[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S. Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds "They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again" "Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip" "Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy" "As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular" Posting Articles Now Working Here Another Test Testing Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place? "Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil" "New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris" "Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony" Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX) Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’ ‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist' Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away. No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say ! "Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ " "Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate" "The Teleprompter Campaign" Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh "Pagans in Paris" "Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election". Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: KING JAMES VS NEW KING JAMES THEY CAN'T BOTH BE TRUE! Source: [None] URL Source: [None] Published: Jan 19, 2015 Author: David W. Daniels Post Date: 2015-01-19 18:43:40 by _V_ Keywords: None Views: 42108 Comments: 105 Question: What is wrong with the New King James Version (NKJV)? All it does is modernize the words of the King James Bible, right? Why should I read the King James and not the helpful New King James? Answer: The New King James is not a King James Bible. It changed thousands of words, ruined valuable verses, and when not agreeing with the King James Bible, it has instead copied the perverted NIV, NASV or RSV. And this you must know: those who translated the NKJV did not believe God perfectly preserved His words! I have gotten more letters on this question than almost any other. This is very important to those who want God's truth in the English language. I myself used the NKJV for a decade before I learned the truth about the preserved words of God. Here is some of what convinced me to switch to the King James Bible from the "New King James." Changed Words Means Changed Meanings We know that Bible versions disagree on how to translate certain words. Here is an example: Is Jesus God's "Son" or God's "servant"? In Acts 3:26, the NKJV calls Jesus God's "Servant." The KJV correctly calls Him God’s "Son." These are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. Which one is He? If He is God's servant, so are you and I. If He is God's Son, then we all need to listen to what He said, because He is God! Changed words like this make a great deal of difference in how we understand a passage. Loss of "thee" and "thou" Please decide what God is saying to Moses: "And the LORD said to Moses, "How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?" (Exodus 16:28, NKJV) It looks like God is saying, "Moses, you are continuing to refuse to keep My commandments and My laws." But look carefully at the accurate King James: "And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" Now we understand! It was the people, not Moses, that God was upset with. "Ye" and "you" mean more than one person. "Thee," "thou," "thy," "thine," "doeth," "hast," etc., only mean one person. How do we know? The "y" is plural. The "t" is singular. Isn't that easy? Now you know what Jesus meant when He said to Nicodemus, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again" (John 3:7). What Jesus said was, "Nicodemus, marvel not that I said unto thee, all of you need to be born again." This is very important. Not only Nicodemus needed to be saved. But everybody, including him, needed to be born again. That's why Jesus used the plural. But there is more of a problem than the thousands of times "thee" and "thou" are removed from God's words. What does a word mean? This is very important, as you shall see. Go to Gehenna? The NKJV claims to be "more accurate" because it leaves untranslated words like "Gehenna," "Hades" and "Sheol." What do they mean? You will know from the King James the exact meaning: "hell." We know what that means. Meaning is very important. When's the last time you heard someone told to "Go to Gehenna"? Which is correct? The NKJV consistently uses terms that don't mean the same as in the King James Bible. Here are some examples: King James Version New King James Version 2 Corinthians 2:17 "For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God" "peddling the word of God" (like the NIV, NASV and RSV) Titus 3:10 "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" "Reject a divisive man" (like the NIV) 1 Thessalonians 5:22 "Abstain from all appearance of evil." "Abstain from every form of evil." (like the NAS, RSV and ASV) Isaiah 66:5 "Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." [This means that the LORD shall appear, which shall occur at the Second Coming of Christ.] "Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word: "Your brethren who hated you, who cast you out for My name's sake, said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy.' But they shall be ashamed." (Like the NIV, NASV, RSV and ASV, the Second Coming is wholly omitted from this scripture.) Both translations cannot be correct. If one is right, the other has to be wrong. No matter how you slice it, the NKJV does not have the same meaning as the accurate King James Bible. 2. Changed Affections There is a lot of evidence that the translators and publishers did not believe God preserved His words. Thomas Nelson Publishers The NKJV was translated and is printed under the watchful eye of Thomas Nelson Publishers. Here is part of a timeline they published. 