Christian: Sola Scriptura

James the Persian · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
Inspiration only has to do with writing Scripture - (2 Timothy 3:16) - not its preservation, which God Himself took care of - (Psalm 12:6-7).

How? When? Did He just come down to earth and rip some books out of the KJV? Your answer explains nothing. I'd also point out that preservation of a text doesn't usually entail ripping bits out of it.

AV1611 said:
The writers of the New Testament wrote in Koine Greek, not the New-Age-Infested Classical Greek that Plato & Company endorsed. The NIV and other translations come to us via this Classical Greek, the King James Bible comes to us via the Koine Greek, which is the Greek of the common people.

I'm well aware of what Koine Greek is. I've actually heard it spoken and sung rather frequently, have you? For your information, the Greek Orthodox Church (both the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate) still use Koine in the Liturgy and, as such, the Scriptures are read untranslated. My Romanian Bible is likewise translated directly from Koine. I've never heard of a Classical Greek Bible. I strongly doubt one exists seeing as the language was no longer used by the time the New Testament was written - it's like telling me that I can find a version of Shakespeare written in Chaucerian English.

What form of Greek Plato endorsed is, of course, completely irrelevant. He wasn't a Christian, had nothing to do with the Bible and, indeed, died in 347 BC - that's before even the Septuagint was written. Only you know why you brought him up, but I can assure you that no English translation comes from Classical Greek. I actually use the NKJV myself for my English translation (which is just a less archaic KJV), but I use it with the 'apocrypha', because no decent Orthodox translation currently exists. I'm certainly not arguing some trendy modern version like the NIV is better than the KJV. The argument isn't about translations but what constitutes Scripture.

AV1611 said:
But the Koine writings didn't last forever. They began disintegrating, and had to be copied. And they were, by the Goths.

This one's priceless. I'll be sure to forward this one on to my old Greek priest as he could probably do with a chuckle. The official text used by the Greek church is still Koine. They do not use modern (and certainly not classical) Greek. Even the Septuagint they use has not been updated so that it is still noticeably more archaic than the NT. The only place in which the Koine texts disappeared is in your imagination, I'm afraid. We may not have the original manuscripts, but I'd certainly trust a Koine copy of a Koine text over some supposed Gothic copy of a Koine text, particularly given the history of the Goths' relation to Christianity - they were overwhelmingly Arian heretics.

James

James the Persian · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
Get a Strong's Concordance (Wrong's Concordance) and look up the word SIN.

It will tell you that it means "to miss the mark".

In Plato's time sin was rampant. Instead of 'sin' being defined as rebellion against a Holy, Transcendent God, it was merely a sports term.

Shame you wrote this as I was typing the other reply, or I'd have included it. The word (amartia) translated sin in the Bible does indeed mean 'to miss the mark', even in Koine. This is not wrong at all. It is not, however, just a sports term as you put it. In the moral realm it means failing to live up to a standard - for Christians this means falling short of God's standards that He set for us. In what way does that differ from the idea of sin in English?

I'm sure you're right that sin was rampant in Plato's time, as it was before and ever since, but I fail to see the relevance. He died something like 50 years before even the Pentateuch was translated into Koine and 350 years before Christ. I'm still baffled as to why you think he has any relevance to this topic whatsoever.

James

James the Persian · Aug 25, 2005

corrupt_preist said:
agreed - there may well be bits in the other scriptures that are important, but the key points that we are called to read as christians are the parts that god narrowed it down to

Well if you agree with him, perhaps I can get a more sensible answer from you. How and when did God achieve this and how do you know that the removal of the books was God's will and not an action contrary to God's will perpetrated by a few Protestant reformers?

corrupt_preist said:
im not getting involved in this one, i dont know enough on the subject to stop myself from looking foolish :bonk:

Now that's possibly the wisest remark in this thread.

James

michel · Aug 25, 2005

IacobPersul said:
How? When? Did He just come down to earth and rip some books out of the KJV? Your answer explains nothing. I'd also point out that preservation of a text doesn't usually entail ripping bits out of it.

I'm well aware of what Koine Greek is. I've actually heard it spoken and sung rather frequently, have you? For your information, the Greek Orthodox Church (both the Church of Greece and the Ecumenical Patriarchate) still use Koine in the Liturgy and, as such, the Scriptures are read untranslated. My Romanian Bible is likewise translated directly from Koine. I've never heard of a Classical Greek Bible. I strongly doubt one exists seeing as the language was no longer used by the time the New Testament was written - it's like telling me that I can find a version of Shakespeare written in Chaucerian English.

