Donald Trump spoke in Michigan a week ago. I viewed the livestream presentation last Sunday afternoon. It was hard to stomach. He spoke again last night in Selma, North Carolina and his groupies such as Mike Lindell, the woman running for governor of Arizona on a Trump ticket were present. At the Michigan event in Washington, Michigan on March 2nd, he announced his "RINO" (translated: anybody who raises an eyebrow at Donald Trump) hitlist. Two Michigan Congressmen Peter Meijer and Fred Upton were included. The next day Upon announced his retirement and Trump has been boasting about his success in chasing them from the political scene. Brave Liz Cheney is on his list. He already chased Adam Kinzinger away, but don't count Kinzinger out. He has formed a brave Country First PAC (Political Action Committee.
I've written before about the LOVE JOY TRUMP book that clearly includes unashamedly blatant New Age themes and proclamations such as Trump is ushering in the Age of Aquarius, the Millennial Reign of Christ, and Gaia worship. This should be shocking to anybody knowing specifics about the New Age Movement and their Bible. I'm bothered by how little it is disturbing Evangelicals and some Catholics who once professed to know better.
I believe Trump is consciously operating out of the old Nazi/Hitler playbook. He has declared that if he is re=elected President in 2024 he will pardon those charged and convicted with the Capitol invasion on January 6, 2021. He is running efforts to take control of the election machinery from the bottom up - precinct workers, clerks, public officials, judges and putting those in power who will reaffirm his big lie that he was elected by a landslide in 2020 but the "Bit Steal" intervened. He is holding frequent large scale rallies that in some ways remind me of Munich spectacles.
Brannon Howse has made probably an excellent living parroting the information I pioneered on the New Age Movement and its ramifications for Christians. For that, I have no complaint, although I think it strange that he never attempted to make contact with me. As those of you who hav e, you know that I pick up my phone and am willing to generously share information and sources.
Now, Brannon Howse and Mike Lindell have worked together in recent history. Brannon Howse certainly knows enough about the New Age Movement to have set Mike Lindell straight. Even a cursory glance at LOVE JOY TRUMP that Lindell forwarded and probably paid for the publication would have clearly shown Mr. Howse that Mike Lindell and the cohorts writing that book were either New Age activists and/or had followed into its trap. Why did he obviously not set Lindell straight? I bluntly have to assume that Mike Lindell's money was more important to Brannon Howse than Mike Lindell's soul!
What about Qanon?
Qanon is obviously alive and well on Planet Earth. A Trump enrosed Secretary of State candidate for michigan Kristine Karamo spoke to a recent Michigan Republic Club meeting on the second Wednesday of March, 2022. I was present, seated near the font and given the mike to question her. I expressed my fears and concerns to her about Qanon and itss possible spread to the Michigan Trump circles. She told the entire room she knew little or nothing about Qanon. I wa shocked even before I learned the full truth because she claims to have a master's degree in Apologetics. It is impossible in my opinion to be in that field and not be aware of Qanon.
Yesterday, another candidate for the same office, a Michigan State Representative from the Upper Peninsula introduced himself to me at a small political meeting. I was there to help notarize precinct delegate applications. I decided to tell h im my concerns about Ms. Karamo's statements to me and the large audience of which I was a part this past week -- our local GoGop meeting. He was shocked at her reported lack of knowledge. "Kristine Karamo spoke at a national Qanon Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 23, 2021 and he promptly handed me the evidence. You can find it yourself easily on a Google / Duck Dck Go / Bing or other internet engine search.
Bluntly, she lied.
It is also looking to me sadly as though Archbishop Vigano is also falling into the Qanon and beyond traps including the theory that Putin is a hero trying to block the World Economic Forum and New World Order.
So much confusion -- hard to know where to start to fight it. I am also fearful that some of you might be taken in by the Qanon cult. We must be praying daily, "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
Constance
1,072 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1072 of 1072J @ 4:27 PM,
Once again, you make the fundamental (and illogical)—and anachronistic—error of claiming the newer versions “changed” the KJV readings. So, let me fix your question, and then I’ll answer it:
Oh, then you must not agree with Riplinger about it being wrong that some of the KJV renderings of "he" and "him" are instead "the one/One” in modern versions?
You must be referring to chapter 5: The One vs. The Holy One. What Riplinger has identified is an English translational preference issue—one that I can tell she is clueless on. While I didn’t check them all, the ones I did check have the Greek article, which is very roughly “the” in English. Since the ones I’ve seen so far have the article substantivizing a participle, they would look very roughly and overly-literally like the following (with direct objects in parenthesis for some clarity):
Matt 13:37 the sowing (the good seed)
Matt 24:13 the enduring (to the end)
In each case the article—very roughly translated “the” here for illustrative purposes—is masculine in grammatical gender. English has no way to translate a “the” as masculine. So, to capture the masculine gender, the KJV translators chose to use the English personal pronoun “he”. But that’s not the end of this issue.
Let’s scrutinize our selections:
Matt 13:37: KJV: He that soweth / NASB: The one who sows / NIV: The one who sowed
Matt 24:13: KJV: he that shall endure / NASB: the one who endures / NIV: the one who stands firm
Note that it’s imperative to translate either as “the one who” (NASB/NIV) or “he that” (KJV). In other words, it necessarily takes more than one word to translate to English here. Riplinger missed this VERY IMPORTANT aspect.
In Matt 13:37 the larger context within the same verse shows that ‘the Son of Man’ is the sower. Thus, “the one who” refers directly to ‘the Son of Man’, so the gender is made clear. In Matt 24:13 the larger context refers to anyone, male or female; so, would the KJV be correct here with its very limited “he that” here? Or do we assume it’s only males who will endure?
And if this is a big deal, then we should also note the improper English in the KJV. When referring to personal pronouns, who should follow (“he who”, NOT “he that” or “he which”). Only things are followed by which or that (“the tool which”).
Appropriately, the ‘who’ in “the one who” makes it personal, NOT the impersonal neuter “the One” of Hinduism/New Age.
Also, the masculine plural Greek article cannot be translated to English using a personal pronoun for masculine, because English does not HAVE a masculine plural pronoun. Here’s one example:
Matt 10:20 you the speaking / KJV: ye that speak / NASB: you who speak / NIV: you speaking
The context shows that this is referring to the Twelve, but there’s no way to indicate the masculine in English.
