|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 10:07:43 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
Maybe we're looking at different articles - I didn't see that quote.
Mark L. Strauss has defended gender-inclusive language in Bible translations like the TNIV, NLT and NRSV, and is a member of the TNIV Committee on Bible Translations[8]. Strauss argues that the ESV uses similar gender-inclusive language, and wrote, “What is odd and ironic is that some of the strongest attacks against the gender language of the TNIV are coming from those who produced similar gender changes in the ESV”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
do you believe Paul was writing only to men? Because if not, then you're admitting that when it says, "I write to you, brothers," he's using brothers to refer to men and women. I'm curious which undermines masculinity more - to say "brothers and sisters," or calling women "brothers."
That's very possible, it was the men who were to teach and subvert authority over the women. The letter would have been passed down or read in the Church aloud by that of a man. Women are under men so to undermine masculinity and make it gender neutral would be to change it to "I write to you people"
< Message edited by Timcp -- 9/5/2010 10:23:38 PM >
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 10:30:10 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080612-AP-unicorn-photo.html
That article says that animal is nicknamed a unicorn. The KJV doesn't nickname something a unicorn - it calls it a unicorn, as plain as it calls something a lion, a donkey, or an eagle.
quote:
Mark L. Strauss has defended gender-inclusive language in Bible translations like the TNIV, NLT and NRSV, and is a member of the TNIV Committee on Bible Translations[8]. Strauss argues that the ESV uses similar gender-inclusive language, and wrote, “What is odd and ironic is that some of the strongest attacks against the gender language of the TNIV are coming from those who produced similar gender changes in the ESV”.
This is an entirely different quote. Where'd you get the first one?
quote:
That's very possible, it was the men who were to teach and subvert authority over the women.
Women shouldn't read Paul's epistles, then.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 10:34:26 PM
|
|
|
SurfFirst
Posts: 30
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
A black rhino could easily be a unicorn.
Is that dictionary you keep quoting from just as inspired as the KJV? Because very few people will go by those definitions today. We have to consider what unicorn meant to people in 1611, not what it meant to the writers of the 1828 Noah Webster dictionary.
In the 1611 KJV it was a Unicorne (with a capital letter).
This is one of those words in the KJV where you need to stop and see what it means, because clearly a unicorn does not exist. Unless you're a teenage girl who believes in the mythical creature, then you would just think "awwww, how cute, unicorns are in the Bible."
This is a little off topic, but when I read your question to evry1needsgod asking if he believed in unicorns, it just happened to be the part of Harry Potter where the dementor was sucking the blood out of the unicorn. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 10:44:56 PM
|
|
|
WasLostAmFound
Posts: 1608
Status: offline
|
I don't understand this debate...IF the KJV is the ONLY "inspired" translation, then what about the translations that came before it? Were those corrupt? What about bibles in other languages? I've been reading up on this and to be honest, i think you guys are all swallowing camels and straining gnats...
I have yet to see where ONE SINGLE salvic issue is up for debate...a word here, a word there...big deal! I got saved using a Catholic bible!!! Yes, I had a big old New American Bible...and that was enough for me! Since then I've branched out...but...this whole debate is a total waste of time and energy! Didn't Jesus say to go and make disciples? He didn't say that you can only avoid false doctrines by reading this or that...he said GO...
Enough already...
_____________________________
Proud to be the daughter, wife and mother to veterans! My blog - http://retirednavywife.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 11:23:42 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
I honestly don't see the sincerity in that question at all, brother, nor do I see any reason to ask it.
I'm sorry you took it that way. I ensure you there is a good reason to ask it. The KJV mentions unicorns nine times, none of them in Revelation. http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=unicorn&version1=9&searchtype=all I'm asking if you think the KJV is perfect in the sense that you believe unicorns are real because the KJV says they are real.
Yes it does, but whether or not unicorn, mentioned int he KJV, describes the fantastical fairy-tale horse that has one horn and can fly, or if it simply means an animal with one horn (there are many) doesn't prove that's an error in the KJV.
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 11:26:44 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes it does, but whether or not unicorn, mentioned int he KJV, describes the fantastical fairy-tale horse that has one horn and can fly, or if it simply means an animal with one horn (there are many) doesn't prove that's an error in the KJV.
Do you know how the word unicorn was used in 1611?
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 11:28:44 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
IF the KJV is the ONLY "inspired" translation,
Right off the bat your ignorance of the KJVO debate shines brightly. Only an insignificant few extremists believe the KJV is inspired. I suggest you gather a better understanding of this debate before you condemn it as you have in this post.
quote:
I have yet to see where ONE SINGLE salvic issue is up for debate...