1969 Sam Moore purchases Thomas Nelson Publishers, vowing to return it to its once proud place among the leading publishers of the world. 1976 Nelson initiates the creation of a new Bible translation--The New King James Version. 1980's Nelson reclaims its place as a premier publisher of Bibles and Christian Books, expands into international markets, and establishes Markings® as Nelson's Gift division. It is clear the NKJV made Thomas Nelson Publishers a lot of money. Did a King James-type Bible renew their hearts to God? Note the following facts: They are also the publishers of the American Standard Version, the American revision of Westcott and Hort's perverted English Revised Version. They are also the publishers of the Revised Standard Version, the revision of the American Standard. To this day they continue to sell at least six Bible perversions. The NKJV was just one moneymaker that helped Nelson "reclaim its place" as a major publisher. The NKJV repeats the lie that "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." In fact, there are two: the perverted Alexandrian line that was continued by the Roman Catholic religion and the preserved, apostolic, Antiochian line that progresses from the Christians at Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26) to our precious King James Bible. The New King James translators Marion H. Reynolds Jr. of the Fundamental Evangelistic Association reveals a little-known fact: "The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern. Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?" Not "the real thing" What Mr. Reynolds points out is very important to understand. There were basically two groups of translators working on the NKJV. One half believed that the perverted 45 Alexandrian manuscripts, from which came the Roman Catholic Bibles and the modern perversions, were better than the manuscripts behind the King James. The other group believed the thousands of manuscripts supporting the King James were better. This is a big problem: No one believed that they held God's words in their hands, only a "better" or "worse" text! The translators believed they had something close, but not an accurate Bible. It is a sad thing when a Bible translator doesn't even believe he has God's words in his hands. It sounds like they don't believe God kept His promise: Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Mark 13:31) Perhaps that is why some of them had no problem working on other perversions, both before and after working on the NKJV. This is so unlike the 54+ Bible men who faithfully translated the King James Bible from preserved manuscripts of God's words. The difference between the King James and the "New" King James is the difference between day and night. Compromising God's Words Many Christians are discovering the miracle of God's words in English. But the enemy has tried to insert a monkey-wrench: the NKJV. Pastors approve it, "scholars" promote it, but the NKJV is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The New King James is just a compromise between the liberal, perverted Bible versions floating around and the rock-solid, accurate and preserved words of God, the King James Bible. Brothers and sisters, don't settle for anything less than God's words Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-31) not displayed.       .       .       . #32. To: A K A Stone, GarySpFc (#20) 7 Oxford English Dictionary.s.v. “strain [verb],” 21: “It has been asserted that ‘straine at’ in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out’, the rendering of earlier versions ... But quots. 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency.” Although this may be true, the OED adds quickly that “The phrase, however, was early misapprehended (perh. already by Shaks. in quot. 1609), the verb being supposed to mean ‘to make violent effort.’” This is a surprisingly common occurrence in these various translations over the centuries. In many key passages, the translators will use a common rendering, not a strict translation from their chosen Greek textual authority. IOW, they adopt the readings that are familiar and traditional, generally out of fear that they will be criticized. Or so it seems. You can find this in the old translations like Tyndale, Bishops Bible, the Geneva, and the KJB itself. They tend to borrow renderings from each other. And even from the Vulgate. So for all their lecturing about the "best manuscripts", they still chicken out and use the accepted contemporary renderings on many foundational verses. It's an interesting but little-noted feature of these various translations. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   5:56:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: redleghunter, SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#15) n what language did God converse...? In the languages they all understood. If they didn't understand what God was communicating, then they could not write it down. For Moses that would be the original Hebrew. Why would it not be Egyptian for Moses? It was the only language he spoke his whole life and "Moses" is an Egyptian name not a Hebrew name. