- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 29 2013,16:10) mikeboll64,Nov. wrote:[/quote]
Quote The claim by Jack in the other thread is that neither the Hebrew word “shaddai” nor the Greek word “pantokratwr” actually mean “Almighty” – although Jerome translated as such in the Vulgate. But it is known that parts of the KJV are back-translated from the Vulgate, so that may have something to do with the “Almighty” translation of the KJV.
Hi Mike
I came across this the other day;
“Please remember: the Vaudois' Old Latin Vulgate is not the same as the later Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Vaudois' Vulgate is God's preserved words of God in Old Latin which brought the gospel to all Europe. The Roman Catholic Vulgate is completely different. It wrongly mixed God's words with the perverted Alexandrian Greek Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament. Modern “scholars” falsely declare there's only one Latin Vulgate. But there are two: the preserved (Vaudois) and the perverted (Roman Catholic).”
Chickpublications.
It is easy to see by the use of words like “preserved” and “perverted” that this author has a big bias.I don't dismiss his claims out of hand – but I would like to SEE some examples of what he's claiming.
Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 29 2013,16:26) Journey, This page looks like the correct numbering system. Thank you.
Thanks for the link, Kerwin.I saw both the a and b definitions – but it seems many words like “evil” and “calamity” are definitions of BOTH. That won't help us, will it?
Btw journey, the “H” in front of the number signifies it is a Hebrew word. A “G” in front of the number means it is a Greek word. Just so you know – if you didn't already.
Quote (journey42 @ Nov. 30 2013,04:10) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,08:21) Quote The claim by Jack in the other thread is that neither the Hebrew word “shaddai” nor the Greek word “pantokratwr” actually mean “Almighty” – although Jerome translated as such in the Vulgate. But it is known that parts of the KJV are back-translated from the Vulgate, so that may have something to do with the “Almighty” translation of the KJV.
Hi Mike
I came across this the other day;
“Please remember: the Vaudois' Old Latin Vulgate is not the same as the later Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. The Vaudois' Vulgate is God's preserved words of God in Old Latin which brought the gospel to all Europe. The Roman Catholic Vulgate is completely different. It wrongly mixed God's words with the perverted Alexandrian Greek Old Testament, Apocrypha and New Testament. Modern “scholars” falsely declare there's only one Latin Vulgate. But there are two: the preserved (Vaudois) and the perverted (Roman Catholic).”
Chickpublications.
Journey,That does not seem to be accurate as the Vaudois are also known as the Waldensians, a 12th Century movement against the Roman Catholic Church. There are versions that are called collectively Vetus Latina which were used before Jerome's Latin Vulgate became the standard. I do not think any of them were used by the either the original or more modern translators of the Authorized King James Version. Perhaps, you can find some supporting evidence of your sources opinion.
Note 1: vaudois
Note 2: Latin VulgateBtw journey,
I hope you can see that there is nothing evil about what we're doing here. We are just searching for all the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words, so WE can make an informed decision for ourselves.
We use the knowledge stored in those lexicons, combined with context and prayers for guidance, to come to OUR best understanding of how the scripture should be translated into English.
Somtimes the KJV is spot on, and other times one of the newer translations hit the nail on the head. There is no “divine” English translation. They are all just the best guesses of regular old human beings like us.
I don't know about you, but I consider myself smart enough to take a guess of my own – when I'm staring the definitions of the words right in the face.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,09:52) Btw journey, I hope you can see that there is nothing evil about what we're doing here. We are just searching for all the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words, so WE can make an informed decision for ourselves.
We use the knowledge stored in those lexicons, combined with context and prayers for guidance, to come to OUR best understanding of how the scripture should be translated into English.
Somtimes the KJV is spot on, and other times one of the newer translations hit the nail on the head. There is no “divine” English translation. They are all just the best guesses of regular old human beings like us.
I don't know about you, but I consider myself smart enough to take a guess of my own – when I'm staring the definitions of the words right in the face.
Mike B.Isaiah 29:13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and ***their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men***:
You are seeking understanding by your own precept.
Psalms 119:4 Thou hast commanded us to keep *thy precepts* diligently.
Psalms 119:15 I will meditate in *thy precepts*, and have respect unto thy ways.
Psalms 119:27 Make me to understand the way of *thy precepts*: so shall I talk of thy wondrous works.
