Why not...

I was in the processing of getting some info together off the internet rather than retyping my whole list here. The site above is a partial list; the books give more information, particularly Scrivener's. You can probably borrow it at a good library.

 

Pastor Larry already gave some great info. Here's a couple other links you might want to check out:
http://www.kjvonly.org/other/norris_spelling.htm

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjv.html

[ January 01, 2003, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Sorry I'm so impatient.

These changes seem pretty minor. If the differences between the mv and king james were this minor I would not have changed bible versons.

Were these examples the most earth shattering?

Thanks for the info Pastor Larry I will indeed look into the book you recommended.

Impatient today,
Heidi

 

No, the controversy is not about that. If it was, the debate would be substantially lessened. The problem is, even in the "received text" line, there is variation, just to a smaller degree. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, arguing for both sides of the fence. It is one thing to say the "received text" line is superior, and should be the only one used. It is quite another to say that the KJV is perfect. For the KJV deviates from the "received text" occasionally.

And again, I'm interested in your thoughts about the LITV. It follows the "received text" more closely than the KJV does - is it superior to the KJV or vice versa? Why?

 

Yes, they are minor. But they are still changes, and as some like to repeat, "things different are not the same".

The point is this: if the 1611 edition was perfect, why were these changes made? By what authority? Is a 1769 edition still "the word of God" despite these changes? If so, does that not prove that word-for-word perfection does not define "the word of God"?

I can provide a similar, and longer, list of where the KJV differs from the "received text", and where the various editions of the "received text" differ from each other if you are interested. I am not trying to get you to doubt God's word, but to perhaps get people to rethink how they define God's word. "the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

 

Brain T,

Thanks for the two other websites. Its a very good thing to be informed. I would rather hear from a christian about changes made than have an atheist at work point things out.

I did know about the changes before, but I wanted to hear what someone with an different opinion knew.I don't doubt God or his word.

I still think the king james is the best buy.

Thankful in Christ,
heidi

 

I would question you on this: By what authority do you get to decide what a "minor" change is. IMO, the changes between the KJV and the MVs are minor and for the better in terms of understanding. That does not lessen the value of the KJV in anyway.

The problem is that the KJVOnly side, like Bob and Steve K and others cannot tolerate any differences in a perfectly preserved word. As Brian reminds us "Things that are different are not the same."

This chart goes to show that the KJV claim of perfect preservation falls short of the standard they need to make their point. If we can tolerate the minor changes between the 1611 and modern KJVs, why can we not tolerate the minor and better changes between the 1611 and MVs? The point I am making is that there is no version, including the KJV, that is beyond changing for the better or worse. Based on the evidence of the KJV itself, we should abandon the claim of "perfection" since things that are perfect do not need to be changed and the KJV obviously needed it.

At this point, we arrive at what should be the real issue, the underlying Greek text and which textual basis and method of textual criticism is the best. This is an area of legitimate debate that far too few people are qualified to participate in. Unfortunately, it is the loudest mouths that are quite often the least qualified; but they try anyway. We admire their zeal; we wish their judgment was better.

Lastly, I can see the legitimacy of a Majority Text position and even that of a modified TR position. While I prefer the eclectic position because of the weight of evidence and the weight of method behind it, I can have a healthy vigorous debate with the Majority text crowd.

 

I use my own authority. I did not see any that changed or weakened doctrine, did you see any that were shocking?

I don't see anything improved about the modern versons. These changes are whole verses missing and some actually weaken doctrine. If I want see what these verses say I have to go get my King James anyway.

The real issue for me is the the fact that the mvs have holes in it.
I don't speak a lick of Greek so I just compare English to English. Very easy to do.

heidi

 

What do you mean "improved"? Do you mean "what sounds better", or do you mean "more accurate to what was originally written"? If the latter, then you must realize that additions to scripture are just as problematic, and perhaps even more likely, than deletions. Why assume they are deletions in some versions, and not additions in others?

