AV1611 Bible Forum Archive

AV1611 Bible Forum Archive (https://av1611.com/forums/index.php)
-   Bible Versions (https://av1611.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Better Translation? (https://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=368)

againstheresies 07-11-2008 06:45 PM

Better Translation?
 
Do you think it is better to retain the distinction between “matheteuo” and “didasko” as used by our Lord in the Great Commission or obscure it? Why or why not?

Matthew 28:19-20 (Elzevir)
19 πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος 20 διδασκοντες αυτους τηρειν παντα οσα ενετειλαμην υμιν και ιδου εγω μεθ υμων ειμι πασας τας ημερας εως της συντελειας του αιωνος αμην

Matthew 28:19-20 (KJV)
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Matthew 28:19-20 (NKJV)
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

PB1789 07-12-2008 08:41 PM

I think that it should read "teach" rather than "make disciples".

Why---? Because it is up to The Holy Spirit to make disciples,,,not us.

Steven Avery 07-13-2008 07:06 AM

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations
 
Hi Folks,

Matthew 28:19-20 (KJV)
Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.
Amen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PB1789
I think that it should read "teach" rather than "make disciples".
Why---? Because it is up to The Holy Spirit to make disciples,,,not us.

I think along the same lines, that this is the nature of the King James Bible wisdom on the verse.

As a little sidenote, note how Bible books end on a positive note, and often with an 'amen'. This is one of the many infallible proofs for the ending of Mark against the insipid idea that Mark ends with the woman afraid on verse 8.

Yesterday I was reading at the excellent William Grady book 'Final Authority' (1993) and he mentions that point in his chapter. A very, very solid book (yesterday I read the first 60 pages, now I am a bit more familiar with the material than when I first read it about a decade ago). Since it is a classic I would also use it as an example of the strength and pizazz of King James Bible writings in recent years long before the Riplinger surge (whatever one's view of the Gail Riplinger writings, some doofus opponents try to write as if the King James Bible defense was dormant and quiescent before her writings :) ). There are many other books and writings and speakers to reference, however William Grady's book has a classic sense, a good style, a type of breezy thoroughness. Perhaps my view is biased a bit as it was my 2nd KJB book; and the first wide-ranging one.

Oh, some King James Bibles have the following note on Matthew 28:19.

teach...: or, make disciples, or, Christians of all nations

However this is not in the 1611 online, a rare case in my experience, generally the footnotes in e.g. crosswalk.com are in the 1611 edition.
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti...ePosition=1255

So I would like to find out when that margin note was first placed. An early edition, or Scrivener, or something else ?

The King James Bible translates maqhteusate (5657) as "teach" and instruct in a few places. Here are the four usages.

Matthew 13:52
Then said he unto them,
Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven
is like unto a man that is an householder,
which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

Matthew 27:57
When the even was come,
there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph,
who also himself was Jesus' disciple:

Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Acts 14:21
And when they had preached the gospel to that city,
and had taught many,
they returned again to Lystra,
and to Iconium, and Antioch,


Thus it is easy to see that "disciple" while in the range of meaning of the word would not work well at all (e.g. Acts 14:21) in some verses and is far from being a primary and necessary translation. The NT refers to disciples of Jesus, of John, and even of the Pharisees, an existing relationship, afaik we never see the phrase of "making disciples" and PB1789 gives a reasonable explanation as to why that would be particularly out-of-joint in Matthew 28:19.

Oh, there may also be the question of the missing verb to "make" disciples (ok, the verb doing double-duty as a verb and noun) however on that one I will happily defer to any Greek-savvy folks.

And it is possible that the Latin reflects the "teaching" concept more directly, as that is the simple translation of docete, and Jerome speaks similarly (through the Aquinas section, I haven't primary sourced this one) :

Jerome:
Observe the order of these injunctions. He bids the Apostles first to teach all nations, then to wash them with the sacrament of faith, and after faith and baptism then to teach them what things they ought to observe; “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

Also in synch is the John Calvin commentary.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calc...ml#ii.li-p18.1

Note that some translators and commentators have convert or preach instead of teach.

There are many interesting early church writer references, I used to look them up to refute the really dumb assertion that the original Matthew 28:19 did not have "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" from Conybeare and Ploughman and some moderns. In fact that phrase is very possibly the single best-attested phrase in the whole Bible in early church writings. And is virtually 100% in MS and version consistency.

Shalom,
Steven

againstheresies 07-15-2008 05:02 PM

Response
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PB1789 (Post 6144)
I think that it should read "teach" rather than "make disciples".

Why---? Because it is up to The Holy Spirit to make disciples,,,not us.

It was Jesus who made the distinction. Perhaps He should have checked with the Holy Spirit?

againstheresies 07-17-2008 02:26 PM

Stumped?
 
136 looks and no real answer yet…I guess I found one that stumped you. :)

Brother Tim 07-17-2008 03:35 PM

AgainstHeresies,
1. As always, Scripture interprets Scripture. Mark 16:15 says, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (emphasis mine)
Our duty is to "teach" (Matthew) / "preach" (Mark). We now have a clear message. "Make disciples" is not only nonexistent in the text, but it distorts our duty.

2. You said, "It was Jesus who made the distinction. Perhaps He should have checked with the Holy Spirit? " Not only is your humor unappreciated, for joking about the LORD Jesus or the Holy Spirit is tasteless at best and blasphemy at worst, but in frank reality it was the Holy Ghost who gave us the wording of which you complain.

againstheresies 07-17-2008 04:54 PM

Response
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 6213)
AgainstHeresies,
1. As always, Scripture interprets Scripture. Mark 16:15 says, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (emphasis mine)
Our duty is to "teach" (Matthew) / "preach" (Mark). We now have a clear message. "Make disciples" is not only nonexistent in the text, but it distorts our duty.

