Say what?

[Mitex]

Do you have a hard time comprehending archaic and obsolete words and syntax in the English language? Try the original languages or better yet, try comprehending the scholars, even the good ones at times.

"Scripture distinguishes the original documents from subsequent copies and translations.118 Still, while distinct in origin, this does not mean that copies and translations are without authority. Rather, it must simply be maintained that the original documents have primal or chief authority, and that copies and translations have derivative inspiration and, thus authority.119 That is, they derive their inspiration and authority from the original documents. Any appeal, then, to a copy or a translation of Scripture is authoritative because it assumes that the portion appealed to reflects the original text. Obviously, if such were not the case, the appeal would be devoid of authority.120

It is important to note, too, that no one copy or translation perfectly121 reflects the message (much less the words) of the original documents. This is the case simply because the original documents do not presently exist, and the extant manuscripts which do are, in each case, unique, no two fully agreeing in every detail. Therefore, without infallible criteria for determining original readings, infallible determinations of original readings are impossible. In sum, copies and translations are authoritative insofar as they faithfully reflect the message of the original text. And, insofar as they do, they may be called the Word of God.

118 This distinction is maintained on a number of further occasions besides those listed in the previous sections, cf. Deut. 17:18, Neh 8:8, Prov 25:1, Luke 4:16-21, Acts 17:2,11.
119 This is normally what people mean when they ask whether their Bibles are inspired (or even inerrant). Inspiration (and inerrancy) extends to copies and translations only, but nevertheless importantly, in this derivative sense. Derivative inspiration means that manuscripts and versions derive inspiration and authority from other copies in linear fashion, in a process that goes back eventually to the autographs themselves.
120 An interesting anecdote here is the so-called "Wicked Bible (1631), which was an edition of the KJV that inadvertently omitted the "not" in the seventh commandment. Transparently, any appeal to this erroneous text would be devoid of authority.
121 This is not to say that none does so adequately, for many do.

A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Volume One, Rolland McCune, p 97.

Professor McCune informs us that there is a distinction between the original documents from subsequent copies and translations. This difference can be described as the kinds of authority each has, the former having primal or chief authority and the latter having derivative authority. The practical difference? He doesn't say exactly. He does tell us a few things that are quite interesting, namely, "any appeal to a copy or translation of the Scripture is authoritative because it assumes that the portion appealed to reflects the original text" and "copies and translations are authoritative insofar as they faithfully reflect the message of the original text", but then also says, "no one copy or translation perfectly reflects the message (much less the words) of the original documents" although according to the Professor some copies and translations do reflect the message (and supposedly the words also) adequately. Which ones? He doesn't tell us. But hold the phone, the good Professor lets slip an enigma of immense proportions when he says, "no one copy or translation perfectly reflects the message (much less the words) because the original documents do not presently exist, therefore without infallible criteria for determining original readings, infallible determinations of original readings are impossible." Conclusion? John Bunyan was correct:

A university man met Bunyan on the road near Cambridge. Said he to Bunyan, “How dare you preach, not having the original Scriptures?” “Do you have them–the copies written by the apostles and prophets?” asked Bunyan. “No,” replied the scholar. “But I have what I believe to be a true copy of the original.” “And I,” said Bunyan, “believe the English Bible to be a true copy, too.” John Bunyan The Immortal Dreamer, W. Burgess McCreary, The Warner Press, 1928, pg. 38

Both the scholar and Bunyan assume, as per Professor McCune, that their copy or translation goes back in linear fashion eventually to the autographs themselves. There no longer exists infallible criteria for determining original readings and infallible determinations of original readings are impossible. Thus, as per Professor McCune's argument as stated here, the English Scriptures have every wit the authority of extant, but non-original, original language manuscripts. This in direct contradiction to some of the scholars on this board.

But wait, there's more! Note the following verses that Professor McCune cited as proof:

• Deut. 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:

The copy was the practical every day authority and not the autographs.

• Neh 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

The book was not the autograph, yet in verse 1 it is called, "the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel."

• Prov. 25:1 These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.

Interesting proof text, because here we have a case where the COPY is the autograph! You paying attention? Did you also note that these COPIED proverbs were ADDED to the original Proverbs in the days of Hezekiah long after Solomon wrote originally?

• Luke 4:16-21 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17  And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18  The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19  To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20  And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21  And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Here we stumble upon the whopper! For here we have the Biblical declaration that Jesus read the Scripture, defined by Professor McCune (Ibid. p 92) as perfect, pure, right, pure, clean and true - in a word, inerrant. Yet, how can these thing be? Jesus was reading from a copy or translation of Isaiah! And hold the phone again, what Jesus read matches no extant copy of Isaiah exactly - perfectly as per Professor McCune. But there it is written in black and white: The book of the prophet Esaias...this SCRIPTURE!

