KJV questions

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

may I ask what your thoughts and findings are regarding the work of Ivan Panin whose work was in /with numerics?

Also Bullinger, who also did a lot of work with numbers?

Did they base their work on English versions or any particular Greek texts?

I remember reading quite a bit of EW Bullinger's writings and remember thinking about how he coped with doing what he did with times and resources as they were back then. Since then I have come across quite a number of other Scripture scholars and I still find it hard to relate to how much time and work they had to put into translation and exegesis and commentary given the situations they lived in. No modern writing utensils and so much less resources, as well as often opposition and busy lives preaching and teaching and doing essential things like eating and sleeping! No electric light either!

Bless you ....><>

 

[Makahiya2028]

I want to tell you about the world's two outstanding research resource sites.
Far more exhaustive than Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale and Princeton publications,
including Dr. Hills - Harvard, Dr. Hinton - Harvard and Dr. Phelps - Yale .

(website expired)Dr. Peter Ruckman
Dr. Ruckman is the most prolific author of theological apologetics/polemics of all time
and his bookstore offers the world's largest collection of textbooks in manuscript evidence.
Dr. Ruckman's books are studied from the smallest bible college to Princeton Seminary.
He is very polemic and he has made statements I do not agree with, but his books are essential reading.
Download his free audio and listen to lectures.

Dr. Gail Riplinger
Dr. Riplinger is the world's leading expert in theological computational linguists.
She is a sweet wonderful Christian.
Her book, 1,200 pages, is also essential reading.
In Awe of Thy Word, Understanding the King James Bible, it's Mystery and History, Letter by Letter

I am not trying to turn my thread into a war room or change one thing about the focus of Talk-Jesus .
Like Deacon Dan said, " Academics is only part of the Christian life. Living the spirit filled life is far more important."


.

 

[Makahiya2028]

Let's close the topics of final authority and final canonization .

Let's first open the most important topic of all time ,

and then later open the most terrifying topic of all time !

There are no questions, only a simple desire to share my faith .


KJV Holy Bible

KJV Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me,
KJV I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins:
for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

KJV But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
KJV For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,
much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

KJV For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
KJV That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

KJV For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
KJV For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.



.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Gail Riplinger is both a liar (yes, I can prove that) and she is completely unqualified to pontificate in this area.

 

[Ophel]

I am not a KJV-Only or an Original-Manuscript-Only

There are Holy Bibles and Corrupt Bibles.
KJV 2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

I had the same teacher as Dr. Billy Graham. Dr. Graham graduated from Florida Bible College.
Dr. Graham preached the KJV all the days of his life, still is,
except for a while when Wheaton College infiltrated his ministry.
I saw Dr. Graham on TV, 95 yrs. old, quoting a KJV, while the NIV was posted on the screen .

Post #16 is perfectly clear and perfectly obvious .
Corrupt English bibles are translated from corrupt manuscripts.

At a certain level, my motive is to clarify the newest scientific statements in bible canonization,
not doubtful disputation, envy, strive or contention but in sincerity and love.

At a higher level, my motive is to talk about Jesus, learn about Jesus
and be a valuable contributor to Talk-Jesus .



.

I think the Gay Bible is corrupt.

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

15:15
What does this mean? 15:15
I noticed the time today being 15:15 and I took a double take on it. It was 15 past 15.
It was also 1/4 past 15
These two alone present a variety of 'translations', fifteen past 15, fifteen minutes past 15, fifteen past fifteen, fifteen minutes past fifteen, fifteen past the fifteenth hour, fifteen minutes past the fifteenth hour, fifteen minutes past the 15th hour ...
Quarter past 15, quarter past the fifteenth hour, quarter past the 15th hour
And depending on how you might say it, it might be 15 hours and 15 minutes.
If we now change the 15th hour to 3, we have to add more information, 3 o'clock or 3pm, which of course can be written : three o'clock or three pm BUT IT CAN'T BE THAT!
Because it is past the exact hour it then needs to include the relativity of the minutes.
3:15
1/4 past 3
Three fifteen or quarter past three BUT again, that is not sufficient! You have to add the FACT that it is after noon :
3:15pm or 1/4 past 3 in the afternoon etc.

Now if we know that at 3:15pm it is afternoon tea time we might say that instead. Have you ever heard or said similar? Everyone knows afternoon tea is at 3:15 (notice now we can leave the pm off because we are talking about afternoon, so it certainly wouldn't be morning). One day you might tell everyone that it's 3:15 and the next you might simply say, "Afternoon Tea!"

