No major doctrines changed?

[Cameron143]

All throughout the originals there are translations from one language to another, and those translations make up the inspired originals.

Nope. They represent the translators best efforts at being faithful to the text, in most cases.

 

[John146]

Say what?
You lost me there buddy....

Did you know that Joseph spoke Egyptian to his brothers when they came to Egypt? What Joseph spoke was translated to Hebrew, and the Hebrew translation made up the originals. There are many examples throughout scripture of inspired translations.

 

[cv5]

Did you know that Joseph spoke Egyptian to his brothers when they came to Egypt? What Joseph spoke was translated to Hebrew, and the Hebrew translation made up the originals. There are many examples throughout scripture of inspired translations.

Ok. Do you have any proof for this phenomenon occurring during this particular incident?

 

[Ted01]

Genesis 42:23 ESV They did not know that Joseph understood them, for there was an interpreter between them.

That kinda' speaks to the issue... but, I don't recall the interpreter's words being recorded...?

 

[John146]

Ok. Do you have any proof for this phenomenon occurring during this particular incident?

23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter.

Several times Jesus spoke in Aramaic but the words were translated into Greek.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Did you know that Joseph spoke Egyptian to his brothers when they came to Egypt? What Joseph spoke was translated to Hebrew, and the Hebrew translation made up the originals. There are many examples throughout scripture of inspired translations.

If there are so many examples of inspired translation, why is the KJV the only truly inspired translation available today? If I accept your theory, then theoretically many Bibles could be inspired translations. We're right back where we started: You have no scriptural authority for your theories and scriptural authority is all we have. I could say the NIV is God's inspired and infallible word and you'd have nothing that can prove me wrong.

 

[williamjordan]

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.

You are going about this all wrong. You continue to read texts (Matt. 5:28) with your 21 c. goggles on. Take them off for five minutes.

The issue you face is that there is no Greek equivalent to the English term “whosoever,” period. Whenever you see the word, “whosoever” it is a translation of pas ho (“all the”). So in short, Matt. 5:28 literally says, “but I tell you that all those who look (or ‘all those looking’) upon a woman… .” The KJV uses “whosoever” to translate the same term that other translations render as “everyone,” or “anyone.” There is truly no difference between the KJV’s rendering and the Lexham’s, or NET’s, or NASB’s. They are simply stating the very same thing, but using terms relative to the time period. So when it says in the second half of Jn. 3:16, “for God so loved the world that πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (“all the believing” or “all those believing”) in Him should not perish but have everlasting life,” the term πᾶς (“all”) is qualified by ὁ πιστεύων (“the believing”). It does not exclude, or include anyone that falls outside the category of “the believing.” It is an absolute “all,” in a qualified statement—“all the believing.” This is quite a bit different than using an objective nuance of the term “whosoever.”

In Jn. 3:8 the same term (as in Jn. 3:16) is used, πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (“all those born of the Spirit”). Jn. 3:8 follows the same verbal and syntactical pattern as 3:16, where πᾶς is placed in juxtaposition to the articular phrase, ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος. The only difference is that in 3:8, “all” is qualified by “those born of the Spirit,” whereas, in 3:16 “all” is qualified by “the believing.” If consistent in application, one would need to demonstrate that the term in 3:8 should be construed with the objective nuance of “whosoever,” even though the KJV does not do so.

Further, in Jn. 3:18, the same group (as in 3:16)— ὁ πιστεύων (“the believing”)—is set in contrast to μὴ πιστεύων (“non believing”). So Jn. 3:16 designates everlasting life to ὁ πιστεύων (“the believing”). Every person that believes in Jesus Christ will have eternal life; that is all the passage is stating. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[HeIsHere]

You are going about this all wrong. You continue to read texts (Matt. 5:28) with your 21 c. goggles on. Take them off for five minutes.