As well, there are verses that have *stronger* doctrine when compared to the KJV. John 1:18, Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13, and 2 Pet 1:1 all explicitly say Jesus is God in the NIV, where the KJV gives some "wiggle room". Jude 1:25 has "through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages", where the KJV does not. Phil 1:14 has "God" where the KJV does not. Acts 4:25 has "the Holy Spirit" where the KJV does not. Psa 145:13 has half a verse, dealing with the reliability of God's love and promises, that the KJV does not. These all "sound better" than the KJV, and make it look like the KJV is "deleting" or weakening doctrines, don't they? If we go by what sounds good, they do. However, we must not judge by what sounds better to our ears, but by what manuscript evidence supports.

How do you know the MVs have holes? Does not a conclusion require a presumption that the KJV is always correct? What if you start with the presumption that the MVs are always correct? You'll arrive at a different conclusion. Instead, we should try to minimize our biases, and simply examine the evidence - all of it.

[ January 01, 2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

To me, this would be a big problem. I cannot use my own authority. Like you however, I did not see any weakened or changed doctrines, but there are not weakened or changed doctrines in the MVs. There has not been one credible charge leveled against them. The attempts have all fallen short of showing a changed doctrine.

The MVs are improved becuase they use up to date langauge instead of using words that have changed meanings in teh last 400 years. They have more contemporary sentence structure rather than the stiff wooden structure of 400 years ago. They have a better understanding of the idioms and grammatical idiosyncracies of Greek and Hebrew. All of this makes them better.

But these "holes" have never materialized. The best anyone can come up with is different wording, where some texts have added some things in and others may have skipped a word or two in copying. Comparing English to English is not a good way to determine if a translation is accurate. You need to compare the parent texts to each other and then to the translations to see how accurate they are.

Consider Hebrews 10:23. Comparing English to English, you see that every version save one has the same word "hope." All Greek manuscripts without exception contain the same word "elpidos" which means "hope." There is one exception: the KJV has "faith" for the translation of "elpidos" when elpidos never means faith. It always means hope. This is a clear translational error that cannot be blamed on a textual variant. The correct translation should be hope. Now if you compare English to English with the presupposition that the KJV is always right, you will end up with a mistake. It is a not a large mistake and it doesn't affect anyone's doctrine or shake one's faith. It merely points out that the KJV is not a perfect translation.

 

I know you know what I'm talking about when I say Holes.

The weakened doctrine that I was thinking of was of fasting (Matthew 17:21). The mv's also weaken what Hell is like(Mark 9:44, 9:46).Fasting must be powerful if Jesus mentions it here .Hell must be dreadful if Jesus talks about it here 3 times.

If the mv claim to be better I exspect them to not take so much info away.It makes them look guilty when they number the verses so funny.

Does anyone have the orginals? If not I exspect you Larry, have to use your own authority to figure out which texts are right.

And BY GOLLY, I won't use a bible that has no unicorns in it!!

I think every christain should be informed about the differences between the mvs and kj.

Heidi

[ January 01, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: H.R.B. ]

 

Fasting is not a doctrine; it is a practice. It is never commanded at that. However, it is also mentioned 36 other times in the NIV NT, which seems strange for a version to include 21 instances of something they are trying to weaken. Doesn't this show how the method of arguing against "weakened doctrines" is faulty becuase it considers only the times it is not mentioned rather than the times that something is mentioned? It is a faulty method of study to go by that criteria.

There is good reason to think that Jesus only mentioned in one time, in v. 49 which is in teh NIV. The NIV does not weaken the doctrine of hell in anyway. It is very strong which can be seen by studying the doctrine of hell in the NIV NT.

It cannot be shown that they have "taken away" info. The evidence leads us to believe that the later manuscripts on which teh KJV is based added the info. The numbering of verses "funny" is simply a reference system. They are not inspired nor put there by any authority. They are merely a convenience.

No one has them. In deciding which texts are right, the only way to is compare them and examine how the possible readings came into existence. The general rule is something like this: The most likely original reading is the one that can account for the others.

I can give some examples if you are interestd.

The world has no unicorns in it so why should the Bible

Why?? Most of them can't read English, much less old fashioned English.

 

Again, you are starting from the assumption that these are deleted in the MV's rather than added to older Bibles. And you are going by what "sounds better". We must compare both to the evidence, not our preconceptions.

