Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position

[Pastor_Bob]

How is this not a claim for double inspiration that "their translation (the KJV) came from an infallible God."

My friend, you know full well that I do not hold to "double inspiration." I do believe that an infallible God can perfectly preserve His Word for us today. Again, inspiration is not the issue; the issue is preservation.

 

[saturneptune]

You ever heard the little saying, my dogs bigger than your dog.? That is what applies to the uproar.

I don't know? but to have an argument, you have to have two contesting sides. Since I have not contested anything, having only made a simple statement, I see no arguement.

I do not believe I was responding to your post. You see no argument because I made none with you.

 

[Thermodynamics]

To equate man-made work as "infallible" or "inspired" or "perfect" is the height of arrogance and lifting the work of man to the level of God.

God's Words are perfect. He breathed actual words (in Hebrew and Greek) and I am so blessed that we still have them. They were preserved as He promised.

These inspired perfect God-breathed words may be translated into 7000 languages on earth so that the message of Law and Gospel might be proclaimed.

NOWHERE did God promise to preserve man's words, translations, or such.

The AV1611 translators were correct in their preface and realization that there was no "miracle" of God here. It is modern extremists who want to elevate them and their work to the level of God.

Foolishness.

What you say is of course correct, however I think it is important to remember the place that the Authorized Version holds in the history of the English Bible. The AV was translated just a century or so after Modern English came into being and at a time when English was at it's very height as a language. William Shakespeare and the King James Bible taken together shaped English in a way that can't be overstated.

The AV combines a very accurate and literal translation, with a style that has not been rivaled in any other English translation. The AV has remained popular and retained it's ability to connect with people for 400 years. It has survived the rise and fall of empires, war, revolution, assassination, shifts in culture and even the demise of the dynasty that ordered it's translation. In an era when new translations come and go like the tides it has remained an unchanging standard.

While I know that it is not perfect or inspired, there can be no doubt that the AV has received God's blessing in a way that no other English translation can claim.

While it may sometimes be difficult in the face of those shrill voices that want to claim more for it that what it is and denounce those who do not share their radical views, I believe we would do well to show it the respect it deserves.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

God's Book= the King James Bible

Hi Thermo. They shut down the other thread so I was not able to respond to the questions you asked. Sorry.

First let me say that I obviously am a convinced King James Bible onlyist. Surprise!

Second, I do not believe the KJB translators were always right about what they believed. Who does? But I see them as having been the instruments God used to bring forth His perfect, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible in the English language.

It is my firm conviction that anyone who is not a King James Bible onyist does not believe there ever existed nor exists now any complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language. That is the real reason people get upset with us King James bible believers. Because it makes them face their own unbelief and this makes them both uncomfortable and mad.

By the way, though I do not agree with every thing the KJ translators said or believed, you did take their quote about "a variety of translations" way out of context.

I also have one final challenge for you at the end of post.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad that Dr. Holland saw through the incorrect interpretation that Bible Relativists try to spin out of Miles Smith's comments in the preface:


From:
members.aol.com/DrTHollan...etter.html

You [BIJ note: White] wrote:

>>The KJV translators said that any "mean" translation of Scripture can rightly be called the "word of God," and hence in that way, I call the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the NIV, etc., the "word of God."<<

You are taking their quote to mean any and all translations are God's word. They said any of their translations contained God's word, and was God's word. If they said what you took them to say, then all English translations (Protestant or Catholic; Conservative or Liberal; Evangelical or Cultic) would be the word of God. Thus even the NWT and the Cotton Patch Bible would be God's word.

I do not believe this was the view of the KJV translators. I believe they were referring to any English translation "set forth by men of our profession" was the word of God. The context of the Preface by Miles Smith shows the contrast between early English Protestant translations and the Roman Catholic Church. Translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Geneva's, Bishops' and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God." Throughout the Preface there is a contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought. The translators of the AV saw their task as the perfecting of these early English translations. Not that theirs was one of many, and that any and all translations into English, no matter what their text type or who translated them, was God's word. Note what they wrote:

>>Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us<<

>>And this is the Word of God, which we translate. . .(and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.<<

>>Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.<<

>>Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.<<

It does seem rather doubtful to me that the KJV translators would see every English translation we have today as the word of God. My understanding of the above quotes leads me to believe they felt theirs was the job of polishing what was done before them, of taking what was first given as good but not yet perfect, and perfecting those works. (end of Dr. Holland's quote from above web page)



Like Dr. Holland points out: Translations like Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, the Great Bible, Geneva's, Bishops' and such were translations "set forth by men of our profession" and thus, "containeth the Word of God, nay is the Word of God." Throughout the Preface there is a contrast between "our" and "their" translations, and between Protestant thought and Catholic thought.


Like Miles Smith says in his preface: And this is the Word of God, which we translate. . .(and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar)


I guess it's hard to class Miles Smith as a devout Bible Relativist as I believe by "their authenic vulgar" Miles Smith was refering to Jerome's Vulgate that Jerome researched at the library in Alexandria. It is a sobering thought that Jerome's vulgate as it existed in the 1611 era did not contain as many of the corrupt Vaticanus changes/omissions as the Bibles in the pew racks at some fundamental churches today (NIV and NASB). Hence to categorize Miles Smith as a devout Bible Relativist is a stretch and just another misinfo ploy.

One last point, Thermo. You say there are errors in the KJB, and yet I know that you do not have a perfect Bible in any language, so it is basically your personal opinion against many others. But if you have one example of a proven or provable error in the KJB (don't give me a laundry list), then give us your best shot and let's see if it really is an error or not. OK?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

 

[DHK]

One last point, Thermo. You say there are errors in the KJB, and yet I know that you do not have a perfect Bible in any language, so it is basically your personal opinion against many others. But if you have one example of a proven or provable error in the KJB (don't give me a laundry list), then give us your best shot and let's see if it really is an error or not. OK?

