#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

There appears to be some technical difficulty with the last commentary thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=002793

Therefore, I am starting a new thread so that all can post.

This thread is the parallel commentary to the formal debate between Jason Gastrich and Will Kinney:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2766.html

We hope to have the technical issues resolved soon.

Charles Meadows · Sep 17, 2004

The satyr verse is interesting (Is 34:14). I don't have my BHS here at work but I think the word there is sh'ir, literally a young or hairy male goat. The demon implications here are intriguing since there was some belief among semitic people then that demons inhabited the desert wastelands. The animals here could very well be representative of demons inhabiting the land after the destruction by the LORD.

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

I am looking for the last three pages of the #2 KJVO debate commentary thread off of my hard drive. If we get the tech issue out of the way, I will delete these posts:

Page 20

Author Topic: #2 KJV-Onlyism Commentary
New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 14, 2004 09:38 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Will, for your response. It seems there are many others requesting your attention to their questions, so I'll just see what your answers are to them, for now.

Thanks, again, for the time.

I have an open question for others. Aside from the example cited above regarding the word "church" can anyone provide example of the KJV translators having to bend to royal bias in their translation? Are there examples of Anglican bias?

I can agree in that as I read some of the Psalms in the KJV or my Geneva that I see more refined language in the KJV than in the Geneva, but nothing I would see as a bias.

BTW, this is not a challenge. It is a request for information.

Thank you for any responses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 65 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

DHK

Moderator
Member # 152

posted September 14, 2004 10:05 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by New In Christ:

I have an open question for others. Aside from the example cited above regarding the word "church" can anyone provide example of the KJV translators having to bend to royal bias in their translation? Are there examples of Anglican bias?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The word for baptism, "baptidzo," was not translated, but "transliterated. In other words baptism is a made-up word from the Greek taking the Greek letters and making them into an English word. If baptidzo were actually translated they would have put "immersed." That is the meaning of the word. But the translators were bound by political correctness to please the Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as others since there were many that either poured or sprinkled, especially sprinkled. It was the Baptists that immersed. This is another Biblical word that had to be mistranslated because the translators were bound by political correctness to their ecclesiastical authorities.
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5876 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer

Member # 1797

posted September 14, 2004 11:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK: It was the Baptists that immersed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually at this point in history, the Baptists were probably using affusion for baptism. It was certain Anabaptist sects that were practicing immersion.

source

A couple examples of Anglican bias: The use of the term "bishop" instead of "overseer," and the insertion of the phrase "ordained" in Acts 1:22 hinting at Apostolic succession.

The Royal bias is found in the lack of explanatory notes in that the Geneva's extensive use of such was bringing a bit of rebellion about in the Puritans, Baptists and other Seperatists as they discovered the power of sola scriptura.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text."

The motivation behind the KJV translation was in large part due to the Protestant belief that the Bible was the sole source of doctrine (see sola scriptura) and as such should be translated into the local venacular. By the time that the King James Bible was written, there was already a tradition going back almost a hundred years of Bible translation into English, starting with William Tyndale*. At the time of the King James Bible, the authorised version of the Church of England was the Bishops' Bible. The Bishops' Bible, however, enjoyed little popular esteem, and its popularity was eclipsed by the Geneva Bible, whose marginal notes espoused a Protestantism that was too Puritan and radical for King James's taste.

source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*By some reports, William Tyndale was executed because he would not use the word "church" for "congregation". This "heresy" undermined the authority of the established ecclesiastical bodies and led to his martyrdom at the hands of Lord Chancellor Thomas More.

Matthew 16:18
And I saye also vnto the yt thou arte Peter: and apon this rocke I wyll bylde my congregacion. And the gates of hell shall not prevayle ageynst it.

(And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my CONGREGATION and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.) - Tyndale

http://www.reformation.org/thomas-more.html

[ September 14, 2004, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6879 | From: Bremo Bluff, Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 15, 2004 01:16 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DHK:
The word for baptism, "baptidzo," was not translated, but "transliterated. In other words baptism is a made-up word from the Greek taking the Greek letters and making them into an English word. If baptidzo were actually translated they would have put "immersed." That is the meaning of the word. But the translators were bound by political correctness to please the Catholic and Anglican Churches, as well as others since there were many that either poured or sprinkled, especially sprinkled. It was the Baptists that immersed. This is another Biblical word that had to be mistranslated because the translators were bound by political correctness to their ecclesiastical authorities.
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see the word "baptize" and it's derivatives in The Geneva Bible, too. The translators of the Geneva weren't bound by some pressure to appease Catholic or Anglican influences, were they?

Generally, I do see your point about "baptize" being one of those weird transliterations we see from time to time, where the word was assimilited instead of being translated. I just had never seen it as an Anglican, or other bias.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the input.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 65 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer

Member # 1797

posted September 15, 2004 02:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New in Christ -

It should be noted that many words that appear in Tyndale's version, and then consequently in the Geneva were words that were in common usage by the time of these writings. You will also find the word "bishop" in both translations. The etymology of the word is as follows:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etymology: Middle English bisshop, from Old English bisceop, from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos, literally, overseer, from epi- + skeptesthai to look
Merriam-Webster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, like the implications of "church" being an edifice or centrally controlled entity, the implications of the word "bishop" in the common vernacular brought to mind some type of clergyman who oversaw other clergymen. This was NOT the New Testament model that was put forth in the Scriptures (see Acts 20:28). Though the elders oversaw the flock from a council, there is no heirarchy mentioned. If any heirarchy is implied by the New Testament, it was that the Apostles held sway over the elders. We also know that charges could be brought against an overseer from 1Timothy 5:19.

