|
|
 | | From: | Steve Goltra | | Subject: | Fornication - #1 of 2 posts | | Date: | Fri, 12 Nov 2004 02:24:41 GMT |
|
|
 | Steve said to Robert Robello:
In regards to your post, I was merely responding to the tone of your post.
It is really quite funny that you turn it all around and now say
that I am the one trying to start an argument.
The answers to your questions (Robert) were included in my previous post.
Your questions
were:
1. Does language change over time?
>
> 2. Is the process of translation exact enough that meaning can be
> directly transferred from one language to another without impacting
> syntax?
>
> 3. Was the text that we call the Holy Bible written in English, or was it
> written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?
The answer is below, (where it was when I posted it last time) but I will
try and shorten it for you:
Question #1 1. Does language change over time?
Answer: The Greek and the Hebrew languages became dead languages within
several hundred years after the Canon (Scripture) was established. So, your
question is irrelevant. However, in contrast, English is a living language
and as such new words are constantly being added and old words remain in a
state of flux. Their meanings may change or take on new or different
connotations. That is why the KJV is excellent- the English words and their
meanings are also frozen into time- 1611. The meaning of the words have not
been allowed to change- they are frozen.
Question #2 2. Is the process of translation exact enough that meaning can
be
> directly transferred from one language to another without impacting
> syntax?
Answer: Since the languages were dead, and the definitions of the words cast
in stone, this again does not apply. What I mean by this, when we look at
the word "fornication", it appears in the old testament which was written in
Hebrew. The same word "fornication" also appears in the New Testament, and
the meaning is identical to that of the Old Testament. Eventually those
words were translated into English, and they still mean the same today in
English, that they meant when they were written, as long as we use the KJV.
In the Old Testament the following words were used for fornication:
Strong's Number: 2181 Hebrew- Old Testament, appears 3 times
Transliterated: zanah
Phonetic: zaw-naw'
Text: a primitive root [highly-fed and therefore wanton]; to commit
adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication,
rarely of involuntary ravishment); figuratively, to commit idolatry (the
Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah): - (cause to) commit
fornication, X continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be,
play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring,
whorish.
Strong's Number: 8457 - Hebrew - Old Testament
Transliterated: taznuwth -used once only in Ezekiel 16:29
Phonetic: taz-nooth'
Text: or taznuth {taz-nooth'}; from 2181; harlotry, i.e. (figuratively)
idolatry: --fornication, whoredom.
Strong's Number: 4202 Greek- New Testament- appears 31 times
Transliterated: eia
Phonetic: por-ni'-ah
Text: from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively,
idolatry: --fornication.
Strong's Number: 1608 Greek- appears once only- Junde :7
Transliterated: ekeuo
Phonetic: ek--yoo'-o
Text: from 1537 and 4203; to be utterly unchaste: --give self over to
fornication.
3. Was the text that we call the Holy Bible written in English, or was it
> written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?
It was (as stated above and below) written in Hebrew and Greek & Aramaic.
However the Book of Daniel is written partially in Hebrew and partially in
Aramaic.
Continued- Fornication part #2
Steve
|
|
| | From: | Magnus | | Subject: | Re: Fornication - #1 of 2 posts | | Date: | Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:07:03 GMT |
|
|
| Steve Goltra wrote:
> Steve said to Robert Robello:
> In regards to your post, I was merely responding to the tone of your post.
> It is really quite funny that you turn it all around and now say
> that I am the one trying to start an argument.
>
> The answers to your questions (Robert) were included in my previous post.
> Your questions
> were:
>
> 1. Does language change over time?
>
>>2. Is the process of translation exact enough that meaning can be
>>directly transferred from one language to another without impacting
>>syntax?
>>
>>3. Was the text that we call the Holy Bible written in English, or was it
>>written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?
>
>
>
>
> The answer is below, (where it was when I posted it last time) but I will
> try and shorten it for you:
>
> Question #1 1. Does language change over time?
