Members Heir of Salvation Posted May 16, 2015 Members Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Sorry for double-post, don't have this interface figured out yet.... Edited May 16, 2015 by Heir of Salvation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted May 16, 2015 Members Share Posted May 16, 2015 It is, it's just spelled differently. Revelation 19:1-6 Alleluia = Hallelujah Yes, I was well aware of the different spelling, so why not use the proper Bible spelling then? Accuracy should be important.Interesting point - there is one pre 1611 bible that actually uses Hallelujah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted May 16, 2015 Members Share Posted May 16, 2015 Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rebecca Posted May 17, 2015 Members Share Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) Yes, I was well aware of the different spelling, so why not use the proper Bible spelling then? Accuracy should be important.Interesting point - there is one pre 1611 bible that actually uses Hallelujah.Seriously?! I guess I'm going to have to start spelling neighbor as neighbour since that's the Bible spells it. Just because it's spelled differently doesn't mean the meaning is changed. Why do you keep trying to discredit the KJV Bible? You're nitpicking where there are no nits. Edited May 17, 2015 by Li Bai Jia Alan, heartstrings, Standing Firm In Christ and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted May 19, 2015 Members Share Posted May 19, 2015 Seriously?! I guess I'm going to have to start spelling neighbor as neighbour since that's the Bible spells it. Just because it's spelled differently doesn't mean the meaning is changed. Why do you keep trying to discredit the KJV Bible? You're nitpicking where there are no nits. I am not discrediting the KJB, but your accuracy. Why is it 'every jot and tittle' is important, until it's not convenient for what some 'preach' as truth. The Bible I use is not a 'perversion' like the MV's, so whats the problem? You should be glad they were around. I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rebecca Posted May 19, 2015 Members Share Posted May 19, 2015 Every jot and tittle is important. I am not arguing against that whatsoever. We are not talking about misquoting scripture or changing the spelling when quoting scripture. We are not talking about twisting grammar around to change meaning or words that change meaning when you change the spelling. We are talking about every day speech and spelling. I don't understand what you don't understand about differences in spelling among the different countries. Neighbor, neighbour. Honor, honour. They are spelled differently but the definitions are the same.The Bible uses many words that end in -eth. Today we have dropped the -eth endings and use -s instead. I can understand the meaning of the words that end in -eth, but I do not use them in every day speech or writing. This does not make me inaccurate.When I quote the Bible I use the exact spelling the Bible uses. The individual who posted above who used the word "hallelujah" did not quote a scripture verse, he was speaking of the word itself. If quoting the actual verses, the word 'alleluia' should be used. But the two words mean the exact same thing, so when, in everyday conversation and speech, the word 'hallelujah' is used, it is accurate. I do not have a problem with the Bible you choose to use. The problem I am having is that you believe it to be superior to the KJV, which means the KJV is inferior, and therefore inaccurate. When you said:Interesting point - there is one pre 1611 bible that actually uses Hallelujah.You are inferring that the KJV is inaccurate because it uses 'alleluia' instead of 'hallelujah'. Or maybe your issue is that we use the word 'hallelujah' but you think we shouldn't because the KJV doesn't spell it that way, but your Bible does, so you don't want us to use it? Again, you are nitpicking. Oh, wait, I need to use Bible words exactly as the Bible uses them: "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." Matthew 23:24 And now we are so off topic from the original post. Alan, DaveW and John Young 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alan Posted May 19, 2015 Members Share Posted May 19, 2015 Li Bai Ja,Amen and amen! Great exposition and understanding of scripture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted May 19, 2015 Members Share Posted May 19, 2015 Elijah/EliasGideon/GedeonIsaiah/EsaiasJephthah/JephthaeMelchizedek/MelchisedecNoah/NoeSarah/SaraZion/SionOld and New Testament spellings Alan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Popular Post John Young Posted May 19, 2015 Author Members Popular Post Share Posted May 19, 2015 And now we are so off topic from the original post. If we go solely on the scriptures and not on extra-biblical sources we see:Some of the replies to the main topic have been interesting. Thanks to everyone who has offered a reply.Its interesting that many opposed to the main topic (both on this forum and several others) do not have scripture to support their false ides but instead have only presented non-scriptural sources and reasoning, conjectures, accusations, guilt by association, reverting to the "Hebrew and Greek" for vague alternate meanings than what is clear in English, etc. Its a scary thing to realize these are being held in such high rearguard in some minds as to trump the clear context of scripture......particularly these who claim to be Baptist.The bible in clear context is to be our soul and singular authority. Those who oppose this strictly scriptural view and claim to be IFB need to show scriptures for your view and show in context why my view is not correct and then I as a Bible Believing Baptist will accept them. Rebecca, EKSmith, LindaR and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alan Posted May 19, 2015 Members Share Posted May 19, 2015 John Young,Exellent conclusion and