The Geneva was a "grass roots" translation completed in two years borrowing heavily from the wording of Tyndale. Tyndale's manuscripts were outlawed translations based on Erasmus' work. Erasmus was a Catholic scholar heavily persuaded by the pope (Leo X, I think). Thus, words like "baptize," "bishop" and "church" found their way into later translations.
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0biblehistory.htm

The KJV translators had time and resources enough to know that these words were an exageration of the original languages. James, a learned man, likely also recognized this (remember, as king of England he was also head of the church). This was a large part of the reason that James I instructions to the translators included the clause:

The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

source 1
source 2

Note also that the Anglican church was not born of reformation theology, but as a Protestant movement in order that Henry VIII could grant himself a divorce. Though they pulled away from Rome, they maintained Catholic traditions. The term "Roman" Catholic was born from this separation. The Anglicans wanted to retain the name "Catholic" and therefore added the adjective to the RCC.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q072.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6879 | From: Bremo Bluff, Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

Johnv

Baptist Board Addict
Member # 1897

posted September 15, 2004 03:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by New In Christ:
I have an open question for others. Aside from the example cited above regarding the word "church" can anyone provide example of the KJV translators having to bend to royal bias in their translation? Are there examples of Anglican bias?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dunno about Anglican bias, but Elizabethan bias, definitely. The phrase "God forbid" and "God save the King" are strictly Elizabethan in origin. The phrases in scripture are actually "let it not be so" and "may the King live". Interestingly, KJVO's often accuse newer translations of removing the word "God" from scripture in these phrases, even though they were added by translators of the 1600's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10328 | From: Southern California | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 15, 2004 04:33 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
The KJV translators had time and resources enough to know that these words were an exageration of the original languages. James, a learned man, likely also recognized this (remember, as king of England he was also head of the church).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Johnv:
I dunno about Anglican bias, but Elizabethan bias, definitely. The phrase "God forbid" and "God save the King" are strictly Elizabethan in origin. The phrases in scripture are actually "let it not be so" and "may the King live". Interestingly, KJVO's often accuse newer translations of removing the word "God" from scripture in these phrases, even though they were added by translators of the 1600's.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Clint and JohnV, for the examples and links.

I see similar phraseology as that noted above in other, older translations, too (Geneva and Tyndale). So, is the real issue that the KJV translators bowed to the pressure to retain phraseology that had already become a part of the hierarchy of the church?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 65 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

michelle
2,000 Posts Club
Member # 7469

posted September 15, 2004 04:50 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it is worth, my husband (he is still unsaved) has said that the KJB translators were consigned, or in other words, hired to do this job of translation. Therefore they were employees, to do the work, in a much less severe bias, than that of those today of the mv's. In other words, they didn't do this of or for their own personal reasons, as they thought other versions were/are valid. This is the opposite of the baised reasons for those responsible for the mv's who had/have personal motives with much more bias. Also, if one reads the preface to the KJB, they tell you exactly why the King ordered this translation, and hired them so to do this. It was to appease the Puritans.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2073 | From: St. Charles, MO | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer

Member # 1797

posted September 15, 2004 05:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, Michelle, it is practically impossible to avoid translator bias and cultural influence in ANY version. Hence the need for study.

As for James attempting to appease the Puritans, he fell far short of his goal in that matter. There is an abundance of material on the web relating to the Hampton Court conference held in 1604 at which the decision was reached to culminate a new version. The Puritans sought to abandon Catholic practices retained by the Anglicans. Instead James figured a Bible that would replace the Geneva would get these folks out of their reformist mindset. The Bishop's Bible was the first attempt at this same political/religious maneuver but it never caught on.

The Puritans never did accept the KJV but still clung to their Geneva Versions. It was the first Bible with verse numbering, the first "study Bible", and the first to come to American shores during the time of early colonization. The King James Version took many years to catch on as the standard but eventually it did.

Understanding the history of these versions is important to the modern Christian. It destroys the false sense of mysticism that surrounds the KJV and shows us that it did not fall from Heaven like dew.
A good translation? Yes.
A great translation? Yes.
The best translation? Maybe.
A perfect translation? No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6879 | From: Bremo Bluff, Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

DHK

Moderator
Member # 152

posted September 15, 2004 06:08 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle,
A KJVO, speaking of the KJV translators in this way speaks out both sides of his/her mouth.

First, they castigate people as Westcott and Hort for being heretics and tampering with the texts. Obviously they had their agendas and could not possibly be fair and unbiased.

Second, if a group of translators that has translated one of the modern translations all claim to be born again and are evangelical Christians, you will still degrade the translation because they used the wrong texts, were blind to the truth, left out the deity of Christ deliberately, etc. etc. And in so doing you end up attacking their very character.