So, this is a HUGE nothingburger.
For those needing remedial English, here's Grammerly on the pronoun issue:
grammarly.com/blog/when-to-use-which-and-who/
"Did you know that which has been around in various forms since the eighth century? Who dates to sometime before 900. Despite hundreds of years of use, the terms still confuse some speakers. How can you decide between these two interrogative pronouns?"
So, as we can see (those of us who do not look at things anachronistically), These terms predate the KJV.
"...Many find it harder to use who or which as relative pronouns than as interrogative pronouns. Who is still restricted to people: The man who started the petition delivered it personally to the board. Mr. Johnson, who was my mathematics teacher in elementary school, finished first in the marathon. Which describes things. The hammer, which my father accidentally left on the roof, fell during the spring rains.
"Will you be part of the first generation to master the age-old who and which? You can be, if you spread the word: Who is always associated with people. Which is used with things."
Craig 7:54 PM,
I'm sure what you say is valid for that subset of translation issues that you have addressed very well and thoroughly. No doubt you're right that Gail Riplinger was being naive about some of the grammar and translation issues from Greek to English.
But in that same chapter, it doesn't end only with that type of grammatical misunderstanding.
Isn't "one and only" different from "only begotten?" What about "Chosen One" vs. "my beloved Son?"
John 1:14
New International Version
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:14
King James Version
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Luke 9:35
New American Standard Bible
35 And then a voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”
Luke 9:35
King James Version
35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
This is one more issue with the NIV I became aware of.
Where can the prophecy of Mark 1:2 be found in Isaiah in the NIV?
Mark 1:2
New International Version
2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[a]—
Mark 1:2
King James Version
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Another problem I just learned about:
Does a person go into great detail about what they “have seen”, (Col. 2:18 – NIV) or "things which he hath not seen?" (Col. 2:18 KJV)
Colossians 2:18
New International Version
18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.
Colossians 2:18
King James Version
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Here is one more example of calling JESUS, not just anybody, "the One" instead of "he."
Revelation 2:1
King James Version
2 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Revelation 2:1
New American Standard Bible
Message to Ephesus
2 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks [a]among the seven golden lampstands, says this:
J @ 8:59 PM,
This is the exact same issue I discussed above; these are both substantivized participles. And the larger context (1:17-18) makes it clear that Jesus is the speaker. No harm, no foul.
---
@ 7:54 PM,
Since you noted that RC Sproul used an ESV, I'd suggest getting an ESV study Bible. These have cross-references and notes on the page to make it very easy to navigate to parallel passages and OT quotations/allusions.
So, in Luke 9:35 you can go directly to both Matthew 17:5 and Mark 9:7 to compare. Given that the NIV has "whom I love" in both parallel passages, we should question if Luke 9:35 is some sort of New Age conspiracy, for if this were the case, certainly the Alexandrian manuscripts would have also 'changed' Matthew 17:5 and Mark 9:7.
Looking at the notes in my NIV Study Bible, I find a reference to Isaiah 42:1, which refers to "my chosen one" and "mine elect":
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah 42&version=NIV,KJV
Regarding John 1:14, this is a translation issue. First listen for 25 seconds here as James White explains monogenēs:
Gail Riplinger vs. James White, 1993, KRDS Radio Part III
This is a compound word made up of monos, “only”, and genos, “kind”. The unfortunate translation of “begotten” comes from an error in equating this word as monos + gennaō, the latter being the verb for “beget” (note the two “n”s in the Greek transliteration). [This verb gennaō is used at the end of 1:13 for children of God, so 1:14 is likely to contrast with it.]
So, the NIV "the one and only" is a decent enough translation/paraphrase of monogenēs, and they added "Son" in their paraphrase (dynamic equivalent).
J @ 8:29 PM,
As regarding Mark 1:2, this is a textual issue. However, note that Isaiah 40:3 IS quoted in Mark 1:3.
---
On Colossians 2:18, this is also a textual issue: some texts have "not", others do not. Is this maybe referring to those who have 'visions' (think hyper-charismatics), who may be daydreaming, hallucinating, etc.? I dunno.
J @ 8:59 PM,
I'm going to reiterate a point @ 7:54 PM:
Appropriately, the ‘who’ in “the one who” makes it personal, NOT the impersonal neuter “the One” of Hinduism/New Age.
So, had the Revelation 2:1 verse been translated with both instances of "who" lacking, that is, as:
The One holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One walks [a]among the seven golden lampstands, says this:
...THEN I'd be really concerned. As it is in the NASB, it doesn't say what Riplinger either THINKS or, alternatively, WANTS it to say. "One" is capitalized because it refers to the glorified Jesus.
The Haters: The KJV Only Movement
Thankfully, advocates of KJV Onlyism are not “hating” on us as frequently as they used to. I don't know if this is due to the movement dying out or due to its advocates becoming more civil (highly unlikely), but I am thankful that we do not have to deal with KJV Onlyism as much as we used to. I remember the first time I was exposed to KJV Onlyism. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. I did not know anything about the Textus Receptus, or Erasmus, or King James VI. All I knew was the idea that English speakers are required by God to use a Bible translation from 17th century England is ludicrous. As I am now much more familiar with the arguments, I am still absolutely convinced that KJV Onlyism is terribly misguided and horribly destructive to the Body of Christ.
What is the true origin of KJV Onlyism? My informed speculation is that it is due to a resistance to change. In the 20th century, when English translations of the Bible other than the KJV started becoming popular, those who were used to the KJV did not want to change and relearn all the Bible verses they knew. But, they couldn't just admit, "I'm an old fuddy-duddy and don't want to change," so they began developing arguments for the KJV and against all the new translations. These arguments have been improved upon, and have gained traction, and have been passed on to new generations of English-speaking Christians.
While they rarely admit it, advocates of KJV Onlyism essentially believe that God re-inspired the Bible in AD 1611. Ultimately, they have to go there because if they place their loyalty on the Textus Receptus (the Greek manuscript compilation used by the KJV translators), that would open the door to new translations being created. And, we can't have that, so, God must have perfectly superintended the KJV translators into creating a perfect representation of His Word in English. From their writings, it appears advocates of KJV Onlyism hate the NKJV, KJ21, and MKJV just as much as they hate the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, CSB, etc. No, in order for KJV Onlyism to be true, God had to have re-inspired the Bible through the KJV translators.
