, even if that were true, you would still have a contradiction since 1Chro.20:5 states that Elhanan did not kill Goliath but the brother of Goliath.
So much for 'scholarship'
Here is Scrivener's view on 'B',
One marked feature characteristic of this copy, is the great number of omissions, whihc has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting 'an abbreviated text of the New Testament' and certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough. He calculates that Codex B leaves out words or whole clauses no less then 330 times in Matthew, 365 in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2,556 times in all. That no small proportion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstances that this scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over,.... (Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 120)
Thus, you can see that the tenacity is omission not addition to the manuscripts, as Pickering proves in his work, The Identity of the New Testament Text
One last thing, I want to say that I admire your zeal for the Lord.
To have learned the things that you have at such an early age shows that you do have a heart for the Lord and are seeking Him.
I checked this out, and checked out five minutes later. I can't make heads or tails out of it, due to the nearly incoherent format and layout his "public spanking" is presented in.
I've taken the author's core thesis and reproduced it here to spare other readers the agony of trying to find it in your linked text.
====================================================
Today we have a strange movement, - The Anti KJV Only Conspiracy. It is comprised of a very wide range of Bible teachers, scholars, preachers, and blasphemous bishops(“Whose damnation is just.” Rom 3:8c) who author books, denying;
a.) The Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
b.) The virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus, prior to His birth.
c.) The necessity that our Lord’s blood must be shed in order for Him to make a soul saving atonement. They forget the unequivocal statement of Holy Scripture “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Heb. 9:22b
d.) Our Lord’s bodily resurrection from the dead. They reject the scripture; “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also in vain. Yea, and we also are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: (Romans 1:4) whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not ...And if Christ be not raised, YOUR FAITH IS VAIN; YE ARE YET IN YOUR SINS.” I Cor 15:14,15,17 see also 18-20.
e.) They substitute greatly corrupted manuscripts to replace the glorious Textus Receptus, in the New Testament of their equally corrupted new Bible Versions. In order to accomplish this great delusion they ignore;
f.) The slovenly writing of those ghastly things that they falsely brand "The Oldest and Best Manuscripts."
g.) The vast number of outright contradictions of all the manuscripts; especially Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
h.) The fact that multitudes of professing protestant preachers and Bible teachers fall right into the arms of Romanism where when they follow the terribly mutilated Vaticanus to greatly assist in the devil's plan to destroy the influence of the Holy Bible known as The Authorized Version, or the King James Version.
i.) They strongly condemn students who reveal the terrible unbelief and occult practices of many who "father" the new perversions of the Scriptures.
The conspiracy encompasses such a vast range of heretics and false teachers, ranging from the most virulent, vicious and vociferous persons right down to many thousands of sincerely deceived, deluded persons who are in the evil conspiracy without being aware of the effect that by translating, selling, and using the new Bible Versions as a teaching tool, they are unconsciously contributing toward the devil’s plan to strike like a serpent at the very heart and foundation of the church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
===============================
Comments, anyone?
Another verse that is mistranslated in almost every translation is the last part of Romans 5:16. As it reads in the KJV:
..."for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification."
Only problem is, that's not a good translation. A better reading is: "for the crime was by one resulting in condemnation, but the free gift is due to many offenses resulting in a just sentence."
Paul was contrasting and juxtaposing the differences and similarities between the way sin and redemption from sin were accomplished. One sin (by Adam) was sufficient to bring condemnation on mankind, and the multiple sins of mankind were redeemed by being borne by one (Jesus). So, as sin entered the world by one man (Adam), by one man (Jesus) redemption for sin ( the free gift) was bought. The penalty Jesus took on Himself was the just sentence for sin. That's what Paul is referring to here. But the KJV translators rendered the greek word dikaioma as justification, which is not what that word means.
These are just a couple of examples. There are more. If you want to read the inspired Word of God, learn Greek and Hebrew, and read God's Word in the original languages. Holding up a flawed translation as the be-all and end-all of English translations is pointless. God reveals His Truth to those He has saved by His Spirit, and is not hampered by translations, no matter how accurate or inaccurate they are. The KJV is just a translation and is not in and of itself inspired.
Is Merriam-Webster good enough for you? Check out the etymology.
Every English Reformation translation had inspired not 'God breathed'
So? Antiquity is not necessarily proof of accuracy.
[The NIV/NASB make] Christ a sinner in Matthew 5:22 cf Mk.3:5 does it not?
I think that should have been left in, perhaps in italics. The NET Bible translators say,
23tc The majority of mss insert the word eijkh'/ (eikh, “without cause”). This insertion has support from D L W theta 0233 f1 f13 Byz it syr cop Irenaeus Origen Cyprian Cyril. Thus, the Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine texttypes all include the word, while the best Alexandrian and some other witnesses (B64 aleph B 1424 et aur vg Jerome) omit it. The ms evidence favors its exclusion, though there is a remote possibility that eijkh'/ could have been accidentally omitted from these witnesses by way of homoioarcton (the next word, e[noco" [enoco" “guilty”], begins with the same letter). An intentional change would likely arise from the desire to qualify “angry,” especially in light of the absolute tone of Jesus’ words. While “without cause” makes good practical sense in this context, and must surely be a true interpretation of Jesus' meaning (cf. Mark 3:5), it does not commend itself as original.