You can't have it both ways.
You say that the KJV translator were unbiased even though they were Anglican/Catholic possibly unsaved.
But look at some of the literature your own people have written about Westcott and Hort. WoW!!
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5876 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |

Johnv

Baptist Board Addict
Member # 1897

posted September 15, 2004 06:48 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by New In Christ:
I see similar phraseology as that noted above in other, older translations, too (Geneva and Tyndale). So, is the real issue that the KJV translators bowed to the pressure to retain phraseology that had already become a part of the hierarchy of the church?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIC, I think the issue comes down more to this:

The language used in the KJV includes syntax and terminology that was in regular use in the 1600's, but is no longer in use, or has changed meaning, since then. The word "brass" and "corn" are good examples. The words we would use in these instances today are "bronze" and "grain".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 10328 | From: Southern California | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

michelle
2,000 Posts Club
Member # 7469

posted September 15, 2004 10:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
The language used in the KJV includes syntax and terminology that was in regular use in the 1600's, but is no longer in use, or has changed meaning, since then. The word "brass" and "corn" are good examples. The words we would use in these instances today are "bronze" and "grain".
--------------------------------------------------

Even though they may be archaic, doesn't make them in error.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2073 | From: St. Charles, MO | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

DHK

Moderator
Member # 152

posted September 15, 2004 11:27 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
The language used in the KJV includes syntax and terminology that was in regular use in the 1600's, but is no longer in use, or has changed meaning, since then. The word "brass" and "corn" are good examples. The words we would use in these instances today are "bronze" and "grain".
--------------------------------------------------

Even though they may be archaic, doesn't make them in error.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly right. Archaic words may not be wrong. The word "conversation" for example is an archaic word that although today means "speech," then it meant "behaviour," or "manner of life." But we come to a problem in Phil.3:20.

Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

Is our speech in Heaven? No.
Is our behaviour, our way of life in Heaven? No.

Then what is in Heaven? What is meant by "conversation" that the KJV so poorly translated here, and for all intent and purposes were in error.

Perhaps Michelle can enlighten us. I know that the ASV can. (as well as a good Greek lexicon)
DHK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 5876 | From: Edmonton, AB | Registered: Jul 2000 | IP: Logged |

New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 16, 2004 06:10 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Johnv:
NIC, I think the issue comes down more to this:

The language used in the KJV includes syntax and terminology that was in regular use in the 1600's, but is no longer in use, or has changed meaning, since then. The word "brass" and "corn" are good examples. The words we would use in these instances today are "bronze" and "grain".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. That is true,and I thank you for taking the time to respond. However, I think those are really examples of usage. I'm more looking for examples of some bias or pressure being exerted on the translators, by King James, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or otherwise.

If I'm understanding properly what's being said here, some of the ecclesiastical language in the KJV was not so much inserted by the KJV translators (the word "ordained" in Acts 1:22 being a possible exception), rather, the translators, who should have known better, were under pressure to preserve the ecclesiastical status-quo. Thus they avoided translations of words that, while potentially more accurate, may have threatened it. Is this a fair assessment?

It seems to me this has to be the case, if one is to suggest a bias in the KJV since some of the same ecclesiastical language (bishop instead of overseer, church instead of congregation or assembly, etc.) is found in older translations, such as Geneva and Tyndale, which were not at all beholden to the Anglican or Catholic church.

Again, thank you for the information and responses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 65 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

Bro. James
Junior Member
Member # 9545

posted September 16, 2004 07:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings and Salutations in the name of the Lord,

I am new to this format of dialogue. Please bear with my learning curve which may be rather lengthy.

In as much as there seems to be no specific question on the floor, I will adddress the subject: KJV-Only. This will be done in a commentary format.

The Apostle(one sent by God with a specific message)Paul(formerly called Saul)dictated these words to someone who could see to write: "Study to show thyself approved unto God; a workman who needth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth." See letters to Timothy in the Holy Writ. There are at least two things that seem obvious from this scripture: 1. God approves of a studious child, and 2. There is a right way and a wrong way to study.

Jesus in John Ch. 3 chided a rabbi, Nicodemus: a paraphrase would be: 'you are a master of Israel and know not of what I speak: YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN TO SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD.'

I would contend that one must be BORN FROM ABOVE to rightly divide, translate, transliterate, or anything else regarding the Word of God. There is another qualification here: the Scripture is understandable only through spiritual discernment. Does this mean one has to be a "right reverend doctor" to understand it? No, Jesus said a little child could understand.

Now that I have insulted those with letters. Let me clarify: there is nothing wrong with a child of God being a Doctor of Theology provided such is not being a "respecter of persons" or a "Nicolaitian' (an overthrower of the people).

I see this will have to be in segments.

Brotherly,
Bro. James
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2 | From: Denham Springs, Louisiana, USA | Registered: Sep 2004 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

Page 22

Author Topic: #2 KJV-Onlyism Commentary
Jason Gastrich
Member
Member # 8973

posted September 17, 2004 04:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you have defined the unicorn in your website as rhinocerous, then you ought to have the integrity to come forth and say that the KJV translators made a mistake when they translated this word "rheem" as unicorn, and should have translated it "rhinocerous" (in your opinion), or wild ox (in the opinion of others).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I second this notion.