...
Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn't make any sense to me. Now, the more scholarly KJV Onlyites will make arguments for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV. But, if you ask them if a new translation could be created from those manuscripts, watch out. I would advise body armor and ear muffs. Others will argue against the translation methodology of the new translations. But, with the more literal modern translations, like the NASB and ESV, the translation methodology is not dissimilar from what the KJV translators employed. Still others will attack the integrity, morals, and motivations of the modern translators. So, evidently, the group of 17th century British Anglicans behind the KJV were sinless, had perfect theology, and had absolutely no ulterior motives.
KJV Onlyism is a good example of Solomon's words in Ecclesiastes that there is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he was labeled a heretic by some for daring to “change” the Bible. Centuries later, when Jerome's Latin Vulgate became nearly universally accepted in the Western church, many who dared to attempt updates were murdered. Then, when believers in Germany, England, and other countries began translating the Bible into their common languages, they were labeled heretics, and some were burned at the stake for their vulgarity. KJV Onlyism makes the exact same mistake. Instead of focusing their loyalties on the original Hebrew and Greek, they make their preferred translation of the Bible the only true Bible and persecute anyone with a different preference. There are movements similar to KJV Onlyism in other languages as well, although, thankfully, not with nearly the same followings.
(cont)
Don't be deceived by KJV Onlyism. God did not re-inspire the Bible in AD 1611. The King James Version is not the only Bible we can use. The new translations are not a part of a grand conspiracy to spread false doctrine. When the Bible was written, it was written in the common and current language of the people of that time. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into the common and current language of the people. My first reaction to being exposed to KJV Onlyism was precisely correct. To force the English-speaking world to use an archaic and antiquated translation is ridiculous. The KJV Onlyites can bemoan all they want, but their concupiscence for disputation is verily brutish.
S. Michael Houdmann
https://www.gotquestions.blog/KJV-onlyism.html
Are the Peshitta Manuscripts Older?
http://www.superbook.org/LAMSA/FAQ/peshitta_manuscripts_older.htm
Craig,
I feel bad for you that you've been almost the sole voice of textual criticism against a chorus of KJV defenders here. I appreciate that you've taken the time to explain some of your objections to various arguments from a textual criticism perspective. I hope you don't feel beat up or ganged up on.
I don't expect you to abandon your commitment to learning and practicing textual criticism, and I don't think you should. It was already a thing before you got to it, and the field could need people like you, who want to pay close attention to the text in good faith, without an axe to grind.
I hope you will take seriously that people with a prior ideological commitment, and even people with a prior New Age commitment, go into the field of textual criticism. You have never shown any sign of being one of them, and I don't hold you guilty by association with them.
I would only ask you to consider exposing and opposing them if and when you do find them out as you go along in your study. I believe that people who are willing and able to do that are sorely needed. Undermining the word of God could come from the direction of feminism, LGBTQ, Islam, New Age, Jesuit and other angles.
Ephesians 5:11
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
King James Version (KJV)
LOL J....you have completely jumped the shark.
"chorus of KJV defenders here"....sure. You sure got on board with this conspiracy quickly.
Craig will be just fine being associated with "them" who don't somehow contrive the KJV to be the original source of the Word.
Do you know the personal lives of every KJV author or contributor in any manner back in 1611 and then again in 1769?
KJV only'ism is the new age, qanon-like, precursor to one world government and one world religion type nonsense that's sneaking into the church "undermining the word of God".
Like you said..."it could from the direction of .... and OTHER ANGLES" (emphasis mine)...
Maga-qanon types are particularly susceptible to this resurgent nonsense.
x
J said: "against a chorus of KJV defenders here"
My wife wanted to point out too...that neither Craig nor I ever "attacked" the KJV.
None of you are defending the KJV here...you're merely presenting a loosely sourced conspiratorial argument that the KJV should be the only source of the Word.
Your claim(s) are lacking and most here over the years (to the extent any kind of majority even matters), including Mrs. Cumbey utilize multiple translations.
x
Getting back to the discussion about whether or not Isaiah 14 contains a reference to the being who has traditionally been named Lucifer by Christians...
Regardless of whether it's more literal to translate the word as "morning star" or as "Lucifer," Ezekiel 28 has frequently been read as parallel to Isaiah 14. In ASV a being is called "covering cherub" and in KJV this same being is called "the anointed cherub that covereth" in Ezekiel 28:16
Even though both Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 have a context of prophesying the downfall of earthly rulers, that doesn't mean that the being we have traditionally called "Lucifer" is not also in view. It's kind of hard to see all of this as applying to any earthly ruler:
KJV Ezekiel 28:13-19
13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
See what the Good News Bible makes of Ezekiel 28:13-19
13 You lived in Eden, the garden of God, and wore gems of every kind: rubies and diamonds; topaz, beryl, carnelian, and jasper; sapphires, emeralds, and garnets. You had ornaments of gold. They were made for you[b] on the day you were created. 14 I put a terrifying angel there to guard you.[c] You lived on my holy mountain and walked among sparkling gems. 15 Your conduct was perfect from the day you were created until you began to do evil. 16 You were busy buying and selling, and this led you to violence and sin. So I forced you to leave my holy mountain, and the angel who guarded you drove you away from the sparkling gems. 17 You were proud of being handsome, and your fame made you act like a fool. Because of this I hurled you to the ground and left you as a warning to other kings. 18 You did such evil in buying and selling that your places of worship were corrupted. So I set fire to the city and burned it to the ground. All who look at you now see you reduced to ashes. 19 You are gone, gone forever, and all the nations that had come to know you are terrified, afraid that they will share your fate.”
I think the Good News "Bible" is a piece of junk.
I had a paperback one given to me and I started reading it but I threw it away.
It also doesn't use the word virgin in reference to Mary the mother of Jesus.
Called her a girl. That's it. Horribly lacking in my mind..
The Good News Bible is a paraphrase translation.
You won't find many defenders of it here.
I wouldn't even attempt to defend the NIV, a thought for thought translation. But I'm not kicking anyone out of my men's bible study for using either of them. If the subject comes up or anyone asks me what versions to get, again, I stick with the ESV and NASB.
