# AV Theology Compared to Modern Versions



## CDM (Feb 23, 2007)

[ducks]

In light of the two or three current threads on the TR/AV/KJV I thought it may be beneficial to have a sort of repository where we can line by line, verse by verse compare the KJV and modern translations in regard to theology not mss. Hopefully, we will see if it be true or not that their is a difference in theology between the KJV and modern translations due to their respective renderings of said passages.

I'll post the first example (Rev. Winzer brought this one up previously):



> *Gen. 4:7*
> 
> [KJV]
> If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
> ...



Are the differences in translations affecting the theological teaching or not? Is the NIV arminian?

I hope many will contribute, especially AV proponents, as this will prove beneficial for all.

[unsheathes sword, lifts shield]


----------



## CDM (Feb 23, 2007)




----------



## Herald (Feb 23, 2007)

With all due respect, I don't consider the NIV a translation worthy of consideration. I suggest comparing the best of both camps. The KJV or AV vs. the NASB or ESV. These are the "heavy weights" of their respective leagues.


----------



## CDM (Feb 23, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> With all due respect, I don't consider the NIV a translation worthy of consideration. I suggest comparing the best of both camps. The KJV or AV vs. the NASB or ESV. These are the "heavy weights" of their respective leagues.



Good idea. Please do.


----------



## CDM (Feb 23, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> With all due respect, I don't consider the NIV a translation worthy of consideration. I suggest comparing the best of both camps. The KJV or AV vs. the NASB or ESV. These are the "heavy weights" of their respective leagues.



BTW, I used the NIV in my example because it is one of the most popular modern translations. It's nothing but a rag to me but its popular nonetheless.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

Perhaps the header should be AV theology compared to modern versions. On the texts underlying the translations, the difference is generally in the Deity of Christ.

There are some words which have become theologically standard as a result of the AV, which are needlessly changed in various modern versions. E.g., Eph. 1:5, "good pleasure of his will," thankfully retained in the NKJV, becomes "the kind intention of His will" in the NASB, "his pleasure and will" in the NIV, and "the purpose of his will" in the ESV. The NASB is obviously the worst offender, removing the strong volitional idea that is inherent in the AV.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

Heb. 2:16 is one verse which has been uniformly rendered by all ancient and reformation versions, but which has been altered by all modern versions. See P. E. Hughes' commentary in loc. for further information. AV reads, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." NKJV, "For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham." NASB, "For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham." NIV, "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants." ESV, "For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham."

The passage says nothing of Christ "helping," but speaks of His actual saving of His brethren by partaking of their nature and doing what they were unable to do for themselves.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

A further weakening of the AV's strong predestinarian language may be seen in the uniform change which modern versions have made to Acts 13:48. AV, "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, "all change "ordained" to "appointed." The word "ordain" means "to order by virtue of superior authority; decree," and correctly represents the original. The meaning of "appoint" is "to create and charge with a task or function."

I hope to provide some more examples later, DV.


----------



## CDM (Feb 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Heb. 2:16 is one verse which has been uniformly rendered by all ancient and reformation versions, but which has been altered by all modern versions. See P. E. Hughes' commentary in loc. for further information. AV reads, "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." NKJV, "For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham." NASB, "For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham." NIV, "For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants." ESV, "For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham."
> 
> The passage says nothing of Christ "helping," but speaks of His actual saving of His brethren by partaking of their nature and doing what they were unable to do for themselves.



 Thank you...

I think.


----------



## CDM (Feb 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> A further weakening of the AV's strong predestinarian language may be seen in the uniform change which modern versions have made to Acts 13:48. AV, "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, "all change "ordained" to "appointed." The word "ordain" means "to order by virtue of superior authority; decree," and correctly represents the original. The meaning of "appoint" is "to create and charge with a task or function."
> 
> I hope to provide some more examples later, DV.



 

I think it would do well if we had some CT guys comment on the good Rev.'s views. 



armourbearer said:


> Perhaps the header should be *AV theology compared to modern versions*.



You're right. I can't change the header, Rich?


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

We may note the well known statement of the apostle Paul in Rom. 9:16, which is intended to show that man's will and work contribute nothing to salvation. The AV strictly renders the original, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Thankfully this is retained by the NKJV, but it is altered in NASB to "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." NIV, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." ESV, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." The inclusion of the word "depend" diminishes the absolute negative of the text, and leaves the door open for human will, desire, exertion or effort to be contributive in some measure to one's salvation.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

It is also worthwhile to take note of slight differences of wording, which show a change of emphasis. In Rom. 9:21, the AV reads, "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" The NKJV retains the same sense. The NASB inserts the word "use," which restricts the claim of sovereignty to purposes of utility. "Dishonour" becomes "common," and so neutralises the negative impact of reprobation: "Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?" The NIV goes one step further, and by a slight change in syntax diminishes the power or right of the potter over the clay: "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" In other words, the power the potter has over the clay is confined to His making them for different uses, whereas the passage should be understood as teaching that the potter has an absolute right over the clay, and in the exercise of that right He may make of them what He pleases. The ESV retains the idea of "use," reverts back to the word "dishonour," but then corrupts the idea of absolute right in a deceptive rendering of the negative: "Has the potter no right over the clay?" So that the sense is, He has some right over what He has made.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

In ver. 22 of the same chapter the NASB must be found guilty of deliberate alteration of the sense of the original. The AV reads, "What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." NKJV, NIV, and ESV all retain the same sense more or less, only weakening "willing" to "wanting," "desiring," and "choosing," the latter of these three words being the only one which retains the idea of positive volition. The NASB, however, reads as follows: "What if God, *although* willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" This rendering suggests that God has engaged in the activity of longsuffering contrary to the specific purpose of demonstrating His wrath. What a difference the alteration or addition of one word can make!


----------



## ADKing (Feb 23, 2007)

In preaching on Hebrews 11:1 a couple of weeks back I noticed an interesting trend. The AV reads: 

"Now faith is the *substance* of things hoped for, the *evidence* of things not seen." Notice how faith is defined objectively by this rendering. This rendering is also supported by many commentaries and BAGD lexicon as well. 

Now see how most of the popular modern translations treat this verse (the NKJV retains the same language as the AV).

NASB/ESV: "Now faith is the *assurance* of things hoped for, the *conviction* of things not seen."

NIV: "Now faith is *being sure *of what we hope for and *certain* of what we do not see."

It is interesting that all these modern versions focus on the subjective aspect of faith. Now of course, faith does have this subjective aspect. Nevertheless, the _point_ of Hebrews 11 is not about subjective assurance and conviction. The overarching point is that by faith we objectively lay hold of that same reality which the OT fathers laid hold of and thus we, like they are enabled to perservere. Faith in Hebrews is more than assurance; it reaches outside of itself to the objective, eternal, heavenly, unseen realities.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

In Rom. 5:12-21, the locus classicus for the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, there are a few slight variations which do not materially affect the passage, but which accumulate with the help of one notable alteration to provide a completely different sense than that which the passage conveys. The notable alteration comes in ver. 15, which the AV renders, "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift." This brings out what exegetes call an antithetical parallelism. Adam is a figure of Christ to come in that the action of the one has consequences on the many. But the relative actions and their consequences are opposite. Now this antithetical parallelism is lost in translation in modern versions. NKJV, "But the free gift is not like the offense." NASB, "But the free gift is not like the transgression." NIV, "But the gift is not like the trespass." ESV, "But the free gift is not like the trespass." In all that follows the idea of Adam as a figure of Christ to come is obscured by the absolute negative that what Christ has done is not like what Adam has done; whereas the AV renders the original faithfully, even in terms of its awkwardness, and brings out the antithetical parallelism which is integral to the reformed doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity and of Christ's righteousness to the many He represented. This obscurity is deepened when some of the modern versions insert the words "result" or "brought," whereas the original and the AV place the action and its consequence in the nearest possible conjunction.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

There are some places where modern versions interpret a passage which could be taken in either of two senses. One example is 1 Pet. 1:2, which the AV renders, "unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." Matthew Poole's annotations note that this could have reference to either (1.) the obedience of Christ to God, or (2.) the obedience of believers to Christ. The NKJV translates Gk. "eis" (unto) as "for" and slightly skews the original, whereas NASB, NIV, and ESV all interpret the original in favour of the second meaning, that of the believer's obedience to Christ: NASB, "to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood;" NIV, "for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood;" ESV, "for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood." This interpretative bias hides the fact that the Greek could be taken one of two ways, and at least from this interpreter's point of view they rule out what is the natural understanding of the passage, since it is clear that the aposltle is referring to the objective work of the Trinity in the salvation of the elect, and hence the obedience of Christ is more than likely the apostle's meaning.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> A further weakening of the AV's strong predestinarian language may be seen in the uniform change which modern versions have made to Acts 13:48. AV, "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, "all change "ordained" to "appointed." The word "ordain" means "to order by virtue of superior authority; decree," and correctly represents the original. The meaning of "appoint" is "to create and charge with a task or function."
> 
> I hope to provide some more examples later, DV.