About "fasting", why not add fasting to 17 other verses? It would sound great! "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and don't forget that fasting is a good thing!" Of course, that's a silly example, but I hope it illustrates that just because a doctrine sounds stronger in a particular verse when compared to the same verse in another version, it doesn't mean we should simply accept it as originally written instead of added. Again, look to the evidence, not to what we personally think sounds better.

The numbering of the verses was added in the 16th century, and the MV's are just following it. It's simply easier to do number verses in the MVs like this: verses 5, 6, (footnote), 8, 9 than to renumber all Bibles produced since the 1500s. A missing number does not mean a missing verse, it means that a verse that was likely *added* and thus present in some Bibles is not considered to be part of the passage as originally written.

Are you not going to comment on the verses I mentioned, like Jude 1:25 in the KJV which "weakens" the doctrine of the preexistence and Lordship of Christ, Acts 4:25 in the KJV which "weakens" the doctrine of the Holy Spirit's role in inspiring scripture, etc?

I hope that was a joke.

If done in a balanced way, explaining textual and translational issues instead of relying on preconceptions and arguments based on emotion and familiarity, I agree. But too often this "information" is presented as "see, the NIV deletes verses!!!" without considering the manuscript evidence that those verses were more likely *added* to older Bibles.

 

Webster Dictionary says: Doctrine- n.that which is taught; the pincibles,belief or dogma of any chruch, sect,or party.

It is my opinoin that fasting is taught as is prayer.

Lots of what you said Pastor is opinion and you are entitled to your opinion.

Pastor Larry just said that there are no originals. So maybe you are also making the assuption that older versons add verses. All either one of us can say is I Think.

Besides I get all paranoid when I look at a mv
and I Keep thinking "Did I miss something?".

I thought this meaned that the translaters did not pass grade school math.Maybe they have counting problems or something.

No. I should hold my peace.Maybe let someone smarter answer you.I will say they don't bother me.

I do have a question: In Rev.13:16 it talks about the mark of the beast. Should I be concerned about a sticker kind of thing on my hand (MV says on) or a chip kind of thing in my hand (KJ says in).

Heidi

 

Pastor Larry says: "There is no evidence for 1 John 5:7 before the 10th century."

That is not exactly true, is it Larry? Consider the following.

And These Three Are One

1 John 5:7 is the clearest verse in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity, yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV and Jehovah witness versions.

Those who say this verse is not part of Holy Scripture will often say it is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts and for this reason it should not be included in the Bible.

It is true that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are not found in the majority of remaining Greek manuscripts. However there is very much and weighty evidence for its inclusion.

Those who argue that it is not in the majority of texts are being totally inconsistent, to say the least, when they bring up this argument. Most of the people like James White and Daniel B. Wallace who use this majority argument, do not care one bit for the majority of texts and what they might read. They themselves follow the UBS text of Westcott and Hort which itself departs from the majority readings in literally thousands of places.

It should be noted too that Michael Maynard significantly points out that there are only 5 remaining Greek manuscripts that even contain the epistle of 1 John in whole or in part that date from the 7th century or before. That is a whole lot of time to have past by with only 5 partial Greek witnesses that remain today.

Sure, there are a few minority readings in the King James Bible, but for every one in the KJB there are a hundred minority readings found in the NASB, NIV, RSV, and that is no exaggeration.

Another very common objection to 1 John 5:7 is the allegation that Erasmus said he would include the verse if he found a Greek manuscript that contained it. Then almost made to order, hot off the presses, one appeared.

Bruce Metzger who was partly responsible for propagating this urban myth at least had the integrity to retract this false accusation in the 3rd edition of his book. Here is the exact quote from Mr. Metzger himself.

"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJong, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.

What then is the evidence for 1 John 5:7? It is found in several Greek texts; it is quoted by several church fathers and is found in many ancient versions of the Bible.

The Greek texts include 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century).

What may come as a big surprise to many is that Mr. Maynard reports on page 50 that in 1942 a Greek manuscript was discovered which contains 1 John 5:7 that dates out at 735 A.D. This Greek manuscripts is labeled as E; it is also known as Basiliensis. It is now located in Basel, Switzerland at the Universite Bibliotheque.