analysis of the posts trying to disprove the clear teaching of scripture. John Young 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beameup Posted May 19, 2015 Members Share Posted May 19, 2015 Elijah/EliasGideon/GedeonIsaiah/EsaiasJephthah/JephthaeMelchizedek/MelchisedecNoah/NoeSarah/SaraZion/SionOld and New Testament spellingsThe King James translators relied heavily on a New Testament (Greek-English) translation by Tyndale. For the Old Testament, I believe they relied heavily on Erasmus. That is why the names differ in the O.T. and N.T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted May 19, 2015 Members Share Posted May 19, 2015 I think it may have something to do with the NT being translated from Greek and the OT translated from Hebrew. At any rate, the difference in spelling does not bother me at all. I'll continue to rely on my King James Bible Alan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Ukulelemike Posted May 19, 2015 Moderators Share Posted May 19, 2015 It rather reminds me of the argument of "Y'shuah/Jesus/Joshua"-which is the right name? Well, they ALL are! One is the hebrew, one is the anglicized hebrew, one has gone through Hebrew, Greek Latin and English to become what it is, yet they are ALL the same name, all the name of the Messiah/Christ. People who insist that He be called "Y'shuah" of they are worshiping a false god, need to remember that it was God who confused the languages, and as such, He understands them all, and He knows that Y'shuah in Anglicised hebrew is Joshua. God isn't confused. He also knows that His name was written as "LORD" in the Bible, out of respect for His name, that it might not be used in vain, and that, perhaps it was a bit overly-done, but more respect than maybe necessary is certainly better than not enough respect, which is what the JW's do when they change EVERY time the Bible uses LORD or Lord to speak of God, they change it to Jehovah, even though many times contextually it is speaking of Jesus, specifically.I have been arguing the Gap theory with a fellow, and his MAIN argument as proof for the gap is a tiny symbol that is said to be in the Masoretic Hebrew, called a 'rehiba', that is supposed to indicate a complete end of one statement, and beginning to another, and this is said to be at the end of vers 1/beginning of verse 2 of Genesis 1. So he is continually referring back to the 'original Hebrew' and I keep telling him we don't HAVE the original Hebrew, just copies of copies of copies. Now, he is a big KJV guy, but ONLY insofar as it agrees with the Gap thought-where it disagrees, he HAS to change it according to the 'original Hebrew", because THAT part, the 50 translators of the KJV ALL got wrong, even though they are all masters of the ancient biblical languages in a way most aren;t today, AND they had access to much more than we have today. AND, despite ALL the earlier TR translations ALL disgree with his view. So basically, his teacher, Max Younce, has a superior understanding than all these earlier translators.I believe the Bible, in English, as is given in the KJV, is sufficient for our needs today. The context often explains the meanings of questionable things. I do not believe we all have to have understanding of all languages the Bible was written in, in order to understand it. Nor must we bow to those who do. Heir of Salvation, Genevanpreacher, Alan and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Ukulelemike Posted May 20, 2015 Moderators Share Posted May 20, 2015 Just been looking at the explanation of this very topic by a fellow named Max Younce, a Genesis Gap teacher, who brings a different light to this, though once again, even though he is a KJV man, he freely declares words to be mistranslated.Younce says that the sons of God here ARE demons, but they didn't take wives, they took 'women', (mistranslation), meaning they possessed the women. That way they would produce children they could train up to be wicked.Interestingly, the hebrew word behind 'wives", DOES also often translate to 'woman' or 'women', but the preponderance of times it is 'wives' and the clear context would be 'wives', being that it refers to seeing the daughters of men, that 'they were fair', then speaking of producing children in verse 4. To change it to demons and women, from men and their wives, is really wresting the scripture. And by the way, every example of 'sons of God" can be easily explained to be men, not angels. In the beginning of Job, the sons of God presenting themselves, would fit better as human followers of the Lord, rather than angels. That Satan was among them, who by his own testimony had been "going to and for in the EARTH", it would make sense he would be among humans, not angels in Heaven. The only possible problem area would be when the sons of God sang when the foundations were laid, though as has been suggested, this could be referring to Christ as the foundation, and looking forward to that, or back, perhaps, to Adam and Eve rejoicing at the fortelling of Christ's coming in Gen 3.My issue would not be so great with some, except for their willingness to declare 'mistranslation!' every time the Bible disagrees with them, but demands it be correct when it agrees. Genevanpreacher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted May 20, 2015 Members Share Posted May 20, 2015 As I keep saying, there are many words in the King James which are misunderstood TODAY because our English language has corrupted over time. But we are given the option and privilege of digging in and discovering the true and original meanings of all of those words. And we can clearly see that God used the word "women" in some places but differentiates them as "wives" in others. Anybody who corrects the King James is "adding to and taking away". Where it says "angels" it means "angels". sons/sons, men/men, wives/wives and women/women John Young, Rebecca and Alan 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.