Brother, since you are not really going to the center of the issue but rather attacking the "english" words used by the translators, I wanted to pick this and really tell you what infact the NASB used that is the same as the AV in this word "appoint" or "ordain.

The greek word used there is Tasso, which means:

1) to put in order, to station

a) to place in a certain order, to arrange, to assign a place, to appoint

1) to assign (appoint) a thing to one

b) to appoint, ordain, order


There are other passages in scripture that use the same greek word, which are: (Please note, the look at the words with the number 5021, and also notice this is the KJV. ) 

Mat 28:16 Then 1161 the eleven 1733 disciples 3101 went away 4198 into 1519 Galilee 1056, into 1519 a mountain 3735 where 3757 Jesus 2424 had appointed 5021 them 846. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 7:8 For 1063 I 1473 also 2532 am 1510 a man 444 set 5021 under 5259 authority 1849, having 2192 under 5259 me 1683 soldiers 4757, and 2532 I say 3004 unto one 5129, Go 4198 , and 2532 he goeth 4198 ; and 2532 to another 243, Come 2064 , and 2532 he cometh 2064 ; and 2532 to my 3450 servant 1401, Do 4160 this 5124, and 2532 he doeth 4160 [it]. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 13:48 And 1161 when the Gentiles 1484 heard this 191 , they were glad 5463 , and 2532 glorified 1392 the word 3056 of the Lord 2962: and 2532 as many as 3745 were 2258 ordained 5021 to 1519 eternal 166 life 2222 believed 4100 . 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 15:2 When therefore 3767 Paul 3972 and 2532 Barnabas 921 had 1096 no 3756 small 3641 dissension 4714 and 2532 disputation 4803 with 4314 them 846, they determined 5021 that Paul 3972 and 2532 Barnabas 921, and 2532 certain 5100 other 243 of 1537 them 846, should go up 305 to 1519 Jerusalem 2419 unto 4314 the apostles 652 and 2532 elders 4245 about 4012 this 5127 question 2213. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 22:10 And 1161 I said 2036 , What 5101 shall I do 4160 , Lord 2962? And 1161 the Lord 2962 said 2036 unto 4314 me 3165, Arise 450 , and go 4198 into 1519 Damascus 1154; and there 2546 it shall be told 2980 thee 4671 of 4012 all things 3956 which 3739 are appointed 5021 for thee 4671 to do 4160 . 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 28:23 And 1161 when they had appointed 5021 him 846 a day 2250, there came 2240 many 4119 to 4314 him 846 into 1519 [his] lodging 3578; to whom 3739 he expounded 1620 and testified 1263 the kingdom 932 of God 2316, 5037 persuading 3982 them 846 concerning 4012 Jesus 2424, both 5037 out of 575 the law 3551 of Moses 3475, and 2532 [out of] the prophets 4396, from 575 morning 4404 till 2193 evening 2073. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rom 13:1 Let every 3956 soul 5590 be subject 5293 unto the higher 5242 powers 1849. For 1063 there is 2076 no 3756 power 1849 but 1508 of 575 God 2316: 1161 the powers 1849 that be 5607 are 1526 ordained 5021 of 5259 God 2316. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Cr 16:15 1161 I beseech 3870 you 5209, brethren 80, (ye know 1492 the house 3614 of Stephanas 4734, that 3754 it is 2076 the firstfruits 536 of Achaia 882, and 2532 [that] they have addicted 5021 themselves 1438 to 1519 the ministry 1248 of the saints 40,) 


The point that I'm trying to get across is that it's really not much of the greek word, since the greek word used is the same in both the word "appoint" and "ordain". Your accusation is based more on the english translation. And when it comes down to that, it's really preference rather then heresy. This is why we should know the greek texts, like I've stressed in the other threads.

In Christ,
A.P.C


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> We may note the well known statement of the apostle Paul in Rom. 9:16, which is intended to show that man's will and work contribute nothing to salvation. The AV strictly renders the original, "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Thankfully this is retained by the NKJV, but it is altered in NASB to "So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." NIV, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." ESV, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." The inclusion of the word "depend" diminishes the absolute negative of the text, and leaves the door open for human will, desire, exertion or effort to be contributive in some measure to one's salvation.



Again, I do not have the other mss, therefor, to make an accusation without knowledge of the other mss, which I believe you have no knowledge of, then you cannot be taken seriously. If you want to argue this, you must bring in the greek texts AKA the orignal language. Accusing the english words gets us no where until we know the greek text.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> The point that I'm trying to get across is that it's really not much of the greek word, since the greek word used is the same in both the word "appoint" and "ordain". Your accusation is based more on the english translation. And when it comes down to that, it's really preference rather then heresy. This is why we should know the greek texts, like I've stressed in the other threads.



It is also necessary to learn semantic domains, which Strongs is not very useful for; it is something that can be picked up only by reading the Greek NT. If we pay attention to the different contexts in which the Gk. word is used, we shall find that the word "ordain" conveys the stronger decretal connotation of the word. Surely you can see the theological difference between an "appointment" to apostolic office, or to meet a person at a time and place, and the "ordination" of individuals to eternal life. Or perhaps not. It may be that the conflation of the two ideas in modern translations has given you a preference to always see the word in terms of "appointment" -- which would serve to substantiate my point.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Again, I do not have the other mss, therefor, to make an accusation without knowledge of the other mss, which I believe you have no knowledge of, then you cannot be taken seriously. If you want to argue this, you must bring in the greek texts AKA the orignal language. Accusing the english words gets us no where until we know the greek text.



Perhaps you should examine my knowledge before you sit in judgment. I know enough to know that there is no textual variant except a slight variation in eleountos. And if you peruse my first post in this thread you will discover that I am speaking of the differences IN TRANSLATION, and the way they affect the theological reading of the text. "Depends" is an addition. If you would be so kind as to consult the Greek before commenting you might be in a better position to add something meaningful to the thread.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 23, 2007)

Brother, first I want to say sorry for the attacks seeming to be more personal, and I do not mean them that way. I wanted to say sorry.

Here is something that i would have you read though:



> Volumes, instead of a few pages, might easily be written to illustrate the existing defects of the Authorized Version. From a few of the many existing compilations on this subject, some specimens will be drawn. Members of the Revision Committees have a special right to be heard on these points, and Professor Hare of this honored body gives the following illustrations:
> 
> "St. Paul says, in the Authorized Version (1 Cor. iv., 4), 'I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified.' This seems incongruous, because 'to know nothing by one's self' means 'to know nothing originally or independently.' In the older English, 'to know nothing by one's self' meant 'to know nothing lying at one's door,' and this is the only sense of which the Greek words in the passage which seems so incongruous are susceptible.
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

Friend, Your apology is very warmly accepted. I do not see how any of the "defects" mentioned by the article you provided have a bearing on the theology of the AV. It appears to be a case of pedantic nit-picking to me. Dean Burgon's Revision Revised answers some of them, if I remember correctly. If I hadn't packed that book away in a box for our impending move I could have double-checked, but as I can't refer to it I will provide some personal animadversions when time permits, DV. The Lord's day draws near, so it may be first thing Monday morning before I can attend to it. Blessings!


----------



## CDM (Feb 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> ...*And if you peruse my first post in this thread you will discover that I am speaking of the differences IN TRANSLATION, and the way they affect the theological reading of the text.*



Indeed, let's remember this point. I created this thread specifically excluding the incessant Greek battles and focusing it on the TRANSLATIONS affect on the theological reading of the text.

Maybe, there are many who have not gotten to this thread yet on the NASB/ESV camp so I am looking forward to their thoughts on Rev. Winzer's points.

Where is the smiley that greedily rubs his hands in expectation?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 23, 2007)

mangum said:


> Indeed, let's remember this point. I created this thread specifically excluding the incessant Greek battles and focusing it on the TRANSLATIONS affect on the theological reading of the text.
> 
> Maybe, there are many who have not gotten to this thread yet on the NASB/ESV camp so I am looking forward to their thoughts on Rev. Winzer's points.
> 
> Where is the smiley that greedily rubs his hands in expectation?



If you base your theology soley on the english translation, then that theology is a very limited one indeed. You must understand the greek text.


----------



## CDM (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> If you base your theology soley on the english translation, then that theology is a very limited one indeed. You must understand the greek text.



Yes, the minister of the Word should understand the original languages. The AV is translated from the Greek and Hebrew is it not?

Is it your position that all who are not acquainted with the original languages have a "very limited theology"? If so, what of the laymen? Are they condemned to a "very limited theology" their entire lives?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 23, 2007)

mangum said:


> Yes, the minister of the Word should understand the original languages. The AV is translated from the Greek and Hebrew is it not?
> 
> Is it your position that all who are not acquainted with the original languages have a "very limited theology"? If so, what of the laymen? Are they condemned to a "very limited theology" their entire lives?



