Jeremiah 8:8 the pen of the scribes is in vain

Jeremiah 8:8 The Pen of the Scribes is in Vain

KJB
"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

The meaning of the King James Bible is NOT that the scriptures themselves had been altered by the scribes, but rather that the Scriptures did not profit the people because they were not listening to them nor obeying them. It was not the Scriptures which had been changed or altered, but the people who thought themselves wise even in their rejection of God's word.

Consider the context of verses eight and nine. "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."
The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?"

Agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB that the Scriptures had not been altered, but rather written in vain for a disobedient people, are the Geneva Bible, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (but not 1960), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.


This is much like the situation today in the Bible Version debate. Those who promote the modern versions think God's word has been corrupted by spurious readings, altered by the scribes and parts of it are lost to us. They have no sure words of God and deny that God has preserved His words in any Bible version.They think themselves wise to decide which are God's words and which are not. They have in fact rejected the word of the LORD in the King James Bible and set themselves up as the final authority.

Compare the comments of a few commentators on this verse, and then take a look at how many modern versions have changed the meaning of this verse from that found in God's true words.

Geneva Bible 1599 with notes.

"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain he hath made it; f the pen of the scribes is in vain."

(f) The law does not profit you neither need it to have been written for all that you have learned by it.


Jamieson, Fausset & Brown

Possessing the law, on which they prided themselves, the Jews might have become the wisest of nations; but by their neglecting its precepts, the law became given "in vain," as far as they were concerned. . "In vain" copies were multiplied.

Matthew Henry

Lo, certainly in vain made he it; surely never any people had Bibles to so little purpose as they have. They might as well have been without the law, unless they had made a better use of it. God has indeed made it able to make men wise to salvation, but as to them it is made so in vain, for they are never the wiser for it: The pen of the scribes, of those that first wrote the law and of those that now write expositions of it, is in vain. Both the favour of their God and the labour of their scribes are lost upon them; they receive the grace of God therein in vain.

John Wesley

" In vain - For any use they made of it; neither need it ever have been copied out by the scribe."

However many popular modern versions have changed the text to mean that the scribes had altered the Scriptures, and implicitly deny God's preservation of His words. If the scribes had messed up the word of God and changed it, how would we ever be able to sort it all out to know what God really said to us? The Lord Jesus condemned the scribes and Pharisees for many things, but never for having changed the words of God into a lie. He constantly referred them to "what is written in the law of the Lord."

KJB
"How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."


NKJV
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood."

NASB
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie."

NIV
"How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

The Message (this is really blasphemous)

"How can you say, "We know the score. We're the proud owners of God's revelation"? Look where it's gotten you--stuck in illusion. Your religion experts have taken you for a ride."


Those who continue to tell us all bible versions have the same message are simply blind to the facts.

Will Kinney

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
The meaning of the King James Bible is NOT that the scriptures themselves had been altered by the scribes, but rather that the Scriptures did not profit the people because they were not listening to them nor obeying them. It was not the Scriptures which had been changed or altered, but the people who thought themselves wise even in their rejection of God's word.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what the proponents of having God's word in modern language say. The problem is not the version. The problem is people's obedience.

This is much like the situation today in the Bible Version debate. Those who promote the modern versions think God's word has been corrupted by spurious readings, altered by the scribes and parts of it are lost to us. They have no sure words of God and deny that God has preserved His words in any Bible version.They think themselves wise to decide which are God's words and which are not. They have in fact rejected the word of the LORD in the King James Bible and set themselves up as the final authority.

Click to expand...

Here, you have twisted the plain words. We do not believe the word of God has been "corrupted." It is clear that scribes along the way altered it, most likely unintentionally. The manuscript evidence (the facts) show this be true. We have the sure word of God and we do not deny that God has preserved his word. In fact, we affirm explicitly that God has preserved his word. You are the one who believes that men have corrupted the word of God. We believe that the KJV is the word of God and that if people live by the teaching of the KJV they will please God. We have not rejected the word of the Lord in the KJV. It is you who has rejected the word of the Lord in modern vernacular.