2. You said, "It was Jesus who made the distinction. Perhaps He should have checked with the Holy Spirit? " Not only is your humor unappreciated, for joking about the LORD Jesus or the Holy Spirit is tasteless at best and blasphemy at worst, but in frank reality it was the Holy Ghost who gave us the wording of which you complain.



Okay. So your saying the Holy Spirit in Greek wanted it to be “Μαθητευσατε / διδασκοντε” and in English wanted it to be “teach / teach” because our going, baptizing, and teaching (the three participles modified by the Greek Word in the imperative form meaning “make disciples”) has nothing to do with making disciples?

No my friends the meaning of this passage is clearly to make disciples by Going, Baptizing, and Teaching.

(Note: Good exegesis may help in sermon preparation)

Of course God is the one who saves and sanctifies but He uses means to accomplish His purpose. So go about making disciples of Jesus Christ by taking the initiative to go to them, upon their confession of faith Baptize them into the Church, and continue to teach them the all the truth of God’s Word.

Grace be with you all.

stephanos 07-17-2008 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies (Post 6212)
136 looks and no real answer yet…I guess I found one that stumped you. :)

I think the reason for this is because most of us don't need any greek scholars (nicholatians?) to tell us how the Holy Bible should read. If we have questions about what the Scriptures say, we grab the good ol' book, and read the Word of our God for ourselves. But I'm sure this is not the answer you were hoping for. Have fun with the greek againstheresies, as for me and my house (KJB Believers), our authority on all matters of faith and practice is the King James Bible.

for Jesus' sake,
Stephen

PB1789 07-17-2008 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim (Post 6213)
AgainstHeresies,
1. As always, Scripture interprets Scripture. Mark 16:15 says, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (emphasis mine)
Our duty is to "teach" (Matthew) / "preach" (Mark). We now have a clear message. "Make disciples" is not only nonexistent in the text, but it distorts our duty.

2. You said, "It was Jesus who made the distinction. Perhaps He should have checked with the Holy Spirit? " Not only is your humor unappreciated, for joking about the LORD Jesus or the Holy Spirit is tasteless at best and blasphemy at worst, but in frank reality it was the Holy Ghost who gave us the wording of which you complain.


Brother Tim:--- Bingo! Ditto! Your reply shown above in #2 was "Nail-on-the-Head". It does seem somewhat odd that someone who calls himself "Againstheresies" could post that stuff... But, of course he uses the NK as his version here on an Authorized Version website...:rolleyes:

Biblestudent 07-17-2008 11:54 PM

When it comes to better "translations", some thought came to my mind:

I don't know if there is anyone in this modern apostate times who can translate better a word that was translated by 47 best brains in 1611. I can assume that many (if not all) modern bible translators learned the original languages in seminary, while the KJV translators were all familiar of the languages even from childhood. But if anyone thinks they know how a word ought to be translated better than the KJV translators, I guess no one says he is a better translator than the Holy Spirit.

(Just some thoughts.)

Steven Avery 07-18-2008 05:59 AM

Hi Folks,

Matthew 28:19-20
Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.
Amen.

One of the nice aspects of dealing with cornfuseniks who have no pure Bible and really, really would prefer that others did not have a pure Bible as well (due to the authority represented in the Holy Bible, the King James Bible) is that they bring up issues that help us to see the purity and perfection of our Bible. And to understand more excellently the word of God. Before this little conversation I had never studied 'make disciples' as a concept and looking at the modern version mistranslation of Matthew 28:19 versus the proper Bible text has been interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies
no real answer yet…I guess I found one that stumped you. :)

Hmmm.. you simply ignored what I wrote above, so I could not take your approach too seriously. Others may have found your approach questionable on this forum as well, especially based on the earlier threads. However I am happy to stay on this topic a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Tim
"Make disciples" is not only nonexistent in the text, but it distorts our duty.

A very crucial point. There is a type of translational tampering in all the modern versions.

First, there is in fact one scripture that talks of disciples being made, by Jesus and by John the Baptist, and as would be expected it uses two distinct words, a noun and a verb, for that purpose.

John 4:1
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,


This English does reflect the Greek, since it has two distinct words. 'Make disciples' in Matthew 28:19 takes a dubious translational license by radically changing the Greek, which is a command to 'ye' to teach (some say 'disciple', some 'instruct', some 'convert' - we may get to that later) all nations, Jesus did not give a command about the people who would be taught (or made into students, disciples or anything else) which is the man-centered nose-counting approach. The real focus is on what Jesus calls us to do, to teach.

As one writer, not particularly sympathetic to the King James Bible yet with some savvy on this quetion, says:

http://voiceofthesheep.wordpress.com...-the-question/
To Disciple, Or Make Disciples…That is the Question

the modern translations at this verse seem to support the man-centered evangelism techniques that we see so prominent in the church today. Instead of going and instructing and teaching and discipling…we have Christians who go and try to make disciples….to make conversions.

Thus the literal versions, Young and Rotherdam, accurately follow the King James Bible in only using a verbal form in Matthew 28:19. The same correct understanding of simply a verbal form is in all the earlier English Bibles, I checked Coverdale, Tyndale, Geneva and Bishops. And the early translations to Latin and Aramaic simply reflected a verbal form, showing that this was the historic understanding of Matthew 28:19 in the first centuries, when Biblical Greek was a more natural language. And thus the English Latin-based (e.g Wycliffe and Rheims) and Aramaic versions do so as well, simply a verbal form. Also, even after the King James Bible, in the 1700's and 1800's Mace (1729) and Wesley (1790) and Webster (1833), despite a Bible-correction approach, did not make the error of improperly adding a noun. (Even the translations of Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Diatessoran and other church writers generally reflect simply the verb.) The modernist error of "make disciples" in Matthew 28:19 appears to have come into the English understanding around the time of the decrepit Revision (1881) as well as Darby (1890 English edition) and is only in line with the later modernist retinkering of historic and clear grammatical understandings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies
No my friends the meaning of this passage is clearly to make disciples by Going, Baptizing, and Teaching.

