Modern translations/ scriptural support ?

rossh

Well-known member
The 1611 translators could have very well chosen Immersion, but their Church of England theology precluded that!
and we all have to remember that the RCC changed the way baptisms are performed. They mad a very large change which we MUST really ask questions about ? The the RCC baptize INFANTS!! these babies grow up NOT knowing anything at all about baptism nor the reason why we are even baptized!! Very bad and sad indeed..
Matt 18:4 So the greatest in the Kingdom is whoever makes himself as humble as this child. 5 Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me; 6 and whoever ensnares one of these little ones who trust me, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the open sea! 7 Woe to the world because of snares! For there must be snares, but woe to the person who sets the snare!
 

rossh

Well-known member
Sorry I missed this. Let me simply answer: Archer and Chirichigno list around 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text. [1] As examples : in Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’” [Reading in the Masoretic] "...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..."

Again in Luke 4-18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Isaiah 61:1-2:
1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.


[1]: (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, ISBN: 978-1597520409., pp. 25-32).
Why not just go to a Jewish/Hebrew person, who has recently translated those Scriptures from Hebrew into English ? Dr. David H Stern, is just one of them.. Make sure you search for the name with the " H ".
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Sorry I missed this. Let me simply answer: Archer and Chirichigno list around 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text. [1]

[1]: (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, ISBN: 978-1597520409., pp. 25-32).
We are in agreement that New Testament citations of Israel's sacred writings often follow the Septuagint or reflect its influence. Where we are not in agreement is how this textual fact corresponds to historical reality. By claiming that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you appear to advance a direct correspondence between text and reality... the relationship, however, is not that simple.

Let's consider Acts 21:40 where Paul is said to address a Jerusalemite crowd in a Northwest Semitic language... the Greek reads τη Εβραιδι διαλεκτω (in the Hebrew dialect), which is presumed by most scholars to be a reference to Aramaic, the common language of first-century Palestine. When Paul begins speaking in 22:1 the words continue in Greek... the reader must imagine him speaking this other language --- Paul's words at the layer of the text are in Greek, but in the historical reality assumed behind the text they are in Aramaic.

Now let's apply this same principle to the narrative of Jesus reading from the Isaiah scroll in Nazareth's synagogue, setting aside more complex questions of historical reconstruction not germane to the issue of language. The Septuagint originated within Jewish communities of the Diaspora, to provide them with a version of their sacred writings in their everyday language. While it is not hard to imagine the scribal elite of Jerusalem with access to Greek translations, that the scrolls in a small Galilean village would be in Greek lacks historical verisimilitude. When the reader imagines the historical reality assumed behind the text of Luke written in Greek, it is of a man reading from a Hebrew scroll... reciting in this language or perhaps offering a paraphrase to his audience in Aramaic, a practice standing behind the Targums. The influence of the Septuagint in citations within the gospels owes to this being the version of Israel's sacred writings known to the Greek-speaking Christians of the Roman Empire rather than the version that Galilean peasants and artisans would be familiar with.

One discussion point from the above that I think is relevant to KJV Onlyism and its proponents' misguided commitment to a flawless text is that we no more have the exacting words of the New Testament authors than they themselves wrote the ipissima verba of Jesus... in both cases they are sufficient approximations so we can reconstruct to a high degree what the New Testament authors wrote and what the historical Jesus taught respectively. A further talking point would be to consider how the differences between the Septuagint, whether generally or specifically those embedded within the New Testament, and the extant Hebrew texts relate to this same principle of sufficient approximation. Recent discussion has been focused on the New Testament, but I would be interested to see how proponents of KJV Onlyism navigate the text-critical problems posed by those readings in the Septuagint that arguably preserve a better reading than the Hebrew manuscripts on which the KJV is based.

Hope this helps clarify my critique, which was offered constructively, and its potential for further discussion on this particular forum...

Have a good weekend.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Last edited:

kiwimac

Member
We are in agreement that New Testament citations of Israel's sacred writings often follow the Septuagint or reflect its influence. Where we are not in agreement is how this textual fact corresponds to historical reality. By claiming that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you appear to advance a direct correspondence between text and reality... the relationship, however, is not that simple.