"Without cause" certainly is within the sense of the passage (witness Eph. 4:26). Adding it takes nothing away from the passage, and taking it away subtracts little. A good expositor would know Eph. 4:26 anyway and take that into account.
The NASB is so 'precise' that even the NIV did not follow their making Christ a liar in Jn.7:8, by leaving out 'yet', despite the fact that they both use the same Greek text!
I'll stipulate it was a bad translation; the evidence is quite weighty for its inclusion (B66, B75, B, L, T, W, theta, phi, 0105, 0180, 0250, f1, f13, Byz, etc.). Still, the common-sense reading of the passage in the NASB leads someone to that conclusion anyway.
What we are saying is that God has one Bible in the English language and that is the KJV!
I take no small issue with this stance. There is no Biblical basis for this stance. It goes contrary to Biblical precedent (they used the LXX, which was something like the NIV of Greek translations of the OT -- a little bit free.)
You said that your friends were reading much harder things then the King James! Did you think I would forget that statement!
I don't recall saying that, though some definately do. (How some can get though Beowulf is beyond me.
What 'diction' cannot be understood? Any archaic words can be looked up!
Why should Webster's be a necessary companion to the Bible? I guarantee you the churches didn't have to break out their dictionaries when Paul's epistles arrived in the mail.
This brings me to a challange: if I were to make a new translation, which preserved the readings that you dispute over, but updated the language, would you accept that? I'm guessing you still wouldn't. (Isn't that mostly what the NKJV is?)
Starting with the last first, the King James in Matthew 27:9 is stating something that Jermmiah said and which Zecariah wrote down later. It states Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy . Jermiah never wrote that down, but did speak it, as it was revealed to Matthew.
Can you prove this?
Thank you! Actually I must give my brother credit. He and I were talking about this subject, and he pointed out the examples I gave. He is a Greek and Hebrew scholar, and holds a Master of Divinity degree. He is quite knowledgeable about Greek and Hebrew, and can read both languages. He is a resource I lean on often, and sometimes even disagree with, but our conversations on scriptural matters are always deep and very enlightening. I also feel very blessed to have such a wide-ranging tool as the Internet to supplement and enhance my study of God's Word.
While I realize the KJV has its flaws, I still read it regularly, and consider it to be a decent translation overall. I just don't worship it. I worship God.
Sounds a little too much like worship to me....
The conspiracy encompasses such a vast range of heretics and false teachers, ranging from the most virulent, vicious and vociferous persons right down to many thousands of sincerely deceived, deluded persons who are in the evil conspiracy without being aware of the effect that by translating, selling, and using the new Bible Versions as a teaching tool, they are unconsciously contributing toward the devil’s plan to strike like a serpent at the very heart and foundation of the church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
That's always effective...get out the broadest brush you can find, and paint everyone with the same color, and then claim that you have proved your point. This is an argument built on faulty logic. They are trying to prove their premise with their conclusion. To remain sound logically, you must take your premise to it's farthest logical conclusion, and if that conclusion is obviously wrong, then your premise is also wrong. You cannot start with your conclusion and then invent premises to support it. That is faulty and unworkable logic. A faulty premise cannot result in an accurate conclusion. In order for an argument or position to be logically sound, you must start from sound premises in order to reach a sound conclusion. Assumptions are conclusions, and the KJV-only position is rife with assumptions. Ergo, it is not logical.
I was wrong. I did a little research.
sn Three hundred bronze shekels would have weighed about 7.5 pounds (3.4 kg). 30tn The Hebrew text reads simply “a new [thing],” prompting one to ask “A new what?” Several possibilities have been proposed to resolve the problem: perhaps a word has dropped out of the Hebrew text here; or perhaps the word “new” is the result of misreading a different, less common, word; or perhaps a word (e.g., “sword”) is simply to be inferred. The translation generally follows the latter possibility, while at the same time being deliberately non-specific (“weapon”). 31tn Heb “Jaare-Oregim,” but the second word, which means “weavers,” is probably accidentally included. It appears at the end of the verse. The term is omitted in the parallel account in 1 Chr 20:5, which has simply “Jair.” 32sn The Hebrew text as it stands reads, “Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite.” Who killed Goliath the Gittite? According to 1 Sam 17:4-58 it was David who killed Goliath, but according to the MT of 2 Sam 21:19 it was Elhanan who killed him. Many scholars believe that the two passages are hopelessly at variance with one another. Others have proposed various solutions to the difficulty, such as identifying David with Elhanan or positing the existence of two Goliaths. But in all likelihood the problem is the result of difficulties in the textual transmission of the Samuel passage; in fact, from a text-critical point of view the books of Samuel are the most poorly preserved of all the books of the Hebrew Bible. The parallel passage in 1 Chr 20:5 reads, “Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath.” Both versions are textually corrupt. The Chronicles text has misread “Bethlehemite” (bet hallahmi) as the accusative sign followed by a proper name (‘et lahmi). (See the note at 1 Chr 20:5.) The Samuel text misread the word for “brother” (ja, ‘ah) as the accusative sign (ta, ‘et), thereby giving the impression that Elhanan, not David, killed Goliath. Thus in all probability the original text read, “Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath.”