Or if the plane departure was at 4:15pm then at 15:15 you could say that it's an hour before take off.

If you are in the medical professions you would say 15 when referring to the hour, not 3, that way there could be no confusing the time, whether it was am or pm, morning or afternoon.
There are oodles of scenarios that might tie into 3:15pm or 15:15 and of course such a time is reasonably clear as being time, unless of course.....
The little dots were missing or blurred or joined or some other mistake or damage rendering them difficult to decipher.

Or, to make matters even more interesting, suppose you were from a culture and custom and language that didn't use a 24 hour clock and had no concept of such!
Or perhaps rather than being 15:15, it was 12:12 or 10:10? Some may confuse it with the date and then we can get into a bigger pickle as some cultures use different calendars!

Mathematicians or navigators may also see fit to interpret it differently again, understanding them as coordinates or the like!
A package manager might call it a full box, a secretary the last page (of a fifteen page document).

So how do we know the best way to 'translate' 15:15? And how much does it matter?

We know that in Scripture that everything is relevant to everything else and also that information IS there.

Translation requires everything balancing and not getting merely the words right (or is that 'correct'?)
Prophecy or testimony of Jesus.
e.g. Acts 15:15

15:15.
What if it said instead,
9:11?

Bless you ....><>

 

[Travis]

I remember reading quite a bit of EW Bullinger's writings and remember thinking about how he coped with doing what he did with times and resources as they were back then.

Have you read Harry Ironside's "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth?"

Let's first open the most important topic of all time ,

and then later open the most terrifying topic of all time !

I'm anticipating hearing about the most terrifying topic of all time.

I like the KJV. While reading through it, I've noticed a number of glaring errors though. Like calling passover Easter, without any precedence for doing so. Or using the english word devil for both diabolos (The devil) and daimonion (demons) when there is clearly a distinction between the two. If the KJV were as great as some would make it out to be, there would be no reason at all for anyone to study the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in order to teach the bible to English speakers.

I don't consider the KJV itself to be inerrant. It is a pretty decent translation of the inerrant scriptures though (the ones originally recorded by the hands of those whom God called to do so).

Blessings,

Travis

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

Have you read Harry Ironside's "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth?"

No. Not yet.
Thank you.
It doesn't seem like the thread starter has answered me yet, though.

Bless you ....><>

 

[Travis]

It doesn't seem like the thread starter has answered me yet, though.

I hope he does.

This is an Interesting conversation.

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

Gail Riplinger is both a liar (yes, I can prove that) and she is completely unqualified to pontificate in this area

You may be correct. Ruckman appears to be in the same boat.

This thread may close at any time due to its potentially heretical content.

Brother Travis,
Easter is actually promoted by ruckman as he claims that the kjv corrected the Greek and Hebrew.

Bless you ....><>

 

[Makahiya2028]

I simply made reference to Dr. Ruckman as a research source
because he is the world's most prolific author on bible canonization.
I do not agree with Dr. Ruckman on several things.

I had the same college professor as Dr. Billy Graham
and I don't agree with Dr. Graham either on a couple things.

Additional, I've ended my discussion about bible canonization.
Maybe we should simply delete post # 42 .

What do you think about my new post # 43 . . . good . . . right ?


.

 

[Travis]

This thread may close at any time due to its potentially heretical content.

Brother Travis,
Easter is actually promoted by ruckman as he claims that the kjv corrected the Greek and Hebrew.

Bless you ....><>

Democracies are often a terrible thing. But if my vote counts for anything I would be interested to see the thread remain open and any heresy to be thoroughly examined and refuted.

That's quite prolific that ruckman believes the KJV in English is of higher inspiration than the original Greek and thus can correct an error in it. King James only-ism is quite a strange beast.

Blessings,

Travis

 

[Br. Bear]

Greetings,

one thing we want to avoid is casualties.
If we are able to continue it must be as Christians, not animals.

To quote Mr Ironside, the idea is to preserve the Word not shoot others down or preserve doctrines of men.

Bless you ....><>

 

[Makahiya2028]

Please, I am not a KJV-Only or an Original-Manuscript-Only and neither is Ruckman.

I believe all scripture is given by inspiration of God !

Ruckman's website is not expired.
It is the world's most exhaustive collection of theological apologetics/polemics .
Forget Ruckman, you solve the problem and let me know.