Those who continue to tell us all bible versions have the same message are simply blind to the facts.

Click to expand...

For all your moaning about this, you have yet to show even one fact that supports you. We, on teh other hand, have shown that the facts contradict you.

Are you suggesting that if someone lives by every word of the NASB and the NIV that they will be disobedient to God?

Another point on 'providential preservation' is that those of us who freely use the NASB or NIV don't believe in a doctrine that says that God perfectly preserved His Word in any one text, translation, or manuscript as if they read exactly as the originals. The KJV/TR onlyists have inserted a false doctrine of 'preservation' based on their misinterpretation of several passages that don't teach their form of doctrine (notably Psalm 12:6-7). We can safely say that God preserved His Word in that we have a great abundance of manuscript evidence, even with manuscripts as close to within 50 years of the original writings (Papyrus #52 from the book of John). No one can frame a 'doctrine of providential preservation' from the Scriptures as how KJV/TR-onlyists define it, but rather we can observe the fact that God preserved His Word with concern to the MOUNTAIN of manuscript evidence!

We can safely say that God preserved His Word in that we have a great abundance of manuscript evidence, even with manuscripts as close to within 50 years of the original writings (Papyrus #52 from the book of John).

Click to expand...

So then what should we use for a bible? Can we say that all translations are God's preserved word, no matter how loosely translated, because they come from the preserved manuscripts evidences?
Gina

Originally posted by Gina:
So then what should we use for a bible? Can we say that all translations are God's preserved word, no matter how loosely translated, because they come from the preserved manuscripts evidences?

Click to expand...

You should use faithful translations. There are several good ones. Loosely translated ones tend away from being faithful. While these can still be teh called the word of God, as the KJV would admit, there are better choices such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV.

You should use faithful translations. There are several good ones. Loosely translated ones tend away from being faithful. While these can still be teh called the word of God, as the KJV would admit, there are better choices such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV.

Click to expand...

How do the majority of people, without having studied the manuscripts and translation methods, know which one is a better choice?
Answer: For most of us, we either give one trust based on what we see as providential preservation or we put our trust in man alone to give us an accurate representation of God's words.

Where does the KJV admit what you said it does?

Gina

Originally posted by Gina:
How do the majority of people, without having studied the manuscripts and translation methods, know which one is a better choice?

Click to expand...

Comparison of translations, and reading fo teh literature ... Again, what the KJV translators would say.

Answer: For most of us, we either give one trust based on what we see as providential preservation or we put our trust in man alone to give us an accurate representation of God's words.

Click to expand...

Right. And I would argue that the former is the traditional orthodox position held by those on our side; the latter is teh KJVOnly position.

Where does the KJV admit what you said it does?

Click to expand...

In the preface when they said that the very meanest translation is the word of God. The above reference is also in the preface when it talks of giving a variety of the sense. REading the preface would cure a lot of the KJOnlyism. The scholarship that the KJOnlies held in high esteem clearly refuted the beliefs of the KJOnlies.

Yes, I've read the preface. You said KJV, I thought you meant in the bible.
By the way, people SHOULD read that! It would prevent a lot of false statements about the translators thoughts, on BOTH sides.
READ PREFACE

Gina

From the KJV preface:"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."(emphasis mine)

Click to expand...

I agree,reading the preface can be a cure.

Gina,

Sorry, I left out a word. KJV translators is what I meant to say.

JYD,

Why do you cite something that argues against the position you hold?? They clearly say that the very meanest translation is the word of God. It is not a perversion, a corruption, or any such thing. It does not even contain the word of God but is the word of God. I agree with them; not you.

They clearly say that the very meanest translation is the word of God.

Click to expand...

ENGLISH translation by men of their profession.Not RC Bibles from North African Jesuit dark age manuscripts.

Originally posted by JYD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> They clearly say that the very meanest translation is the word of God.

Click to expand...