> Answer: The Greek and the Hebrew languages became dead languages within
> several hundred years after the Canon (Scripture) was established. So, your
> question is irrelevant. However, in contrast, English is a living language
> and as such new words are constantly being added and old words remain in a
> state of flux. Their meanings may change or take on new or different
> connotations. That is why the KJV is excellent- the English words and their
> meanings are also frozen into time- 1611. The meaning of the words have not
> been allowed to change- they are frozen.
From KJV
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which
came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know
them. (Gen 19:5)
From HCSB
They called out to Lot and said, "Where are the men who came to you
tonight? Send them out to us so we can have with them!" (Gen 19:5)
Help me understand how the meaning of the word "know" has been frozen
since 1611. I must have misunderstood the context of your statement
above. When I'm told someone would like to *know* me better, I don't
presume they are seeking a ual encounter.
Magnus
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: Fornication - #1 of 2 posts | | Date: | Sat, 13 Nov 2004 05:27:07 GMT |
|
|
| Dear magnus:
The definition of the word to "know" has 12 definitions in the 1828 Version
of The American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster. The
6th definition states: In SCRIPTURE, to have ual commerce with. Gen. iv
In the same dictionary, I then look up the definition of the word COMMERCE
and find 4 definitions. #2: Intercourse between indivicuals; interchange of
work, business, civilities or amusements; mutual dealings in common life3:
Familiar intercourse between the es
Since these words have been frozen in time, I can see exactly what the men
of Sodom were all about- fornication with other men- homouality.
From KJV
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which
came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know
them. (Gen 19:5)
Like I have said, the definitions of the English words used in the King
James Bible are frozen in time. When we read the newer versions, with the
constant movement & changes of society, etc. the words change much faster
than they ever have before. When I see the word "fornication", I see a
specific word which acts as a lightening rod. When I read one of the newer
versions and find the word "ual sin" it is too vague. It does not have
the same emotional and visual and spiritual effect on me. What I mean by
that can be witnessed in what has transpired over the past 10 years. With
Clinton in the White House, and his ual relationshi with another woman
while married (Fornication, Adultery, Porneo, etc.) the media, as well as
President Clinton have now classified oral as not "ual relations".
They have classified "phone " as not ual relations. In the past 4-5
years children in the 5th and 6th grades have been caught having oral in
the class rooms in School!!!! However, when I read the King James Version I
can see, immediately, the word jumps out at me, it is a lightening rod of a
word that catches my attention and I realize that what Clinton was really
involved in is FORNICATION AND ADULTERY, regardless of what has happened in
the minds and the hearts of the English speaking people in the world
today-the definitions that change over time. English, the LIVING LANGUAGE!
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Magnus" wrote in message
news:X6dld.2198$G36.1026@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Steve Goltra wrote:
>> Steve said to Robert Robello:
>> In regards to your post, I was merely responding to the tone of your
>> post.
>> It is really quite funny that you turn it all around and now say
>> that I am the one trying to start an argument.
>>
>> The answers to your questions (Robert) were included in my previous post.
>> Your questions
>> were:
>>
>> 1. Does language change over time?
>>
>>>2. Is the process of translation exact enough that meaning can be
>>>directly transferred from one language to another without impacting
>>>syntax?
>>>
>>>3. Was the text that we call the Holy Bible written in English, or was
>>>it
>>>written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The answer is below, (where it was when I posted it last time) but I will
>> try and shorten it for you:
>>
>> Question #1 1. Does language change over time?
>> Answer: The Greek and the Hebrew languages became dead languages within
>> several hundred years after the Canon (Scripture) was established. So,
>> your
>> question is irrelevant. However, in contrast, English is a living
>> language
>> and as such new words are constantly being added and old words remain in
>> a
>> state of flux. Their meanings may change or take on new or different
>> connotations. That is why the KJV is excellent- the English words and
>> their meanings are also frozen into time- 1611. The meaning of the words
>> have not been allowed to change- they are frozen.