What form of Greek Plato endorsed is, of course, completely irrelevant. He wasn't a Christian, had nothing to do with the Bible and, indeed, died in 347 BC - that's before even the Septuagint was written. Only you know why you brought him up, but I can assure you that no English translation comes from Classical Greek. I actually use the NKJV myself for my English translation (which is just a less archaic KJV), but I use it with the 'apocrypha', because no decent Orthodox translation currently exists. I'm certainly not arguing some trendy modern version like the NIV is better than the KJV. The argument isn't about translations but what constitutes Scripture.

This one's priceless. I'll be sure to forward this one on to my old Greek priest as he could probably do with a chuckle. The official text used by the Greek church is still Koine. They do not use modern (and certainly not classical) Greek. Even the Septuagint they use has not been updated so that it is still noticeably more archaic than the NT. The only place in which the Koine texts disappeared is in your imagination, I'm afraid. We may not have the original manuscripts, but I'd certainly trust a Koine copy of a Koine text over some supposed Gothic copy of a Koine text, particularly given the history of the Goths' relation to Christianity - they were overwhelmingly Arian heretics.

James

When Koine Greek ruled the world, God had the Scriptures in Koine Greek. When English ruled the world, God gave us the Scriptures in English.

Way back when, when people were plagiarizing the Autographs, and/or writing their own uninspired books, God had to filter out what was true Scripture, and what wasn't - (Luke 1:1-4).

Today, in English, we have the 'final product'.

michel · Aug 25, 2005

IacobPersul said:
Shame you wrote this as I was typing the other reply, or I'd have included it. The word (amartia) translated sin in the Bible does indeed mean 'to miss the mark', even in Koine. This is not wrong at all. It is not, however, just a sports term as you put it. In the moral realm it means failing to live up to a standard - for Christians this means falling short of God's standards that He set for us. In what way does that differ from the idea of sin in English?

It doesn't. Read what I wrote. I said 'Wrong's Concordance' said it means to miss the mark. I have no problem at all with the Koine Greek.

I'm sure you're right that sin was rampant in Plato's time, as it was before and ever since, but I fail to see the relevance. He died something like 50 years before even the Pentateuch was translated into Koine and 350 years before Christ. I'm still baffled as to why you think he has any relevance to this topic whatsoever.

He doesn't, James. I just mentioned him in passing. He only, as far as I know, helped popularize Classical Greek and had nothing to do with translating Scripture.

Let's stay focused here please. We're chasing rabbits.

The only thing I'm saying is that the KJV comes to us from God via the following line:

Autographs --- Koine Greek --- Gothic Language --- English

It bypasses Classical Greek altogether.

James the Persian · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
It doesn't. Read what I wrote. I said 'Wrong's Concordance' said it means to miss the mark. I have no problem at all with the Koine Greek.

He doesn't, James. I just mentioned him in passing. He only, as far as I know, helped popularize Classical Greek and had nothing to do with translating Scripture.

Let's stay focused here please. We're chasing rabbits.

The only thing I'm saying is that the KJV comes to us from God via the following line:

Autographs --- Koine Greek --- Gothic Language --- English

It bypasses Classical Greek altogether.

You still don't get it. All Bibles bypass classical Greek because no Bible is written in that language - it was dead when the NT was written. I'll write the next aprt really bold so you don't miss it:

The Greeks still use untranslated and unmodernised Koine in the Liturgy.

Now, you can't claim to have missed that. You may claim that the KJV comes via the Goths (I doubt it and would be instantly dubious of anything that did given their Arianism) but even if it did, the two churches I've worshipped in in the last few years would have a far shorter chain. In my current one it would go:

Autographs - Koine - Romanian (note the lack of Goths)

and in my last one:

Autographs - Koine (and that's it).

I have no idea where you're getting your historical and linguistic information, but it's pure fantasy. And on the matter of amartia, I think I trust my old Greek priest, who speaks Koine fluently and uses it several times a week over your opinion if you don't mind. Your not liking the root of the word really makes no difference - it does mean 'miss the mark' but in the religious context that is sin.

James

michel · Aug 25, 2005

IacobPersul said:
You still don't get it. All Bibles bypass classical Greek because no Bible is written in that language

Well I'm certainly glad to hear that. Like I said, the autographs were in Koine Greek.

