You are twisting and wresting this verse to mean that we much change the Bible itself. This verse and the verses that follow show just the opposite -- it shows that book being read distinctly (so much for your multiple authorities) and that it was taught. It was preached! It was not changed or updated. Helping someone understand the reading is not changing the reading. The KJV is a sense-for-sense translation of God's word from the original languages -- it does not need to be changed any more than it needed to be "changed" in Nehemiah's day.

I find your comments interesting. What you are not able to discern is that even in this very passage, Nehemiah uses Aramaic terms. Since I cannot debate Hebrew/Aramaic with someone who lacks those language skills, I will simply have to go my own way.

About me not being a dispensationalist is preposterous. I am a traditional dispensationalist that believes in a hermeneutic that rejects the above sensus plenior approach. Charles Ryrie personally helped me with this study for teenagers. See my Dispensationalism Sunday School Lesson.

About that article Brandon linked me to regarding the omissions from the MVs, I find it a curious thing that KJVOnly advocates are able to leave things out, add things in their various KJVs. While I allow for textual criticism among all of the versions, you apply your own textual criticism to your version. If you think the warning in Rev 22 applies to me, you should rethink this. Discard your various KJV versions and get the original KJV 1611 facsimile. The Cambridge edition has thousands of "jot" and "tittle" changes.

[Greektim]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

I will simply have to go my own way.

FSSL, don't leave. I am coming into this argument kinda late, but I completely agree w/ your posts. I have enjoyed reading your arguments.

Somthing that just hit me is that English does not have a jot or tittle (though a titlle can be illustrated in English: O/Q; P/R; I/J; C/G). That refers to the Hebrew letter yod (jot) and the little mark that distinguishes different Hebrew letters (like a dalet from a resh, check Psalm 119 to see the differences). Sounds like even the supreme translators of the KJV knew well enough to go back to the original languages.

FSSL, as all good Dispos know, Christ offered the Davidic Kingdom to Israel. Matthew exclusively used the term "Kingdom of heaven." Check your Greek for me. Did Christ really say "heaven" or "of the heavens"? It is my contention that Matthew was tapping into the great Kingdom theology of Daniel as a resource. Christ was referring to the Davidic Kingdom coming from the sky (cf. Dan. 7:13). Thus the literal translation (that not many English translations get right) is "the kingdom of the heavens." Even the genitive phrase could be rendered as a genitive of source interpreted as "kingdom from the heavens." What do you think? Oh by the way, that means the KJV got it wrong. They translated a plural as a singular. I don't think it was an accident, though. I think it was a conscience thing they did that was motivated by their Amillennial theology. Sometimes a translatoin can be more than a translation. It can be an interpretation (may genoito, KJV transation "God forbid"). Just something to chew on.

Boy, I just opened a hornets nest didn't I?

[Greektim]

I just read the article of the original purpose of this thread. Here is my comment.

Outstanding exegesis. You followed the literal method by using the rules of context, history, and grammar (in other words, a good hermeneutic). I was especially impressed of your reference to the historical usage of the word "strain." I think your interpretation was right on, and your application to the KJVO view was excellent. I am not just saying this because we have the same views on translation. I think you did a great job. Where did you do your formal training?

PS, FSSL are you a Wings fan? I see you are from MI. If so, then I know you were watching what I watched 2nite. On to the finals!!!

[bibleprotector]

I find your comments interesting. What you are not able to discern is that even in this very passage, Nehemiah uses Aramaic terms. Since I cannot debate Hebrew/Aramaic with someone who lacks those language skills, I will simply have to go my own way.

The debate is really about whether using the original languages is needful in order to understand/study Scripture today.

Second is whether using the “Aramaic” is correct. For example, the King James Bible shows that Chaldee-Syriack was used in the Old Testament at times. (As an aside, Christ or the New Testament people did NOT use “Aramaic”, but Greek and Hebrew. There is plenty of evidence to show that Hebrew was the proper tongue of the Jews in circa 30 A.D.)

While I allow for textual criticism among all of the versions, you apply your own textual criticism to your version.