Let's consider Acts 21:40 where Paul is said to address a Jerusalemite crowd in a Northwest Semitic language... the Greek reads τη Εβραιδι διαλεκτω (in the Hebrew dialect), which is presumed by most scholars to be a reference to Aramaic, the common language of first-century Palestine. When Paul begins speaking in 22:1 the words continue in Greek... the reader must imagine him speaking this other language --- Paul's words at the layer of the text are in Greek, but in the historical reality assumed behind the text they are in Aramaic.

Now let's apply this same principle to the narrative of Jesus reading from the Isaiah scroll in Nazareth's synagogue, setting aside more complex questions of historical reconstruction not germane to the issue of language. The Septuagint originated within Jewish communities of the Diaspora, to provide them with a version of their sacred writings in their everyday language. While it is not hard to imagine the scribal elite of Jerusalem with access to Greek translations, that the scrolls in a small Galilean village would be in Greek lacks historical verisimilitude. When the reader imagines the historical reality assumed behind the text of Luke written in Greek, it is of a man reading from a Hebrew scroll... reciting in this language or perhaps offering a paraphrase to his audience in Aramaic, a practice standing behind the Targums. The influence of the Septuagint in citations within the gospels owes to this being the version of Israel's sacred writings known to the Greek-speaking Christians of the Roman Empire rather than the version that Galilean peasants and artisans would be familiar with.

One discussion point from the above that I think is relevant to KJV Onlyism and its proponents' misguided commitment to a flawless text is that we no more have the exacting words of the New Testament authors than they themselves wrote the ipissima verba of Jesus... in both cases they are sufficient approximations so we can reconstruct to a high degree what the New Testament authors wrote and what the historical Jesus taught respectively. A further talking point would be to consider how the differences between the Septuagint, whether generally or specifically those embedded within the New Testament, and the extant Hebrew texts relate to this same principle of sufficient approximation. Recent discussion has been focused on the New Testament, but I would be interested to see how proponents of KJV Onlyism navigate the text-critical problems posed by those readings in the Septuagint that arguably preserve a better reading than the Hebrew manuscripts on which the KJV is based.

Hope this helps clarify my critique, which was offered constructively, and its potential for further discussion on this particular forum...

Have a good weekend.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Jesus and his family lived close to the Decapolitan cities and, given he and Joseph worked as wrights they possibly found work there. If so Jesus would have had at least a passing familiarity with Greek
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Jesus and his family lived close to the Decapolitan cities and, given he and Joseph worked as wrights they possibly found work there. If so Jesus would have had at least a passing familiarity with Greek
That Jesus may have had some "passing familiarity with Greek" in order to secure possible work in the Hellenized cities in the region is a very different claim than Jesus was reading from Septuagint scrolls in a Galilean village. I would grant the first is possible, provided we are primarily referring to oral rather than literate knowledge, while the second is highly improbable for the reasons I've already laid out...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

rossh

Well-known member
We are in agreement that New Testament citations of Israel's sacred writings often follow the Septuagint or reflect its influence. Where we are not in agreement is how this textual fact corresponds to historical reality. By claiming that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint, you appear to advance a direct correspondence between text and reality... the relationship, however, is not that simple.

Let's consider Acts 21:40 where Paul is said to address a Jerusalemite crowd in a Northwest Semitic language... the Greek reads τη Εβραιδι διαλεκτω (in the Hebrew dialect), which is presumed by most scholars to be a reference to Aramaic, the common language of first-century Palestine. When Paul begins speaking in 22:1 the words continue in Greek... the reader must imagine him speaking this other language --- Paul's words at the layer of the text are in Greek, but in the historical reality assumed behind the text they are in Aramaic.

