Posts Tagged ‘scribes’

King James Bible translators: Inspired or not? What about marginal notes?

October 2, 2011

The King James Bible translators don’t have to know they are inspired. King David didn’t stop and think about his famous words to Goliath, they just poured out. In fact, if they had been of such a mindset they might have been tempted to replace the unknown Hebrew word “behemoth” into a best prayerful guess from what they know instead of using a transliteration like they did. Modern translators make a pure guess especially the Creation-doubters.

What, you don’t think God can inspire a translation like the Hebrew and Aramaic translations in the Tanukh of conversations in Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian and Latin tongues?  Is God’s tongue cut off to leave us without a standard, without the  “original autographs” of all 66 books, and let us depend on man’s faulty wisdom?

The rebuttal from advocates of a confusion of translations is that believers in the KJB as God’s choice today do NOT trust the translators of the time any more than we trust the prophets of old. We just know that according to God’s own word, his word is the most important thing because it’s the standard by which all truth and doctrine is measured, and he would not leave us dependent on Harvard Divinity grads and the like for even its wording.

Thee thou thine

October 14, 2010

Our language is muddy in the English language when it comes to the 2nd singular pronoun. Meaning, we use the same word for both singular and plural. The best “translation” of the Bible is one that avoids muddying, rather follows a Biblical standard from the word of God. The word of prophecy is not of private interpretation. It is absolutely impossible to do the Bible justice by “translating” it into the usage applied in street vernacular.

The Bible is not so muddy. See this next link to understand how distinguishing you-singular and you-plural in the KJB makes it much more understandable, whereas others are much more ambiguous:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/thou.html

More than one dictionary will inform you that these words were gone from everyday speech long before the KJB came along.

Even at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou you’ll find this:

One notable consequence of the decline in use of the second person singular pronouns thou, thy, and thee is the obfuscation of certain sociocultural elements of Early Modern English texts, such as many character interactions in Shakespeare‘s plays. In Richard III, for instance, the conversation between the Duke of Clarence and the two murderers takes on a very different tone if it is read in light of the social connotations of the pronouns used by the characters.[11]

and…

As William Tyndale translated the Bible into English in the early 16th century, he sought to preserve the singular and plural distinctions that he found in his Hebrew and Greek originals. Therefore, he consistently used thou for the singular and ye for the plural regardless of the relative status of the speaker and the addressee. By doing so, he probably saved thou from utter obscurity and gave it an air of solemnity that sharply distinguished it from its original meaning.[2] Tyndale’s usage was imitated in the King James Bible, and remained familiar because of that translation.[13]

They say it’s still used in some places. Here next is a link to a simple conjugation table:

http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html

Peter admonishes us to desire the “sincere milk” of the word. We go right by that verse, I always have until I discovered the issue of Bible versions.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:

See the dictionary definition of “sincere” below. Diluting the singular-plural distinction is an adulteration of the Bible in English.

sin·cere (sn-sîr) adj. sin·cer·er, sin·cer·est 1. Not feigned or affected; genuine: sincere indignation.
2. Being without hypocrisy or pretense; true: a sincere friend.
3. Archaic Pure; unadulterated.

1 Peter 2:2  As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

Jesus the Word of God

September 19, 2010

Why does John refer to Jesus Christ as “the Word” in John 1?

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Both Jesus in the flesh, and the word of God are called “truth” (as an object). Not just that they are true, but they ARE truth.

Teno Groppi said: “I’d say the KJB is the written version of Jesus Christ.” http://www.baptistlink.com/godandcountry/html/kjv.0

That sounds like a good way to put it.

God wrapped up his identity inside the word of God. You could say he “conflated” (“to bring together; meld or fuse”) the two (himself and his word), and the word of God was made flesh, the Word of God.

Not “just” the KJB, since God was from before he even said “Let there be light” of course. But even of the beginning we have John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

God is of course independent of each “manifestation” of his word, whether the Torah at the time of Moses, or the historical books and the prophetic books as they were written, and the New Testament books as they were also written.

But he has made plain that God the Son is “embodied” in the written Word, the word of God.

God made it as plain as he could. We are told from the scripture that he has magnified his word “above all his name”.

Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

In Isaiah he tells us that if anyone speaks anything “not according to this word”, there is no light in them:

Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Okay now.

If John 1:1 and John 1:14 and I John 5:7 (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost”) have nothing to do with the scripture, then what do you think they are doing there?