Brother, I don't know what church you go to, but all the churches that I know of, that are sound in their theology (my SBC church is very weak in theology since they do not understand how to study the word) teach their laymen how to study the word, which includes interlinear bibles, lexicons, greek word dictionaries. So to answer your question, if they do not know how to study their bible, then yes. 

Studying passages and researching the greek words within those passages does not take a theologian.


----------



## MW (Feb 23, 2007)

I have had the privilege to be acquainted with a few ladies and gentlemen who knew not a word of Greek (excepting those words that are carried over into English), who would theologically outstrip the average seminary graduate. What was it B. B. Warfield said about Shorter Catechism boys growing to be men? Then I've known not a few who have learned just enough of the original languages to be dangerous to themselves and others. Like stepping into a car with a person who thinks they know how to drive because they can turn the steering wheel and push down on the accelerator, and that is all. If you require interlinears, lexicons, etc., and you admit that the people who write these tools are fallible men, then you are in much the same situation as a person who reads the English translation of the men who were equipped to write interlinears and lexicons. To restate a point I made in an earlier thread -- translations reflect the biblical and theological understanding of the men who make them. Translations differ because men approach the Scriptures with different beliefs. Which shows the absurdity of trusting to a translation (or lexicon, or interlinear, or any other Bible tool) made by men who are not of our profession. Blessings!


----------



## bookslover (Feb 23, 2007)

On the other hand, there are places where the AV, with its Elizabethan English, gets in the way of clarity. For example:

_The days of our yeres are *threescore yeeres and ten*, and if by reason of strength they be *fourescore yeeres*, yet is their strength labour and sorrow: for it is soone cut off, and we flie away_. (Psalm 90:10, AV)

_The years of our life are *seventy*, or even by reason of strength *eighty*; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away._ (Psalm 90:10, ESV)

The Hebrew in this verse simply has the numbers "seventy" and "eighty," so the AV had no manuscript warrant for using the English terms it used, which are relics of the English of its day. The AV translators were perfectly aware of the words "seventy" and "eighty". This is a minor example, I grant you, but it demonstrates how the AV's sometimes more-flowery-than-necessary language can obscure meaning.


----------



## MW (Feb 24, 2007)

Richard, besides the antiquated spelling, which is not to be found in modern reprints, there is nothing "relic" like in the portion you have quoted. I am sure you will see the phraseology quaintly used in modern literature. One thing is for certain, we sing it from our Psalters, and my children don't seem to have any problem grasping the meaning. I suspect what you are urging upon us is a Bible that can be understood by people who have limited vocabularies. My antidote for this is to give people something which by constant reading may give them a better acquaintance with the language they purport to communicate with. But this is getting off subject. Certainly there is nothing of a theological bias in the example provided.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Translations differ because men approach the Scriptures with different beliefs.



So, are you saying that all men who are of the faith, believe the same thing? Are you telling me that everyone on the AV committe had the same convictions?

For example, the NASB committe all believed in one thing: the bible must be translated literally. Whatever they believed beyond that point came from the scriptures. Quoting translations like the NIV or the Message are not good examples since those committees actually put their thoughts into the english texts, hence they are called "equivalent dynamics" or thought-for-thought.




armourbearer said:


> you admit that the people who write these tools are fallible men.



Not just the scholarly but also the men of the faith are also falliable, since all men are sinners.




armourbearer said:


> by men who are not of our profession.



I thought you would have said this.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Richard, besides the antiquated spelling, which is not to be found in modern reprints, there is nothing "relic" like in the portion you have quoted. I am sure you will see the phraseology quaintly used in modern literature. One thing is for certain, we sing it from our Psalters, and my children don't seem to have any problem grasping the meaning. I suspect what you are urging upon us is a Bible that can be understood by people who have limited vocabularies. My antidote for this is to give people something which by constant reading may give them a better acquaintance with the language they purport to communicate with. But this is getting off subject. Certainly there is nothing of a theological bias in the example provided.



Again, for example, do they know(since they do not look up the greek words; By the way, knowing the greek language and looking them up are to different things. One you go to school for, the other you use "tools") what the word "any" or "all" mean? Do they know what the word "whosoever" means in John 3:16? (Hint: it doen't mean "whosoever," it is actually very specific to whom Christ is refering to.... oops... wait... I just blasphemed the Holy King James Version.... I must repent...)


----------



## MW (Feb 24, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> So, are you saying that all men who are of the faith, believe the same thing? Are you telling me that everyone on the AV committe had the same convictions?



They were men of the reformed faith, subscribing to the 39 articles of the Church of England. Do you know of any other Bible translation committee who were committed to the reformed faith in this way?



Andrew P.C. said:


> For example, the NASB committe all believed in one thing: the bible must be translated literally. Whatever they believed beyond that point came from the scriptures. Quoting translations like the NIV or the Message are not good examples since those committees actually put their thoughts into the english texts, hence they are called "equivalent dynamics" or thought-for-thought.



The NASB committee has been shown to put their thoughts into the translation as well, as per the examples I provided above.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Not just the scholarly but also the men of the faith are also falliable, since all men are sinners.



See the Calvin commentary on Isa. 59:21, which I posted on the authority thread. It shows clearly the reformed view as to where we are to look for the deposit of God's Spirit and Word. I would not trust an infidel to rightly divide the word of truth for me.


----------



## MW (Feb 24, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Again, for example, do they know(since they do not look up the greek words; By the way, knowing the greek language and looking them up are to different things. One you go to school for, the other you use "tools") what the word "any" or "all" mean? Do they know what the word "whosoever" means in John 3:16? (Hint: it doen't mean "whosoever," it is actually very specific to whom Christ is refering to.... oops... wait... I just blasphemed the Holy King James Version.... I must repent...)



You mean, do they know the Hebrew words? since Richard quoted from the Old Testament, not the New.

Have you thought of studying the reformed view of these subjects, perhaps as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1, section 8? It is worth noting what it says about preservation, and examining carefully the texts of Scripture offered in proof. It is also good to see what it says about the value of a faithful translation, and to examine the Scripture texts appended. According to the reformed faith, a faithful translation mediately conveys the inspired and infallible Word to the reader, so that they are able to read it with reverence as the very Word of God.

And what on earth are you referring to in John 3:16? Everybody knows the adjective "pas" may be used individually as well as collectively.


----------



## MW (Feb 24, 2007)

Richard, I just googled "threescore and ten," and there are "scores" upon "scores" of articles which use the term -- especially used in natural history, and always understood to be indicative of an average lifespan.


----------



## bookslover (Feb 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Richard, besides the antiquated spelling, which is not to be found in modern reprints, there is nothing "relic" like in the portion you have quoted. I am sure you will see the phraseology quaintly used in modern literature. One thing is for certain, we sing it from our Psalters, and my children don't seem to have any problem grasping the meaning. I suspect what you are urging upon us is a Bible that can be understood by people who have limited vocabularies. My antidote for this is to give people something which by constant reading may give them a better acquaintance with the language they purport to communicate with. But this is getting off subject. Certainly there is nothing of a theological bias in the example provided.



The antiquated spelling appeared in my quotation of Psalm 90:10 (one of my favorite psalms, by the way) because the only KJV I own is the one Thomas Nelson published some years ago which is a replica of the original 1611 publication.

However, my point was that the Hebrew text (which is inspired by God) uses the terms "seventy" and "eighty," not words that should be translated "threescore and ten." Every literate person knows what "threescore and ten" means. But, it's still true that the KJV, in that place, gave what we would call a "dynamic equivalent" translation instead of using the literal words of the text. What disturbs me is that, since it's the KJV, you're willing to give it a pass (since apparently the KJV translators could do no wrong). But, if some other translator made the same move, you'd be up in arms about it.


----------



## MW (Feb 24, 2007)

bookslover said:


> However, my point was that the Hebrew text (which is inspired by God) uses the terms "seventy" and "eighty," not words that should be translated "threescore and ten." Every literate person knows what "threescore and ten" means. But, it's still true that the KJV, in that place, gave what we would call a "dynamic equivalent" translation instead of using the literal words of the text. What disturbs me is that, since it's the KJV, you're willing to give it a pass (since apparently the KJV translators could do no wrong). But, if some other translator made the same move, you'd be up in arms about it.



I think I have been fairly clear that I am "up in arms" over the sense of the original being tinkered with, and particularly when it results in a different theological slant being placed on the text. All translations are dynamic equivalent when it comes to style. I quite like the variation the AV uses with clothing in James 2. I remember reading A. B. Davidson's critical analysis of the R.V., and he mentioned one of the problems of the new translation was its rigidly wooden verbal structures. I am all for flair in language, as long as it conveys the correct meaning. Three score and ten conveys the correct meaning and does so with style!

May we return to the purpose of the thread now?


----------



## CDM (Feb 24, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> ...
> Studying passages and researching the greek words within those passages does not take a theologian.