Mr. Maynard remarks: "This manuscript contains 1 John 5:7. It is noteworthy that Epp says that "Bede in the early eighth century used either E or a precisely similar manuscript" since Kenyon (1912-)also said of the Greek manuscript E that "it is practically certain that it was used by Bede in his commentary on the Acts." Kenyon said the E "is the earliest MS...containing Acts 8:37. According to Scrivener, John Mill said (N.T. Proleg, sections 1022-1026) that Bede had this very codex before him when he wrote his Expositio Retracta of the Acts.

It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts, Calvin likewise says it is found in "the most approved copies" and Stephanus, who in 1550 printed the Greek text that bears his name, mentioned that of the 16 copies he had access to, 7 of them contained 1 John 5:7.

When Cardinal Ximenes planned to print his Polyglot in 1502 he included 1 John 5:7-8. He stated that he had taken care to secure a number of Greek manuscripts; and he described some of these as very "ancient codices" sent to Spain from Rome. Why haven't the manuscript detectives given us a complete list of these "ancient codices"? They must have contained 1 John 5:7. Ximenes printed the verse.

A Trail of Evidence

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "it is written, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he get it?

350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

380 AD Priscillian in Liber Apologeticus quotes "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD Council of Carthage. The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus".

450-530 AD. Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

     A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"

     B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]

     C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

527 AD Fulgentius in Contra Arianos stated: "Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt."

550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

636 AD Isidor of Seville quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB.

750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]

157-1400 AD. Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse.

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. Theodore Beza, John Wesley and Johnathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Many critics of this passage like to say that 1 John 5:7 occurs in no ancient language version except the Latin. However the newest UBS critical text has now admitted that it is found in some Armenian manuscripts.

The first printed edition of the Armenian Bible was published in 1666 by Bishop Uscan. It contains 1 John 5:7. Also Giles Guthier, using two Syriac manuscripts published an edition at Hamburg in 1664. This edition places the passage in the text. And the first printed Georgian Bible, published at Moscow in 1743 contains 1 John 5:7.

Dr. Schrivener mentions a "few recent" Slavonic manuscripts as having the passage.(Jack Moorman, "When the KJV departs from the majority text" 2nd. edition.)

Internal Evidence

Dr. Thomas Holland, who recently wrote "Crowned with Glory", a very good book which defends the King James Bible, states: "The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar."

Michael Maynard, M.L.S. in his 382 page book "A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8" quotes from Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) who remarks concerning this verse in his Theological Orations: . . . "he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?"

Mr. Maynard concludes: "Thus Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John 5:7."

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven.

Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek” (1891).

Bishop Middleton in his book, “Doctrine of the Greek Article,” argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage.

Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.

Dr. Edward F. Hills argues the same grammatical points in defending the legitimacy of 1 John 5:7 in his book "The King James Version Defended" on pages 211-212.

Dr. Gaussen in his famous book "The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures" uses the same grammatical argument and concludes: "Remove it, and the grammar becomes incoherent."

There is another argument based on internal evidence that anyone can clearly see just by reading the Holy Bible in English. This has to do with the spiritual significance of numbers. We all know how significant the number 7 is, representing the spiritual perfections of the Godhead.

There are many highly significant words or titles that are found either 7 times or in combinations of 7 only in the King James Bible. Words like Son of man (49x4) Son of God (49 or 7x7 in the New Testament), Most High (49), Jesus Christ (196 or 49x4), Word of God (49), My Beloved Son (7 times), It is written (63 or 7x9 in N.T.), Firstborn (7), Kingdom of God (70), Holy Spirit (7 in the KJB), Church (77), Worshippers (7) and only when 1 John 5:7 is included does the title referring to Jesus Christ as the Word occur 7 times.

It is found in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..."

1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Revelation 19:13 "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God."

If you are looking to scholars to settle the issue for you, there will never be any certainty at all. Those who criticize the King James Bible as being just another fallible book, riddled with errors, have nothing sure and certain to give you in its place. They set themselves up as the final authority but they constantly differ among themselves. It is like playing "scholar poker". "Well, my scholars can beat your scholars." No, they can't. I'll see your scholars and raise you two more."

They may say that Dr. So and So went to Dallas Theological Whatever and he doesn't believe 1 John 5:7 should be in the bible. Well, on the other hand, there are many learned men with just as much knowledge who absolutely believe 1 John 5:7 belongs in the Holy Bible.

