Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bill betzler
    replied
    Self-defeating. The same thing applies to the KJV, but in spades. Remember, America was formed because of people FLEEING from persecution in England where they used, that's right boys and girls, the KJV.
    I understand that it applies to the KJB. I don't expect everyone or anyone to fully understand the scriptures. But on the other hand, I'm not going to advocate changing them to accommondate the intellectuals.

    Those seditious people should have submitted themselves to the authority over them. You know, like the Calvin and Servitus account.

    Leave a comment:


  • Huldrych
    replied
    Originally posted by Jaltus
    Hul,

    The Johannine Comma is what I John 5:7 is. It is "Johannine" literature, so it is the John comma, as it were.
    Muchas mercis (or is it "gracias beaucoup"?)--I got another email from Dr. B that had that term in it (well, the Latin form anyway--Comma Johaneum). I suspected that was what he was referring to. And you, my scholarly brother, confirmed it.

    Speaking of Dr. B, here is his latest email to me on the matter:

    Ich habe eine alte Antwort auf eine ähnliche Frage in meiner sent mail gefunden, die deutlich macht warum es richtig ist daß es sich bei der deutschen Bibel um den Text von 1545 handelt.

    Du sitzest in Alaska?

    > 1.) The 1546 and the 1545 editions differ. That's correct.
    > 2. ) It was from the beginning a bone of hot contention if Luther was the
    > author of the changes made in 1546.
    > 3) The editions following the 1546 editions differed even further.
    > 4. ) At the end of the 16th century it was finally decided to bring the
    > text back to the 1545 edition. ( the command was given by the Churfürst of
    > Sachsen August) In this form it remained nearly unchanged up to the
    > beginning 20th century and the 1546 disappeared from the scene.
    > 5) A much discussed exeption is the comma johaneum. It was not complete in
    > the Wittenberg Lu 1545 edition. Although it was contained in many
    editions
    > up from the 1520 ties. It was accepted as genuine and included in all
    > editions only at the end of the 1600th century
    > Conclusion: The 1546 variants are included in the Lu 1545 editions of Volz
    > and reclam junior. They are of no historical significance except for those
    > ho delight in "variant readings". The editions between 1546 and 1581
    > contained new changes which where all discarded in 1581 including those
    made
    > in 1546.
    > So for what reason give special weight to the changes made in 1546?

    Textquelle

    Nach einigem hin und her haben wir uns dem Text wie er zuerst von den Lutherischen Gebetsgemeinschaften Bielefeld und jetzt von Harms gedruckt wird in Rechtschreibung und Zeichensetzung angeschlossen. Dieser wiederum soll auf einer der letzten unrevidierten Ausgaben der preußischen Bibelgesellschaft basieren.

    Ansonsten haben wir zum Vergleichen den Text wie er in den Bibelkommentaren von CH Rieger, das Faksimile der 1545 Wittenbereger Ausgabe von Volz, sowie die kritische Ausgabe von 1850 von Bindseil Niemeyer und andere verwendet.

    Eine elektronisches Faksimile der Wittenberger 1545 Bibel gibt es zusammen mit einer revidierten Lutherversion bei der digitalen Bibliothek http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de

    Amerikaner
    Ich erkenne: Gott auch die Angelsachsen lieb, hat er ihnen doch 1611 eine englische Version der Lutherbibel gegeben. S.f.ex. Deut. 32:14

    herzlichen gruß
    michael
    Translation:
    I found an old answer to a similar question in my sent mail, which makes it clear why it is right that the main issue over the German Bible is the text of the 1545.

    You are situated in Alaska?

    > 1.) The 1546 and the 1545 editions differ. That's correct.
    > 2. ) It was from the beginning a bone of hot contention if Luther was the
    > author of the changes made in 1546.
    > 3) The editions following the 1546 editions differed even further.
    > 4. ) At the end of the 16th century it was finally decided to bring the
    > text back to the 1545 edition. ( the command was given by the Churfürst of
    > Sachsen August) In this form it remained nearly unchanged up to the
    > beginning 20th century and the 1546 disappeared from the scene.
    > 5) A much discussed exeption is the comma johaneum. It was not complete in
    > the Wittenberg Lu 1545 edition. Although it was contained in many
    editions
    > up from the 1520 ties. It was accepted as genuine and included in all
    > editions only at the end of the 1600th century
    > Conclusion: The 1546 variants are included in the Lu 1545 editions of Volz
    > and reclam junior. They are of no historical significance except for those
    > ho delight in "variant readings". The editions between 1546 and 1581
    > contained new changes which where all discarded in 1581 including those
    made
    > in 1546.
    > So for what reason give special weight to the changes made in 1546?