Now let's apply this same principle to the narrative of Jesus reading from the Isaiah scroll in Nazareth's synagogue, setting aside more complex questions of historical reconstruction not germane to the issue of language. The Septuagint originated within Jewish communities of the Diaspora, to provide them with a version of their sacred writings in their everyday language. While it is not hard to imagine the scribal elite of Jerusalem with access to Greek translations, that the scrolls in a small Galilean village would be in Greek lacks historical verisimilitude. When the reader imagines the historical reality assumed behind the text of Luke written in Greek, it is of a man reading from a Hebrew scroll... reciting in this language or perhaps offering a paraphrase to his audience in Aramaic, a practice standing behind the Targums. The influence of the Septuagint in citations within the gospels owes to this being the version of Israel's sacred writings known to the Greek-speaking Christians of the Roman Empire rather than the version that Galilean peasants and artisans would be familiar with.

One discussion point from the above that I think is relevant to KJV Onlyism and its proponents' misguided commitment to a flawless text is that we no more have the exacting words of the New Testament authors than they themselves wrote the ipissima verba of Jesus... in both cases they are sufficient approximations so we can reconstruct to a high degree what the New Testament authors wrote and what the historical Jesus taught respectively. A further talking point would be to consider how the differences between the Septuagint, whether generally or specifically those embedded within the New Testament, and the extant Hebrew texts relate to this same principle of sufficient approximation. Recent discussion has been focused on the New Testament, but I would be interested to see how proponents of KJV Onlyism navigate the text-critical problems posed by those readings in the Septuagint that arguably preserve a better reading than the Hebrew manuscripts on which the KJV is based.

Hope this helps clarify my critique, which was offered constructively, and its potential for further discussion on this particular forum...

Have a good weekend.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
well better still why don't you just sit down and write your own bible version, like the JWs and the Mormons and the SDA etc; etc; have done. Also, anyone who sits down to read Gods Word, the Bible, usually ask God Help for clarity while reading Hos Holy Word, I do and I admit that I need to, but do you ? Changing the words of the Bible does not change the truth...
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
It is your prerogative to evaluate changes -- whether accidental or deliberate -- to the biblical text negatively, but that does not alter the fact that such changes are evident in all the extant manuscripts, including those underlying the KJV...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Wrong ! Just take sodomite in the majority text changed to temple prostitute in the minority text. Sodom-sodomy- sodomite. It isn’t rocket science.
 

rossh

Well-known member
It is your prerogative to evaluate changes -- whether accidental or deliberate -- to the biblical text negatively, but that does not alter the fact that such changes are evident in all the extant manuscripts, including those underlying the KJV...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
I believe that the Lord will assist us all, if we ask for assistance of course. Also, I believe that too many bible reading adults do NOT understand the underlying message/context of the Word of God! Yes His Word is a narrative and it is an historical account of the past and more over of Gods workings in our past...
As God is capable of creating atoms which are way to small to see but are pack with such enormous power at the same time, then surly He is able to preserve His Word for ions...
So how many of us bible readers even know, that the Word of God saves and is for salvation of our very immortal souls ?
Unlike a well written Novel, the Word of God hits the nail on the head right from the start, that being, the fall of all mankind which sends us all to eternal doom in hell. Better still, as bonus, He also shows us at the same and tells us how!! we are to be save..
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Wrong ! Just take sodomite in the majority text changed to temple prostitute in the minority text. Sodom-sodomy- sodomite. It isn’t rocket science.
Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted, but for the sake of not letting such ignorant comments as the above go without correction, this is not a so-called majority/minority text issue at all and there is no variance underlying the shift in modern translations from the archaic term 'sodomite' to 'temple prostitute'. The underlying Hebrew word is קדש (kadesh), which is etymologically linked to the identical verbal root kadash and the noun kodesh meaning 'to consecrate' and 'holy' respectively. The word in question refers to cultic personnel who engaged in ritual prostitution in connection with a sacred place... it has both masculine and feminine forms, the latter occurring in the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen 38:21-22) where the KJV translates it as 'harlot'. That's another word for a prostitute... and the cultic connection is brought out in modern versions where the temple is the locus of prostitution.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I believe that the Lord will assist us all, if we ask for assistance of course. Also, I believe that too many bible reading adults do NOT understand the underlying message/context of the Word of God! Yes His Word is a narrative and it is an historical account of the past and more over of Gods workings in our past...
As God is capable of creating atoms which are way to small to see but are pack with such enormous power at the same time, then surly He is able to preserve His Word for ions...
So how many of us bible readers even know, that the Word of God saves and is for salvation of our very immortal souls ?
Unlike a well written Novel, the Word of God hits the nail on the head right from the start, that being, the fall of all mankind which sends us all to eternal doom in hell. Better still, as bonus, He also shows us at the same and tells us how!! we are to be save..
Thanks for sharing your thoughts... as they are homiletic in nature rather than geared toward discussion of the topic of this sub-forum, I will not be engaging with them any further.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted, but for the sake of not letting such ignorant comments as the above go without correction, this is not a so-called majority/minority text issue at all and there is no variance underlying the shift in modern translations from the archaic term 'sodomite' to 'temple prostitute'. The underlying Hebrew word is קדש (kadesh), which is etymologically linked to the identical verbal root kadash and the noun kodesh meaning 'to consecrate' and 'holy' respectively. The word in question refers to cultic personnel who engaged in ritual prostitution in connection with a sacred place... it has both masculine and feminine forms, the latter occurring in the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen 38:21-22) where the KJV translates it as 'harlot'. That's another word for a prostitute... and the cultic connection is brought out in modern versions where the temple is the locus of prostitution.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
You ignored the obvious yet again Sodom-sodomy- sodomite. It appears you have studied yourself right out of common sense all my with the bigger picture of the sodimite influences on modern translations .The ignorance is falling for the watering down of God’s word to accommodate the agenda.
 