>
> From KJV
> And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came
> in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (Gen
> 19:5)
>
> From HCSB
> They called out to Lot and said, "Where are the men who came to you
> tonight? Send them out to us so we can have with them!" (Gen 19:5)
>
> Help me understand how the meaning of the word "know" has been frozen
> since 1611. I must have misunderstood the context of your statement above.
> When I'm told someone would like to *know* me better, I don't presume they
> are seeking a ual encounter.
>
>
> Magnus
>
|
|
| | From: | Magnus | | Subject: | Re: Fornication - #1 of 2 posts | | Date: | Sat, 13 Nov 2004 17:43:47 GMT |
|
|
| admin wrote:
> Dear magnus:
> The definition of the word to "know" has 12 definitions in the 1828 Version
> of The American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster. The
> 6th definition states: In SCRIPTURE, to have ual commerce with. Gen. iv
>
> In the same dictionary, I then look up the definition of the word COMMERCE
> and find 4 definitions. #2: Intercourse between indivicuals; interchange of
> work, business, civilities or amusements; mutual dealings in common life3:
> Familiar intercourse between the es
>
> Since these words have been frozen in time, I can see exactly what the men
> of Sodom were all about- fornication with other men- homouality.
>
> From KJV
> And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which
> came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know
> them. (Gen 19:5)
>
>
> Like I have said, the definitions of the English words used in the King
> James Bible are frozen in time. When we read the newer versions, with the
> constant movement & changes of society, etc. the words change much faster
> than they ever have before. When I see the word "fornication", I see a
> specific word which acts as a lightening rod. When I read one of the newer
> versions and find the word "ual sin" it is too vague. It does not have
> the same emotional and visual and spiritual effect on me. What I mean by
> that can be witnessed in what has transpired over the past 10 years. With
> Clinton in the White House, and his ual relationshi with another woman
> while married (Fornication, Adultery, Porneo, etc.) the media, as well as
> President Clinton have now classified oral as not "ual relations".
> They have classified "phone " as not ual relations. In the past 4-5
> years children in the 5th and 6th grades have been caught having oral in
> the class rooms in School!!!! However, when I read the King James Version I
> can see, immediately, the word jumps out at me, it is a lightening rod of a
> word that catches my attention and I realize that what Clinton was really
> involved in is FORNICATION AND ADULTERY, regardless of what has happened in
> the minds and the hearts of the English speaking people in the world
> today-the definitions that change over time. English, the LIVING LANGUAGE!
>
> God bless,
>
> Steve Goltra
>
> "Magnus" wrote in message
> news:X6dld.2198$G36.1026@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Steve Goltra wrote:
>>
>>>Steve said to Robert Robello:
>>>In regards to your post, I was merely responding to the tone of your
>>>post.
>>>It is really quite funny that you turn it all around and now say
>>>that I am the one trying to start an argument.
>>>
>>>The answers to your questions (Robert) were included in my previous post.
>>>Your questions
>>>were:
>>>
>>>1. Does language change over time?
>>>
>>>
>>>>2. Is the process of translation exact enough that meaning can be
>>>>directly transferred from one language to another without impacting
>>>>syntax?
>>>>
>>>>3. Was the text that we call the Holy Bible written in English, or was
>>>>it
>>>>written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic?
>>>
>>>The answer is below, (where it was when I posted it last time) but I will
>>>try and shorten it for you:
>>>
>>>Question #1 1. Does language change over time?
>>>Answer: The Greek and the Hebrew languages became dead languages within
>>>several hundred years after the Canon (Scripture) was established. So,
>>>your
>>>question is irrelevant. However, in contrast, English is a living
>>>language
>>>and as such new words are constantly being added and old words remain in
>>>a
>>>state of flux. Their meanings may change or take on new or different
>>>connotations. That is why the KJV is excellent- the English words and
>>>their meanings are also frozen into time- 1611. The meaning of the words
>>>have not been allowed to change- they are frozen.