Here is just a partial list of those who contended for the authenticity of this verse.

Cyprian - 250 AD, Priscillian -385 AD, Jerome 420 AD, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, Jaqub of Edessa, Thomas Aquinas, John Wycliffe, Desiderus Erasmus, Lopez de Zuniga, John Calvin, Theodore Beza, Cipriano de Valera, John Owen, Francis Turretin, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Andrew Fuller, Thomas F. Middleton, Luis Gaussen, Frederick Nolan, Robert L. Dabney, Herman C. Hoskier, George Ricker Berry, Edward F. Hills, David Otis Fuller, Thomas Holland, Michael Maynard and Donald A. Waite.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is found in 10 remaining Greek manuscripts, at least 4 Old Latin manuscripts, is quoted or referred to by at least 8 church fathers, is in some ancient versions like the Syriac, Armenian and Slavic versions, in the Waldensian Bibles from 157 AD till the time of the Reformation, is in thousands of Vulgate Latin manuscripts, is in the Spanish Reina Valera used throughout the entire Spanish speaking world today, the Italian Diodati, the Russian, Portuguese, pre and post Lutheran German bibles, and all English versions till 1881.

It is important to note too that the Greek Orthodox Church's New Testament contains 1 John 5:7 both in the ancient and in the Modern Greek versions.

Either God has been faithful to preserve His pure words with nothing added or He has failed and the scholars of today who do not believe any Bible on this earth is the perfect word of God are right. You decide.

Will Kinney

 

Hebrews 10:23 again pastor Larry swings and misses with more misinformation.

The Profession of Our Faith - Hebrews 10:23

Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our FAITH without wavering

In support of the KJB reading of elpis as being correctly translated as faith, the following should be considered.

Even Liddell and Scott's Lexicon list one of the meanings of elpis as "Reason to expect or Believe" page 537. The same is true of Kittle's massive work who shows that elpis shades over into being synonymous with Faith. "Hope as expectation of good is closely linked with trust. This hope is thus trust." "It consists rather in general confidence in God's protection and help." page 522.

The verb form of this noun is elpizo and even the NASB and NIV have at times translated this word as to Trust. The KJB translates this verb as to Trust 18 times as well as to hope. If you trust something or someone, you believe them. It is really "gnat straining" to suggest that we are talking about the noun here and not the verb, when the very verb from which this noun comes is also translated as "to trust" in all the modern Bibles as well.

The King James Bible is not the only one to translate this word as FAITH in Hebrews 10:23. The Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, 9 years before the KJB, also translated this passage in the same way as the KJB. "la professión de nuestra FE (faith). So does the more recent Spanish Valera Neuvo Testamento of 1858.

In addition to these Spanish versions, the Latin version translates this word as Fidelis (Faith) in Hebrews 10:23. Though Adam Clarke does not agree with the KJB reading, he notes in his commentary on this passage that the Old Latin (Itala), Erpen's Arabic and the ancient Ethiopic versions also read "the profession of our Faith".

Other English versions that have translated this word as Faith in Hebrews 10:23 are Daniel Webster's 1933 translation. Daniel Webster knew some 15 different languages including Hebrew and Greek and he made his own translation of the Bible in 1833. He changed the wording of the KJB in many places, but he left the word Faith here in Hebrews 10:23.

In addition to this, we also have the more modern translations of the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible and both of these also have elpis as Faith in Hebrews 10:23.

Several Bible commentators agree with the reading as found in the KJB. Matthew Henry, who often made textual corrections to the KJB, when commenting on this passage made no attempt to "correct" the KJB but rather said this verse means: "the duty itself - to hold fast the profession of our faith, to embrace all the truths and ways of the gospel, to get fast hold on them, and to keep that hold against all temptation and opposition."

Jamison, Faucett and Brown, who likewise often correct the KJB, say the word is elpis or hope but remark "our hope, which is indeed Faith exercised as to the future inheritance."

Another who frequently corrected the KJB was John Gill. In his commentary on Hebrews 10:23 he makes no comment correcting the reading of the KJB's "the profession of our Faith" but rather defines faith here as being "faith - either in the grace or doctrine of faith, or in the profession of both."

Isn't it more than a little hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB here for rendering this word as Faith, yet all other times as Hope? The new versions likewise do many similar things in their translations. For example, the word Faith itself. The Greek word for faith is pistis and by far most of the time the NASB and NIV translate this word as Faith. Yet both translate this same word as Pledge only one time (I Timothy 5:12) and one time only as Proof (Acts 17:31). Are they also wrong for departing from the usual sense of the word and only one time translating it with a totally different word too? And they did this not once but twice.

We can easily say that Proof, and Pledge and Faith are not at all the same things in English, yet words have different shades of meaning depending upon the context.

In Summary, we see that the evidence for the KJB being correct or, at the very least, not in error for translating elpis as Faith in Hebrews 10:23 are # 1 - the Lexicons of Liddell and Scott, and that of Kittle; # 2 - other translations both foreign and in English of the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1858, the Latin, Webster's translation, the KJV 21 and the Third Millenium Bible, and # 3 many commentaries which make no attempt to change the reading of the KJB but rather expound it accurately just as it stands with the reading: "the profession of our Faith".

The context as well shows that Faith is the better choice here than Hope. The context is the once for all sacrifice of our Lord, the remission of our sins and no more offering to be made for sins.

In holding fast the profession (what we speak and confirm) of our faith, is it more accurate to say "I hope I am forgiven", or "I believe (have faith) that I am forgiven"? Therefore God guided the KJB translators in giving the proper full weight to this word elpis as being equivalent to faith and what we firmly trust in and confess before others.

Will Kinney

 

Larry, the "changes" in the KJB are nothing more than printing errors which were soon corrected. There are printing errors today in the NASB, NKJV that I know of. Some are corrected at they get noticed. There are printing errors in just about every book that comes off the presses, and in 1611 the printing process was far more faulty than it is today.

Your NASB, however has changed the text itself several times, and this intentionally.

I noticed the quotes by men at the one site you posted. Here are a couple of them.

"All subsequent copies or translations are "inspired" only to the extent that they accurately represent the autographs." [HOMER KENT, Spire (Fall, 1983), pg. 3]

This is interesting. How does this man know what "the autographs" actually say? They don't exist and he has never seen them. Maybe he hopes nobody will notice that he is just blowing a lot of pious sounding smoke, and in reality has no final authority but his own mind.

"Versions, or translations, are not inspired. If they were, all of them would be just alike. But the original manuscript was inspired." [B. H. CARROLL, as quoted in James M. Gray's A Coffer of Jewels About Our Infallible, Eternal Word of God pg. 272]

Again, how does he know the original was inspired? Has he seen it? He accepts this by faith, doesn't he. His first statement is also faulty. I agree that not ALL translations are inspired, but this man says translations are not inspired. Where did he get this idea? Surely not from the Bible. The Bible has many examples of translations that are inspired.

You see, these guys are not on biblical grounds. They have no sure word of God and don't want us to have one either.

"As to our being "left without a standard", through the multiplicity and variety of translations, we have only to say that there can, in the nature of things, be no perfect standard but the Hebrew and Greek originals; these, being written by inspired men, are infallible, while all translations by men uninspired must be more or less imperfect. The number of translations cannot affect the original." [SAMUEL AARON  &  DAVID BERNARD, The Faithful Translation (1842) pg. 30]

Again, more smoke and mirrors. If there is "no perfect standard but the Hebrew and Greek originals", then we have no standard, do we. They are lost for ever. This is the thinking of modern scholarship.

 

I will post the site of Mr. Reagan's arguments about the printing errors in the KJB, but this short article is a correspondence between him and a questioner.

Ezekiel 24:7
 
I recently had correspondence with a man who is dealing with the Bible issue in England.  He gave me permission to use the correspondence to help others.  For privacy, his name has been withheld and the text has been slightly edited for readability.
 
The correspondence deals with the question of differences between the King James Bible actually printed in 1611 and the one we have today—specifically with the text of Ezekiel 24:7. 
 
QUESTION:
 
Dear Pastor Reagan, greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am sending you this E-Mail as I need some help!!!!
 