Neither does it make one know the original languages. Thus, according to you, they will have a very "limited theology". Do you teach this to the laymen in your church? Or do you just keep it to yourself?



armourbearer said:


> I have had the privilege to be acquainted with a few ladies and gentlemen who knew not a word of Greek (excepting those words that are carried over into English), who would theologically outstrip the average seminary graduate. What was it B. B. Warfield said about Shorter Catechism boys growing to be men? Then I've known not a few who have learned just enough of the original languages to be dangerous to themselves and others. Like stepping into a car with a person who thinks they know how to drive because they can turn the steering wheel and push down on the accelerator, and that is all. If you require interlinears, lexicons, etc., and you admit that the people who write these tools are fallible men, then you are in much the same situation as a person who reads the English translation of the men who were equipped to write interlinears and lexicons. To restate a point I made in an earlier thread -- translations reflect the biblical and theological understanding of the men who make them. Translations differ because men approach the Scriptures with different beliefs. Which shows the absurdity of trusting to a translation (or lexicon, or interlinear, or any other Bible tool) made by men who are not of our profession. Blessings!



Exactly. There are many Greek scholars who are flaming heretics.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Again, for example, do they know(since they do not look up the greek words; By the way, knowing the greek language and looking them up are to different things. One you go to school for, the other you use "tools") what the word "any" or "all" mean? Do they know what the word "whosoever" means in John 3:16? (Hint: it doen't mean "whosoever," it is actually very specific to whom Christ is referring to.... oops... wait... I just blasphemed the Holy King James Version.... I must repent...)



See above. You should refrain from this kind of low-blow sarcasm - it only helps others already tired of these threads to stay away. Especially, in light of your not engaging with Rev. Winzer's points on the theology of the different translations. 



armourbearer said:


> May we return to the purpose of the thread now?


----------



## nicnap (Feb 24, 2007)

Andrew,

Because someone is merely able to search out the etymology of a word (as you have done using Strong's) doesn't mean that you have the full meaning of the words. As a prof. of mine says (Chris you'll appreciate this), "Use, not etymology, determines meaning." Brother, it sounds as if you yourself do not have a working knowledge of the greek...so does that mean your theology is limited? Would God not allow good theology to come from faithful and accurate translations of the Scriptures? It appears that you are more interested in "picking a bone" with the AV proponents than to actually deal in a scholarly way with the subject at hand. (This post does not convey my emotion or tone, but to assure you, I am stating this harshly, but in a matter of concern.)
-SDG-


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Feb 24, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I have had the privilege to be acquainted with a few ladies and gentlemen who knew not a word of Greek (excepting those words that are carried over into English)





armourbearer said:


> And what on earth are you referring to in John 3:16? *Everybody knows the adjective "pas"* may be used individually as well as collectively.



?



magnum said:


> Neither does it make one know the original languages.



If you havent read my previous posts, there is a difference between knowing them, and researching the original language. And for the one who commented earlier, as well, again, you can know what the passage is saying if you take the time to really study the Word.

I'm going to be leaving this thread though. 

Good luck! 

P.S. I do not hate the AV, brothers. I love the text, really I do. I'm thankful that I can come on these threads and have a hearty debate. Have a good debate brothers Chris and Winzer.


----------



## CDM (Feb 24, 2007)

nicnap said:


> Andrew,
> 
> Because someone is merely able to search out the etymology of a word (as you have done using Strong's) doesn't mean that you have the full meaning of the words. As a prof. of mine says (Chris you'll appreciate this), *"Use, not etymology, determines meaning."*
> ...
> ...



You hit the nail on the head, brother. Shame on the man that would teach the people (implicitly or explicitly) they can't trust their English bible.

Who agrees with this statement: The English translation (be it AV/ESV/NASB) is sufficient for the English speaking believer?

If yes, then what do you say to the theological differences that Rev. Winzer has been pointing out? To my mind, it is at least something deserving much consideration.

Here is the thread's topic: *AV Theology Compared to Modern Versions * 

Is there no NASB/ESV/NIV/XYZ fan, that can correct Rev. Winzer points or offer a different perspective?

The silence thus far has been deafening. I hope its just because they simply have better things to do.  

At last count, no one will interact with Rev. Winzer's several theological points. I don't know why but I thought this would be an easier thing to do compared to the other threads that rehash mss. arguments over and over.


----------



## KMK (Feb 24, 2007)

So far this is less like a debate and more like a smack-down. Where are all the ESV users? Isn't that the official Bible now of the some of the Presbyterian denoms? (Where do they get off calling it the 'standard' anyway?)  

Signed,

KJV lover Ken


----------



## etexas (Feb 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> So far this is less like a debate and more like a smack-down. Where are all the ESV users? Isn't that the official Bible now of the some of the Presbyterian denoms? (Where do they get off calling it the 'standard' anyway?)
> 
> Signed,
> 
> KJV lover Ken



   THE AV is still IT.


----------



## CDM (Feb 24, 2007)

KMK said:


> So far this is less like a debate and more like a smack-down. Where are all the ESV users? Isn't that the official Bible now of the some of the Presbyterian denoms? (Where do they get off calling it the 'standard' anyway?)
> 
> Signed,
> 
> KJV lover Ken


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 25, 2007)

Respectfully, the reason you don't generally see much counter to these sorts of threads is because most people who dogmatically support the KJV over against the other translations argue 'a priori' in favor of the KJV; that is, dialog over individual readings with people are meaningless if they hold the position that essentially says that "if it is in the KJV, it is correct". 

Having said that, I'd like to ask Armourbearer, just to find out where you are in the spectrum...could you point out 1 example in the KJV where the translation is wrong?

In answer to a few of the texts you selected…

In Ephesians 1:5, the ESV's rendering "according to the purpose of his will", is much stronger wording for the doctrine of election (which is the context) then the KJV's "according to the good pleasure of his will". Either translation is arguably correct in this context (eudokia).

In Hebrews 2:16 the ASV reads "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." The ESV reads, " For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham." Which is correct? Is the text specifically dealing with the nature which Christ took on in his incarnation or with who he came to help? 

The Greek word in question here is "epilambanomai". This word literally means to 'lay hold of with vigor' for a specific purpose (to help, to injure, to attain, etc.). The Youngs Literal Translation renders this verse, "or, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold". 

What we see here is that both the ESV and the KJV are interpreting the text (a dynamic equivalent in this case) for the reader. Personally, I would rather see both translations render this text more literally as the interpretation could arguably go in either direction. While both interpretations fit the context, I favor the interpretation as presented in the ESV, that here Christ is taking hold of the seed of Abraham in the 'help' sense. However, if it were up to me (thankfully it isn’t), I would rather see passages like this more literally translated. In either of the translations (KJV & ESV--along with just about all others), the reader has no idea that there is a difficulty in this verse that needs some thinking. 

I'll leave it to the reader to decide from himself the wisdom in employing comparisons of these two renderings to establish a superior translation of the English Bible. 

Moving on to Acts 13:48…a quibble was presented with the translation of 'tasso' as 'appointed' instead of 'ordained'. I would argue that 'appointed' is the superior translation in this place. While the word 'appoint' conveys the simpler meaning of being chosen or selected for something, the word 'ordain' can convey additional meaning (ordination to the specific office of elder for instance). I understand that either word can be used either way, but as Armourbearer previously stated, the English word 'ordain' typically conveys something more. For this reason, 'appointed' is, in my opinion, a better word choice for Acts 13:48. Conversely, in Titus 1:5, I think the KJV is better in this instance to use the word 'ordain' over the ESV's 'appoint' because here we are dealing with the ordination of elders. 

Out of time…gotta go.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 25, 2007)

My concern is not so much in the translation -- although there are significant differences -- but in the Greek text underneath which affects the meaning due to omissions and/or changes.

I have seen committed Calvinists stay true to doctrine using a variety of modern versions.

There is not much doubt in my mind that the Critical Text -- deriving from the Westcott/Hort Greek text -- weakens the testimony to the deity of Christ (to consider just one doctrine). Consider the remarks of the Unitarian Dr. Vance Smith concerning the deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. Dr. Smith later wrote,

The old reading [of 1 Tim 3:16] is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.* …It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.** (*_Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed_, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in _Revision Revised_, by Burgon, pages 515, 513. ** Ibid., page 45. Cited in Riplinger, page 432)

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, *no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.* [Emphasis added] (_Texts and Margins_, Smith, page 47. Cited in, _For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present_, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.)​
A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s _The Revision Revised_, wrote,

Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages. (_The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, _Life of Westcott_, Vol I, page 394.)​
_We_ orthodox and Reformed believers may say that theology is not affected in the modern versions, but the men who _made_ the Greek text underlying these versions had a diffent view of the matter -- and a distinct agenda as regards affecting the theology of the text.

Steve


----------



## etexas (Feb 25, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> My concern is not so much in the translation -- although there are significant differences -- but in the Greek text underneath which affects the meaning due to omissions and/or changes.
> 
> I have seen committed Calvinists stay true to doctrine using a variety of modern versions.
> 
> ...


Big Amen!


