It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:25 pm

HSC AffiliatesClick here for our affiliate link to Christianbook.comDonate to HSC





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:05 pm
Posts: 3524
Location: Central TX
The problems I have are that there's only one occurence that says "Easter", instead of Passover, so it wasn't an "Oops" thing. They weren't stupid, which leads me to believe they knew something that I don't (Actually, they knew a lot of things that I don't, lol), so I trust God and the experts and don't try to undermine Biblical authority. The other problem I have is that Passover was already over. That could be the reason for the translation of Easter, since it could have gone both ways.

_________________
Mom to Christian (13), Saphira (10), Xavier (5), and Adrian (2).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 8837
Actually, I believe that "easter" was already over weeks before Passover that year. But, no, I can't prove it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:05 pm
Posts: 3524
Location: Central TX
It could have been, for all I know. I guess there are things that will always be a mystery to me, no matter what translation it is. People who are against the KJV really get bent out of shape about the Easter thing, which isn't a big deal to me, but I am mildly curious about it. To me, questioning the Bible or saying it's flawed is the work of Satan because he always attacks God's word. It's God's word and if all translations are flawed and we don't have God's word, then we're hopeless. I guess because based on the evidence, the KJV is so clearly God's word, to me, I can't bring myself to question it and say it's flawed. If I say that, then I might as well throw it away since it's useless to my family, and never open another Bible. Questioning the Bible leads down a dangerous
path and I think that's a big reason why society is the way it is today, no Biblical authority. The KJV had the strong impact it did because people accepted it's authority and now look where we're at.

Sorry, this isn't all aimed at you, Sis. I'm just rambling as usual.

_________________
Mom to Christian (13), Saphira (10), Xavier (5), and Adrian (2).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Searcy, Arkansas
Anna1111 wrote:
I must correct my earlier statement. DH let me know when I mentioned it to him. We do not use the Textus Receptus (a series of works done by the Catholic Dutch Priest & Scholar Erasmus), but rather the Bible as conveyed and preserved by the Orthodox Church for 2000 years. But, the differences between the two are very minor.

We do not incorporate "new discoveries" - the result of which are showing up in modern translations.

I agree with the essence of what Lisa is saying - God preserves His Word through history. (although we may not agree on all the particulars)

But as for the word for Baptize in Greek, it is Baptizo (I Baptize). I think it's a stretch to call a change from Baptizo to Baptize a translational error.


I said it was an intentional transliteration instead of a translation. What does baptizo mean in the Greek? It had a specific meaning that meant to immerse in the water, not to sprinkle with water. It had this meaning (immersion) in the Greek consistently for hundreds of years before the coming of Christ. In fact, when Naaman "dipped" himself in the Jordan 7 times, the Septuagint translates that using the verb baptisto. So, did Naaman sprinkle himself seven times in the Jordan? The word in the Hebrew there is the same thing for what the priest does when he "dips" his finger in the blood so he can "sprinkle" it (and the word in the septuagint for what the priest does when he "dips" his finger is in the same word family as baptizo). You can choose to believe that baptizo doesn't mean to dip/submerge/immerse, but you are ignoring the OT as well as the NT and historical references in Greek language if you choose to do so. This is where they refused to translate in order not to offend, and by so doing they allowed the error that had entered the system to continue.

Sprinkling was introduced as an occasional occurrence when folks mistakenly believed that they needed to wait as late in their life as possible to be baptized because they thought baptism only cleansed them of past sins. It was introduced as the regular practice for hygienic reasons when infant baptism became the regular practice (just imagine dipping a baby with a dirty diaper into a pool of water, then re-using that pool...). This isn't me making this up, this is from a lecture a catholic priest gave us (I'm not a catholic) on the history of baptism practices when he was explaining why their church was adding a full fledged baptistry back in for adult baptisms to return to the original roots of the word.