Translations are important but it's a third-tier issue to me. It strikes me as idolatry, if not a works-based theology??
x
7:13 PM,
I agree about the Good News Bible. I never liked it either, not even when I was very young and didn't pay attention to sermons in church. My church friend took a strong disliking to it at a young age, too.
X,
No disagreement from me.
So many think it is a Bible though, so that's a problem. Hopefully others can help those who don't know to know more fully what the Bible really teaches in that case. I just stick with my KJV, NKJV and my ESV...
America has a Bible on nearly every coffee table yet remains largely biblically illiterate.
I pray for our country.
Matt 4:4
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”
Not everyone is likely aware but the Good News paraphrase (not a translation) is just the New Testament. It's only 27 books, not 73.
I'm not sure but I think it may have been intended to be an easy-to-read translation for children and other new believers with the Gospels coming first.
x
I teach Sunday School.
I have not, would not, ever use a paraphrase.
I don't teach from the Bible. I teach the Bible. To children.
No half way, half truths, in my class.
My 3rd-4th grade kiddos are taught to love the Word early in life.
They are learning to see Jesus in every book of the Bible.
Those young ones bless me so much.
8:34 PM,
Are you the one who perceived that the watered down bibles de-emphasized being saved by grace?
I thought of that again just now while reading, Why They Changed the Bible: One World Bible for One World Religion.
Apparently the Greek texts that are used worldwide for translation, were worked on by both Protestants and Roman Catholics.
All modern bible translations now use the same ecumenical Greek text worldwide.
Do you have examples of watered down scriptures that deal with the topic of being saved by grace through faith? I'd be very interested if you do.
If you can't quickly find any, that's okay. I'll do some looking on my own, too.
Thanks.
J,
I was talking in particular about the bible written for the social justice crowd, the gender fluid crowd, the uber-liberal "bible" that doesn't teach grace through faith in Christ.
They are teaching their own version of "good works" -- meaning in order to be considered good you must look like (act), and accept them, in their willful sin, such as the 'Queen James Bible'. I bet there will be many more like that coming out.
We know it's a trending thing to attack the Bible...and those who believe it.
x,
The Bible Canon is 66 books.
9:57
Of course...thanks for the correction. I looked up the Good News Bible knowing it was just the old testament and that's the numbers it gave. Didn't realize I was on a roman catholic website and just didn't think about it.
My bad. 66 Books. duh!
x
9:48 PM,
I knew there was a "gay bible," but I didn't know it was named the Queen James Bible.
It looks like the translators of the Queen James Bible used Deuteronomy 23:17 translations in the NIV, ESV and NASB to get their idea for most other references to homosexuality in the bible. That is, their main move is to say it's not about homosexual acts per se; it's about temple prostitution connected with pagan worship. They do have a few other moves, but that looks like it is the most frequent thing they are doing.
No, correct, upon further reading, I see there were not translators of the Queen James Bible. They set out to change the King James Bible into an LGBTQ-friendly book and called it the Queen James Bible because of the homosexuality of King James.
King James did not translate it himself. He commissioned a team of 47 translators. There were several groupings, including groups at Cambridge and Oxford.
It didn't just start with King James. First Erasmus translated the Textus Receptus. RayB has mentioned several Bibles based on the Textus Receptus, including the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles, before the King James Bible.
It's likely King James was interested in strengthening Protestant England against Roman Catholicism and Popery. That was part of the "game of thrones" of his day and age. He had nothing at all to do with the translations other than commissioning them.
I meant to write "correction," not "correct."
I’ve been busy, but I may respond to a few comments later, this weekend.
I found this on YouTube, and I’ve stamped at the 16 minute mark:
Gail Riplinger - Perfection Or Perversion of the Holy Bible
Taking just one minute of this, I can refute many of her claims, though here I’ll take just one. First, she makes the sweeping claim that Alexandrian texts purposefully “tried to make [the Apostle’s text] match Alexandrian philosophy”.
As her first ‘proof’, she quotes the KJV of Ephesians 3:9: …God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. She then claims, “But the new versions just say ‘God who created all things’”, implying the new translations are based on such an Alexandrian text ‘made to match Alexandrian philosophy. While it’s accurate that the new versions do not have that final clause in Ephesians 3:9, for her reasoning to hold true John 1:3 wouldn’t say “through Him [the Word] all things were made”, and Colossians 1:17 wouldn’t say “all things have been created through Him [Jesus Christ]”.
We must note that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not contain that final clause in Ephesians 3:9, yet they DO contain the above noted clauses in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:17. So, her sweeping claim is shown to be false. For her claim to have any validity, these would have been ‘taken out’, as well.
The truth is that “by Jesus Christ” in Ephesians 3:9 is not found in any Greek text until the 9th century. Hence, the most likely scenario is that a scribe had added that final clause in order to parallel it with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:17.
I should note also that “by Jesus Christ” is arguably bad translation in the KJV. The preposition is dia, which is best translated as “through” here (though it can mean “by”, this must be determined by context). First go to Revelation 4:11 and read the text in ANY English version. The context reveals it was God the Father (“the One Who sits on the Throne”)—in distinction from “the Lamb” in Rev 5—Who created all things, with no further qualification (just like Ephesians 3:9 in the new versions). Thus, when we take this verse and compare/harmonize with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:17, we see that God the Father created all things THROUGH the Word / Jesus Christ. In other words, the Word was the agent of creation. Both John 1:3 and Colossians 1:17 use the preposition dia; so, “through” is the correct translation.
So much for the supremacy of the KJV.
Craig 8:15 AM,
I think your above comment is a reasonable criticism of Gail Riplinger. I found something similar with her assertion about removing Lucifer from the Bible. The word "Lucifer" was changed. But Ezekiel 28 still contains a story about a fallen angel, and it has to be the being who has traditionally been called "Lucifer."
I think her claim that all trace of "Lucifer" was removed from the Bible is an overblown claim. But I still think that removing the word "Lucifer" from the Bible, even if justified from a literal translation perspective, can be confusing. Even if the word is changed to "morning star," notes ought to clarify it in the margin, that the "morning star" or "day star" was translated as "Lucifer" in the KJV.
I think the importance of it is because of so many New Agers being confused (such as Thomas Dahlheimer, who has often posted here).
