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,

    Yes, you got my point. A command is not a precedent.

    rapt,

    You still have not told us what Romans 13 means. You need to shut up until you put up.
    For Greek conversion,

    Comment


    • Them are fighten' words!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bill betzler


        Redeemed, surely you have never been in the military.

        New military slogan:

        """""Join now, it's a beautiful thing."""""
        Yes, Bill, I have served in the military and still serve the military through my current job.

        Perhaps you missed the context of my statement. I said, "God gave specific principles of operation to each institution He ordained. When those principles are followed, His institutions are beautiful things indeed."

        Would it not be a beautiful thing if government ruled according to God's principles? How bout if families lived by God's principles? Churches? Everything God designs is good and beautiful, but man always finds a way to make it ugly.

        Comment


        • Luther research for Solly

          Hey Solly,

          I haven’t forgotten you, Bro! Most of this post has to do with Bolsinger's 1545, but the note at the bottom I think is probably closer to what your original question was looking for.

          I finally got word back from Dr. Bolsinger. Here is his reply:

          Heb. 2:2 Denn so das Wort fest worden ist,....

          Hier ist nicht Zeit und Platz für eine Geschichte der Lutherbibel: Nur soviel: Nach 1545 wurde an jeder folgenden Auflage unkontrollierte und nicht autorisierte Änderungen vorgenommen. Gegen Ende des 16Jhdts hat man auf kurfürstlichen Befehl alle diese Änderungen verworfen und ist zum 1545 Ausgabe zurückgekehrt. Das Comma Joh. und einige andere kleinere besserungen (z.B. äußerste in Mt 8:12)wurden ebenfalls bei dieser Gelegenheit in den Text aufgenommen.

          Dieser auf kurfürstlichen Befehl wiederhergestellte Text von 1545 wurde zur Standardausgabe der dt Bibel deren wichtigste Ausgabe in den nachfolgenden Jahren nicht mehr in Wittenberg sondern in Halle gedruckt wurden. Von dort sind die ersten ernsthaften weltweiten Missionanstrengungen basierend auf der dt. Bibel ausgegangen. Dort haben Niemeyer und Bindseil im 19Jhdt als letzte Verteidigung eine kritische Ausgabe der dt Bibel herausgebracht, die in Rechtschreibung etc. modern ist.

          Ich habe mich was Rechtschreibung etc. betrifft an die bei Harms erscheinende Ausgabe gehalten.

          Es soll nicht unerwähnt bleiben daß das Komma schon ab den 30Jahren des 16Jhdts in verschiedenen Ausgaben der deutschen Bibel die in Basel, Frankfurt und Nürnberg erschienen enthalten war.

          Wenn Du es genau aus erster Hand wissen willst empfehle ich Dir" MGW Panzer, Entwurf einer vollständigen Geschichte der deutschen Bibelübersetzung D. MArtin Luthers vom Jahr 1517an bis 1581" Ich habe eine 1968 bei Grüner in Amsterdam nachgedruckte Ausgabe. Die oben erwähnte kritische Ausgabe des 1545 Texts die Mitte des 19Jhdts von Bindseil und Niemeyer (dem damaligen Chef der Halleschen Waisenanstalten und der Cansteinschen Bibel Anstalt) ist leider antiquarisch schwer erhältlich. Ich selber besitze bisher nur das AT.

          Der Nachdruck der originalen Schreibfehler von 1545 durch die dt. Bibelgesellschaft scheint mir mehr in Feindschaft als in Liebe für dieses Buch begründet zu sein.

          freundliche grüße
          michael

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Jeremy Hatfield" <Hatfield@connections.com>
          To: <Michael.Bolsinger@t-online.de>
          Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 10:24 PM
          Subject: Unrevidiert?

          Sehr geehrter Herr Bolsinger,

          Ist die von Ihnen angebotene 1545 Version der Luther Bibel echt unrevidiert? Vor ein Paar Tage vergleichte ich ein Paar Versen aus der 1545 mit der 1912, um eine Frage über 1. Joh 5,7 zu antworten. Da schlug ich nach bei dem Faksimile der von Hans Lufft in Wittenberg gedrückte 1545, die ich habe. Es hat mir überrascht, daß diese Verse (von den himmlischen Zeugen, dem Vater, dem Wort, und dem Geist) nicht zu finden war. Es gibt Fußnotizen in meiner 1912, daß diese Verse sich nicht in Luthers eigener Übersetzung finde.