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   7:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#19) (Edited) esus most likely spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Greek? What is he basis for thinking that? Who around Him spoke Greek? "I am the ALPHA and OMEGA" Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   7:15:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Pericles (#34) "I am the ALPHA and OMEGA" But He spoke also in Aramaic at least once: "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" A Pole  posted on  2015-01-20   8:03:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: A Pole (#35) I did not imply Jesus spoke Greek on a regular basis - not at all. People of that period were multi-lingual - maybe Aramiac at home and Greek when working in the city or at the market, etc. Also, if Jesus lived in Egypt for his early years then Greek would have been one of the languages he spoke or had to be somewhat understanding of. It is clear he used Aramiac in his everyday life. We assume he could read Hebrew and he could speak or understand some Greek. Of course this gets tricky because as God Jesus has the supernatural ability to speak and understand any language so Jesus, when he was on earth chose to speak in a way that was as common to all in that region. No comment is made for Jesus speaking Latin in the NT. He speaks to Romans of course but the Romans could be speaking Greek to him as the default common tongue for that area and period. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   9:21:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: redleghunter, SOSO, A Pole, Vicomte13, Orthodoxa, GarySpFc, TooConservative (#16) Why was that, especially if they were the older of the two? Yet according to the linked piece I provided they were only 5% of the 5,000 or so manuscripts known. Which breaks into two schools of thought. The first being the oldest is better (Alexandrian) and the other being the better manuscripts are the ones copied more (Byzantine). This was already solved by the Church. That was one of the reasons they ecumenical councils were called. The Church was underground for 500 years and in that time you had many confusions happening on text, etc - like a game of telephone. The Christian fathers of that time sifted through what they felt for sure was the correctly texts and what were not and made a decision. Revelations almost did not make it - and that shows they were very careful of what to include or not include. This has been the basis of the faith for 2,000 years - why change it? If you believe Jesus is God, than you think the Holy Spirit would allow the Church to make a permanent error for 2,000 years until someone finds a scrap of manuscript to correct it? That is the problem with Sola Scriptura - live by the text and die by the text. Texts change. The Church is eternal. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   9:28:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: Pericles, SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#33) Why would it not be Egyptian for Moses? It was the only language he spoke his whole life and "Moses" is an Egyptian name not a Hebrew name. True, however, YHWH is God's Name in Hebrew. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   9:44:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: redleghunter (#38) True, however, YHWH is God's Name in Hebrew. True, unless it is YHVH. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   9:47:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: Pericles (#37) This has been the basis of the faith for 2,000 years - why change it? If you believe Jesus is God, than you think the Holy Spirit would allow the Church to make a permanent error for 2,000 years until someone finds a scrap of manuscript to correct it? That is the problem with Sola Scriptura - live by the text and die by the text. Texts change. The Church is eternal. You missed the point. I offered information on the various text types. IMO the reason the Byzantine has the most copies is because that is what was used most and circulated most. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   9:52:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: SOSO, Pericles, TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, SOSO, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc, all (#1) Perhaps the answer to many questions, concerning the 'new' various versions, can be found in the prophetic writings of Amos. Amos 8:11-14: 11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. 13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst. 14 They that swear by the sin of Samaria, and say, Thy god, O Dan, liveth; and, The manner of Beersheba liveth; even they shall fall, and never rise up again. (KJV) I would suggest that the famine is of the true world of God, not the watered down versions we find today. Over the past 15 years, I have translated about 1/3 of the Bible, I can find, litterally no fault with the KJV. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-20   9:56:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: A K A Stone (#20) Excellent study, Thanks, Bob BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-20   10:08:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: TooConservative, redleghunter, SOSO, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, vicomte13, liberator, TooConservative (#39) True, however, YHWH is God's Name in Hebrew. True, unless it is YHVH. I heard it translated/pronounced as YAHU at one point. http://www.revelations.org.za/NotesS-Name.htm But God told Moses his name was "I Am". Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   10:35:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: redleghunter (#40) Actually, I wish the Christian debate about Bibles was on how the West should switch back to the Septuigent over the Masoratic. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   10:37:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: redleghunter (#40) You missed the point. I offered information on the various text types. IMO the reason the Byzantine has the most copies is because that is what was used most and circulated most. I have made that argument as well, noting that the Byzantine has a much wider distribution of its manuscripts across the ancient world. John Burgon, the old defender of the KJV, was excellent on these points. However, it has occurred to me that Egypt was a major literary center of the ancient world but it lost its library at Alexandria to fire and it suffered the complete Muslim conquest. So there were undoubtedly more copies of Alexandrian manuscripts that disappeared due to fire and Muslims. With Egypt gone as a heartland of publishing, the balance of manuscripts would naturally shift to the non-Muslim areas of the Mideast and to Rome and especially Byzantium. Of course, I still prefer the Byzantine Majority Texts. And I do believe that, over the years, we will discover much older Byzantine texts. This upcoming fragment of Mark could be such a fragment. At present, one of the very oldest papyrus fragments is a member of the Majority Text manuscript family. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   10:59:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: A Pole (#35) But He spoke also in Aramaic at least once: "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" Also "Ephaphtha!" And "Talitha, koum" Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   11:12:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: BobCeleste (#41) Over the past 15 years, I have translated about 1/3 of the Bible, I can find, litterally no fault with the KJV. Have you done any Old Testament translation? If so, has it been from the LXX Greek or Latin Vulgate, or has it been from the Hebrew Massoretic text? If from the Hebrew, I'm interested in hearing how you handle the Hebrew verb. I find this the most fascinating of all of the translation problems, because the Hebrew approach to action and time is so utterly foreign to the Indo- European approach (including even the modern Hebrew approach), that it affects the meaning of everything. Have you translated Genesis 1 from the Hebrew? Genesis 1 is probably the most important single piece of Biblical text for reading the rest of the Bible because so many words used throughout are literally DEFINED there by God, sort of like the way that lawyers define words at the front of contracts. I am really interested in speaking of the Hebrew verb in the context of Genesis 1, especially. So I'm hoping you'll tell me that Genesis 1 is indeed part of the 1/3rd you translated. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   11:20:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Pericles (#43) But God told Moses his name was "I Am". Or "I will be" Or "I was and still am and will be". Or "I live." Or "I will exist". Etc. The Hebrew imperfect is really hard to render into any Indo-European language without using multiple iterations, because it covers more than any single Indo-European verb tense. And "live", "exist" and "to be" are all the same word in Hebrew. The name YHWH can be translated into Greek or English as a sort of Venn diagram, a range of things. It's a feature of God to be ineffable. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   11:25:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: TooConservative (#39) rue, unless it is YHVH. It is Yod, Hey, Waw, Hey. Today Jews pronounce "W" as "V". How they pronounced it then is unknowable, given the absence of tape recorders. For that matter, we can assume that Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln all spoke with Southern accents given where they were born and who their parents were, but we don't know that for sure. Can't. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   11:29:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: Pericles (#44) Actually, I wish the Christian debate about Bibles was on how the West should switch back to the Septuigent over the Masoratic. It's a very interesting subject. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   11:30:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: BobCeleste (#41) 12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. Not America. The country is loaded with as many bibles as guns and the young people aren't interested in the bibles. 13 In that day shall the fair virgins and young men faint for thirst. I don't even need to comment. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   11:32:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: ALL (#35) The Use of Greek in New Testament Times In addition to Hebrew and Aramaic, it is also known that Greek was widely used in Palestine in the time of Jesus. A number of Greek writings from Palestine are known (4 Esra, 2 Maccabbees, parts of Esther, etc.), a Greek inscription forbidding non-Jews to enter the inner courts of the Jerusalem Temple has been found, as well as Greek texts in the Murabba’at caves and the family archives of Babatha at Wadi Habra. Countless inscriptions on ossuaries and graves from Jerusalem and its vicinity have also been recovered. It would not be out of place, then, to expect that Jesus spoke Greek in addition to Hebrew and Aramaic. It is quite possible that Jesus spoke Greek to Pontius Pilate in Matt. 27:11–14 and John 18:33–38, to the centurian in Matt. 8:5–13, and to “the woman of Canaan” in Matt. 15:22–28. Jesus was considered to be a scholar as the forms of address — Rabbi, Lord, Master — used for Him indicate. That a scholar of His rank, like most persons of the upper strata in Roman Palestine, used Greek in their contacts with the political authorities, with Gentile notables, and with Jews from other parts of the empire seems more than likely. In answer to our original question of what language or languages Jesus spoke, we must answer that He probably spoke all three of the languages that were in common use in Palestine in His day. Which language He spoke at any given time would have depended on the circumstance — Hebrew for religious purposes, Aramaic for common everyday conversation, and Greek when talking with other Greek-speakers. (“Insights From Qumran into the Languages of Jesus” by Pinchas Lapide in Revue de Qumran, No. 32, December 1975 (Tome 8, Fascicule 4), pp. 483-501.) “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-01-20   11:35:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: Vicomte13 (#49) It is Yod, Hey, Waw, Hey. Hebrew has no 'w' sound. I assume you're just batting for the Septuagint team here by offering some FUD. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   11:36:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: Vicomte13 (#47) Over the past 15 years, I have translated about 1/3 of the Bible, I can find, litterally no fault with the KJV. Have you done any Old Testament translation? Yes, Genesis, part of Exodus, part of Amos, as well as parts of Malachi. Not the Vulgate! BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-20   11:38:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: TooConservative (#51) Not America. The country is loaded with as many bibles as guns and the young people aren't interested in the bibles. While I agree about the number of Bibles and guns, I disagree that young people have no interest in the Word of God. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-20   11:40:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: GarySpFC (#52) In answer to our original question of what language or languages Jesus spoke, we must answer that He probably spoke all three of the languages that were in common use in Palestine in His day. Which language He spoke at any given time would have depended on the circumstance — Hebrew for religious purposes, Aramaic for common everyday conversation, and Greek when talking with other Greek-speakers. (“Insights From Qumran into the Languages of Jesus” by Pinchas Lapide in Revue de Qumran, No. 32, December 1975 (Tome 8, Fascicule 4), pp. 483-501.) The only language in doubt that Jesus spoke (which is different from Jesus being able to) is Latin. Not because he would not want to speak Latin but that it was not needed. St Paul spoke Greek to the Tribune (or was it Centurian?) and he was a Roman citizen (which I assume meant he could speak Latin to attain citizenship). Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   11:42:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: BobCeleste, TooConservative (#55) (Edited) Not America. The country is loaded with as many bibles as guns and the young people aren't interested in the bibles. While I agree about the number of Bibles and guns, I disagree that young people have no interest in the Word of God Is it all the bible or just the end times/Anti-christ stuff? That is all that motivated me to read the bible as a kid because it was cool and those were the only Sunday School lessons I paid attention to. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   11:44:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: BobCeleste, Pericles, TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, SOSO, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc, all (#41) Amos 8:11-14: 11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: How does Babel work into this? The story from the NIV, not an enforsement but just a matter of convenience: Genesis 11 New International Version (NIV) The Tower of Babel 11 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As people moved eastward,[a] they found a plain in Shinar[b] and settled there. 3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” 8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth. Has man ever overcome this confusion? SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   12:29:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: SOSO, BobCeleste, TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, SOSO, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc (#58) But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” Maybe it was ancient aliens after all................ Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   12:35:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: GarySpFC, BobCeleste, TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc (#52) Which language He spoke at any given time would have depended on the circumstance — Hebrew for religious purposes, Aramaic for common everyday conversation, and Greek when talking with other Greek-speakers. This would somewhat problematical for the Universal Redeemer to do. Who was in the audience when He gave the Sermon on the Mount? Only Hebrews? Did those around that bear witness to Him speak all the languages that Christ may have used? What about the writtings about Him in and around His time on earth? Only Greek? SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   13:05:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: Vicomte13, Pericles, GarySpFc, Orthodoxa, redleghunter, liberator, TooConservative (#48) The Hebrew imperfect is really hard to render into any Indo-European language without using multiple iterations, because it covers more than any single Indo-European verb tense. And "live", "exist" and "to be" are all the same word in Hebrew. The name YHWH can be translated into Greek or English as a sort of Venn diagram, a range of things. It's a feature of God to be ineffable. {Sigh} SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   13:16:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: TooConservative (#53) (Edited) Hebrew has no 'w' sound. Today it doesn't. Originally, who knows? What it has is a pictograph, a waw or vav, is a tent peg. It's used to link one thing to the next, like a nail. There's no punctuation in Hebrew, but the tent peg tells you that these ideas are still connected with the ones before. If you take the pictographs YHWH. Y - yod - is a strong arm and hand. So, you've got the hand of God here. H - hey - is a pictograph of a man standing arms raised in exciting: HEY! It's sound is that of a breath, and it is used to insert a breath. Now, in Hebrew, breath is spirit, and spirit is breath. W is the tent peg. The word HWH - HaWaH (which we translate as "Eve", and then we continue to translate as "Life" as the MEANING of "Eve" (Adam called her "Eve", because