Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 05-03-2008, 12:33 PM
MDOC
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry View Post
MDOC, you have some skewed information. There is a lot of proof that the OT texts had vowels - John Gill has an excellent dissertation on this. As far as Yahweh goes, that was never God's name - that was a name that higher critics took and applied to the Lord within the last couple of hundred years. If you cared you could do a search for that name on these boards, and find links to articles on the origin of this name.
Thank you, I'll consider that later.

I'm aware that Yahweh isn't actually his name; it was never revealed. The higher critics you mentioned didn't have anything to do with what happened a millenium ago.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #92  
Old 05-03-2008, 02:04 PM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDOC View Post
I'm aware that Yahweh isn't actually his name; it was never revealed.
What wasn't revealed? His name? Jehovah is revealed as His primary name in the OT - translated as LORD in the KJV. This is consistent with other Bible names with the same beginning of their names. Ie. we have Jehoiakim, Jehoida, Jehoshaphat, etc. Nowhere do we see translators translating these names as: Yahoiakim, Yahoida, Yahoshaphat.

Quote:
The higher critics you mentioned didn't have anything to do with what happened a millenium ago.
What are you referring to?
  #93  
Old 05-03-2008, 06:01 PM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDOC View Post
It's rather interesting that you bring "Yahweh" into this context. There's a long history spanning many centuries as to how "Yahweh" became "Jehovah." It is exactly this reason that name spellings aren't important, although not directly related as to the extent of the change in the name of God.

Originally, the Hebrew language didn't have "tittles," i.e., no vowels; the Hebrew language was a consonantal language. Vowels were spoken, but not written. The tittles were added long after the time of Christ, not before--invented by the Massoretic scribes about the latter half of the first millennium A.D. to augment the Hebrew language with a system of vowels.
Wow -- that's a lot of misinformation. I'll be nice and say you are misinformed.

Yahweh is a corruption of God's name Jehovah and is an excellent example of what happens when we let Satan define the parameters of the study of the Biblical text and its history. You have it totally backwards -- it is because we can trust in the jots and tittles being preserved (the very vowel points) that we know the KJV translators had it right with Jehovah, and that God is not named after a pagan god of storms.

Quote:
This means the reference to the "jot" and "tittle" is to the "law and prophets" contained in the OT, not the written OT itself. In the light of the ref's immediate context, this makes perfect sense.
Wow -- you really have to ignore what is written to make your points! Christ specifically referred to markings that didn't even amount to complete letters, let alone words, to state the truth of fulfillment. Of course the jots and tittles were a reference to the written Law -- that's what jots and tittles are! You make the whole tenet being taught by Christ of none effect!

Your approach to Scripture reminds me of those who deny the literal six days of creation, and yet don't deny that God instituted the Sabbath.
Exodus 20:10-11 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

When someone denies the literal six days of creation, they deny one of the foundational aspects of the Sabbath for Israel (not us, mind you). You are doing the same thing -- you are denying the truth of the "jots and tittles" and therefor make any teaching based on that foundation void.
  #94  
Old 05-03-2008, 06:48 PM
textusreceptusonly
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diligent View Post
Yahweh is a corruption of God's name Jehovah and is an excellent example of what happens when we let Satan define the parameters of the study of the Biblical text and its history.
I think its a bit too far to say that a huge corruption like Yahweh will come out of a laxity with respect to the name Geba. That God's name is Jehovah is guarded by the name of Jesus himself. Jesus = Jeshua = Jehohua = Jehoshuah = Jehovah + sh after the o causing the v to be pronounced as a u, Jeho+sh+vah = Jehoshuah = Jehoshua = Jeshua = Jesus. Can you do anything similar with Geba? No, because it isn't very important at all, but the name Jehovah is.