There are two kinds of criticism being spoken of here, and I am talking about the lower, scientific type, namely, criticism in the Greek language and criticism in the English.

Textual criticism really means selecting what readings belong. That was already settled in 1611, when the KJB men revised the former English translations, and finalised the text, as was gathered from the original languages, but also with regard of other sources, like the Rabbis, Fathers, Latin, other versions and translations, and other Protestant translations. That textual criticism is no more issue: except versus anyone who does not accept the King James Bible as perfect and/or the final text.

The English textual criticism is merely like how people treat Shakespeare or anything else, except that because it is the Word of God, we see God’s direct hand in it. We see that the spelling of a word may be altered, like “bee” to “be”, but this is never a change from meaning the buzzing insect to the word “be”. And so this type of internal textual criticism is vastly different to the type that says “what words from the scattered sources actually constitute God’s Word”, we are merely saying, “what jots and tittles in their order should be in the presentation of the already settled from 1611 final form of the text”.

If you think the warning in Rev 22 applies to me, you should rethink this. Discard your various KJV versions and get the original KJV 1611 facsimile. The Cambridge edition has thousands of "jot" and "tittle" changes.

This is misinformation at best, and outright deception at worst. There are not different “versions” of the King James Bible, as though the 1638, 1769 and Pure Cambridge Edition are any different to the 1611 in regards to text-form and translation.

Moreover, no change of spelling or wording between 1611 to 1769 and to the Pure Cambridge Edition can be said to be actually anything but progressive clarification of the proper meaning, which is to say, purification of the presentation. Thus, to change from “Iesvs” to “Jesus” is only a purification in the jot and tittle, and nothing to do with actually altering the text-form or translation. Thus, hundreds of such examples, whether of “he” (1611) to “she” (1611 to present), which was merely a printer’s error, or of “burnt” (1611) to “burned” (1769 to present) which was merely standardisation of the language, can never constitute a change in actual meaning, in that the true meaning was intended at every place all along.

Revelation 22 allows for the purification of the presentation, otherwise we would be locked to printers’ errors and endless variations in spelling, etc. But Revelation 22 does not allow for actual changes to the Word of God, which would happen if we changed so much as “abideth” to “abides”, let alone “strain at” to “strain out”.

[bibleprotector]

Christ or the New Testament people did NOT use “Aramaic”,

Although Christ knew all languages, he did not normally use the Syrian language. It is possible that the Christians at Antioch did, but considering that the Selucid Greeks had ruled the area prior, I suppose that Greek would have been fairly common there.

“Iesvs” to “Jesus”

In 1611, the "u" was presented as "v" as the first letter, like "vnto" instead of "unto", so "Jesus" was then printed as "Iesus".

otherwise we would be locked to printers’ errors and endless variations in spelling, etc.

There is a correct presentation of the King James Bible, and it is not that of 1611, which has plenty of printing mistakes, spelling variations and so on. Just because it is the "earliest" does not make it the best. After all, translators were involved in the reviewing work of 1638.

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by Greektim

Boy, I just opened a hornets nest didn't I?

In attempt to show your education, you've displayed your ignorance. Making a statement like "the KJV got it wrong" proves exactly that. But now that seems to be the trend nowadays doesn't it?

In addition, I have had no trouble understanding the meaning of the phrase "the kingdom of heaven" as it properly stands in the King James. Simple study within the Book will yield the correct answer without confusion.

Simply put, that Book is amazing! It can teach itself if one will allow.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

..even in this very passage, Nehemiah uses Aramaic terms. Since I cannot debate Hebrew/Aramaic with someone who lacks those language skills, I will simply have to go my own way.

Hi Folks,

FSSL, using your implied self-proclaimed superb world-class Hebrew and Aramaic skills .. why not simply humor us and show us your corrected version of the verse :

Nehemiah 8:8
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly,
and gave the sense,
and caused them to understand the reading.

By giving us your "corrected" translation, we then may be able to understand how you got to your strange interpretation.