ENGLISH translation by men of their profession.Not RC Bibles from North African Jesuit dark age manuscripts. </font>[/QUOTE]No one is talking about RC Bible from North AFrican Jesuit dark age manuscripts. Catch up here JYD.

Notice very carefully how the translators made no distinction about which text was used but rather referred to the value and authenticity of multiple and differing English translations. These translators included in the margin a variety of senses because they understood that their translation was not the be all and end all. They understood that they were operating from the evidence preserved differently in different manuscripts. They were honest about this, unlike many who claim that marginal readings are detrimental to the text. These men that you claim to be godly and learned agreed with me on this one, not with you.

The RC argument is really old and tired. Put it to bed.

ENGLISH translation by men of their profession.Not RC Bibles from North African Jesuit dark age manuscripts.

Click to expand...

Dear JYD, they meant precisely the Douay-Rheims version, a Catholic English translation of the Bible.
The Douay-Rheims was published several years before the KJV.
About 2/3rds of the KJV NT verses are exact word-for-word copies of the Douay-Rheims.

HankD

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Jeremiah 8:8 "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."

Consider the context of verses eight and nine. "How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain."
The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?"

Agreeing with the meaning found in the KJB that the Scriptures had not been altered, but rather written in vain for a disobedient people, are the Geneva Bible, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (but not 1960), Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible.

Compare the comments of a few commentators on this verse ( see original post ), and then take a look at how many modern versions have changed the meaning of this verse from that found in God's true words.

...many popular modern versions have changed the text to mean that the scribes had altered the Scriptures, and implicitly deny God's preservation of His words.

Will Kinney

Click to expand...

I have condensed the original post. This thread is nearly a page long and no one has addressed the implied question as to why the MVs changed the obvious meaning of this verse. I am interested in the answer.

Dear JYD, they meant precisely the Douay-Rheims version, a Catholic English translation of the Bible.
The Douay-Rheims was published several years before the KJV.
About 2/3rds of the KJV NT verses are exact word-for-word copies of the Douay-Rheims

Click to expand...

Dear HankD,2/3rds of what Satan told Eve was truth.The Douay-Rheims came from Catholic Manuscripts, and the translators were talking about Bibles( ENGLISH ) by men of their profession,not RC's;to think that the Bible that came from the texts of the protestant reformation is on the same level as somthing from RC texts is a deviation from the truth.

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
This thread is nearly a page long and no one has addressed the implied question as to why the MVs changed the obvious meaning of this verse. I am interested in the answer.

Click to expand...

Have you checked the Hebrew?? This is a curious question. Why did the KJV translate it the way that they did. I would be interested in seeing someone explain it.

I think the point is pretty clear: The Scribes had twisted the revelation of the God. See Feinberg's comments in teh EBC for a simple yet clear explanation of it. We see this twisting through all the additions that the scribes made.

On what basis would you think this is saying anything about the KJV??

Originally posted by JYD:
... 2/3rds of what Satan told Eve was truth.

Click to expand...

What version of Scripture are you reading?? Satan flatly denied God's word. God said "You shall die." Satan said, "You will not die." He did not change God's word; he flatly denied it. Why don't we all think through these things before we say that.

Pastor Bob commented: " This thread is nearly a page long and no one has addressed the implied question as to why the MVs changed the obvious meaning of this verse. I am interested in the answer."

Good question. Larry will tell us we have God's preserved words, yet the resulting English versions use very different texts in literally hundreds of verses. I can prove this.

Larry recommend the NKJV, NASB, NIV, yet they all are different from each other in both text and meaning in scores of verses.

The NASB, NIV often depart from the Hebrew texts and not always in the same places. Again I can prove this.


Larry's view is to recommend a bunch of different bibles as being God's word, yet they disagree with each other in meaning and text in scores if not hundreds of places.

Let Larry have his multiple, contradictory versions. He can have them. I'll stick with the tried and true KJB.

Will

Jeremiah - a Comparison of Versions


Those who think all Bible versions say the same things apparently have not read them very attentively. All you need to do is carefully read through any Old Testament book and compare the King James Bible word for word with any other version.