• Acts 17:2  And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Did Paul really do that? Not having the original? Why according to the scholars on this board the Scriptures are defined as a one time miraculous event happening sometime in the distant past 500-3000+ years before Paul was weaned off the teat. Remember this is that infamous γραφή (graphe) defined by Paul in 2Tim 3:16 as "given by inspiration of God". My, my, my, what a proof text!

• Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Did they really? They really searched the Scriptures and that daily? They all had a copy of the autographs? No, of course not! But they did have a copy of the Scriptures defined as "given by inspiration of God". Again, this is that infamous γραφή (graphe) defined by Paul in 2Tim 3:16 as "given by inspiration of God". My, my, my, what a proof text!

I'll conclude with another quote from Professor McCune:

"(1) God's word (i.e. His communication) is completely truthful and inerrant; (2) the Bible is God's Word; (3) therefore, the Bible is completely truthful and inerrant. In short, the kind of Bible one believes in is directly proportionate to the kind of God one believes in." Ibid. pg 92

What kind of Bible do you read?

 

[christundivided]

The problem isn't just that people don't understand a word.... Its also about the fact that the meaning of words change over time.

So.... if you really want to understand some words in the KJV.... You really need to have a reputable source from the time period.... Say an old Oxford English Dictionary. Not a modern dictionary.

The average KJVOist is too cheap to get an old English Dictionary. They just go to a dictionary that more than 200 years removed from the source text and pretend they know what they are talking about.

KJVOist idiots.

 

[Mitex]

The problem isn't just that people don't understand a word.... Its also about the fact that the meaning of words change over time.

Ok, I agree, the problem isn't that people don't understand a word. We agree 100%. But how is the fact that the meaning of words change over time a problem greater than people not understanding a word? Meanings change over the course of time is a fact of life that no one has control over. You do realize that Greek & Hebrew words change meanings over time as well. Take πάσχα for example.

So.... if you really want to understand some words in the KJV.... You really need to have a reputable source from the time period.... Say an old Oxford English Dictionary. Not a modern dictionary.

It's always good to have reputable source material. But again, doesn't this hold true for ancient Greek and Hebrew as well? Not to mention the fact that Hebrew and Greek are FOREIGN languages to most people in history. I'll take a wild guess and say that most Americans don't even own a modern Hebrew or Greek dictionary much less a reputable source from the time period! By the way, a good portion of the "archaic or obsolete" words have already had their meanings hashed out in most churches that use the AV.

The average KJVOist is too cheap to get an old English Dictionary. They just go to a dictionary that more than 200 years removed from the source text and pretend they know what they are talking about.

How would you know? And how many of those who hold that the original Greek & Hebrew are the final or chief authority own a reputable Hebrew and Greek dictionary? Of those who do how many are fluent or capable of understanding the meaning in context? And what to do with Professor McCune's statements? "No one copy or translation perfectly reflects the message (much less the words) because the original documents do not presently exist, therefore without infallible criteria for determining original readings, infallible determinations of original readings are impossible"

KJVOist idiots.

Thank you for the demonstration of Christian charity. You have such a weighty ad hominem argument. When you have time you might want to address the OP.

 

[christundivided]

Ok, I agree, the problem isn't that people don't understand a word. We agree 100%. But how is the fact that the meaning of words change over time a problem greater than people not understanding a word? Meanings change over the course of time is a fact of life that no one has control over. You do realize that Greek & Hebrew words change meanings over time as well. Take πάσχα for example.

Sure I know Greek and Hebrew words change over time. This is one of the reasons I believe in the importance of the LXX. Its invaluable to the understanding of ancient Hebrew.

It's always good to have reputable source material. But again, doesn't this hold true for ancient Greek and Hebrew as well? Not to mention the fact that Hebrew and Greek are FOREIGN languages to most people in history. I'll take a wild guess and say that most Americans don't even own a modern Hebrew or Greek dictionary much less a reputable source from the time period!

The historical "Greek" language has some of the richest and most documented history of any language in history. Add to this rather early translations of Greek texts into Latin.... and you provide a rich base for understanding the Scriptures.

In contrast, the translation of the Scriptures into English is a rather cumbersome and troubled process that took many many years. Add the fact that the The Early Modern English language was in flux. Especially given the colonization of the "New World". This is one of the reasons that Webster wrote his 1828 dictionary.... and even the Webster translation of the Bible. He wanted to "standardize" the hobbled English he found being used across America.

So... there really is no comparison. The Greek and Latin texts came from stable and mature languages that were well documented and referenced through out literature. 

By the way, a good portion of the "archaic or obsolete" words have already had their meanings hashed out in most churches that use the AV.

Not really. I can guarantee you the average KJV church member has no idea what "concupiscence" means in Romans 7:8. No idea. Now, flip them over to 2 Timothy 2:22 and let them read the word "lusts".... and they might understand. Surely you understand this???

