SAWBONES said:
Mitex said:
Howdy Sawbones! It's been awhile.
1) I have never said that our English Bible can't be improved. Improvement is not proof of error or imperfection.
2) I have never said that any version or translator is wrong for using Passover in Acts 12:4.
3) I have never accused your preferred version of error.
3) I have argued against this silly idea that an archaic or obsolete word found in the Scriptures is proof of error or imperfection of Scripture.
4) I have argued round and round with English Onlyists about the meaning of Easter as found in the context of Acts 12:4 and stated clearly that the meaning of Easter in the context of older English versions such as the AV 1611 is passover.
Now, is it your stated belief that archaic or obsolete words are erroneous and proof that the Scriptures are in error and imperfect?
Hiya
Mitex/Brent;
1.) OK then, but if capable of "improvement", then by definition not "perfect", and "not perfect" = "imperfect".
Perhaps you should give your definition of perfect. I believe it was Rick Norris who taught me (imagine that) that "more perfect" doesn't mean that "the perfect" was no longer perfect. Think about that for a moment, won't you?
The Scriptures are perfect by definition - it's an axiom, remember? The Scriptures are found in many
forms - diverse languages, written on stone tablets, papyri, in scrolls, codices and modern books, handwritten manuscripts with diverse penmanship and quality of ink, printed on anything from a backroom mimeograph presses, to the largest offset presses in the world. The form of the Scriptures can most certainly be improved. Was the addition of the New Testament to the Law of God an improvement in your mind? Were multiple copies of the autograph distributed to the multitudes an improvement over one singular copy kept in the ark or temple? Was the translation of the Scriptures into the vulgar languages of the plowboys of the world an improvement in the eyes of the plowboys? But I've digressed and leaped vast canyons so deep the feeble minded can't keep up. Let's return to the beginning shall we?
The autographs were originally written in what language? Let's agree with the scholars and say, Hebrew was the original language. For argument's sake let's say, Moses 1390 B.C.(?) was the first penman of Scriptures. Daniel shows up around 600 B.C. (?) writing in Hebrew, etc. The oldest extant Hebrew papyrus is dated around 100 B.C. (?), the oldest extant complete Hebrew Old Testament is dated around 1000 A.D.(?) You still with me? I haven't lost you have I? If the English language changed immensely, between 1611 and 1880 (269 years), what kind of changes do you suppose took place with the Hebrew language between the time of Moses and the Leningrad Codex with a time difference of well over 2000 years? Were those changes in language an improvement? When the Hebrew alphabet moved from Paleo-Hebrew - to Samaritan - to Aramaic - to present day square script, from unaccented to accented were the Scriptures still perfect even though the form of the language improved? I've been told that the original Greek was WRITTENINALLCAPSWITHNOTSPACESORPUNCTUATION, is that true? If so, when later copies 150-300 (?) years later began to separate the words with spaces and punctuation was that an improvement? Sure it was. You still with me? Let's move to English.
Was the Wycliffe Bible the Scriptures? How about Tyndale's Bible? The Bishops Bible? The AV? Please take note of the improvement:
Wycliffe - ...bitook to foure quaternyouns of knyytis, to kepe hym, and wolde aftir pask bringe hym forth to the puple
Tyndale - ...delyvered him to .iiii. quaterniōs of soudiers to be kepte / entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.
Bishops - ...delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people. -
AV 1611 - ...deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
AV 2013 - ...delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Notice any improvement? Were the Scriptures perfect in 1385, 1534, 1568, 1611, 2013? Did spelling improve over time? Did meanings of words change over time? When Moses' Hebrew became archaic and obsolete did the Scriptures become imperfect? If someone suddenly discovered Moses's original autograph, would the obsolete Hebrew, a Hebrew that very few scholars in the world today could decipher, be proof of imperfection? Is the modern day Hebrew Scriptures an improvement over the indecipherable original Hebrew? When the spelling and meanings changed over time did the Scriptures in the previous form become "imperfect'? Of course not! Or God forbid! The Scriptures were complete, accurate, lacking nothing in 1384, 1534, 1568, 1611, and 2013. They were in the exact form that God wanted them to be in each of those years.