The NKJV purports to be only a revision of the KJB. They supposedly update the language into a more modern form and use the same Hebrew and Greek texts. Yet this is not the case at all. The NKJV does not always follow the same Greek and Hebrew texts and the meaning in literally hundreds of verses has been changed. The NKJV is sort of a halfway house between the KJB and the perverted RSV, NASB, NIV. Just check out many of the word changes and this will become very obvious.

The NKJV frequently changes words just for the sake of novelty and in order to get their copyright. Here is just one of many such examples.

Jeremiah 1:17 God says to Jeremiah "Thou therefore GIRD UP THY LOINS, and arise, and speak unto them all that I command thee." Loins is not an archaic word. In fact, even the NKJV uses it 13 times. It means the area on the body between the ribs and the hipbone, and can include the groin area as well. "Gird up thy loins" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NASB, RSV and Geneva bibles. The NKJV even uses this same expression in 1 Kings 18:46 "he girded up his loins", yet here in Jeremiah 1:17 the NKJV follows the NIV, and says: "Prepare yourself".

Keep in mind that the NKJV does translate this specific word as "loins" in several other places, but it also has "updated" the word to mean many other things like "waist" Jer. 13:1, "backs" Ps. 66:11; "hips" Job 40:16; "herself" Pro. 31:17; "heart" Eze. 21:6; "bodies" Eze. 44:18, and "flanks" Nahum 2:11, yet it still retains the phrase "upon the loins sackcloth" in Jer. 48:37. These unnecessary changes reveal the true intent of the NKJV. It is not to update archaic words or give a more accurate translation, but rather, to make changes for the sake of novelty and to make money.

Jeremiah 2:8 "the PASTORS also have transgressed against me"; Jer. 12:10 "many PASTORS have destroyed my vineyard, they have trodden my portion under foot." These are timeless warnings against destructive pastors and they can easily apply to today's church. However the NKJV has changed both of these readings to "the RULERS also transgressed againt Me", and "the RULERS have destroyed my vineyard" Jer. 12:10, even with a footnote acknowledging that Hebrew reads "pastors or shepherds", and not "rulers", which is a different Hebrew word. Could it be they are hiding their sin?

Jeremiah 2:31 "Wherefore say my people, WE ARE LORDS; we will come no more unto thee."

This reflects the total rebellion of Judah towards the Lord of hosts, and describes sinful man in his essence. "We are lords" is # 7300 and is used only three times. It means to rule or have the dominion. It is also the reading of the NKJV, Geneva and other versions. However the NASB, NIV say "We are free to roam" instead of "We are lords". Not quite the same meaning, is it? Which one is greatly toned down?

Jeremiah 3:7

"And I SAID after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me. But she returned not."
The traditional Hebrew text used in the KJB has God SAYING that the backsliding Israelites should return unto Him. This is also the reading of the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young's and Darby.

However the NASB, NIV, RSV and ESV follow a different Hebrew text and the resultant reading is quite different and portrays a different God than the all-knowing God of the Bible.

The NASB, NIV say: "I THOUGHT that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not." Is this god who "thinks" something would happen but is mistaken, the God of the Bible?

Will

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Have you checked the Hebrew?? This is a curious question. Why did the KJV translate it the way that they did.

Click to expand...

Pastor Larry, it seems that you trying to have your cake and eat it too. In another thread you made the following comment:

This is where we differ perhaps on translation. I think the purpose of translation is to say what the author intended his reader to understand. With that perspective, I believe that "Jesus" is a mistranslation because the intent of the author was Joshua of OT fame and he is never called "Jesus." It should be translated "Joshua."

Click to expand...

In other words, I read this as saying that the Hebrew is not the determining factor; the intent of the author is. You also said:

The point of translation is clarity of the author's intented meaning. This is place where the KJV falls short.

Click to expand...

I believe the intent of the author in Jeremiah was exactly as Will presented it and supported it with numerous witnesses. So, to use your argument, who cares what the Hebrew says? It is the intent that is critical.

This seems like a double standard to me.