And if God made such an important issue –above all others!– of his written word, as being the “scriptural manifestation” for us of the “person” of Jesus Christ, how can anyone claim that he had no interest in supervising its integrity throughout the ages?

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

But, now “Phantom-Originals-Only” (aka “POO”) defenders have to look for “the basic essential doctrines” in the corruptions of man, by the admission of all “Phantom-Originals-Only” (aka “POO”) defenders.

Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

For many years as a Christian I had no idea about the importance of the versions issue and did not even think about it, although I always used the AV (KJB), and of course did realize there were some verses in other versions like the NIV with suspect wording.

It’s a significant factor that people who actually consider it a central issue tend to go in one direction. In other words, anyone who thinks God would have only one Bible today without confusion, settle on just one of the “choices”.

Compare it for understanding to the situation in creationism–evolution debates. True agnostics are rare that both (1) say they are undecided and don’t know if there is a God, and at the same time (2) are studying the subject intensely. That’s because they almost always spend little time finding themselves in the camp of believers.

The Word is the final authority for deciding among doctrines.

Deviations from “the Word” (aka “the word of God”) in POO-versions based on the false POO doctrine (Phantom Originals Only) have already been used to support deviations of doctrines from “the faith of our fathers”.

—trutherator

Bible Interpretation: How To

July 20, 2010

What is wrong with the the common notion that the “firmament’, the “windows of heaven”, the ‘pillars of the earth”, the “four corner of the earth”, etc, constitute phenomonological language that accomodated ANE cosmology?

The answer to this lies in understanding the proper approach to scripture, besides taking note of the big caution flag that this very recent “discovery” of what Genesis really meant to the ancient Hebrews did not happen until after modern denials of Creation came up with new “science so called”.

Here follow guidelines for those who need it for “interpreting” Bible verses, especially the interpretation of figures of speech like those mentioned in the above list.

“Phenomenological language” is a bit different concept, but one may call it one example of a figure of speech.

Considerations for understanding the Bible.

(1).STRAIGHTFORWARD SENSE OF THE SECTION OF SCRIPTURE.

That means if the literal meaning makes semantical and grammatical sense as is, then there is no need to tamper with it, just believe.

Sometimes the literal meaning of one isolated word is semantically ridiculous, like talking about the “four corners of the earth”. In such cases, the word is part of a “figure of speech”. The individual words used in a figure of speech have no meaning, because they are part of what is conceptually the same thing as a “compound word”.

What some people call “phenomenological language” is really a figure of speech. Saying the sun is “on the horizon” does not mean it is physically located on one of the points of the physical land that we can see from a given point, it means that’s the way we see it. By they way, I prefer the term “positional” for this particular example.

But if there is no compelling reason –especially in context– to say it is only phenomenological or positional, then it’s not.

If Acts 1:9 says Jesus was “taken up” and “a cloud received him out of their sight” then that’s what happened.
If Exodus 20:11 says “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is”, then that is what happened.
If it says a great fish swallowed Jonah, then you don’t need a yardstick to measure the fish.

(2).IMMEDIATE CONTEXT IN SCRIPTURE.

Immediate context trumps anything from outside context for interpreting anything about which there is some question. But it is an invalid question anyway if it comes from doubt, or a desire to escape the straightforward meaning of a word or verse.

A word in scripture has its own meaning, and the immediate context clarifies it further.

For example, if you don’t know exactly what a cubit is, you can know from the immediate contexts that mention Goliath, that he was abnormally huge, and that nine feet is a much more reasonable measure than is six feet.

(3).SURROUNDING CONTEXT IN THE SCRIPTURE.

Further help for those who are still confused is provided by context found a step beyond immediate.

For example, there are attempts to cast doubt on the virgin birth by making Mary a “young woman” instead are laughable when you consider she asked how could this be “for I know not a man?” Try substituting “young woman” for “virgin” in the Isaiah prophecy for a really good belly laugh. Imagine the Lord telling the prophet that he will give you a sign, that a young woman shall conceive and bear a son. What a sign!

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

In the case of Genesis, it does nobody any good to look elsewhere for the meaning of the word “day”. The immediate context says it was “the evening and the morning”. The days are numbered as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth. The days are not only numbered but clearly given as consecutive ordinal numbers, one following the other.

For Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, it does no good either to try to divide them out. The first verse certainly can stand on its own by itself as a magnificent proclamation of God being the Creator, but it’s snuggled up to the rest of Genesis scripture that follows.

