No major doctrines changed?

[williamjordan]

Let me break this down a little easier just in case I still didn't make myself abundently clear. If you open up any English dictionary, you will find two definitions of the term, "whosoever." One use of the term is as an objective, and the other is a possessive pronoun.

An "objective" use of the term is demonstrated this way: "Whosoever wants to apply for the job, can apply." It puts emphasis on open, and free choice. Anybody who wants to apply, can. It is up to them.

Alternatively, the "possessive" use is demonstrated in this way: "Whosoever has green skin will get a free car," or "whoever has Stage 4 melanoma is elligible to receive this drug." The emphasis is on possession of certain qualities.

The translators of the Geneva Bible and the KJV intended the "possessive" use, not the "objective." The objective use of the term is a relatively new use, but the possessive use of the term dates back to the 13th c.

Is everyone on the same page now?

 

[Mem]

Let me break this down a little easier just in case I still didn't make myself abundently clear. If you open up any English dictionary, you will find two definitions of the term, "whosoever." One use of the term is as an objective, and the other is a possessive pronoun.

An "objective" use of the term is demonstrated this way: "Whosoever wants to apply for the job, can apply." It puts emphasis on open, and free choice. Anybody who wants to apply, can. It is up to them.

Alternatively, the "possessive" use is demonstrated in this way: "Whosoever has green skin will get a free car," or "whoever has Stage 4 melanoma is elligible to receive this drug." The emphasis is on possession of certain qualities.

The translators of the Geneva Bible and the KJV intended the "possessive" use, not the "objective." The objective use of the term is a relatively new use, but the possessive use of the term dates back to the 13th c.

Is everyone on the same page now?

Sure, if we restructured the sentence it would read, "that whoever possesses belief in him has life" Correct?
or more correctly, "that whoever possesses belief in him should not perish, but possess eternal life.... which would imply that 'should' would have to apply there also. So then, why is there a "should"?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Don't pretend you understood what I said, and then turn around and misrepresent what I had just got done saying.

The bottom line is that you have a specious argument, since no translation has an objection to "whosoever", "whoever" or "everyone". You are simply stirring the pot to create dissension and division.

 

[williamjordan]

Can you expound on this? I believe the KJB is not an error here. I might have misunderstood your statement. Thanks

No, I didn't say the KJV had an error. I said the modern reader (contrary to what the KJV translators intended) are the ones who are in fact in error, because they read a modern use of the term back into a language that has evolved over time. In the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, they were using a "possessive" use of the term, "whosoever," and not the "objective" use of the term (which is a later innovation).

 

[Cameron143]

Let me break this down a little easier just in case I still didn't make myself abundently clear. If you open up any English dictionary, you will find two definitions of the term, "whosoever." One use of the term is as an objective, and the other is a possessive pronoun.

An "objective" use of the term is demonstrated this way: "Whosoever wants to apply for the job, can apply." It puts emphasis on open, and free choice. Anybody who wants to apply, can. It is up to them.

Alternatively, the "possessive" use is demonstrated in this way: "Whosoever has green skin will get a free car," or "whoever has Stage 4 melanoma is elligible to receive this drug." The emphasis is on possession of certain qualities.

The translators of the Geneva Bible and the KJV intended the "possessive" use, not the "objective." The objective use of the term is a relatively new use, but the possessive use of the term dates back to the 13th c.

Is everyone on the same page now?

Sorry I was on another page. You really should give some notice.

Actually, it's an excellent explanation.

 

[williamjordan]

Sure, if we restructured the sentence it would read, "that whoever possesses belief in him has life" Correct?
or more correctly, "that whoever possesses belief in him should not perish, but possess eternal life.... which would imply that 'should' would have to apply there also. So then, why is there a "should"?

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are reading your modernization back into the English of the time once again? "Should," "shall," "will."

 

[Nehemiah6]

Now back to the topic (in which my comments are to be understood): the English language has evolved over time, and people are reading back into the translation, what the translators themselves did not intend.

You are still putting forward a false idea. John 3:17 fully supports "whosoever" as understood by anyone today. It means anyone and everyone. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Do you seriously think people are going to go back and ask the 16th century translators if they meant "whosoever" or something else?

 

[williamjordan]

The bottom line is that you have a specious argument, since no translation has an objection to "whosoever", "whoever" or "everyone". You are simply stirring the pot to create dissension and division.

Again, you fail to miss the point. Why would any translation object to "whosoever," "whoever," or "everyone"? Seriously, is anyone home? As long as one understands the term as it was intended by the translator, in the period it was written, then there are no issues.

The only time we really have an issue is when an unnamed individual brings "Calvinism" into the discussion. I prefaced my intial post with a cautionary. You are the one sewing any "dissension and division," by turning a rather innocent comment into something more than what it needs to be. My comment was a reply to John146, and so should be read in that context.

If you have a problem with that, there is the "back" button.

 

[williamjordan]

You are still putting forward a false idea. John 3:17 fully supports "whosoever" as understood by anyone today. It means anyone and everyone. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Do you seriously think people are going to go back and ask the 16th century translators if they meant "whosoever" or something else?

That is your misreading and misapplication. Prove to me the translators of the KJV used "whosoever" in that way. Every ounce of data suggests otherwise. Do you want to go there?