    Text sources

    After a little going back and forth, we first settled on the text of the Lutheran Prayer Fellowship of Bielefeld (like he did [I don't know who "he" is, probably one of his sources]) and now Harm's printed version for proper spelling and punctuation. Furthermore, this one is supposed to be based on one of the last unrevised editions of the Prussian Bible Society.

    Elsewhere, for purposes of comparison, we turned to the text as it is found in the Bible commentary of C.H. Rieger, the facsimile of Volz's 1545 Wittenberg Edition, Bindseil-Niemeyer's critical edition of 1850, and others.

    There is an electronic facsimile of the Wittenberg 1545 together with a revised Luther version at the Digital Library http://www.digitale-bibliothek.de

    American
    I recognize [this much]: God also holds the Anglo-Saxons dear, he gave them in 1611 an English version of the Luther Bible. S.f.ex. Deut 32:14

    Heartfelt regards,
    michael
    My comments: Well, my problems aren't with the 1546, later, or earlier editions. They are with the 1545, specifically, Dr. B's 1545.

    The Comma might have been mentioned in Luther's earlier research, but for whatever reason, Luther did not include it in the final product. This is probably because the TR which contained the "completed" comma was not available until 1550 (four years after Luther's death). This also explains why the Zwingli version has the shortened form of the comma as well.

    He mentions again how the Elector went back to the 1545. I can only assume he is referring to the printing by Hans Lufft, who handled all of Luther's earliest Bibles. According to my sources, Lufft worked with Luther on the printing, and did not print any more of his Bibles after 1545, the year just before Luther's death (which would exclude Lufft's printing from those that took on unauthorized changes),

    If that is true, then all this rigamarole with referring to multiple versions of the 1545 is pointless, seeing we have an extant text printed during Luther's life (and I assume under his supervision as well). The process would be a lot simpler by just looking at the Lufft printing, and directly transcribing therefrom.

    However, I suspect that, because the original Luther 1545 a la Hans Lufft does not contain what most Bible Baptists (and it seems most of his links point to Bible Baptist related sites) have adopted as a vital proof text to the existence of the Trinity (even though the context of the passage is not concerned with the Trinity, but rather, who Christ is), it must therefore be an erroneous edition.

    And if that is true, then this revised "unrevised" 1545 is nothing more than someone's crusade to change the Luther Bible to fit into a system of theology rather than the other way around.

    However, if I am proven wrong, then I will happily retract the statements I have made over this matter. God knows I want the truth, not just to prove someone wrong nor how right I am.

    jth
    Last edited by Huldrych; October 16, 2002, 11:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Explosived
    replied
    O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Luke 24:25

    "...the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which...owes its merit, not to 17th-century English -- which was very different -- but to its faithful translation of the original."


    THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED,
    by Edward F. Hills
    page 218 of the book abreviated

    For more proof just read the opening letter of the translators in the front of the KJV and note the language they used.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jaltus
    replied
    Hul,

    The Johannine Comma is what I John 5:7 is. It is "Johannine" literature, so it is the John comma, as it were.

    Besides, pick a bible, will the adherents of that bible all come to the same understandings? You know the answer. History defeats that reasoning.
    Self-defeating. The same thing applies to the KJV, but in spades. Remember, America was formed because of people FLEEING from persecution in England where they used, that's right boys and girls, the KJV.

    Leave a comment:


  • bill betzler
    replied
    I've had it!
    Great, righteous indignation, the truth always follows that.
    The problem with most KJVO folks is that they don't deal well with reality and common sense. I don't have to put my wisdom up against God's wisdom to realize that languages change over time. All I have to do is observe reality! Why can't KJVO folks do that?
    Bill's foundational delusion #1. He has the word of God in the KJB.

    I accept the consequences.

    Bill's foundational delusion #2. He doesn't deal well with reality and lacks common sense.

    I type therefore I am. Hey, I'm a philosopher. There can't be any deluded philosophers around. I must be ok.