How would you know? And how many of those who hold that the original Greek & Hebrew are the final or chief authority own a reputable Hebrew and Greek dictionary? Of those who do how many are fluent or capable of understanding the meaning in context? And what to do with Professor McCune's statements? "No one copy or translation perfectly reflects the message (much less the words) because the original documents do not presently exist, therefore without infallible criteria for determining original readings, infallible determinations of original readings are impossible"

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree with the "Professor". I have long given up the man made ideals of absolute "preservation". So in this... I agree. However, I disagree with the "total" view of the "Professor" when he says original readings are "impossible" to determine.

Where there are no variant texts or disagreements..... We can safely, accurately and wholeheartedly say..... "We know the original". For example, I have no doubt that John 3:16 is true to the original. No doubt. None.

Thank you for the demonstration of Christian charity. You have such a weighty ad hominem argument. When you have time you might want to address the OP.

Just stating fact. You guys really act like idiots at times. I addressed your OP and expressed my general opinion concerning KJVOist. I can multi-task.

 

[Mitex]

Ok, I agree, the problem isn't that people don't understand a word. We agree 100%. But how is the fact that the meaning of words change over time a problem greater than people not understanding a word? Meanings change over the course of time is a fact of life that no one has control over. You do realize that Greek & Hebrew words change meanings over time as well. Take πάσχα for example.

Sure I know Greek and Hebrew words change over time. This is one of the reasons I believe in the importance of the LXX. Its invaluable to the understanding of ancient Hebrew.

You didn't explain your previous statement nor did you answer the relevant question, instead you deviated into your non-relevant opinion about the LXX. I'll address your irrelevance and then ask the question again. Very few anti-KJVO possess an LXX, even fewer could actually read it if they did, much less understand the ancient Hebrew language. If you really want to understand ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, which are both foreign languages by the way you need reputable sources from the time period, competent knowledge of the two foreign languages mentioned and quality foreign language dictionaries at the level of the English OED of which there are few. To phrase it as you did, "The average anti-KJVOist is too cheap to have any of the previously mentioned items. They just go to a dictionary that is more than 2000 years removed from the source text and pretend they know what they are talking about."

Now, here's your question that you failed answer: "How is the fact that the meaning of words change over time a problem greater than people not understanding a word?

It's always good to have reputable source material. But again, doesn't this hold true for ancient Greek and Hebrew as well? Not to mention the fact that Hebrew and Greek are FOREIGN languages to most people in history. I'll take a wild guess and say that most Americans don't even own a modern Hebrew or Greek dictionary much less a reputable source from the time period!

The historical "Greek" language has some of the richest and most documented history of any language in history. Add to this rather early translations of Greek texts into Latin.... and you provide a rich base for understanding the Scriptures.

Irrelevant to your previously stated attack on those "idiot KJVO's". Again very few anti-KJVO's have any reputable ancient Hebrew and Greek source material and even fewer understand those foreign languages!

In contrast, the translation of the Scriptures into English is a rather cumbersome and troubled process that took many many years. Add the fact that the The Early Modern English language was in flux. Especially given the colonization of the "New World". This is one of the reasons that Webster wrote his 1828 dictionary.... and even the Webster translation of the Bible. He wanted to "standardize" the hobbled English he found being used across America.

Irrelevant. Very few anti-KJVO's posses reputable ancient Hebrew and Greek source material, even fewer understand Hebrew and Greek much less ancient Hebrew and Greek.

So... there really is no comparison. The Greek and Latin texts came from stable and mature languages that were well documented and referenced through out literature. 

Irrelevant.

By the way, a good portion of the "archaic or obsolete" words have already had their meanings hashed out in most churches that use the AV.

Not really. I can guarantee you the average KJV church member has no idea what "concupiscence" means in Romans 7:8. No idea. Now, flip them over to 2 Timothy 2:22 and let them read the word "lusts".... and they might understand. Surely you understand this???

Can the average anti-KJVO understand this:  אל־תען כסיל כאולתו פן־תשׁוה־לו גם־אתה׃ or this μη αποκρινου αφρονι προς την εκεινου αφροσυνην ινα μη ομοιος γενη αυτω.

How would you know? And how many of those who hold that the original Greek & Hebrew are the final or chief authority own a reputable Hebrew and Greek dictionary? Of those who do how many are fluent or capable of understanding the meaning in context? And what to do with Professor McCune's statements? "No one copy or translation perfectly reflects the message (much less the words) because the original documents do not presently exist, therefore without infallible criteria for determining original readings, infallible determinations of original readings are impossible"

I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree with the "Professor". I have long given up the man made ideals of absolute "preservation". So in this... I agree. However, I disagree with the "total" view of the "Professor" when he says original readings are "impossible" to determine.