          Ich möchte keine Debatte anfängen. Ich suche nur eine Erklärung, warum Ihre elektronische Versionen der 1545 sich als "unrevidiert" behaupten kann, wenn diese Verse nicht in Martin Luthers ursprünglichem Text steht.

          Danke,
          Jeremy Hatfield
          And for the benefit of those who don’t know German (or are somewhat rusty or Unerfahren with it):

          Heb 2:2 For if the word is steadfast...

          There isn't time and place for a history of the Luther Bible: only so much: after 1545 uncontrolled and unauthorized changes took place on every succeeding print run. Towards the end of the 16th century all these changes were, by order of the Elector [historical note: the electors were princes of distinction who had the power to elect the Emperor.], rejected and turned back to the 1545. The Comma in John and other small improvements (for example, including [the formerly nonpresent] "outermost" in Mt. 8:12) were likewise taken up in the text by this event.

          This text of the 1545, which was restored by electoral command, became the standard edition of the German Bible. In the following years, its most important edition was no longer printed in Wittenberg, but in Halle. From there, the first serious worldwide mission efforts based on the German Bible went out. There, as a last defense, Niemeyer and Bindseil produced a critical edition of the German Bible, which is in the modern mode of spelling and punctuation.

          I kept myself to Harm's current edition of spelling and pronunciation when it came to such matters.

          It should not remain unmentioned that for the thirty years after the 16th century, the comma remained, preserved in various editions of the German Bible, [such as the one] in Basel, Frankfurt, and Nuremberg.

          If you want to know this in greater detail first-hand, I recommend MGW Panzer, "Outline of a Complete History of the German Bible translation of Dr. Martin Luther from the years 1517 to 1581." I have a 1968 reprint from Grüner in Amsterdam. The aforementioned critical edition of the 1545 text of the middle of the 19th century by Bindseil and Niemeyer (who was at the time head of the Halle Orphan's Institute and the Canstein Bible Institute) is, unfortunately, antiquarian and hard to come by. I myself own only the Old Testament right now.

          The reprint of the original printing errors of the 1545 by the German Bible Society seems, to me, to be based more in hatred for the book than in love for it.

          Friendly greetings,
          michael

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Jeremy Hatfield" <Hatfield@connections.com>
          To: <Michael.Bolsinger@t-online.de>
          Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 10:24 PM
          Subject: Unrevised?

          Dear Mr. Bolsinger,

          Is the version of the 1545 Luther Bible you offer truly unrevised? A few days ago I was comparing a couple of verses from the 1545 with the 1912, in order to answer a question about 1. John 5:7. For that reason, I referred to a facsimile of the 1545 printed by Hans Lufft in Wittenberg that I have. It surprised me that this verse (about the heavenly witnesses, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit) was not found there. There are notes in my 1912 that this verse is not found in Luthers own translation.

          I don't want to start a debate. I'm only looking for an explanation, why your electronic version of the 1545 can claim itself as "unrevised," when this verse does not appear in Martin Luther's original text.

          Thank you,
          Jeremy Hatfield
          My assessment so far? On the outset, I’m very skeptical. I’m thankful that he does me the courtesy of referring me to an historical work (which I will look for, but unfortunately, it sounds like it might be a very hard work to find outside of Europe, much less the Interior of Alaska), but there is a lot in his reply to me that doesn’t add up.

          #1: He states that errors appeared in print runs of the Luther Bible towards the end of the 16th century. That sounds like a good argument, except that Hans Lufft was the one who first printed the Luther Bible, starting with Luther's first edition in 1534, and is known for printing the first revisions of Luther's Bible as well. That leads me to conclude that the 1545 which the unnamed Kurfürst commanded a return to was none other than that which was first printed by Hans Lufft (a facsimile of which I have in my possession).

