Bible Study KJVO and the Strongs Concordance

[jaybo]

I think we’ve reached the end point.

Good bye then!

 

[Free]

One poster doesn’t understand that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit because of the modern translations. That is less powerful and truth for them is lost.

Which poster is that? I haven’t seen anyone post such a misunderstanding. Indeed, no one could misunderstand that as it is plain in all main Christian translations.

 

[jaybo]

I have written this about the KJV at an earlier time but I will repeat it...

I think that people use the KJV because they equate the olde Englyshe with somehow feeling "religious" or "holy". After all, God cannot speak in the people's dialect, can He? The mountain on which He dwells must be approached with fear and reverence, or so they think.

The problem? When Jesus was on Earth he was first a carpenter, then a homeless wanderer. His language was Aramaic, the language of the common people. He did not speak in some florid language, akin to the KJV Englyshe. Does anyone think that when He was addressing thousands of people He spoke in a language the mostly illiterate people couldn't understand? Luke 9:11, "But when the crowds found out, they followed him. He welcomed them, spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and cured those who needed healing."

The KJV was a good translation for the people of the early 17th Century, but it is now a dead language. Nobody on Earth speaks or writes this way in 2022, including those who communicate on this forum. In fact, another Christian forum has banned KJVOs from putting forth more of their opinions on the subject.

To claim that the King James Version is the best translation today cannot be justified. It was based in part on earlier translations, is filled with comments such as "or [the word/phrase in question]" and the translators in their preface expected it to be modified. That has proven true because there are a) better sources available today, both Biblical and otherwise, b) there is a better understanding of the Biblical cultures as a result of finding more early texts, and c) today's scholarship is excellent, resulting in truly excellent translations. We have a plethora of excellent modern translations which clearly put forth God's message to us in our own language.

How do you KJV people account for the obvious addition to Romans 8:1? "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (KJV) which is properly translated "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". (NIV) "Many manuscripts omit “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” King James Study Bible Notes. "walk according to the flesh . . . the Spirit. This phrase is not found here in the earliest manuscripts but only at the end of v. 4, perhaps indicating an inadvertent copyist insertion. NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition.

So, Dorothy (and others), how is your unicorn? Job 39:9 -- "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?" and elsewhere?

 

[for_his_glory]

If you’re expecting an easy answer, there isn’t one. To desire to find out what was really in the mind of the author (the real scripture) is a requirement for finding it. Most don’t have that on the agenda. It requires reading different translations but needs to include the Greek direct but awkward presentation. It also requires being steeped in the writings of the other authors. Knowing false theology helps to discern when a translator put their personal spin on the words chosen. The question turns on if one wants truth or a more palatable presentation.

If you are advocating for someone then you should already know what was originally written. Before one accuses or advocates for another there has to be tangible proof or otherwise it is only hearsay without proof.

 

[for_his_glory]

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

No matter what translation one prefers to use we have to keep in mind that only the Holy Spirit can teach us in all truths. No matter how people like to discredit different translations as to me is a waste of time among the Christian community as we need to be bringing the salvation message in the Gospels to a dark world that needs to see the light of Christ shine through us. It is only through the unity of love, even if we disagree with others, that others will see Christ in us.

1Peter 4:9 Use hospitality one to another without grudging.
1Peter 4:10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
1Peter 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If you are advocating for someone then you should already know what was originally written. Before one accuses or advocates for another there has to be tangible proof or otherwise it is only hearsay without proof.

Who is there on earth who has the original documents and understands that language?

 

[jaybo]

Who is there on earth who has the original documents and understands that language?

I give up. Certainly not the King James translators.

 

[Free]

One poster doesn’t understand that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit because of the modern translations. That is less powerful and truth for them is lost.

I asked this earlier, but maybe you missed it:

Which poster doesn’t understand that, as I haven’t seen anyone post such a misunderstanding?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have written this about the KJV at an earlier time but I will repeat it...

I think that people use the KJV because they equate the olde Englyshe with somehow feeling "religious" or "holy". After all, God cannot speak in the people's dialect, can He? The mountain on which He dwells must be approached with fear and reverence, or so they think.

This is more or less an ad hominem attack. Something like “There is something wrong with people who like the KJV.” Is that same character fault seen in those who like Shakespeare?

The problem? When Jesus was on Earth he was first a carpenter, then a homeless wanderer. His language was Aramaic, the language of the common people. He did not speak in some florid language, akin to the KJV Englyshe. Does anyone think that when He was addressing thousands of people He spoke in a language the mostly illiterate people couldn't understand? Luke 9:11, "But when the crowds found out, they followed him. He welcomed them, spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and cured those who needed healing."

The KJV was a good translation for the people of the early 17th Century, but it is now a dead language. Nobody on Earth speaks or writes this way in 2022, including those who communicate on this forum. In fact, another Christian forum has banned KJVOs from putting forth more of their opinions on the subject.

If anyone has read or enjoyed poetry they ought to realize that because nobody on earth talks to others in that matter they ought to stop.

To claim that the King James Version is the best translation today cannot be justified. It was based in part on earlier translations, is filled with comments such as "or [the word/phrase in question]" and the translators in their preface expected it to be modified. That has proven true because there are a) better sources available today, both Biblical and otherwise, b) there is a better understanding of the Biblical cultures as a result of finding more early texts, and c) today's scholarship is excellent, resulting in truly excellent translations. We have a plethora of excellent modern translations which clearly put forth God's message to us in our own language.

This is assumed. That modern translations are more likely to reflect the personal theology of the translator escapes people. That verses that speak of Christ’s deity are removed escapes them. (Of course not all, even the stupidest among us would see that and be suspicious.)

