Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Secondary Inspiration


TheSword

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Hardly ASOD, the Epistles were given to Paul directly along with the Books given to Luke, James, John, etc. I agree with allot of your posts but this one is makes no sense.

while Paul may have had a copy of the Gospel of Luke there is no indication or proof that he had a copy of all the gospel books or the writings of the others, not even the book of Acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

So, no, the KJV translators did not have two different Greek NT's in front of them when they sat down to do their work.  They had Erasmus' Greek NT (which became the TR), plus all of the previous English translations to compare, plus various other translations from Europe, Russia, and the Middle East to compare, plus they were very much aware of other various readings from different manuscripts throughout Europe, including Vaticanus.  Erasmus' work was of such major importance and so reliable because he had scoured the libraries of Europe in his attempts to produce this Greek NT, and he even spent time in the Vatican library comparing Vaticanus to the other readings he had compiled. 

So the KJV translators took EVERYTHING into consideration when they produced the KJV - which might explain why it took 7 years to complete!

 

Technically they used Beza's 1598 print of the Stephanus 1550 TR which would have made it the 11th edition of the TR; but otherwise I think your whole post is an excellent explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Instead of accusing me, without offering any evidence, Scriptural or otherwise, and then barring me from a response, as if that was somehow Scriptural, why don't you refute any point you disagree with?

The biggest purveyors of the Dispensational teaching, that made its way into Baptist Churches in the 19th and 20th Centuries, were 2 'Bible Correctors' named: 'Darby' and 'Scofield'.

Darby made his own translation.
Scofield put his rantings against the AV in a notes system in the margin of the 'Reference Bible'.
Dallas Theological Seminary was founded for the purpose of teaching Schofield's doctrines.
DTS poisoned the SBC, and IFB across the South, and eventually the U.S. and world.
Sword of the Lord Conferences had speakers who were Scofielders.

Torrey was the other shoe.
And Rice after him.
Which ties the 2 together (SOTL).

I believe that at least 50% of the infiltration of Baptist Churches by The Critical Texts, was a result of 2 Dispys.

I see the 2 subjects as stemming from the same roots.

True or False:
John Nelson Darby taught Dispensations?

T or F:
JND believed the AV had errors, so he made his own translation?

T or F:
C.I.Scofield taught dispensations?

T or F:
C.I.Scofield believed the AV had errors, and pointed out these perceived errors throughout the notes system in his Reference Bible?

If the answer to all 4 of this is : True, then I have a legitimate point in including Dispy with MV , due to the magnitude of the influence that these two men had.

Anishinaabe

Dispensational teaching goes beyond Darby and Scolfield, I connected Scolfield learning to a man after he got saved in 1870's, that is 15 years before the German Critical movement. 

 

Steve is right though, you have a dislike for dispensational teaching and at any point you like to make sure we all know it.

 

You have that right to your opinion but to state that Darby and Schofiled started Dispensational teaching is false and based on no facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What are you basing this on? Webster's 1828 definitions for inspiration are as follows:

1. the act of drawing air into the lungs; the inhaling of air; a branch of respiration, as opposed to expiration

2. the act of breathing into anything

3. the infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence; or the communication of the divine will to the understanding by suggestions or impressions on the mind which leave no room to doubt the reality of their supernatural origin

4. the infusion of ideas or directions by the supposed dieties of pagas

5. the infusion or communication of ideas or poetic spirit, by a superior being or supposed presiding power; as the inspiration of Homer or other poet.

 

And for preservation:

1. the act of preserving or keeping safe; the act of keeping from injury, destruction, or decay; as the preservation of life or health; the preservation of buildings from fire or decay; the preservation of grain from insects; the preservation of fruits or plants. When a thing is kept entirely from decay, or nearly in its original state, we say it is in a high state of preservation.