The issue you face is that there is no Greek equivalent to the English term “whosoever,” period. Whenever you see the word, “whosoever” it is a translation of pas ho (“all the”). So in short, Matt. 5:28 literally says, “but I tell you that all those who look (or ‘all those looking’) upon a woman… .” The KJV uses “whosoever” to translate the same term that other translations render as “everyone,” or “anyone.” There is truly no difference between the KJV’s rendering and the Lexham’s, or NET’s, or NASB’s. They are simply stating the very same thing, but using terms relative to the time period. So when it says in the second half of Jn. 3:16, “for God so loved the world that πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (“all the believing” or “all those believing”) in Him should not perish but have everlasting life,” the term πᾶς (“all”) is qualified by ὁ πιστεύων (“the believing”). It does not exclude, or include anyone that falls outside the category of “the believing.” It is an absolute “all,” in a qualified statement—“all the believing.” This is quite a bit different than using an objective nuance of the term “whosoever.”

In Jn. 3:8 the same term (as in Jn. 3:16) is used, πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (“all those born of the Spirit”). Jn. 3:8 follows the same verbal and syntactical pattern as 3:16, where πᾶς is placed in juxtaposition to the articular phrase, ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος. The only difference is that in 3:8, “all” is qualified by “those born of the Spirit,” whereas, in 3:16 “all” is qualified by “the believing.” If consistent in application, one would need to demonstrate that the term in 3:8 should be construed with the objective nuance of “whosoever,” even though the KJV does not do so.

Further, in Jn. 3:18, the same group (as in 3:16)— ὁ πιστεύων (“the believing”)—is set in contrast to μὴ πιστεύων (“non believing”). So Jn. 3:16 designates everlasting life to ὁ πιστεύων (“the believing”). Every person that believes in Jesus Christ will have eternal life; that is all the passage is stating. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am completely aware of 21C Western glasses by the way but you can presume, we all do it from time to time.

I am not completely sure of your argument, I need to think on it a bit, but I completely appreciate the time and effort of your post and your willingness to clarify.

One question comes to mind before I consider the rest, you state "the issue you face is that there is no Greek equivalent to the English term “whosoever,” period."

It is my understanding that
ὅστῐς • (hóstis)
is an indefinite relative pronoun: whoever, whichever; anyone who, anything which; someone who, something which

So why do you say there was no equivalent?

 

[fredoheaven]

On whosoever-John 3:16

It is interesting to note that even different Greek words can be translated with the same English word. The KJB for example did use ‘Agape’ and ‘Phileo’ translated in the same English word “love”.

For the word, “Whosoever” are the following English authorities that I believe KJB is correct until today and the strength has exceeded that of any others that might be used in English words for the given passage. I observed the following based on the below definition of various dictionaries. Here’s what they said.

• Whosoever means the same as whoever.

[literary, old-fashioned]

• an archaic or formal word for whoever

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/whosoever

• old use for whoever

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/whosoever

4. whosoever /ˌhuːsəˈwɛvɚ/ pronoun

Britannica Dictionary definition of WHOSOEVER

formal + literary

: whoever

https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/whosoever

• used for emphasis instead of “whoever”

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/whosoever

• whosoever

pronoun

who·so·ev·er ˌhü-sə-ˈwe-vər

: WHOEVER

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/no-major-doctrines-changed.210115/page-18


Whoso, Whosoeverpronoun.

Any, without restriction.

https://www.definitions.net/definition/whosoever


whosoever

pronoun

/ˌhuːsəʊˈevə(r)/

/ˌhuːsəʊˈevər/

(old use)

1. an old form of whoever

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/whosoever

whosoever

WHOSOEVER, pron. who, so, and ever. Any one; any person whatever.

Whosoever will, let him take of the water of life freely. Revelations 22.

1828 Webster Dictionary



whos•ev•er

(huˈzɛv ər)

pron.

1. the possessive case of whoever used as an adjective: Whosever wagon this is, remove it.