Error begets error. This interpretation, that this is what is called a 'grouped clause with modal participles' -- the later parts all elements, perhaps sequential, of the initial -- seems to be relatively recent (especially A. T. Robertson) and is hotly contested even in the Greek-ish circles. The English grammar clearly does not indicate this, nor is it required and indicated in the Greek (this is discussed in depth on those biblical greek forums). And one basic mistake that makes this view difficult is the one covered above, the fact that there is not any command to 'make disciples' whatosever.

As a sidenote, the strongest defenders historically of the modal approach, with its implied sequential component, to interpreting Matthew 28:19 is by the proponents of infant baptism, since if you group baptism as the first action after a command to "make disciples" and the baptism is before the teaching, then ..wow, you can baptize infants.

Notice how 'against' has to contradict himself, by adding elements and changing around sequence, in his self-proclaimed 'good exegesis'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies
... So go about making disciples of Jesus Christ by taking the initiative to go to them, upon their confession of faith Baptize them into the Church, and continue to teach them the all the truth of God’s Word.

Yet by his own expressed exegesis no confession of faith or teaching precedes baptism, baptism would be the first step.

I had a few more notes, however time is short and a few important issues I have tried to clarify a bit. The issues I discuss here are far more fundamental than 'teach, disciple, instruct' or another word, like the most dubious 'convert' on Matthew 28:19, although that would be interesting as well. It was fun looking into the truth of the matter, to learn about the mistranslation 'make disciples' in Matthew 28:19 in the modern versions (I would like to know more definitely the first proponent of the "make disciples" error, any help on that appreciated).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biblestudent
I don't know if there is anyone in this modern apostate times who can translate better a word that was translated by 47 best brains in 1611. I can assume that many (if not all) modern bible translators learned the original languages in seminary, while the KJV translators were all familiar of the languages even from childhood.

Amen. When you read the modern scholars, you can sense their difficulties, they are fractionist and fragmented and ultra-conjectural and unsure and they don't have the sense and heart and clarity of mind of the strong and dynamic scholars of earlier days, the King James Bible translators being the finest company ever assembled.

Note, as I often indicate, I personally claim no Greek expertise. I simply find that the modern correctors write on such a low level that it is not difficult to research their fallacious claims, such as the modal approach of 'against' above being simply declared by fiat against lots of solid argumentation and writing and interpretation. Or checking the historic understanding and usage of a simple linguistic connection of the Greek to the English (verb == verb). And I read carefully the various explanations given by modernists for going around the simplicity of the languages, ie. a straight and simple and direct translation, and generally they have no oomph, no power, no pizazz. And often, on issues like this one, they look to be little more than excuses for the errant alexandrian-based Westcott-Hort text or the errant modern translations. Or they assume a validity that is neither historical nor warranted.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Avery 07-18-2008 09:11 AM

Acts 14:21 - and had taught many
 
Hi Folks,

Another point of interest on the modern version mistranslation, again adding the noun.

Acts 14:21 (KJB)
And when they had preached the gospel to that city,
and had taught many,
they returned again to Lystra,
and to Iconium, and Antioch,

First, notice that you will find this footnote on some King James Bible.

* had taught many: Gr. had made many disciples

Yet this is not on the 1611 on the net, again it would be nice to know when this footnote began. Since there is no noun "disciples" in that sentence. And we know that making disciples is a dubious concept in NT consistency and inerrancy and doctrine.

1 Corinthians 1:12-13
Now this I say, that every one of you saith,
I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you?
or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:3-4
For ye are yet carnal:
for whereas there is among you envying,
and strife, and divisions,
are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
For while one saith, I am of Paul;
and another, I am of Apollos;
are ye not carnal?


Generally the modern versions make this error, essentially the same error they have in Matthew 28:19.

Acts 14:21 (Holman)
After they had evangelized that town and made many disciples,
they returned to Lystra, to Iconium, and to Antioch,

A modern version apologist could try to contend that the disciples are disciples of Jesus anyway. Yet if that were the sense (remember this is conjectural since the NT actually does not speak of "made ... disciples" in this verse) then it would have been very easy to simply places the words in the text -- e.g. "disciples unto Jesus". The simple, contextual explanation of Acts 14:21 in the modern versions is disciples of Paul and Barnabas, an error.

In fact, the modern versions have a second error, a textual corruption, that magnifies the translation error in Acts 14:21. We have available a separate in-depth discussion of :

Acts 9:25 (KJB)
Then the disciples took him by night,
and let him down by the wall in a basket.


Now notice the error, based on one of the thousands of alexandrian MS blunders, referring to Paul's disciples.

Acts 9:25 - Holman
but his disciples took him by night
and lowered him in a large basket through an opening in the wall.

These errors from the modern versions are used for various arguments given for the apostles having their own disciples. With the modern versions, error begets error.

"Use the modern versions, you don't know what you are missing".

Shalom,
Steven

againstheresies 07-18-2008 10:35 AM

Steven this passage is not “hotly contested even in the Greek-ish circles.” This is a very clear passage that would be better translated “make disciples” in verse 19 and teach in verse 20. Jerome’s influence on this passage carried over to the English versions.

At least you admit that you “have no Greek expertise” although that point is clearly evident from your line of reasoning. By the way quoting from someone who refers to their own writings as “bleatings of an amateur reformational credobaptistic theologian” hardly bolsters your argument.

I do wish all of you well and pray that you are guided more by truth than tradition and sound exegesis rather than emotion.

Have a great Lord’s Day.