 

No matter how you slice it, inspiration and preservation are not the same thing. The best you can do with these is to assert God inspired the process of preservation which necessarily includes translation from Greek and Hebrew into English in this case which mandates the existence, accuracy, and inspiration of the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts from which the translation was done. If you want to say inspiration was the key to divine preservation, I think that's totally fine; but that gives no grounds for dismissing the original languages or denigrating their use for study as some do.

Based on the AV Bible Definition which is #9 in my AV Bible believer checklist of beliefs If any man truly believes his AV Bible is his final Authority he will search out the meaning of words from the Word rather than from dictionaries of men.

 

What I did was use your definition and show it was exactly what had happened when the AV Translators created the first whole and complete English Bible.

 

When I, and pretty much everyone I've ever known until I started interacting with you in this thread, speak of inspiration of Scripture we're referring to the phenomenon whereby God utilized supernatural influence on the Holy Spirit on the writers of Scripture which rendered their writings an accurate record of the revelation or which resulted in what they wrote actually being the very Word of God.  Preservation is the process whereby God providentially ensured that the Word He inspired would remain existent and available for all time. You keep trying to conflate the two terms when they are completely different no matter what set of definitions you use. Inspiration is the original giving and preservation is ensuring that it remains.

 

I am not conflating the two together but God uses inspiration to preserve his revelation.  Inspiration is not the same as revelation you seem to make the two the same.  There is no new revelation of Scripture, God only inspires to give understanding so his word is preserved to every generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Based on the AV Bible Definition which is #9 in my AV Bible believer checklist of beliefs If any man truly believes his AV Bible is his final Authority he will search out the meaning of words from the Word rather than from dictionaries of men.

 

What I did was use your definition and show it was exactly what had happened when the AV Translators created the first whole and complete English Bible.

 

I am not confusing the two together but God uses inspiration to preserve his revelation.  Inspiration is not the same as revelation you seem to make the two the same.  There is no new revelation of Scripture, God only inspires to give understanding so his word is preserved to every generation.

 

I don't think I would necessarily directly equate inspiration to revelation, though I can see how some of my posts might have given that impression. Thanks for your clarification. I'm a bit confused, though, on how if you believe in preservation through inspiration why you dislike the use of original languages and doubt the integrity of them and the manuscripts they produced because the fact is the KJV is a translation of them. Please help me understand this one because the disparity between the two positions is not making sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Places where the KJV deviates from the TR:

 

Acts 12:4

TR - "pascha" - properly translated "Passover"

KJV - Easter

This was mentioned earlier, but the fact is the Greek word in the TR is not Easter, it is Passover.  That's just the way it is.

Which is correct? 

 

Acts 19:37

TR - "temples"

KJV - "churches"

 

Gal. 2:20

TR - "I have been crucified..."

KJV - "I am crucified..."

 

II Cor. 5:17

TR - "creation"

KJV - "creature"

 

Acts 4:27, 30

TR - "holy servant"

KJV - "holy child"

 

II Timothy 2:15

TR - "Be diligent"

KJV - "study"

 

I Cor. 11:1

TR - "be imitators of me..."

KJV - "be followers of me..."

 

Now, I am not saying that there are "errors" in the TR, nor am I saying to throw the TR away. 

I am saying that the KJV deviates from the TR on occasion.

 

My position is clear: The KJV is the perfect, complete, entire, infallible word of God for us today.

 

In Christ,

 

These aren't really deviations when you investigate both the English and Greek. Truly, such an analysis should really put someone in awe of the ability of the KJV translators to accurately render the TR in English.

 

Acts 12:4

TR - "pascha" - properly translated "Passover"

KJV - Easter

 

Technically neither. There’s no Greek word for “Easter” because it’s an Anglo-Saxon (i.e. English) word. The previous verse specifies that the Passover had already happened and it was currently the week following the day of Passover (the days of unleavened bread). The use of pascha here would have to denote the end of the Passover week which is commonly when Easter is such as it was this year. I’d have to do some calendar research to find out if this was the case, but either way it’s an interpretive choice to make a distinction between the Jewish holy day/week and what we call Easter today.