JG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 92 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Registered: Jul 2004 | IP: Logged |

Will J. Kinney
Active Member
Member # 1018

posted September 17, 2004 05:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnv posts:

"Jesus" in Heb. 4 should be "Joshua".
"Easter" in Acts 12 should be "Passover".
"Made" in John 1:3 should be "came into being".
"Firmament" in Gen. 1 should be "expanse".
"Wind" in John 3:8 should be translated "Spirit" (pnuema is so translated everywhere else in the Bible - there is another word for wind).
"comprehended it not" in John 1:5 should read "did not overtake it".
--------------------------------------------------
Sister Michelle>>>And these of course, are your own opinions, and not at all the truth. There are not errors in the scriptures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pope Johnv>>>No, those are matters of fact, not simply my opinion. This is a clear case of where you unfortunately choose to stick your head in the sand and believe a lie, rather than the truth. ..
Kindly show me scriptural support for this view (I think that's the 45th time I've asked). <<<

John, sister Michelle is right. These examples are only your own opinions. Go to any site where there are more than 20 English Bible translations and take the time to look up the passages you suggest are errors in the KJB.

See how other "scholars" probably far more qualified than you have translated those passages. You will find that many other translators have translated exactly as found in the KJB, and maybe a few might even agree with a couple of yours, but not all the ones you suggest.

You will also find other ways these translators have rendered those passages.

You, like everyone else I have seen here who does not believe the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God, have made your own mind to be the final authority and are making up your "bible" as you go wherever it is you're going.

Have a nice trip.

Will Kinney
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 534 | From: Thornton Colorado | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged |

Will J. Kinney
Active Member
Member # 1018

posted September 17, 2004 06:20 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More falsehoods from people who don't have a clue.

"A couple examples of Anglican bias: The use of the term "bishop" instead of "overseer," and the insertion of the phrase "ordained" in Acts 1:22 hinting at Apostolic succession."

If anyone cares to take the time to actually look at the New Testament translations, they will find that the word "bishop", as in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, is found in the following "Anglican" versions:

Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's, John Wesley 1755-another good Anglican-, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard, and the Third Millenium Bible to name a few.

As for the "ordained" in Acts 1:22 this is also the reading of Tyndale, Bishops' Bible, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The reason the word "ordained" is used there is because the context demands it. They were filling the spot vacated by the death of Judas and they looked to God to appoint who would fill his ministry and apostleship. Reading the context will go a long way to help us understand why things are phrased the way they are.

As for the alleged Catholic influence, the Catholic Douay-Rheims version reads "must one BE MADE a witness".

Just thought I would toss in a few verifiable facts in the midst of all this rampant speculation and hubris.

Have a good day,

Will K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 534 | From: Thornton Colorado | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged |

New In Christ
Member
Member # 7491

posted September 17, 2004 07:37 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
The reason the word "ordained" is used there is because the context demands it. They were filling the spot vacated by the death of Judas and they looked to God to appoint who would fill his ministry and apostleship. Reading the context will go a long way to help us understand why things are phrased the way they are.

As for the alleged Catholic influence, the Catholic Douay-Rheims version reads "must one BE MADE a witness".

Just thought I would toss in a few verifiable facts in the midst of all this rampant speculation and hubris.

Have a good day,

Will K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will,

Thank you for adding your comments. I read them, as I do the others, with interest. Your above observation leaves me with a couple of questions. First, I can't say I think the context demands the term "ordained." Granted, I'm no expert, but the text is very straightforward and readable with just "made". Second, if the manuscript does not have the word, "ordained," should it not simply be translated as it appears in the manuscript?

Thank you, Will, for your patience and input.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 66 | From: Maryland | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

Bro. James
Junior Member
Member # 9545

posted September 17, 2004 07:50 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From whence I cometh: Perhaps the following set of paradigms will explain my basic stand on the subject of translations as well as a majority of the subjects on this forum. Forgive my chasing of conies and verbosity.

1. God is. He is the creator of the everything. He was not an evolutionist. He created Mankind in His image--not a monkey's. The first family, Adam and Eve contained the gene pool for every human (past and present) on this planet.

1a. Corollary: God as referenced above is not Allah, GAOTU, Krishna, Baal, Ashtoreth, Ra, Bacchus, etc. etc. ad infinitum. While it is true that God is infinite in every holy regard, mankind knows not how to describe Him. In fact, man has serious problems with the concept of omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. On the other hand, many men have tried and continue to strive to become god. Man has serious difficulty with: God is the potter--man is the clay. The reason for man's difficulty: he is totally depraved in every regard of his triune being. His mind is corrupted, his body is corrupted and the Spirit of God which God breathed into Adam is dead(separated from God) in trespasses and sin. It is written: "All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." "The wages of sin is death."
The next paradigm will follow later:

Brotherly,

James
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3 | From: Denham Springs, Louisiana, USA | Registered: Sep 2004 | IP: Logged |

michelle
2,000 Posts Club
Member # 7469

posted September 17, 2004 09:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Since you have defined the unicorn in your website as rhinocerous, then you ought to have the integrity to come forth and say that the KJV translators made a mistake when they translated this word "rheem" as unicorn, and should have translated it "rhinocerous" (in your opinion), or wild ox (in the opinion of others).
--------------------------------------------------

Actually it has been shown, that the word unicorn is the most accurate word for this, as a unicorn means a one-horned beast. No one knows for sure, just what beast is being referred to.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2083 | From: St. Charles, MO | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged |

LarryN

Active Member
Member # 6891

posted September 17, 2004 10:18 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Since you have defined the unicorn in your website as rhinocerous, then you ought to have the integrity to come forth and say that the KJV translators made a mistake when they translated this word "rheem" as unicorn, and should have translated it "rhinocerous" (in your opinion), or wild ox (in the opinion of others).
--------------------------------------------------

Actually it has been shown, that the word unicorn is the most accurate word for this, as a unicorn means a one-horned beast. No one knows for sure, just what beast is being referred to.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michelle,

Perhaps you could tell us what you believe "satyr" to mean in this verse in the KJV:

Isaiah 34:14 (KJV)
"The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest."