#1. You cannot honestly state you have scripture if you believe
only the original manuscripts were given by inspiration of God.
There are no original manuscripts.

#2. You cannot honestly say "the bible" or "all bibles" are given by inspiration of God.
There are over 300 (Christian, Catholic, Cult) English Bibles
which do not match in content, volume or doctrine.

#3. If you have selected a certain English translation and call your selection scripture,
explain to me how a translation is scripture given by inspiration of God.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:




.

 

[Travis]

I think this thread can continue with out anyone drawing their gun and shooting another dead? But, I think shooting a concept or idea that is already full of holes anyway may be warranted perhaps.

Regarding #1

You are correct, we don't have the exact original manuscripts available anymore. They are most likely small specs of dust located at various points around planet earth. What was originally written down was the inspired word of God though. Accurate copies have been made down the centuries. There are some mistakes, some worse than others. Most of such can be filtered out by comparing texts though. The areas where we aren't 100% sure about do not change anything major in the bible, as all major themes in the bible are repeated constantly throughout the whole of scripture, and can be seen from many different angles.

# 2

I agree. No English bible is inspired by God. Not in the sense the original manuscripts were. God didn't give us the bible in English. I dont think he's upset about us translating it to English, and I think he most definitely has had a hand in insuring we have sufficient enough English resources to come to a knowledge of the truth. I don't think that means any one translation is infallible though. The message itself, regardless of what language it is in, is infallible though. Just as the one who wrote it is infallible and will keep every promise he has given us, recorded in scripture.

#3

The translation is not scripture. It is a translation of the scripture. If it's a good translation, then it accurately represents the scriptures and we can comprehend the truth in the scripture through it. There are certain physical bibles I would have no problem burning, like the Scofield reference bible. I wouldn't burn it because it is the scriptures. It is not the scriptures. I would burn it because it contains some very accurate translations of the scriptures, but then adds a bunch of leaven and other garbage to it. I'm not going to burn one though, if anyone is curious.

Gods Word is bigger than any human language, and abides forever after all such languages pass away. But the Lord decided to give us his written word in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Those languages all have contexts surrounding them from the cultures they came from that are critical to understanding the bible. The English words on the paper in your bible alone cannot do such complete justice, whichever translation they are.

Scripture is bigger than the constraints of language, but is still inherently tied down to language, because that's how humans communicate.

There are mistakes in every English translation, but the message is still preserved for those who have the Spirit of God to illuminate it for them.

Blessings!

Travis

 

[Makahiya2028]

You and I both know many denominational leaders call an English translation, "scripture" from the pulpit .
They say, the "scripture says" and then read an English translation ,
and then a little while later, they correct the same bible with a reconstructed Greek N.T. and call that scripture .
Doctrine is more important than preaching skills.

We must find a point of agreement and then take one thought at a time.
The subject is academic theology, the topic is bible canonization,
the issue is final authority and the topic is final canonization .

#1. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

#2. The scriptures are the final authority.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures.

#3. The Lord preserved his words, not the church(s) or the scholars .
Obviously the Lord used them. Let's not debate common sense .
KJV Psalms 12:6-7
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.



Please brother, I need a yes or no .



.

 

[Makahiya2028]

rewritten

The science is theology, the subject is bible canonization,
the issue is final authority and the topic is final canonization .

.

 

[Makahiya2028]

lol, the definition of the word scripture is written words.

I bow out of this discussion .

What do you think of my post #43 .

It is the most important topic of all time !


.

 

[Makahiya2028]

rewritten

lol, with a friendly smile and love in my heart

The science is theology, the subject is bible canonization,
the issue is final authority, the topic is final canonization
and the language is English .

The statement I made came from a KJV Holy Bible .
Noah Webster collated the spoken language and produced his famous dictionary.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary precisely matched the KJV Holy Bible .
The definition of the word scripture is written words .


.

 

[Ophel]

You and I both know many denominational leaders call an English translation, "scripture" from the pulpit .
They say, the "scripture says" and then read an English translation ,
and then a little while later, they correct the same bible with a reconstructed Greek N.T. and call that scripture .
Doctrine is more important than preaching skills.

Why do you think that an English translation of the word of God is inferior? Should we rely on Chinese? Do you not trust that we can receive truth from anything other than the KJV? Good teachers of the word research the original languages, and add what is gleaned there to what is written in the language they speak.

Holy Spirit is the one who elucidates.He alone is our Teacher.