----------



## MW (Feb 25, 2007)

prespastor said:


> Having said that, I'd like to ask Armourbearer, just to find out where you are in the spectrum...could you point out 1 example in the KJV where the translation is wrong?



Why not ask a question which requires me to state where I am in the spectrum rather than create this meaningless test? If you are testing me to see if I am cynical as to the results of all human endeavour because of human fallibility, No, I am not. I have not seen any errors in the Westminster Confession of Faith and I cannot see any errors in the Authorised Version of the Bible. There may be places where the wording of both human productions might be more precisely constructed, but the sense conveys the truth, in my humble opinion.



prespastor said:


> In Ephesians 1:5, the ESV's rendering "according to the purpose of his will", is much stronger wording for the doctrine of election (which is the context) then the KJV's "according to the good pleasure of his will". Either translation is arguably correct in this context (eudokia).



Eudokia and prothesis are two different words conveying distinct ideas, as will be seen by comparing ver. 5 with ver. 11. "Good pleasure" shows that the spring of God's purpose is in God Himself. Matthew Henry: “Here is also the rule and fontal cause of God’s election: it is according to the good pleasure of His will (v. 5), not for the sake of anything in them foreseen, but because it was his sovereign will, and a thing highly pleasing to him." When reformed writers come to prove the unconditionality of God's purpose they generally do so by an appeal to the fact that God predestinates according to His good pleasure. The word "purpose" or "intention" falls short of conveying this idea satisfactorily.

The ESV translates prothesis in ver. 11 with the same word, "purpose," thereby obscuring the fact that two different ideas are conveyed in vv. 5, 11. Moreover, in Phil 2:13, it inconsistently retains "good pleasure."



prespastor said:


> The Greek word in question here is "epilambanomai". This word literally means to 'lay hold of with vigor' for a specific purpose (to help, to injure, to attain, etc.). The Youngs Literal Translation renders this verse, "or, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold".
> 
> What we see here is that both the ESV and the KJV are interpreting the text (a dynamic equivalent in this case) for the reader. Personally, I would rather see both translations render this text more literally as the interpretation could arguably go in either direction. While both interpretations fit the context, I favor the interpretation as presented in the ESV, that here Christ is taking hold of the seed of Abraham in the 'help' sense. However, if it were up to me (thankfully it isn’t), I would rather see passages like this more literally translated. In either of the translations (KJV & ESV--along with just about all others), the reader has no idea that there is a difficulty in this verse that needs some thinking.



See John Owen in loc.



> Some, then, take the meaning of this expression to be, that the Lord Christ,
> by his participation of flesh and blood, brought help and relief, not unto
> angels, but unto men, the seed of Abraham. And they suppose to this
> purpose, that ejpilamza>netai is put for jnalamza>netai, — “to help, to
> ...



The AV rendering represents the reformed understanding of the Greek of Heb. 2:16. All modern versions follow the Anabaptist and Socinian interpretation. It is not a matter of what the Greek word ordinarily means in and of itself, but what it signifies in the context of the passage, which clearly teaches what Christ has done for His brethren in assuming their nature.



prespastor said:


> Moving on to Acts 13:48…a quibble was presented with the translation of 'tasso' as 'appointed' instead of 'ordained'. I would argue that 'appointed' is the superior translation in this place. While the word 'appoint' conveys the simpler meaning of being chosen or selected for something, the word 'ordain' can convey additional meaning (ordination to the specific office of elder for instance). I understand that either word can be used either way, but as Armourbearer previously stated, the English word 'ordain' typically conveys something more. For this reason, 'appointed' is, in my opinion, a better word choice for Acts 13:48. Conversely, in Titus 1:5, I think the KJV is better in this instance to use the word 'ordain' over the ESV's 'appoint' because here we are dealing with the ordination of elders.



See my previous comments about semantic domains. Acts 15:2 provides a similar use of the word with a decretive connotation. We cannot allow the use of "ordain" with reference to office to dominate the meaning of the word when it is used with reference to destiny.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I have had the privilege to be acquainted with a few ladies and gentlemen who knew not a word of Greek (excepting those words that are carried over into English), who would theologically outstrip the average seminary graduate. What was it B. B. Warfield said about Shorter Catechism boys growing to be men? Then I've known not a few who have learned just enough of the original languages to be dangerous to themselves and others. Like stepping into a car with a person who thinks they know how to drive because they can turn the steering wheel and push down on the accelerator, and that is all. If you require interlinears, lexicons, etc., and you admit that the people who write these tools are fallible men, then you are in much the same situation as a person who reads the English translation of the men who were equipped to write interlinears and lexicons. To restate a point I made in an earlier thread -- translations reflect the biblical and theological understanding of the men who make them. Translations differ because men approach the Scriptures with different beliefs. Which shows the absurdity of trusting to a translation (or lexicon, or interlinear, or any other Bible tool) made by men who are not of our profession. Blessings!



To this I say . Let me state that, again, you raise some excellent points about problems in the way men have chosen to _translate_ manuscripts. I find myself more in agreement with you than disagreement on this issue. Not being a scholar in Greek myself, I'm increasingly skeptical about forming opinions on a text from a Church or a theologian I don't trust. I think we all need to be careful which engines we hitch ourselves to.

I do appreciate the mooring that you provide to trusting the Church over others. I'm still not sure about _manuscript_ choices per se and whether the Church can consentially decide to use a certain set for other languages but I do appreciate the weight of the idea that we ought not to be too cavalier about the fact that a bunch of tools exist to help us decide for ourselves what the Scriptures say apart from the testimony of the Church.

Blessings,

Rich


----------



## Ivan (Feb 25, 2007)

I find this thread very edifying. Keep it up!


----------



## bookslover (Feb 25, 2007)

KMK said:


> (Where do they get off calling it the 'standard' anyway?)



Using the term "standard" in the title of a Bible translation probably got started with the ASV (the American Standard Version) in 1901. This was picked up by the RSV (the Revised Standard Version) in 1952, by the NASB (the New American Standard Bible) in 1973, and then by the ESV (the English Standard Version) in 2001.

The ASV, in turn, was based on the ERV (the English Revised Version) of 1885, which, in its turn, was a revision of the KJV/AV of 1611. 

And the KJV/AV incorporates William Tyndale's translation of the New Testament as about 90% of its New Testament text.


----------



## MW (Feb 25, 2007)

The RV was not a revision of the AV, else it would have used the same originals, and would have retained about the same percentage of words as the AV borrowed from Tyndale. That percentage, it is worth noting, is usually calculated at 80%; and it is only the "words," not the whole text, that is considered. I regard such a high percentage as a benefit because it results in greater conformity between texts. This consistency would be true on a macro scale as well, if all of the vulgar reformation versions were taken into account (that is, with respect to sense).


----------



## bookslover (Feb 25, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The RV was not a revision of the AV, else it would have used the same originals, and would have retained about the same percentage of words as the AV borrowed from Tyndale. That percentage, it is worth noting, is usually calculated at 80%; and it is only the "words," not the whole text, that is considered. I regard such a high percentage as a benefit because it results in greater conformity between texts. This consistency would be true on a macro scale as well, if all of the vulgar reformation versions were taken into account (that is, with respect to sense).



If the RV was not a revision of the AV, then to what does the term "revised" in the RV refer to, if anything?


----------



## MW (Feb 25, 2007)

bookslover said:


> If the RV was not a revision of the AV, then to what does the term "revised" in the RV refer to, if anything?



Perhaps it can be understood as a hollow claim, the same as the RSV, which O. T. Allis dubbed a new translation.


----------



## etexas (Feb 25, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Perhaps it can be understood as a hollow claim, the same as the RSV, which O. T. Allis dubbed a new translation.


Yup!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 26, 2007)

If the RV was not a revision of the AV, then to what does the term "revised" in the RV refer to, if anything?​
It was not a revision of the AV, and not a revision of the AV's underlying Greek, for it went far beyond revising the Greek, to the point of actually _replacing_ it with a grossly inferior textform. It might more aptly have been called the SV -- Supplanting Version. If one looks at the Jehovah's Witnesses' Interlinear Gr/Eng NT, one can see they use the Greek text underlying the RV, which is the very Westcott and Hort Greek Text. And they prefer it with good reason.

Steve


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 26, 2007)

This is what I meant by many KJV defenders who argue 'a priori'. Since, in your view the KJV has no errors, it is futile to discuss textual and translational issues because there will always be some dogmatic reason the KJV is right and everything else is wrong...and ultimately, the reason is not truely the arguements given, but because the reading is in the KJV (the presupposition). 




armourbearer said:


> Why not ask a question which requires me to state where I am in the spectrum rather than create this meaningless test? If you are testing me to see if I am cynical as to the results of all human endeavour because of human fallibility, No, I am not. I have not seen any errors in the Westminster Confession of Faith and I cannot see any errors in the Authorised Version of the Bible. There may be places where the wording of both human productions might be more precisely constructed, but the sense conveys the truth, in my humble opinion.