------------------------------------------

Here's how the Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "satyr":

SA'TYR, n. [l. satyrus; Gr. a monkey, a fawn.]

In mythology, a sylvan deity or demi-god, represented as a monster, half man and half goat, having horns on his head, a hairy body, with the feet and tail of a goat. Satyrs are usually found in the train of Bacchus, and have been distinguished for lasciviousness and riot. They have been represented as remarkable for their piercing eyes and keen raillery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 515 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Sep 2003 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer

Member # 1797

posted September 17, 2004 10:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
If anyone cares to take the time to actually look at the New Testament translations, they will find that the word "bishop", as in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, is found in the following "Anglican" versions:

Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster's, John Wesley 1755-another good Anglican-, the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard, and the Third Millenium Bible to name a few.

As for the "ordained" in Acts 1:22 this is also the reading of Tyndale, Bishops' Bible, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, and the Third Millenium Bible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So is this perhaps a good example of where the KJV is simply a revision of Tyndale's Bible? I thought your contention was that it used the TR, the "pure water poured from vessel to vessel."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason the word "ordained" is used there is because the context demands it. They were filling the spot vacated by the death of Judas and they looked to God to appoint who would fill his ministry and apostleship. Reading the context will go a long way to help us understand why things are phrased the way they are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demands it, huh? So the KJV translators had to clarify God's perfect word? The first inspiration was not adequate to do so? Did the TR manuscripts have a "mistake" by omitting the word "ordained"?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Will September 06, 2004 02:03 PM Eastern:

The KJB is not re-inspired. I never said that. God's words are like water. If I take this same water and put it into another vessel, even of a different shape, and there is no addition or subtraction of the water, it is the same water.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2767/16.html#000234
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6882 | From: Bremo Bluff, Virginia | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged |

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

If anyone can find page 21 in their temporary internet files, please post it.

Again, we hope to have this issue resolved soon.

You can locate the specified temp files in a Windows system by following this procedure:

Go to Start > Find (or Search) > Files or Folders

On the "Name and Location" tab fill in the field marked "Named" with "ultimatebb".

In the field marked "Containing Text" type in "page 21".

Click the "Advanced" tab and in the "Of Type" field, find HTML document from the dropdown box.

Click "Find Now".

[ September 17, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

Pieces I can reconstruct of page 21 of the failed thread from my hard drive:

Bro. James:

By way of clarification: my reference to children was to emphasis the fact that the simplicity of the gospel is more readily apparent to those who have not yet been brainwashed by the "hallowed halls of higher textual criticism." Certainly children are unable to translate; but they can certainly be drawn by the Holy Spirit through someone who has been born again. This brings up my basic point: many so-called Christian endeavors have been been undertaken by those who are not born again. This includes those who would teach in seminary, preach the gospel, translate the scripture and many other vocations.(not callings)

Many so-called churches have been and continue to be filled with "repeat after me salvation" members. It is written:"For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works; which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Apostle Paul to the Assembly at Ephesus(and to all Assemblies) i.e. Eph. 2:8-10. Notice: the faith to believe in God's Plan of Salvation is a gift of God. One has not a shred of faith without God's gift. In fact we have no inclination toward God whatsoever without the conviction and drawing of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word. Yes, " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."

All of this rhetoric about this translation and that translation is mostly a confusion tactic by the author of confusion--the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air. Satan beguiled Eve by misquoting God's Word. He also appealed to her flesh: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. He is using similar tactics today.

So, what is the best English Translation? The one which uses the Received Text. That's the KJV. Which edition--there are several? Don't know. The Geneva is also a good choice. I believe the KJV was ordered by King James II to prevent the Geneva from getting into the hands of his subjects. The Geneva translators had made some marginal comments which the king found subversive to his rule. Hence the "Authorized Version." By the way, the Received Text was not used to translate the Douay Confraternity--the only English version authorized by the Holy See-- which has never recognized the Received Text. In fact the Holy See has tried to destroy translations of the Received Text as well as those who were willing to die for the Truth.
To say that we owe our translations of the Holy Writ to the watchcare of the Holy See is just plain without basis in fact.

God has spoken. He said what He meant. He meant what He said. It behoves us to find out what He said.

Selah.
Bro. James

Clint:

New in Christ -

It should be noted that many words that appear in Tyndale's version, and then consequently in the Geneva were words that were in common usage by the time of these writings. You will also find the word "bishop" in both translations. The etymology of the word is as follows:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Etymology: Middle English bisshop, from Old English bisceop, from Late Latin episcopus, from Greek episkopos, literally, overseer, from epi- + skeptesthai to look
Merriam-Webster

However, like the implications of "church" being an edifice or centrally controlled entity, the implications of the word "bishop" in the common vernacular brought to mind some type of clergyman who oversaw other clergymen. This was NOT the New Testament model that was put forth in the Scriptures (see Acts 20:28). Though the elders oversaw the flock from a council, there is no heirarchy mentioned. If any heirarchy is implied by the New Testament, it was that the Apostles held sway over the elders. We also know that charges could be brought against an overseer from 1Timothy 5:19.

