Bible Study KJVO and the Strongs Concordance

[jaybo]

Not speaking for Dorothy Mae, but I don't believe she has insinuated in any way that Shakespeare is the word of God. But like Shakespeare, the language of the King James is written with a similar prose. We read and quote Shakespeare because some of the lines are memorable. Likewise the King James is written in a similar prose, there are lines and phrases that are memorable, easy to recall.

In a similar fashion, we learn and remember the words to our favorite songs, but no one recalls the words to yesterdays news article.

It is not reasonable to compare the King James translation to Shakespeare or Chaucer simply because the language is similar, for two reasons. The first is that the KJV is a translation based on the available manuscripts that were available at the time (though we have many more today), whereas Shakespeare or Chaucer are original works. The second is that Bibles are considered, in the originals, to be the words of God-inspired authors.

She consistently claims that she has a great understanding of the true meaning of the Bible, based on the KJV, then cites individual words such as "begotten" to claim that other translations err in their wording. Of course, there are other problems such as the claim that there are unicorns(!) and the ignoring of the addition of phrases such as the second part of Romans 8:1. The published KJVs have footnotes explaining the problems with some of the translation, but she ignores these.

I claim that no English translation is perfect. In fact I consider it to be an impossibility due to differences in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and idioms between the source and destination languages. The KJV is, after all, a translation in a dead language, that people use to add their own re-translation to what it says. "Now what this means is..."

It perhaps makes the reader feel holy and/or has a better understanding of what God said than the excellent architects of modern translations. IMHO it's chutzpah.

If people want to read the KJV as their preferred translation, fine. But they should stop saying it's the best translation for everyone or that somehow that translation alone is the Word of God.

 

[Free]

No son is eternally being conceived.

Do you agree that Jesus has always been the Son from eternity and the Father has been the Father from eternity?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/nicene-creed

The Bible tells us that he has always been the Son (for example, Col 1:13-17; Phil 2:5-6).

Doesn’t say he is eternally being conceived (begotten).

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It is not reasonable to compare the King James translation to Shakespeare or Chaucer simply because the language is similar, for two reasons. The first is that the KJV is a translation based on the available manuscripts that were available at the time (though we have many more today), whereas Shakespeare or Chaucer are original works. The second is that Bibles are considered, in the originals, to be the words of God-inspired authors.

She consistently claims that she has a great understanding of the true meaning of the Bible, based on the KJV, then cites individual words such as "begotten" to claim that other translations err in their wording. Of course, there are other problems such as the claim that there are unicorns(!) and the ignoring of the addition of phrases such as the second part of Romans 8:1. The published KJVs have footnotes explaining the problems with some of the translation, but she ignores these.

I claim that no English translation is perfect. In fact I consider it to be an impossibility due to differences in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and idioms between the source and destination languages. The KJV is, after all, a translation in a dead language, that people use to add their own re-translation to what it says. "Now what this means is..."

It perhaps makes the reader feel holy and/or has a better understanding of what God said than the excellent architects of modern translations. IMHO it's chutzpah.

If people want to read the KJV as their preferred translation, fine. But they should stop saying it's the best translation for everyone or that somehow that translation alone is the Word of God.

You do not understand. You know, I could read the Bible in a non-English language BECAUSE I can read other books in that same language. That the Bible is inspired doesn’t affect my understanding the words in that language in other books of that language. But I have no hope you’ll understand this.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Do you agree that Jesus has always been the Son from eternity and the Father has been the Father from eternity?

Do you first agree he is not eternally being conceived in Mary?

 

[Free]

Do you first agree he is not eternally being conceived in Mary?

Yes, that goes without saying.

 

[Free]

Doesn’t say he is eternally being conceived (begotten).

Of course it doesn’t say he is eternally being conceived; historic Christianity confirms that he is eternally begotten, not made. He has been the Son for all eternity, that is what Scripture shows. He was conceived in time by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Yes, that goes without saying.

Ok, thanks. I am reluctant to say more about God than those who wrote the scriptures say. He was with God and was God from eternity, same as the Holy Spirit. Their relationship or interaction is beyond us and so we cannot understand that very well. The closest words given to us are “Father” and “son.” That was from eternity. Does that answer your question?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Of course it doesn’t say he is eternally being conceived; historic Christianity confirms that he is eternally begotten, not made. He has been the Son for all eternity, that is what Scripture shows. He was conceived in time by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb.

No one is eternally begotten. That is absurd. Begotten is a one time act. No one in the first century says he was eternally being begotten.

 

[Free]

No one is eternally begotten. That is absurd. Begotten is a one time act. No one in the first century says he was eternally being begotten.

I’ll lay out the case as best I can using my phone. You have some serious problems with your position that you have yet to deal with, apart from simply denying them.

First, with a slight correction to my previous statements, monogenes is used only nine times in the NT, five of those times it is used of Christ. The other four times, the KJV only translates it as “only,” “only child,” and “only begotten.” None of the times it is translated as “conceived.”