----------



## CDM (Feb 26, 2007)

prespastor said:


> This is what I meant by many KJV defenders who argue 'a priori'. Since, in your view the KJV has no errors, *it is futile to discuss textual and translational issues because there will always be some dogmatic reason the KJV is right and everything else is wrong*...and ultimately, the reason is not truely the arguements given, but because the reading is in the KJV (the presupposition).



Either way you see it, comparing the AV and modern English translations in regard to their affects on theology is a massive help and a very enlightening endeavor. 

Your post #45 was the first in this thread that actually engaged the topic that Rev. Winzer has so brilliantly been hitting on.

I hope you continue. 

Maybe another modern translation proponent?



armourbearer said:


> Eudokia and prothesis are two different words conveying distinct ideas, as will be seen by comparing ver. 5 with ver. 11. "Good pleasure" shows that the spring of God's purpose is in God Himself. Matthew Henry: “Here is also the rule and fontal cause of God’s election: it is according to the good pleasure of His will (v. 5), not for the sake of anything in them foreseen, but because it was his sovereign will, and a thing highly pleasing to him." When reformed writers come to prove the unconditionality of God's purpose they generally do so by an appeal to the fact that God predestinates according to His good pleasure. The word "purpose" or "intention" falls short of conveying this idea satisfactorily.
> 
> The ESV translates prothesis in ver. 11 with the same word, "purpose," thereby obscuring the fact that two different ideas are conveyed in vv. 5, 11. Moreover, in Phil 2:13, it inconsistently retains "good pleasure."


----------



## MW (Feb 26, 2007)

prespastor said:


> This is what I meant by many KJV defenders who argue 'a priori'. Since, in your view the KJV has no errors, it is futile to discuss textual and translational issues because there will always be some dogmatic reason the KJV is right and everything else is wrong...and ultimately, the reason is not truely the arguements given, but because the reading is in the KJV (the presupposition).



Two problems I have with your criticism -- (a) that it starts a priori with the idea that man cannot do anything without falling into theological error, and (b) implies that I am siimply accepting the AV as being without error before I have studied the subject. Both are false.

I have seen men reject the Westminster Confession of Faith on the basis of the same criticism. Not because they can show that there is any error in it, but because they presuppose that there must be error in it somewhere merely because it is a production of fallible men. On that basis, we will always be learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. A pitiful condition to be in!


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 26, 2007)

Did I ever state any sort of a priori arguement that "man cannot do ANYTHING without falling into theological error"? My comments are rather very specific.

When we consider the length of breadth of the Scriptures and the complexities in some parts in regards to both manuscript issues and translational difficulties, apart from divine inspiration, Bible translations will inevitably contain errors. KJV and ESV included. This does not mean that they are not the Word of God, and I think that the KJV translators gave a brilliant defense of this concept in their letter to the reader.

When you say you have studied the subject (no errors in the KJV) and thus conclude there are no errors in the KJV, are you actually saying you are fluent in Greek and Hebrew and have painstakingly compared every verse in the KJV with the original tongues (for simplicity sake...I'll just ignore the issue of textual varients for the time being)?



armourbearer said:


> Two problems I have with your criticism -- (a) that it starts a priori with the idea that man cannot do anything without falling into theological error, and (b) implies that I am siimply accepting the AV as being without error before I have studied the subject. Both are false.
> 
> I have seen men reject the Westminster Confession of Faith on the basis of the same criticism. Not because they can show that there is any error in it, but because they presuppose that there must be error in it somewhere merely because it is a production of fallible men. On that basis, we will always be learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. A pitiful condition to be in!


----------



## MW (Feb 26, 2007)

prespastor said:


> Did I ever state any sort of a priori arguement that "man cannot do ANYTHING without falling into theological error"? My comments are rather very specific.



Since you felt free to announce what you regarded as the a priori of my position, I thought it would be acceptable for me to announce what I regard as the a priori of your position.



prespastor said:


> When we consider the length of breadth of the Scriptures and the complexities in some parts in regards to both manuscript issues and translational difficulties, apart from divine inspiration, Bible translations will inevitably contain errors. KJV and ESV included. This does not mean that they are not the Word of God, and I think that the KJV translators gave a brilliant defense of this concept in their letter to the reader.



What you are alluding to are technicalities. This shows that you are not recognising the parameters of the discussion. The concern is with the "sense" of the translation, and specifically with the "theological" reading of it. Reformed theologians teach that the translation conveys the inspiration and infallibility of the original when the sense of it is correctly translated. (See especially Turretin on the subject.) As a result the translation may be read with reverence as the very word of God. My contention is that modern versions alter the sense, the theological sense, of the original, as is evident by comparing them with our reformation versions. They alter the sense because they do not believe the reformed faith.



prespastor said:


> When you say you have studied the subject (no errors in the KJV) and thus conclude there are no errors in the KJV, are you actually saying you are fluent in Greek and Hebrew and have painstakingly compared every verse in the KJV with the original tongues (for simplicity sake...I'll just ignore the issue of textual varients for the time being)?



Modesty forbids me from making claims for myself, so perhaps we could get back to looking at the variations in translation, and then the results will speak for themselves. I expect every minister of the Word to faithfully exegete the originals in preparation for his sermons and Bible classes.


----------



## CDM (Feb 26, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Modesty forbids me from making claims for myself, *so perhaps we could get back to looking at the variations in translation, and then the results will speak for themselves.* I expect every minister of the Word to faithfully exegete the originals in preparation for his sermons and Bible classes.



 I've been asking this for a few posts now. Where are all the Modern Version guys?

Rev. Winzer, maybe you should ease up on em'?


----------



## CDM (Mar 21, 2007)

*Leviathan: food for the people or creatures?*

Compare in Psalm 77:14:

KJV
14Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.​
ESV
14You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.​
NASB
14You crushed the heads of Leviathan; You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.​
NLT
14 You crushed the heads of Leviathan and let the desert animals eat him.​

I know, this isn't a *big* deal in regard to theology but I came across it a few weeks back during private worship.


----------



## MW (Mar 21, 2007)

1 Cor. 1:18, AV, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, all change "are saved" to "being saved." The modern versions translate the present participle literally but incorrectly, ignoring the contrast between the lost and the saved as distinct present states. Hans Conzelmann notes, "the present participles ought not to have mysterious hints read into them to the effect that the present tense expresses the unfinished character of the road to soteria (salvation) and apoleia (destruction) respectively -- hoi sozomenoi means simply 'the saved.'"

There are hosts of places where modern versions follow the grammatical changes of the Revised Version, which was itself based upon the views of Professors Winer and Moulton. Remarkably the trend in Greek studies is to understand the tenses more as aspectual than as time references, which leads modern Greek exegesis to interpret tense structures in much the same way as the reformation translators of holy Scripture.


----------



## KMK (Mar 21, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> 1 Cor. 1:18, AV, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, all change "are saved" to "being saved." The modern versions translate the present participle literally but incorrectly, ignoring the contrast between the lost and the saved as distinct present states. Hans Conzelmann notes, "the present participles ought not to have mysterious hints read into them to the effect that the present tense expresses the unfinished character of the road to soteria (salvation) and apoleia (destruction) respectively -- hoi sozomenoi means simply 'the saved.'"



This would add fuel to the argument that one must try to live a holy life and someday hopefully he will be saved. (Am I on the right track?)  



armourbearer said:


> There are hosts of places where modern versions follow the grammatical changes of the Revised Version, which was itself based upon the views of Professors Winer and Moulton. Remarkably the trend in Greek studies is to understand the tenses more as aspectual than as time references, which leads modern Greek exegesis to interpret tense structures in much the same way as the reformation translators of holy Scripture.



Are you saying that Greek exegesis has come full circle?


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2007)

KMK said:


> This would add fuel to the argument that one must try to live a holy life and someday hopefully he will be saved. (Am I on the right track?)



All I would suggest is that the modern versions are opening the door to the idea of salvation as a process, whereas the apostle is clearly distinguishing two states which are the product of the preaching of the gospel.



KMK said:


> Are you saying that Greek exegesis has come full circle?



Yes and no. Yes, there seems to be more in common with the older approach so far as understanding tenses is concerned. No, because the newer approach is based on modern linguistics which would be more evolutionary so far as the way language develops.


----------



## KMK (Mar 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Yes and no. Yes, there seems to be more in common with the older approach so far as understanding tenses is concerned. *No, because the newer approach is based on modern linguistics which would be more evolutionary so far as the way language develops*.



How can a dead language like 'Attic' Greek evolve or develop? Or are you saying that modern translators are changing their *interpretation* of the Greek based on how 'modern' English changes? If so, I have to say that seems strange.


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2007)

KMK said:


> How can a dead language like 'Attic' Greek evolve or develop? Or are you saying that modern translators are changing their *interpretation* of the Greek based on how 'modern' English changes? If so, I have to say that seems strange.



