BATTLE TALK ~ Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by s9s27s54

If you're talking about Jaltus comparing bibles, no he didn't. I wanted to compare verse by verse. KIng James versus the newer translations. That's why I started they way I did.

Sorry to jump in but...

The problem with comparing verses in two translations is that this exercise would just show that the versions are different. The fact that they are different is not what was to be proven/argued and is in fact a given. It doesn't prove what should and shouldn't be there.

Using the NIV as an example: Every verse that is missing from the NIV when viewed from the KJV perspective is a verse that is added to the KJV when viewed from the NIV's perspective.

 

[Huldrych]

Here's something to make s9 happy

Here's something to make s9 happy

While not a KJO'er myself, I do agree with them on the point that the newer translations try too hard to interpret what the Bible means (and there is a difference between translation and interpretation).

For illustration, try this out: do a search on the number of occurences of "love" and "judgment" in the KJV, NASB, NIV, and RSV. Note the discrepancies.

Now, this isn't to say that the newer versions corrupt or omit the unnegotiables of our faith (the virgin birth, resurrection, justification by faith, etc.). But it can show where the focus is shifting to. It's kind of interesting to see how, in most cases, the newer versions tend to favor love over judgment by a noticeably larger margin than the KJV. That seems to fall in with the current mainstream trend of presenting the Lord as a sugar-daddy as opposed to one who requires righteousness.

Do I see a grin spreading over s9's face? You're welcome to that one.

I still, however, hold the view that the newer versions are not entirely worthless. And above all, the Holy Spirit is needed for rightly dividing the word in any situation, as well as a heart to know the Lord as He is.

Paging Dr. Deutsch
Did you know there is something of a KJO-movement among German evangelicals as well? It doesn't seem to be very big, from what I gather, but there are a few who are promoting the Luther 1545 in much the same way KJO'ers present the KJV and argue against the newer versions. More info can be found here: www.luther-bibel-1545.de (sorry, it's all auf deutsch, so I'm afraid you monolingual types will miss out on the fun )

Don't know if I'm too crazy about that one or not. The 1545 is great (and the facsimile in my library is the prize of my collection), but getting past the antiquated and inconsistent spelling is rather laborious. Of course, I thought the Fraktur print in my 1912 was kind of laborious to get past, too, but after three years of using it, I've adjusted to it.

jt "ich bin überzeugt, daß der HERR deutsch kann" h

 

[s9s27s54]

Originally posted by rapt
This was a non-prophet battle. I didn't make anything except a funny.

:crackup:

I always thought you were so serious, and here you are joking around. I was going to ask you if you ever joked around.

Nevermind, carry on.

 

[s9s27s54]

Originally posted by rapt
s9, if comparing bibles was your intention, you should have made that clear in your first post.

I thought I did by saying how the other translations are.

 

[Solly]

Huldrych
On German Bibles...
I have just started learning German so that I can read Adolf Schlatter's books, and a few others I have come across who aren't in English yet, and was looking into German Bibles too. Can you confirm if the Shachter 1951 Bible has been revised in a Received Text direction recently, and who by; I came across a note in a list of German translations, but no details given.
At which point did the LutherBibel change from RT to Modern text? I have a 1912 from Württemberg Bible Society, and it seems to be leaning to Modern text, ie in 1 John 5.6,7.
And, I have a Shlatter NT signed by the man himself!!

 

[Jaltus]

Yuo do know that the KJV mistranslated "love" as "charity," don't you?

Agapao and agape mean love, not charity (well, at least how charity is used today).

 

[Explosived]

You can give without loving, But you can’t love without giving.

You can give without loving, But you can’t love without giving.

“...and have not charity...”

Some Bibles change that to love. I wouldn’t change it. This passage is talking about human love. when you talk about human love then charity is the best word because in charity you give. Love is giving. Love that doesn’t give is not real love.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Did I hear some contorting?

 

[rapt]

me:

See, God can even use me to manifest Luther's lies!

Pilgrimagain:



Trust me, God is not using in this.

Balaam didn't believe that God had opened the mouth of the mule, either, did he?

Need a sword?

 

[Redeemed]

Re: You can give without loving, But you can’t love without giving.

Re: You can give without loving, But you can’t love without giving.

Originally posted by Explosived
Love is giving. Love that doesn’t give is not real love.