 

Acts 19:37

TR - "temples"

KJV - "churches"

 

This involves a false assumption because neither “temples” nor “churches” is used here. Rather it is one word for a person/people, “rOBbers of churches”. The one word used to translate the phrase is hierosoulous, which properly describes someone who commits sacrilege by rOBbing sacred or holy places. The KJV is an accurate translation of the TR in this case.

 

Gal. 2:20

TR - "I have been crucified..."

KJV - "I am crucified..."

 

Both. The word being translated is a verb in the perfect tense which indicates a completed action usually occurring in the past. All that’s needed in translation is to show that it is a completed action. The past tense of “crucified” ensures that it is understood to be in the past and the “am” vs. “have been” are both passive forms and make no real difference in meaning. It is no different than saying “I have been forgiven” or “I am forgiven.” They convey the same meaning.

 

II Cor. 5:17

TR - "creation"

KJV - "creature"

 

It’s a nominal difference. Ktisis generally speaks of something newly created, but context determines the ultimate meaning. When referencing animate OBjects, “creature” is the usual meaning and it is “universe” or “world” when referencing inanimate OBjects. Further, when referencing concepts such as laws or institutions, “ordinance” or “authority” is the preferred translation. Since the passage is talking about an animate OBject (i.e. “any man”), “creature” is the proper meaning.

 

Acts 4:27, 30

TR - "holy servant"

KJV - "holy child"

 

The word in both cases is pais (inflections of it anyway) which is always translated child and never servant. Servant is a completely different word, doulos. What TR or interlinear are you using? I don’t know how anyone would get “servant” out of the TR I’m looking at.

 

II Timothy 2:15

TR - "Be diligent"

KJV - "study"

 

The full semantic range of spoudazō definitely includes “be diligent”, but also carries the meaning of “make every effort to” and “try hard to.” When measured against the 1828 definitions for “study” it is simply a pointedly accurate translation:

1. To fix the mind closely upon a subject; to muse; to dwell upon in thought

2. To apply the mind to books

3. To endeavor diligently

 

Both are correct. It would be an anachronism to limit the understanding of “study” to a form of learning.

 

I Cor. 11:1

TR - "be imitators of me..."

KJV - "be followers of me..."

 

Mimētai encompasses both definitions and truly they are not at all different in terms of being a disciple of Christ.  One of the 1828 definitions of follower is “one that takes another as his guide in doctrines, opinions or example; one who receives the opinions and imitates the example of another; an adherent; an imitator”. Same same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Dispensational teaching goes beyond Darby and Scolfield, I connected Scolfield learning to a man after he got saved in 1870's, that is 15 years before the German Critical movement.

Steve is right though, you have a dislike for dispensational teaching and at any point you like to make sure we all know it.

You have that right to your opinion but to state that Darby and Schofiled started Dispensational teaching is false and based on no facts.

I didn't say they 'started it'.

I did say that they were responsible for the widespread publishing of it.

Because of them, it infiltrated the Baptists in a big way.

I wouldn't care, if Dispy teaching was all that resulted.
But it wasn't.
These same 2 men , along with Torrey and John R.Rice, sewed widely the seeds of doubt in the AV.

This is why I don't discuss 1 without the other. Because people like you propogate heresy from people who didn't believe in your AV.

You , when you push dispy teaching, point people to literature published by Bible Correctors, whether you realize it or not.

I would think that you would want to correct this.

And, if I really believe what I say, then why wouldn't I 'go after it', until I'm crucified?

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

prophet1

Maybe you think I have all kinds of free time to "refute" your rants....I don't.  Further, I have posted numerous defenses of dispensational teaching all over this forum, so if you want to know what I believe and why I believe, the information is on this forum in other threads, if you want to do the leg work of digging them out.  So don't think I am avoiding you or the subject...I just have better things to do with my time.