she was the mother of all living - in other words, Adam called her "life"). What is "life" pictographically? It is BREATH linked to BREATH. Breath after breath after breath - that is the pictographic image of life and living in ancient Hebrew, and the WORD for Life, and being. And the "Yah" part - the yod? YHWH, hieroglyphically, is the hand that links breath/spirit to breath/spirit. In other words, the power/thing/being who makes life be. YHWH - The might hand of life - God. Pronunciation varies, and varied. If you followed the letter conventions, without vowels, it would be (today) Yo (yod) - Hey - Wa (or Va) - Hey: Yoheyvahey, or Yohewahey. Of course, "Life", and "Eve" are pronounced "Havah" (as in "Havah nagila", the song). And HWH, the last three letters of YHWH, are Havah, for God is life. Y is often written "Yah", and if we take that, we have "Yahavah". If we go with "Yod", then Yohavah or Yohawah. YHWH is the best way to write this, I think, and if you're got to pronounce it, choose what you prefer. I prefer "Yahawah", because that takes two known elements; Yah and Havah, and carries the meaning Yah is life, and then converts the V to the W to make a distinction that is important not in modern Hebrew but in ancient, when there were no vowel points but W was used as a vowel. V is not a vowel by its fricative nature. W is open, and can be a vowel (in English: Bryn Mwr uses W as a vowel). In Massoretic Hebrew, Vav takes a vowel point to make an "O", but in ancient Hebrew Waw/Vav stood alone. In the Massoretic Text, David is spelled DVD - Dalet - Vav - Dalet, with vowel points. But in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where there are no vowel points, "David" is spelled DWYD: Dalet, Waw (Vav) Yod Dalet - Dawyd, since the Waw is elsewhere employed as a vowel. Or, if you prefer, Davyd. The "Da" sound is carried by the Da-let, maybe W/V was pronounced "V", but elsewhere it works where we would put and "o" - so Da-O-Y-D. Reminds me of the priest in the Princess Bride: "Mawiage. Mawiage when there is wuv, twoo wuv..." Don't really know the ancient pronunciations, but there is revelation in the pictographs. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   13:33:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: BobCeleste (#54) Yes, Genesis, part of Exodus, part of Amos, as well as parts of Malachi. Not the Vulgate! Did you translate the LXX Genesis, or the MT Genesis, or a Dead Sea Scroll Genesis portion? Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   13:33:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: SOSO (#61) {Sigh} God's message is analog, not digital. "Because you know it's all about that bass, 'bout that bass, no treble!" - Meghan Traynor Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-20   13:36:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: SOSO, GarySpFC, BobCeleste, TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Vicomte13, redleghunter (#60) Which language He spoke at any given time would have depended on the circumstance — Hebrew for religious purposes, Aramaic for common everyday conversation, and Greek when talking with other Greek-speakers. This would somewhat problematical for the Universal Redeemer to do. Who was in the audience when He gave the Sermon on the Mount? Only Hebrews? Did those around that bear witness to Him speak all the languages that Christ may have used? What about the writtings about Him in and around His time on earth? Only Greek? That is a pedestrian line of questioning/musing, I am sorry to say. Also, the gift of speaking in tongues bestowed on the Apostles answers your question. Maybe it is troubling because you grew up with the "personal relationship with Jesus" posters or some such but Jesus is not your pal and he, knowing best, decided that his time on earth was for the people of Abraham with which he had a covenant with and then the Apostles would take over and continue on the next phase of his ministry. Why did Jesus do it like that? I don't know. It is His creation and we are all living in it. Pericles  posted on  2015-01-20   13:40:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: Vicomte13 (#64) "Because you know it's all about that bass, 'bout that bass, no treble!" - Meghan Traynor Lost me on this one. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   13:41:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: _V_ (#0) I wonder which one of my math texts in school was true. Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-20   13:42:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: Pericles, GarySpFC, BobCeleste, TooConservative, _V_, redleghunter, Orthodoxa, A Pole, Vicomte13 (#65) Why did Jesus do it like that? I don't know. It is His creation and we are all living in it. Talk about a pedestrian line. LMAO. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   13:44:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: Palmdale, _V_, All (#67) I wonder which one of my math texts in school was true. According to Common Cause none of them. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   13:45:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: SOSO (#69) According to Common Cause none of them. Core Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-20   13:47:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: Pericles (#44) Actually, I wish the Christian debate about Bibles was on how the West should switch back to the Septuigent over the Masoratic. Or at least a healthy debate/discussion on such. "Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   13:51:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: Palmdale (#70) According to Common Cause none of them. Core Sorry, yes, Common Core. SOSO  posted on  2015-01-20   13:58:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (73 - 105) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com