I think the removal of the name "Lucifer" was a favor to New Agers and occultists. I don't think it should have just been entirely erased without even a note in the margin.
Craig states (mockingly) @ 8:15 AM:
"So much for the supremacy of the KJV."
So Craig, obviously you hold a sneering view of the KJV. In your 'humble' opinion, which Bible is the one in your learned mind that holds the title of being "supreme?"
RayB,
Obviously you have difficulty with context. My point is folks like YOU who claim the supremacy of the KJV OVER all modern versions (for dubious reasons). I don't hold ANY versions as "supreme". I never 'sneered' at the KJV, though I have made a few criticisms of bad translations, outdated English, and even poor English ("he that", e.g.).
Craig,
So your sarcastic "so much for the supremacy of the KJV" comment wasn't condescending?
Really?
As I asked before, I'll ask again. I think we all would like to know what exactly are your qualifications ...
1. Have you formally studied Koine Greek via an institute of higher learning?
2. Have you reached any recognized formal level of expertise in Koine Greek?
3. Should Bibles be trusted that are derived from the Textus Receptus, (such as the Geneva Bible and the King James Version), in their current form? Do you believe these Bibles are the "Word of God?"
4. Do you believe manuscripts that appear to be 'older' automatically makes them more trustworthy and credible? I ask this, in light of the fact, that God warned us in I John 4:3 that the "spirit of antichrist" "even NOW already if it in the world."
Obviously the "now" in this verse refers to the Apostolic first Century of the Church age, which no doubt predates the Alexandrian texts.
5. Finally, is proficiency in Koine Greek a primary requirement in order to arrive at the true meaning of Bible words and passages?
Craig takes the KJV translators to task for making the judgment to translate the preposition 'dia" with "by" rather than HIS preferred "through." YET, he admits that it CAN MEAN "by." In other words, the KJV translators, made a collective judgment to use the word "by" instead of Craig's PERSONAL preference "through." Tisk, tisk for not agreeing with Craig.
As Craig stated:
"I should note also that “by Jesus Christ” is arguably bad translation in the KJV. The preposition is dia, which is best translated as “through” here (though it can mean “by”, this must be determined by context)."
Take some time to STUDY up on the method that was used to translate the KJV. It had a sophisticated check and balance system which PREVENTED (unlike the modern translations) the translators from injecting their own prejudicial interpretation into their work.
8:31 AM
Agreeing with you, J.
I do think that in ways it as you said:
"I think the importance of it is because of so many New Agers being confused.."
So much for the supremacy of modernizing (I am not saying altogether changing the Bible but is now part of a slippery slope scenario) the Bible.
As you and I have both posted: Let God be true and every man a liar. Romans 3:4
The way people man handle governing in our day and time and in this instance, the Word of God, that may be an intended or perhaps with some cases unintended result to "fix it till it's broke".
God gave us the Bible, and when we boil it all down it's only the Lord's Spirit Who is the true translator (and applicator) of it for us to know what is truth and what is error. Now we see through a glass darkly.....one day we will have the full light of it all and will be able to know it.
And why we need faith in HIM to begin with....
Craig stated to J (in part) @ 1:03 PM:
"Given that you keep referencing Westcott and Hort ..."
"Criticisms of and personal attacks against Westcott and Hort are really non sequiturs. Modern versions are not ‘built on’ Westcott and Hort; they are the result of textual criticism using what is called an eclectic method—in weighing the various manuscripts it considers a number of factors."
NOTE: Is this a true statement? Check this out regarding the incredible influence that Westcott & Hort have had upon modern translations:
Are the Modern Versions Based on Westcott-Hort?
"The theories of textual criticism which underlie the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament of 1881 have been somewhat discredited by textual critics of the 20th century. It is not surprising, therefore, that modern version proponents today often disassociate themselves from Westcott-Hort and claim that they merely use an “eclectic” Greek text. (“Eclectic” means to “select or employ individual elements from a variety of sources, systems, or styles.”)
James White, author of the popular and influential book “The King James Only Controversy,” makes this claim. He says, “While modern Greek texts are not identical to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based upon their work” (White, p. 99).
I have heard other modern version defenders imply that Westcott and Hort are irrelevant to the subject of the biblical text because “no textual critic now holds to the Westcott and Hort theories of textual criticism.”
This position DODGES THE REAL ISSUE, WHICH IS THE FACT THAT WESTCOTT AND HORT REPRESENTED THE SIGNAL DEPARTURE FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT THAT IS REPRESENTED TODAY IN THE POPULAR THEORIES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. Westcott and Hort built upon the foundation established by their predecessors, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. Westcott and Hort adapted the textual theories of these men into their own unique blend, and their Greek New Testament represented the first popular departure from the Greek Received Text.
(more)
"While today’s textual scholars do not always admit that they follow Westcott and Hort, many of the more honest ones do admit that they are powerfully influenced by the these men."
"Bruce Metzger is probably the most influential textual critic alive. He is one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament and the author of many widely used books on textual criticism. In his 1981 book The Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament--Yesterday and Today, Metzger makes the following plain admission: “The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, NOT ONLY ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT, BUT FOLLOWED THEIR METHODOLOGY IN GIVING ATTENTION TO BOTH EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL CONSIDERATION” (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264)."
Read this in its entirety here:
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/are_modern_versions_westcott_hort.html
I found it interesting that the Jehovah Witness cult's 'version' the New World Translation is in agreement with many of the modern translations on 1 John 5:7.
This should come as no surprise at all because the JW's firmly deny the Trinity doctrine, and of course, deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
*KJV - "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
JW's New World Translation - "For there are three witness bearers,"
John 1:1 (clearly declaring Jesus Christ (the Word) to be God)
KJV - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
JW's New World Translation - "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
NOTE: By adding the prefix "a," the JW's render Jesus to be just another 'god' among many.
* As I listed in a previous post, the KJV is not the only version that correctly renders this verse, which firmly establishes, in ONE VERSE, the Doctrine of the Trinity.
Rayb,
I think we all would like to know what exactly are your qualifications.
1. Have you formally studied Koine Greek via an institute of higher learning?
2. Have you reached any recognized formal level of expertise in Koine Greek?
3. What religion are you and why don't you attend any church?
4. Is Gail Riplinger qualified?
5. Finally, is proficiency or knowledge of Koine Greek helpful at all in order to arrive at the true meaning of Bible words and passages?
