No major doctrines changed?
- Thread starter John146
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Of which you could probably use a good lesson in.
Stop trying to save face simply because you were incorrect, in not only your initial assessment, but also in this one.
I am still waiting for you to point out the place where I allegedly said it was "inappropriate." This should be a really simple task.
I see you updated your post (#361) after I had cited it in post #362. You revised it to say, "Meaning our current understanding is inappropriate." And it is. You need to "reform" your 21 c. interpretative methods to the 17th c. But I guess you have a distaste for that "reform" stuff, isn't that right, Mr. "Whosoever"?
Nehemiah6 said:
I don't disagree with any of that. But the same word translated one place as sabbath is later translated as week. Why not translate it also as sabbath? Is this accurate? Or just seems like what the text should say?
At BibleHub, under the heading "Bengel's Gnomen" it says this:
"We may translate the Greek words thus:—“On that day which commences from the evening after the Sabbath, and on the following morning dawns upon the first day of the week.” This was Sunday, very early in the morning.—Harm., p. 584, etc."
... what I think would be a bit more accurate (and I'm often pointing this out), would be to say, "Then after the Sabbaths [plural], it being dawn unto/toward the first of the Sabbaths [plural]..."
Recall in Lev23:15, it is telling them how to "count" seven sabbaths complete FROM "the morrow after the Sabbath [that is, from the day you brought the sheaf of the wave offering (ON 'Firstfruit')]"... [count 7 S's] TO what would then thereafter be "Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days..."--i.e. 50th day landing on the Sunday we call "Pentecost, or Shavuot" [aka "the feast of firstfruit" (distinct from "Firstfruit" itself), i.e. the Feast of Weeks]...
... which means that the phrase "first of the Sabbaths [plural]" refers to the first of these "[set of] 7 weeks" leading up to Pentecost (a set of 7 Sabbaths [or weeks]), but also refers to the first [day] of that set of 7 weeks / Sabbaths (i.e. Sunday... otherwise known as "Firstfruit"--when they were to "bring A SHEAF of the firstfruit of [their] harvest unto the priest" where "on the morrow after the sabbath [i.e. on Sunday] the priest shall wave it" [ON 'Firstfruit'--the first Sunday, after the Sabbath following Passover])
[note: both "Firstfruit" and "Pentecost / Shavuot" are always on a Sunday--the modern Hebrew calendar doesn't reflect the correct day for "Shavuot," instead saying it is on the "6th of Sivan" which of course floats around through the week in any given year... if that makes sense]
So, in my view (lol), I think it sure would make things easier if they would translate it as it shows to be in the Greek, that is, as "plural"... coz then this issue might not mess ppl up quite as much as it does... haha
I appreciate you taking the time to answer. But just to be clear in my mind, you see it as basically accurate the way it is recorded?
@Cameron143 , regarding Matthew 28:1, the Greek has the word "Sabbaths [plural]" (which I believe to be correct)... the kjv (and others) do not reflect this, which I believe can lead to some misunderstandings (at times).
Hope that helps you see my perspective, and what my intention was to convey. = )
Hope that helps you see my perspective, and what my intention was to convey. = )
Yes it is accurate. Kindly go to Bible Hub and see the interlinear translation. According to Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Lexicon, sabbaton can be translated either as "sabbath" or as "week". In that verse both words are used. Also, most English translation followed the KJV in translating the first sabboton as "sabbath" (singular).
N
Niki7
Guest
That's a stretch and not quite true then....why is it that you do not reflect what people have actually said about the KJ?
The KJ is not INSPIRED...it is an interpretation. You know, I don't think you really see how contradictory you are. In the other thread on spiritual gifts where I just replied to you, you state there is no more revelation from God but in order for something to be inspired by God, would He not have had to inspire as He did the original prophets who wrote what He had them write?
ding ding ding....alarm clock
Last chance? Then "which one" is inspired And Profitable, As God Has Said?:
"All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration Of God, And Is Profitable..."
IF Scripture is UNprofitable [ no value ] then HOW do we get saved?
N
Niki7
Guest
Your words are not profitable however because I have said nothing whatsoever even slightly resembling what you say here
I would say show me where I said scripture is of no profit, but that post does not exist.
There is no other name under heaven by which we are saved other than the LORD JESUS CHRIST and by His blood shed on the cross for our sins. He alone was and is worthy to be praised and in Him do we live and move and have our being.
There should be no expectation on your part that I will give value to assertions you have made up for whatever reason it pleases you to do so.
