KJVO Presupposition "The Word of God Alone Equals the KJV Alone" True or False

[christundivided]

A perfect translation? Let me give you one example of difficulty in the KJV.

Act 8:32  The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Isa 53:7  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Acts 8:32 is a direct quote of Isa 53:7. You will notice the reversal of "lamb" and "sheep". You should also notice a change in pronoun from "his" to "her".

Can you explain this in light of a "perfect translation"?

Proverbs 8 - Wisdom (Her) - The LORD Jesus Christ!

'

Really? Is that your answer?

This doesn't explain the switch in pronouns used in Isa 53:7 and Acts 8:32.

By the way, you can find "his" 6 times in Proverbs chapter 8.....Not that what your said remotely makes any sense at all.

I will give you a hint though. The issue is not with Acts 8. Its with Isa 53:7 and the source the KJV uses for the text.

 

[christundivided]

A perfect translation? Let me give you one example of difficulty in the KJV.

Act 8:32  The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Isa 53:7  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Acts 8:32 is a direct quote of Isa 53:7. You will notice the reversal of "lamb" and "sheep". You should also notice a change in pronoun from "his" to "her".

Can you explain this in light of a "perfect translation"?

Proverbs 8 - Wisdom (Her) - The LORD Jesus Christ!

Proverbs 8:22 “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.” “Wisdom here has personal properties and actions; and that intelligent divine person can be no other than the Son of God himself, to whom the principal things here spoken of wisdom are attributed in other scriptures. The best exposition of these verses we have in the first four verses of St. John’s gospel,” [M. Henry]. “The ‘beginning of God’s way’ is that time when first God passed from His inscrutable way to active operation. The first of ‘His ways’ was creation,” [Faussett]. This carries this “Wisdom” back to eternal time, and nothing is eternal but God.

....... you KJVOist will go to any length necessary to preserve your silly notions. I can't really believe you're trying to use Proverbs 8 to explain how a direct quote of the OT in Acts 8:32 is different?

Where did you learn this at? God give it to you divinely?

 

[prophet]

Show me 'the TR' lol.  The one Scrv. made up after the fact?  One of Erasmus's 5 or so?  Laughable.  There is no existent copy of the 'TR' in any language except English.

Anishinabe

What you mean by "made up after the fact"?

The TR was originally written in Greek and Latin. Erasmus wanted to improve the main Bible of the Church which was the Latin Vulgate.  It had been the KJV of the Church since Jerome wrote it.
Erasmus wanted to correct the errors that had gotten in the text over several hundred years.
Latin was the universal language of the Church and continued to be until at least the 1800s.

Here is a link to Erasmus 1519 and Erasmus 1521.

http://www.bibles-online.net/

These are Erasmus' second and third editions of his Greek Latin New Testament.


I just love original sources.

You are very informative.  And also none of the information that you provided has any bearing on the fact that the translators had a body of documents in many languages, including a previous English translation of the Vulgate: Wycliffe's.  That you, I, nor anyone else after 1621 has ever laid eyes on that body of documents IN ITS ENTIRITY, or laid eyes on the notes that documented which readings in which languages contributed to which passages, is inarguably fact.  So giving a history, skewed of course with Pro-Rome bias, doesn't shed light on the subject at hand.

Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[Binaca Chugger]

A perfect translation? Let me give you one example of difficulty in the KJV.

Act 8:32  The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Isa 53:7  He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Acts 8:32 is a direct quote of Isa 53:7. You will notice the reversal of "lamb" and "sheep". You should also notice a change in pronoun from "his" to "her".

Can you explain this in light of a "perfect translation"?

Regarding the Ethiopian church - I saw that hook and avoided it for that reason.  Ethiopia has a very unique history and as such has a very unique perspective on what should be canon.  They believe themselves to be Jewish and part of the inheritance.  Unless my memory fails me, the Donatists and the great growth of controversy in the church circa 300 would play a role in this issue also.  With a unique history, they have a unique paradigm that gives them a conflicted opinion among themselves.

You shouldn't avoid it. It does affect your view of God's perfect word in other translations. I don't see where you named one that you consider to be a perfect translation in another language. Could you provide a short list??.... or is it simply a ideal you hold without any substance to back it up?

Let me simply address "Providence" since that seemed to repeat itself:
I do not believe in double inspiration.  I do believe in the sovereignty of an almighty God and His providence in every occurrence - even today's weather.  Hence, it is easy for me to see a path through history that led up to this work of translation.