Please let us know.
RayB says: "As I listed in a previous post, the KJV is not the only version that correctly renders this verse, which firmly establishes, in ONE VERSE, the Doctrine of the Trinity."
Modern version lacking that KJV phraseology don't deny the doctine of the Trinity and why "remove" it there and not everywhere if the goal was to water the KJV down?
Here's 25 verses, (including 1 John 5:7 as it reads in modern texts) that affirm and establish the doctrine of the Trinity.
Bible Verses About The Trinity
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-the-trinity/
Is that you X-rated @ 1:19 PM? Why didn't you sign in?
Why? Because as 9:53 AM said, it's going to be "fixed till it's broke."
It's not broke yet, but they're not done yet.
@ 1:32 (X-rated) states:
"Modern version lacking that KJV phraseology don't deny the doctine (sic) of the Trinity and why "remove" it there and not everywhere if the goal was to water the KJV down?"
NOTE: 1 John 5:7 is the ONLY verse that lists all three as ONE. While establishing the Doctrine of the Trinity can be done by collecting other verses together (via some research and work), this is the only one that easily and succinctly defines the Trinity within one verse.
PS: I never claimed to be an expert in Koine Greek, therefore, my so called credentials is a moot point.
15 Rules That Governed the Translators Efforts for the King James Bible
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.
2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.
3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.
4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.
5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.
6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.
7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.
9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.
(continued)
10, If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.
11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.
12.Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.
13.The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.
15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.
"2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used."
"4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith."
The name "Lucifer" would have been kept under both of these rules.
These men should not have been thought stupid to have kept it, as if they didn't know it was Latin, not Greek, and as if their sole goal was - or should have been - nothing but a strictly literal translation from Greek to English.
Reading modern critical text standards back into the work the KJV translators did, and assuming they must not have known better than to keep the name "Lucifer," is a form of being anachronistic.
J @ 2:53 PM,
I would not disagree. At least in this case they followed their own self-prescribed guidelines.
RayB @ 2:35 PM,
You wrote: NOTE: 1 John 5:7 is the ONLY verse that lists all three as ONE. While establishing the Doctrine of the Trinity can be done by collecting other verses together (via some research and work), this is the only one that easily and succinctly defines the Trinity within one verse.
Get out your King James Bible. Go to Matthew 28:19. Do you see "...in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"? This is analogous to saying, 'in the name of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe' (hat tip to Click and Clack), which would representing the one law firm. This is as opposed to 'in the nameS of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe', which would refer to the three individually.
In other words, Matthew 28:19 is instructing to baptize in the Trinity. The three are one.
Craig @ 6:41 PM ...
By the very nature of your statement; "At least in this case they followed their own self-prescribed guidelines," you are implying that in OTHER cases they did not. Therefore, can you provide specific examples as to these other cases in which the KJV translators violated their OWN GUIDELINES as enumerated in the above 15?
RayB @ 7:04 PM:
See below.
RayB @ 9:40 AM commanded (my bold added):
Take some time to STUDY up on the method that was used to translate the KJV. It had a sophisticated check and balance system which PREVENTED (unlike the modern translations) the translators from injecting their own prejudicial interpretation into their work.
I readily admit I wasn’t aware of these 15 tenets you reference @ 2:40, 2:43 PM. In response, the first thing I must ask you is how does this apply to 1 John 5:7, when Erasmus’ first two editions of the KJV did not include the extra wording? This only came to be included in the third edition, after Erasmus’ ‘found’ a (LATE DATE) manuscript with this spurious verbiage. So, were Erasmus’ first two editions not fully “God’s Word” because they lacked these words? Correspondingly, is the Textus Receptus only that which underlies the third edition and not the first two?
----
Now, let’s see how well the KJV translators followed their own instructions with respect to Ephesians 3:9. First though, I note that the final clause “through/by Jesus Christ” is completely absent in Wycliffe’s 1395 and the Douay-Rheims 1582/1899 (and it’s not in the Latin Vulgate).
In the Tyndale 1534 it reads: in God which made all thynges thorow Jesus Christ
In the Bishops Bible it reads: in god, which made all thinges through Iesus Christe
In the Geneva 1560 it reads: God, who hath created all things by Jesus Christ
Hmmm…
I will say the KJV is not too inconsistent in translating this preposition “by” in Paul’s Ephesian letter. However, there is one exception in 2:8: “For by grace are ye saved through faith”. But then, curiously, the KJV has “by the faith of him” in 3:12 and “by faith” in 3:17.
Yet Ephesians 4:6 is another verse bucking the “by” trend:
One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in [en] you all.
Let’s look at this other preposition “en” along with dia in Colossians 1:16–7 (I erred in stating 1:17, when I meant 1:16 above):
KJV: 16 For by [en] him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by [dia] him, and for [eis] him:
17 And he is before all things, and by [en] him all things consist.
Let’s look at the same in the NASB:
NASB: 16 for by [en (footnote “or in”)] Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities—all things have been created through [dia] Him and for [eis] Him. 17 He is before all things, and in [en] Him all things hold together.
Craig @ 6:58 PM ...
I can agree with you in part. To a believer in the Trinity Doctrine, Matthew 28:19 (Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:) certainly would not negate the Trinity. However, it is not declaring the Trinity as clearly as 1 John 5:7. It's not even close.
To illustrate my point; I've said on this blog before that I have dealt with a number of Jehovah Witnesses. Invariably, whenever having discourse with these people, the "trinity" is brought up by them, because they have been trained to use it as a winning argument. (Most professing Christians, if challenged, would have difficulty in defending the Trinity, along with a number of other doctrines, and they know this). Using Matthew 28:19 is not a verse I would use ... in fact ... I never have. The reason being is that the JW's actually use the "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (or Spirit)" when performing baptisms. Obviously, to them, this verse does NOT declare the Trinity. If it did, most assuredly, they would not use it!
When dealing with them, I always use John 1:1 to establish Christ as God, and tell them point blank that they have been lied to and that their translators ADDED the prefix "a" to the verse in order to distort its true meaning. Obviously, I always use 1 John 5:7 and tell them that their translators have removed the meaning from this verse. (As a side bar, I use other verses such as Psalm 45:6,7 and Hebrews 1:5-9).