Shalom,
Steven

[Greektim]

Originally Posted by pbiwolski

In attempt to show your education, you've displayed your ignorance. Making a statement like "the KJV got it wrong" proves exactly that. But now that seems to be the trend nowadays doesn't it?

I am glad you can say that the KJV didn't get it wrong, yet you did not offer a reason why the KJV translators decided to transate a plural word as a singular. To me, it has a misleading effect on the interpretation of the Kingdom of the heavens. When people hear the phrase "kingom of heaven", they get the idea of Heaven/the abode of God/the eternal destination/aka the 3rd heaven. I think a literal translation would show that to not be the case, along with what you said about the context.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Greektim

why the KJV translators decided to transate a plural word as a singular .. a misleading effect on the interpretation of the Kingdom of the heavens.

Hi GT,

First, let us see what verses you are referencing. Apparently you mean all the 30+ verses in Matthew that use the phrase. We will use Matthew 18:1 as an example.

Matthew 18:1
At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying,
Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

We notice first that virtually every English translation agrees on "kingdom of heaven". So you are accusing every team of translators of getting it wrong, making the mistake of translating a plural as a singular.

Now we know that in Hebrew often a word in a plural form is properly translated as a singular. Including shamayim, heaven (or heavens, depending on context and accompanying words). In languages in general, plurals and singulars are often properly adjusted in translation. Simple example, one that I know reasonably well, Isaiah 53:9 in the Tanach (OT) where the plural form "with the rich in his death(s)" is indicating an intensity, not a plural of number. Likely from Greek to English there are frequently similar proper translation aspects.

Here was the discussion on the b-greek forum, showing this point.

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...-11/33992.html
> why can't the phrase TWN OURANWN be translated as a plural?

... the normal understanding is that Matthew uses the genitive plural OURANWN where the general practice elsewhere is to use the singular genitive OURANOU is that the Hebrew dual form for heaven, SHAMAYYIM is being expressed by the plural ... Hebraisms seem more common in Matthew, and Matthew regularly does use BASILEIA TWN OURANWN rather than BASILEIA TOU OURANOU.

More discussion along similar lines here, with another translational aspect added.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ne/021580.html
Re: Mt 3:2, 4:17

Another related aspect was discussed here.

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...-11/33996.html
what I think we have here (with BASILEIA TWN OURANWN) is simply a translation of a semitic circumlocution, which simply functions as a synonym to BASILEIA TOU QEOU.

GT, whether you personally agree with virtually every Greek Bible translator in history or not, I think your idea that there is some sort of hidden doctrinal agenda involved is unsupportable.

Shalom,
Steven

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by Greektim

...yet you did not offer a reason why the KJV translators decided to transate a plural word as a singular.

They're not the only ones translating plural words as singular.

Steven Avery already mentioned the Hebrew word "shamayim" as a plural word translated as a singular depending on the context.

An example, then I'll make my point.

II Chron. 30:27 ...and their prayer came up to his holy dwelling place, even unto heaven. (the plural used)

It's a plural word, yet without a doubt, the English singular is correct, referencing God's holy habitation. Now...

Isaiah 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven (the plural used) is my throne, and the earth is my footstool:

Now watch Stephen (the Bible one) translate the word into Greek as a singular.

Acts 7:48-49 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet: Heaven (the singular word in Greek) is my throne, and earth is my footstool:

Stephen translated a plural Hebrew word into a singular word in Greek and was very right to do so.

There's more.

Sometimes the plural and singular in Greek are used interchangeably yet still reference the same. Notice Stephen again...

Acts 7:55-56 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven (Gk singular), and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens (Gk plural) opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

We agree that Stephen was beholding heaven, the 3rd heaven. Now what John writes makes my point. Watch how he records in the kingdom of heaven coming to earth.

Rev. 19:11 And I saw heaven (Gk singular) opened, and behold a white horse;...

...and here comes the King (from the sky as you put it) to sit upon the throne of his glory. (Mt.25:31)

Once more

Mt 6:9-10 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven (Gk plural), Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven (Gk singular).

Who's kingdom is it? and where's the kingdom coming from? It's the kingdom of heaven.