The Geneva was a "grass roots" translation completed in two years borrowing heavily from the wording of Tyndale. Tyndale's manuscripts were outlawed translations based on Erasmus' work. Erasmus was a Catholic scholar heavily persuaded by the pope (Leo X, I think). Thus, words like "baptize," "bishop" and "church" found their way into later translations.
http://www.williamtyndale.com/0biblehistory.htm

The KJV translators had time and resources enough to know that these words were an exageration of the original languages. James, a learned man, likely also recognized this (remember, as king of England he was also head of the church). This was a large part of the reason that James I instructions to the translators included the clause:

The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

souce 1
source 2

Note also that the Anglican church was not born of reformation theology, but as a Protestant movement in order that Henry VIII could grant himself a divorce. Though they pulled away from Rome, they maintained Catholic traditions. The term "Roman" Catholic was born from this separation. The Anglicans wanted to retain the name "Catholic" and therefore added the adjective to the RCC.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions [/QUOTE]Clint:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by New In Christ:
If I'm understanding properly what's being said here, some of the ecclesiastical language in the KJV was not so much inserted by the KJV translators (the word "ordained" in Acts 1:22 being a possible exception), rather, the translators, who should have known better, were under pressure to preserve the ecclesiastical status-quo. Thus they avoided translations of words that, while potentially more accurate, may have threatened it. Is this a fair assessment?

Speaking for myself, yes, in large part the translators' bias is shown in the retention of those words. The use of the term "ordained" is one exception of an insertion of a word that introduced Anglican bias into the text. Another example building upon the same premise is found in verses such as 1Timothy 3:10, 13 in which the word "office of" is inserted before "deacon". There is nothing in the Greek that supports this translation. The diaconate in Catholicism and Anglicanism is considered a tie and stepping stone towards the clergy.

While most Protestant denominations term "deacon" as an "office," churches (congregations?

) are always in danger of the diaconate becoming a "ruling board" which is completely counter to their intended purpose.

It seems to me this has to be the case, if one is to suggest a bias in the KJV since some of the same ecclesiastical language (bishop instead of overseer, church instead of congregation or assembly, etc.) is found in older translations, such as Geneva and Tyndale, which were not at all beholden to the Anglican or Catholic church.

The thing is, these terms WERE and ARE beholden to the Catholic Church. Just as Tyndale and the Geneva authors inherited these terms, many of us still call the auditorium of a church building a "sanctuary." We have "altar" calls. Some still use the term "sacrament" for the Lord's Supper. These are all Catholic teachings that we inherited and have yet to leave our vocabulary, despite our knowledge that such are non-Sciptural.

Originally posted by Bro. James:
I would contend that one must be BORN FROM ABOVE to rightly divide, translate, transliterate, or anything else regarding the Word of God. There is another qualification here: the Scripture is understandable only through spiritual discernment. Does this mean one has to be a "right reverend doctor" to understand it? No, Jesus said a little child could understand.

Hello Brother James and welcome to the Baptist Board. Your input is appreciated.

In the quote above you make a good point. Jesus promised us Spiritual discernment in John 8:47 and 18:37. As for your reference to children, the context was that our faith in Christ was to be like that of a child (c.f. - Matthew 18:2-5; 19:13-14). I do not see in these Passages that rightly discerning the Scriptures requires the mind of a child. To the contrary, Paul speaking on this same issue (Spiritual discernment) said in 1Corinthians 13:

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Paul also said of his audience in Corinth:

1 Corinthians 3
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

Yes, a saving faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior requires the faith of a child. Rightly dividing the truth of the Scriptures, however, requires a maturing of the spiritual man.[/QUOTE]

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

More:

Clint:

Originally posted by Bro. James:
By way of clarification: my reference to children was to emphasis the fact that the simplicity of the gospel is more readily apparent to those who have not yet been brainwashed by the "hallowed halls of higher textual criticism." Certainly children are unable to translate; but they can certainly be drawn by the Holy Spirit through someone who has been born again.

It is indeed the Holy Spirit which calls one to salvation and those who have not the faith will not be saved.

Hebrews 4
2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

This brings up my basic point: many so-called Christian endeavors have been been undertaken by those who are not born again. This includes those who would teach in seminary, preach the gospel, translate the scripture and many other vocations.(not callings)

Indeed, the KJV translators were Anglican scholars overseen by Anglican clergy commissioned by a monarch who believed in the doctrine of the "divine right of kings." It is truly amazing that God can such fragile and faulty vessels to bring about His Will! Even Cyrus, a Gentile, pagan king was called "messiah" by Isaiah in 45:1 of his Book.

Many so-called churches have been and continue to be filled with "repeat after me salvation" members. It is written:"For by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works; which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Apostle Paul to the Assembly at Ephesus(and to all Assemblies) i.e. Eph. 2:8-10. Notice: the faith to believe in God's Plan of Salvation is a gift of God. One has not a shred of faith without God's gift. In fact we have no inclination toward God whatsoever without the conviction and drawing of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word. Yes, " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."

Well said, well quoted and amen!

All of this rhetoric about this translation and that translation is mostly a confusion tactic by the author of confusion--the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air.