How many of those who hold that the original Greek & Hebrew are the final or chief authority own a reputable Hebrew and Greek dictionary? Of those who do how many are fluent or capable of understanding the meaning in context?

Where there are no variant texts or disagreements..... We can safely, accurately and wholeheartedly say..... "We know the original". For example, I have no doubt that John 3:16 is true to the original. No doubt. None.

So, in other words, when there is absolute CONSENSUS we can safely, accurately and wholeheartedly say, "this is the word of God".

Thank you for the demonstration of Christian charity. You have such a weighty ad hominem argument. When you have time you might want to address the OP.

Just stating fact. You guys really act like idiots at times. I addressed your OP and expressed my general opinion concerning KJVOist. I can multi-task.

Using just weights and balances and applying them righteously to your judgment we can safely conclude that you opine that anti-KJVO are idiots as well. Again, very charitable of you.

 

[christundivided]

Now, here's your question that you failed answer: "How is the fact that the meaning of words change over time a problem greater than people not understanding a word?

I never said it was greater problem. I used the word "also". You didn't include this in your conclusion.... did you?

It is a problem nonetheless. Are you ignore this problem? Are you saying its not a problem?

It appears you trying to discount it to the point that is not part of the equation.... which is dishonest.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to you but not irrelevant to the issue at hand. You are trying to make it seem as all periods and all languages within those periods are equal as pertaining to the progression of the Scriptures throughout history. That is not the case.

Can the average anti-KJVO understand this:  אל־תען כסיל כאולתו פן־תשׁוה־לו גם־אתה׃ or this μη αποκρινου αφρονι προς την εκεινου αφροσυνην ινα μη ομοιος γενη αυτω.

The average anti-KJVOist isn't going to read a English translation that has "concupiscence". Thus, your question is irrelevant. You know it is irrelevant. You are conflating two different issues. The KJV translators used "concupiscence" in Romans and "lusts" in 2 Timothy for the same word and the same meaning. One is easily understood. One is not.

So, in other words, when there is absolute CONSENSUS we can safely, accurately and wholeheartedly say, "this is the word of God".

It depends on what you mean by consensus. Consensus of text in which no variant exists.... Yes. Consensus of translation in English..... No. Don't be dishonest in the conflating the two.

Using just weights and balances and applying them righteously to your judgment we can safely conclude that you opine that anti-KJVO are idiots as well. Again, very charitable of you.

Can you detail how your measurement equals the same?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mitex]Very few anti-KJVO possess an LXX, even fewer could actually read it if they did, much less understand the ancient Hebrew language. If you really want to understand ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, which are both foreign languages by the way you need reputable sources from the time period...[/quote]

The LXX isn't in Hebrew...

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=Mitex]Very few anti-KJVO possess an LXX, even fewer could actually read it if they did, much less understand the ancient Hebrew language. If you really want to understand ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, which are both foreign languages by the way you need reputable sources from the time period...

The LXX isn't in Hebrew...
[/quote]

I know its difficult for you understand much of anything but let me try to explain.

The LXX (though it is in Old Greek) is the oldest and most reliable source whereby to understand ancient Hebrew. The path ancient Hebrew took to our time is scarred by failures and disappointments. We can take the surviving understanding of Old Greek and compare corresponding texts to ancient Hebrew texts. (Which really are very limited. Very limited). The modern MT only dates back to the 9th century. If you study the Hebrew Bible on past the 9th century, you are doing yourself a great injustice by ignoring the LXX.

Even Mitex understood what I was saying.... What does that say about you?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Mitex]Very few anti-KJVO possess an LXX, even fewer could actually read it if they did, much less understand the ancient Hebrew language. If you really want to understand ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek, which are both foreign languages by the way you need reputable sources from the time period...

The LXX isn't in Hebrew...

I know its difficult for you understand much of anything but let me try to explain.

The LXX (though it is in Old Greek) is the oldest and most reliable source whereby to understand ancient Hebrew. The path ancient Hebrew took to our time is scarred by failures and disappointments. We can take the surviving understanding of Old Greek and compare corresponding texts to ancient Hebrew texts. (Which really are very limited. Very limited). The modern MT only dates back to the 9th century. If you study the Hebrew Bible on past the 9th century, you are doing yourself a great injustice by ignoring the LXX.

Even Mitex understood what I was saying.... What does that say about you?
[/quote]

Probably that I'm obtuse or a moron or an idiot or some other gracious, kind and thoughtful descriptor that I apparently should expect from people who call themselves Christians. :

 

[Mitex]

...
Can you detail how your measurement equals the same?

Sure, let me try this mirror:

"The problem isn't just that people don't understand a word.... Its also about the fact that the meaning of words change over time.

So.... if you really want to understand all the words in the original.... You really need to have a reputable source from the time period.... Say an old Greek & Hebrew Dictionary on par with the OED. Not a modern dictionary.