Keep in mind that although the KJB is accepted by tens of thousands as inspired word of God (call it re-inspired if you want to), it seems like nobody considers either the paragraph markings or the verse and chapter organization as inspired. They are convenient for referring to particular sections of scripture, but the first two verses of Genesis are part of the integrated narrative that begins the chapter.

Also, anything else would be irrelevant. In any case the only reason to try to twist it into supporting an earlier creation of some sort has no corroboration from context in any way. The idea only came about to accomodate the millions of years that evolutionists were adding on the age of the earth. This also is shot down by the fact that there was no light until God said “Let there –be– light”, and so such an idea shoots itself in the foot.

(4).THE CONTEXT OF THE WHOLE BIBLE.

This is where relevant references from elsewhere teach us. It is true that some sections of scripture may not be too clear to someone, so cross-referencing can help. It is also true that we can all too easily and all too often take a chapter or a verse in some way, but then we find that the way we took it is not at all what the Bible says on the subject everywhere else, so we have to go back to that verse.

Peter said this about some of Paul’s writings:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So some scriptures can lead you away if you want them to. So don’t!

(5).ENGLISH DICTIONARY. (With great caution)
Great caution because if the dictionary is not a dedicated devoted follower of Christ with spiritual discernment and guard up against deceit, one can be fooled into getting the wrong definition out of a set, and even there, the misapplication can be wrong.

In general if you are merely trying to let the Bible tell you what it says, instead of trying to figure out how to fit it to yourself, you will find the truth of it.

I said English dictionary because this writing is in English, and because the KJB is the gold standard of scripture today. The KJB is written in English and the major factor in the stabilization of the language.

For example, some creationists seem to have a hurdle with the the word “firmament”. The word firmament is a proper English word, like so many that were imported into the English language from Biblical sources long before the KJB was translated. I have seen the claim that a word that was in common use already for 70 years still does not count as a proper word to use for “translation”, as if no self-respecting United Nations interpreter today would use the word “tsunami” when translating from Japanese.

Most of the time where modern critics find fault with “difficult words” in the English of the KJB, it is merely a justification for a versions preference. But some will not know the meaning, and will still be unsure with context, but all they really need is a dictionary.

(5a).BEWARE OF GREEKS BEARING GIFTS.

One of my best friends is of Greek descent (cue laughter), but he would agree, I wot. Beware of Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, especially Biblical dictionaries today. Most of them are based on the work of one Gerard Kittel, a “Christian scholar” who was the “Christian spiritual adviser” to Adolf Hitler.

In part because of the blasphemies in his work, we now have modern versions using the word “race” where it should be using the word “seed”.

Like the verse which becomes literally racist in the NIV, Ezra 9:2: They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”

That verse should read:

Ezra 9:2 “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of [those] lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

(6).REPETITION AND REDUNDANCY.

If you are tempted to override a section of scripture with some extraneous doctrine because “respectable Christians” say it means something else, but this particular scripture incorporates a repetition of the matter, this is an emphasis on the clear meaning of it.

(7)..AVOID DOCTRINES OF THE UNGODLY.

Beware of the surrounding pagan doctrines creeping in to your view of the Bible. God’s chosen people have lived apart from the world around them, in the world but not of it. Therefore if a tribe nearby to the peoples of the Bible held a doctrine, it might be good reason to think the Hebrews believed differently. Certainly their ideas of creation, cosmology, origins were different.

Not every idea of some particular ungodly thinker is bad, they do get some things right of course. But they cannot trump the clear meaning of a word, as reinforced by immediate context, and by more distant context, and by relevant declarations elsewhere in scripture.

(8).THE BIBLE IS TRUE.
(It is a non-fiction book of books).

This may seem like it goes without saying for a Bible believer. But it helps understand some scriptures when extraneous “interpretations” are trying to say it means something other than what it says.

The Bible is written as a statement of what happened, and of what the world is now, and how things work in the real world, and prophecies of what shall be.

Analogies, fables, fairy tales, symbolic stories, these are so identified.

For example, the heads of the ten-headed beast in Revelation are identified clearly there and in Daniel as representing ten kings, and the seven mountains upon “on which the woman sitteth” of Revelation 17 and 18 are clearly identified specifically as seven kings.

Note only that five are already fallen (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece), and one is (Rome), and the other is not yet come (The Empire of the Beast, or Antichrist).

—trutherator

Jesus Christ: Freedom from Sin and Shame

June 26, 2010

JESUS CHRIST: FREEDOM FROM SIN AND SHAME

I have read another story with sadness written by a well-intentioned author, who unfortunately shares a lot of the misunderstandings so common in today’s world about what Jesus is all about. As a matter of fact, part of the problem is that one of the greatest sins is the use of the Christian faith to keep people subjugated to arbitrary rules that in the words of Jesus, no man can bear, and laying grievous burdens on people that they themselves would not move with one little finger.