Thanks,

Will Kinney

Weak translations are as good as bad translations or mistaken ones.
How many times does the KJV use the word "unicorn (s)"--a bad translation, if not a mistaken one. Did the Hebrews believe in Greek mythology? Of course not! Yet the KJV translators went ahead and used a word straight from Greek mythology when they could have used a word that would have been much more clear in its translation. They were wrong. They were mistaken. They shouldn't have translated it that way. It was a mistake on their part, and that cannot be denied.

Adoniram Judson went to Burma, and translated the Bible into Burmese. Is his translation the inspired Word of God? How would you know? Are the Burmese required to learn Shakespearean English before they have the Word of God? Is all of Judson's work in vain?
Most of the Bibles in the world today are translated from the Critical Text. The work was done either by the various Bible Societies across the world, or by the Wycliffe Bible Translators, neither of which use the TR, or KJV.
Do most of the nations of the world, therefore, have not the Word of God, because their Bibles are not KJV, and are not even translated from the TR?

 

[Thermodynamics]

Hi Will, I am glad you are here and I am glad that you took the time to respond to my post, I sort of had you in mind when I posted it. I also regret that your other thread was shut down, I believe the free exchange of ideas is healthy and helps those on both sides to learn and grow.

Thermo. You say there are errors in the KJB, and yet I know that you do not have a perfect Bible in any language, so it is basically your personal opinion against many others. But if you have one example of a proven or provable error in the KJB (don't give me a laundry list), then give us your best shot and let's see if it really is an error or not. OK?

First of all I do not accept your premise on several levels. First the Bible does not promise a complete & perfect Bible in one volume (if I am wrong please show me where it does). Second, I do believe that God has preserved His Word in perfect form, but not in English. The Bible was inspired in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, if it was not preserved in those languages it has not been preserved. You can't preserve something in a different form than you started with or by definition if has not been preserved, but altered. Third, my personal opinion, your opinion or the opinion of the guy across the street don't matter, opinions don't impact truth. Truth is what it is regardless of who thinks what about it! Having said that I do believe that all of the facts presented and doctrines taught in the AV are accurate and correct. However, I do not believe that because I have some sort of blind faith in a particular version of the Bible that was translated by imperfect men, I believe that because one can compare the English translation of the AV against the original language manuscripts, which were copied (via many generations of mss) from the original autographs, which were inspired directly by God.

Now, on to your question, one translation error:

Matthew 23:24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

should read:

"Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel."

The Greek word translated "strain at" in the AV is "diulizo" which means to filter out.

 

[Samuel Owen]

Now, on to your question, one translation error:

Matthew 23:24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

should read:

"Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel."

The Greek word translated "strain at" in the AV is "diulizo" which means to filter out.

Here a problem arises, when we look at the Bible as just another language problem. The KJV translators did indeed get it right with "at".

The Lords accusation against the Parasees', was their straining at small matters of the law, and making great noise about them, while allowing larger weighter matters to go unattended. It is sort of a parable in a sentence.

While straining out, would have different meaning, as in ignoring small matters. The word "diulizo" in the Greek could be used for either term in its greater meaning, "at" is proper in this case.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Unicorns is correct

Weak translations are as good as bad translations or mistaken ones.
How many times does the KJV use the word "unicorn (s)"--a bad translation, if not a mistaken one. Did the Hebrews believe in Greek mythology? Of course not! Yet the KJV translators went ahead and used a word straight from Greek mythology when they could have used a word that would have been much more clear in its translation. They were wrong. They were mistaken. They shouldn't have translated it that way. It was a mistake on their part, and that cannot be denied.

Hi DHK. Again, it is my solid bet that you yourself do not hold any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. So as a result of your lack of any final written authority (true Bible) you then place your own mind and understanding above any complete Bible out there. You undoubtedly feel free to "correct, emend, alter, change, modify, retranslate, add to or omit from" any Bible anytime you feel so inclined.

Many other Bible translators disagree with you on this unicorn thingy.

Let's look at the other side.

UNICORNS
Is the word “unicorn” an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 “Jerusalem, and ‘it shall be lifted up’ and inhabited in her place.” This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way in our Lord’s prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.

This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?” This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all, nor used in farming to plow the fields like an ox can. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as “wild ox”. The wild ox is nothing more than a “wild guess” and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God’s question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a ‘Yeah, I can do that.’

Those who criticize the KJB’s unicorns try to muster a group of “scholars” who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carfully to their words. Henry Morris - “The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct.” W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) “the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct.” Charles Spurgeon wrote “The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct.” William Houghon “we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended.”

Eastons’ Bible dictionary says: “The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct.”

All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible translators do not know what this animal was, and many of them say that whatever it might have been, it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, and they can be tamed and domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as “buffalo”, while the Douay Rheims sometimes has “rhinoceros” and other times “unicorns”. Young's 'literal' translation shows that he simply did not know what the animal in question referred to, so he merely transliterated the Hebrew word, and did not translate it at all. His version consistently reads "the rheem".

I recently discovered something that I think is very interesting of quite enlightening about how modern scholars are changing the definitions that words once had. I have in my study two different printings of the well known Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. One is from 1887 and the other one is from 1976, which was a reprint of the 9th edition of 1940. The more modern Liddell and Scott defines the word monokeros as "a wild ox". However the 1887 edition gives only one definition of the word - A UNICORN!!!. Now, it should be obvious that Liddell and Scott themselves were not alive in 1976 so that they could suddenly change their minds about what this word meant. So who changed the definition of this word for future generations?

