Acts 7:44-45
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness,
as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses,
that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles,
whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David
Hebrews 4:8
For if Jesus had given them rest,
then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.;
Recap:
• Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 prove that Jesus and Joshua’s name in the original Greek are the same.
• The OT Hebrew name Joshua and the NT Greek name Jesus mean the same thing: “Jehovah ... is salvation”
• There are 2 (of 4) very significant characters in the OT that share the name “Joshua.”
— One was the famous Joshua of the conquest of Canaan — successor of Moses and a man of great faith, who brought God’s people into the “Promised Land” and “rest.”
— The second was a high priest in the time of the rebuilding of the temple, after the return of God’s people from Babylonian exile.
Both of these men foreshadow the Messiah (Jesus) in certain respects. Jesus is our High Priest (Heb. 8:1) who brings God’s people into rest from dead works (Heb. 4:8-10) and into the ultimate rest of heaven.
Foreshadowing(Wikipedia): is a technique used by authors to provide clues for the reader to be able to predict what might occur later in the story. In other words, it is a literary device in which an author drops hints about the plot and what may come in the near future or, in other words, the plot developments to come later in the story. ...
• Most conservative scholars understand “The Angel of the Lord” as the pre-incarnate Christ — that is, Jesus the Christ BEFORE He became flesh. ....
• Catch this: Joshua (remember same name as Jesus) is standing there before the preincarnate Jesus Christ. Kind of an interesting picture, right? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAWBONES
With thanks for a little help from some friends at BVDB
These are reasonable evidences that Gail Riplinger is giving an incomplete perspective, expanding the proper typology issue to that of the more expansive 'pre-incarnate Christ' without explanation of the dual aspect. Just be aware that, even in this thread, we have seen very incomplete and tricky extraction and referencing from the BVDB posters - so without checking the actual sources (e.g. a scan or my own checking or somebody without a history of quote trickery) it is always wrong to trust their quotes as the full Riplinger references. There is a good possibility that on this particular issue the information on the two verses as given is complete, yet in previous cases they have been extremely unreliable in presentation and explanation. Simply read the thread where about five or more of their accusations were shown to be their own confusion, rigged, biased, overwrought, wrong, based on misrepresentation etc.
Keep in mind also that this is given by Gail Riplinger in the context of a number of verses where the differences are clear e.g.
NKJV: Acts 3:13,26 'His servant Jesus' vs the KJV's 'his Son Jesus';
Acts 4:27, 30 'holy Servant Jesus' vs 'holy child Jesus'
Here you have a word that has to be translated servant or child by context and the pure KJB took the superior choice.
The chart itself she gives is on the Net, I will see if I can find the url.
Here is one discussion, it looks like she is 100% accurate about some modern Concordance rigging. The .pdf page has italics, bold, etc.
Although the front concordance (not back lexicon) in Strong’s Concordance has been very useful in the past in finding where Bible words occur (since it was more comprehensive than Young’s or Cruden’s concordances), the New Strong’s Concordance is less dependable than the original edition. New editions are beginning to conform the main concordance to new version corruptions. For example, the word ‘Jesus’ is no longer listed as occurring in Heb. 4:8. This is because Thomas Nelson, its publisher, also publishes the corrupt NKJV which omits ‘Jesus’ in that verse. This omission of the pre-incarnate Christ follows all corrupt new versions, which replace ‘Jesus’ with ‘Joshua’ in that verse. The KJB is the only Bible which accurately translates, instead of ‘interprets’ that word in that verse. The “Instructions to the Reader” of this New Strong’s Concordance says, “The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible – Red-Letter Edition enables the reader to locate any Scripture passage in the King James Version, as well as every Hebrew or Greek word behind the English words.” This is a misleading statement as the Greek word for ‘Jesus’ is in Hebrews 4:8 in all Greek manuscripts and printed editions, both corrupt and pure. Furthermore, it admits it has “Expanded” entries in which its “Dictionaries include contributions by John R. Kohlenberger.” This is a very dangerous trend (The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001, p. 453, title page, et al.).
An extraordinary euphemism. Riplinger smears great scholars and makes the sort of mistakes you wouldn't expect of a Sunday School student.
Tamar, I do not consider this a significant error, the perspective is more the key, which is why I included the commentary. Simply, it was overdone as presented.
So does Gail Riplinger do some stuff that is simply not right and have some theories that don't work? Personally, I would say yes, and on one forum my critiques of her theories were given a hard time.