The problem is that the word had a specific meaning in the first century - immerse. The catholic church changed their practices to include things other than immersion in the third and fourth and subsequent centuries, and because the average person did not know the Word (and in many cases the average priest did not either), these changes went unchallenged. In the 15th century and following as the Scriptures became more widespread among the priesthood, practices were questioned and the reformation happened. In the 17th century when the KJV was translated, sprinkling was the widely accepted form of "baptism" and the translators didn't want to cause chaos (or face punishment) by translating it, so they simply transliterated it, giving the basic English lettering of the Greek word instead of translating it with its actual meaning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Searcy, Arkansas
LisaTX wrote:
Herod and his soldiers weren't Jewish.

I wouldn't mind someone saying they're a NASB only person if that's where their research led them. One of them obviously has to be God's preserved word. God doesn't expect us all to be Greek scholars, lol. He has used America to reach many nations, so it would only make sense that he gave us His word to do so. Even people in other countries recognize the difference between the KJV and other versions and they say they go to their Bible that was translated from KJV when they want to know what God really has to say.

And technically, the originals are in heaven. That would be Jesus. God is not bound or limited by language, nor does He favor a certain language.


The concept of one English translation must be God's preserved word is arrogant and ethnocentric. So, is there one preserved word in Chinese, Arabic, Hindi, etc.? The Word has not been readily available to all people throughout most of history, and I really wonder why folks believe that the KJV is "God's preserved word." What was "God's preserved word" in the year 120? What about n the year 1520? The simple fact is that the NT as we have it today is the word of God and we can have faith in that, but that particular collection of books was assembled well after they were written and there is not a single copy today that can be shown to be a COMPLETELY unaltered copy down through the years. This is NOT me saying I don't believe the Bible is true, this is me saying that many translations are good, but on a point of disagreement it is foolish to say "Go to this English version" or "Go to that English version." On a point of disagreement the only possible answer is to go to the versions as close to the originals as we can find (which are in Greek) and see what they say.

As for Herod and his soldiers not being Jewish as the reason for that being Easter instead of Passover, Herod was indeed Jewish and even if he wasn't, the only festival they celebrated in the first century at that time was Passover. There is no indication that Easter was celebrated that early.

Why is everybody ignoring the blatant mistranslation of "God Forbid!" the the KJV uses over and over? You are saying "it might have been Easter" and someone else says "Well, baptize=baptizo" (actually quoting me). Can any of you think of a reason that the KJV translators so badly missed all the passages where they say "God forbid!"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 3:05 pm
Posts: 3524
Location: Central TX
I've already answered your first few sentences. I see now that you are offended and a little hostile towards the idea of KJV only, so I'll stop here. You're free to read whichever version you want and feel however you want about the KJV. I'll continue trusting God and what I believe to be His word. I don't feel the need to pull it apart and question it, as I believe that is arrogant and foolish. So I guess we'll have to disagree and leave it at that.

_________________
Mom to Christian (13), Saphira (10), Xavier (5), and Adrian (2).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm
Posts: 8115
It is seeming to me that this whole discussion is headed toward being an argument. We don't have to all agree on everything. I think we need to back off a step or two.

My point about Baptism/Baptizo was that Baptize is the English word for the *Sacrament* of Baptism, and I suspect it was long before the KJV was translated. It would make no sense to translate it with a word that meant "take a bath" or "go for a swim."

In any case, in our Church we immerse. And, we use the word "Baptize" (or Vaptizo, if we're speaking Greek). I don't see where the word Baptism means "sprinkle" even though some Churches (including my childhood Church) do have that practice.

I am not KJV only, or any other translation only, but I agree with some of Lisa's points - that some of this questioning of translations can sometimes be an attack on Scriptures.

I am aware of some of the flaws of the KJV translators (even some that aren't mentioned here) but I don't think that means that those who read it don't have a "good Bible"

Lets back off a little and breathe . . . . : )

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Searcy, Arkansas
Anna1111 wrote:
I am not KJV only, or any other translation only, but I agree with some of Lisa's points - that some of this questioning of translations can sometimes be an attack on Scriptures.