Steven Avery 07-18-2008 11:09 AM

Hi Folks,

As expected, a quick response from against that has no substance. This is rather common. Rather than real analysis, kick out a nothing post to look like you responded, to give an appearance sans substance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies
this passage is not “hotly contested even in the Greek-ish circles.”.

The context of that was your incorrect modal interpretation. You didn't even read properly my very clear writing, or if you did, you write deceptively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies
This is a very clear passage that would be better translated “make disciples” in verse 19

And the two posts above outlined quite nicely why this claim of yours is rubbish. I read the quick and weak defenses of "make disciples" and they boil down to "we translate that way because the verb is active and causative". Such a transformation in language needs an impelling reason. If somebody is told to "Instruct" .. that does not mean to make instructors, nor even to make students. And if a noun "disciples" was meant to be combined with a verb to make, the English and Greek could easily match up with a noun and a verb, as in John 4:1.

In fact afaik the earlier Greek experts did not even make this weak case that you call "very clear". This is a modernist confusion, rarely analyzed, and it beigins to appear in translations only at the time of the textual apostasy of the Revision. Error begets error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies
and teach in verse 20.

Finally you say something sensible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies
Jerome’s influence on this passage carried over to the English versions.

The Latin early versions, and the Aramaic, understood the Greek verb issue the same way as did all the English Reformation experts. The word-choice translation issue, which can only be addressed properly after the improper noun addition issue is addressed and discarded. likely drew from a lot of considerations. Which I was prepared to discuss if you gave an intelligent response. In general, in your one-dimensional claim, it looks like you are falling into a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And you are totally unawares of the depth of Greek knowledge and understanding and precision of the Reformation translators, especially the King James Bible translators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies
At least you admit that you “have no Greek expertise” although that point is clearly evident from your line of reasoning.

Sometimes the lack of a Greek background of confusion makes reading through the scholastic muddles that much easier. You can see the modernist confusions so easily.

We notice that you addressed absolutely nothing about any point that I addressed, such as the dual error in the modern versions that brings forth the false doctrine of believer's disciples, or the historic truth of the clear and straight translation of Mathew 28:19, the related alexandrian corruption in Acts 9:25 that lays the doctrinal framework for the Matthew 28:19 translation error, how John 4:1 shows how a true "made disciples" verse is written, or the newness and controversy of your weak and dubious modal interpretation, the interpretation originally embraced and pushed by those defending infant baptism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies
By the way quoting from someone who refers to their own writings as “bleatings of an amateur reformational credobaptistic theologian” hardly bolsters your argument.

You don't like the word "bleatings" ? Complain to the author. Everything I quoted was sensible and strong, if you disagree you should try substance rather than a genetic fallacy attempt.

Thank you for showing the forum the superficial nature of anti-KJB attempts.

Shalom,
Steven

stephanos 07-19-2008 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by againstheresies (Post 6234)
I do wish all of you well and pray that you are guided more by truth than tradition and sound exegesis rather than emotion.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised; )


I do believe that it is wise that we contend for this tradition that has been passed down to us by faithful Bible believing Christians. Satan's tactic has always been to cast doubt on the Word of God.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

againstheresies, We are guided by Truth and Spirit, which is the Word of God, King James AV 1611. I don't know what exegesis means (is that word even in the bible?). I believe in comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. Perhaps you should to? Anywho, what are your motives here? I personally believe you are trying to shed doubt on our faith in the preserved Word of our God. I don't think this is edifying, and even if you think you are right about your beloved greek, you should take a lesson from Romans 14 my brother. Perhaps you should spend more time winning souls for Christ instead of using greek to cast doubt in the hearts of the faithful.

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

Gord 07-19-2008 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanos (Post 6244)
[B] I don't know what exegesis means (is that word even in the bible?). ...

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') involves an extensive and critical interpretation of an authoritative text, especially of a holy scripture, such as of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Talmud, the Midrash, the Qur'an, etc. Exegesis also is used to describe the elucidation of philosophical and legal texts.

One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutics used interchangeably; however, there remains a distinction. An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself. A hermeneutic is a practical application of a certain method or theory of interpretation, often revolving around the contemporary relevance of the text in question.

An exegete is a practitioner of this art, and the adjectival form is exegetic. The plural of the word exegesis is exegeses.

The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.

Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text. [1]

Although the most widely-known exegeses concern themselves with Christian, Jewish and Islamic books, analyses also exist of books of other religions.

Steven Avery 07-19-2008 02:20 PM

Hi Folks,

Matthew 28:19-20
Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.
Amen.

This research I find quite interesting, and am following up a bit more. Mostly I was curious to learn how such a mistranslation as "make disciples" can get entrenched among the modernists.

One thing that came to the fore is that a later modern (not original) King James Bible margin note helped bring forth the confusion. Apparently that footnote was placed in 1800's (way before Scrivener though) perhaps Matthew would know who added margin notes that actually 'stuck' in 18th century or 19th century King James Bible editions. Generally you have seen me very sympathetic to the King James Bible 1611 notes (not scripture, yet often showing great insight and skill and expertise). Based on this new example, that simpatico may dissolve when it comes to the after-1611 margin notes.

Now I have a few new tidbits to share. The first one will show that we are not the only ones to realize that 'make disciples' is a dubious, even unacceptable, translational license. Just a couple of years ago, in one Lutheran denomination a few dozen (seminary-trained folks, with all the Greek-isms) folks actually put out a public statement in some depth on precisely this point. They had to feel very strongly to actually highlight simply the one verse of ultra-dubious translation. Whether the overall motivation and understanding of the Committee with the signers to the emphatic letter is perfect or good or bad or mixed in all the details of why they are highlighting this verse is not really the main issue (your degree of 'sovereign grace' doctrinal priority will be one element in your degree of doctrinal agreement). Generally their ideas dovetail well with the King James Bible defenders on the forum. Mostly, first, I want to simply show their understanding of the verse grammatically and translationally. So I will simply post it here, with a little bold added.