I think it is more a case of understanding how the Greek functioned as a living language and looking to other cultures for hints. In the 19th century there was a strong belief in families of languages and Greek would have been analysed much the same way as Latin and the romance languages. The language is subsequently taught with a high dependence on structural grammar. Tense is understood as a time referent, and numerous exceptions are made within specific contexts. Today linguists would look at eastern cultures and see the way language functions without such structures.


----------



## KMK (Mar 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> I think it is more a case of understanding how the Greek functioned as a living language and looking to other cultures for hints. In the 19th century there was a strong belief in families of languages and Greek would have been analysed much the same way as Latin and the romance languages. The language is subsequently taught with a high dependence on structural grammar. Tense is understood as a time referent, and numerous exceptions are made within specific contexts. *Today linguists would look at eastern cultures and see the way language functions without such structures.*



By what authority do they make this shift? Maybe in 20 years they will be looking toward the germanic cultures for help.

I am suspicious that Bible translators are continually looking for reasons to retranslate the Bible just to keep their jobs.


----------



## CDM (Mar 22, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> 1 Cor. 1:18, AV, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." *NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, all change "are saved" to "being saved."* The modern versions translate the present participle literally but incorrectly, ignoring the contrast between the lost and the saved as distinct present states. Hans Conzelmann notes, "the present participles ought not to have mysterious hints read into them to the effect that the present tense expresses the unfinished character of the road to soteria (salvation) and apoleia (destruction) respectively -- hoi sozomenoi means simply 'the saved.'"
> 
> There are hosts of places where modern versions follow the grammatical changes of the Revised Version, which was itself based upon the views of Professors Winer and Moulton. Remarkably the trend in Greek studies is to understand the tenses more as aspectual than as time references, which leads modern Greek exegesis to interpret tense structures in much the same way as the reformation translators of holy Scripture.



"Being saved" is RC doctrine. "Are saved" is Bible doctrine. Thus, the reformation doctrine. 

Another excellent point, Rev. Winzer.

I would very much like to hear the reasons and/or defense from CT advocates about this one in particular. I wonder if it's like the often used, "Well, we can understand the doctrine of XYZ from other places in scripture".



KMK said:


> By what authority do they make this shift? Maybe in 20 years they will be looking toward the germanic cultures for help.
> 
> I am suspicious that Bible translators are continually looking for reasons to retranslate the Bible just to keep their jobs.


----------



## satz (Mar 22, 2007)

I am a KJV person myself, but I do not think the phrase 'being saved' is in itself unbiblical.

The bible uses the word 'saved' and other words in all sorts of senses and we need to rightly divide it to see which sense it is referring to in a particular verse.

There are senses of salvation that are currently ongoing or in the future even for regenerate christians. 



> 1 Timothy 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
> 
> Romans 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.


----------



## Davidius (Mar 22, 2007)

Is it wrong to say that salvation is a process? It is Roman Catholic to say that _justification_ is a process, but salvation and justification are not synonyms. I always thought that salvation included all the steps of the _ordo salutis _ and was not complete until glorification. The very term _ordo salutis_ implies that salvation is a process involving certain steps, of which not all have come to completion.


----------



## KMK (Mar 22, 2007)

Let me point out that the confusion that we see on this thread at this point is due to the newer translations using the phrase 'being saved'. There would be no confusion if left as it was. And what reason was there to change it?


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2007)

There is nothing amiss in affirming that savation is a process, but only when salvation is viewed as a complex event, taking in the elements of sanctification and glorification. In 1 Cor. 1 the apostle is speaking of salvation in its initial stages, as a product of the gospel proclamation. This is confirmed by the fact that he proceeds to speak of the Corinthians' calling as a past event. There are two distinct classes of people as a result of the preaching of the gospel -- the lost and the saved. Modern translations obscure the point the apostle is making, viz. that there is a class of people who "are saved" as a result of the preaching of the gospel, and to whom the gospel is the wisdom and power of God. See 2 Cor. 2:15 for a similar alteration.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 22, 2007)

Acts 7:38
KJV 
"This is he, that was in the *church* in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" 

ESV (and otherm moderns, including NKJV)
"This is the one who was in the *congregation* in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us."


This text is from the Stephen's sermon. There is no Greek variant here. It's the same greek word "ecclesia" in both greek texts. But it's translated differently and both are technically legitimate. For those of us holding covenant theology, there's no problem with translating this as "church" in the wilderness. But for dispensationalists, this text could be a major problem. It would be hard for them to agree with the KJV because that would destroy their whole theology. The "church" for them didn't start until the NT. So was this the bias behind the change in the modern translations? It's translated "church" everywhere else in the modern versions of the NT.


----------



## MW (Mar 22, 2007)

Well noted, Patrick. Luther and Tyndale opted for gemeinde and congregation rather than kirche and church as a translation of ekklesia. Tyndale was criticised for this, and it was emended in English translations prior to the AV. The AV translators were advised to retain ecclesiastical words in translation -- one of its strengths when understood correctly.


----------



## KMK (Mar 23, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Well noted, Patrick. Luther and Tyndale opted for gemeinde and congregation rather than kirche and church as a translation of ekklesia. Tyndale was criticised for this, and it was emended in English translations prior to the AV. *The AV translators were advised to retain ecclesiastical words in translation* -- one of its strengths when understood correctly.



If I remember right from a post by Andrew recently that that was one of the rules given to the KJV translators from the very beginning.


----------



## CDM (Mar 23, 2007)

KMK said:


> If I remember right from a post by Andrew recently that that was one of the rules given to the KJV translators from the very beginning.



Where is that post? 



Puritan Sailor said:


> Acts 7:38
> KJV
> "This is he, that was in the *church* in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:"
> 
> ...



Very interesting.  

But your typical KJVO IFB has to be aware of this. I wonder what they say? Anyone know?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 23, 2007)

mangum said:


> Where is that post?



See this thread (third rule).


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2007)

Galatians 1:6.

The middle verb "metatithesthe" may be taken in an active or passive sense, so there is no grammatical necessity to understand it one way or the other. The translator must make a theological decision. The AV understands the verb to be speaking passively, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." The emphasis is not on the Galatians departing, but on the fact that they are being removed by following the teachings of others. Perkins comments (commentary in loc.), "he frames his reproof with great wariness and circumspection; for he saith not, Ye of yourselves do remove to another gospel, but ye are removed: and thus he blames them but in part, and lays the principal blame on others." Poole's commentary observes, "The term _removed_, also, mollifies the reproof, the apostle thereby rather charging their apostasy upon their seducers, than upon them who were seduced."

The passive rendering provides a unique insight into the nature of the letter being written to the Galatians: it does not condemn the Galatians as ones who have already apostatised, but as ones who are still in a process of deception as a result of heeding false teachers. This insight is confirmed in chap. 5:10, where the apostle says, "I have confidence in you through the Lord that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be." It is the false teachers who are being exposed in the epistle to the Galatians, whilst the Galatians themselves are being warned from following the false teachers in order to preserve them from final apostasy. One should not miss the connection with the earlier statement in 1:6, which laid the emphasis upon the removal as being "from him that called you." This thought is reiterated in 5:8, "This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you." It is because of Who has called the Galatians into the grace of Christ that the apostle has confidence "through the Lord" that they will not finally depart from the gospel which he has preached to them.

Now it should be noticed that the modern versions translate the middle as an active verb, not because it is grammatically required, but because of their theological understanding which perceives the apostle to be laying the blame squarely upon the Galatians themselves rather than upon the false teachers. The NKJV and NASB commit the error once, only indicating that the Galatians are turning away from the effectual call of the grace of Christ. NKJV, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel." NASB, "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel." The NIV and ESV commit the error twice, adding the words "turning to" in the last clause of the verse. NIV, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel." ESV, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel."

Given the influential nature of Gal. 1:6, 7, for the theological understanding of the epistle, the decision by modern versions to render "metatithesthe" actively, and to interpret Paul as laying the weight of blame upon the Galatians themselves, must be regarded as irresponsible at the least.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 29, 2007)

You know this argument can go in the opposite direction.

Take for example [sarcasm] the deliberate attempts to obscure the Deity of Christ in the AV:

Romans 9:5
5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. - AV

5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.- NIV

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. - ESV


Titus 2:13

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; - AV

while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, - NIV

waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, - ESV

I conclude from this and dozens of other verses, that the translators were obviously Christ-haters and corrupted the translation - after all, groups like the JW's, Mormons and others were founded using AV bibles, whereas no other cult has been founded using a modern translation[/sarcasm]

Just a speedbump in the road of an already moving thread.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 29, 2007)

Joel,

You completely miss the real point. The texts you quoted are in the KJV. What more do you need to know? What's good for the goose is only good for the goose...throw the gander out!

 



BlackCalvinist said:


> You know this argument can go in the opposite direction.
> 
> Take for example [sarcasm] the deliberate attempts to obscure the Deity of Christ in the AV:
> 
> ...


----------



## Tallen (Mar 29, 2007)

mangum said:


> Are the differences in translations affecting the theological teaching or not?


 
I think it is the theology that effects the translation to begin with.