Psalms 119:40 Behold, I have longed after *thy precepts*: quicken me in *thy righteousness*.
Psalms 119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:56 This I had, because I kept *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:63 I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:69 The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep *thy precepts* with my whole heart.
Psalms 119:78 Let the proud be ashamed; for they dealt perversely with me without a cause: but I will meditate in *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:87 They had almost consumed me upon earth; but I forsook not *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:93 I will never forget *thy precepts*: for with them thou hast quickened me.
Psalms 119:94 I am thine, save me; for I have sought *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:100 I understand more than the ancients, because I keep *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:104 Through *thy precepts* I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
Psalms 119:110 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:128 Therefore I esteem all *thy precepts* concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.
Psalms 119:134 Deliver me from the oppression of man: so will I keep *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:141 I am small and despised: yet do not I forget *thy precepts*.
Psalms 119:159 Consider how I love *thy precepts*: quicken me, O LORD, according to thy lovingkindness.
Psalms 119:168 I have kept *thy precepts* and thy testimonies: for all my ways are before thee.
Psalms 119:173 Let thine hand help me; for I have chosen *thy precepts*.
Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Daniel 9:5 We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from *thy precepts* and from thy judgments:
wakeup.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,05:57) Quote (2besee @ Nov. 28 2013,23:00) Mike yes I agree with what your wrote here except for this. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 29 2013,05:06) there exist good Greek mss that have “only begotten son”, and good Greek mss that have “only begotten god”. I don't believe it. Show me proof!
(please).
From NETNotes:The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs.
Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc.
The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.
A lot of that is very deep, and very hard to follow – but I copied the whole note in case you wanted to really look into it.
I've bolded the parts that stick out to me.
1. Only one letter would have distinguished between “son” and “god”. It would be the difference between someone in English dotting the “i”, or leaving it undotted.
2. The OLDER mss have “god” – not “son”.
3. It would make sense for a later scribe to alter “god” to “son” – since “only begotten son” is a “uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).” Understand? John uses the phrase “only begotten SON” a number of other times in his writing, so a scribe, seeing “only begotten GOD” in 1:18, might be tempted to EMEND it to “only begotten SON”, in light of the other times John used that phrase in his writings.
On the other hand, it would be hard to see why an ancient scribe would see “only begotten SON”, and just up and alter it to “only begotten GOD” for no apparent reason.
4. “only begotten god” is the HARDER reading – which usually signifies the ORIGINAL reading. This happens all throughout scripture – where a hard reading is EMENDED by a later scribe who tries to make the reading EASIER – or tries to make that reading “make more sense” or whatever.Knowing this is the case, learned scholars almost always prefer the harder and older reading – knowing that the easier reading is often the result of the emendation of a well-meaning scribe who came later.
At any rate, the various mss that have “only begotten god” in that verse are listed in the info above. They are the older of the mss listed.
So we have good reason to assume “only begotten son” in that verse. But we have even better reason to assume “only begotten god”.
The choice is yours. I prefer “only begotten god” for the reasons I listed above, and because Jesus is called “god” in at least 2 other places in the writings of John.
Thanks.
I believe it should be 'son'.
'Only begotten God' does not seem right to me.
Can you “picture” that? The “only begotten God sitting with the Father”? I canNOT see that. It does not fit other scripture. “Only begotten son” fits other scriptures, and makes more sense. It can be “seen”.
So I did some hunting around, and THIS seems to be the truth on the matter.Quote:
The truth is that the marginal notes in the
mode
rn translations are quite misleading!- * They fail to tell us that the vast
majority of the some 5000 NT Greek
manuscripts which we have, all read
“son”! Only a very small number
read “God”!* They fail to tell us about the
inadequacies of those earlier MSS which
include “god” instead of “son”!* They fail to tell us that there are
ancient translations of the Scriptures into
other
languages, which must have been made
from very early Greek Texts, which
support the authenticity of “son”.* They fail to tell us that there are early
Church writings, which support the
traditional reading by quoting from John
1:18, using “son” instead of “god”.Which Manuscripts Do Contain the Word
“God”?