 

[Nehemiah6]

That is your misreading and misapplication. Prove to me the translators of the KJV used "whosoever" in that way. Every ounce of data suggests otherwise. Do you want to go there?

No. I would like you to focus on John 3:17 and tell us whether it is consistent with John 3:16 (KJV) as understood by anyone. THE WORLD = ANYONE AND EVERYONE = WHOSOEVER. Case closed.

 

[williamjordan]

No. I would like you to focus on John 3:17 and tell us whether it is consistent with John 3:16 (KJV) as understood by anyone. THE WORLD = ANYONE AND EVERYONE = WHOSOEVER. Case closed.

Why do you assume I am defending Calvinism? I am simply stating a matter of fact without bringing any presuppositions to the table. Even if I grant what you are saying is accurate, that still does not mean "whosoever" is to be understood in the objective sense. Wouldn't it be pretty humiliating if I said I agreed with your comment? That does not necessitate reading a later "objective" use of the term back onto the term. The text can be understood from an Arminian perspective without abusing the term "whosoever" as you do.

 

[Mem]

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are reading your modernization back into the English of the time once again? "Should," "shall," "will."

Is it your assertion then that the KJV is not a good version for me?
The NASB offers, "So that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." Would that be more helpful to me?

 

[williamjordan]

Is it your assertion then that the KJV is not a good version for me?
The NASB offers, "So that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life." Would that be more helpful to me?

While I do have my own personal opinions of the KJV (as fredoheaven can attest), I would never say it's not a good translation. I don't attack the KJV as the KJV Onlyists do to my preferred translations. The only thing I would say is this: Be cautionary, else you run into the possibility of anachronism. You could quite easily misread a text simply because you are not reading the 16th c. English through the translator's vantage point (or lens). That is, you could very well read 21st c. English back onto the English of the 16th c. Can you imagine what it must be like for a Christian in a foreign country attempting to learn English and reading the KJV? They now have to learn two languages: 21st c. English, and 16th c. English. Heck, 21st c. Christians have a difficult time understanding 16th c. English. Can you imagine the difficult for the foreigners?

Now there are parts I disagree with the KJV's underlying textual apparatus, but I can say that there are no fundamental differences between the translations as it is often times espoused by dogmatic KJV Onlyists. Keep an open mind, and an open heart.

 

[Mem]

While I do have my own personal opinions of the KJV (as fredoheaven can attest), I would never say it's not a good translation. I don't attack the KJV as the KJV Onlyists do to my preferred translations. The only thing I would say is this: Be cautionary, else you run into the possibility of anachronism. You could quite easily misread a text simply because you are not reading the 16th c. English through the translator's vantage point (or lens). That is, you could very well read 21st c. English back onto the English of the 16th c. Can you imagine what it must be like for a Christian in a foreign country attempting to learn English and reading the KJV? They now have to learn two languages: 21st c. English, and 16th c. English. Heck, 21st c. Christians have a difficult time understanding 16th c. English. Can you imagine the difficult for the foreigners?

Now there are parts I disagree with the KJV's underlying textual apparatus, but I can say that there are no fundamental differences between the translations as it is often times espoused by dogmatic KJV Onlyists. Keep an open mind, and an open heart.

Actually, I looked through all the parallels provided for this particular verse, and it seemed to me that, though it appears to be an aberrant translation, the Aramaic Bible got it the "most right" when I compare it to the translation helps. Although I'm aware it may be only in this one case since that is only as far as I've look into it.

 

[Mem]

Actually, I looked through all the parallels provided for this particular verse, and it seemed to me that, though it appears to be an aberrant translation, the Aramaic Bible got it the "most right" when I compare it to the translation helps. Although I'm aware it may be only in this one case since that is only as far as I've look into it.

Oh wait, sorry. It wasn't this verse I was looking at... it was another, I was looking at the "and so were some of you" verse.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

My statement is not about Greek words. It’s about the English words in the KJV.

You are not consistent to say the least. You're a slave to the KJV. It's like an illness in you.

 

[HeIsHere]

Why do you assume I am defending Calvinism? I am simply stating a matter of fact without bringing any presuppositions to the table. Even if I grant what you are saying is accurate, that still does not mean "whosoever" is to be understood in the objective sense. Wouldn't it be pretty humiliating if I said I agreed with your comment? That does not necessitate reading a later "objective" use of the term back onto the term. The text can be understood from an Arminian perspective without abusing the term "whosoever" as you do.

And what about here .... are we looking at it in the objective or possessive sense?

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

[HeIsHere]

You are not consistent to say the least. You're a slave to the KJV. It's like an illness in you.

Are you in the mental health field that you are able to make a quasi-diagnosis ("like an illness") via a discussion board?
And another in agreement.
Smh

 

[John146]

The Jews still celebrate the Passover. Gentiles never celebrated the Passover, it was not our Passover.

What do you mean by eliminated the Jewish Passover?

It does not matter if the Jews still celebrate the Passover. They are wrong for doing so. They missed out on the fulfillment of the Passover, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Passover Lamb.

 

[John146]

You are not consistent to say the least. You're a slave to the KJV. It's like an illness in you.

I believe I have a bible that is the word of God, every word, and you say that is like an illness. Wow!