It is an interesting phenomenon that Christians in the United States are leaving their churches but not their faith, because the churches are not meeting their spiritual needs. I’m talking about the ones who continue dedicated, continue in fellowship with other believers, but joining missions that actually put the love of Christ in action for their fellow man, helping them with both their physical needs and sharing the answer to their spiritual yearnings as well.

Jesus said he came not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved!

I’ll try to help disentangle.

It’s true that the Roman Church and a few protestant churches have used the story of Jesus Christ to “a lot of damage because it has been used throughout the centuries by the Church to make people feel unworthy, guilty, and inherently evil.”

In fact, though, Jesus Christ came to free us from guilt completely, totally, and once and for all. That’s the beauty of it.

And yet despite this fact, people often confuse Christ’s story with the atrocities committed supposedly in his name. Despite the fact that Jesus Christ drove the money-changers out of the temple in Jerusalem at the sharp end of a big bad bull whip, over the centuries the church was infiltrated by avaricious charlatans who whipped up penance by the truckloads for their great cathedrals and their luxurious digs, and now many people conflate the two.

I guess it’s not the only instance in history when people are trying to blame you for the charges racked up to your credit sheet by the imposter. During Martin Luther’s time, the priests around him did not even attempt to look like they paid any heed to their own scriptures, only presenting their false credentials to the poor gullible parishioners.

John Knox, as a Roman Catholic priest, never even knew there was such a thing as a “Bible” until he saw it on a list of banned books. But reading it stirred him up against the crimes committed by the hierarchies.

The idea of “original sin” as some kind of hidden gene that all humanity inherits, as is said was described by Augustine, is the result of theologians with too much time on their hands and too much influence from the ancient Greek navel contemplations. Augustine never let go of his admiration of the practice of following endless intellectual labyrinths, what we used to call discussing “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.

It is also a distraction from how it really works. In the real world of sin, shame, redemption and the power of the resurrection, children are born totally innocent. Augustine should have paid attention to the verses where Jesus took the tots to his lap, and said “Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of Heaven.”

See, little children can do some mischievous things without thinking, but there comes a time during their growing years when they have to begin making choices. Think of it this way: a child is innocent until he is guilty, and then he is guilty. All babies go to heaven without exception. Adults who know better than to whisper that little bit of gossip are a different matter. Great fires are started by the tiniest flames.

In other words, in God’s balance sheet, you pay for your own sins, not someone else’s, not Adam’s.

Now consider this about the Adam story. God gave them a paradise on earth, an easy life, everything they could want or need, and there was only one little itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny tiny rule: Do not eat from that one tree. When they ate from it, they knew it was wrong, and that was the “first sin”. The result was they now knew what it was to do wrong, kind of like Pandora’s box.

From then on, all of us know that there is such a thing as “right and wrong”. The problem with many is they invent intellectual cover for pretending they should not be held accountable for their rights and wrongs, by invoking images of priests in the Middle Ages demanding great sums of money for penance. Sin is not about the burdens placed on gullible followers by big bad brutes and money-changers and Pharisees. It is about what you did yourself.

It’s like the words God spoke about taking care of the widows and orphans in your midst. It’s not about Caesar confiscating the wealth of the realm for the poor, with his own cut in the middle for the tax collectors, it’s about you yourself taking money out of your own pocket and helping the poor yourself. It’s about the Salvation Army giving, not the cover story from Karl Marx imitators.

You know what right and wrong is. You know you have done wrong in your life, no matter what it was. That’s right, “nobody’s perfect”. And inside is your own conviction telling you the universal truth that “whatsoever a man seweth that shall he also reap”. Dirty old clergy don’t matter. But now there is also the knowledge now that we can be free from the burden of that knowledge, completely free!

One can yell all they want about Augustine or whatever else you want, but even those who never heard of Christianity know within themselves that they should not lie for advantage over someone or cheat their neighbor out of his due. How do they know, and how do we know?

But the fact of the matter is, Jesus Christ IS indeed freedom from those sins. The proof of his victory over both your sin, the victory over guilt, and the baggage that comes with it, is in the Resurrection, a fact that is corroborated historically by every objective measure of historical truth that historians themselves apply to other areas of study. Only in this area do they bring their own biases with which to judge it. And yet, history is also full of thousands of skeptics and scholars who set about to disprove it, and being honest researchers, received Christ at the end of their journey.