The average ANTI-KJVOist is too cheap to get an old Greek & Hebrew Dictionary. They just go to a dictionary that more than 2000 years removed from the source text and pretend they know what they are talking about.

ANTI-KJVOist idiots."

Your problem with archaic words in our English Bible is 1000% amplified when reading the foreign language ancient Greek and Hebrew. When you accuse KJVO of being "too cheap to get an old English dictionary" you thereby accuse anti-KJVO of being too cheap to buy reputable old Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and the money it would take to learn those foreign languages. You also implicate anti-KJVO who pretend that they understand ancient Hebrew and Greek.

Do the autographs exist? Are Textual Critics infallible? Are their conclusions infallible? Did Jesus read the Scriptures? Did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Were those Scriptures given by inspiration of God, infallible, inerrant, etc.? Please give your definition of the term Scripture(s) as found in your Bible.

You said, "The problem isn't just that people don't understand a word.... Its also about the fact that the meaning of words change over time."
I stand corrected on this point. I misread your sentence. You did indeed state two problems, 1) people don't understand a word and 2) meanings of words change over time. However, anti-KJVO such as yourself, face similar problems with ancient Greek and Hebrew - the average anti-KJVO doesn't just understand a given word, but they also are confronted with the fact that the meaning of words change over time. These two problems are amplified by the fact that Greek & Hebrew are foreign languages mastered by very few anti-KJVO and also the fact that the Hebrew & Greek in question is ancient Hebrew & Greek. I'm sure even you can understand this point.

Now I looked up your "problem term" concupiscence in a modern English dictionary:

Concupiscence
noun 
1. sexual desire; lust.
2. ardent, usually sensuous, longing. 

and also the OED which I own:

Concupiscence
1. Eager or vehement desire; in Theol. use (transl. Žpihtl¬a of N.T.) the coveting of ‘carnal things’, desire for the ‘things of the world’.
2. esp. Libidinous desire, sexual appetite, lust.

By the way, I checked the modern versions and they translate your term with multiple words: desire, lust, passions, etc.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[bgwilkinson]

So.... if you really want to understand all the words in the original.... You really need to have a reputable source from the time period.... Say an old Greek & Hebrew Dictionary on par with the OED. Not a modern dictionary.

Correction... like the latest version of the OED, you need the latest versions of Greek & Hebrew lexicons.

Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew are both understood far better in 2014 than they were in 1900.

bingo!

 

[Mitex]

So.... if you really want to understand all the words in the original.... You really need to have a reputable source from the time period.... Say an old Greek & Hebrew Dictionary on par with the OED. Not a modern dictionary.

Correction... like the latest version of the OED, you need the latest versions of Greek & Hebrew lexicons.

Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew are both understood far better in 2014 than they were in 1900.

Hi Ho Silver, the Lone Gotcha Ranger and his bingo playing sidekick Tanto ride again! Taumatawhakatangihangakoayauo-tamateaturipukakapikimaungahoro-nukypokaiwhenuakitanatahu. Me Tonto Kimosabi.  Me go and catchee baddy. Find him by the shady water. Deep within Apache forest.

Look! Up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's Captain Duck and mild mannered bingo playing Clark Kent.

Earth to Gotcha Ranger, the OED is a MODERN English dictionary, in spite of Jimmy Olsen's comments: "Say an old Oxford English Dictionary." Not a new Oxford Dictionary, but an old one, as if the new one is better than the old one. "Not a modern dictionary." As if the OED is not a modern dictionary. "Get an old English Dictionary. They just go to a dictionary that more than 200 years removed from the source text..." As if the OED itself isn't 200 years removed from the source text and your modern lexicons aren't 2000+ years removed from the source text. See Sherlock, I could have strained at gnats just like you, but instead I took the INTENT of his post and replied to his salient points instead of playing the Easter Bunny like you and hopping down rabbit trails trying to put gotcha chips on his bingo card!

Now, would you like get off the stage and deal with the issue?

1) Scholars are difficult to understand. Should we therefore reject them as out of date, erroneous, useless, error prone, full of boo-boos, etc.?

2)  Professor McCune tells us that infallible determinations of original readings are impossible. When a KJVO says this he is labeled by you, Gotcha Ranger, as a liberal on par with Bart Ehrman.

3)  A copy or translation of the Scripture is authoritative because it assumes that the portion appealed to reflects the original text. Both the scholar and the average Englishman assume that their Bible goes back in linear fashion eventually to the autographs themselves. Why do you think the scholar's assumption is more valid than the English Bible believer's?

4) Do the autographs exist? Are Textual Critics infallible? Are their conclusions infallible? Did Jesus read the Scriptures? Did the Bereans search the Scriptures? Were those Scriptures given by inspiration of God, infallible, inerrant, etc.? Please give your definition of the term Scripture(s) as found in your Bible.