Craig @ 8:12 PM stated (in part):
"Now, let’s see how well the KJV translators followed their own instructions with respect to Ephesians 3:9. First though, I note that the final clause “through/by Jesus Christ” is completely absent in Wycliffe’s 1395 and the Douay-Rheims 1582/1899 (and it’s not in the Latin Vulgate).
In the Tyndale 1534 it reads: in God which made all thynges thorow Jesus Christ
In the Bishops Bible it reads: in god, which made all thinges through Iesus Christe
In the Geneva 1560 it reads: God, who hath created all things by Jesus Christ
Hmmm…"
Craig,
IMO, the bottom line here is that you believe that you are somehow superior to the translators of the KJV. You seem to be obsessed with straining at gnats, yet, you have no problem when verses such as 1 John 5:7 are virtually destroyed by the modern translators.
Furthermore, what difference does it make if all things were created BY Jesus Christ, or, THROUGH Him?
You have stated yourself that it CAN be interpreted either way. In all my years, this is the very first time I have ever heard anyone make an issue of this.
The fact of the matter is that Jesus Christ is the CREATOR. You do believe that, don't you?
Craig,
Do I understand that you read your Bible by dissecting every word ? Is that really what you do?
I've read several of your posts on your own blog, and that appears to be what you do. I really fail to see the actual benefit of such an endeavor.
For years, you've made it abundantly clear on this blog that you despise the KJV. Is there a Bible that YOU do in fact TRUST? If not, have you ever considered translating and publishing your own Bible Craig?
RayB,
You wrote: To a believer in the Trinity Doctrine, Matthew 28:19…certainly would not negate the Trinity. However, it is not declaring the Trinity as clearly as 1 John 5:7. It's not even close.
Wait, “not negate the Trinity”! This verse not only definitively AFFIRMS the Trinity, it’s the ONLY verse that will be found in Bibles both ancient and modern, including the JW’s NWT.
Comparatively, even the Wycliffe—which PREDATES the KJV—brackets the Johannine Comma, meaning the translators were uncertain if it was actually part of the Holy Scriptures. This is not too different from modern versions.
---
Regarding witnessing to JWs, their ‘bible’ will not even have the Johannine Comma, and your attempts to show them the KJV as the ‘real’ Bible—that all modern Bible versions ‘take out’ this verse—will likely be met with politeness, but no change of mind/heart or conversion. They will just go back to their elders who will explain to them that you are the one who is wrong. So why not challenge them on their interpretation of Matt 28:19, using common sense? If you have a local business with three names, this could be used by analogy—as I’d done above.
Then go to John 1:1. But it helps to know their rationale for their translation. Then, you can use this ‘rationale’ against it, by illustrating its internal inconsistency.
It’s pretty simple, really. English has both a definite article (the) and an indefinite article (a). Greek only has one article (~ ”the”). So, as it relates to God—which is theos, or spelled theon as an accusative/direct object, or theou as a genitive/possessive—the JW NWT rules are:
-With Greek article = “God”
-Without Greek article = “a god”
-except in prepositional phrases, because theo-s/-n/-u is not always preceded by an article
So, the second clause in John 1:1 is:
kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon
“and the Word was with God [ton Theon]”
But the third clause is (with subject and predicate switched in Greek):
kai theos ēn ho Logos
‘and god [theos] was the Word’
“and the Word was a god [theos]”
Now take them to the first clause in John 1:18 (subject and direct object are switched in Greek):
theon oudeis eōraken pōpote
‘god no-one has-seen ever’
“No one has ever seen A god [theon] …”
So, with no Greek article before theon, they must render it “a god” to be consistent with their own rules. Yet they don’t. Why? This is THEIR rule!
It all falls apart!
Craig,
As I stated:
Craig,
Do I understand that you read your Bible by dissecting every word ? Is that really what you do?
I've read several of your posts on your own blog, and that appears to be what you do. I really fail to see the actual benefit of such an endeavor.
For years, you've made it abundantly clear on this blog that you despise the KJV. Is there a Bible that YOU do in fact TRUST? If not, have you ever considered translating and publishing your own Bible Craig?
NOTE: I'll add to this; if you think that you will get ANYWHERE with a non-believer by preaching your 'expertise' in Koine Greek, you are sadly mistaken. For one, most of this goes completely over the head of just about everyone. Two, it sets YOU up as the authority, and not the Word of God. Three, it is incredibly dry, boring and, most importantly, lacking in ANY spiritual power. People come under conviction not by the intellect alone, but by the working of the Holy Spirit, using the Word of God to convict and bring one to saving faith. I don't see the Holy Spirit in ANY of your efforts. Instead, I see Craig.
Spiritual truths appear to be lost in virtually all of your attempts to dissect EVERYTHING according to YOUR understanding of Koine Greek. Your attempts to take the KJV translators to task on even the most minute of points is quite frankly nauseous. Unlike you, these men were highly trained scholars and were subjected to an intricate check and balance system. Even with that, they were flawed men and no doubt, some mistakes were made. You on the other hand, are an amateur 'scholar' in comparison, yet come across as one that has obtained perfect understanding. Your efforts are not the least bit edifying.
You really are showing signs of being in league with X when it comes to attitude. Like X, when it comes to the KJV, you are in attack mode 100% of the time, and it is all centered upon, and driven by, your unbridled hatred for all things that are associated with the KJV. Why do you hate the KJV so much? Care to explain?
What is it that drives you Craig? Is it pride (which happens to be an abomination to the Lord)? Do you really fancy yourself as an intellectual? Whatever you are, I see no signs of any humility. It depresses me to have to say these things, but I feel a sense of duty to warn you; you need to do a serious examination of yourself.
Craig,
One more thing; I don't want to go any further with you on this, due to the fact that I've asked multiple questions of which you have consistently ignored. Without honest discourse, which I feel is lacking on your part, I see no point in continuing.
RayB,
One thing I'd noticed. When your argument is proven wrong, you resort to strawmanning others' positions. With me particularly, I'd noticed that when you're really annoyed about it, you use my name over and over in your demands--riddled with accusations--I answer your straw mans.
Get over it.
In point of fact, years ago I engaged a JW; and when I somewhat simplistically pointed out his error regarding the "and the Word was a god", the missionary looked thoughtful and said he'd be back--because he didn't have an answer. And that is how I learned about their 'rationale' for the NWT translation.