Again, there isn't supposed to be a savific issue debated within this debate. The fact that there isn't proves, once again, your misunderstand of this entire issue. Frankly there ARE a few KJVO'ists who will say that one can only be saved from the 1611 Authorized Version, but those individuals are nut-cases who are the exception to the rule. You ought to be happy that this forum has not degenerated to such a state! I am, and I'm a KJVO.
quote:
I got saved using a Catholic bible!!!
Good for you! And I'm sure millions have and will also.
quote:
this whole debate is a total waste of time and energy!
Well thanks for your opinion, but unfortunately you will not be taken seriously until you grasp what this debate really is.
In Christ,
ZG
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 11:32:20 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
there isn't supposed to be a savific issue debated within this debate. The fact that there isn't proves, once again, your misunderstand of this entire issue.
Amen. I would never think to say someone who does hold to a KJVO position isn't my brother or sister in Christ, and I haven't personally met one who would say the reverse about me.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 11:33:26 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
It certainly wasn't describing the unicorn in modern day fairy tales.
Do you have a source to back up that claim?
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/5/2010 11:38:02 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
Apparently you haven't met Peter Ruckman.
Can't say I've had the pleasure... And after checking out his website, that's probably a good thing. Not because of his KJVO stance - because he's charging $120 for a reference Bible! ; )
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/6/2010 1:40:57 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2557
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
The idea that the KJV is better than the ESV because the ESV uses gender neutral langauge is simply ludicrous for several reasons.
1) No major translation of the bible uses gender neutral langauge. Those who would accuse the translators of any major version of the bible of using "gender neutral" language have no idea what "gender neutral" language is!
2) Every version of the bible uses inclusive language (including the KJV), the question translators face is how much inclusive langauge to use, not whether to use it.
3) One of the primary motivations for producing the ESV translation was to limit the use of inclusive langauge; of all the versions to pick to make this accusation, this was the ONE version for which this accusation holds ZERO weight.
For the record: Both Hebrew and Greek use an inclusive masculine, similar to the inclusive masculine found in Spanish, French, Latin, and even KJV English. In essence, what this means is that masculine forms (especially in the plural) are often understood as inclusive of females, but feminine forms are exclusive of males. Over the last several decade the English langauge has begun to loose its inclusive masculine and some versions (like the TNIV, NRSV, NLT, etc...) have adopted a greater use of inclusive language to compensate for the changes occurring in modern English. In every case the inclusive language is used when the original langauge uses an inclusive masculine, and it is done so that the meaning of the original text is conveyed into English.
Here are some examples where the KJV uses inclusive langauge to translate the Hebrew word "banim/sons" and the ESV translators do not! Should we accuse the translators of the KJV of pushing an evil homosexual agenda because they used inclusive language that was unnecessary?
ESV Genesis 10:22 The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram.
KJV Genesis 10:22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
ESV Genesis 10:23 The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash.
KJV Genesis 10:23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
ESV These are the sons of Ezer: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan.
KJV Genesis 36:27 The children of Ezer are these; Bilhan, and Zaavan, and Akan.
ESV Genesis 36:28 These are the sons of Dishan: Uz and Aran.
KJV Genesis 36:28 The children of Dishan are these; Uz, and Aran.
ESV Genesis 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his sons, because he was the son of his old age. And he made him a robe of many colors.
KJV Genesis 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/6/2010 1:43:31 AM
|
|
|
phyl2
Posts: 218
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Using the word person, is gender neutral which is promoted by feminists. Using man is masculine specific denoting hierarchy. Woman being created for the Man is also showing who was created first. Feminists and homosexuals those who are unisex equality lovers hate all of that.
It's not. The word being translated person is a neutral word, it means person, or human, not specifically man/male. In the Corinthians passage that you quoted, the word translated "man" actually means "man".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/6/2010 12:25:38 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 2557
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
Yes it does, but whether or not unicorn, mentioned int he KJV, describes the fantastical fairy-tale horse that has one horn and can fly, or if it simply means an animal with one horn (there are many) doesn't prove that's an error in the KJV.
Do you know how the word unicorn was used in 1611?
From the university of Michigan's middle English dictionary:
(a) A fabulous single-horned animal to which was generally attributed a fierce disposition and certain magical abilities; any one-horned, or apparently one-horned, animal, esp. the rhinoceros; also in fig. context;
(b) fig. the wrath of God, represented as a beast tamed by a virgin; also, Christ;
(c) a stylized unicorn used for ornament; also used in heraldry; ~ hed;
(d) in metaphors and similes; also as a type or symbol of wrath [quot. c1230, 2nd];
(e) ~ horn, unicornes horn (bon), a precious material believed taken from the horn of a unicorn, prob. ivory from a narwhale, often inlaid in drinking vessels as protection against poisoning.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/6/2010 2:57:57 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
ESV Genesis 10:22 The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram.