5) And just for you Easter Bunny, the latest rabbit trail tried to lead us to an archaism. Is it your contention that concupiscence is archaic or obsolete and not found in our modern dictionaries? Is it your contention that  ἐπιθυμία (epithumia) should only be translated as "lust" and never concupiscence, desire, passion, etc.?

Find him scalp him eat him up for breakfast.  Real good friend to Kimosabi.  Save another silver bullet.  Hi ho Silver away. Ride into tomorrow today.

 

[christundivided]

Now I looked up your "problem term" concupiscence in a modern English dictionary:

Concupiscence
noun 
1. sexual desire; lust.
2. ardent, usually sensuous, longing. 

and also the OED which I own:

Concupiscence
1. Eager or vehement desire; in Theol. use (transl. Žpihtl¬a of N.T.) the coveting of ‘carnal things’, desire for the ‘things of the world’.
2. esp. Libidinous desire, sexual appetite, lust.

You're being dishonest. I never said concupiscence wasn't defined as "lust" in the OED. I never even implied it. I also never joined the statements I made..... like you're joining them in your response to me.

This is entirely dishonest.

You said that all the archaic words had been sorted out among KJVOist folk/churches. Here. Let me provide your exact words...

By the way, a good portion of the "archaic or obsolete" words have already had their meanings hashed out in most churches that use the AV.

My words were in direct response to this statement. I never said what you're claiming I said. Why are you being so dishonest? I was simply making the point that the average KJVOist sitting in their churches .... have no idea what the term means when they read it. The same can not be said of the word "lust".

To answer your accusation.....

Concupiscence, as used by the KJV translators, is more than just a definition found in the OED. Its encompasses an entire doctrine.  It goes to the intent of the fallen nature of the human heart and its relationship to prelapsarian nature of humanity. Its interesting to note that concupiscence is rooted in a Latin dogma.

So.... there is really a lot more behind the use of the word in the KJV than even you understand. The translators purposely chose the word to interject doctrinal ideals into the text. This is alluded to in the definition from the OED.... but you're too lazy to track it down.

By the way, I checked the modern versions and they translate your term with multiple words: desire, lust, passions, etc.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Never said it wasn't. I was talking about the understanding of the word and how the KJV translators used it. You're so dishonest.

Maybe its just above you..... Maybe you really don't know how the word was used. Maybe you don't care to know. You think you have it all figured out.

 

[Ransom]

So.... if you really want to understand all the words in the original.... You really need to have a reputable source from the time period.... Say an old Greek & Hebrew Dictionary on par with the OED. Not a modern dictionary.

Um . . . you are aware that the 2nd edition of the OED was published only 25 years ago, and that supplements have been published ever since?  The OED is a modern dictionary.

But thanks for refuting your own point.

 

[Mitex]

So.... if you really want to understand all the words in the original.... You really need to have a reputable source from the time period.... Say an old Greek & Hebrew Dictionary on par with the OED. Not a modern dictionary.

Um . . . you are aware that the 2nd edition of the OED was published only 25 years ago, and that supplements have been published ever since?  The OED is a modern dictionary.

But thanks for refuting your own point.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the history of the OED. You apparently weren't fully aware that I was quoting christundivided. But thanks for confirming that his point has been refuted. You're such a help!

 

[christundivided]

So.... if you really want to understand all the words in the original.... You really need to have a reputable source from the time period.... Say an old Greek & Hebrew Dictionary on par with the OED. Not a modern dictionary.

Um . . . you are aware that the 2nd edition of the OED was published only 25 years ago, and that supplements have been published ever since?  The OED is a modern dictionary.

But thanks for refuting your own point.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the history of the OED. You apparently weren't fully aware that I was quoting christundivided. But thanks for confirming that his point has been refuted. You're such a help!

The old OED details the history of English words. Try again. What I said was accurate.

The "General Explanation" from James Murray in the first publication reads...

The present work aims at exhibiting the history and signification of the English words now in use, or known to have been in use since the middle of the twelfth century. This date has been adopted as the only natural halting-place, short of going back to the beginning, so as to include the entire Old English or ‘Anglo-Saxon’ Vocabulary. To do this would have involved the inclusion of an immense number of words, not merely long obsolete but also having obsolete inflexions, and thus requiring, if dealt with at all, a treatment different from that adapted to the words which survived the twelfth century…

 

[Mitex]

Mitex... is your Gdansk update without any errors? Nope. There is another lingering error that I found the other day.
Does your committee possess the gift of infalibility to prevent errors? Not at all. Whoever they are.
Has your update enjoyed a consensus among the believers in Poland? Nope.

Pontification on your part and that from a position of ignorance.

Is your work "Scripture?" Sure.
Does anyone on this board deny that? Not that I have read.