Second, there are at least five words—gennao, sullambano, tithemi, koite, and katabole—that are translated by the KJV as “conceive” or “conceived,” but never monogenes.

Third, each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to the their children, not their conception. And, in fact, this is precisely what we see in John 1:18, although, because we already know that the Son “was with God and was God,” it can only be speaking of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son. This is also supported by 1:18 itself: “which is in the bosom of the Father.” That So, it simply cannot be speaking of conception; that does not at all fit the context nor the usage of monogenes.

You cannot escape these facts, but your position denies them, with absolutely no basis for doing so. Your understanding of monogenes is incorrect, as even the KJV shows. If you correct that, the rest falls into place, and you will see that the newer versions are actually correct and a bit more clear.

 

[for_his_glory]

That’s the theory.

Theories are just that, theories without factual proof.

 

[jaybo]

You do not understand. You know, I could read the Bible in a non-English language BECAUSE I can read other books in that same language. That the Bible is inspired doesn’t affect my understanding the words in that language in other books of that language. But I have no hope you’ll understand this.

You are correct that I don't understand this post or any of your other posts. As you're aware by now, I don't agree with anything that you write. It's not a matter of understanding the truth, just your opinion of what is the truth.

 

[jaybo]

I hesitate to say this, Dorothy, but I must. You imply that I don't understand your "deep" thoughts. I am in the top 1% of general intelligence, so that should be sufficient evidence that I am more than capable of understanding what you post. The simple fact is: I think you're wrong! Capiche?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You are correct that I don't understand this post or any of your other posts. As you're aware by now, I don't agree with anything that you write. It's not a matter of understanding the truth, just your opinion of what is the truth.

You don’t agree with ANYTHING I write?! Really? Don’t you want to rethink that statement?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I hesitate to say this, Dorothy, but I must. You imply that I don't understand your "deep" thoughts. I am in the top 1% of general intelligence, so that should be sufficient evidence that I am more than capable of understanding what you post. The simple fact is: I think you're wrong! Capiche?

You agree that you don’t understand me. I, however, understand you quite well. Where does that place me in the percentages of intelligence levels?

(Before you react, I will be charitable and tell you I, too, was sent to have my intelligence tested at a young age because teachers observed an above average mental prowess.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Theories are just that, theories without factual proof.

As I said, I’m a scientist and am used to testing theories, hence my suggestion. But it’s not important.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I’ll lay out the case as best I can using my phone. You have some serious problems with your position that you have yet to deal with, apart from simply denying them.

Free, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. It’s impossible for anyone to be eternally conceived. That’s what eternally begotten means. I stand on solid ground.

First, with a slight correction to my previous statements, monogenes is used only nine times in the NT, five of those times it is used of Christ. The other four times, the KJV only translates it as “only,” “only child,” and “only begotten.” None of the times it is translated as “conceived.”

I just did a search of the phrase “one and only son” and got 6 hits. In 5 of these, the KJV says, “only begotten son” so I don’t see where you claim is reflected in the KJV. We agree the KJV uses this in terms of Christ which is my point. The 6th reference was regarding Isaac which is Abrahams only legitimate son which is a good definition of the word monogenes.

Second, there are at least five words—gennao, sullambano, tithemi, koite, and katabole—that are translated by the KJV as “conceive” or “conceived,” but never monogenes.

OK. Doesn’t affect my position but I don’t doubt it.

Third, each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to the their children, not their conception. And, in fact, this is precisely what we see in John 1:18, although, because we already know that the Son “was with God and was God,” it can only be speaking of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son. This is also supported by 1:18 itself: “which is in the bosom of the Father.” That So, it simply cannot be speaking of conception; that does not at all fit the context nor the usage of monogenes.

Incorrect. Isaac was the only legitimate son of Abraham but he wasn’t the only son the man loved as had a relationship with. Monogenes refers to the legimate conception, a physical reality, not an emotional one. Adam is described as God’s son and had a father-son relationship with God. He still wasn’t conceived by God. There are many who have or had a father son relationship with God. Many. But only one was begotten by God. That’s my position and I backed it up.

You cannot escape these facts, but your position denies them, with absolutely no basis for doing so. Your understanding of monogenes is incorrect, as even the KJV shows. If you correct that, the rest falls into place, and you will see that the newer versions are actually correct and a bit more clear.

You are the one denying the fact that others have been called the sons of God and many others have a father son relationship with God (or father daughter if we get specific.) We still cannot apply monogenes to them.

If you are happy with the new versions who say in one place Jesus is the “one and only son of God” and elsewhere call others “the son of God” than who am I to question your comfort. I am happier with the designation “begotten son of God” because it adds clarity and distinction in my thinking.

Just be careful accusing people of denying some fact as a point to back up your position because they can do the same in return when you refuse their facts.

 

[Free]

Free, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. It’s impossible for anyone to be eternally conceived. That’s what eternally begotten means. I stand on solid ground.