Unicorn means literally, “one - horned”; it was a one horned animal. Daniel Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 defined unicorn as “an animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” There have been fossils found, and are now in museums, of a giant one horned beast or dinosaur. There are also the unicorn bird, the unicorn fish, the unicorn moth, the unicorn shell, plant, root and the unicorn constellation. So several things, both plants and animals have the word unicorn attached to them to describe some physical characteristic.

There are even historical accounts of the unicorn. In 416 BC, the Greek physician Ctesias set out to attend to the Persian King Darius II, where he spent 18 years. He later wrote a book called Indica, in which he said: “There are in India certain wild asses which are a large as horses, and larger. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length.”

Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, describes “an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros (one - horned)...It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive.” Aristotle frequently mentioned the unicorn. He said in one passage: “I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India. It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length..” Julius Caesar said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest, and Alexander the Great is said to have seen one before attempting to invade a certain territory, and took it as a sign not to attack, because the land was protected. Are these reports true? I do not know, but I mention them only to show that there are many conflicting views as to what this animal was and in what form it existed.

Justin Martyr writes concerning the unicorn in Psalm 22. In his book "Dialogue with Trypho" this early church fathers says: "And what follows of the Psalm,--'But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from THE HORNS OF THE UNICORNS,'--was also information and prediction of the events which should befall Him. For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Moreover, it is similarly foretold that He would die by crucifixion. For the passage, 'Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from the horns of the UNICORNS,' is indicative of the suffering by which He should die, i.e., by crucifixion. For the 'horns of the, unicorns,' I have already explained to you, are the figure of the cross only."

In chapter 16 Justin Martyr continues his reference to the unicorn, saying: “And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, ‘From the blessing of the Lord is his land; for the seasons of heaven, and for the dews, and for the deep springs from beneath,... Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is like the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an UNICORN: with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.' Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an UNICORN represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns."

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Unicorns is correct

The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating this specific Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation 1395, Tyndale 1525 (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible 1535, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati 1649, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition "unicornio", the French Martin 1744 "licornes", Luther's German 1545 and the updated Luther German Bible of 1912 "einhornshomer", the Russian Synodal Translation 1876, the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament "monokeros"(not to be confused with the so called LXX), the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation of 1870, the 21st Century King James Version, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible 1833, Lamsa’s 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Peshitta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX). Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.

One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of “wild ox”, besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. ‘But my HORN shalt thou exalt like the HORN of AN UNICORN.” The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: “You have exalted my HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX.” Now, I ask you a simple question. How many horns does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.

Psalm 92:10 Wycliffe 1395 - And myn horn schal be reisid as an vnicorn; and myn eelde in plenteuouse merci.

Bishop's Bible 1568 - But my horne shalbe exalted lyke the horne of an vnicorne: for I am annoynted with excellent oyle.

Coverdale 1535 - But my horne shalbe exalted like the horne of an Vnicorne, & shal be anoynted with fresh oyle.

Geneva Bible 1599 - But thou shalt exalt mine horne, like the vnicornes, and I shalbe anoynted with fresh oyle.

Third Millenium Bible 1998 - But my horn shalt Thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn; I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel. He says: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his HORNS are like the HORNS OF UNICORNS: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth.” The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew - unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural “unicorns” not only by the KJB but also by Websters Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB. Those who criticze the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are showing their selective use of the Hebrew language.

All Bible translations frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the NKJV, NIV and NASB do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 “nachash” & “aqrab” (singular nouns) are translated by all as “serpents & scorpions”, in Deut. 1:19, 20 “har” is mountains in the NKJV, Deut 1:1, 2:37 “bahar” and “har” as hills or mountains in NKJV, KJB, and NIV. Deut. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places “ish” as “men”; Dt. 3:3 “sarid” as survivors in NIV, NKJV; Deut. 5:15 “ebed” slaves in NIV, Deut. 7:9 “dowr” generations in NIV & NKJV; Deut. 8:8 “rimmown” as pomegranates in NASB, NIV and NKJV; Deut. 9:ll, 18, 25 “layil” as “nights” in NASB, NIV and NKJV; and Deut. 10:19 “gare” as strangers or aliens in NIV, NKJV, and NASB.

So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Because of the “horns” plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.

By the way, some have tried to blame the rendering of unicorn on the alleged KJB translator's use of the so called Greek Septuagint. However, the translators marginal note in Deut. 33:17 clearly says: "Hebrew - unicorn", not "LXX - unicorn". The King James Bible translators clearly believed that the Hebrew word itself means unicorn. You can differ if you like from their beliefs, but don't try to blame this reading on the supposed use of the Greek Septuagint.

The historic rabbinic commentary (Ibn Ezra, Radaq, Rashi, Saadi Gaon et. al.) views on Deuteronomy 33:17, and the re'em question in general support the King James reading in Deuteronomy. As an example Radaq (Kimchi) is considered, historically, as the single most important Hebrew linguist and grammatical expert.

http://britam.org/proof3.html

Rabbi David Kimchi (Safer HaShorashim, RAEM): His horns are like the horns of unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17). "It is intended to mean that his horns are like the horns of (several) unicorns for the Raem has only one horn."

The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the NKJV, NASB, NIV have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, while the "wild ox" of the NKJV, NIV, NASB has two horns; not just one.

One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS.

In the original 16ll edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else but God, what the unicorn was or is.

It was a one horned animal of great strength; it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.