Since you won't define or give your definition of the term "Scripture" as used in your sentence it is difficult to respond.
Are you referring to any writing or book? All writings and books? Any writing or book of sacred or religious nature? The sacred writings of the Old and New Testament? What is the Old and New Testament? Is that Grandpappy's first and second last will and testament? Or do you mean the 66 Canonical books of the Holy Bible? Who determines the Canon? Chapter and verse, please. Did you say, Bible? Define Bible. When you say, "Scripture" did you mean as Paul stated, "given by inspiration of God"? Or a one time miraculous event given to the Apostles and prophets on multiple occasions, 66+ times, as per Rick? Did you mean something that is inerrant, infallible, etc.? Did you mean a written document or book that is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice or something that isn't quite, but almost, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice?

You will find below a few questions that remain to be answered. When you are prepared to commit yourself let us know and then we'll respond. Until then don't hold your breath Super Duck.

The term Scripture as found in our English Bible is:
1. A reference to the anthology of Canonical books. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
2. A reference to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
3. The Scriptures are the very words of God, each and every book, chapter, verse and word. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
4. The Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I'm not asking you to agree with my understanding of "given by inspiration of God".
5. The Scriptures are divinely inspired. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I'm not asking you to agree with my understanding of "divinely inspired".
6. The Scriptures are perfect. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
7. The Scriptures are pure. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
8. The Scriptures are infallible. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
9. The Scriptures are the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
10. The Scriptures are holy and authoritative. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

•By a consistent application of your blurred definition of the word Scripture, how would searching the Scriptures even be possible?
•Scripture, according to Rick and you, is a one time miraculous revelation given only to the Apostles and prophets to be written only in the original tongues. All other etchings, markings, copies, translations and such are corrupted by human depravity and cannot rightly be called the Scriptures, which are given by inspiration of God. So, as I've asked you repeatedly and you ignored, have I ever read the Scriptures not knowing the original languages?
•Has any American who doesn't know archaic Hebrew  and Greek ever searched the Scriptures?
•How about writing plainly your definition of the term Scripture as found in the Scriptures?
•How do you understand 2Timothy 3:16 grammatically? As passive voice (Young) or a present tense copula (linking verb, Wallace, Robertson, etc.)?
•What ever "the process" is in your mind, that "process" was applied in 2Timothy 3:16 not directly to the autographs as you read into the passage, but rather to the Holy Scriptures which Timothy possessed from his youth. The ones that are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. And that's the kicker isn't it, Rick? The context applies to Timothy's Scriptures and only DERIVATIVELY to the autographs and the New Testament. So say all them non-KJVO scholar's that I quoted repeatedly and you conveniently ignored.
•I checked with every Bible available to me. In fact, this particular argument I learned from a rabidly anti-KJVO much like yourself, who stated that there is no extant manuscript in the original languages that agree with the Scriptures that Jesus read from in Luke 4. Your response is revealing, for you do not, nor can you, produce an extant manuscript that matches Jesus' Scriptures in Luke 4. And your reference to the Dead Sea scrolls in hopes that something might be there is also telling. For you are in effect saying that the Church of God did NOT have preserved for it's use in matters of faith and practice the original text in the original languages UNTIL the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls circa 1948. You remind me of the over zealous Roman Catholic who upon hearing me say that purgatory is not in the Bible, asked, "Where in the Bible is purgatory not found?" Can you produce an original language manuscript that matches the Scriptures that Jesus read from in Luke 4? If so, please show us.

•My point was that God intended to have His word translated. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

•Given by inspiration" describes the CHARACTER of all Scripture and that character of all Scripture applies to Scripture before Moses' was born (you paying attention?), the Scripture in David's day, the Scripture in Jesus' day, the Scripture in Timothy's youth, the Scripture that Eunuch read from and the Berean's searched, and bless God the Scriptures that I read in English, Polish and Spanish. Did you get the drift, Swift?

•Moses crushed the finger of God written original autographs on the mount 4000-4500 years ago. Did the Scriptures become corrupted, imperfect, anything less than "given by inspiration of God" as the worms began crawling over and through the crumbling stones?  When Jehudi took his penknife out and cut up the scroll with words written on it by Baruch who wrote as Jeremiah spoke while being moved along by the Spirit of God and then pitched them in the fire; tell us Rick, did the Scriptures suddenly start diminishing as the fire crackled? When Baruch ADDED to the original, were the Scripture added unto? Was he a liar? When my grandkids grab my King James Version and rip out 10 pages to color on did the King James Bible suddenly become corrupted, imperfect, impure, or any less the word of God?

•Do you really think that one edition laying on my desk is "the King James Bible"? And that pen marks and notes added by me are an addition to "the King James Bible" -the word of God? Are you so deluded as to think one particular printing and only that particular printing of the KJV (pick a year) is "the word of God"? If so, you've been reading too much KJV-Only literature from Down Under.