 

It just seems odd to me that you refuse to discuss the REAL prOBlems with the lost crowd who ACTUALLY DID THE BIBLE CORRUPTING - like Westcott, Hort, Aland, Metzger, Tischendorf, Brown, Driver, Briggs, Thayer, and all the other hacks who rewrote the Greek NT and the lexicons in the 1800's.  To hear it from you, nOBody would even know these lost bible correctors even existed.  Oh no, it was all Darby and Scofield.....yeah, right....that's why I don't have time for you.  It is an unreasonable argument that holds no basis in logic or fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gorship

I believe God has preserved His words for us in the TR, but I don't think the preservation stops there, it continues on in the KJV.  As I pointed out, there are some flaws in the TR that the KJV has improved on, but like I said....if we had to revert back to the TR because English all of sudden became a dead language, we would not have anything to worry about.

 

In Christ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Gorship
I believe God has preserved His words for us in the TR, but I don't think the preservation stops there, it continues on in the KJV. As I pointed out, there are some flaws in the TR that the KJV has improved on, but like I said....if we had to revert back to the TR because English all of sudden became a dead language, we would not have anything to worry about.

In Christ,


The TR ISN'T the perfect Word of God (it has flaws), but if we couldn't use the KJV and only had the TR then.... "we would not have anything to worry about"?

You might want to think about rephrasing that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You don't have to be a racist.

You don't have to translate for me.

I am repeating what I read in 2 different books: the RV1602 ,
Which I read in my teen years,
And the RV (1960), which the 'Prima Iglesia Bautista de Hammond, Indiana brought in later.

'Hades' is a place of mythology.
It is an invention of Greek devil- worshippers.
No one will ever go there.

¿Esta no muy importante, las doctrinas del diablos?

¿Infierno o hades?

¿Jesús Cristo O diablos?

Anishinaabe

 

Racist? Did you perhaps think I was translating for he benefit of others here who do not speak Spanish?? So now it´s racist to translate?? Wow, what PC crowd you crawl out of?

 

If I opened my TR, or my interlinear Bible what word would I find there?

 

Hell, Hades, Infierno, words may change by language, but the doctrine is the same. If one dies without Christ as Savior they will go to Hades and one day Hades will be cast into the lake of fire.

 

ROBert Breaker, with all due respect is slightly opinionated and tends to invent false doctrine to argue against any Bible but the one he ha$ publi$hed for con$umption, if you get my drift. . You might want to find some Dr Thomas Holland or Calvin George for some good info on the reality that the 1960 is in fact a trustworthy translation of the word of God. "Jesús Cristo" is not Spanish. In fact its a false teaching of the dualist, is that your persuasion?

 

You other question (Esta no muy importante.....) is sort of gibberish. Uhmm we´ll just let it go. It´s OBvious to me that if you do understand Spanish, you don´t speak it all that well.

 

So according to you the word Hades does not appear in the word of God? Am I correct in assuming that is your position?

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Racist? Did you perhaps think I was translating for he benefit of others here who do not speak Spanish?? So now it´s racist to translate?? Wow, what PC crowd you crawl out of?

If I opened my TR, or my interlinear Bible what word would I find there?

Hell, Hades, Infierno, words may change by language, but the doctrine is the same. If one dies without Christ as Savior they will go to Hades and one day Hades will be cast into the lake of fire.

ROBert Breaker, with all due respect is slightly opinionated and tends to invent false doctrine to argue against any Bible but the one he ha$ publi$hed for con$umption, if you get my drift. . You might want to find some Dr Thomas Holland or Calvin George for some good info on the reality that the 1960 is in fact a trustworthy translation of the word of God. "Jesús Cristo" is not Spanish. In fact its a false teaching of the dualist, is that your persuasion?

You other question (Esta no muy importante.....) is sort of gibberish. Uhmm we´ll just let it go. It´s OBvious to me that if you do understand Spanish, you don´t speak it all that well.

So according to you the word Hades does not appear in the word of God? Am I correct in assuming that is your position?