If by "rhetoric" you mean statements that can not be backed, opinions projected as doctrines, misrepresentations of the truth in order to prove a sentimentality towards a translation of the Bible, I would have to agree.

If by "rhetoric" you mean presenting convincing arguments dispelling untruths about honest, scholarly efforts to bring to the Christian reader an accurate translation of the word of God, I would say that you are in error. If a translation of the Scriptures can bring about the repentance, confession, and regeneration of a sinner, it can not have the devil as its author. The Pharisees accused Christ of being Beelzebul when He cast the demon from that poor soul in Galilee. His reply:

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? Matthew 12:25-26

Satan beguiled Eve by misquoting God's Word. He also appealed to her flesh: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. He is using similar tactics today.

Actually, satan asked Eve what God had said about eating from trees. It was Eve who misquoted God in Gensis 3:3. Satan then straight out denied what God had said.

But, yes, his tactics are quite the same today.

So, what is the best English Translation? The one which uses the Received Text. That's the KJV. Which edition--there are several? Don't know.

Best? I'll accept your opinion on that and have no qualms with it. As for the Received Text part of your quote, well, that needs a little more clarity. We discussed the TR back on pages 10-14 or so of this thread and I posted this quote from the strongly proKJV Way of Life site:

“The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. HENCE THE KING JAMES VERSION OUGHT TO BE REGARDED NOT MERELY AS A TRANSLATION OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BUT ALSO AS AN INDEPENDENT VARIETY OF THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS.

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/whichtr.htm

The Geneva is also a good choice.

The modern counterparts to it, yes, and the margin notes still contain a great deal of insight that should not be overlooked. It was indeed a great, scholarly effort.

For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. John 3:16 Geneva

I believe the KJV was ordered by King James II to prevent the Geneva from getting into the hands of his subjects. The Geneva translators had made some marginal comments which the king found subversive to his rule. Hence the "Authorized Version."

Since James I "authorized" the work on the Bible translation and he was an Anglican, it contained the Apocrypha. This was removed in 1769 and that text is what most folks refer to when they say the "Authorized Version."

By the way, the Received Text was not used to translate the Douay Confraternity--the only English version authorized by the Holy See-- which has never recognized the Received Text. In fact the Holy See has tried to destroy translations of the Received Text as well as those who were willing to die for the Truth.
To say that we owe our translations of the Holy Writ to the watchcare of the Holy See is just plain without basis in fact.

While I recognize the passion with which you make this assertion, it is totally erroneous. The TR was developed by the work of Erasmus, a Catholic monk and scholar working under the close scrutiny of Leo X. That Greek translation which underwent many transformations and was not even called the Textus Receptus until 1633, 22 years after the KJV 1611.

[added note: the statement that the Douay-Rheims version does not use the TR is accurate. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate. - CK]

God has spoken. He said what He meant. He meant what He said. It behoves us to find out what He said.

Brother James, I can tell by your writing style that you must be a great orator and I would dearly love to hear you preach. But please understand that the search for clarity through translations is nearly as old as Christianity:

"You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices." - Erasmus

"It would seem that it cannot be lawful to be angry. For Jerome in his exposition on Mt. 5:22, 'Whosoever is angry with his brother,' etc. says: 'Some codices add without cause. However, in the genuine codices the sentence is unqualified, and anger is forbidden altogether.'" - Thomas Aquinas

"Those who are anxious to know the Scriptures ought in the first place to use their skill in the correction of the texts, so that the uncorrected ones should give way to the corrected." --Augustine

source

By the way, Staever, if you are still reading, I found another source at which you can compare the different TRs along side the KJV:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/title.html

michelle:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
All of these verses make sense to the modern English ear, but the intention is lost, sometimes reversed, in the archaic meanings. Without the use of a modern version, a lexicon, or explanation by one who is knowledgable on the intent of these verses, the modern reader is misled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This of course, is by far, much better than the alternative of relying upon something that has altered the words of God. Archaic words in the KJB are few and far between, and can be easily explained or understood by virtue of context and rightly dividing the word of truth. Sacrificing accuracy, and at the expense of the truth for more easily understood words (and in few cases),
is not at all worth, beneficial nor justified for the alterations in them.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

[/QUOTE]

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

More:

DHK:

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hi D, just a couple of comments on you thoughts about Acts 19:37 "robbers of churches"

You say, in part..."One "little error" in the KJV proves beyone any shadow of a doubt that the KJV is not "inerrant," is not "infallible," and thus is not "inspired." The inspired Word of God MUSY be perfect, without error whatsoever. "

I agree. However you are placing your own very limited understanding as the final authority. One of the reasons I show how other Bible translators have translated a word or a passage is to show that many whole groups of men who knew a whole lot more about Greek, Hebrew and English than you or I ever will, and have translated these words exactly the same way as did the KJB translators.

Well that's good logic Will. "The KJV translator's made a mistake. Let me show you other translations that made the same mistake. That will prove to you that the mistake that they made was not a mistake." Do two wrongs make a right? Perhaps that is why the mv advocates are showing you in other versions how it is better translated, and you are not paying attention. You have your head in the sand, and will not admit there is a mistake just because some others made the same mistake. That's not very good logic.

The men behind the KJB were far more knowledgable than any group of scholars that could be assembled today. Have you ever read anything about their backgrounds? Doubtful.