Hey Explosived! Do you have real love for me? I'll send you my address! :greedy:

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Originally posted by rapt
Neither did Balaam believe that God had opened the mouth of the mule, either, did he?

Need a sword?

Are you saying you are an ***?

 

[Jaltus]

Charity is also not love either.

You remind me of a certain angel that Smith saw in a vision...

 

[Explosived]

Any one who has been married more than two or three years knows that in order to keep the love affair going you have to give. You have to give in and give out and give up. Where there isn’t that element, if you’re not willing to give, and it’s all just going to be take, take, take, that is not the Bible picture. So, I would leave charity where it stands.

 

[s9s27s54]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Yuo do know that the KJV mistranslated "love" as "charity," don't you?

I know no such thing. Charity means love.

 

[Ian Day]

Charity, bishops & unicorns

Charity, bishops & unicorns

Charity is the latinism from the Vulgate- its the Catholic word.
Tyndale translated agape as love.

How about bishops & bishopricks? Do you want them over there.
We prefer elders or overseers & office or oversight or position of leadership (NIV)

And as Hitch points out,

Don't forget the unicorns :thumb:

 

[Jaltus]

Charity = love? Please show a dictionary that says so!

The truth is that charity is a SUBSET of love. Love is so much more than charity, for charity does not have to be an action of the heart, it just has to be an action.

 

[Huldrych]

Originally posted by Solly
Huldrych
On German Bibles...
I have just started learning German

:thumb: :thumb:

You're on my good side already.

so that I can read Adolf Schlatter's books, and a few others I have come across who aren't in English yet, and was looking into German Bibles too.

I can't say I've heard of Schlatter. Could you tell me a little more about him?

Can you confirm if the Shachter 1951 Bible has been revised in a Received Text direction recently, and who by; I came across a note in a list of German translations, but no details given.

I'll look into it, and post what I find.

At which point did the LutherBibel change from RT to Modern text? I have a 1912 from Württemberg Bible Society, and it seems to be leaning to Modern text, ie in 1 John 5.6,7.

I'll look into that one, too. But for right now, I'll say that my guess is that the leanings started sometime in the 1960s, or, at least, sometime after the 1912 version (from the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft in Stuttgart). As best as I have bothered to observe, the 1912 follows the 1545 pretty much word for word.

Luther 1545: "Dieser ists/ der da kompt/ mit Wasser und Blut/ Jhesus Christus/ Nicht mit wasser alleine/sondern mit wasser und blut. Und der Geist ists/ der da zeuget/ das Geist warheit ist. Denn drey sind die da zeugen auff Erden/ Der Geist und das Wasser/ und das Blut/ und die drey sind beysamen."

(Jaltus, you may find the following interesting)

This is interesting. That text was transcribed directly from the facsimile of the 1545 (printed in Wittemberg by Hans Lufft) I have in front of me. Verse 7 seems to be missing.

Two online 1545s include it though, both at luther-bibel-1545.de and at http://jesus-is-lord.com/germtoc.htm however, there remains the perplexing matter of explaining the discrepancies between those versions and the copy in front of me.

Luther 1912: "Dieser ist's, der da kommt mit Wasser und Blut, Jesus Christus; nicht mit Wasser allein, sondern mit Wasser und Blut. Und der Geist ist's, der da zeugt; denn der Geist ist die Wahrheit. Denn drei sind, die da zeugen: der Geist und das Wasser und das Blut; und die drei sind beisammen."

Additionally, there is a footnote in my 1912 mentioning the heavenly witnesses: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, but that they are not found in the manuscripts of the Greek texts nor in Luther's own translation. And I have Luther's own translation right in front of me (complete with his sidenotes and the handset Fraktur script) to confirm that remark.

So, at first glance, it seems that the so-called "unrevidiert" (unrevised) online versions of the 1545 are anything but. But that will require some extra research before we make any conclusions.

And, I have a Shlatter NT signed by the man himself!!

I am envious!

jth

 

[Pilgrimagain]

well said Jaltus. Charity might be done from obligation and not love. There is no way you can make an exact eaquality between charity and love.

 

[Jaltus]

Interesting, Huldruch, very interesting.

After all, Luther studied the church Fathers so he would know it was not original.

 

[rapt]

Originally posted by rapt
Balaam didn't believe that God had opened the mouth of the mule, either, did he?

Need a sword?

Pilgrimagain: Are you saying you are an ***?

I think you cleary understand what I'm saying. Don't play dumb...