Greek or English?

[Anon1379]

Some of our KJVO brothers will say there is no need for Greek as we have the English and therefore English is superior. Pretty much everyone else says Greek is superior. Can our KJVO brothers provide us with examples of the Greek falling short to the English. And can our Greek friends show us some examples where Greek trumps the English?

 

[Anon1379]

I'll start. The Greek word baptizo leaves no room for sprinkling. The English word Baptize has room for sprinkling. If we just went by the English we could technically have baptism by sprinkling. Of we went by the Greek we have no option but to immerse.

 

[cpizzle]

I'll start. The Greek word baptizo leaves no room for sprinkling. The English word Baptize has room for sprinkling. If we just went by the English we could technically have baptism by sprinkling. Of we went by the Greek we have no option but to immerse.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Having grown up as the son of a Cumberland Presbyterian preacher, I often heard that "baptizo" in the Greek also meant to "wash or overwhelm."  They would go to the Greek to disprove "immersion." 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

One of the leading KJVO ?experts?, Gail Riplinger is as much a Greek scholar as she is an expert on building strong marriages.

 

[Ransom]

Some of our KJVO brothers will say there is no need for Greek as we have the English and therefore English is superior. Pretty much everyone else says Greek is superior.

It's not so much that the English or Greek is "superior." Both were, and are, languages that are suitable for the times and people what speak them.

What is important is that the Bible, specifically the New Testament, was originally written in the Greek dialect of a particular time, place, and culture. The quality and accuracy of any English translation needs to be evaluated in that linguistic, literary, and social context. Koine Greek is the source language; English is the target. If there is an error of translation or an ambiguity of meaning that needs to be resolved, we look at the source, not the target.

 

[Anon1379]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

 

[T-Bone]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

We always go to the original...in the case of the NT that would be in the Greek.  If the English does not match with the original Greek, then the English is wrong.

 

[Ransom]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

Of course. Going to the source settles the dispute. (As a general rule: of course, ambiguity may also exist in the Greek text, in which case it will take more research than merely consulting the Novum Testamentum Graece to resolve it.)

 

[Anon1379]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

We always go to the original...in the case of the NT that would be in the Greek.  If the English does not match with the original Greek, then the English is wrong.

Yep, but many kjvo would disagree. Which is why I asked for examples

 

[T-Bone]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

We always go to the original...in the case of the NT that would be in the Greek.  If the English does not match with the original Greek, then the English is wrong.

Yep, but many kjvo would disagree. Which is why I asked for examples

You would have to ask them for their examples...I find that the faithful translations do a great job in staying with the original intent with their translation work. 

 

[cpizzle]

Some of our KJVO brothers will say there is no need for Greek as we have the English and therefore English is superior. Pretty much everyone else says Greek is superior.

It's not so much that the English or Greek is "superior." Both were, and are, languages that are suitable for the times and people what speak them.

What is important is that the Bible, specifically the New Testament, was originally written in the Greek dialect of a particular time, place, and culture. The quality and accuracy of any English translation needs to be evaluated in that linguistic, literary, and social context. Koine Greek is the source language; English is the target. If there is an error of translation or an ambiguity of meaning that needs to be resolved, we look at the source, not the target.

As a King James Bible Believer, I agree with everything you just said!

 

[Anon1379]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

We always go to the original...in the case of the NT that would be in the Greek.  If the English does not match with the original Greek, then the English is wrong.

Yep, but many kjvo would disagree. Which is why I asked for examples

You would have to ask them for their examples...I find that the faithful translations do a great job in staying with the original intent with their translation work. 

Well Ruckman states John 4:24 is "corrected" in English. Kjv has "God is a spirit" all other have "God is spirit" according to him if we follow the Greek we have no article. The KJV has an article and is superior.

Acts 1:3 is also supposedly corrected in English. Kjv has "infallible proofs" other translations have "convincing" or "many proof." KJV here supposedly corrects the Greek.

And I could go on talking about how our best manuscripts don't have certain phrase or verse that the kjv does and since the kjv is perfect and not the Greek we should go with the text of the kjv when it comes to variants.

 

[T-Bone]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

We always go to the original...in the case of the NT that would be in the Greek.  If the English does not match with the original Greek, then the English is wrong.