rossh

Well-known member
Thanks for sharing your thoughts... as they are homiletic in nature rather than geared toward discussion of the topic of this sub-forum, I will not be engaging with them any further.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
good news is always welcome,, may The Lord Yeshua bless you..
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
You ignored the obvious yet again Sodom-sodomy- sodomite. It appears you have studied yourself right out of common sense all my with the bigger picture of the sodimite influences on modern translations .The ignorance is falling for the watering down of God’s word to accommodate the agenda.

I wonder why so many people have sodomy in their thoughts morning, noon and night. Obsession isn't a healthy endeavor.

This particular argument is without merit. Liberals use it against you because you don't know what the OT teaches.


Learn to read and understand what the OT teaches and in what context.
 

rossh

Well-known member
I wonder why so many people have sodomy in their thoughts morning, noon and night. Obsession isn't a healthy endeavor.

This particular argument is without merit. Liberals use it against you because you don't know what the OT teaches.


Learn to read and understand what the OT teaches and in what context.
so why the OT of all things, I my case, I am NOT Jewish and before you say anything look at what happened to the Hebrew/Jewish/Israelites since they had their own Messiah killed, even up to this very day/time ?

The New testament is the new promise of the OT delivered, as promised of God, to all who truly believe in His Only Begotten Son as He truly being the long awaited Messiah...
 

rossh

Well-known member
Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I posted, but for the sake of not letting such ignorant comments as the above go without correction, this is not a so-called majority/minority text issue at all and there is no variance underlying the shift in modern translations from the archaic term 'sodomite' to 'temple prostitute'. The underlying Hebrew word is קדש (kadesh), which is etymologically linked to the identical verbal root kadash and the noun kodesh meaning 'to consecrate' and 'holy' respectively. The word in question refers to cultic personnel who engaged in ritual prostitution in connection with a sacred place... it has both masculine and feminine forms, the latter occurring in the story of Judah and Tamar (Gen 38:21-22) where the KJV translates it as 'harlot'. That's another word for a prostitute... and the cultic connection is brought out in modern versions where the temple is the locus of prostitution.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
nice post but relevant to what I wonder ? No doubt you may know..... is it soul saving, then that would be great.
 

rossh

Well-known member
Thanks for sharing your thoughts... as they are homiletic in nature rather than geared toward discussion of the topic of this sub-forum, I will not be engaging with them any further.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
No, my thoughts are from the Word of God alone, as when we use Gods Word no one has to teach us anything at all...

As for anything being " homiletic " as you suggest, well that is just your supposition.. you alone need to deal with your claim/s.
 

CES1951

Active member
With all due respect to Beloved Daughter, and Matt Slick....in regards to several of your recent posts, I couldn't care less what Matt Slick thinks about something. You share his writings as if he's the ultimate authority. I think he's wrong on numerous topics.