I am one, after all.

That beautiful hymn, Amazing Grace, is the best showcase example of the power of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is the confession of the worst of scum, a slave trader, who took unwilling Africans into slavery across the Atlantic, who came to Christ. When I found this out, it put an even greater electric charge into hearing that song. “Amazing Grace, How sweet the sound, That saved a wretch like me”.

It testifies to the power of the gospel of salvation to both save a soul, and make the person into a new creature. John Newton went on to mentor the man who gets the credit more than any other for pushing England into eliminating the abomination of slavery in the British Empire. WIlliam Wilberforce has his rewards in both the earth and heaven.

It is the testimony of the onerous sin of the taking of one’s fellow human being for slavery, something that was prohibited by even the laws of Moses.

And that is the power of Incarnation, and the death and resurrection.

If the explanation in this little note doesn’t clarify the matter for you, don’t worry, sometimes it takes time for the cobwebs of diversions of false doctrines, like Jesus said, “traditions of men”, that “make of none effect the commandments of God”.

So remember, the real story and the power it speaks about is what transformed the early Roman Empire, inspiring them to abandon slavery and infanticide, inspired the establishment of learning centers that became our universities, centers for care for the sick that became hospitals,

It is the life-giving manifestation of God’s love that inspired Saint Francis to fight tenaciously against the Crusades, a rare Christian hero to Muslims today. It inspired Santa Theresa to fill the need of the poorest of the poor, taking in the sick and infirm aged who lay dying in the streets of Mumbai, and inspired her to call to account the “leader of the free world” at the time for the treatment of the helpless babes in the womb.

It is not just a nice story but it is a story that turned the mutineers of the Bounty from murderous envious backstabbers into such a harmonious community on the isolated Pacific Island where they were found in later years.

Once accepted, it is the truth that sets you free, the love that brings harmony to mankind.

–Alan

Absalom the first “Communist”

May 8, 2010

There is nothing new under the sun, it says in Ecclesiastes.

They lie to the poor, tell them they’re getting a bad deal whether they are or not, get them mad at the unjust rulers, get them to help you throw them out, and after you take over you can let them know that some animals are more equal than others and anybody who steps out of line is against the “workers” because the new rulers are the only legitimate representatives of the “poor”. (Wink wink, and please don’t notice they got there by robbing the poor in the first place..)

Read about the first such Communist in the Bible, Absalom a son of David. He went for awhile to the gate of the city to as to greet the folks with grievances to David the King, tell them their cause was just, poor them, and how much he would like to be king so he could help all these poor people! All he did was make a mess.

David was the one who cared of course. 1 Samuel 22:1 ¶David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam: and when his brethren and all his father’s house heard it, they went down thither to him.
2 And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them: and there were with him about four hundred men.

2 Samuel 15:2 And Absalom rose up early, and stood beside the way of the gate: and it was so, that when any man that had a controversy came to the king for judgment, then Absalom called unto him, and said, Of what city art thou? And he said, Thy servant is of one of the tribes of Israel.
2 Samuel 15:3 And Absalom said unto him, See, thy matters are good and right; but there is no man deputed of the king to hear thee.
2 Samuel 15:4 Absalom said moreover, Oh that I were made judge in the land, that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him justice!
2 Samuel 15:6 And on this manner did Absalom to all Israel that came to the king for judgment: so Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel.

They have a new catch word, “social justice”. Beware of thieves wearing placards that say “Social Justice”.

They’ll even tell you this is the “Christian” thing, this is what Jesus preached, because like Jesus said of the Phariseesa and the scribes, they are of their father the devil, for he is liar from the beginning.

What they don’t tell you is that Jesus said to take it out of your own pocket, not some other poor schmucks’. And then trusting the tax collectors with it? Jesus made clear that you cannot trust tax collectors with benign compassion for the poor. See here in Matthew 17:

Matthew 17:24 ¶And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

–trutherator

What the Bible says about Theology Degrees

May 5, 2010

Seen on the ChristianWorldview yahoo group, an article apparently written by one David Martyn Lloyd-Jones on “The Unsearchable Riches of Christ—Studies in Ephesians”. He is apparently opposed to theology degrees for Christians.

Paul had more degrees from the Sanhedrin than you could count, but he counted it all DUNG to “win Christ”. Yes, I shouted that. Christians often seem deaf to it otherwise.

John 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

You get out there and obey and witness and study these things to show thyself approved, it’s the best way to learn the stuff.