You may claim that the KJV comes via the Goths (I doubt it and would be instantly dubious of anything that did given their Arianism) but even if it did, the two churches I've worshipped in in the last few years would have a far shorter chain. In my current one it would go:

Autographs - Koine - Romanian (note the lack of Goths)

and in my last one:

Autographs - Koine (and that's it).

I'm not sure what the problem here is. You have your bible and I have mine.

I think I trust my old Greek priest, who speaks Koine fluently and uses it several times a week over your opinion if you don't mind.

Opinions aside, the fact is then, if your above post is correct, is that YOUR scripture went from Koine to Romanian, and mine went from Koine to Gothic.

For you to say then that mine is "pure fantasy" is a cheap shot. You need to take your beef up with God, not me. I didn't chose where the KJV came from, God did.[/QUOTE]

James the Persian · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
For you to say then that mine is "pure fantasy" is a cheap shot. You need to take your beef up with God, not me. I didn't chose where the KJV came from, God did.

You misunderstood. I didn't say the KJV was pure fantasy, I said that your linguistic and historical information - i.e. your classical Greek Bible idea - was. I would never say the KJV is fantasy as the English Bible I use is just an updated version of it. Sorry if you were offended by what I wrote, but I certainly did not mean what you thought I did. In any case, and now that you seem to accept that the Koine manuscripts did survive to modern times, this is a side issue. The real one is, what was the rationale for later reformers reducing the number of books in the KJV? And please try to come up with something. God did it is a non-answer unless you expect me to believe that He personally ripped the books out.

James

michel · Aug 25, 2005

IacobPersul said:
The real one is, what was the rationale for later reformers reducing the number of books in the KJV? And please try to come up with something. God did it is a non-answer unless you expect me to believe that He personally ripped the books out.

Well, James, I don't know how to better state the case than what I have already told you. If the Bible isn't going to convince you in Psalm 12:6-7, I sure can't. I'm not trying to be funny; I'm just trying to 'get out of the way' and let God speak for Himself. After all, He put it in writing.

I love your question though: "What is the rationale?" A very good question, and I can just see God up in Heaven going: I can answer! I can answer! Psalm 12:6-7! Psalm 12:6-7!

Uncertaindrummer · Aug 25, 2005

You have still dealt with NOTHING, av. First off, this "gothic" nonsense you speak of, no one else has even heard of. Care to provide any DETAILS?

Second, you haven't dealt with a single question I posed earlier. You never even told me how you know Matthew wrote Matthew, considering that the Gospel of Matthew is an anonymous book.

Uncertaindrummer · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
When Koine Greek ruled the world, God had the Scriptures in Koine Greek. When English ruled the world, God gave us the Scriptures in English.

Way back when, when people were plagiarizing the Autographs, and/or writing their own uninspired books, God had to filter out what was true Scripture, and what wasn't - (Luke 1:1-4).

Today, in English, we have the 'final product'.

Funny how none of this is revealed in Scripture, which you are claiming holds everything we NEED to know.

michel · Aug 25, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
You have still dealt with NOTHING, av. First off, this "gothic" nonsense you speak of, no one else has even heard of. Care to provide any DETAILS?

Second, you haven't dealt with a single question I posed earlier. You never even told me how you know Matthew wrote Matthew, considering that the Gospel of Matthew is an anonymous book.

For pity's sake! You want me to tell you how I know Matthew wrote Matthew just because you say it's an anonymous book??? Are you accusing me lying or what? I say Matthew wrote Matthew because Matthew's name is the title of Matthew's book. It's Matthew's diary, so to speak; written with emphasis on Jesus, not himself. I'm not sure what more I can add here to answer your question.

And as far as this 'Gothic nonsense' you mentioned --- all I can say is: do the research yourself, then, if you don't believe me.

jonny · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
Not strange at all, James. God said He would "purify" His words, and that's exactly what He meant. If He had wanted the Apocrypha in the King James Bible, then He wouldn't have scraped it off like dross, like He said He would do in Psalm 12:6-7. (Or 'expunged' it as you put it.)

Why didn't he do it right the first time? Did God make...a mistake!

michel · Aug 25, 2005

jonny said:
Why didn't he do it right the first time?

He did.

jonny said:

Did God make...a mistake!

Click to expand...

No. Dross got into the Word of God over the centuries, and God removed it when it was time for another translation.