Yet, I can't help but recognize that you only see this in the KJV alone. Can you give me an example of God's providence in play apart from its culmination in the KJV?

Thanks

In regards to the gender switch in the pronoun referencing the lamb:
I have read many arguments concerning this.  Some suggest a rendering of a single gender meaning homosexuality is permitted.  Some suggest a different point of emphasis in each passage - the she lamb only a representation of the coming Christ vs. the he lamb showing Christ now is the Lamb of God.  Some suggest the switch to be irrelevant because it does not affect the testimony of truth.  Some suggest the switch due to Hebrew vs Greek dealings with our English "it."

I think your argument is similar to the argument of different Gospels presenting quotations differently (Which was correct?).  However, we know that, under inspiration, the writers were presenting the picture of Christ from different perspectives that different lessons may be learned.  This was much like unto the OT prophet pointing to different time periods all while speaking of one event.  Hence, I would tend to go with the argument that presents the coming vs. present Christ.  However, I would really only argue against the promotion of homosexuality.


No, I cannot provide a short list of other current Bibles that have been translated into other languages.  I have a well-enough time trying to understand and apply the English version to bother with attempting to prove the accuracy of a translation to a language in which I am not fluent.  Any spare time I have is devoted to correcting heretics on the forum ;D.


God's providence at play apart from the KJV?  Sure!  Through a long chain of events, I began posting on this forum with intention to "go all fundy and blast people out of the water."  However, I have instead found a place for good natured humor and semi-formal debate to challenge my stand on several issues.  My stand on these issues has been galvanized through the reading of opposing views and my necessitated presentation of my beliefs.  This was a work that worked together for my good.  See?  Providence!

 

[christundivided]

In regards to the gender switch in the pronoun referencing the lamb:
I have read many arguments concerning this.  Some suggest a rendering of a single gender meaning homosexuality is permitted.  Some suggest a different point of emphasis in each passage - the she lamb only a representation of the coming Christ vs. the he lamb showing Christ now is the Lamb of God.  Some suggest the switch to be irrelevant because it does not affect the testimony of truth.  Some suggest the switch due to Hebrew vs Greek dealings with our English "it."

The issue is really rather simple. It really doesn't have anything to do with a translation from Hebrew to Greek. A clean translation would not have produced the results given. We must go back to OT source to understand the problem. The quote in Acts 8:32 is a direct quote from the LXX and not MS. This perfectly explains the reference.

FSSL is going to argue that the KJV is deficient in Isa 53:7... and there is an argument to be made for that. The KJV does take liberties in translating Isa 53:7 that doesn't necessarily "pan out".

We've had this discussion before at the old forum and its is a rather interesting discussion.

I think your argument is similar to the argument of different Gospels presenting quotations differently (Which was correct?).  However, we know that, under inspiration, the writers were presenting the picture of Christ from different perspectives that different lessons may be learned.  This was much like unto the OT prophet pointing to different time periods all while speaking of one event.  Hence, I would tend to go with the argument that presents the coming vs. present Christ.  However, I would really only argue against the promotion of homosexuality.

How do I know that inspiration was what lead to "presenting a different picture"?

There is are real issue with some quotes in the NT of the OT due to NT quoting OLD Greek sources and not Hebrew/Aramaic sources. This is not often address in many commentaries or translations of the Bible.... yet they are well known. Its has caused somewhat of a controversy among modern translators. Some see the LXX profitable. Others, can't get past all the canonical issues.

Either way, you should accept your KJV has some LXX renderings. Something many KJVOist refuse to acknowledge.

No, I cannot provide a short list of other current Bibles that have been translated into other languages.  I have a well-enough time trying to understand and apply the English version to bother with attempting to prove the accuracy of a translation to a language in which I am not fluent.  Any spare time I have is devoted to correcting heretics on the forum ;D.

Ouch. I hope that wasn't aimed at me.

God's providence at play apart from the KJV?  Sure!  Through a long chain of events, I began posting on this forum with intention to "go all fundy and blast people out of the water."  However, I have instead found a place for good natured humor and semi-formal debate to challenge my stand on several issues.  My stand on these issues has been galvanized through the reading of opposing views and my necessitated presentation of my beliefs.  This was a work that worked together for my good.  See?  Providence!

I think you see my point. I appreciate the decision. God Bless you.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Show me 'the TR' lol.  The one Scrv. made up after the fact?  One of Erasmus's 5 or so?  Laughable.  There is no existent copy of the 'TR' in any language except English.