    The KJVO is for me. Like I said before, if your bible isn't right, then rewrite it.
    Nor do I have to be wiser than God to recognize that the Bible was not originally written in English! It had to be translated INTO English from other languages. Why do KJVO folks think that it was OK for mere men to re-write the Bible into English for King James, but that it's not OK for anyone else? What makes you think the men who re-wrote the KJV were more guided by the Holy Spirit than anyone else? Did they have "enlarged cranial capacity"? How do you know they "got the job done right, once and for all"?
    I already answered that. I accept by faith that the KJB is the Word of God. If I am wrong, and you say that I am, then rewrite it. I'm sure your reward will be geat.
    If a brother in Christ prefers the KJV over all others, FINE! But for Christians to claim that the KJV is the ONLY extant Bible is plain silly! I've listened with patience to all the KJVO arguments since this debate began between Jaltus and s9. My patience is exhausted! KJVO folks demonstrate no common sense on the matter and reject factual history regarding the origins of the Bible. In fact, several arguments were posted from KJVO folks that I thought were jokes until I realized they were serious! Their adherence to the KJV is not based on rational reasoning. It's akin to my child STILL believing there's a monster in the closet EVEN after turning on the light and inspecting the whole closet! It's not rational.
    FINE.

    I think wycliffe is doing a fine job. Hence, bibles in more languages than english.

    If kicking against the pricks wears you out, then don't. So all the arguments and motivations of your camp circumvent bill's rule #2 above?

    I'm getting loftier and loftier and loftier as the days go by.
    There is a time when you put up with your child's ignorance and irrational fears, hoping he will grow out of them. But if that child grows up and never outgrows his irrationality, he becomes the laughingstock of all around him. God gave us intelligence for a reason -- He expects us to use it! Exercising our intelligence doesn't mean that we think we are smarter than God. On the other hand, denying our intelligence or refusing to use it is an insult to our Creator! In essence, it's telling Him that the intelligence He gave us is useless and unreliable. What a slap in the face to God!
    Unfortunately, for that reasoning is that the gist of scriptures is toward faith and not knowledge. Hence our separation, I have a faith foundation and you have a knowledge foundation.

    Hey, if it works for you, go for it. I'm sure that you will lead yourself into all knowledge.

    Just don't try to tell me that your intellectually determined, common sense based reality, has determined that I have misplaced my faith by trusting the KJB to be the Word of God.

    Leave a comment:


  • bill betzler
    replied
    Ian Day:THose of us brought up with the AV/KJV can cope, but those converted recently will struggle. THey know what the words mean. And they don't make sense.
    Those poor ignorant masses, how can we save them? I know! Let's rewrite the scriptures into their common language.

    You know, most people do not have the time nor inclination to read and understand the scriptures. Besides, pick a bible, will the adherents of that bible all come to the same understandings? You know the answer. History defeats that reasoning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Redeemed
    replied
    I've had it!

    Originally posted by bill betzler Hey, if the KJB isn't good enough, tell it to the Lord. Tell Him how your going to correct all it's faults. Tell Him also that you'll be doing it with the HS. Tell Him that between you, your enlarged cranial capacity, the available texts, your cohort amens, that your going to get the job done right, once and for all.
    Bill,

    The problem with most KJVO folks is that they don't deal well with reality and common sense. I don't have to put my wisdom up against God's wisdom to realize that languages change over time. All I have to do is observe reality! Why can't KJVO folks do that?

    Nor do I have to be wiser than God to recognize that the Bible was not originally written in English! It had to be translated INTO English from other languages. Why do KJVO folks think that it was OK for mere men to re-write the Bible into English for King James, but that it's not OK for anyone else? What makes you think the men who re-wrote the KJV were more guided by the Holy Spirit than anyone else? Did they have "enlarged cranial capacity"? How do you know they "got the job done right, once and for all"?

    If a brother in Christ prefers the KJV over all others, FINE! But for Christians to claim that the KJV is the ONLY extant Bible is plain silly! I've listened with patience to all the KJVO arguments since this debate began between Jaltus and s9. My patience is exhausted! KJVO folks demonstrate no common sense on the matter and reject factual history regarding the origins of the Bible. In fact, several arguments were posted from KJVO folks that I thought were jokes until I realized they were serious! Their adherence to the KJV is not based on rational reasoning. It's akin to my child STILL believing there's a monster in the closet EVEN after turning on the light and inspecting the whole closet! It's not rational.

    There is a time when you put up with your child's ignorance and irrational fears, hoping he will grow out of them. But if that child grows up and never outgrows his irrationality, he becomes the laughingstock of all around him. God gave us intelligence for a reason -- He expects us to use it! Exercising our intelligence doesn't mean that we think we are smarter than God. On the other hand, denying our intelligence or refusing to use it is an insult to our Creator! In essence, it's telling Him that the intelligence He gave us is useless and unreliable. What a slap in the face to God!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Day
    replied
    Understandest thou what thou readest ?