Yep, but many kjvo would disagree. Which is why I asked for examples

You would have to ask them for their examples...I find that the faithful translations do a great job in staying with the original intent with their translation work. 

Well Ruckman states John 4:24 is "corrected" in English. Kjv has "God is a spirit" all other have "God is spirit" according to him if we follow the Greek we have no article. The KJV has an article and is superior.

Acts 1:3 is also supposedly corrected in English. Kjv has "infallible proofs" other translations have "convincing" or "many proof." KJV here supposedly corrects the Greek.

And I could go on talking about how our best manuscripts don't have certain phrase or verse that the kjv does and since the kjv is perfect and not the Greek we should go with the text of the kjv when it comes to variants.

Oh so your original post was not a sincere post...you are a Ruckmanite who wants to start another endless and meaningless KJVO thread.  Ruckman was a nut...if you like the KJV the best, then use it...I personally could care less for the minutia of the KJVO movement.  You have already made up your mind when you called the KJV "perfect" (when you start with a wrong premise, you will come to a wrong conclusion)...so carry on with you inane and ignorant posts. I don't have the time or the inclination entering into a meaningless debate with the chronically stupid.

 

[Anon1379]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

We always go to the original...in the case of the NT that would be in the Greek.  If the English does not match with the original Greek, then the English is wrong.

Yep, but many kjvo would disagree. Which is why I asked for examples

You would have to ask them for their examples...I find that the faithful translations do a great job in staying with the original intent with their translation work. 

Well Ruckman states John 4:24 is "corrected" in English. Kjv has "God is a spirit" all other have "God is spirit" according to him if we follow the Greek we have no article. The KJV has an article and is superior.

Acts 1:3 is also supposedly corrected in English. Kjv has "infallible proofs" other translations have "convincing" or "many proof." KJV here supposedly corrects the Greek.

And I could go on talking about how our best manuscripts don't have certain phrase or verse that the kjv does and since the kjv is perfect and not the Greek we should go with the text of the kjv when it comes to variants.

Oh so your original post was not a sincere post...you are a Ruckmanite who wants to start another endless and meaningless KJVO thread.  Ruckman was a nut...if you like the KJV the best, then use it...I personally could care less for the minutia of the KJVO movement.  You have already made up your mind when you called the KJV "perfect" (when you start with a wrong premise, you will come to a wrong conclusion)...so carry on with you inane and ignorant posts. I don't have the time or the inclination entering into a meaningless debate with the chronically stupid.

Sorry you misunderstood me, I didn't word it clearly. I was using Ruckman's arguments to show examples of how kjvo say the English beats the greek. I don't believe the kjv is perfect and I use the LEB and the WEB as my main Bible.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I just wish those naming Christ as Savior would actually use, contend for, and live by whichever version they believe is His word.

 

[T-Bone]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

We always go to the original...in the case of the NT that would be in the Greek.  If the English does not match with the original Greek, then the English is wrong.

Yep, but many kjvo would disagree. Which is why I asked for examples

You would have to ask them for their examples...I find that the faithful translations do a great job in staying with the original intent with their translation work. 

Well Ruckman states John 4:24 is "corrected" in English. Kjv has "God is a spirit" all other have "God is spirit" according to him if we follow the Greek we have no article. The KJV has an article and is superior.

Acts 1:3 is also supposedly corrected in English. Kjv has "infallible proofs" other translations have "convincing" or "many proof." KJV here supposedly corrects the Greek.

And I could go on talking about how our best manuscripts don't have certain phrase or verse that the kjv does and since the kjv is perfect and not the Greek we should go with the text of the kjv when it comes to variants.

Oh so your original post was not a sincere post...you are a Ruckmanite who wants to start another endless and meaningless KJVO thread.  Ruckman was a nut...if you like the KJV the best, then use it...I personally could care less for the minutia of the KJVO movement.  You have already made up your mind when you called the KJV "perfect" (when you start with a wrong premise, you will come to a wrong conclusion)...so carry on with you inane and ignorant posts. I don't have the time or the inclination entering into a meaningless debate with the chronically stupid.

Sorry you misunderstood me, I didn't word it clearly. I was using Ruckman's arguments to show examples of how kjvo say the English beats the greek. I don't believe the kjv is perfect and I use the LEB and the WEB as my main Bible.