How do you KJV people account for the obvious addition to Romans 8:1? "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (KJV) which is properly translated "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". (NIV) "Many manuscripts omit “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” King James Study Bible Notes. "walk according to the flesh . . . the Spirit. This phrase is not found here in the earliest manuscripts but only at the end of v. 4, perhaps indicating an inadvertent copyist insertion. NKJV MacArthur Study Bible, 2nd Edition.

Ah, the instructions watered down so that they mean anything. No longer is one to curb fleshly desires (Kjv) but one merely has to “walk in the spirit” which means anything you want it to mean. Perfect example of changes made in modern translations that render it less instructive to godliness:

So, Dorothy (and others), how is your unicorn? Job 39:9 -- "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?" and elsewhere?

This is an example of an insulting question. I say again, I also read Shakespeare and I don’t require the words be modern.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I asked this earlier, but maybe you missed it:

Which poster doesn’t understand that, as I haven’t seen anyone post such a misunderstanding?

I will get back to you on this.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Shakespeare is not the Bible. His words were not inspired by God.

So? The problem you have with the KJV is it cannot be understood according to you. It was the vernacular. It was understood and still is the same as Shakespeare. I read the KJV in High school and as a result enjoyed and understood perfectly Shakespeare.

And I don't understand your comment about one poster. So what? There are many people who misinterpret the KJV because it is written in a dead language.

Like where?

"The educated can read and understand the KJV as well as Shakespeare" has no basis in fact. None.

The KJV is often misinterpreted. Your comment about "begotten" is a perfect example.

Example please and make it meaningful. Don’t bring something absurd like “unicorns.” Good thing it never mentioned large lizards because until the 19th century, those were referred to as “dragons.”

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You’re dodging my questions. You justified the erroneous teaching of Riplinger, whom you clearly have not read about, by stating that you have read worse things from other Christians. If false teaching is sin, and it is, then how do you biblically justify her ?

Please stop saying I justify her because I see the vitriol response of those against her as wrong. I might tell an angry mob about to linch a thief they are wrong, but it doesn’t mean that I support the thief. It isn’t a case of “either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.”

Her words are not responded to in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. Derisive adjectives are used. Actual disagreements are only linked to. Except her teaching that texts used to translate newer versions are faulty, what accusation of particulars do you bring. Btw, she’s not only one who has surmised these “older” ones have a dubious history, at least one.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What is so difficult to understand about this? "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14 NIV

or here...

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." John 1:18 NIV

... and in many other places.

Clearly deity has not been removed.

BTW, I chose the NIV because it is the best-selling translation.

How did he become deity?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Shakespeare is not the Bible. His words were not inspired by God.

And I don't understand your comment about one poster. So what? There are many people who misinterpret the KJV because it is written in a dead language.

"The educated can read and understand the KJV as well as Shakespeare" has no basis in fact. None.

The KJV is often misinterpreted. Your comment about "begotten" is a perfect example.

What facts would convince you that educated people can read and understand the KJV and Shakespeare?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I asked this earlier, but maybe you missed it:

Which poster doesn’t understand that, as I haven’t seen anyone post such a misunderstanding?

I think it’s Jaybo. He accused me of misunderstanding begotten which leads me to think the opposite is true. Am I in error?

 

[kiwimac]

How did he become deity?

Parkhurst, Rose & Major In their Greek and English lexicon make the following point “... Though I am not ignorant how strenuously some great and good men have insisted that this term relates to the divinity or divine nature in Christ yet truth obliges me to declare that I append it strictly and properly refers to his humanity which as it was begotten of God was therefore the son of God and as no other man was thus begotten, was the only begotten son of god…”

A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament. Longman, London 1845, page 402

Mounce in his Analytical lexicon to the Greek New Testament makes the point that Monogenes refers to the “...peculiar generation of Christ…” That is to the way in which he was born, it has little to do with his divinity and everything to do with his Humanity.

Mounce, William D. The analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament zondervan, 1993, ISBN 0310542103

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Parkhurst, Rose & Major In their Greek and English lexicon make the following point “... Though I am not ignorant how strenuously some great and good men have insisted that this term relates to the divinity or divine nature in Christ yet truth obliges me to declare that I append it strictly and properly refers to his humanity which as it was begotten of God was therefore the son of God and as no other man was thus begotten, was the only begotten son of god…”

A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament. Longman, London 1845, page 402

Mounce in his Analytical lexicon to the Greek New Testament makes the point that Monogenes refers to the “...peculiar generation of Christ…” That is to the way in which he was born, it has little to do with his divinity and everything to do with his Humanity.

Mounce, William D. The analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament zondervan, 1993, ISBN 0310542103

You can only quote others’ arguments? You, yourself, have no thoughts on the matter?

Theologians are as often atheists as not. Shall I rebuttal their statements? It’s like having a conversation with them, not you. I prefer you.

 

[kiwimac]

You can only quote others’ arguments? You, yourself, have no thoughts on the matter?

Theologians are as often atheists as not. Shall I rebuttal their statements? It’s like having a conversation with them, not you. I prefer you.

They are quite right.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

They are quite right.

But I’m not talking to them and they are dead wrong. In a discussion you need to present what you think. If you can only quote what others think, you have merely borrowed thoughts. It’s worth the effort to have your own. Try it!

 

[kiwimac]

Nope, they are correct. Monogenes refers to Christ as God made human not his divine nature which by definition is uncreated. To assert otherwise is to assert that Christ is a created God and that simply will not fly.