Although I beleive the literal jots and tittles are preserved I can see his point partially, if modified in the following way. The jots and tittles passing in that passage does not refer to them ceasing to be written, but ceasing to be in effect. Jesus said that the jots and tittles of the Law could not pass away until he fulfilled all the Law. After that Jesus fulfilled the Law, the Law passed away in the sense of no longer being in effect, being that the Law was replaced by the New Testament. The written jots and tittles will never pass away from being written, but they already have passed away from being in effect. He nailed the Law to the cross, thus making it no longer rule over us.
  #95  
Old 05-03-2008, 09:14 PM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
He nailed the Law to the cross, thus making it no longer rule over us.
I believe in the Law, but that it is fulfilled by Christ in the believer. Therefore, I believe that the TEN COMMANDMENTS still apply today. If the Law has really passed away, the Ten Commandments would no longer apply. Take the fourth commandment, for example, while we do not literally observe the Sabbath, we do esteem every day to the Lord, and we do set aside the first day of the week for the Lord, worship and Christian fellowship.

I also believe that just because a prophecy or statement of the Law has been fulfilled, it does not mean that those words should actually pass away. This is because the Word is eternal and everlasting. "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Luke 21:33).

I agree that the "Gaba"/"Geba" issue is not anything like the "Yahweh" corruption. The "Geba" issue is important because God's works are perfect, which would include His ability to manifest knowedge of the exact spelling of His words in the English Bible.

Last edited by bibleprotector; 05-03-2008 at 09:18 PM.
  #96  
Old 05-03-2008, 10:13 PM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by textusreceptusonly View Post
I think its a bit too far to say that a huge corruption like Yahweh will come out of a laxity with respect to the name Geba.
That was not my intent. I was addressing the laxity of his treatment of the jots and tittles. The corruption of Jehovah into Yahweh is a direct result of believing that the "jots and tittles" are not literally preserved.
  #97  
Old 05-04-2008, 02:22 AM
pshdsa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have to chuckle. Any time you go from one language to another, verbal exactness is impossible. So the King James does not contain verbal exactness with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That is a no brainer. However, the Holy Spirit wrote the whole Bible and can quote the content of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek accurately into any language under the sun. Verbal exactness is not necessary to the Holy Spirit. That is why the Septuagent, the Geneva Bible, the King James Bible and even the Bibles based on the critical text are God's word and man is without excuse. In one language it might say Dottie worked from morning to evening. In another language it might say Dottie worked all day. As long as the translation is true, we have the word of God. It may not have verbal exactness, but if the translation is true to the original, you have inerrancy.
Now lets get on with following Jesus and carrying our crosses. Don't let the devil keep you in this never ending loop. Sure I prefer the King James for several valid reasons, but I make no issue with a saint that prefers one of the modern versions. If they get saved from the NIV, who am I to tell God He cannot do that. The masses today don't comprehend the English of the King James. I love it, but not everyone is me. So God reaches them where they are. Trust me, there are more worthy heresies that have crept into the church that need to be exposed, while you guys wrangle about Bible versions.
  #98  
Old 05-04-2008, 10:16 AM
Diligent's Avatar
Diligent Diligent is offline
Forum Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma, USA.
Posts: 641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pshdsa View Post
If they get saved from the NIV, who am I to tell God He cannot do that.
Do you know what a Straw Man argument is?
  #99  
Old 05-04-2008, 12:07 PM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pshdsa View Post
Any time you go from one language to another, verbal exactness is impossible. So the King James does not contain verbal exactness with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.
Funny how noone else has problems translating exact words from one language to another (a novel, the President's speach, a news article, etc.), yet when it comes to Bible translation, the translators are clueless or inadequate.

Quote:
Verbal exactness is not necessary to the Holy Spirit.
God said He would preserve His words - and you don't believe Him. Sad.
  #100  
Old 05-04-2008, 01:09 PM
textusreceptusonly
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
I believe in the Law, but that it is fulfilled by Christ in the believer. Therefore, I believe that the TEN COMMANDMENTS still apply today. If the Law has really passed away, the Ten Commandments would no longer apply. Take the fourth commandment, for example, while we do not literally observe the Sabbath, we do esteem every day to the Lord, and we do set aside the first day of the week for the Lord, worship and Christian fellowship.
In other words, we are not bound to keep every jot and tittle of the Law but the spirit of the law. That's what I think he's saying when he says that the jots and tittles will not pass till all is fulfilled. Until Jesus fulfilled the Law and died on the cross, the Jews had to keep the law to the letter. He's not talking about the written jots and tittles being erased, but about how the Law is observed. Of course the written jots and tittles will endure forever even though we don't keep the Law to the letter, because "the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Pet 1:25)
 

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 08:33 AM.

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