I am of the opinion, therefore, that the AV's choice of adding "the brother of" in italics, thereby denoting that it was an addition in their judgement warrented, was appropriate. That, or my NAS's choice of a footnote -- "In 1 Chr. 20:5, 'Lahmi the brother of Goliath'." (thus indicating that it probably belonged, but our manuscripts are a bit corrupted.)
One last thing, I want to say that I admire your zeal for the Lord. To have learned the things that you have at such an early age shows that you do have a heart for the Lord and are seeking Him.
Thanks. I will say that I appreciate your stand for the inerrancy of the Scriptures. I don't agree that the KJV (or any translation) is inerrant, so I think you're fighting the wrong battle, but I do understand where you're coming from. (Probably better than you may realize: I used to hold your position.)
I don't hate the KJV -- I constantly refer to mine. Nor do I object to its use -- when it works for the audience. IF the audience is one that is used to it (my denomination is such a one), I think its okay. But in settings where the only exposure people have had to the Bible is out-of-context quotes in the media, well, the NAS or NIV are better suited.
God never had one translation, nor did he require a perfect translation. Consider the LXX -- that was essentially the NIV of its day. Yet it was also the version the Bible quotes when it uses OT quotes.
When the NT was written, it was written in the language of the streets: koine Greek. You didn't need any special education to read and understand the NT: most people knew the language it was written in. If God wanted high and lofty language, he wouldn't have chosen the earthy koine Greek he used, but the beautifully precise Attic Greek that the educated elite spoke. Similarly, the Bible today shouldn't be in "olde English" inaccessable to all except those willing to educate themselves in a 400-year-old langage, but rather a simple translation most literate adults can read.
My goal, as one who has some teaching responsibilities, is to focus on doctrines and applications, not on what words mean. The KJV just got in my way, so I do not use it anymore. That's what I have against it, nothing more.
STRONGLY AGREE.
Bibliolatry of the ink on pages is not righteousness and no valid substitute for righteousness.
We serve and worship the Living Word if we have a genuine, vibrant, tuned-in RELATIONSHIP with Almighty God, His Son and Spirit.
ObCom (Obsessive-Compulsive) addictions to endless dissections of minute fractions of the text smacks quite overwhelmingly of the arguments of the Pharisees in Jesus' dusty feet days.
Bibliolatry is STILL IDOLATRY.
And it will NOT save anyone.
I found this to be basically a smear job, full of perjorative terms against people and things with which the author disagreed, and can only conclude that he feels that he must reinforce his case by making the opposition look as bad as possible through the use of such perjorative terms. He refers to "The sickly Sinaiticus and the vile Vaticanus" texts, thereby trying to set in his readers' minds the "proper" assessment of the two. He extensively quotes scripture, pulling the verses out of context in many cases to support his assessment of those whom he considers to be no less than agents of Satan, deliberately distorting and changing the Word (which really means the KJV). For simple-minded folk, he may appear to be a crusader against error and a champion of the truth (and I'm sure that is how the author fancies himself), but his reliance on slander, perjorative terms and misquoting of scripture can only be seen as desperation and an slavish devotion to defending a translation which is not 100% accurate against any translation which disagrees with his favorite one.
There is a real indication that the KJV-only crowd actually elevates the Bible to an object of worship, reverance, and devotion, which is nothing short of idolatry. God's Word is Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, Second Person of the Godhead, Savior of all who believe on Him, Bridegroom of the Church, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, not printed words on paper translated from the original inspired texts. The KJV is a translation, and not directly inspired, but it is sufficient (as are many other translations) to impart the Word of God to the reader, as the impartation of the Word is through the agency of the Holy Spirit, not mere printed words on a page. The fact that countless millions have been saved through preaching based on the KJV and the reading of the KJV is evidence that it contains God's Word, but it is not the KJV that saves, it is Jesus Christ who saves and indwells the believer. To elevate the KJV to the exalted status that some do is blasphemous.
If you had omitted your word conspiracy, and your unnecessary sarcasm, this would have been an excellent summation, pointing out the continuing deception of Satan in all matters spiritual.
Eph 6:12
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]."
The ultimate conspiracy theory, is it not?
That reminds me of another thread a couple of weeks ago, where it was ducmented that Dr. Peter Ruckman at least twice called James White a "conceited @**." The letters are documented here.
We have some good, some solid Christians stuck on this KJV-onlyism issue, some of them our friends. There is a lot of straw man arguments, generally bad logic and some name calling as well coming from some of the KJV-only proponents. Continuing to keep our side (and I really hate saying that because I'm talking about fellow believers) clean from personal attacks and by using sound logic, perhaps our fellow believers who disagree with us will objectively read what we're saying and realize we've researched this issue and disagree based on the facts, not emotions.
As I re-read The King James Only Controversy by James White I am again reminded at how far removed from the facts the attacks on this book and author really are. It would appear as if some of those who disagree with us have never read the book but only the rebuttals on James White and his book.
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.