After a fairly intensive Internet search, I was
able to find only four Greek manuscripts,
dating back to the 2nd and 4th centuries,
which were definitely stated to include the
alternative reading “God”, in John 1:28. Some
sources indicated that there could be a few
more. However the total number can be no
more than a VERY TINY fraction of the more
than 5000 NT Greek Texts which have been
found. The overwhelming majority of these
have the traditional reading “Son”.Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 30 2013,13:55) Wakeup, First, learn the language Scripture is written in.
Kerwin.I know that you can understand hebrew,latin, and greek
better that old english.wakeup.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,05:29) Quote (2besee @ Nov. 28 2013,16:24) Mike, you said:
“Your source says the Creator is the only one with the answers, and we must learn from Him. Hmmmm………… how is that done? Do you just ask God in your prayers or something, and then believe anything you hear – because you assume it must have been God who answered you?”More or less, Yes. If you have a close enough relationship with God, you will know it is him speaking to your inner being (spirit).
But how do you KNOW it's God who's speaking, 2B? What do we TEST it against?Don't you know that Satan and his demons masquerade as angels of light? (2 Corinthians 11:13-14) Don't you know that Jesus said he would try to deceive even the elect? (Matt 24:24)
Are you, in all your “holiness”, immune to Satan and his ploys? If you think you are, you'd better think again.
God gave us the scriptures to TEST what the spirits tell us. So don't believe anything “God” tells you in your dreams or prayers – unless it aligns with the scriptures. If it doesn't, chances are that it wasn't really “God” telling you those things.
Meant to say yes. It is always confirmed in scripture.
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 30 2013,20:14) Anyway, I should not be here… discussing words, etc. See you.
What are you afraid of Besee?
Or is it that you are not allowed to?
Are you not to defend the truth?wakeup.
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 29 2013,18:42) You are seeking understanding by your own precept.
You mean like the mere men who translated the KJV?Tell me what is DIFFERENT about what they did in 1611, and what we are doing now.
To All……..> Getting into all these word meaning discussion can take you into an endless mindbogglingly endless cycle. Look, as i have said before , God created Life and Life consists of God and Evil, or as some say functional or dysfunctional . It make no difference The ONE and ONLY God created it all. Yes and even vessels of Mercy and vessels of wrath, to show that he has both mercy and wrath. Many think that God can not create evil and Good both, but He created ALL LIFE and in Life both Exist. Many would leave God out of their lives, by say it is “THEIR” so-called “FREE” WILLS, that make themselves vessels of Honor or vessels of wrath. But Paul say in his statement about these “CREATED” Vessels, it is God's doing, and he even went on to say, “but you would say “WHY” does He yet find Fault then”, but Paul said this in response, “WHO ARE YOU O MAN THAT REPLIES AGAINST GOD, THE POTTER HAVE POWER OVER THE CLAY TO MAKE IT AS HE SEE FIT. OUR GOD “IS” SOVEREIGN”. IMO
peace and love to you all……………………………….gene
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 29 2013,22:32) Thanks. I believe it should be 'son'.
'Only begotten God' does not seem right to me.
Can you “picture” that? The “only begotten God sitting with the Father”? I canNOT see that. It does not fit other scripture. “Only begotten son” fits other scriptures, and makes more sense. It can be “seen”.
And I can see a later scribe going through the same exact mental process you just went through – and therefore CHANGING the hard to fathom “only begotten god” to something that seemed better to himself, namely “only begotten son”.This is one of the reasons I mentioned for believing “only begotten god”, as the OLDER and HARDER reading, is the correct reading.
Because it's EASY to see how a scribe, thinking the same things you thought, would emend it so it made more sense to him, and aligned with the other times John wrote “only begotten son”.
On the other hand, it is HARD to imagine that a scribe would read “only begotten son”, and then for no apparent reason whatsoever, emend it to “only begotten god” – an almost nonsensical and unheard of phrase.
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 29 2013,22:32) * They fail to tell us about the
inadequacies of those earlier MSS which include “god” instead of “son”!
The word “EARLIER” says an awful lot when it comes to this stuff, 2B. What makes more sense: A scribe later changed “god” to “son”? Or a scribe WENT BACK IN TIME and changed “son” to “god” on the OLDER mss?Quote (2besee @ Nov. 29 2013,22:32) Which Manuscripts Do Contain the Word
“God”?After a fairly intensive Internet search, I was
able to find only four Greek manuscripts,
dating back to the 2nd and 4th centuries,
which were definitely stated to include the
alternative reading “God”, in John 1:28.