Will Kinney

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Show me your inerrant Bible please

I do believe that God has preserved His Word in perfect form, but not in English. The Bible was inspired in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, if it was not preserved in those languages it has not been preserved.... I believe that because one can compare the English translation of the AV against the original language manuscripts, which were copied (via many generations of mss) from the original autographs, which were inspired directly by God.

Hi Thermo. Thank you for responding. My question to the first part of your post is this. Where is this "God preserved word in perfect form" you talk about? Do you have a copy of it? Or is it "out there someplace" among thousands of variant readings in your "original language manuscripts" and nobody knows for sure which words are right and which are not? Obviously there are huge differences of opinions among all the men who put out the often contradictory NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard stuff. So which specific "preserved words" do you hold up as God's?

You have already told us that you don't believe there is an inspired Bible (66 books combined in one volume), so where are they?

I'll get to your alleged error in the next post.
God bless,
Will K

Now, on to your question, one translation error:

Matthew 23:24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

should read:

"Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel."

The Greek word translated "strain at" in the AV is "diulizo" which means to filter out.[/quote]

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Matthew 23:24 strain AT a gnat

Now, on to your question, one translation error:

Matthew 23:24 "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."

should read:

"Ye blind guides, which strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel."

The Greek word translated "strain at" in the AV is "diulizo" which means to filter out.

Hi Thermo. Again, this is merely your opinion and I'm sure there are a lot of facts you are probably unaware of.

Strain AT a gnat Matthew 23:24

"Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel."

There are many who criticize the King James Bible reading of "strain at a gnat". Some confidently tell us this is a printing error. Yet I would ask, How do they know this? It is mere assumption on their part. Others have had no difficulty at all with the translation of "strain AT a gnat".

The word "to strain" (diulizo) is found only once in the New Testament. How to translate this word is a matter of perspective. There are at least two different ways to look at the verse as it stands in the King James Bible, and both make sense.

#1. The rendering of "strain at" a gnat, implies only the effort to try to strain out the gnats that might ceremoniously defile their drink and food; it does not necessarily mean they succeeded in always getting them out. The modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and even the older English versions of Tyndale and Geneva say "strain OUT a gnat", as though they accomplished what they intended.

In 1729 Daniel Mace made a translation of the New Testament, and in Matthew 23:24 he translated as: "strain..FOR a gnat". This may well be the meaning that can be seen in the Authorized Version.

Likewise Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta gives a similar meaning to Matthew 23:24 saying: "O blind guides, who strain AT gnats and swallow camels."

There is nothing wrong with the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat." Other commentators in the past have had no problem with the way the phrase stands in the King James Bible.

The Baptist commentator, John Gill, writes concerning this verse: "To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain AT (caps mine) a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater. These men would not, on any consideration, be guilty of such a crime, as not to pay the tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and such like herbs and seeds; and yet made no conscience of doing justice, and showing mercy to men, or of exercising faith in God, or love to him. Just as many hypocrites, like them, make a great stir, and would appear very conscientious and scrupulous, about some little trifling things, and yet stick not, at other times, to commit the grossest enormities, and most scandalous sins in life.

Matthew Henry also comments: "they strained AT a gnat, and swallowed a camel. In their doctrine they strained AT gnats, warned people against every the least violation of the tradition of the elders. In their practice they strained AT gnats, heaved AT them, with a seeming dread, as if they had a great abhorrence of sin, and were afraid of it in the least instance"

These two commentators do not try to change the reading found in the King James Bible. They affirm that the Pharisees had a great outward revulsion for minor sins, yet they swallowed a camel. How many gnats do you suppose were on that camel they swallowed?

Since initially writing this article, brother Steven Avery (a strong King James Bible believer and diligent researcher) has found a couple of early church father commentaries that appear to support the reading as found in the King James Bible. Here they are with their links provided. I have capitalized the little word AT in their use of the phrase "strain AT a gnat".

If you want to have a little fun, look at this translation of Chrysostom (c 400 AD) by Schaff (not KJB at all).

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-79.htm Homily LXXIII of Matthew

"Then, to show that there is no harm arising from despising bodily cleansings, but very great vengeance from not regarding the purifications of the soul, which is virtue, He called these "a gnat," for they are small and nothing, but those other a camel, for they were beyond what men could bear. Wherefore also He saith, "Straining AT the gnat, and swallowing the camel." (end of quote)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXIII.html Homily XXIII.

"For although His disciples had been guilty of no such sin, yet in them were supposed to be offenses; as, for instance, not keeping the sabbath, eating with unwashen hands, sitting at meat with publicans; of which He saith also in another place, "Ye which strain AT the gnat, and swallow the camel." But yet it is also a general law that He is laying down on these matters."(end of quote)

In his ongoing research into numerous King James Bible readings, Steven Avery also found these early English preaching references to the phrase "strain AT a gnat."

ENGLISH USAGE BEFORE AND CONTEMPORANEOUS TO 1611

'Strain at' was in common English usage at the time immediately before the King James Bible was published, thus proving that this phrase is an accurate translation of the Greek text and not a mere printing error as the anti-KJB folks claim. One quote is from a translation of John Calvin to English and another is from one of the King James Bible translators himself.

John Whitgift - A godlie sermon preched before the Queenes Maiestie... (1574) "...ye straine AT a Gnat, & swallow..."

John Calvin translated by Arthur Golding - The sermons of M. Iohn Caluin... (1577) "...play the hipocrytes, who will streyne AT a gnat, and swallowe..."

John King - Lectures vpon Ionas deliuered at Yorke... (1599) "...wonders of nature, wheen we straine AT gnats, & cannot conceiue..." "They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning AT gnats and swallowing downe camells."

George Abbot (1562–1633) - ***translator Second Oxford committee - assigned the Gospels An exposition vpon the prophet Ionah... (1600) "...to make a strayning at a gnat, and to swallow vp a whole Camel."

Roger Fenton - ***translator - 2nd Westminster company An ansvvere to VVilliam Alablaster... (1599) "...Let vs then leaue to straine AT gnattes, and ingenuously acknowledge..."

John Whitgift (c. 1530–1604) Archbishop of Canterbury 1583-1604 (Works of John Whitgift) "...ye straine AT a Gnat, & swallow up a camel" (p. 581) Sermon 1574 " and strain AT a gnat swallowing down a camel" (p. 523) Sermon 1583 - "..of whom Christ speaketh : ' They strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel.' "(p. 595)

Henry Barrow and John Greenwood to Puritan compromisers (1587) "strain AT a gnat and swallow a camel; and are close hypocrites, and walk in a left-handed policy"

Rudolf Gwalther An hundred, threescore and fiftene homelyes or sermons...(1572) "...Gospel, where he sayth they strayne AT a Gnat..."

Edward Topsell The house-holder: or, Perfect man. Preached in three sermons... (1610) "...will leaue these Fooles, Which straine AT Gnats, and swallow Camels ... "

Thomas Gainsford - The vision and discourse of Henry the seuenth... (1610) "...and seeke extremities, They straine AT Gnats..."

GREENE Mamillia II. B3b, 1583 - Most vniustly straining AT a gnat, and letting passe an elephant.

And this is covered in some extra depth at: http://tinyurl.com/63q7dj Dictionary of Christianity by Jean C. Cooper where Mamillia is given as evidence of established usage at the time.

Here is another book that examines the life of Erasmus and uses the phrase "strain AT a gnat".

http://www.archive.org/stream/erasmusastudyofh013578mbp Erasmus A Study Of His Life Ideals And Place In History - Preserved Smith - p. 298

Meantime Erasmus was busy defending his work against other critics. ... It is nonsense to say that he has ridiculed religion. As for the charge of lasciviousness in the dialogue between the youth and the harlot, he answers that the critics who strain AT his gnat swallow the camels of Plautus and Pogglo.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Matthew 23:24 strain AT a gnat

We also have one of the few actual discussions of this phrase's history:

http://www.dountoothers.org/curious42507-4.html to strain AT a gnat and swallow a camel

TO MAKE A FUSS OVER TRIFLES BUT ACCEPT GREAT FAULTS WITHOUT COMPLAINT. "This, as are many others, is a Biblical expression. It is found in Matthew xxiii, 24-26 : “Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess . Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.” BUT THE TRANSLATORS OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE OF 1611 WERE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH THIS FIGURE OF SPEECH. IT APPEARED IN LECTURES UPON JONAS BY BISHOP JOHN KING, FIRST PRINTED IN 1594, reprinted in 1599, in which the bishop himself said, “They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning AT gnats and swallowing downe camells.” (end of article)

And we also have another modern day dictionary of phrases article that affirms the truth of the King James Bible reading of "strain AT a gnat" here:

http://tinyurl.com/6bvf65 The Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase and Fable - by Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (2000)

"To strain AT a gnat and swallow a camel." --- "To make much fuss about little peccadilloes, but commit offenses of real magnitude .. the Authorized Version rendering (to strain at) was in use well before the date of its issue (1611), so the 'AT' IS NOT-- AS HAS BEEN SOMETIMES STATED -- A MISPRINT OR MISTAKE FOR 'OUT'. (Caps are mine) Greene in his Maxmilla (1583) speaks of "straining at a gnat and letting pass an elephant". It means, to strain the wine at finding a gnat in it, but was early taken to stand for to swallow with considerable effort, imposing a strain on one's throat." (end of article quotes)

http://www.dountoothers.org/curious42507-4.html Heavens to Betsy ! & Other Curious Sayings - Charles Earl Funk (1955)

to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel

(Charles Earle Funk was editor in chief of the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary Series.)

TO MAKE A FUSS OVER TRIFLES BUT ACCEPT GREAT FAULTS WITHOUT COMPLAINT. This, as are many others, is a Biblical expression. It is found in Matthew xxiii, 24-26 : “Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess . Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.” But the translators of the King James Bible of 1611 were already familiar with this figure of speech. It had appeared in Lectures upon Jonas by Bishop John King, first printed in 1594, reprinted in 1599, in which the bishop himself said, “They have verified the olde proverbe in strayning AT gnats and swallowing downe camells.”

#2 Another way to look at this verse was suggested at a Bible club I belong to. It makes a lot of sense. This brother said that since the word gnat is in the singular and not the plural, the idea is that the Pharisees would strain AT a gnat, which is among the smallest of creatures, in the sense of "at discovering a gnat" or "at finding a gnat in their drink", they would begin the process of straining.

He pointed out the following. "The KJV is speaking of the pharisitical practice of straining wine after a gnat is found in it - hence, strainging at (the discovered presence of) a gnat.

What is the problem with the text as it stands in Matthew 23:24? We all understand what it means to 'jump AT the crack of a whip' , ‘to fight AT the drop of a hat”, or be 'shocked AT his behavior' or 'get up AT the crack of dawn'. What is the problem? The gnat strainers of Matthew 23, like today’s “No bible is inspired or inerrant” Bible Agnostics, begin to strain 'AT a gnat'; that is, they start to strain when the gnat shows up.

This material is taken from A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature,Third Edition (BDAG), Revised and Edited by Frederick William Danker, based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der fruhchristlichen Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F.Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker; Copyright 1957; 1979; 2000; The University of Chicago Press- Chicago and London; page 252:

"diulizo (in fig. sense in Pseudo-Archytas [c. 360 BC; Stob. III/1, p.58, 7 H.]In lit. mng., of wine Plut., Mor. 692d; Diosc. 2, 86; 5, 72; Artem. 4, 48; POxy 413, 154; Am 6:6) filter out, strain out fr. a liquid (the KJV 'strain at' is widely considered a misprint [so Goodsp., Relig. in Life 12, '42/43, 205-10 and Probs. '45, 38f], but for the view that it is an archaic usage s. OED s.v. 'strain,' verb, 14e and esp. 21, and CHopf, Rev. of Engl. Studies 20, '44, 155f; 'STRAIN AT' = STRAIN [the liquid] AT [seeing] a gnat; ton konopa a gnat fr. a drink Mt 23:24.--- DELG s.v. hule."

James Murray's Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. S, under "Strain," also lists the reading of "strain AT a gnat" and affirms that it was NOT a mistranslation in the King James Bible, but a legitimate and accurate translation of the Greek text. --- def. 21 (1933): " to strain at: to make a difficulty of swallowing' or accepting (something); to scruple at. Also (rarely), to strain to do something. This use is due to misunderstanding of the phrase strain at a gnat' in Matt. xxiii. 24. It has been asserted that ‘straine at' in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out', the rendering of earlier versions (see 14e). But quotes. 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency. IT WAS NOT A MISTRANSLATION, THE MEANING INTENDED BEING 'WHICH STRAIN THE LIQUOR IF THEY FIND A GNAT IN IT'. (Caps are mine) The phrase, however, was early misapprehended (perh. already by Shakes. in quot. 1609), the verb being supposed to mean to make violent effort."

When a gnat was found in wine, of course it was removed by hand. Insects aren't kosher, though some locusts are. What, according to Jewish law, allowed the remaining wine to be kosher was straining it, just in case any more impurities might be found in it. If you couldn't strain it, ALL the wine was to be thrown away. So - they strained AT the discovery of a gnat, which may or may not strain additional gnats.

The 1983 edition of the Chambers Dictionary, which was then known as the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, contains the following entry, under the headword 'strain' - strain at in Matt. xxiii. 24, to remove by straining, strain IN THE EVENT OF FINDING."

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Matthew 23:24 strain AT a gnat

I understand many KJV opponents love this "error", but in my opinion, the only error here is with their understanding of the English language and of Jewish law.

This construction in English is very clear to me and to the editors of what is arguably the utmost authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary. Jews strained when an insect was found - that is, at (the discovery of) a gnat. Far from being an error, the King James Bible has the best translation which fits all the facts.

I find it highly inconsistent of those who promote the multiple-choice "No bible is inerrant" modern versions, that they will focus in on this single word "at" in the King James Bible, and criticize it as being wrong, all the while committing the very thing this verse is talking about, by swallowing a camel.

For the moment, this minute and debatable difference in meaning of this single two letter word "at" in the phrase "strain at a gnat" seems to have taken on great importance for the King James Bible critic. He shouts to high heaven that it is either a printing error or else a faulty translation in the KJB, but when other far more weightier textual problems are found in his favorite modern versions that don't even agree among themselves, then he goes right back to the same old argument: "Well, the General Message is the same in all versions, and it doesn't really matter which bible you use."

Here are just a few of the more significant textual inconsistencies found in this same chapter of Matthew 23.

In Matthew 23:4 we read: "For they bind heavy burdens AND GRIEVOUS TO BE BORNE, and lay them on men's shoulders."

The reading "and grievous to be borne", (kai dusbastakta) is found in the vast Majority of all manuscripts including Vaticanus. It is also the reading found in the Revised Version of 1881 and in the ASV of 1901. Even the Revised Standard Version and the NRSV continued to include this reading of "and grievous to be borne".

What is curious is how "scholarly" the guys who put together today's multiple-choice bible versions really are. When Westcott and Hort first came out with their wildly revised new Greek text in 1881, they omitted the words "and grievious to be borne" from their text. However, not even the Revised Version nor the American Standard Version followed their very own W.H. texts, but instead included these words as they had previously stood in all English Bibles.

THEN, later on when the UBS and Nestle-Aland critical Greek texts once again added these words to their critical Greek texts, THIS TIME the NASB and NIV decided not to follow their own Greek texts, but instead now omitted this reading! Go figure.

Solely on the basis of one manuscript, Sinaiticus, the NASB and the NIV chose to omit these inspired words. The ever-changing Nestle-Aland, UBS critical texts now include these words in their Greek texts, and many other modern versions still include these words which the NASB and NIV omit.

The words "and grievous to be borne" are found in the 2001 ESV, the brand new International Standard Version, the Holman Standard, NKJV, Hebrew Names Bible, the Complete Jewish Bible, and now the TNIV has gone and put these words back into their text. I guess the old NIV is now "out of date".

In Matthew 23:5 we read: "...they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders OF THEIR GARMENTS." (twn himatiwn). These words are found in the Majority of all texts and in the NIV, NKJV, Revised Version, Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Bible, and the TNIV. The NASB puts them in italics, but the RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard omit these words because they are not found in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.

Matthew 23:8 "But be ye not called Rabbi: for one is your Master, EVEN CHRIST; and all ye are brethren."

Here the word "Christ" is again found in the vast majority of all Greek texts, including the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin, the Spanish Reina Valera, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version and the Complete Jewish Bible.

But versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard all omit it, primarily because the word "Christ" is not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But even here these two "oldest and best" manuscripts do not completely agree with each other in this single verse.

In Matthew 23:14 the ENTIRE VERSE is omitted in such versions as the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV and the TNIV.

The verse reads: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."

This entire verse is found in the majority of all Greek manuscripts including the Syriac Peshitta, the Old Latin, Spanish Reina Valera, the NKJV, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops' bible, the Geneva Bible, the Modern Greek N.T. used throughout the Greek Orthodox church, the Hebrew Names Version and the Complete Jewish Bible.

The NASB, the International Standard Version and the Holman Standard all place the verse in the text but within brackets. Is it or is it not inspired Scripture? The modern versions can't seem to agree with each other even regarding a whole verse in one chapter of Matthew, and there are many more whole verses in the New Testament where they are all in disagreement - anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses.

Two more little examples of how the modern versions treat just one single word are found in verses 19 and 38 of this same chapter. In 23:19 we read: "YE FOOLS AND blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?".

Here the words "fools and" are found in the majority of all texts INCLUDING Vaticanus, and the Spanish Reina Valera, NKJV, Geneva, Tyndale, KJB, Syriac Peshitta, Old Latin, Hebrew Names Version and the modern Complete Jewish Bible. BUT versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman all omit these words, because not found in Sinaiticus.

Then in verse Matthew 23: 38 we read: "Behold, your house is left unto you DESOLATE (ereemos). This little word "desolate" is found in the Majority of all Greek texts, including Sinaiticus, and many ancient versions of the bible.

However Vaticanus omits this word from its text and so did Wescott and Hort. Yet, in spite of the fact that WH text omitted the word, the RV and ASV continued to read as does the KJB and included the word. Lately, once again the Nestle-Aland, UBS Greek critical texts upon which most modern versions are based, have decided to put the word "desolate" back into their ever-changing Greek texts, but in [brackets], indicating doubt as to its authenticity. Versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman continue to include the word "desolate", but so we won't get too confident that we really have the inspired words of God, versions like the NASB and RSV tell us in their footnote that "some manuscripts omit 'desolate'. "

When some of these gross inconsistencies are pointed out to the X Files bible promoters (the Truth is Out There somewhere), then they retreat from their previous stand of attacking the King James Bible for one little word, and now revert to telling us that it doesn't really matter which bible versions we use because they all somehow have the same "message" even though they differ from one another in thousands of words, and the meanings of hundreds of other verses are changed.

It's a funny world, isn't it?

Will Kinney

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Matthew 23:24 strain AT a gnat

Here a problem arises, when we look at the Bible as just another language problem. The KJV translators did indeed get it right with "at".

The Lords accusation against the Parasees', was their straining at small matters of the law, and making great noise about them, while allowing larger weighter matters to go unattended. It is sort of a parable in a sentence.

While straining out, would have different meaning, as in ignoring small matters. The word "diulizo" in the Greek could be used for either term in its greater meaning, "at" is proper in this case.

Hi Samuel. I don't think we have met before, but it looks to me like we have another Bible believer here on the forum and I appreciate your comments.

God bless,

Will Kinney

 

[rbell]

You may be right, but I hope not. I don't know why people can't talk about issues like this withouh fighting.

This thread won't last long, especially when one pseudo-inspires the translators words over the very words of God.:laugh:

Thermo, there's your answer. When one is accused of not caring about God's word...where is there to go from there?

Unfortunately, there are a few extreme KJVO (not the preferred crowd, with which I have no difficulties) who consistently:

• Attack the word of God.
• Accuse others of hating the KJV (and honestly, there might be 2 people on this board that I've seen who ever post any KJV-critical stuff. I never do. I love and use it!).
• Repeatedly engage in personal attacks.
• Question the salvation/spiritual walk of those with whom they disagree.
• Cannot, and will not, engage in fruitful or mature discussion.
• Blatantly ignore the posting rules.

Now...there are a few who are very strongly KJVO that avoid the above pitfalls. For them I am thankful. Others could learn a lesson from them. And...there are a few MV proponents that are guilty of these things as well. I've unfortunately failed to show grace to posters more than once, and for that I am sorry. But the out-and-out character assassinations and complete lies...they need to stop, yesterday.

 

[rbell]

Hi DHK. Again, it is my solid bet that you yourself do not hold any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. So as a result of your lack of any final written authority (true Bible) you then place your own mind and understanding above any complete Bible out there. You undoubtedly feel free to "correct, emend, alter, change, modify, retranslate, add to or omit from" any Bible anytime you feel so inclined.

...it looks to me like we have another Bible believer here on the forum...

With this kind of attitude, the following conclusions may be drawn:

• There will be no productive dialogue. "You don't believe God's Word," and "Wow...me and one other person on the BB are the only Bible-believers here" pretty much shut down any fruitful discussion...not to mention they reveal a great deal about the poster's maturity level.
• Pretty much every Bible I've ever read speaks strongly about "bearing false witness." It would seem that, while one is arguing which version is the right one, it would behoove that person to do what that version says. Avoiding "bearing false witness" would be a good start.
• Yet another reason this discussion will go nowhere with this poster: Maybe more than any other poster I've seen...this person absolutely ignores answers to his questions. "Where is your final authority?" That has been answered by people...yet you ask it again, without even making reference to the answer. If you don't agree with the answer...fine; but don't act as though one hasn't been given. That kind of response makes it look as (a) you have everyone on ignore and can't see the responses; (b) you can't respond to their answers, and so thus you ignore them; (c) you only have "one bullet in your gun," and so we keep going back to the one thing you have with which to rhetorically attack.

I'll try this again: I use the KJV and love it. For me, my "final authority" comes from God's Word. And faithful translations of it (hopefully you will see that answers your NWT rebuttal) are indeed that--faithful to what God said. You, and I, may not understand everything about the idea of Divine Inspiration...but much like the Incarnation and the concept of Eternity...let's face it: our 7 pounds of gray matter just ain't gonna get everything this side of eternity.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Seeing offense when none is there

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi DHK. Again, it is my solid bet that you yourself do not hold any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. So as a result of your lack of any final written authority (true Bible) you then place your own mind and understanding above any complete Bible out there. You undoubtedly feel free to "correct, emend, alter, change, modify, retranslate, add to or omit from" any Bible anytime you feel so inclined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
...it looks to me like we have another Bible believer here on the forum...

With this kind of attitude, the following conclusions may be drawn:

• There will be no productive dialogue. "You don't believe God's Word," and "Wow...me and one other person on the BB are the only Bible-believers here" pretty much shut down any fruitful discussion...not to mention they reveal a great deal about the poster's maturity level.
• Pretty much every Bible I've ever read speaks strongly about "bearing false witness." It would seem that, while one is arguing which version is the right one, it would behoove that person to do what that version says. Avoiding "bearing false witness" would be a good start.
• Yet another reason this discussion will go nowhere with this poster: Maybe more than any other poster I've seen...this person absolutely ignores answers to his questions. "Where is your final authority?" That has been answered by people...yet you ask it again, without even making reference to the answer. If you don't agree with the answer...fine; but don't act as though one hasn't been given. That kind of response makes it look as (a) you have everyone on ignore and can't see the responses; (b) you can't respond to their answers, and so thus you ignore them; (c) you only have "one bullet in your gun," and so we keep going back to the one thing you have with which to rhetorically attack.

I'll try this again: I use the KJV and love it. For me, my "final authority" comes from God's Word. And faithful translations of it (hopefully you will see that answers your NWT rebuttal) are indeed that--faithful to what God said. You, and I, may not understand everything about the idea of Divine Inspiration...but much like the Incarnation and the concept of Eternity...let's face it: our 7 pounds of gray matter just ain't gonna get everything this side of eternity.

Hi rbell. You are seeing things that are not there, and apparently are afraid to examine more carefully what you say you believe about the Bible.

I merely said that there was no Bible (that is a singular noun, not plural) that he believes is (present tense verb) the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God. Is this a true statement? Yes it is. If not, all he and you too for that matter have to do to prove this a false witness is to tell us where we can get a copy of this Bible (singular noun) that he or you believes IS the complete and 100% true words of God. So who is really bearing false witness here as to what was said and what was not?

Now, let's take a closer look at what you said. "For me, my "final authority" comes from God's Word. And faithful translations of it (hopefully you will see that answers your NWT rebuttal) are indeed that--faithful to what God said."

OK, rbell, Let's put this to the test, OK? Can you tell us which of these "faithfull translations" is your final authority? Will you do that for us?

Thanks.
“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Most of these are simple numbers or names. I chose them because there are not a whole lot of ways to translate numbers and names. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).


So which one of these "reliable translations" is your final written authority?

Will Kinney

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi DHK. Again, it is my solid bet that you yourself do not hold any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. So as a result of your lack of any final written authority (true Bible) you then place your own mind and understanding above any complete Bible out there. You undoubtedly feel free to "correct, emend, alter, change, modify, retranslate, add to or omit from" any Bible anytime you feel so inclined.

Wow! I mean just wow! Accusing DHK of this? Obviously you don't know the first thing about DHK's stance on the scriptures. I think this is the most misplaced assesment to date. Obviously the Byzantine text had errors and the Vulgate was used as a model to translate passages back into the greek text. this so called "given" text that the KJ translators used is not with out its issues.

 

[rbell]

So which one of these "reliable translations" is your final written authority?

Will Kinney

Congrats. You have pointed out there are differences in translations. There were differences before the KJV. There are differences between the different editions of the KJV. There are differences in many versions since the KJV. However...not one part of my doctrine gets changed by looking at your list. That "whooshing" sound is the air being let out of your versions balloon.

Now...we can disagree all day...but don't accuse me of not believing the Bible or not honoring God's Word. I believe that "All Scripture is God-breathed." Sorry if that disappoints you. I didn't mean to demolish the windmill you were planning on jousting. Actually, I did. :thumbs:

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Show us the Book

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Hi DHK. Again, it is my solid bet that you yourself do not hold any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. So as a result of your lack of any final written authority (true Bible) you then place your own mind and understanding above any complete Bible out there. You undoubtedly feel free to "correct, emend, alter, change, modify, retranslate, add to or omit from" any Bible anytime you feel so inclined.

Wow! I mean just wow! Accusing DHK of this? Obviously you don't know the first thing about DHK's stance on the scriptures. I think this is the most misplaced assesment to date. Obviously the Byzantine text had errors and the Vulgate was used as a model to translate passages back into the greek text. this so called "given" text that the KJ translators used is not with out its issues.

Hi T. Try calming down just a second and think about what I specifically said. Don't read between the lines; don't jump to conclusions that are not there.

I stand by what I said."it is my solid bet that you yourself do not hold any Bible in any language as being the complete, inspired and infallible words of God."

Now if I am wrong on this, all DHK has to do is clearly and unambiguously tell us all exactly what this Bible (singular noun) is that he thinks is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. It obviously isn't the King James Bible. So which one is it? And if he ever does get around to telling us the name of his complete and inspired Bible (and I don't even care if its in Hebrew and Greek, that is fine with me), then does he also logically believe that any version or other translation that disagrees in both texts and meanings from his "infallible Bible" are NOT the inspired and infallible words of God?

This are basic questions and fundamental beliefs. Some of you guys seem to be flying off the handle and going bug eyed with rage thinking I said things that I did not.

So let DHK speak for himself if I am a "false accuser" and clear this whole matter up, OK?

Thanks,

Will Kinney