No, you are continuing to ignore the very plain evidence that I have presented. Monogenes does not mean conceived and the KJV agrees. I have given evidence which shows this to be the case but you don't address it and simply dismiss it with your own opinion.

I just did a search of the phrase “one and only son” and got 6 hits. In 5 of these, the KJV says, “only begotten son” so I don’t see where you claim is reflected in the KJV.

You have to look at the Greek underlying those phrases, which is why I keep posting the Greek words. Looking at one translation and comparing it to another translation tells us nothing about what the Greek says, which is the whole point. I have very clearly laid out the passages from the KJV which prove my point.

We agree the KJV uses this in terms of Christ which is my point. The 6th reference was regarding Isaac which is Abrahams only legitimate son which is a good definition of the word monogenes.

Yes, it speaks of Abrahams relationship with Isaac and has nothing to do with his being conceived.

OK. Doesn’t affect my position but I don’t doubt it.

My point is, there are five other words translated as conceived and none of them are used when speaking of the Son in relationship to the Father. They are only used of Jesus when speaking of the Incarnation, that is, his relationship to Mary.

Incorrect. Isaac was the only legitimate son of Abraham but he wasn’t the only son the man loved as had a relationship with.

I do not understand what you are saying here.

Monogenes refers to the legimate conception, a physical reality, not an emotional one.

No. I have clearly shown using the KJV that it never means that; it is never used in that way. There are five other words that mean conceive(d).

Adam is described as God’s son and had a father-son relationship with God. He still wasn’t conceived by God. There are many who have or had a father son relationship with God. Many. But only one was begotten by God. That’s my position and I backed it up.

You have not at all supported your position. You have given opinion but nothing else, nothing substantive. You continue to ignore the many times throughout the NT that Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, not a son of God. This another fact which you have ignored. The use of Son of God in reference to Jesus is therefore unique as compared to other uses of sons of God in Scripture. This is what the context of the entirety of Scripture shows us.

You are the one denying the fact that others have been called the sons of God and many others have a father son relationship with God (or father daughter if we get specific.)

As with the KJVO position, you seem to be reading what you want to read. Go back through all my posts and you will see I have never denied that.

We still cannot apply monogenes to them.

Of course not, but that supports my position. Since monogenes is used of other parent/only-child relationships, it follows that when used of Christ, it means the only Son of God in a unique sense.

If you are happy with the new versions who say in one place Jesus is the “one and only son of God” and elsewhere call others “the son of God” than who am I to question your comfort. I am happier with the designation “begotten son of God” because it adds clarity and distinction in my thinking.

I am comfortable with that because that is precisely what the Bible says.

Just be careful accusing people of denying some fact as a point to back up your position because they can do the same in return when you refuse their facts.

It has nothing to do with backing up my position, it is just pointing out a fact. Again, you have only given opinion.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, you are continuing to ignore the very plain evidence that I have presented. Monogenes does not mean conceived and the KJV agrees. I have given evidence which shows this to be the case but you don't address it and simply dismiss it with your own opinion.


You have to look at the Greek underlying those phrases, which is why I keep posting the Greek words. Looking at one translation and comparing it to another translation tells us nothing about what the Greek says, which is the whole point. I have very clearly laid out the passages from the KJV which prove my point.


Yes, it speaks of Abrahams relationship with Isaac and has nothing to do with his being conceived.


My point is, there are five other words translated as conceived and none of them are used when speaking of the Son in relationship to the Father. They are only used of Jesus when speaking of the Incarnation, that is, his relationship to Mary.


I do not understand what you are saying here.


No. I have clearly shown using the KJV that it never means that; it is never used in that way. There are five other words that mean conceive(d).


You have not at all supported your position. You have given opinion but nothing else, nothing substantive. You continue to ignore the many times throughout the NT that Jesus is referred to as the Son of God, not a son of God. This another fact which you have ignored. The use of Son of God in reference to Jesus is therefore unique as compared to other uses of sons of God in Scripture. This is what the context of the entirety of Scripture shows us.


As with the KJVO position, you seem to be reading what you want to read. Go back through all my posts and you will see I have never denied that.


Of course not, but that supports my position. Since monogenes is used of other parent/only-child relationships, it follows that when used of Christ, it means the only Son of God in a unique sense.


I am comfortable with that because that is precisely what the Bible says.


It has nothing to do with backing up my position, it is just pointing out a fact. Again, you have only given opinion.

Free, maybe we are now just repeating ourselves. You fail to honor the facts I give with the same value you honor your own. I perceive personal attack that is not conducive to discussion when I do not agree with your position. I wish you well.

In the end, the matter of whether or not the “modern” translations removed understanding that gave the readers power to obey the teachings of Christ will be seen. That was actually what started Gail Riplinger off. The students came to her for counseling and she noticed the Bibles they read left off key verses that would have helped them. All will stand before Christ and give an account of their behavior.