Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-11-2008, 01:57 PM
textusreceptusonly
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Reina Valera Gomez Heb 1:3

I have a question on the Reina Valera Gomez of Hebrew 1:3. The 1909 and 1960 both say purgación but I have noticed that Gomez has replaced it with expiación. Actually, I was made aware of it by a site claiming that it was a problem because it took away this verse's usefulness against the doctrine of purgatory. Has purgación come to be exclusively associated with diarrhea or something? I don't see what warrants this change. In English, expiation is an almost exclusively ecclesiastical term that the man on the street will not know, and I don't know for sure but it probably is the same in Spanish. Couldn't purgación have been replaced with purificación rather than expiación? I wholeheartedly object to translating katharismos as expiation because the cleaning element of the term (which is the primary focus) is removed. Katharismos in the KJV is consistently translated as cleansing or purification (Mk 1:44, Lk 2:22, Lk 5:14) or purifying (John 2:6, John 3:25), or as purged (Heb 1:3, 2 Peter 1:9). With the cleansing element of the word glossed away, many heretics will feel free reign to teach that Jesus' blood merely covers rather than cleanses from sin (as they already teach) and that therefore we ought to live as dirty immoral slubs. This is one of those verses that shows that although sins were temporarily covered by animal sacrifices in the OT, they are completely cleansed (not just covered) by the blood of Christ. You will note that NOT ONCE does the Bible speak of Jesus' blood as covering sin, but always as removing and cleansing! The word expiation (as far as I can tell) is ambiguous and almost meaningless, showing that a sacrifice was offered for sin but not in any way indicating what that sacrifice actually does, whether it cleanses or covers or does something else. Some would make expiation equivalent to remove, but I don't beleive this is the generally accepted sense, especially since the word is so elite. I don't know about in Spanish, but in English it does not have any denotation or connotation of cleansing.

Last edited by textusreceptusonly; 05-11-2008 at 02:00 PM.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #2  
Old 05-11-2008, 08:37 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

The answer is that it is better to teach these people English and let them use the KJB than to quibble about foreign words that may or may not mean this or that. Believers are confident at the wording and the meaning of the King James Bible.

Quote:
I don't know about in Spanish, but in English
Exactly! Lay aside the Spanish and believe the KJB!

1. The KJB is recognised as the best Bible of all, and some (like myself) believe it is perfect.

2. English is the global language.

3. The highest doctrines are with English-speakers.

4. It is better to have one Church believing one true doctrine using one true Bible than to have division, confusion and a lack of authoritative standard.

“For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.” (Isaiah 28:11). This is a prophecy that one language would be used to bring the Gospel to the Jews. It cannot be Greek because the prophecy is that “And so all Israel shall be saved” (Romans 11:26a), which has not occurred yet, and therefore cannot be the Gospel coming in Greek to the Jews.

“And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.” (Revelation 10:11). This one Word is to be for all people, and no matter if they are Spanish or Chinese, etc., they, by learning (or having learnt) English, may be also able to use the King James Bible.
  #3  
Old 05-11-2008, 08:47 PM
textusreceptusonly
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I wasn't asking you. I was asking those who support the RVG.
  #4  
Old 05-12-2008, 08:24 AM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864
Default

TRO, either qualify your question as to who has the right to answer, or go on a site dedicated to the RVG to ask it. Better yet, ask Pastor Gomez.
  #5  
Old 08-01-2008, 09:31 AM
Manny Rodriguez Manny Rodriguez is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by textusreceptusonly View Post
I have a question on the Reina Valera Gomez of Hebrew 1:3. The 1909 and 1960 both say purgación but I have noticed that Gomez has replaced it with expiación. Actually, I was made aware of it by a site claiming that it was a problem because it took away this verse's usefulness against the doctrine of purgatory. Has purgación come to be exclusively associated with diarrhea or something? I don't see what warrants this change. In English, expiation is an almost exclusively ecclesiastical term that the man on the street will not know, and I don't know for sure but it probably is the same in Spanish. Couldn't purgación have been replaced with purificación rather than expiación? I wholeheartedly object to translating katharismos as expiation because the cleaning element of the term (which is the primary focus) is removed. Katharismos in the KJV is consistently translated as cleansing or purification (Mk 1:44, Lk 2:22, Lk 5:14) or purifying (John 2:6, John 3:25), or as purged (Heb 1:3, 2 Peter 1:9). With the cleansing element of the word glossed away, many heretics will feel free reign to teach that Jesus' blood merely covers rather than cleanses from sin (as they already teach) and that therefore we ought to live as dirty immoral slubs. This is one of those verses that shows that although sins were temporarily covered by animal sacrifices in the OT, they are completely cleansed (not just covered) by the blood of Christ. You will note that NOT ONCE does the Bible speak of Jesus' blood as covering sin, but always as removing and cleansing! The word expiation (as far as I can tell) is ambiguous and almost meaningless, showing that a sacrifice was offered for sin but not in any way indicating what that sacrifice actually does, whether it cleanses or covers or does something else. Some would make expiation equivalent to remove, but I don't beleive this is the generally accepted sense, especially since the word is so elite. I don't know about in Spanish, but in English it does not have any denotation or connotation of cleansing.
This question is thoroughly answered in the following link: http://www.4thesaviour.com/resources...+purgacion.pdf
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright 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

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com