2nd century? Man, that's perhaps less than 100 years after the original. Are you saying that a scribe changed it to “god” many years before the Arian/Trinity controversy? Why would a scribe of that time period do such a thing?Also, I find it telling that your source uses the phrase “alternative reading” for the EARLIEST known ms.
I think the “alternative reading” would be in those LATER mss, in which the word was ALTERED from “god” to “son”.Also, I believe it's in John 1:18 – not John 1:28.
Anyway, you now have all the facts you need to sort this out. You can consider those FACTS, and let logic run its course in your mind – or you can let your PERSONAL FEELINGS tell you that “son” just “sounds better to you” than “god”.
The choice, as always, will remain yours.
Quote (2besee @ Nov. 30 2013,03:11) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Nov. 30 2013,05:29)
God gave us the scriptures to TEST what the spirits tell us. So don't believe anything “God” tells you in your dreams or prayers – unless it aligns with the scriptures. If it doesn't, chances are that it wasn't really “God” telling you those things.Meant to say yes. It is always confirmed in scripture.
So then you agree that the “Spirit must show you this, because it's not actually in scripture” ploy is nothing but bunk?To All…….>The spirit does reveal thing to us, Never forget that, it is God himself who is the author and finisher of our Faith, and gives us revealed understanding that brings us to Christ Jesus, Remember what Jesus said, when he ask Peter who he was , But who do you say I am he ask Peter, Peter responded, thou art the SON of the Living God”, Jesus responded , “blessed” are you Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not “reveal” this unto you but My Father, who is in Heaven has revealed it unto you, and I say unto you, your are Peter and upon “THIS ROCK”( the power of God to get into a mans mind and reveal truth) he would build the church and the gates of Hell (grave) shall not prevail against it.
WE need to be careful and try not to get caught up into all these endless word genealogies creating confusion and discord in the minds of them who engaged in it. It is GOD the Father, HIMSELF who Both, “KEEPS” us and “BLESSES” us, Who MAKES HIS Face to “Shine” upon us, and is “GRACIOUS” to us, who lifts up HIS Countenance on us and gives us “PEACE”.
THE “ONE” AND “ONLY” “TRUE” GOD. Who hears our prayers of Faith and answers them , whereby we “KNOW” we are “IN” HIM and He “IN US. and IN his Son our brother Jesus who is the Christ.
peace and love to you all…………………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 01 2013,02:19) Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 29 2013,18:42) You are seeking understanding by your own precept.
You mean like the mere men who translated the KJV?Tell me what is DIFFERENT about what they did in 1611, and what we are doing now.
Mike B.Nothing;but they have been used by God to do His work.
So were the apostles;they were nothing,they were just used by God to spread the Word.
So was Moses,nothing,but used by God for his purpose.wakeup.
Who are the these divine men then, Wakeup? What are their names, so that we can pay homage to them, like we do Jesus and the apostles and Moses?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Dec. 01 2013,02:35) To All……..> Getting into all these word meaning discussion can take you into an endless mindbogglingly endless cycle. Look, as i have said before , God created Life and Life consists of God and Evil, or as some say functional or dysfunctional . It make no difference The ONE and ONLY God created it all. Yes and even vessels of Mercy and vessels of wrath, to show that he has both mercy and wrath. Many think that God can not create evil and Good both, but He created ALL LIFE and in Life both Exist. Many would leave God out of their lives, by say it is “THEIR” so-called “FREE” WILLS, that make themselves vessels of Honor or vessels of wrath. But Paul say in his statement about these “CREATED” Vessels, it is God's doing, and he even went on to say, “but you would say “WHY” does He yet find Fault then”, but Paul said this in response, “WHO ARE YOU O MAN THAT REPLIES AGAINST GOD, THE POTTER HAVE POWER OVER THE CLAY TO MAKE IT AS HE SEE FIT. OUR GOD “IS” SOVEREIGN”. IMO peace and love to you all……………………………….gene
You have words of wisdom Gene.
God created all things;good and evil.
They like to twist it as: us saying God is evil.
They believe that God can do anything.
But can not create evil.
Who created satan,is he not the father of evil?wakeup.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