How many KJ instruction manuals do we need to read?
The Revision Revised is out of date because it is mainly a detraction of Wescott & Hort.
From the 19th century, textual criticism has continued to improve and many more ancient witnesses have been discovered and collated.
From where I sit you are the mocker and the scoffer. God's word isn't a relic.
You've been told many times, the "400 years" appeal is invalid. The same claim could be made of any bible that lacked a contemporary.
As you know, the Vulgate was “the” Bible of the entire Western world for 1100 years, almost three times longer then the KJV has been “the” Bible in English, but for some, that’s inconvenient and therefore treated as irrelevant.
You’re making the same fallacious argument that John146 has made many times. The Scripture is inspired; the translation thereof is not inspired. The Scripture in the NIV carries the same degree of inspiration as the Scripture in the KJV (and in many other translations). It’s erroneous to claim the Scripture presented in the KJV is inspired and also claim that the Scripture in other translations is not inspired… which is what your fallacious argument implies.
I have never claimed that the KJV is "inspired" (though a very few Christians do make this claim mistakenly). Only the original autographs were divinely inspired.
By the same token it is a blatant lie to claim that the KJV is "an interpretation". The King James Bible translators translated the Hebrew and Greek word-for-word faithfully (as much as it is possible given the differences of languages) and where necessary it has included explanatory words in italics. Their goal was to make an exceptional translation to which no one could take exception. But no other English translation has been as reliable and faithful as the Authorized Version for over 400 years. Not a single conservative commentator has ever questioned its reliability and accuracy, and all the Bible study tools were based on the King James Bible. That speaks for itself.
It is only since about the start of the 20th century that people have been denigrating this Bible. But even the enemies of this translator could not help praise its excellency in the 19th century. Now go do your homework.
Since all the critical text are essentially Westcott & Hort warmed over, The Revision Revised is totally up to date. Whether it is Nestle, Nestle-Aland, UBS, or any other critical text, they all go back to W&H. That is why we see Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants] in Bible Hub (NA = Nestle-Aland). They all have relied primarily on the TWO MOST CORRUPT manuscripts -- Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaitcus. This is not a matter of opinion but of fact. And Dean Burgon thoroughly exposed this to his credit. F.H. A. Scrivener -- the leading textual scholar of the 19th century -- supported Burgon's conclusions.
Both the Critical Text (CT) and the TR are in the minority. If God preserved His word, why would it be found only in either one of these. It just makes more sense that His word is preserved in the Majority Text (MT). More manuscripts because more copies were made; more copies were made because these manuscripts were the ones most used and considered the most reliable. The CT and TR are in the minority because those manuscripts simply weren't copied or used as much.
More work needs to be done with the MT to completely understand what's there; there's a mountain of manuscripts and fragments to collate and analyze. But it holds a lot more promise than either the CT or the TR in my opinion.
All manuscripts should be considered, including the CT and TR. Unfortunately, both the CT people and TR people are biased against the MT when they should be embracing it.
More work needs to be done with the MT to completely understand what's there; there's a mountain of manuscripts and fragments to collate and analyze. But it holds a lot more promise than either the CT or the TR in my opinion.
All manuscripts should be considered, including the CT and TR. Unfortunately, both the CT people and TR people are biased against the MT when they should be embracing it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, yet again.
Contrary to what you have stated, the charge of corruption is completely one of opinion, and not a "matter of fact." For one, you need to demonstrate just where exactly these alleged "corruptions" exist, and then you need to explain how you came to the conclusion that your preferred version is the standard (or bastion) of all truth, in which you compare all other versions to.
One huge obstacle for you is that even the mss underlying the KJV don't all agree with one another at some very critical points. Are any of those mss "corrupt"? And how do you determine which reading is the correct one?
The very simple fact is that the NA27, NA28, UBS do not, as you put it, "go back to Westcott & Hort." Westcott & Hort utilized additional sources that the KJ did not consider (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), because they were discovered some two hundred years after the KJV was put into print. Likewise, today we have even more mss that were discovered back in the 1950's that Westcott & Hort did not have access to, but support some (but not all) of their conclusions. Some of these earlier papyri also agree with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus at critical points.
It is not enough to brush off mss as a "corruption" simply because it may differ at some very critical points. If that were the case, then every mss in existence would be "corrupt," because no two mss are exactly the same. This is why textual critics look at variants on a word-by-word, and verse-by-verse basis.
Get with it, Nehemiah.