 

[Mitex]

Mitex... is your Gdansk update without any errors? Nope. There is another lingering error that I found the other day.
Does your committee possess the gift of infalibility to prevent errors? Not at all. Whoever they are.
Has your update enjoyed a consensus among the believers in Poland? Nope.

Pontification on your part and that from a position of ignorance.

Well then... please enlighten us! I did not realize you claimed infalibility.

Is your update error free?

Not any more than the original.

Is your committee infallible?

Not any more than Moses, David, Paul or Peter.

Has your NT update replaced the current popular Polish Bibles?

Not yet.

You can ask 1,000 questions. It will not cover your unwillingness to honestly answer these.

You have asked 1,000 questions and I've answered most, if not all of them. You won't face your fears and answer these questions.

You will find below a few questions that remain to be answered. When you are prepared to commit yourself let us know and then we'll respond. Until then don't hold your breath Super Duck.

The term Scripture as found in our English Bible is:
1. A reference to the anthology of Canonical books. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
2. A reference to the entire body of canonical Jewish or Christian writings. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
3. The Scriptures are the very words of God, each and every book, chapter, verse and word. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
4. The Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I'm not asking you to agree with my understanding of "given by inspiration of God".
5. The Scriptures are divinely inspired. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I'm not asking you to agree with my understanding of "divinely inspired".
6. The Scriptures are perfect. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
7. The Scriptures are pure. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
8. The Scriptures are infallible. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
9. The Scriptures are the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
10. The Scriptures are holy and authoritative. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

•By a consistent application of your blurred definition of the word Scripture, how would searching the Scriptures even be possible?
•Scripture, according to Rick and you, is a one time miraculous revelation given only to the Apostles and prophets to be written only in the original tongues. All other etchings, markings, copies, translations and such are corrupted by human depravity and cannot rightly be called the Scriptures, which are given by inspiration of God. So, as I've asked you repeatedly and you ignored, have I ever read the Scriptures not knowing the original languages?
•Has any American who doesn't know archaic Hebrew  and Greek ever searched the Scriptures?
•How about writing plainly your definition of the term Scripture as found in the Scriptures?
•How do you understand 2Timothy 3:16 grammatically? As passive voice (Young) or a present tense copula (linking verb, Wallace, Robertson, etc.)?
•What ever "the process" is in your mind, that "process" was applied in 2Timothy 3:16 not directly to the autographs as you read into the passage, but rather to the Holy Scriptures which Timothy possessed from his youth. The ones that are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. And that's the kicker isn't it, Rick? The context applies to Timothy's Scriptures and only DERIVATIVELY to the autographs and the New Testament. So say all them non-KJVO scholar's that I quoted repeatedly and you conveniently ignored.
•I checked with every Bible available to me. In fact, this particular argument I learned from a rabidly anti-KJVO much like yourself, who stated that there is no extant manuscript in the original languages that agree with the Scriptures that Jesus read from in Luke 4. Your response is revealing, for you do not, nor can you, produce an extant manuscript that matches Jesus' Scriptures in Luke 4. And your reference to the Dead Sea scrolls in hopes that something might be there is also telling. For you are in effect saying that the Church of God did NOT have preserved for it's use in matters of faith and practice the original text in the original languages UNTIL the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls circa 1948. You remind me of the over zealous Roman Catholic who upon hearing me say that purgatory is not in the Bible, asked, "Where in the Bible is purgatory not found?" Can you produce an original language manuscript that matches the Scriptures that Jesus read from in Luke 4? If so, please show us.

•My point was that God intended to have His word translated. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?

•Given by inspiration" describes the CHARACTER of all Scripture and that character of all Scripture applies to Scripture before Moses' was born (you paying attention?), the Scripture in David's day, the Scripture in Jesus' day, the Scripture in Timothy's youth, the Scripture that Eunuch read from and the Berean's searched, and bless God the Scriptures that I read in English, Polish and Spanish. Did you get the drift, Swift?

•Moses crushed the finger of God written original autographs on the mount 4000-4500 years ago. Did the Scriptures become corrupted, imperfect, anything less than "given by inspiration of God" as the worms began crawling over and through the crumbling stones?  When Jehudi took his penknife out and cut up the scroll with words written on it by Baruch who wrote as Jeremiah spoke while being moved along by the Spirit of God and then pitched them in the fire; tell us Rick, did the Scriptures suddenly start diminishing as the fire crackled? When Baruch ADDED to the original, were the Scripture added unto? Was he a liar? When my grandkids grab my King James Version and rip out 10 pages to color on did the King James Bible suddenly become corrupted, imperfect, impure, or any less the word of God?

•Do you really think that one edition laying on my desk is "the King James Bible"? And that pen marks and notes added by me are an addition to "the King James Bible" -the word of God? Are you so deluded as to think one particular printing and only that particular printing of the KJV (pick a year) is "the word of God"? If so, you've been reading too much KJV-Only literature from Down Under.