I apologize then...I can only go by what you wrote and how you wrote it.  Your writing of the last paragraph in your response leads one to believe that is your opinion...not someone elses.  Again, I am sorry I misunderstood your position and writings...to those who hold the Ruckman view, my response remains the same.

 

[Anon1379]

Right, but what I mean is that is there is a disagreement, we go with what the Greek says not the English

We always go to the original...in the case of the NT that would be in the Greek.  If the English does not match with the original Greek, then the English is wrong.

Yep, but many kjvo would disagree. Which is why I asked for examples

You would have to ask them for their examples...I find that the faithful translations do a great job in staying with the original intent with their translation work. 

Well Ruckman states John 4:24 is "corrected" in English. Kjv has "God is a spirit" all other have "God is spirit" according to him if we follow the Greek we have no article. The KJV has an article and is superior.

Acts 1:3 is also supposedly corrected in English. Kjv has "infallible proofs" other translations have "convincing" or "many proof." KJV here supposedly corrects the Greek.

And I could go on talking about how our best manuscripts don't have certain phrase or verse that the kjv does and since the kjv is perfect and not the Greek we should go with the text of the kjv when it comes to variants.

Oh so your original post was not a sincere post...you are a Ruckmanite who wants to start another endless and meaningless KJVO thread.  Ruckman was a nut...if you like the KJV the best, then use it...I personally could care less for the minutia of the KJVO movement.  You have already made up your mind when you called the KJV "perfect" (when you start with a wrong premise, you will come to a wrong conclusion)...so carry on with you inane and ignorant posts. I don't have the time or the inclination entering into a meaningless debate with the chronically stupid.

Sorry you misunderstood me, I didn't word it clearly. I was using Ruckman's arguments to show examples of how kjvo say the English beats the greek. I don't believe the kjv is perfect and I use the LEB and the WEB as my main Bible.

I apologize then...I can only go by what you wrote and how you wrote it.  Your writing of the last paragraph in your response leads one to believe that is your opinion...not someone elses.  Again, I am sorry I misunderstood your position and writings...to those who hold the Ruckman view, my response remains the same.

Ohh yes lol, you are right Ruckman is a nutjob. I made this post so I could have some examples of where Greek is superior in order to fight stupid. Other examples I would give would be the Greek verbs are much more expressive. But I was hoping for specific examples to bring up to ruckmanites or kjvo

 

[brianb]

In John 21 there's the conversation with Jesus and Peter where Peter responds with a different Greek word (though that's only in the text not in the original conversation) then what Jesus used.  At first read of an English version one may think that Jesus is repeatedly asking Peter unnecessarily. But when you look at the Greek you get a better understanding. Greek is more precise.

 

[cpizzle]

In John 21 there's the conversation with Jesus and Peter where Peter responds with a different Greek word (though that's only in the text not in the original conversation) then what Jesus used.  At first read of an English version one may think that Jesus is repeatedly asking Peter unnecessarily. But when you look at the Greek you get a better understanding. Greek is more precise.

The "rules" for Agape and Phileo (John 21) have shown to not be consistent throughout scripture.  They are used interchangeably in parallel passages and many verses completely contradict the "rule."

There are plenty of websites that give you more information (however, most of them are on the far right of the KJB debate) but their facts are still true.  Strong's numbers will also bear this out.

 

[HammondCheese]

Some of our KJVO brothers will say there is no need for Greek as we have the English and therefore English is superior. Pretty much everyone else says Greek is superior.

It's not so much that the English or Greek is "superior." Both were, and are, languages that are suitable for the times and people what speak them.

What is important is that the Bible, specifically the New Testament, was originally written in the Greek dialect of a particular time, place, and culture. The quality and accuracy of any English translation needs to be evaluated in that linguistic, literary, and social context. Koine Greek is the source language; English is the target. If there is an error of translation or an ambiguity of meaning that needs to be resolved, we look at the source, not the target.

The problem with taking that position is that the original manuscripts do not exist anywhere on earth.  Even the manuscripts in Hebrew or Greek that do exist are preserved "versions" of the original revelation, even though they are in the same languages. 

Preservation of God's Word is not an academic process by so-called scholars, it is a divine promise from God (PS 12:6-7). HE is the one who preserves His inerrant Word, not man.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk