King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?
- Thread starter Dai3234
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I guess all the early disciples couldn't "truly live for Him". I guess nobody before about 90 AD could "truly live for Him". Most "Christians" up until the middle ages certainly couldn't "truly live for Him". Anyone without a Bible in hand, or close to, can't "truly live for Him". I pity all the poor lost souls in China, North Korea, and the former USSR who believe they are saved and can't "truly live for Him".
In other words, your assertion is ridiculous.
In other words, your assertion is ridiculous.
Can you truly live for Him if you don't have total truth? Do you have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
99% truth is not total truth. Do you have something you can read and hold in your hands that you can trust every word to be truth?
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
99% truth is not total truth. Do you have something you can read and hold in your hands that you can trust every word to be truth?John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Can you truly live for Him if you don't have total truth? Do you have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? 99% truth is not total truth. Do you have something you can read and hold in your hands that you can trust every word to be truth?
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
99% truth is not total truth. Do you have something you can read and hold in your hands that you can trust every word to be truth?John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Umm...
“Precision in translation” based from what the context is (internal evidence), and the proper usage of the terminology.
Now for external evidence for the usage of “begotten”, I will be using the non- bias online etymology bringing us the very thought of the KJ translator. Here what the etymological perspective of the word “begotten”:
begotten (adj.)
"procreated," late 14c., past participle adjective from beget.
beget (v.)
Old English begietan "to get by effort, find, acquire, attain, seize" (class V strong verb, past tense begeat, past participle begeaton), from be- + get (v.). Sense of "to procreate" is from c. 1200, generally used of the father only. Similar formation in Old Saxon bigitan, Old High German pigezzan, Gothic bigitan "to get, obtain." Related: Begot; begotten.
Online Etymology Dictionary
Thus the usage of the word ‘beget/begotten’ was from the 13 ce, long before the English KJV of 17 ce. which generally “Begotten” was already used of the ‘FATHER’ only.
What about “born/bear”
bear (v.)
Old English beran "to carry, bring; bring forth, give birth to, produce; to endure without resistance; to support, hold up, sustain; to wear" (class IV strong verb; past tense bær, past participle boren), from Proto-Germanic *beran (source also of Old Saxon beran, Old Frisian bera, Old High German beran, German gebären, Old Norse bera, Gothic bairan "to carry, bear, give birth to"), from PIE root *bher- (1) "carry a burden, bring," also "give birth" (though only English and German strongly retain this sense, and Russian has beremennaya "pregnant").
Old English past tense bær became Middle English bare; alternative bore began to appear c. 1400, but bare remained the literary form till after 1600. Past participle distinction of borne for "carried" and born for "given birth" is from late 18c.
Many senses are from notion of "move onward by pressure." From c. 1300 as "possess as an attribute or characteristic." Meaning "sustain without sinking" is from 1520s; to bear (something) in mind is from 1530s; meaning "tend, be directed (in a certain way)" is from c. 1600. To bear down "proceed forcefully toward" (especially in nautical use) is from 1716. To bear up is from 1650s as "be firm, have fortitude."
Online Etymology Dictionary
So a simple question and that may require simple observation: Did God the Father bear a child? Did He gave birth to our Lord Jesus Christ? Am so sorry, the Bible has nothing to do with that kind of theory/logical conclusion or derivation you wish to imply when the word used is “born again” in this given text.
Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.
“Precision in translation” based from what the context is (internal evidence), and the proper usage of the terminology.
Now for external evidence for the usage of “begotten”, I will be using the non- bias online etymology bringing us the very thought of the KJ translator. Here what the etymological perspective of the word “begotten”:
begotten (adj.)
"procreated," late 14c., past participle adjective from beget.
beget (v.)
Old English begietan "to get by effort, find, acquire, attain, seize" (class V strong verb, past tense begeat, past participle begeaton), from be- + get (v.). Sense of "to procreate" is from c. 1200, generally used of the father only. Similar formation in Old Saxon bigitan, Old High German pigezzan, Gothic bigitan "to get, obtain." Related: Begot; begotten.
Online Etymology Dictionary
Thus the usage of the word ‘beget/begotten’ was from the 13 ce, long before the English KJV of 17 ce. which generally “Begotten” was already used of the ‘FATHER’ only.
What about “born/bear”
bear (v.)