For instance, I think it can demonstrated that the theology of a person will reflect upon:

1) What texts are chosen in order to base the theology upon.
2) Whether or not divine providence is a factor in deciding what text will be chosen.
3) When translating what theology are the translators being influenced by.
4) What demographic is the translation is being aim at, and what is the purpose of reaching that particular group.
5) Who is translating.

And I can think of many other points that will determine the outcome of a translation and how this reflects a theology behind it. So yes, different translations effect the theology of the translation, because different theologies determine the translation to begin with.


----------



## KMK (Mar 29, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Galatians 1:6.
> 
> The middle verb "metatithesthe" may be taken in an active or passive sense, so there is no grammatical necessity to understand it one way or the other. The translator must make a theological decision. The AV understands the verb to be speaking passively, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." The emphasis is not on the Galatians departing, but on the fact that they are being removed by following the teachings of others. Perkins comments (commentary in loc.), "he frames his reproof with great wariness and circumspection; for he saith not, Ye of yourselves do remove to another gospel, but ye are removed: and thus he blames them but in part, and lays the principal blame on others." Poole's commentary observes, "The term _removed_, also, mollifies the reproof, the apostle thereby rather charging their apostasy upon their seducers, than upon them who were seduced."
> 
> ...



I am putting this post into a special notebook. I am going to begin work on Rev Winzer's Unauthorized Commentary of the Whole Bible. Keep 'em coming!


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> You know this argument can go in the opposite direction.
> 
> Take for example [sarcasm] the deliberate attempts to obscure the Deity of Christ in the AV:
> 
> ...



First, the AV follows the syntax of the original and thereby conveys two thoughts about Christ whereas modern versions conflate them into one thought. Second, the Deity of Christ is brought out equally by saying He is "God over all" or "over all God." Observe the sagacious comment of John Murray (commentary in loc.): "The next *two* clauses are to be taken as referring to Christ and defining what he is in his divine identity as Lord of all *and* God blessed for ever."




BlackCalvinist said:


> Titus 2:13
> 
> Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; - AV
> 
> ...



Again, the AV has followed the syntax of the original and contains two distinct ideas concerning Christ. Anyone with a proper understanding of both Greek and English grammar knows that a possessive pronoun attached to the second of two nouns does not indicate two persons. A British citizen might say, we eagerly await the arrival of the great queen and our Majesty, Elizabeth II.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 29, 2007)

Anyone else hear a stretching sound?  

Seriously, BlackCalvinist is correct, the diety of Christ is clearer in the NIV and the ESV in the passages cited. It is just silly to argue with that but I guess since the arguement aids the KJV one has to run with it.

I'm not arguing what the best translation here is, but when the same sorts of arguements are used as Armourbearer used here in defense of a rendering in a modern translation that differs from the KJV, the translators are vilified as liberals.

I come back to the problem of consistency.



armourbearer said:


> First, the AV follows the syntax of the original and thereby conveys two thoughts about Christ whereas modern versions conflate them into one thought. Second, the Deity of Christ is brought out equally by saying He is "God over all" or "over all God." Observe the sagacious comment of John Murray (commentary in loc.): "The next *two* clauses are to be taken as referring to Christ and defining what he is in his divine identity as Lord of all *and* God blessed for ever."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2007)

What should we call those who insist that their modern versions are fine yet refuse to engage in a scholarly discussion of their merits -- MVOs. I do believe it is a cult.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 29, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> First, the AV follows the syntax of the original and thereby conveys two thoughts about Christ whereas modern versions conflate them into one thought.



Uhmmm.... you're wrong. This is what we call a Granville Sharp's construction.

There are THREE GS constructions in the NT - two of them are identical and call Christ God - Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Both 'God' and 'Savior' refer to Jesus Christ in both passages.

The third is Eph. 4:11 - pastor and teacher (same office) which is one of my favorite arguments against charismatic folk who said 'God told them' to start up a 5-fold ministry.....

Anyway, long story short, you're wrong.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 29, 2007)

In fact, to really push the argument to silliness, the KJV teaches heresy at these passages, since it's looking for the appearing of our great God AND the Savior Jesus Christ. Nowhere in scripture does it say the Father will be appearing. 

Maybe in Mormonism (which is probably part of how Joseph Smith got his ideas....  ).

All jokes aside, please stop the AVolatry.


----------



## MW (Mar 30, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Uhmmm.... you're wrong. This is what we call a Granville Sharp's construction.



I made the comment you are referring to in connection with Rom. 9:5, which contains two distinct clauses. So the error is all yours for not paying attention.



BlackCalvinist said:


> There are THREE GS constructions in the NT - two of them are identical and call Christ God - Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Both 'God' and 'Savior' refer to Jesus Christ in both passages.



Who doubts that God and Saviour refer to Jesus Christ? Why don't you respond to the remarks I made in response to your first speculation on Tit. 2:13?



BlackCalvinist said:


> Anyway, long story short, you're wrong.



Long story short -- you're not paying attention.


----------



## MW (Mar 30, 2007)

BlackCalvinist said:


> In fact, to really push the argument to silliness, the KJV teaches heresy at these passages, since it's looking for the appearing of our great God AND the Savior Jesus Christ. Nowhere in scripture does it say the Father will be appearing.



The silliness is in your insistence that the possessive pronoun attached to the second noun somehow indicates two persons being referred to.


----------



## Michael (Mar 30, 2007)

This has been an interesting thread. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like to hear some thoughts on Philippians 2:5-6...

*KJV* 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 
6 Who, being in the form of God, _thought it not robbery to be equal with God_

*ESV* 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, _did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped_

*NASB* 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, _did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped_


----------



## CDM (Mar 30, 2007)

KMK said:


> I am putting this post into a special notebook. I am going to begin work on Rev Winzer's Unauthorized Commentary of the Whole Bible. Keep 'em coming!



Mark me down as the purchaser of the 1st copy.



armourbearer said:


> First, the AV follows the syntax of the original and thereby conveys two thoughts about Christ whereas modern versions conflate them into one thought. Second, the Deity of Christ is brought out equally by saying He is "God over all" or "over all God." Observe the sagacious comment of John Murray (commentary in loc.): "The next *two* clauses are to be taken as referring to Christ and defining what he is in his divine identity as Lord of all *and* God blessed for ever."
> 
> Again, the AV has followed the syntax of the original and contains two distinct ideas concerning Christ. *Anyone with a proper understanding of both Greek and English grammar knows that a possessive pronoun attached to the second of two nouns does not indicate two persons.* A British citizen might say, we eagerly await the arrival of the great queen and our Majesty, Elizabeth II.



 



armourbearer said:


> What should we call those who insist that their modern versions are fine yet refuse to engage in a scholarly discussion of their merits -- MVOs. I do believe it is a cult.



 



BlackCalvinist said:


> In fact, to really push the argument to silliness, the KJV teaches heresy at these passages, since it's looking for the appearing of our great God AND the Savior Jesus Christ. Nowhere in scripture does it say the Father will be appearing.
> 
> Maybe in Mormonism (which is probably part of how Joseph Smith got his ideas....  ).
> 
> All jokes aside, please stop the AVolatry.



Huh? Who, even the moste flaming heretic, could understand it that way? See above.


----------



## MW (Mar 30, 2007)

Ezekiel16 said:


> This has been an interesting thread. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like to hear some thoughts on Philippians 2:5-6...



John Murray (Collected Writings, 3:236) captures the sense: "There is also the dignity of his station, 'equal with God.' He was on an equality with God. This equality is not an accession either by robbery or attainment. He did not consider his being on an equality with God something he had gained or was to gain. It was not something of precarious tenure; it was the consequence of his being and continuing to be in the form of God and, therefore, his natively, essentially, and immutably. The thought of the clauses may be paraphrased thus: being in the form of God and, therefore, not considering his being on an equality with God a prize or booty but an inalienable possession, he made himself of no reputation."

The emphasis falls upon the fact that equality is something in rightful possession, not something to be posessed.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 30, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> The silliness is in your insistence that the possessive pronoun attached to the second noun somehow indicates two persons being referred to.



Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek.... look it up on Amazon.com.

shame people will ignore grammar for their hobby horse.


----------



## MW (Mar 30, 2007)

The Greek New Testament -- look it up in any number of places online.


----------



## JM (Mar 30, 2007)

I'm going to print this thread out.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 31, 2007)

Andrew P.C. said:


> If you base your theology soley on the english translation, then that theology is a very limited one indeed. You must understand the greek text.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 31, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> the possessive pronoun attached to the second noun



 
I can remember a friend of mine talking about a verse and the original Greek construct interms of personal, possessive blah, blah, blah...well over my head


----------



## JM (May 22, 2007)

This was a very worth while thread, thanks again.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 30, 2009)

Well, I can't issue a "thanks" in this thread, which is my normal method of indexing posts for future reference, so this post will have to do instead.

I want to refer to this thread again. It is officially indexed. Posts 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15, among several others, will bear re-reading.


----------