2. the one or ones belonging to whomever: Whosever this is, please claim it.

[1730–40]

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/whosever
Now for the other translations, Lexham and the NET Version has 'everyone'

16 For in this way God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

Lexham Bible

16 For this is the way[a] God loved the world: He gave his one and only[b] Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish[c] but have eternal life.



Net Bible

So, we have the case of “everyone” is correct because the KJV has ‘whosoever’ which has no Greek equivalent as others say. As observed in the Dictionaries, “Whosoever is an old use/archaic/ old-fashioned of whoever. It is a formal, literally in use. It is a contraction of three words ‘who, so and ever. It has the element of time, ‘ever” and ‘person’ that is who. KJB translators may have retained the old form perhaps because of the strength of the English word ‘so’ as this denotes a condition and individuality. Also, it is the possessive case of whoever is used as an adjective. The Greek Morphological Analysis was A-NSM, Adjective Nominative Singular Masculine.

As posted by John146, KJB has it’s own definition and defined the archaic, old-fashioned ‘whosoever’ was translated as “every one’ in verse 20 using the same Greek pas.

KJV_Cambridge(i) 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

So it can be seen that ‘Whosoever” can be very well understood nowadays the same as in the 17th century.

God bless

 

[Niki7]

No translation is the inspired word of God. But, there is aesthetic beauty to some.

I was joking. Right?

But yeah...if you understand it...

 

[Niki7]

If thou sayest so, however, it seems more imparting to announce any affirmed importance such as a message from God like Charles Heston did in the movie 10 Commandments..

It tickles elmo pink..

Yes. The verilies and beholds are definitely more holy.

 

[Niki7]

Latin is the language of the saints.

Iesus Christus te amat et semper te amavit.

Mwhaaaaaaaaaa.

Sure helped Calvin.

 

[Niki7]

Then no one 'profits' from any version, Correct?:

"All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration Of God, and is Profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

May The LORD Help us, we have "no value"...

I never said that. It is most profitable not to make stuff up. Jesus said 'I am the TRUTH, the Way and the Life. Follow Jesus.

 

[Niki7]

Or uses "doth" in any part of a sentence. Or "sayeth". Basically most words that end with -th.

It makes it very hard for those fond of tongue twisters to get past more than three repetitions.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So it can be seen that ‘Whosoever” can be very well understood nowadays the same as in the 17th century.

Exactly. And yet we had a lot of going back and forth recetnly claiming that "whosoever" is inappropriate and we need to ask those from the 13th century as to what they really meant.

As to all the mockery of the King James Bible, the mockers and scoffers should understand that for millions of Christians for over 400 years this was (and is) the written Word of God. Those who mock, mock at their peril. These same scoffers really have no clue as to the reasons for the rejection of the critical texts and the modern versions. Chances are that not one of them has read The Revision Revised by John William Burgon.

 

[VARob]

As to all the mockery of the King James Bible, the mockers and scoffers should understand that for millions of Christians for over 400 years this was (and is) the written Word of God. Those who mock, mock at their peril. These same scoffers really have no clue as to the reasons for the rejection of the critical texts and the modern versions. Chances are that not one of them has read The Revision Revised by John William Burgon.

Except for where they got it wrong?

..good thing you’re here to tell everyone where the “written Word of God” is wrong.

(No, I’m not KJVO..)

 

[Nehemiah6]

Except for where they got it wrong?

Who said "they got it wrong"? Show us a passage where "they got it wrong". You are another mocker and scoffer. I have already said that the KJV could use some improvements. That is not the same as "they got it wrong".

 

[Cameron143]

Who said "they got it wrong"? Show us a passage where "they got it wrong". You are another mocker and scoffer. I have already said that the KJV could use some improvements. That is not the same as "they got it wrong".

One might be Matthew 28:1...where the same word is used for sabbath(s) and week(s). Should it say at the end of the Sabbath to the first day of the week or the first of the Sabbaths?