Old English beran "to carry, bring; bring forth, give birth to, produce; to endure without resistance; to support, hold up, sustain; to wear" (class IV strong verb; past tense bær, past participle boren), from Proto-Germanic *beran (source also of Old Saxon beran, Old Frisian bera, Old High German beran, German gebären, Old Norse bera, Gothic bairan "to carry, bear, give birth to"), from PIE root *bher- (1) "carry a burden, bring," also "give birth" (though only English and German strongly retain this sense, and Russian has beremennaya "pregnant").
Old English past tense bær became Middle English bare; alternative bore began to appear c. 1400, but bare remained the literary form till after 1600. Past participle distinction of borne for "carried" and born for "given birth" is from late 18c.
Many senses are from notion of "move onward by pressure." From c. 1300 as "possess as an attribute or characteristic." Meaning "sustain without sinking" is from 1520s; to bear (something) in mind is from 1530s; meaning "tend, be directed (in a certain way)" is from c. 1600. To bear down "proceed forcefully toward" (especially in nautical use) is from 1716. To bear up is from 1650s as "be firm, have fortitude."
Online Etymology Dictionary
So a simple question and that may require simple observation: Did God the Father bear a child? Did He gave birth to our Lord Jesus Christ? Am so sorry, the Bible has nothing to do with that kind of theory/logical conclusion or derivation you wish to imply when the word used is “born again” in this given text.
Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.
I like the way it posted that so far you have explained it “in exhaustive detail what ἀναγεννήσας actually means!”. Let’s see how exhausted your Greek means.
1. Per Mr. Strong says, the verb meaning is
anagennaó: to beget again
Original Word: ἀναγεννάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: anagennaó
Phonetic Spelling: (an-ag-en-nah'-o)
Short Definition: I beget again, beget into a new life
Definition: I beget again, beget into a new life.
2. Per Englishman Concordance 1 Peter 1:3 V-APA-NMS
It is a Verb-Aorist-Nominative MASCULINE Singular. Not really good using Greek but based only in observation, question is what is that MASCULINE referred to?
3. Per NAS definition
Word Origin
from ana and gennaó
Definition
to beget again
NASB Word Usage
born again (2).
Exactly, the NAS itself defines the Greek to mean “to beget again”. It should be taken “begotten” and “not born again” if literal translation be made.
Truth is you are giving the meaning of the word. That what’s lexicon means. You are looking into a different dimension i.e. “DEFINITION” and I am talking of “TRANSLATION”. You talk about literal meaning using lexicon, a usual practice nowadays in substituting the pure words of God. Lexicon is not my Final Authority. Ahh… Greek Lexicon which pretends to tell what a Greek word means in English. Actually, no ancient Greeks wrote Greek-to-English Lexicons. These Greek lexicons were only written mostly during 1800’s.
You talk about interpretation(ILLUMINATION) implying eisegesis / exegesis WHICH I FAILED to look into your post. You haven’t exegete. Plus you have not gave me the entirety of the meaning. God never change, His word is still the same only people change.
1. Per Mr. Strong says, the verb meaning is
anagennaó: to beget again
Original Word: ἀναγεννάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: anagennaó
Phonetic Spelling: (an-ag-en-nah'-o)
Short Definition: I beget again, beget into a new life
Definition: I beget again, beget into a new life.
2. Per Englishman Concordance 1 Peter 1:3 V-APA-NMS
It is a Verb-Aorist-Nominative MASCULINE Singular. Not really good using Greek but based only in observation, question is what is that MASCULINE referred to?
3. Per NAS definition
Word Origin
from ana and gennaó
Definition
to beget again
NASB Word Usage
born again (2).
Exactly, the NAS itself defines the Greek to mean “to beget again”. It should be taken “begotten” and “not born again” if literal translation be made.
Truth is you are giving the meaning of the word. That what’s lexicon means. You are looking into a different dimension i.e. “DEFINITION” and I am talking of “TRANSLATION”. You talk about literal meaning using lexicon, a usual practice nowadays in substituting the pure words of God. Lexicon is not my Final Authority. Ahh… Greek Lexicon which pretends to tell what a Greek word means in English. Actually, no ancient Greeks wrote Greek-to-English Lexicons. These Greek lexicons were only written mostly during 1800’s.
You talk about interpretation(ILLUMINATION) implying eisegesis / exegesis WHICH I FAILED to look into your post. You haven’t exegete. Plus you have not gave me the entirety of the meaning. God never change, His word is still the same only people change.
You are aware of course that KJV1611 is pushing the view that born-again and saved are not the same thing (go and look up Armstrongism and you will find the same heretical beliefs).