And here’s a good tip if you really really want to learn your stuff. Seek out the guy who actually makes a ministry of witnessing, it’s usually two or three or four in a church, if it’s a “good” church, and they carry gospel tracts and literature around. They’ll be the ones who are considered maybe a little funny or awkward by the rest of them.

And then go with them and watch them and help them and accept their mentoring. It’s not just inviting them to church…

Mark 6:7 ¶And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;

English and Bible Versions: God is Not the Author of Confusion

April 26, 2010

One interesting bit is from a Shakespeare web site:
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/shakespearelanguage.html
where we find this little paragraph:

“.. By about 1450, Middle English was replaced with Early Modern English, the language of Shakespeare, which is almost identical to contemporary English….”

…thus presenting us with another voice that says we do not need a proliferation of “versions” today.

I suspect though that just like our English was stabilized by the universal and daily use of “The Holy Bible” over centuries, so the language of the Bible in Hebrew stabilized that language.

It is indisputable that the quick adaptation of the KJB in the 17th century and its ubiquitous use throughout the English-speaking world has kept the language itself stable through time and across geographies.

Somebody wrote once in debate on this:

“> Languages change, and translators are fallible.”

Just translators? How about prophets, kings, fugitive Egyptian princes, shepherd boys, beloved physicians, converted Pharisees, tax collectors, and fishermen, and the rest of the common folk who God used to put quill to canvas?

He wasn’t sure what my point was, so I clarified:

“Okay, spelled out, those are only a partial list of all the fallible people who put to paper the first-draft and the final editions of the “original autographs” in the Bible that we all agree was THE INERRANT word of God at that time.”

So the argument against a “translation” that has proven itself against all comers, including spurious criticisms that Jesus warned us against in Matthew 23:24. The Pharisees had traditions of men for making the word of God of none effect, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel when it came to “interpreting” it, but now, since knowledge has increased and evil men wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived, we have better stuff! We have “translations”!

God is not limited to “original” languages, and he proved it in Acts 2. He did it again in 1611.

I believe in translating it, but if they’re doing the “dynamic translation” thing instead of the “formal translation” thing then they are off track and missing the mark of the highest calling of God.

Like taking the phrase “white as snow” and making it “white as wool”? That’s taking away from and adding to, that’s not translating!

If we encounter a new word in a book, we can just look it up in a dictionary or consider the context. If a translator ahs trouble finding a suitable word, then just use the original word, a transliteration, or better yet, a word borrowed from English, the indisputable de-facto international language today.

We have thousands of imported words in English, why rob those who speak other languages of the same blessings?

Better than ‘dynamic’ translations would even be a direct translation of the KJB!

>What Acts 2 proves is that God is perfectly able and willing where appropriate to put his word in any languages he so pleases to do, and he is not limited by the wise pontificating of Pharisee school graduates indoctrinated way beyond their faith in his promises to preserve his word.

He has limited himself to preserving his word without confusion. “God is not the author of confusion”.

Not only “by their fruits ye shall know them”, and we can see the fruits of disbelief in the modern versions. For example, he did not produce two “original” Old Testaments in Hebrew, just one. The other one is not.

So Acts 2 shows is that he is NOT the author of confusion. To drive home the point, when it comes to getting the word of God into tongues, Paul wrote I Corinthians 12, speaking directly about the gift of tongues that we read about in Acts 2.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

Alright class, pop quiz: How many do the “interpret” thing?

All of the complaints from modern version advocates about the English of the KJB, ALL of them, apply TEN TIMES MORE to Koine Greek and Solomon’s Hebrew. Those languages are DEAD, they are MUCH older than English.

–trutherator

Who to hear? The Smarter-Than-Thou Snots, or God’s Foolish Things?

April 9, 2010

Somebody who doubts that the KJB is “the” word of God for today’s world, says it like this:

“If one group that is telling me something are respected Evangelical scholars, and another group are rabid KJVOs, I am going to choose to go with the first group until I have decided for myself.”

___Well, well, let’s see what the Bible says about these “respected Evangelical scholars”:

John 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

John 7:19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee?

Matthew 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Matthew 23:34 ¶Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

John 7:45 ¶Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?
46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?
48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?
49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

These “respected Evangelical scholars” need a Nicodemus:

John 7:51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

But of course the “respected Evangelical scholars” really have a monopoly on the carnal knowledge of the word:

John 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
53 And every man went unto his own house.

That’s because 1 Corinthians 8:1b…we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

What kind of people does God use to tell the truth?

1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.