 

[williamjordan]

Exactly. And yet we had a lot of going back and forth recetnly claiming that "whosoever" is inappropriate and we need to ask those from the 13th century as to what they really meant.

Except only one thing, Nehemiah. No one ever said "whosoever" was "inappropriate," did they? Can you cite one example, where anyone (including myself, since I led the charge), ever indicated such? What was reiterated over, and over again, was that it was not that the use of "whosoever" that was "inappropriate," but that it was the fault of modern English readers (such as yourself) to force back onto the term what was not intended by the translators. They never intended an "objective" use of the term. You of all, Mr. "Whosoever," should know that.

Post #299 (see bolded portion),

I was afraid this was going to happen, hence, the disclaimer in the very first sentence of my previous post. As stated prior, I am not trying to turn this into a debate on Jn. 3:16. I am simply stating a matter of fact. There is no reason to try to turn this thread into a battle for/against Calvinism. That is not the point I was making at all, was it, Nehemiah? So let's set the subject of Calvinism to the side and address the actual point being made, which I will restate once more.

The entire point is that translations from the 16th c. period (including the Geneva, KJV, and other English translations from the period) used the term "whosoever" in a very different sense than modern readers use the term. Modern readers read too much into the term, and don't interpret it as it was used in earlier periods, as a possessive pronoun. It is not the fault of the KJV or the Geneva Bible for using the term, "whosoever." They were using it as it was understood in their time period (as a 13th c. possessive pronoun). It is the fault of the modern reader to read a modernization back into the text instead of understanding it in light of the English language of the time -- that's called, anachronism.

For that reason, your argument does not work. How does citing the Geneva Bible necessarily prove anything, but the very point I was making all along? Of course the Geneva Bible is going to use it!

The Geneva (like the KJV) used "whosoever" as it was intended in their time period (a possessive pronoun); it is after all, a translation done in the 16th c., when the term (contrary to today) was commonly understood as such (a possessive pronoun), i.e., "I will offer a position to whoever possesses these traits," not objective (as commonly understood today), i.e., to have the option to choose ("whosoever wants to come to the picnic, can come"). Hence, the Geneva, KJV are at harmony with the Lexham and NET, but used the language of their time to express it. It is the fault of the modern reader to place a modernized emphasis onto the term.

This doesn't prove Calvinism. Nor does it disprove Calvinism. This doesn't prove Arminianism. Nor does it disprove Arminianism. All this does it take a text that is often cited against Calvinism and makes it "neutral." People need to stop abusing the term "whosoever" in an attempt to push an agenda, and attempt to understand the term as it was understood in the period.

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.

Post #301,

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?

Post #304,

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).

I'm looking everywhere, Nehimiah. I can't seem to find the place you are suggesting I said "whosoever" was "inappropriate."

 

[Nehemiah6]

One might be Matthew 28:1...where the same word is used for sabbath(s) and week(s). Should it say at the end of the Sabbath to the first day of the week or the first of the Sabbaths?

It should say "in the end of the sabbaths".
RECEIVED TEXT
Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθε Μαριὰ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία, θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.
LITERAL INTERLINEAR
After then [the] sabbaths, it being dawn toward [the] first [day] of [the] week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary to see the tomb.
King James Bible
In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

As you can see other than the singular for "sabbath" the KJV follows the Greek text. The KJV only took the actual 7th day Sabbath into account. But the previous day was also a Sabbath for the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Is this an error or was it an interpretation?

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
b. plural, τά σαββάτων (for the singular) of a single sabbath, sabbath-day (the use of the plural being occasioned either by the plural names of festivals, as τά ἐγκαίνια, ἄζυμα, γενέσια, or by the Chaldaic form שַׁבָּתָא (Winers Grammar, 177 (167); Buttmann, 23 (21))): Matthew 28:1

You will notice that σαββάτων also means "week" in this verse.