    Try these, using KJV language:

    Prevent me, O Lord, as seek to walk in the law of the LORD.

    Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? Job 39:10

    Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) Rom 1:13

    Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 2Th 2:3
    For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [will let], until he be taken out of the way. 2Th 2:7

    Suffer the children to come. Do not let them.

    One cutteth and cleaveth [wood] for the fire, and then he cleaveth unto his wife.

    There existeth manifold words which meaneth not that which they meanest in 1611.
    ======================
    THose of us brought up with the AV/KJV can cope, but those converted recently will struggle. THey know what the words mean. And they don't make sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    lol.

    Nad Bill, simmer down now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Huldrych
    replied
    Neeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin!

    Originally posted by Redeemed
    Perhaps if you don't speak English, you can't be saved....
    Say it ain't so!

    I guess I must have been losing my salvation ever since <gasp>1985. Two degrees <eek!> and two trips to Europe <augh!> were also major blows to my salvation (which belongeth only to the Anglo saxons).

    And that bloody Luther <ack!> Bible...Ach! It has been draining my soul! Nooooooooo!

    What's worse, is that I fear <breaking down into tears> I may have been an <sob> instrument to the loss of <whimper> salvation for <counting fingers> some <choke> 200+ people I have taught German to over the years <sniff, *honk*>.

    Such radical adherence to a single translation bears the marks of idolatry -- worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.
    Indeed. While my God is spoken of in my Bible, my Bible is not my God.

    jth

    Leave a comment:


  • bill betzler
    replied
    from pilgrimagain
    Well said

    __________________

    Leave a comment:


  • bill betzler
    replied
    Languages come and go. Languages even evolve over time -- words and phrases change meaning. In order to get the proper sense of God's Word, it must be translated to the language of the reader.
    And you found this reasoning in which manuscript? I hope this isn't human reasoning trying to justify human actions. Tis tis.

    Leave a comment:


  • bill betzler
    replied
    from Redeemed:I notice that you don't use the same language as is found in the KJV. Why is that? Thou hast not used the word "thou" in thy inscriptions. Hast the language of thy forefathers indeed suffered changes? If, peradventure, the languge which thou speaketh should changeth to a point wherein thou no longer recognizeth the language of thy forefathers, wouldest thou not be behooved to pen the scriptures in words which thou understandeth. Or wouldest thou allow the words of the Most Holy God to be lost forever in antiquity to thy seed because thou refuseth to translate the words of thy forefathers? Woe to those who no longer understandeth the Word of God because the words are strange to their ears!
    I didn't have any trouble understanding your post. I surmise that dictionaries are plentiful enough available for the occasional idiomatic inculpate.

    True. But I refuse to hold up any particular translation as my idol, especially the KJV.
    It isn't my idol, it's my Master's Word.

    Hey, if the KJB isn't good enough, tell it to the Lord. Tell Him how your going to correct all it's faults. Tell Him also that you'll be doing it with the HS. Tell Him that between you, your enlarged cranial capacity, the available texts, your cohort amens, that your going to get the job done right, once and for all.

    I'm sure your great reward awaits you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Well said

    Leave a comment:


  • Redeemed
    replied
    Originally posted by bill betzler If the first, the finished product is scripture. It then follows that it will not need any improvements in the future.
    Languages come and go. Languages even evolve over time -- words and phrases change meaning. In order to get the proper sense of God's Word, it must be translated to the language of the reader.
    If it is the latter, then go ahead and keep rewriting them until you get it right.
    And people will -- as long as languages change over time and a better translation of the original languages is found.
    The KJB I have is already scripture. If the bibles you have are not scripture then rewrite them until you get it right.
    I notice that you don't use the same language as is found in the KJV. Why is that? Thou hast not used the word "thou" in thy inscriptions. Hast the language of thy forefathers indeed suffered changes? If, peradventure, the languge which thou speaketh should changeth to a point wherein thou no longer recognizeth the language of thy forefathers, wouldest thou not be behooved to pen the scriptures in words which thou understandeth. Or wouldest thou allow the words of the Most Holy God to be lost forever in antiquity to thy seed because thou refuseth to translate the words of thy forefathers? Woe to those who no longer understandeth the Word of God because the words are strange to their ears!
    No problem. You just have to make a free will decision as to which you have.
    True. But I refuse to hold up any particular translation as my idol, especially the KJV.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X