>>
>>From KJV
>>And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came
>>in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (Gen
>>19:5)
>>
>>From HCSB
>>They called out to Lot and said, "Where are the men who came to you
>>tonight? Send them out to us so we can have with them!" (Gen 19:5)
>>
>>Help me understand how the meaning of the word "know" has been frozen
>>since 1611. I must have misunderstood the context of your statement above.
>>When I'm told someone would like to *know* me better, I don't presume they
>>are seeking a ual encounter.
>>
So when you use the term "frozen", you mean archaic, or preserved, much
like a fossilized record — which exists — presuming we have dug down to
reveal its meaning.
Are you saying we need an 1828 version of The American Dictionary of the
English Language by Noah Webster to understand KJV. Isn't that an
obstacle for the seeking Christian.
PS: Are you now the "admin" for this ngroup
Magnus
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: Fornication - #1 of 2 posts | | Date: | Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:26:01 GMT |
|
|
| Dear magnus: I am now the Admin because my regualar computer is being
repaired.
The ideal thing to use would the original Textus Receptus (the Received
Text) that was used by the Church from the beginning, as well as all of the
writings of the early Church fathers, as well as all of the lexicons that
were used then. Since we do not have access to this material ( it is still
in the Museums around the world and has never been compiled), Then I believe
it is prudent to use whatever we have that can make sense of the only
translation that is acceptible- the KJV. therefore the use of an English
Dictionary from 1828 is hardly a problem for anyone seeking the truth.
Your assumption continues to be that there is no difference between the
Textus Receptus and the versions relied on & substitued for the Textus
Receptus by Westcott & Hort. That is where the problem lies. If Westcott &
Hort had merely wanted to update the "the's" and "though's", etc. and stayed
with the authorized text, that had been used and relied on since antiquity,
we would be talking aout the same tihing. Such is not the case. You would
understand this if you had read my posts.
Sincerely,
Steve Goltra
"Magnus" wrote in message
news:nJrld.2821$G36.230@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> So when you use the term "frozen", you mean archaic, or preserved, much
> like a fossilized record — which exists — presuming we have dug down to
> reveal its meaning.
>
> Are you saying we need an 1828 version of The American Dictionary of the
> English Language by Noah Webster to understand KJV. Isn't that an obstacle
> for the seeking Christian.
>
> PS: Are you now the "admin" for this ngroup
>
> Magnus
>
Snipped long quotes in order to post message -- Mod.
|
|
| | From: | Magnus | | Subject: | Re: Fornication - #1 of 2 posts | | Date: | Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:10:35 GMT |
|
|
| admin wrote:
> Your assumption continues to be that there is no difference between the
> Textus Receptus and the versions relied on & substitued for the Textus
> Receptus by Westcott & Hort. That is where the problem lies. If Westcott &
> Hort had merely wanted to update the "the's" and "though's", etc. and stayed
> with the authorized text, that had been used and relied on since antiquity,
> we would be talking aout the same tihing. Such is not the case. You would
> understand this if you had read my posts.
I make no assumption. I do contend that the KJV is not the only
acceptable translation of the Word of God. I've read many of your posts,
and do not intend to judge nor debate the intent of Westcott and Hort.
Irrespective of their motivations and belief, the NIV is a
widely-accepted text, supported by many respected theologians.
It concerns me more that to quibble over wording and politics makes us
little different that the Pharisees who argued over every textual iota
and nuance — and they missed the entire point of God's Word despite
their religious fervor.
We are more effective ambassadors of God's Word, when we spread the Word
and live in praise of the Lord. When we are otherwise divisive, we
alienate ourselves from those who need God most, and from God himself.