Later he came back with some Watchtower booklets, explaining their methodology. At the time I didn't know Greek well enough to rebut. Now I do.
For all her flaws, Gail Riplinger accomplished at least one thing. As a result of her book, New Age Bible Versions, the Ascension was put back into Luke 24:51 in the NASB.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu3paVx2kok&list=PLhmAbEGx-AnT8VmEOfkIc4U8Zx7cozYEv&index=15
J,
It could be that the NASB ’95 added that final clause to Luke 24:51 as a result of Riplinger’s book. The timing would coincide. But that’s not necessarily the case. It’s possible that the translators wanted to update the NASB anyway. However, to be clear, I’m not dismissing Riplinger’s book as having some or even most of the impetus. I don’t know. And I don’t think Daniels’ knows for sure, either. But if her book had anything to do with it, I feel sure that the translators would not have admitted it.
But there is a plausible explanation for its non-inclusion in the earlier version of the NASB. And I’m not saying I agree with all the following rationale, either—just to make that clear. That is, I am explaining it, as opposed to justifying and agreeing with it.
Before explaining, I do note that the NIV ’84 has this final clause. And, like some other versions, it even adds the words “to heaven” in Acts 1:2, even though these words are not part of ANY Greek text known. According to the footnote, this is apparently to parallel it with Acts 1:11, I presume because “taken up” might not be clear enough for some readers. The NASB ’95 does the same.
Now, here’s the technical part.
I happen to have an old NA25 (Nestle-Aland, 25th version) from 1963. Years ago, I bought it on the cheap as part of a bulk purchase on eBay, and thought it might be useful one day. In the apparatus (basically a form of footnoting), the final clause is listed—as opposed to being placed in the base text. In other words, this version put that final clause in the ‘footnotes’. Now, ANY translating committee can reject a given Critical Text reading, in favor of the alternatives in the apparatus. The NASB chose to accept it.
As a pertinent example, I found a printed copy of the Greek text underlying the 1961 New English Bible. The translators note that they rejected the Critical Text reading in John 1:18, in favor of monogenēs Son. The main reason I bought this (on the cheap) was that the notes ALSO reject the Critical Text reading of John 3:13, which lacks the final clause “the One Who is in heaven”. In other words, the Greek and the English of that old text included that clause. (And the text itself is in a font that, to my eyes, is the easiest I’ve seen to read.)
But more germane to our issue here, the translators chose to accept the Critical Text as is in Luke 24:51. Following is the accompanying note:
The reference to the ascension, absent from Aleph* D a b e ff2 j [ED: manuscripts are abbreviated like this with no commas in between to save space], was held to be a later insertion made probably when the Gospel was detached from Luke-Acts.
Historically, at one point, the two books were together.
At the time of both the NA25 and the Greek text for the NEB 1961, some of the recently discovered papyri were yet to be formally categorized and available to consult. As a result, they weren’t referenced in ANY Greek text. These papyri included papyrus P75, which DOES include that final clause in Luke 24:51. The cataloguing of THIS manuscript tilted the opinions of the CT toward its inclusion in the base text.
The NA28, the newest version (2012), has that final clause in the base text. But I don’t know when this change initially occurred.
Let me add: Daniels claims are quite inflated. Paul's letters ALL predate the written Gospels; and Paul most certainly speaks of the Resurrection and the Ascension. And the Acts of the Apostles--which was an integral part of Luke at one point--speaks of these events, as well.
There's more, but I'll stop there.
How ironic that few people know that Norma McCorvey, who was the 'Jane Roe' of the infamous Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case legalizing abortion, never had an abortion and eventually became pro-life and dedicated her life to overturning the Supreme Court decision that bared her pseudonym before she passed away in 2017.
https://www.lifenews.com/2017/02/18/norma-mccorvey-jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade-passes-away-she-never-had-an-abortion-and-became-pro-life/
We miss you Constance! God bless you and please recover soon- yours T & M
@ Craig (2:33 PM),
Oh dear! A great analogy, but a disconcerting one nonetheless.
The last thing decent folk want, as they're having their breakfast (or at any time, quite frankly), is RayB standing on their doorstep with his own brand of 'Watchtower'.
Just imagine the hours wasted trying to reason with "he who won't be reasoned with: " .... "you'd need" + "the patience" + "of a saint", springs to mind.
X and RayB may seem to be at the opposite ends of the pole, however, the narcissistic self-entitlement, grandiose "my way or the highway" attitudes masking their insecurities, their gaslighting of others, and their constant Catholic-bashing here over the years, has a whiff of the "twins separated at birth" about it.
RayB, you have made yourself out to be a liar here more than once: firstly, with your claims to have seen posts from Christine, which no-one else seemed to see and which were by accounts downright defamatory of her; secondly, you've claimed more than once over the years that "x-y-z" was to be your last post and you'd never post here again".
Do us all a favor, X and RayB: Go away and let this blog return to some semblance of normalcy.
GrayB at 2:35,
"PS: I never claimed to be an expert in Koine Greek, therefore, my so called credentials is a moot point."
You certainly implied your "wisdom". I suggest you stick to what you know... doesn't the garden need doing? Be careful when pulling yourself up by the roots you don't fall into that ditch of Pharisaic dung you've been digging.
Wow, I think we all need to heed Jesus's words about last days, Be not deceived. Part truths are still half lies. There is lying on both sides of government, We should pray for discernment, remembered our enemies are not flesh and blood. Best wishes to all.
Zelensky is Jewish. Hardly a Nazi. Sheesh!
There is no such thing as Qanon. There is Q. And there are the anons that follow Q. The only true postings by Q are the ones made on 4chan. When Flynn infiltrated Q on 4chan, it was moved to 8chan. All posts on the Q boards after the move to 8chan are not from Q - they are a psyop from the Flynn inflitrators. Flynn made up the term Qanon to mean anyone is follows the 8chan psyop posts, and to discredit Q, and the anons that analyze the only true Q posts (the ones from 4chan, made prior to 2018).
golden goose outlet
off white outlet online
bape clothing
kd 14
golden goose sneakers
golden goose
supreme clothing
steph curry shoes
supreme outlet
supreme clothing
Post a Comment