Anishinabe

What you mean by "made up after the fact"?

The TR was originally written in Greek and Latin. Erasmus wanted to improve the main Bible of the Church which was the Latin Vulgate.  It had been the KJV of the Church since Jerome wrote it.
Erasmus wanted to correct the errors that had gotten in the text over several hundred years.
Latin was the universal language of the Church and continued to be until at least the 1800s.

Here is a link to Erasmus 1519 and Erasmus 1521.

http://www.bibles-online.net/

These are Erasmus' second and third editions of his Greek Latin New Testament.


I just love original sources.

Actually this Bible was printed in 1514 before Erasmus finished his and he is reputed to have used it in the writing of his 1516 edition.

http://ia700309.us.archive.org/11/items/Complutensian_Polyglot/Complutensian-Polyglot.pdf

While it was printed first Cardinal Archbishop Francisco Ximenez de Cisneros the editor was awaiting the approval of the pope before it was released and distributed widely. Finally released with the popes blessing in 1522.

Erasmus did not get approval from the pope to publish his 1516 edition he just dedicated it to the pope and hoped the pope wouldn't have him burned at the stake.

All of these early TRs bare a heavy Catholic Church and Latin Vulgate influence.

Please note all of these have the Latin along side the Greek.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Show me 'the TR' lol.  The one Scrv. made up after the fact?  One of Erasmus's 5 or so?  Laughable.  There is no existent copy of the 'TR' in any language except English.

Anishinabe

What you mean by "made up after the fact"?

The TR was originally written in Greek and Latin. Erasmus wanted to improve the main Bible of the Church which was the Latin Vulgate.  It had been the KJV of the Church since Jerome wrote it.
Erasmus wanted to correct the errors that had gotten in the text over several hundred years.
Latin was the universal language of the Church and continued to be until at least the 1800s.


Here is a link to Erasmus 1519 and Erasmus 1521.

http://www.bibles-online.net/

These are Erasmus' second and third editions of his Greek Latin New Testament.


I just love original sources.

You are very informative.  And also none of the information that you provided has any bearing on the fact that the translators had a body of documents in many languages, including a previous English translation of the Vulgate: Wycliffe's.  That you, I, nor anyone else after 1621 has ever laid eyes on that body of documents IN ITS ENTIRITY, or laid eyes on the notes that documented which readings in which languages contributed to which passages, is inarguably fact.  So giving a history, skewed of course with Pro-Rome bias, doesn't shed light on the subject at hand.

Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Tapatalk 2

My point is that the original TR was a Greek Latin NT. It was not in English.

I do not understand the comment about an English TR.

I have heard the speculation that the Translators had Wycliffe's 1390.

I have never been able to find any verification.

Where did you get your info on the Wycliffe's version being used by KJV translators?

 

[prophet]

Show me 'the TR' lol.  The one Scrv. made up after the fact?  One of Erasmus's 5 or so?  Laughable.  There is no existent copy of the 'TR' in any language except English.

Anishinabe

What you mean by "made up after the fact"?

The TR was originally written in Greek and Latin. Erasmus wanted to improve the main Bible of the Church which was the Latin Vulgate.  It had been the KJV of the Church since Jerome wrote it.
Erasmus wanted to correct the errors that had gotten in the text over several hundred years.
Latin was the universal language of the Church and continued to be until at least the 1800s.


Here is a link to Erasmus 1519 and Erasmus 1521.

http://www.bibles-online.net/

These are Erasmus' second and third editions of his Greek Latin New Testament.


I just love original sources.

You are very informative.  And also none of the information that you provided has any bearing on the fact that the translators had a body of documents in many languages, including a previous English translation of the Vulgate: Wycliffe's.  That you, I, nor anyone else after 1621 has ever laid eyes on that body of documents IN ITS ENTIRITY, or laid eyes on the notes that documented which readings in which languages contributed to which passages, is inarguably fact.  So giving a history, skewed of course with Pro-Rome bias, doesn't shed light on the subject at hand.

Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Tapatalk 2

My point is that the original TR was a Greek Latin NT. It was not in English.

I do not understand the comment about an English TR.

I have heard the speculation that the Translators had Wycliffe's 1390.

I have never been able to find any verification.

Where did you get your info on the Wycliffe's version being used by KJV translators?

"...and with the former translations.."


Anishinabe