SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : General Topics : Is the Bible really the inerrant Word of God?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 Next Page )
PosterThread
h2oboy
Member



Joined: 2006/3/12
Posts: 89
Georgia, USA

 Re: Is the Bible the inerrent ...

Please excuse the side bar.

This a question for King Jimmy or any other Greek Scholar.

In the text mentioned earlier: Acts 12:4

4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. KJV

the Greek word meta translated 'after' seems to be most often translated with, among, or in the midst of, in other passages. Is it possible to understanding this as Herod desired to in the midst of (during) the passover festival to bring him forth to the people?

Herod was so blood thirsty I believe that the laws of the passover festival probably would not have mattered much to him. The festival is also when there would be the most people present to see and be appeased.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Jeff


_________________
Jeff Smith

 2006/3/21 21:57Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

The Greek word "meta" is a preposition. It primarily has two meanings, "with," and "after" depending upon it's grammatical function within a sentence. When used in the genitive case (which shows possesion) it is translated "with." If it is in the accusitive case (direct object of the verb), then it is translated "after." In this context here, it is used in the accusitive case, thus translated "after."


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/3/21 22:26Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Yowsers, I went away for just a couple hours and this thread exploded. I can only imagine what it will be like when I awake in the morning.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/3/21 22:28Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hello...

The following thoughts seem relevant to this "discussion":

1. The original 1611 KJV contained many errors which were corrected through various revisions over a period of over 150 years. By the time the KJV arrived to its current edition, the translators (and their children and grandchildren) had been dead for many years. Why is this important? The fact that the 1611 KJV contained numerous translation errors destroys the original argument that only the KJV is the "perfect and preserved" Word of God.

2. Acts 12:1-4 is obviously mistranslated in the KJV. Why? Because nearly every translation before it and after it (including other versions taken from the Received Text, as well as nearly [u]every[/u] FOREIGN LANGUAGE VERSION) translate it correctly using the word "Passover" (or "pask" and "Pascua") instead of the newer pagan word "Easter."

3. All Scripture is given by inspiration from God. The Word of God is indeed flawless, even while portions copied by man might not be.

4. Sadly, one of the most typical "defense" for the [i]KJV-only[/i] position is an "attack" on nearly all other versions.

5. A truly productive discussion would be to discuss the supposed "superiority" of one set of source texts over another. The KJV is derived from a completely different set of sources than the NIV. This results in differences in translation, rather than the "conspiracy theories" held by many [i]KJV-only[/i] advocates. Perhaps this discussion should "lay the axe to the root" of the issue and discuss sources rather than product.

6. The original intent of the translators of the KJV make it obvious that the translation is no longer in the "language of the common man." Despite any attempt to argue that the KJV is "easily understood" even by children, the fact remains that this is simply untrue. One of the biggest reasons that many people use for not reading the Bible is due to the language barriers presented by the KJV. Its early 17th century language and grammar are difficult for even college students to read without having a dictionary handy (unless, of course, you have been raised in Church and have grown up understanding certain explanations of archaic terms in the KJV).

7. Many of us that read versions other than the KJV still hold the KJV in high regard. However, we are simply defending the other versions from constant attacks by people who supposedly want to "discuss" the issue with open hearts.

Just a few thoughts...

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/3/21 23:07Profile
TonyS
Member



Joined: 2005/1/29
Posts: 154
Kansas City, Missouri

 Re: Is the Bible really the inerrant Word of God?

Ccchhhrrriiisss earlier wrote:

Quote:
As for the supposed "infallibility" of the KJV translation -- why not take an original 1611 KJV and compare it with the current KJV (completed in 1769 but with a few more revisions in 1850). Through such cross-examination, you'll be surprised by the changes that occurred over such revisions due to errors in the original translation. These have been discussed in numerous threads (most recently, in response to Stever's barrage of KJV-only threads). Many KJV-only believers argue that these were not "major" revisions. However, it completely destroys the argument that the KJV was PERFECT



The KJV that is carried by the average KJV only advocate today looks much different than the editions that came off the press in 1611. Not only do many printings of the KJV today lack the marginal notes and references, but the form of the text, and the wordings of the text, has undergone change over time.

Editions with changes in the text came out as early as 1612, then another in 1613 followed by editions in 1616, 1629, and 1638. And in 1659 William Kilburne in his work [i]“Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles to the Great Scandal and Corruption of Sound and True Religion”[/i] claimed that 20,000 errors had crept into six different editions in the 1650’s.

Most modern KJV’s follow the version of 1769 which had undegone extensive revisions. Which begs the question, does the modern edition of the KJV differ significantly from the 1611? From what I have studied, mostly the revisions concern spelling, punctuations etc…

Another question though…for those who assert the absolute inerrancy of the KJV … is “which KJV” ?

Perhaps KingJimmy or Philologos will comment on William Kilburne’s work.

tonys


_________________
Tony Sexton

 2006/3/21 23:20Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

Perhaps KingJimmy or Philologos will comment on William Kilburne’s work.



SOrry, I don't know enough on that matter.

Jimmy


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/3/22 6:47Profile









 Re:

In 1659 William Kilburne found 20,000 errors in 6 different editions made in the 1650's ... that was only 48 years after 1611 .... ha, but big whoop ... Only playing here ... but how many would he find in the many other versions of today, 2006 ?

We have what we have and an Interlinear would help or with the e-sword numbered to the Strong's and the Holy Spirit ... who needs more ?


13 pages ? :-?


I'm sorry ... just female sense of humor I guess.
I used to listen to the guys on their Ham radios on my radio and it sounded sorta like this.
And I wondered why they said "woman gab". :-D

 2006/3/22 7:22









 Re:

KingJimmy wrote:

Quote:
The Greek word "meta" is a preposition.



Question: Which Greek dictionary are you using? I'm not disputing that particular definition. I'm just curious... are you using the most commonly used Greek dictionary... Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament?

Krispy

 2006/3/22 7:44









 Re:

As for revisions of the 1611, you must understand that the revisions were corrections of mistakes made by the printer, changes in spelling as spelling in the English language evolved and was standardized, and changes in grammatical structure.

That can hardly be considered changes to mistakes of translation.

As for William Kilburne and his alleged 20,000 errors in the KJV... this is the first time I have heard of him. I will look into it, but just for pure speculation, I would have to believe that if ANY of his alleged "errors" were legitimate everybody and their brother who was hostile toward the KJV would be quoting this guy in everything they say and write. Even KingJimmy (who I DO NOT consider to be "hostile" toward the KJV) has not even heard of him.

But I will look into it non-the-less.

Krispy

 2006/3/22 7:52









 Re:

Quote:
I find it very difficult to believe that the King James translators were not influenced by the common celebration of Easter within the church to not perceive that Luke was speaking of the festival (week long) when he wrote pascha. It was comenly translated this way in many other places and the Hebrew word pecach is still used today to mean the week long festival of unleavened bread.



The translators of the KJV were scholars among scholars. If KingJimmy is honest (and I believe he is) even he has to admit that the scholarship and learning of these men was astronomical for their time. I doubt very seriously that they would have been ignorant enough to insert a holiday that they new very well did not exist when the event in question happened. Especially since the KJV translators were very much set against the Catholic Church, and they new the origins of celebrating Christ's death and resurrection on the pagan holiday of Ishtar came from the RCC. They [b]knew[/b] the difference, and they [b]knew[/b] the RCC holiday of Easter did not exist until Constantine 400+ years after the event they were translating in scripture.

I stand behind the reasoning I posted earlier for the word "Easter" being used in that passage.

Krispy

 2006/3/22 7:59





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy