Is YOUR church doctrinal statement ONE with SATAN?

[jaybo]

If your faith is in God, then you also should place faith and trust in His word. For He is one with His word. When you think that no translation is inspired or perfect, well then something is wrong with your faith, Jaybo.

No. Sorry. By definition, no translation perfect; only the originals can be that. Translation is partly science, partly art, but it can never be the equivalent of the source document(s).

My faith, and I'm sure the faith of others, is in God.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Easton's apologetically offers to equivocate the two by saying farthing means 'as small as' an assarion, but then contradicts itself, because it says an assarion was "nearly equal" to a halfpenny. Eastons' was compiled in the 1890's -- when two farthings were worth one halfpenny -- so Easton's points out that the removing of the word assarion from scripture and the adding of the word farthing was introducing a converted error of a factor of 2, over 120 years ago.

currency conversion is always in flux. any number you give as an equivalence relation between dollars and drachmas right now is wrong tomorrow and wasn't right yesterday.
the conversion rate was not correct for assarion to farthing 500 years ago, and it doesn't even make sense at all either now, when no one in the whole world uses a farthing, nor originally, when only a certain group of people living in the UK ever used one. certainly no one in Israel ever used one, much less at the time of Christ.

Posthuman, I still do not see a problem with the usage and translation of Farthing.

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,

The assarion was the tenth part of the denarius, and hence in value about one penny

Other dictionaries define Farthing as a Copper coin, in one of their definitions. And one which is of very little value. And so I still do not see any error with the usage of “Farthing” in the KJV.

Then according to an article on Quadrans:

“The Greek word for the quadrans was kodrantes, which is translated as “Farthing”

A Quadrans (meaning a fourth part), considered the smallest Roman copper coin, was said to be a quarter of an as (assarion).

which was a Roman coin equal to a tenth of a denarius or drachma, nearly equal to a halfpenny of our money.

Christ says "assarion" -- that's a Roman coin. Rome is significant. taking His words away and adding foreign ones that are not at all equivalent in their place can in no way whatsoever be called "perfect" --- it's wrong.

Posthuman, yes, an assarion is a roman coin. But as I already showed, Farthing can be defined as a copper coin. And obviously from the context of those passages, A farthing, must have been a copper coin that they would use to purchase goods during that time. Now instead of attacking the word and rendering of Farthing In the KJV, why don’t you just by faith believe that that wording is the correct one, Posthuman?

There has to be a reason why God allowed the KJV Translators to translate assarion as Farthing in Matthew 5:26 and 10:29 in the KJB. Plus, God also allowed the rendering of Farthing in the other English Bibles which came before the King James Bible. If God wanted Assarion to be in place in those very passages, then it would have been there. But we see that assarion is not there, but farthing is. Hence, I believe that God wanted Farthing and not Assarion. And for what reason? I am not sure, posthuman. Concerning this example, I am just going to have to believe it by faith.

it would be far better, and it would be honest, to let the scripture read, "assarion" where it says assarion. let the reader sort out what one is. you've got to go sort out what a farthing is now, anyway, don't you? if you're going to have to go researching disused world currencies, what is more profitable for you - that you research the correct ancient foreign coin, an assarion? or that you research a false & lying ancient foreign coin, a farthing?

Posthuman, your problem is that you approach the Bible from the incorrect view, that it is not 100% pure and perfect. Whereas I approach the Bible from the Scriptural view that it is 100% pure and perfect.

There are traps which God has laid down all throughout His word, since He knew that there would be people who would approach His word with the ulterior motive of trying to find fault and error in it. And so God allows them to stumble at His word. And once again, why I am not exactly sure why God allowed the wording of Farthing in his finished Bible, I do though tend to think that He chose to allow it in there just for people such as you Posthuman who would try to find error in His word.

Also, the usage of "Farthing" and "Mite" in the King James Bible and also earlier English Bibles, has also confounded the numismatists, as they probably also believe that the English Bibles should have used ancient coin denominations such as assarion and lepton.

An interesting article which I found can be read at the link below:

http://numismatics.org/pocketchange/the-poor-widows-mite/

Again though, I believe that the usage of "Farthing" in the KJV is not an error at all. Since I know that God would not allow any error to come into His finished Bible.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

no, it is absolutely not.

it is neither literal nor is it dynamically equivalent.


it's clearly wrong. it's evident why they removed assarion from His word and added farthing to it, but it was not the right decision.

Well then why do you think they translated it as Farthing then?

no, it is absolutely not. once you are brought to the point of honesty, the only counter-argument you can make is that some words in scripture "don't matter" -- which undercuts your own premises.

All words in Scripture matter. After all Every word of God is pure. Man doth not live by bread alone but by every word of God (Prov. 30:5, Lk. 4:4)

And as I mentioned in my last post, there has to be a reason why God allowed the Translators to translate the Greek word ἀσσάριον as Farthing, in Matthew 10:29. And I am not exactly sure what that reason is. But since I know that there can be no error in God’s word, I can trust that Farthing is the right rendering for those passages in Scripture that you made reference to.


[QUOTE="posthuman, post: 4305063, member: 170505"and that's why i bring it up -- because your KJV-ism is a self-defeating argument in this case. [/QUOTE]

You mean my stand that there is a perfect and infallible Bible on this earth that we can hold in our hands and read and obey?

Posthuman, any Christian with the Alexandrian philosophy can try to prove example after example of what they perceive to be errors In the word of God (King James Bible), but the truth is, the only error is that of your mind and thinking. The problem and error is in your mind and lack of understanding, posthuman. The problem is not the King James Bible, but the problem is with you, sir.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

i know, right?


he asked a specific question. i gave him the specific answer highlighted in a whole bunch of context. "it is necessary, as we are persuaded" --- i.e. translation is imperfect; it is necessary that the reader be informed of that with supplementary notes explaining the imprecision, encouraging them to study it out, knowing that there are words and phrases which are not perfectly rendered in English.

he totally ignored the specific answer i gave him to his own specific question, and tried to bury it with out-of-context arguments on different subjects.


*shrug* whattayagonnado. sometimes people ask questions they seriously do not want to be answered.

Where did the KJV Translators say that their translation was imperfect?

The King James Translators simply wanted the reader to see that they had seen the alternative readings (which were placed in the Marginal notes) and that they had chosen what they had put in the text of the Authorized Bible.

And so, If what you claim about the KJV translators is true, Posthuman, then they would have contradicted themselves when they wrote the following:


"Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one PRINCIPAL good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."


But I trust that they did not at all contradict themselves and since their mark and endeavor was to make One Principal Good One (Principal Good Translation), which was not to be objected against.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

No. Sorry. By definition, no translation perfect; only the originals can be that.

This view of yours, Jaybo, is not Scriptural.

There were perfect inspired translations all throughout the original autographs. Hence, there also must be an inspired perfect translation for us today.

Translation is partly science, partly art, but it can never be the equivalent of the source document(s).

When Almighty God is in it, Not only can the translation be equivalent to the source documents, but it can even be superior to the source documents. And that is what I believe regarding the blessed King James Holy Bible. I believe that the King James Bible is superior to the Hebrew and Greek Original Autographs.

Now whether I believed this or not, it would still be true. Because the King James Holy Bible is God’s finished Bible.

My faith, and I'm sure the faith of others, is in God.

Well then you ought to believe that God kept His perfect and infallible word intact and complete. For even our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ said that the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).

You either believe that or you do not, Jaybo. I choose to believe it.

And again, whether one believes it or not, it is still true.

 

[Truth7t7]

This view of yours, Jaybo, is not Scriptural.

There were perfect inspired translations all throughout the original autographs. Hence, there also must be an inspired perfect translation for us today.




When Almighty God is in it, Not only can the translation be equivalent to the source documents, but it can even be superior to the source documents. And that is what I believe regarding the blessed King James Holy Bible. I believe that the King James Bible is superior to the Hebrew and Greek Original Autographs.