Did Scripture become imperfect when Mose's smashed the finger-of-God copy on the mount? Was the 2nd finger-of-God-copy an improvement over the crushed first edition? When Mose's later made his own copies were they any less perfect than God's finger written originals? Do the differences in the various copies of the Ten Commandments (i.e. Ex. and Deut.) make the original copy imperfect, the later copies imperfect or do they all remain perfect despite the differences in jots and tittles and additions (subtractions) of words? Do the Scriptures cease to retain the character of the Scriptures when translated? Did inspiration die with the crumbling of the autographs?
Now let's clear the air once and for all, shall we? When I say the Scriptures are perfect, infallible, given by inspiration of God, etc. I do so based upon doctrine in the Scriptures - in any language. When I say the Authorized Version I mean the generally accepted consensus of AV editions and printings.
The Scriptures in English, and any other language including the original
language (I put language here so Barry won't get confused, unnecessary as it is implied by the context) are perfect by definition.
Can such perfection be updated? Sure. Can it be revised? Sure. Perfection doesn’t apply to individual printings or copies. It applies to the standard text. Nor does it apply to currency in language, spelling, grammar, and type. Improvement of the KJV includes eliminating divergence, adjusting phrases to avoid misunderstandings in modern speech, improvement in readability, and even greater changes where consensus exists. I included that last phrase so you would have something to reply to.
Is that better? Try reading:
https://brentandjaniceriggs.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/the-perfection-of-perfection/
2.) OK, but I don't believe I ever said you did.
It has been implied in this thread. Perhaps not by you. The point being this, an archaic/obsolete word found in the Scriptures is not proof of error or imperfection. Is a more common word with the same meaning an improvement? Yes.
3.) Again, I don't believe I ever said you did such a thing, and BTW, which version would be my preferred version?
I make regular use of several.
I don't know what version or versions you use, so I said, your preferred version. I'll correct that in the future and be sure to say, versionS. Is that ok?
On this board and others the attempted justification for calling words in our English Scriptures error was under the guise of "KJVO attack our versions". I just wanted to make note that i don't.
4.) OK.
Then would it be accurate to state that you accept "Easter" at Acts 12:4 since it's part of the traditional English Scriptures (i.e., the KJV), but that you take meaning of the word there (pascha) to be "Passover"?
The word Easter as found, not only in the AV, but Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, the old Saxon Gospels, the Bishops, etc. had the meaning of "passover" as I noted repeatedly in this thread. I called it archaic, but technically, for the nit-pickers, it is obsolete. I
accept it as much as you accept
Seer (1Sm 9:9) - both are archaic and part of the Scriptures.
I don't accept the convoluted interpretation that wild-eyed English Onlyist try to force the text to mean any more than I accept the interpretation the wild-eyed anti-KJVO on this board and others try to force the text to mean. Interesting enough, both sides of the wild-eyed ones find themselves in agreement when they can't agree on anything else! On the one side, "proof of advanced revelation" and on the other "proof of error", both trying to erroneously force the meaning to include "Easter bunnies, Easter dresses & suchlike", any meaning except
passover.
Obsolete words or archaic words aren't erroneous, just old-fashioned.
Well, in this thread alone there has been statements made to the contrary. Easter as found in the text of Acts 12:4 is indeed obsolete, but not erroneous. Old-fashioned, but not erroneous.
There remains the issue of actual error in use of words, and "Easter" simply isn't "passover", rather just a convenience of expression.
Easter is not an error as stated above. The misinterpretation foisted upon the meaning of the text is an obvious error made by the wild-eyed ones on both sides of the current debate!
Additionally, I would not say that sorting through questions of this sort is "accusing the Scriptures of error".
Sorting through the questions in this particular post, no, however, the accusation that the English Scriptures are in error because of the presence of archaic, obsolete and old fashioned words, syntax and grammar structures abound!
but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."