In Brotherhood,
Magnus
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: Fornication - #1 of 2 posts | | Date: | Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:47:32 GMT |
|
|
| Steve's response to Magnus:
Magnus, feel free to refer to me as “divisive” or whatever dismissive
adjectives that you want to use to describle me. When U.S, News & World
Report did a survey in the early 1990’s and found that only 35 Percent of
church members in the United States believe that the Bible is the word of
God- that is what I am concerned about, not what others might think of me.
The bible says that “a little leaven leaventh the whole lump (1 Cor 5:6).
The newer versions (such as the NIV & the NASV) that you are referring to,
that other “widely respected theologians” seem to think nothing is lacking
in, are actually missing sixty-four thousand words from the King James
Bible! These are just some verses (entire verses) that are missing in the
NIV (that can be found in the King James): Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14: Mark
7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 24:7;
28:29; Romans 16:24. It is beyond me why some of these widely respected
theologians, or even yourself for that matter, are reluctant to object when
words and verses are removed from God's Word.
God’s Word tells us that “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY
WORD of God” Luke 4:4). Is that in your NIV Bible? How about the NASV? Look
it up and you will find all of it missing!!!
It is my humble contention that the newer versions, all copywrited and the
majority published by Secular, Non-Chriatian Publishing Companies are being
produced with profit as the only motive. At the same time all of the newer
versions rely on the corrupted text that was used to create the Catholic
Bible- Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph). When these two gospels are
compared with each other, they disagree with each other three thousand
times. If that is what you want to rely on, then fine. At least I have done
my job, as a servant of Jesus Christ, to warn you of what is actually taking
place. Why do you think that there are discussions going on with prominent
evangelicals and charismatics and the Catholic bishops, priests, and
cardinals in regards to an agreement (I think it is called a "concordat")
concerning "getting along (we don't want to be "divisive", do we?),
proselytizing, coming to a common definition of faith and understanding, and
accepting each other as brothers in Christ? I beleive this concord has taken
place because the NIV and the NASB are so close to the Roman Catholic
doctrine (because eahc rely on the corrupted text of the Vaticanus (B) and
Sinaiticus (Aleph)). After 30 plus years of using these newer versions,
these "leaders" are convinced that Rome is not as bad as Luther & Calvine
knew they were!
I'll provide you with just one more example (there are many, many, many
more) of how the newer versions promote Roman Catholic theology. In Hebres
1:3 in the KJV we read: "By himself purged our sins". Compare this to the
NIV which omits "by himself". The KJV does not allow for a co-mediatrix,
while the NIV does. One more, and then I am done: In Matthew 1:25 the KJV
says that Jesus was "her firstborn son". In other words, Mary did have other
children, as other places in the Bible indicate. The NIV and the NASB omit
the word "firstborn", giving the green light to the Roman Catholic notion
that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
God bless,
Steve Goltra
"Magnus" wrote in message
news:vcNld.26445$KJ6.26367@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> admin wrote:
>> Your assumption continues to be that there is no difference between the
>> Textus Receptus and the versions relied on & substitued for the Textus
>> Receptus by Westcott & Hort. That is where the problem lies. If Westcott
>> & Hort had merely wanted to update the "the's" and "though's", etc. and
>> stayed with the authorized text, that had been used and relied on since
>> antiquity, we would be talking aout the same tihing. Such is not the
>> case. You would understand this if you had read my posts.
>
I make no assumption. I do contend that the KJV is not the only
acceptable translation of the Word of God. I've read many of your posts,
and do not intend to judge nor debate the intent of Westcott and Hort.
Irrespective of their motivations and belief, the NIV is a
widely-accepted text, supported by many respected theologians.
>
It concerns me more that to quibble over wording and politics makes us
little different that the Pharisees who argued over every textual iota
and nuance — and they missed the entire point of God's Word despite
their religious fervor.
>
We are more effective ambassadors of God's Word, when we spread the Word
and live in praise of the Lord. When we are otherwise divisive, we
alienate ourselves from those who need God most, and from God himself.
>
>
> In Brotherhood,
> Magnus
>
|
|
|