Now whether I believed this or not, it would still be true. Because the King James Holy Bible is God’s finished Bible.





Well then you ought to believe that God kept His perfect and infallible word intact and complete. For even our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ said that the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).

You either believe that or you do not, Jaybo. I choose to believe it.

And again, whether one believes it or not, it is still true.

Psalm 138:2KJV
2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Psalm 12:6-7KJV
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

 

[Dino246]

Well then why do you think they translated it as Farthing then?

The only justification is an attempt to make God's word accessible to then-contemporary English readers. It's hopelessly incomprehensible to modern readers unless they search the term outside of Scripture.

And as I mentioned in my last post, there has to be a reason why God allowed the Translators to translate the Greek word ἀσσάριον as Farthing, in Matthew 10:29. And I am not exactly sure what that reason is. But since I know that there can be no error in God’s word, I can trust that Farthing is the right rendering for those passages in Scripture that you made reference to.

Your reasoning is circular and your conclusion is wrong.

"Farthing" is a laughably incorrect translation. The term is as foreign to modern readers as 'assarion' was to readers in 1611. The translators should have simply transliterated it with a note as to its relative value.

Posthuman, any Christian with the Alexandrian philosophy can try to prove example after example of what they perceive to be errors In the word of God (King James Bible), but the truth is, the only error is that of your mind and thinking.

You haven't demonstrated either what "the Alexandrian philosophy" is or that Posthuman holds to it. There are plenty of errors in the KJV; your inability to perceive them as errors is your problem to resolve.

The problem and error is in your mind and lack of understanding, posthuman. The problem is not the King James Bible, but the problem is with you, sir.

This comment only demonstrates the depth of your brainwashing. Insulting a respected member of this site is uncalled for.

 

[jaybo]

{QUOTE The problem is not the King James Bible, but the problem is with you, sir.[/QUOTE]

So you're valuing a flawed, 400+-year-old translation over a human bring? Where in your beloved KJV does it say to do that?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

{QUOTE The problem is not the King James Bible, but the problem is with you, sir.

So you're valuing a flawed, 400+-year-old translation over a human bring? Where in your beloved KJV does it say to do that?[/QUOTE]


I value the word of God over your opinion, Jaybo. And the King James Bible is the infallible word of God. There are no flaws in it.

Now Jaybo, if you do not think the King James Bible is the Final Authority, then which Translation do you hold as the Final Authority that you submit to?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Your reasoning is circular and your conclusion is wrong.

"Farthing" is a laughably incorrect translation. The term is as foreign to modern readers as 'assarion' was to readers in 1611. The translators should have simply transliterated it with a note as to its relative value.

That is your opinion, Dino.

The KJV Translators may have chosen to use ‘Farthing’ for a number of reasons. In any case, I trust the accuracy of the rendering of ‘Farthing’ since I trust in God’s promise to keep and preserve His pure words.

God has a Finished Bible, and it is the King James Bible.

You haven't demonstrated either what "the Alexandrian philosophy" is or that Posthuman holds to it. There are plenty of errors in the KJV; your inability to perceive them as errors is your problem to resolve.

Dino, the Alexandrian philosophy is that there is no Perfect Bible for us today. And that all bibles and translations have errors in it, and that only the original autographs were inspired and perfect. That is basically what the Alexandrian philosophy is. And it is very dangerous.


There cannot be one error in the King James Bible since it is God’s finished Bible.

The errors are in your own mind, Dino. As well as Posthuman’s mind.

This comment only demonstrates the depth of your brainwashing. Insulting a respected member of this site is uncalled for.

Insulting the blessed word of God by saying it has plenty of errors in it, is very uncalled for!

 

[Dino246]

God has a Finished Bible, and it is the King James Bible.

Thanks for your opinion.

There cannot be one error in the King James Bible since it is God’s finished Bible.

That's the essence of circular reasoning.

Insulting the blessed word of God by saying it has plenty of errors in it, is very uncalled for!

Yawn.