However most of the "error" stuff brought forth on a thread like this is overwrought, and Euth and Norris have made a ton of errors and blunders and misrepresentations in their accusations.
However most of the "error" stuff brought forth on a thread like this is overwrought
Steven, this seems hypocritical coming from you.
How very frequently your own posts are "overwrought" in their characteristically-exaggerated and rather over-dramatic criticism of those not in your particular end of the KJVO pool!
While IMO you often have some good and interesting things to say, I hope you have enough objectivity to agree that your own posts are often pretty florid and bombastic in their descriptions of those not in agreement with yourself.
this seems hypocritical coming from you.... How very frequently your own posts are "overwrought" in their characteristically-exaggerated and rather over-dramatic criticism of those not in your particular end of the KJVO pool!....While IMO you often have some good and interesting things to say, I hope you have enough objectivity to agree that your own posts are often pretty florid and bombastic in their descriptions of those not in agreement with yourself.
The problem with the Euth/Norris accusation attacks is that they combine the florid rhetoric with a blunderama buckshot scattershot accusation approach.
So .. it is the combination of the two that qualifies for the OverWrought Achievement Award (OAA). Simply a little drama by itself .. no problemo.
Riplinger's false claim, which seems to attempt to condemn the NKJV by associating it with a cult, is based on the ad hominem (poisoning the well) fallacy. Did Riplinger intend or desire to injure the good name and reputation of the NKJV translators by making these false, and perhaps even slanderous, or libelous statements concerning the NKJV? Does not Riplinger's claim "bear false witness" against the NKJV and its translators (Exod. 20:16, Prov. 6:19, 14:5, Rom. 13:9)? Riplinger wrote: "Anything based on a false premise will eventually have to resort to lies to defend itself" (Blind Guides, p. 58). Did Riplinger possibly assume or start with a false premise that the NKJV copied the Jehovah Witnesses' Version?
To make Hebrews 4:8 refer to Jesus Christ could present problems for KJV-only advocates. The KJV translators avoided these problems by clearly stating in the margin that this referred to Joshua. No temporary earthly rest in Canaan while Satan is still the god of this world can be the promised rest of God. In his commentary on Hebrews, Oliver B. Greene noted the following about this verse: "The truth set forth here is this: If the Canaan rest that the Israelites received under Joshua had been the rest of God for His people, then God would not have spoken through David of another day, when His people would enter into rest" (p. 141). In order to distinguish between the Canaan rest and the promised rest of God, the writer of Hebrews used a different Greek word for "rest" in verse 9--sabbatismos.
Riplinger's false claim, which seems to attempt to condemn the NKJV by associating it with a cult, is based on the ad hominem (poisoning the well) fallacy.
More precisely it would be guilt by association and/or post hoc ergo procter hoc. It really is not an ad hominem fallacy at all, since if a Bible version copies another, it is definitely a valid consideration. As is having the same text. (ie. 'agrees with')
The issue here is that 'copied' can be said to imply a conscious action, e.g "to follow as a pattern or model; imitate" while the agreements of the NWT and NKJV against the pure Bible were more because they followed the same questionable and erroneous concepts, from a flawed pseudo-scholastic lineage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
Did Riplinger intend or desire to injure the good name and reputation of the NKJV translators .
You have not given a standard nor proof of how to determine good name and reputation.
And why would translating a Bible text that you do not believe in (as did many of the translators) be worthy of any reputation ? Other than that of being more concerned with lucre or position than the integrity of the word of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
by making these false, and perhaps even slanderous, or libelous statements concerning the NKJV?
Likely there is nothing actionable in a little post hoc ergo propter hoc difficulty, despite the Norris harumphings, and frivolous threats are commonplace. The JW follows decrepit 'modern scholarship', the NKJV often does so, so of course they will often match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
Did Riplinger possibly assume or start with a false premise that the NKJV copied the Jehovah Witnesses' Version?
Gail Riplinger worked a theory of convenience that was an incorrect approach. Definitely the phrase 'agrees with' is more accurate than 'copies'. She did that in the midst of properly pointing out many errors of the NKJV against the KJB (and in many cases against the Geneva).
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 11-06-2009 at 05:29 PM.
Whether it's ad hominem or some other defect of logic, accusing the NKJV (or any other modern translation) of "copying" the JW version when it renders a NT mention of an OT personage by the name made familiar in the OT is simply absurd. Nor does it make good sense or good style to needlessly baffle readers.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
reasonable evidence, with a caution
Linear Mode