Those interested will find the whole page of interest, please note this is an extract.

=================================================

http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?...ortcutID=24340
Clarifying the Mission of WELS

3) in only one place in Scripture does the Savior appear to give responsibility to his people for the results of the gospel’s work, telling his followers, “Go and make disciples of all nations . . .” (Matthew 28:19); and

4) the word in the original Greek that is translated as “make disciples” is “matheteusate,” a verb form used nowhere else in the New Testament; and

5) the precise meaning of that word, “matheteusate,” is open to debate and varied interpretation, even among faithful scholars in our own circles; and

6) according to the principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it would be most proper for this voicing of the Savior’s Great Commission to be understood and translated in a manner consistent with other voicings of that commission as noted above (and as was done by Dr. Luther and by the King James Version, where“matheteusate” is translated as “teach”); and

7) instead, in the New International Version and several other modern translations (e.g. RSV, TEV, GWN), the word “matheteusate” is translated as “make disciples”—a translation that neither literally reflects the structure of the Greek nor is consistent with the rest of Scripture; and

8) while it may be possible for the translation “make disciples” to be rightly understood, it may also be argued that the translation invites misinterpretation, and may even open a door to a misunderstanding of the doctrine of conversion since it can appear to make man at least partly responsible for the conversion process; and

... most open to misunderstanding and misapplication .... a questionable translation


==================================================

Thanks :) .

Shalom,
Steven

Debau 07-19-2008 05:11 PM

Dude,
If I could dig in the Scripture like you dig out info on the 'net, I'd be a "scholar".!!! I might even learn some Greek, or Geek perhaps!

Good job Steven.

chette777 07-19-2008 06:31 PM

Quoting Gord:

One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutics used interchangeably; however, there remains a distinction. An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself. A hermeneutic is a practical application of a certain method or theory of interpretation, often revolving around the contemporary relevance of the text in question.

The word exegesis can mean explanation, but as a technical term it means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be contrasted with eisegesis, which means to read one's own interpretation into a given text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while eisegesis implies more subjectivity.

Traditional exegesis requires the following: analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation; examination of the general historical and cultural context, confirmation of the limits of the passage, and lastly, examination of the context within the text.

Gord,

Great discription of Exegesis.

All these discriptions are used in rightly dividing the word of truth that is the correct method of interpretation. Correct Exegesis leads to correct doctrines. some Christians in this post even have a tendency to eisegsis. many say they beleive the the KJV Bible but fails to obey or partially obeys 2Tim2:15 beleif and obediance go together.

I have encountered it in Church after church, and among many who claim to be Chrisitans, it is part the last days apostasy where men claim to beleive the word but dont obey it. they have a tendancy to obey what scriptures they want and disregard other scriputres. Part of this last days is apostasy is better translation movements, but a greater part is men who are saved who disobey the Words of God

Another part of the Apostasy is to blend scriptures, mix up the different Gospels in the NT and make them all one Gospel. Others replace Israel with the church and endorse the Law over Liberty.

We have the best translation even for Matthew 29:18, 19. Teach that is the key but we must also be apt to teach and to have teachable hearts ourselves. anther sign of the Apsotasy in the church is the lack of teachable hearts. Peolple will follow other men and exort them above the clear teaching of the Holy Ghost, who is the one who teaches us the word of God in the first place. another sign is people fail to test the spirits to see if they are of God. Just because they call themselves Christian doesn't mean they are sent of God to teach or make better translations of an already perfect word of God.

becareful and testing when going to the links some are posting here they are ecumenical links to some of the Kingdom builders and covenant theologian sites.

Steven Avery 07-19-2008 06:48 PM

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Debau
Dude, If I could dig in the Scripture like you dig out info on the 'net, I'd be a "scholar".!!! I might even learn some Greek, or Geek perhaps! Good job Steven.

Thanks .. I think. :) .

There are a lot of problems in 'make disciples of all the nations' and kudos to those Lutheran folks for speaking up.

Incidentally the KJB margin note has to be before 1815, because by that time (yes, before the Revision) the note had been put in and some folks had started to follow the margin note rather than the text. And some saw the difficulties. Here is one from 1815, I am only taking out one paragraph, which begins in the context of a confession of faith with baptism. Notice also the connection mentioned between infant baptism and the early proponents of the translation corruption.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2awPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA184
A Body of Divinity: Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are Explained and Defended Vol IV - Thomas Ridgeley - Notes by James P. Wilson (1815)

This is agreeable to the words of institution, in Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them, and in Mark xvi. 15. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creatures he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. I am sensible that some, who have defended infant-baptism, or rather attempted to answer an objection taken from this, and such like scriptures against it, have endeavoured to prove the Greek word signifies, make persons disciples; and accordingly it is a metaphor taken from the practice of a person's being put under the care of one who qualified to instruct him, whose disciple he is said to be, in order to his being taught by him ; and therefore they suppose, that we are made disciples by baptism, and afterwards to be taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ hath commanded; and this is taken notice of in the marginal reading of our Bibles ; which supposes that the word may be rendered, make disciples of all nations : But, I cannot think this sense of the word so defensible, or agreeable to the design of our Saviour, as that of our translation, viz. Go teach all nations ; which agrees with the words of the other evangelist, Go preach the gospel to every creature :

Shalom,
Steven

Connie 07-19-2008 11:17 PM

Straining at gnats or straining out gnats
 
Since this is a thread questioning translation, can somebody explain to me why the KJB has "strain at a gnat" in Matthew 23:24, when the Geneva, the Tyndale and the Bishop's Bibles all have "strain out a gnat," AND considering the fact that the Pharisees STILL strain their food (soup?) and drink to avoid the possibility of eating a gnat in some circumstance where it is forbidden to eat meat.

stephanos 07-20-2008 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Connie (Post 6262)
Since this is a thread questioning translation, can somebody explain to me why the KJB has "strain at a gnat" in Matthew 23:24, when the Geneva, the Tyndale and the Bishop's Bibles all have "strain out a gnat," AND considering the fact that the Pharisees STILL strain their food (soup?) and drink to avoid the possibility of eating a gnat in some circumstance where it is forbidden to eat meat.

Perhaps either this is a misprint (this is what I've read, but I would doubt it) or the translators thought that this meant "straining at the possibility of eating a gnat, while you're swallowing a camel". This of course is just my guess.

Good question though.

Much Love in Christ,
Stephen

chette777 07-20-2008 01:03 AM

Keeping the context of Matthew 28:19, 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: Mt 10:5-12 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house, salute it. also read its cross reference in Luke chapter Nine and go through your four gosples and list out all things Christ commanded. alll of these would have to be taught.

Tell me how would you apply that today?

when you go into the mission field do you provide money in your purse or not?

do you not take extra clothing?

do you only go to Jews?

Are you healing the sick, raising the dead and casting out devils?

and don't forget the Sermon on the mount teaching, the Olivet Discourse teachings. many things Jesus taught with command.

What are the all things Jesus commanded that he would have US teach them to observe? Maybe he is not speaking to US? there is an immediate interpretation which is the literal interpretation.

Jesus taught alot of things and commanded many. he spoke to very few Gentiles directly. Manly the lost sheep of Israel.

Context of the four Gospels would be needed in order to really be able to know what to teach in the all nations he is sending the Apotles

Remeber too, at the time Christ commanded his remaining 11 Apostles and over 500 of his diciples (the number Paul said were witnesses of the resurrection), the Gospel of Grace had not been revealed, nor the One Spirit, One Body, One Baptism, nor the Jew and Gentile in one body, nor the Body of Christ, nor the Holy Spirit dwelling in you. none of these things were revealed yet.

So what is it Jesus is telling the his disciples to teach? who is he telling them to teach? Why is he telling them to teach? answer these in context and you shall see those who would change Matthew 28, 18-20 are interpreting it with a pretextual conclusion.

I will not spoon feed you the answers to the questions raised and why they would change the meaning of Matthew28, you will need to Study to show yourself approved rightly dividing the word of truth.

bibleprotector 07-20-2008 01:05 AM

If strain "at" is a misprint, then every normal KJB is wrong! But we know that this usage means to use a strainer to take any gnats out of their drink. Strain here does not mean being strenuous. However, the meaning is that one that is concerned with the small things, yet overlooking the big things does so to their own hurt.

Here is an article: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/strain.html

Connie 07-20-2008 02:53 AM

Thanks for the answers.

I hadn't seen any discussion of this, only recently recognized the problem for that matter. I should have realized that it would have been discussed quite a bit somewhere. I merely looked up the older translations (in Swordsearcher) to find that they all say "out," and to my mind that makes it a misprint in the KJB. There were quite a few such mistakes in the original 1611 that were corrected over time, weren't there? Why couldn't it be that this is just one that escaped? After a while, the wording "strain at" was so accepted that changing it might not even have occurred to anyone -- ??? But since the older translations the KJB translators made use of have "out" and that reflects the practice of the Pharisees more accurately, the other explanations such as Will Kinney gives aren't very convincing.

Well, "at" is going to go on that list I said I'd make of changes I think should be made in the KJB, on the thread about the tiny little updatings. But since such an idea is so unpopular here, perhaps I should just keep all such thoughts to myself anyway.

(It doesn't make me happy to find things I think need changing in the KJB, but at the same time I don't think it is a disaster if some happen to exist, as so many here think. The main thing that needs emphasizing in this whole Bible versions discussion is how bad and deceitful the new translations are and how they interfere with the life of the church, and all this worry about changing a few words in the KJB deflects the discussion from what's really most important. In my opinion.)

bibleprotector 07-20-2008 03:27 AM

The words “strain at a gnat” in Matthew 23:24c is said by some modernists to be an error made in 1611 that has been perpetuated in all subsequent editions. Their preferred wording is “strain out a gnat”, as Tyndale, Coverdale and the Geneva had. “To strain at ... This use is due to misunderstanding of the phrase ‘strain at a gnat’ in Matt. xxiii. 24. 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. It was not a mistranslation, the meaning intended being ‘which strain the liquor if they find a gnat in it’. The phrase, however, was early misapprehended (perh. already by Shaks. in quot. 1609), the verb being supposed to mean ‘to make violent effort’ ... 1583 GREENE ... straining at a gnat ... 1594 J. KING ... strayning at gnats ... 1609 SHAKS. ... strain ... at the position.” (OED). Thus, straining at a gnat describes the action of using a filter to capture insects while pouring out wine, and not that the strainer is immediately withdrawn from the wine once something has been caught, since no one ordinary stops filtering until the wine ceases from being poured. This example and explanation should be indicative of all such objections that can be brought up.

Connie 07-20-2008 04:11 AM

So are you saying that since English speakers misread it (not grasping the reference to the practice of the Pharisees in their obsession to avoid any taint of unclean meat in their diet), that their misuse of the term in the sense of exertion had become so common that the KJB translators simply incorporated that misuse?

You seem to be saying that, but also you seem to be using an argument Will Kinney also used, that I don't understand:

Quote:

Thus, straining at a gnat describes the action of using a filter to capture insects while pouring out wine, and not that the strainer is immediately withdrawn from the wine once something has been caught, since no one ordinary stops filtering until the wine ceases from being poured. This example and explanation should be indicative of all such objections that can be brought up.
This makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. Straining OUT gnats also describes using a filter to capture insects, and I see no implication in either case that the strainer is withdrawn once something has been caught.