A bookshop owner here in England (Michael Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House) has recently produced a leaflet called "Is the King James Version Perfect?" in which he lists all of the 'errors' in the AV, details the differences between the 1611 and the one we have today and also belittles those of us that hold the AV to be the infallible word of God. A couple of brothers and I are preparing a thorough reply to this leaflet. I believe that if we don't it may do some Bible believers some harm. The Lord helping us we have managed to answer nearly all of the points he raises. However he does make reference to a textual change in Ezekiel 24v7.
 
1611 KJV "she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust."
 
Current KJV "she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust."
 
Penfold then asks in light of this, which one is the infallible word of God?
 
I have a copy of your article entitled  The Myth of Early Revisions which has been most helpful. However, with regard to the above, it is obviously a textual change with the reading being opposite.  Albeit I note Dr Scrivener records it as being amended in 1613.
 
Although I have some ideas, I would be grateful if you could please offer some advice on this one as if we can 'nail' this point then we can go back to Mr Penfold and God willing help him to change his mind.
Yours in Christ
 
 
ANSWER from Brother Reagan:
 
Brother H,
 
Thank you for your letter.  I am always interested in the latest attacks on the word of God.  Perhaps you could tell me a little about yourself.  I don't think I have ever corresponded with you before.
 
Pulling out Ezekiel 24:7 shows me the desperation to which these fellows are driven to attack the King James Bible.  It is so obviously a printing error in the 1611 edition that it hardly needs defense.  However, I will do so for those who need it.
 
Any particular copy of the King James Bible does not have to be error-free for the Bible to be the infallibly preserved Bible in the English language.  Typographical errors continue to occur in Bibles today even with our superior computer checking and long-term correction of errors.  If any particular copy of the Bible is found to have a misprint, we simply correct it in the next printing or in the text of our particular copy of the Bible.
 
The error in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible in Ezekiel 24:7 is clearly a misprint which was spotted and corrected so early that there can be no honest opposition to this truth.  First, let's eliminate the other possibilities.
 
1.  It is not a textual problem--by this I mean that there is no difference in the Hebrew text that would cause them to translate without the "not."  The Hebrew Massoretic text used for the translation of the King James Bible has the Hebrew word "lo", meaning "no" or "not".  I also checked several modern translations.  They all have the negative so there is no problem with a different Hebrew text. 
 
2.  It is not a translation problem.  There is no reason to believe that the King James translators translated this passage which clearly has a "not" without the negative.  In fact, the early correction (1613) proves that this was an error in the first printing.
 
3.  It is not a doctrinal error.  One of the interesting things about the printing errors in the King James editions is that they are either so benign that hardly any difference can be discerned in meaning or they are so obvious (as in this case) that they are simple to correct.  One early edition had "Printers have persecuted me without cause" in Psalm 119:161.  This is not something to lose our religion over.  Rather, it is amusing to consider what "printers" have done to the Bible.  Correct it in the text (write the correct words in) or in the next printing but don't glee over your superiority to the Bible God has given to us. One other thought: even though the Ezekiel 24:7 example is the opposite of what it should be, I would challenge anyone to try and teach any false doctrine from the misprint.
 
What is it then?  It is a printing error.  Either the handwritten copy of Ezekiel handed to the printers had the not inadvertently left out or the printers themselves failed to see the not when they laid out the type.  I believe that the Lord preserved His word through the translation process, but I do not believe that He kept the hundreds of people involved in the process from making any mistakes.  These few and minor errors would be corrected over a period of time.
 
A simple word like "not" is very easy to leave out when making a copy of something.  However, it is also very easy to put back in when the mistake is discovered.  This was done in 1613--only 2 years after the original printing!  So, for the last 389 years (out of the 391 since the original King James printing), we have had the correct printing in Ezekiel 24:7--the one that certainly matches the translation decision of the 1611 translators. 
 
Attacking the King James Bible on the basis of such printing errors shows a profound hatred for the Bible used by God for the saving of more souls, the sending of more missionaries, the establishing of more churches, the strengthening of more believers and the stirring of more revivals than any other edition of the Bible in any language for the last 2,000 years--including those in the original tongues.  I actually feel sorry for people like that.
 
NOTE: You can study this question further in the The Myth of Early Revisions.
 
 By David F. Reagan