If you look through all his posts dealing with issue (not just in this thread) you will see that he likes to use alternative MODERN translations of a 17th word and then push that meaning onto a Greek word penned 1600 years earlier.
My post/s were primarily to counter that false approach and false conclusions that he was drawing.
In English that word DOES IN FACT MEAN "born-again".
I agree with you that I have not gone into the larger exegetical implications of what that might mean in the context of 1 Peter.
There was simply no point when KJV1611 cannot look further than an alternative meaning from an English dictionary to a 17th century word.
If you look through all his posts dealing with issue (not just in this thread) you will see that he likes to use alternative MODERN translations of a 17th word and then push that meaning onto a Greek word penned 1600 years earlier.
My post/s were primarily to counter that false approach and false conclusions that he was drawing.
In English that word DOES IN FACT MEAN "born-again".
I agree with you that I have not gone into the larger exegetical implications of what that might mean in the context of 1 Peter.
There was simply no point when KJV1611 cannot look further than an alternative meaning from an English dictionary to a 17th century word.
Ah, yeah, you mean the physical book you have in your hand... yes, it is not perfect.
It does not matter in the issue of basic Christian doctrines you have problems with
You think that the KJV is perfect and still believe differently than king James or the KJV translators. I see inconsistency there.
It does not matter in the issue of basic Christian doctrines you have problems with
You think that the KJV is perfect and still believe differently than king James or the KJV translators. I see inconsistency there.
Freedom for fear - death, loosing a job, not pleasing God, where the country is headed... I pretty much mean there is nothing in this world to worry about. Also freedom FROM sin. I hear so many people talk about being saved by grace yet all they talk about is doing this or that to PLEASE God. I understand who and what I am, sin is irrelevant in my life, I just don't think about it and I certainly don't believe God either loves me or doesn't love me based on if I'm sinning or not. I don't know, the freedoms are like living in heaven while on earth... no worries, just the peace that passes understanding.
I'm gonna look up Armstrongism and see what you're talking about.
As far as the rest of your post, you still don't have an UNBIASED understanding of "begotten again" nor anagennaó. Try to clear your head of the religious programming and INACCURATE bible translations and look at the definition objectively.
Definition:
to beget, or bring forth again; to regenerate.
The word can mean - to beget (anything) again, to bring forth (anything) again or to regenerate (anything). In 1 Peter 1:23, WE have been begotten or brought forth again to a LIVELY HOPE.
1 Peter 1:3 KJV
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
As far as the rest of your post, you still don't have an UNBIASED understanding of "begotten again" nor anagennaó. Try to clear your head of the religious programming and INACCURATE bible translations and look at the definition objectively.
Definition:
to beget, or bring forth again; to regenerate.
The word can mean - to beget (anything) again, to bring forth (anything) again or to regenerate (anything). In 1 Peter 1:23, WE have been begotten or brought forth again to a LIVELY HOPE.
1 Peter 1:3 KJV
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
If this is correct, you have my apology!
Remember I several times tried to get you state your beliefs plainly in order to see where you do stand.
Also you did start a thread dealing with the concepts of being born-again and saved and stated plainly that you did not believe that they were the same thing - this does have an eerie similarity with beliefs consistent with Armstrongism.
So you still have an opportunity to state plainly where you DO stand.
Remember I several times tried to get you state your beliefs plainly in order to see where you do stand.
Also you did start a thread dealing with the concepts of being born-again and saved and stated plainly that you did not believe that they were the same thing - this does have an eerie similarity with beliefs consistent with Armstrongism.
So you still have an opportunity to state plainly where you DO stand.
Ah, yeah, you mean the physical book you have in your hand... yes, it is not perfect.
It does not matter in the issue of basic Christian doctrines you have problems with
You think that the KJV is perfect and still believe differently than king James or the KJV translators. I see inconsistency there.
It does not matter in the issue of basic Christian doctrines you have problems with
You think that the KJV is perfect and still believe differently than king James or the KJV translators. I see inconsistency there.
Translators were just vehicles God used to pen his word in English.
Ah, yeah, you mean the physical book you have in your hand... yes, it is not perfect.
It does not matter in the issue of basic Christian doctrines you have problems with
You think that the KJV is perfect and still believe differently than king James or the KJV translators. I see inconsistency there.
It does not matter in the issue of basic Christian doctrines you have problems with
You think that the KJV is perfect and still believe differently than king James or the KJV translators. I see inconsistency there.