Click to expand...

Uncertaindrummer · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
For pity's sake! You want me to tell you how I know Matthew wrote Matthew just because you say it's an anonymous book??? Are you accusing me lying or what? I say Matthew wrote Matthew because Matthew's name is the title of Matthew's book.

NO IT'S NOT!!! This just shows your ignorance in these matters. NOWHERE in the actual Text does Matthew take credit for writing it. The TITLE pages of the Bible are no mroe inspired than the table of contents. NOWHERE is it inspired by God to say "I, Matthew, wrote this book", so again I ask you, how do you know Matthew wrote that book, especially in light of recent historical scholarship which shows he might not have written it after all?

michel · Aug 25, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
NO IT'S NOT!!! This just shows your ignorance in these matters. NOWHERE in the actual Text does Matthew take credit for writing it. The TITLE pages of the Bible are no mroe inspired than the table of contents. NOWHERE is it inspired by God to say "I, Matthew, wrote this book", so again I ask you, how do you know Matthew wrote that book, especially in light of recent historical scholarship which shows he might not have written it after all?

Yes, it is, Drummer. This is Basic Hermeneutics 101 I'm espousing here. Just because it doesn't say 'I, MATTHEW' in the text, doesn't mean anyone knew who wrote it. And even if no one did know who wrote it, God did, and He made sure it was included as part of our Bibles today.

This is nothing more than 1 Peter 5:6 in action.

Since you're an authority on who didn't write it, tell me who did write it.

And if you answer with a website, or give me any of that Q stuff, I'll just assume you don't know. I'd like a name, please.

Quiddity · Aug 25, 2005

I say Matthew wrote Matthew because Matthew's name is the title of Matthew's book.

Click to expand...

Wousers!!
Makes me wonder if you are even aware that hundreds of books were being circulated in early Christendom.

~Victor

michel · Aug 25, 2005

Victor said:
Wousers!!
Makes me wonder if you are even aware that hundreds of books were being circulated in early Christendom.

~Victor

Yes --- so was Luke --- Luke 1:1-4

FORASMUCH AS MANY HAVE TAKEN IN HAND TO SET FORTH IN ORDER A DECLARATION OF THINGS WHICH ARE MOST SURELY BELIEVED AMONG US, EVEN AS THEY DELIVERED THEM UNTO US, WHICH FROM THE BEGINNING WERE EYEWITNESSES, AND MINISTERS OF THE WORD; IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO, HAVING HAD PERFECT UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THINGS FROM THE VERY FIRST, TO WRITE UNTO THEE IN ORDER, MOST EXCELLENT THEOPHILUS, THAT THOU MIGHTEST KNOW THE CERTAINTY OF THOSE THINGS, WHEREIN THOU HAST BEEN INSTRUCTED.

Quiddity · Aug 25, 2005

AV1611 said:
Yes --- so was Luke --- Luke 1:1-4

FORASMUCH AS MANY HAVE TAKEN IN HAND TO SET FORTH IN ORDER A DECLARATION OF THINGS WHICH ARE MOST SURELY BELIEVED AMONG US, EVEN AS THEY DELIVERED THEM UNTO US, WHICH FROM THE BEGINNING WERE EYEWITNESSES, AND MINISTERS OF THE WORD; IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO, HAVING HAD PERFECT UNDERSTANDING OF ALL THINGS FROM THE VERY FIRST, TO WRITE UNTO THEE IN ORDER, MOST EXCELLENT THEOPHILUS, THAT THOU MIGHTEST KNOW THE CERTAINTY OF THOSE THINGS, WHEREIN THOU HAST BEEN INSTRUCTED.

What exactly do you think this is proving?

~Victor

michel · Aug 25, 2005

Victor said:
What exactly do you think this is proving?

Hundreds of books were being written - as you said
Written about things 'most surely believed'
Delivered to Luke, et al, for authentication, since...
...they were 'eyewitnesses' ...
... and ministers of the word
Luke had 'perfect' [complete] understanding of all things right from the git-go
He conveyed them to Theophilus
So Theophilus could 'know the certainty' also

Christian: Sola Scriptura

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Administrator Emeritus

Administrator Emeritus

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Administrator Emeritus

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

Active Member

Administrator Emeritus

Well-Known Member

Administrator Emeritus

Active Member

Administrator Emeritus

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Administrator Emeritus

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Administrator Emeritus