There are two key things we learn from a study of the word baptizō: First, the word means “to immerse.” A ship sprinkled with water would not sink. Cloth sprinkled with dye would not change color..........It might be better if we would simply use the word “immerse”......... for that is what “baptism” means.


THE ORDINANCE OF WATER BAPTISM​

The word "Baptism" is a transliteration of the Greek word BAPTIZO which means to immerse. In Hebrew it is referred to as a MIKVEH - an immersion. Basically it is an immersion into another substance, for the purpose of being saturated by it, such as water in this instance.The new covenant also presents the immersion of a believer "in the Spirit of God" and also "with Fire". Matthew 3:11

  • Baptizo: “To make a thing dipped or dyed. To immerse for a religious purpose” (A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, E.W. Bullinger).
  • Baptizo: “Dip, immerse, mid. Dip oneself, wash (in non-Christian lit. also ‘plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm. . . .’)” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Arndt and Gingrich, p. 131).
  • Baptizo: “immersion, submersion” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Grimm-Thayer, p. 94).
  • Baptizo:to dip, immerse, sink” (Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, Abbott-Smith, p. 74).
  • Baptizo:dip, plunge” (A Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott, p. 305).
  • Baptizo: consisting of the process of immersion, submersion and emergence (from bapto, to dip)” (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine).
  • Baptizo: immerse, submerge. The peculiar N.T. and Christian use of the word to denote immersion, submersion for a religious purpose” (Biblico-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Greek, Cremer).
  • Baptizo: “to dip, immerse; to cleanse or purify by washing” (The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Perschbacher, p. 66).
  • Baptizo: “to dip, to immerse, to sink. . . . There is no evidence that Luke or Paul and the other writers of the New Testament put upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks” (Greek and English Lexicon, Sophocles).
  • Baptizo: “Bapto is the basic verb. It means ‘to dip in’ or ‘to dip under.’ It is often used of dipping fabric in a dye. Baptizo is an intensive form of bapto. From early times it was used in the sense of immersing” (Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, Lawrence O. Richards, pp. 100-101).
  • Baptizo: Baptizo, immerse” (Word Study Greek-English New Testament, Paul. R. McReynolds, p. 907).
  • Baptizo: “The meaning of bapto and baptizo. bapto, ‘to dip in or under,’ ‘to dye,’ ‘to immerse,’ ‘to sink,’ ‘to drown,’ ‘to bathe,’ wash.'” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, One Volume, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, p. 92).
  • Baptizo: “Baptizo 77x pr. to dip, immerse; to cleanse or purify by washing; to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize” (Greek and English Interlinear New Testament, William D. Mounce and Robert H. Mounce, p. 1028).
  • https://truediscipleship.com/how-is-baptism-defined-by-greek-dictionaries-3/

Don't see "sprinkle" in there anywhere.
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
nice post but relevant to what I wonder ?
It was relevant to the general critique of the KJV Onlyist position around which this particular sub-forum revolves.

is it soul saving, then that would be great.
People come to CARM for all sorts of reasons and those reasons may change over time. Some come to evangelize others and that is certainly their prerogative, but that is not the reason I am here. I've been posting here off and on for over twenty years... presently I do so to contribute to topics of personal interest from an academic perspective (I hold graduate degrees in theological and biblical studies) and take periodic sabbaticals to focus on writing commitments.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
No, my thoughts are from the Word of God alone, as when we use Gods Word no one has to teach us anything at all...

As for anything being " homiletic " as you suggest, well that is just your supposition.. you alone need to deal with your claim/s.
A homily is another word for a sermon... I'm not sure why you seem to disapprove of that evaluation. That you have a source for your thoughts does not make them any less yours when you absorb and pass them along as you have... this is particularly true insofar as the source text in question is interpreted quite differently based on diverse hermeneutical approaches. Implying that your interpretation and conveyance of its content is flawless in correspondence is presumptuous, to say the least. Since this is the KJV Onlyism forum, however, it would help to know what your position is in relation to the topic... are you a proponent or a critic?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Top