God bless,
calvary

You said "Gringo", and "some White guy". I don't know if you are talking about ROBert Breaker, or another man, it is still racist. Spanish is a European (White) language.

I never heard of ROBert Breaker before.
I have read Greek mythology.
Hades isn't Hell, it is the 3rd realm.

¿Why would someone change "Infierno" to "Hades"?

Maybe for the same reason that they changed 'Hell' to 'Hades' in the English Bibles.

Rev 20:14
14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
(ESV)


The underworld is hidden in the earth. It is the kingdom of the dead and ruled over by Hades. Hades is a greedy god who is greatly concerned with increasing his subjects.

Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You said "Gringo", and "some White guy". I don't know if you are talking about ROBert Breaker, or another man, it is still racist. Spanish is a European (White) language.

I never heard of ROBert Breaker before.
I have read Greek mythology.
Hades isn't Hell, it is the 3rd realm.

¿Why would someone change "Infierno" to "Hades"?

Maybe for the same reason that they changed 'Hell' to 'Hades' in the English Bibles.

Rev 20:14
14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
(ESV)


The underworld is hidden in the earth. It is the kingdom of the dead and ruled over by Hades. Hades is a greedy god who is greatly concerned with increasing his subjects.

Anishinaabe

 

Your statement that I am racists was in the context of translating my Spanish in the post, you did not refer to my gringo or white guy comments.

Never heard of ROBert breaker, yet you read the book baout the R1602, which is his baby.... sure....... ok..... whatever.....

 

If all I had was my TR, then I would read hades everywhere you want it to say hell, doesn´t matter what you think about greek mythology, or what greek mythology makes hades out to be. In the word of God the word HADES is used where we translate it as hell. Like it or not, hades is not a 3rd world in my greek Bible. So, your opinion notwithstanding, it makes no difference what you believe hades to be or what any greek myth believes it to be. Hades is a real word, used in a real Bible to designate a real pace of suffering.

 

Why would someone change Infierno to hades? Don´t know, but it changes nothing as far as the doctrine of eternal punishment is concerned, so your straw man about a word being translated incorrectly holds no water, especially when your own mastery of said language appears to be lacking.

 

 

Run along sonny, go back and play with the kiddies in the sand box, that´s more your speed.

 

There is no error in the 1960´s use of the word hades over infierno. None whatsoever.

 

God bless,

calvary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Sword

You quoted the list I provided where the KJV differs from the TR.

I do not believe these can be explained away so easily as you have attempted.  I Believe these are significant changes.  Unfortunately, I am covered up in work this week so I simply do not have time to go back and give you my explanations as to why I take that position. 

 

I'll give you one example, and that will have to suffice for now.

II Cor. 5:17

KJV - creature

TR - creation

This is not a matter of using dynamic equivalence or anything to convey the correct thought.  The word in Greek is Creation, and there is a difference between a creation and a creature.  When we receive Christ as our Saviour, the dynamic relationship between our body/soul/spirit changes.  There is no new creation - it is still our same soul and same body and same spirit.  However, Salvation changes how everything functions.  Our soul is sealed (not changed), our body will be changed (in the future, so no change at the present,) and our spirit is "quickened" so that we can now communicate with God.  Yet we are still the same person in character, personality, mental and physical abilities.  There is no new "creation", but God takes the current creature that we are and modifies it into a new creature. 

Now, you might think that is nitpicking, but if you have studied the new age occults, they line up with the "new creation" bit.  The Lord is very particular about His choice of vocabulary, and for very good reason.  What might seem insignificant to us is extremely important when you enter a court room.  Salvation is a legal issue of the Law, so every word is important - just like the Lord told us in Prov. 30:5.

Technicality?  Sure, but then is not every point of law? 

I don't know why we can be so particular in our own secular world of law, but don't expect the Lord to be even more particular when it comes to much more important matters of salvation and eternity.

 

 

Gotta run...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...