I can see that perhaps the translators incorporated a common misuse of the term, but I also think that misuse detracts from the meaning Jesus intended so that it ought to be corrected.

bibleprotector 07-20-2008 05:06 AM

Quote:

So are you saying that since English speakers misread it (not grasping the reference to the practice of the Pharisees in their obsession to avoid any taint of unclean meat in their diet), that their misuse of the term in the sense of exertion had become so common that the KJB translators simply incorporated that misuse?
No, that the proper use, namely, to strain at the gnat to take it out, was already so used in 1583 and 1594, and common enough that it came to be used rather than "strain out" which was seen in the Bishops' Bible, etc.

Quote:

You seem to be saying that, but also you seem to be using an argument Will Kinney also used, that I don't understand:

Thus, straining at a gnat describes the action of using a filter to capture insects while pouring out wine, and not that the strainer is immediately withdrawn from the wine once something has been caught, since no one ordinary stops filtering until the wine ceases from being poured. This example and explanation should be indicative of all such objections that can be brought up.

This makes no sense to me, I'm afraid. Straining OUT gnats also describes using a filter to capture insects, and I see no implication in either case that the strainer is withdrawn once something has been caught.
The word "strain" is used, according to the Oxford English Dictionary: "To take out a liquid (something) by straining, ... to strain out a gnat ... strain a gnat". The particular action being described is not emphasising that the gnat goes out, but either: that the strainer was employed at it, that is, to get at it; or, that the word "at" meant "at the time", that is, when a gnat was found, at that time, it was strained.

"Out" would be inaccurate, slightly wrong information.

Quote:

I can see that perhaps the translators incorporated a common misuse of the term, but I also think that misuse detracts from the meaning Jesus intended so that it ought to be corrected.
The translators were not misusing the term, even as the Elizabethans Greene and J. King were not misusing the term. The term was misunderstood since that time, perhaps already by Shakespeare in 1609. Moreover, since it is the very accurate sense, "at" not "out", why would we turn Jesus' speech to something less fitting, or think that the KJB needs to be "corrected"?

Connie 07-20-2008 10:37 AM

I think that reasoning is very strained :) myself.

It's ungrammatical to use it in the sense you claim it is intended. And since it is commonly misunderstood in the sense of exertion rather than the action of using a strainer, whether successfully or not, that suggests that the average English reader either then or later did not recognize it as a familiar expression meaning what you say it means, which, if they did, might justify its grammatical oddness.

As I understand it the Greek says "out" but I'll say no more.

chette777 07-20-2008 07:51 PM

I thought we were discussing a better translation of Matthew 28:19, 20 not strained nats.

and comon people knew exactly what Jesus meant when he said that anyway.

bibleprotector 07-20-2008 08:56 PM

Quote:

It's ungrammatical
There is a problem where people put their own notions of "grammar" onto the Bible.

Quote:

it is commonly misunderstood
There is a problem where people put popularity/contemporary opinion onto the Bible.

Quote:

oddness
There is a problem where people put their own opinion of taste onto the Bible.

Quote:

As I understand it the Greek says "out"
There is a problem where the so-called Greek (actually the English word "out" is supplied, not a Greek one) is used to alter or undermine the sense and presentation of a Bible passage that was made by many wise men which has stood the test of time. There is a problem to defy good tradition with no real authority.

In all this, there is no problem with the Bible.

Diligent 07-20-2008 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chette777 (Post 6278)
I thought we were discussing a better translation of Matthew 28:19, 20 not strained nats.

Ah, brother, the problem is some people just can't resist straining at gnats.

chette777 07-21-2008 04:38 AM

LOL!!!!

stephanos 07-21-2008 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bibleprotector (Post 6280)
There is a problem where people put their own notions of "grammar" onto the Bible.



There is a problem where people put popularity/contemporary opinion onto the Bible.



There is a problem where people put their own opinion of taste onto the Bible.



There is a problem where the so-called Greek (actually the English word "out" is supplied, not a Greek one) is used to alter or undermine the sense and presentation of a Bible passage that was made by many wise men which has stood the test of time. There is a problem to defy good tradition with no real authority.

In all this, there is no problem with the Bible.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 6281)
Ah, brother, the problem is some people just can't resist straining at gnats.



ROFL...

Connie 07-22-2008 01:04 PM

Quote:

There is a problem where people put their own notions of "grammar" onto the Bible.
Which is what it seems to me is being done by my worthy opponents and not by myself. It is clearly ungrammatical -- bad English -- to make "strain at" mean "strain out." It is not a matter of personal opinion.

There are two different meanings of the English word "strain" involved here, which has been alluded to in this conversation many times without being discussed as such.

One (strain out) means using a sieve or strainer (usually a mesh of some sort) to remove impurities or other objects from a liquid or other substance (sand perhaps), the second means to make an effort or exert oneself (strain at), without the slightest implication of using a strainer to remove impurities. They are two different words with NO overlap in meaning.

Quote:

There is a problem where people put popularity/contemporary opinion onto the Bible.
No doubt, but I am certainly doing no such thing. On the contrary, it might be argued that the common proverbial use of the passage has long since put a false opinion onto the Bible. The proverbial understanding of "strain at" that has become enshrined in the culture does not in any way imply the action of removing impurities. It is understood in the sense of exerting oneself in excessive concern over a very small thing, while weightier matters are ignored. NOTHING in this proverbial understanding has EVER included the idea of removing impurities from one's drink, and not one thing that anyone has offered in defense of the authenticity of "strain at" in this discussion has suggested such an idea either.