          #2: He compares the Luther 1545 with other German Bibles printed around that time regarding a comma in a certain verse (I don't know what comma he was talking about in John. I was referring to 1. John 5:7). Well, if he wants to go the route of comparing Germanic Reformation Bibles, this also must be taken into consideration:

          The Zwingli Bible reads the verse as "Drei nämlich sind es, die Zeugnis ablegen, 8Der Geist und das Wasser und das Blut; und die drei gehen auf eins." Now, in all fairness, that is quoted from a 1931 revision (I have a facsimile of the 1531 ordered and should arrive in a few weeks), which has a footnote about the "heavenly witnesses" wording, but notes that this is only found in several Latin manuscripts of the 4th century, and a few Greek Bibles of the 15th century onwards. But it is not included as a main part of the text, as it neither is in any Luther version.

          #3: While he does not say so (and I have asked for clarification), Bolsinger seems to base his 1545 on a 19th century critical edition (read, revision), it is only the Old Testament. This doesn't seem to leave him any solid reference point for writing 1. John 5:7 the way he did.

          Conclusion, based on what evidence I have gathered: Bolsinger's 1545 is not the original, unrevised 1545. If he wants to claim it as a revised version based on the Luther 1545, that would be fine, but in no way should he be passing it out as the original, "unrevised" 1545. And unfortunately, it seems that many online Bible sites are using his texts under that pretense.

          Here's something else I came across, Solly. I think when a lot of King James enthusiasts tout the Textus Receptus, they are referring to the TR of 1550. There, you do find mention of the heavenly witnesses.

          However, I managed to get hold of an electronically-rendered Byzantine manuscript (thanks to the SWORD Project) which I think predates the 1550. The wording of 1 John 5:7 in that version would explain why the Luther and Zwingli versions render that verse the way they do.

          Hope that helps, Bro!

          Blessings,
          jth
          The free world may be gross, vulgar, and immoral, but that is not something that the slave world can fix

          --Jeff Cooper

          Comment


          • Thanks a lot Huldrych

            Comment


            • Redeemed,

              I found no fault in your post. I really did like it and I thought you were right on the mark. I felt some what guilty focusing on what I did, but it humored me to see someone speak so lofty of the military. It is a rare comment.

              Really no offense intended, and, I can think of many situations where people would thank God with great joy for the militaries.

              I like your spirit.

              bill
              Though I be the least of all His servants, nevertheless I am a servant.

              Comment


              • This all leads to a very interesting question which has not been addressed by the KJVo's. Namely, what about Bibles in languages other than English.

                One poster has declared that we should "Always correct the Greek with the KJV english." What does this say of other languages. It seems that this point of view is very anglo centric and denies that God's word can be given accurately in languages other than English.

                Which leads me back to my original assertion that a careful and prayerfull study of the original languages and a thoughtful, spirit lead textual criticism are hallmarks of a faithful translator. Anything less is to have too low a view of God's word.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Pilgrimagain This all leads to a very interesting question which has not been addressed by the KJVo's. Namely, what about Bibles in languages other than English.
                  Perhaps if you don't speak English, you can't be saved....
                  One poster has declared that we should "Always correct the Greek with the KJV english."
                  Such radical adherence to a single translation bears the marks of idolatry -- worshipping the creation rather than the Creator.
                  Which leads me back to my original assertion that a careful and prayerfull study of the original languages and a thoughtful, spirit lead textual criticism are hallmarks of a faithful translator. Anything less is to have too low a view of God's word.
                  Amen!

                  Comment


                  • Wycliffe is currently translating the bible into many languages. Is the Holy Spirit leading them into all truths while they work; or are they just doing the best humanly possible?

                    If the first, the finished product is scripture. It then follows that it will not need any improvements in the future.

                    If it is the latter, then go ahead and keep rewriting them until you get it right.

                    The KJB I have is already scripture. If the bibles you have are not scripture then rewrite them until you get it right.

                    No problem. You just have to make a free will decision as to which you have.
                    Though I be the least of all His servants, nevertheless I am a servant.

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • Well said

                        Comment


                        • 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.
                          Though I be the least of all His servants, nevertheless I am a servant.

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            Though I be the least of all His servants, nevertheless I am a servant.

                            Comment


                            • from pilgrimagain
                              Well said

                              __________________
                              Though I be the least of all His servants, nevertheless I am a servant.

                              Comment


                              • 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
                                The free world may be gross, vulgar, and immoral, but that is not something that the slave world can fix

                                --Jeff Cooper

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X