I am aware of some of the flaws of the KJV translators (even some that aren't mentioned here) but I don't think that means that those who read it don't have a "good Bible"

Lets back off a little and breathe . . . . : )

Please re-read what I have said. I've never said the KJV is a bad translation. I've actually said that it's pretty good but that it's not perfect and it's not the only valid translation.
"Make no mistake, the KJV is a better translation than many, but it is provably NOT 100% accurate" - me, 5:43 p.m. yesterday
"As I said before, the KJV is a decent translation, but it's clearly not perfect." - me, 9:02 p.m. yesterday

The problem is that "KJV only" people don't want there to be any flaws, because flaws would undermine the claim that the KJV is the perfect Word of God. I believe the perfect Word of God exists, but there are several points indicating that it is not the KJV. Even though I have repeatedly said the KJV is a pretty good translation (and specifically pointed out that there are TERRIBLE translations like the NIV), I am being accused of "attacking" the KJV or the Scriptures. I am doing no such thing. I am listing specific points that are problematic with the KJV only AFTER it was stated "I believe that God used the KJV translators to give us His word in the English language". If someone states something that we know to be in error, are we not to correct them?

I applaud the decision to only use the Textus Receptus as authority. I think there is value in the Majority Text myself, but that's one that each individual must decide - which set of Greek manuscripts hold more value. On the other hand, for an individual to say that they believe in the Textus Receptus as authoritative and then complain when someone points out things in the KJV where they clearly and provably mistranslated the Textus Receptus is bordering on silly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm
Posts: 8115
I don't think this is the venue for this type of discussion.

I never said, or even meant to imply that *you* were attacking Scriptures. I said I *agreed* with Lisa that sometimes this type of argument *can* be that. My apologies if I was not clear enough. It never crossed my mind that you personally were attacking Scriptures, and I certainly didn't mean to convey that thought.

Personally, all *academic* arguments aside, I think if a devout Christian chose to follow the KJV only or the NIV only for their sole copy of Scriptures, and never look at another translation or another language, they would be Spiritually unharmed by that decision.

Calling someone's argument "bordering on silly" is problematic. Calling the NIV a "terrible" translation when devout Christians put their lives' work into it is also troubling. Some of your wording is looking like ad hominem attacks.

Please, let us either tone down or discontinue this thread. What started out as an amicable conversation about translation is turning into something else.

_________________
http://stuffedveggies.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Job 3:8
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 5:05 pm
Posts: 177
Location: Searcy, Arkansas
Anna1111 wrote:
Calling someone's argument "bordering on silly" is problematic. Calling the NIV a "terrible" translation when devout Christians put their lives' work into it is also troubling. Some of your wording is looking like ad hominem attacks.

No, an ad hominem attack is saying someone is silly for making a statement. Attacking the argument itself is by definition not ad hominem. Calling the NIV a terrible translation is no more ad hominem than saying that homosexuality is a terrible sin. Judging an action and its results is not necessarily indicative of judging the person who took the action. I did not say that the translators were bad, corrupt, stupid, greedy, or anything else. I said that the result of their work was bad. See the difference? I can put lots of effort into something and have the result be bad, and have done so on several occasions. Acknowledging this fact does not mean I am saying I am bad, and if you point it out it doesn't mean you're saying I am bad. The NIV is a terrible translation. I make no comment on why it ended up being that way, but the fact remains that it is full of problems. This is not an attack on the translators. The statement that the Textus Receptus is authoritative followed by the statement that the KJV is authoritative is a bad/silly/misinformed position. That is not a judgment on the person making such a statement, regardless of whether they choose to take it as such.

In hindsight, I can see how the statement that the "bordering on silly" could have been interpreted as being targeted at the person, but there is a reason I specifically addressed that to the position.

Anna1111 wrote:
Please, let us either tone down or discontinue this thread. What started out as an amicable conversation about translation is turning into something else.

This started out as a question about the use of the word "mourning" versus "leviathan." The answer is that the text plainly says "leviathan" and any discussion for why any other text says anything else requires us to point out that some translations are clearly flawed.

I think that this thread had clearly run its course. I apologize to anyone who felt I was attacking them, I was not. I will not, however, refrain from pointing out flaws in Scriptural beliefs/positions espoused by people and I welcome anyone to do the same with me. That is not an attack on the person holding the belief. It is the nature of civilized discourse for people to disagree and to point out problems with the position held by the other side. It becomes an ad hominem attack when the statement is directed at the person rather than their stated position or belief.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Theme designed by stylerbb.net © 2008
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]