KJV Genesis 10:22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram.
ESV Genesis 10:23 The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash.
KJV Genesis 10:23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.
ESV These are the sons of Ezer: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan.
KJV Genesis 36:27 The children of Ezer are these; Bilhan, and Zaavan, and Akan.
ESV Genesis 36:28 These are the sons of Dishan: Uz and Aran.
KJV Genesis 36:28 The children of Dishan are these; Uz, and Aran.
ESV Genesis 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his sons, because he was the son of his old age. And he made him a robe of many colors.
KJV Genesis 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.[/color]
KJB Genesis 10:29 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.
KJB Genesis 36 is actually giving names of both men and women! 25And the children of Anah were these; Dishon, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/6/2010 3:02:53 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 356
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
The idea that the KJV is better than the ESV because the ESV uses gender neutral langauge is simply ludicrous for several reasons.
Gender-neutral Language
Summary: Many people believe that the general use of the term "man" is offensive, or at least inaccurate. Phrases like "no man is an island" or "every man for himself" seem to exclude women. Although reading history as if every use of "man" or "he" was a deliberate insult to women is probably excessive, today's culture calls for alternatives.
http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/style/gender.html
Gender inclusive is gender neutral!!
Careful writers avoid language that would universalize one element of humanity to the exclusion of others. When you are writing about people in general, many of your professors will expect you to use “inclusive” or “nonsexist” language, that is, gender neutral language.
http://www.marquette.edu/wac/neutral/NeutralInclusiveLanguage.shtml
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
http://www.hebrew4christians.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/6/2010 3:24:38 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 3213
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
KJB Genesis 10:29 And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab: all these were the sons of Joktan.
The fact that it says sons later on doesn't negate the fact that it used the gender-inclusive "children" in 21-22. You also chose to ignore Genesis 37 - another example of the KJV's gender-inclusive language.
_____________________________
Proud father of a brand new Fribblet!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/7/2010 8:00:38 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3428
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SurfFirst
My argument about the KJV only belief is: What about all the people who don't read English? Do you expect them to learn English in order to be able to read the only "correct" Bible? If one needs to learn the "correct" language to read and understand the Bible, why not learn the original languages in which it was written?
That one is easy. I have read on a few KJVO websites that God "reinspired" the scriptures in London in 1611 because of the various conflicting manuscript families. He had to clarify everything so the original language sources were all invalidated. THEREFORE, one can translate the KJV into the various languages.
To be sure this is an extreme position, and one I have not seen widely supported in this thread. But due to these extremists, there are "KJV Friendly" translations in several languages.
_____________________________
Saphira went home from the hospital 11/2/11. She is VERY happy to be home. This pic was taken on her 4th birthday, just after another round of outpatient chemo.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/7/2010 8:15:08 AM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 3428
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
While reading thru the discussion on unicorns, I was reminded of a couple of verses in the Prophets that was time-specific to the early 17th century.
Isa 14:11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
Amo 5:23 Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.
Any middle or upper class Englishman in 1611 would know EXACTLY what musical instrument was being referenced: one known on the European continent as the Viola da Gamba. In England it was either the Gamba or the Viol. Christopher Simpson, a Brittish virtuoso player and composer was probably just learning the instrument at the time.
The problem is that the instrument was only a couple of hundred years old at the time, and could not have been in use almost 2000 years earlier, when the prophets wrote their books.
edited to add informative links:
http://www.angelfire.com/music/vdgsgny/page2.html
http://vdgsa.org/pgs/the_viol.html
< Message edited by DaveW -- 9/7/2010 8:24:58 AM >
_____________________________
Saphira went home from the hospital 11/2/11. She is VERY happy to be home. This pic was taken on her 4th birthday, just after another round of outpatient chemo.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/7/2010 2:28:25 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 12153
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
IF the KJV is the ONLY "inspired" translation,
Right off the bat your ignorance of the KJVO debate shines brightly. Only an insignificant few extremists believe the KJV is inspired. I suggest you gather a better understanding of this debate before you condemn it as you have in this post.
quote:
I have yet to see where ONE SINGLE salvic issue is up for debate...
Again, there isn't supposed to be a savific issue debated within this debate. The fact that there isn't proves, once again, your misunderstand of this entire issue. Frankly there ARE a few KJVO'ists who will say that one can only be saved from the 1611 Authorized Version, but those individuals are nut-cases who are the exception to the rule. You ought to be happy that this forum has not degenerated to such a state! I am, and I'm a KJVO.
quote:
I got saved using a Catholic bible!!!
Good for you! And I'm sure millions have and will also.
quote:
this whole debate is a total waste of time and energy!
Well thanks for your opinion, but unfortunately you will not be taken seriously until you grasp what this debate really is.
In Christ,
ZG
Sometimes one wondereth if Ephesians 4:15 & 32 is understoodeth or ever practiced by our KJVO brethren and sistren ("But speaking the truth in love..." and "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you")
_____________________________
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." -John 6:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/7/2010 2:32:36 PM
|
|
|
Baruk_HaShem
Posts: 12
Joined: 5/8/2010
Status: offline
|
The KJV contains the word “unicorn” 9 times: 6 singular and 3 plural. The occurrences in the singular are found in: Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Job 39:9, 10; Psalms 29:6 and 92:10. The occurrences in the plural are found in: Deuteronomy33:17; Psalms 22:21; and Isaiah 34:7.
The Hebrew word רְאֵם – r’ém, the Greek word μονοκέρωτος – monokerōtos, and the Latin word rinocerotis is translated “unicorn” in Numbers 23:22 and 24:8 and the plural “unicorns” in Deuteronomy 33:17.
In Job 39:9, 10 the Hebrew word רֵּים – réim (which is an alternate spelling of רְאֵם), the Greek μονόκερως – monokerōs (verse 9 only; verse 10 has αὐτου - himself), and the Latin rinoceros is translated “unicorn.”
In Psalms 22:21(22:22 in the Hebrew Bible) the Hebrew word רֵמִים – rémiym, (which is an alternate spelling of רְאֵמִימ – r’émiym and the plural form of רֵּים and רְאַם respevtively), the Greek μονοκερώτων – monokerōtōn, and the Latin unicornium is translated “unicorns.”
In Psalms 29:6 the plural form רְאֵמִימ, the Greek μονοκερώτων – monokerōtōn and the Latin unicornium is translated in the singular, “unicorn.”
In Psalms 92:10 (92:11 in the Hebrew Bible) the word כִּרְאֵים – kir’éym, (which is another alternate spelling of רְאֵם and combined with the prefix ki which means “like a”), the Greek word μονοκέρωτος – monokerōtos, and the Latin unicornis is translated “like [the horn of] an unicorn.”
In Isaiah 34:7 it is once again רְאֵמִימ, the Greek οἱ ἁδροὶ - hoi hadroi (which means large and strong), and the Latin unicornes is translated “unicorns.”
There is no logical reason for the Hebrew word – רְאֵם – rəém to have ever been translated into the Greek – μονοκέρωτος – monokerōtos. The two words share absolutely no similarities.
In fact, in his 126 CE Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, Aquila used the Greek word ῥινόκερως – rhinokerōs at Job 39:9. In Isaiah 34:7 he used ῥιμείμ – rhimeim which appears to be a transliteration of רְאֵמִימ because no such Greek word exists. Unfortunately none of the other verses in question remain in existence in any of the fragmentary remains of Aquila’s translation. Origen used the Greek word βούβαλος – boubalos (with Oryx in parentheses) at Job 39:9 in his Hexapla, and at Isaiah 34:7 he used βουβάλι – boubali. Βούβαλος is Greek for Aurochs.
The word μονοκέρωτος is actually the word μονόκερως combined with the suffix -τος. Μονόκερως is a compound of μονό meaning “single/only/one,” and κέρατο which means “horn.” Therefore, the actual meaning of μονοκέρωτος is “which has one horn.” It is logical, however, to translate μονοκέρωτος into the Latin unicornis, because they are identically synonymous. Just as a side note, μονωδών μονόκερως – monōdōn monokerōs and Latin Monodon Monoceros are the official names of the marine mammal known as a Narwhal. The name literally means “one-tooth one-horn.” However no one in Fifteenth Century BCE Palestine would have known about Narwhals.
The Hebrew equivalent would be חַד־קֶרֶן –ḥad-qeren meaning “one-horn.” This word does not occur anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. The word ḥad occurs one time at Daniel 2:31 and the word qeren appears 16 times in the Hebrew Bible. The compound ḥad-qeren did not even exist in ancient times. It is a modern construction that refers exclusively to the fictional, mythological creature known as a unicorn.
The Greek word ῥινόκερως – rhinokerōs and the Latin word rinoceros both mean “nose horn,” and generally refer to the Rhinoseros. The Hebrew word for Rhinoceros is קַרִנַף – qarinaf, which does not appear in the Hebrew Bible.