There are efforts made here, by Will Kinney at the link supplied for instance, as well as by Bible Protector, to combine the two meanings by suggesting that "strain at" refers to the action of TRYING to strain out a gnat without necessarily succeeding at the effort. This is the most strained reasoning imaginable. There is no connection between the two uses of the word, and nobody has ever read "strain at" to imply anything having to do with the action of filtering out impurities. All the many quotes that have been summoned in this discussion in defense of "strain at" do not imply filtering but only exertion.

Again, the proverb has come down to us as about exertion, not about filtering. The pre-1611 examples given are about exertion, not about filtering.

THIS is the popular opinion that has been "put onto the Bible" if any has been in this conversation, or ever for that matter. I have certainly put no popular/contemporary meaning on either term. I have only been asking how "strain out" which means filtering, and which was used in three English translations prior to the King James, got changed to "strain at" in the King James, and all ANYBODY has done in reply is speculate speculate speculate in a strained effort to preserve the translation from any taint of error, and without ONE IOTA OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, and yet I'm the one accused of mere opinion?

Objective evidence would be perhaps a note by the KJB translators showing that they made an intentional choice of "strain at" over the "strain out" of the previous translations. Or it might be a reference by a commentator to such a choice having been made. But all the quotations given show only the commonly accepted proverbial understanding of the passage in terms of making effort without any notion of filtering things out, and without any apparent recognition that the earlier translations or the original Greek were about filtering out.

Quote:

There is a problem where people put their own opinion of taste onto the Bible.
There certainly is, and after slogging through all the arguments in favor of "strain at" I can conclude only that my opponents are exerting themselves in defense of what is only their own opinion, in order to make it appear to be objective fact, whereas I have found no objective fact in all this discussion that objectively supports the translators' intentional choice of "strain at" in the KJB.

Perhaps I have overlooked such an objective fact somewhere that someone could bring to my attention? Otherwise it's all a lot of couldawouldashouldas. For instance it has been opined that it could have been that the translators were simply recognizing a usage that had become common in the culture for instance. Well, were they in fact doing such a thing or not? It's nothing but speculation.

Quote:

There is a problem where the so-called Greek (actually the English word "out" is supplied, not a Greek one) is used to alter or undermine the sense and presentation of a Bible passage that was made by many wise men which has stood the test of time. There is a problem to defy good tradition with no real authority.
This is a wonderful undeniable statement in the abstract. But it begs the question of whether or not the sense and presentation of this particular Bible passage WAS in fact intentionally made by these many wise men.

The fact is that those very wise men were very concerned that the original Greek be well rendered into English, so you are slighting THEIR concerns by this statement. The Greek according to all references I've run across refers to the act of filtering out impurities and not the act of exerting oneself.

The only possible reason the translators MIGHT have intentionally chosen "strain at" then is that it had become common usage although it was in fact not what the Greek says or what the previous Bibles said which most of their own work preserved.

The straining at gnats here is by those who can't abide the thought that the KJB might have a tiny word wrong. An immense amount of speculation has gone into perishing such a thought. Why can't you just admit that YOU DON'T KNOW why "strain at" is in the KJB?

By the way, the Defined King James put out by Waite has a footnote to "strain at" that says simply:

Quote:

i.e., out
Thank you for this discussion and I'll try to ignore it from here on, hoping nobody says something as false as the post I am responding to so that I might feel obliged to respond again.

againstheresies 07-22-2008 01:55 PM

Dear Administrator
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Diligent (Post 6281)
Ah, brother, the problem is some people just can't resist straining at gnats.

Any chance of deleting all the “gnat” talk? Or moving it to another thread?

Josh 07-22-2008 02:17 PM

Quote:

Why can't you just admit that YOU DON'T KNOW why "strain at" is in the KJB?
Oh but I do know, want to know why it's there? Because God put it there! If He didn't want "at" in there, He wouldn't have kept it there for 397 years!

Quote:

By the way, the Defined King James put out by Waite has a footnote to "strain at" that says simply:


Quote:
i.e., out
It may very well have been a word commonly used as "out" then, but I'm not sure. Until I find out whether they were interchangable then, I wouldn't put to much confidence in what any comentary says.

Connie 07-22-2008 02:36 PM

Hello Josh:

Strain at does not mean the same thing as strain out, and in all the discussion nobody has even said that it does, except for the strained speculation that it means trying to strain out a gnat without necessarily succeeding at the effort. The proverbial understanding of "strain at a gnat" is that it's about exerting oneself over trifles, it does not include the idea of filtering out impurities.

NONE of the quotes given include the idea of filtering, not Matthew Henry, not John Gill, not any of them. Theirs is the proverbial understanding which is a different idea than the idea of filtering out gnats, although it maintains a similar enough meaning concerning excessive attention to small things to be useful as a proverb nevertheless.

The Pharisees even today filter their liquid food JUST IN CASE there might be an unclean bug in it -- they do NOT have to see this bug, it's simply a worry that one MIGHT be there that they can't see. This is typical Pharisaical obsessing over minutiae, and I happen to know this from an orthodox Jewish correspondent of mine. I've known this for a long time but never applied it to the question of the KJB translation until now.

Strain AT does NOT mean the same thing as strain OUT, but apparently Dr. Waite wants the original meaning to be implied nevertheless, despite the fact that we've used the phrase for centuries to mean exerting and not filtering.

Josh 07-22-2008 02:46 PM

Re-read my post, I said it very well could have been an accepted interchangable term in 1611. It may or may not be documented somewhere whether or not these terms were interchangable back in the day, but it very well could be.

Connie 07-22-2008 04:16 PM

Fine, then it's just another speculation to add to the long list of opinions and speculations on this subject and as such can be dismissed. Given the facts already covered in this discussion it is a very highly unlikely idea but no matter.

Please let us move this discussion to the other thread I started for the purpose:

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=379


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study