The word רְאֵם – r’ém, actually means “wild ox,” the majority of scholars equate this with Bos primigenius Bojanus, the now extinct Aurochs, which was the largest bovidae that ever existed, and the wild ancestor of domestic cattle. By the time the Roman Empire took power, the Aurochs was only indigenous to central and northern Europe, and the bordering Asian regions. Even though the Aurochs did not reach extinction until 1627 CE, it would have no longer been known by whomever it was that translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek.
There is really no rational reason to associate this immense creature, having two very large horns, with the fictional unicorn. However, there is an irrational reason. In ancient murals the Aurochs was painted in silhouette, giving the appearance that it had only one horn. Having no way of accurately translating this word into Greek, they relied on the murals depicting this creature, thus “which has one horn.”
On the other hand, the Latin translators probably would have had knowledge of the Aurochs, because it did exist in Europe until its extinction. Unfortunately, by the time the Christian Bible was being translated into Latin, the translators would have had no way of knowing that רְאֵם – r’ém actually referred to the Aurochs. As usual, when discovering an uncertainty, they referred to the Greek translations.
By the time the KJV was created in 1611 CE, the Europeans of that era were very superstitious, and heavily into folklore. They believed in the reality of not only unicorns and satyrs, but witches, vampires, werewolves, succubi and incubi as well, among many other things. They truly believed these creatures to be very real. Have you heard of the Salem witch hunts (and that was in America)? How about the inquisitions? As a matter of fact, I know a Romanian family that honestly believes vampires and werewolves are real to this very day.
When the KJV uses words such as unicorn(s) and satyr(s), it is safe to say that the writers believed them to be real. Whether it was done intentionally, or merely out of ignorance, the creators of the KJV added pagan mythological creatures to the Holy Word of God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/7/2010 2:37:37 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
quote:
IF the KJV is the ONLY "inspired" translation,
Right off the bat your ignorance of the KJVO debate shines brightly. Only an insignificant few extremists believe the KJV is inspired. I suggest you gather a better understanding of this debate before you condemn it as you have in this post.
quote:
I have yet to see where ONE SINGLE salvic issue is up for debate...
Again, there isn't supposed to be a savific issue debated within this debate. The fact that there isn't proves, once again, your misunderstand of this entire issue. Frankly there ARE a few KJVO'ists who will say that one can only be saved from the 1611 Authorized Version, but those individuals are nut-cases who are the exception to the rule. You ought to be happy that this forum has not degenerated to such a state! I am, and I'm a KJVO.
quote:
I got saved using a Catholic bible!!!
Good for you! And I'm sure millions have and will also.
quote:
this whole debate is a total waste of time and energy!
Well thanks for your opinion, but unfortunately you will not be taken seriously until you grasp what this debate really is.
In Christ,
ZG
Sometimes one wondereth if Ephesians 4:15 & 32 is understoodeth or ever practiced by our KJVO brethren and sistren ("But speaking the truth in love..." and "And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you")
Like you don't grow tired of my consistent misunderstandings of Calvinism? I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from, but I do expect you to see the condescending tone in this individual's post. It was very condescending to those who take this debate quite seriously (such as myself), so quit the childish sarcasm, understandeth?
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/7/2010 3:09:11 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 12153
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Like you don't grow tired of my consistent misunderstandings of Calvinism? I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from, but I do expect you to see the condescending tone in this individual's post. It was very condescending to those who take this debate quite seriously (such as myself), so quit the childish sarcasm, understandeth?
Do unto others as they do unto you?
Maybe I missed that.
In any case, as far as "I don't expect you to understand where I'm coming from," I once was KJV-only. But that was many years ago and after a lot of unbiased research or without the notion that if something disagrees with KJV then it is automatically suspicious.
Anywhat, any unapplied version is pretty much as useless as any other unapplied version. See Galatians 5:19-26.
Thanks,
Euty
_____________________________
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." -John 6:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The KJV Only Debate - One Stop Thread - 9/7/2010 4:32:15 PM
|
|
|
evry1needsgod
Posts: 2710
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Do unto others as they do unto you?
Maybe I missed that.
If I waste my time and energy declaring that a certain debate is a waste of time an energy, please rebuke me, Euty. I intend to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and so far I have. I'm not going to waltz in on a 78 page thread and declare that all the intelligent men who've dedicated an extremely large portion of time and energy to this debate are wasting their time and energy. All your time and " a lot of unbiased research" was apparently a complete waste of time and energy, Euty! What a worthless endeavor, huh? Good day.
_____________________________
"Believers are saved from their sin, not merely in their sinning!"--drmark
"Our wills are ours, we know not how; our wills are ours, to make them Thine." - Alfred, Lord Tennyson
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