Click to expand...

They were indeed very good scholars. I won't doubt that. But they were high Anglican/Catholic people with very biased opinions in certain areas, and were limited in their scope of translation because they had to be "politically correct" according to the authorities that were in power at that time.

D, you show your ignorance by many things you have said. First of all you now say: " The fact is that there is a Greek word for church--kuriokos. That word is not found here."

D, I suggest you go back to your school-boy Greek and look up the normal word for "church" - it is not kuriokos. Even people who don't know much Greek know that the word is ekklesia.

Click to expand...

Surely you can do better than this. You are showing your ignorance here. The word for "church" is "kuriokos." The word for assembly is "ekklesia." The problem here is that the KJV translators rarely translated ekklesia correctly, but because their hands were tied to political correctness they were forced to translate the word "church." It does not mean church; it means assembly. This is shown in Acts 19:

Acts 19:39-41 But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. For we are in danger to be called in question for this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may give an account of this concourse. And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.

Why wasn't the word "church" used here. The answer is obvious isn't it. They were in a theatre, gathered as an assembly. They were assembled together. The word ekklesia, in every case, means assembly. The KJV translators translated ekklesia wrong every time they used the word "church," a grievous error on their part. It means assembly or congregation. Kuriokos means church, not ekklesia. Ekklesia means assembly.

Secondly, you have claimed that you think everything should be translated "literally", yet I showed you some examples of where the literal sense is nonsense, and even you agreed as well as Young's "literal" - hah! - translation. So I guess you should modify your statement to "A good translation should be literal, except when I don't think it should be literal."

Click to expand...

I already answered this for you. I believe you failed to understand my answer. The translators job is to translate. The readers job is to study and find out the sense of the meaning. It is not the job of the translator to paraphrase and interpret.

Thirdly, many Bible translators have rendered this word as "robbers of churches" in both English and foreign language translations, both ancient and modern. Get over it.

Click to expand...

Get over what? That two wrongs make a right?
That just because you can find others that make the same mistake that makes it right. Is this a game in who can find the most mistakes, or who can render the correct translation from the original languages. I think I know the answer from your point of view. Pitiful!

Fourthly, and very significantly, you reveal your ignorance of the nature of the very basis of your textual position. You have said that you believe the TR is God's words.

D, there is no such thing as THE TR, or Textus Receptus. If you are referring to the particular version of the TR that underlies the KJB, are you at all remotely aware of where this came from?

Are you using Scrivener's TBS text as your final authority? If so, do you know anything about how this was put together? I doubt it.

When you get off on your tirade about how the KJB mistranslates certain words like unicorns and church, you only show your particular preferences, which are not shared by many others far more educated than you. You are not speaking the oracles of God.

Click to expand...

You are right. What I presented as my preference as the translation of unicorn is not the widely accepted preference. It was, for the sake of argument, YOURS--the one you claimed on your own website. You were the one that said the unicorn was probably a rhinocerous. I gave YOU the benefit of the doubt and went with that. So even with your translation of the word, why didn't the KJV translator's use the word "rhinocerous" instead of the mythological Greek pagan word of "unicorn?" FYI I prefer the more accepted definition of wild ox. Check other translations. But the fact stands, the KJV translator didn't translate the word either way. They mistakenly translated the word "unicorn" appealing to Greek mythology--a definite mistake. Accept it!

Your present position is just like the Whateverists. You have no complete, inerrant Bible that exists anywhere on this earth except in your own mind, and your little "bible" differs radically from every other "bible" out there.

Click to expand...

You have shot yourself in the foot. If the word for church is wrong. If the word for unicorn is wrong. If the word for so many others that have been presented to you have been translated wrong, and you have no good answer (which you have not presented yet), then you do not have an inerrant, infallible, inspired Bible, anywhere on this earth, except in your own mind, and you little "bible" differs radically from every other "bible" out there. Too bad that is the way you think. It is too bad that 2,700 languages of the world don't have the Word of God. It is too bad that 90% of the world doesn't have the Word of God. Your God is one of the most cruel Gods I have ever known. Only those that can understand KJV English can understand God. You have a very limited view of God.

If you are so determined to "literally" translate everything, then please tell us how you would translate the word ekklesia in Acts 19:32, and 39.

Click to expand...

As already answered, they are correctly translated assembly. It is the word church that is wrongly translated. How many mistakes does the KJV have. Since the word "church" is mentioned over 100 times that makes more than 100 errors in the KJV.

There we read: "Some cried one thing, and some another: for THE ASSEMBLY was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together."

Click to expand...

I love it. An accurate translation, accurately translating the word ekklesia, for once. Why didn't they do it the other 100 plus times?

And..."But if ye enquire any thing concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful ASSEMBLY."

Click to expand...

It certainly wasn't a church was it?

Was this mob of people who exalted Diana of the Ephesians and went about to stone Paul a "church", and then the governor told them they should bring their cause before a lawful "church"?

Click to expand...

It was an assembly just like the word means. I hope you have learned a little Greek by now.

What would your "literal" bible, that yet has no existence anywhere save in your own mind, look like in these places?

Click to expand...

A lot more accurate!!
DHK [/QUOTE]

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

A fuller reply to Will Kinney's post of September 17, 2004 06:20 AM:

Here's an example of theological translator bias to chew on:

Hebrews 6 - Verse 6. If they shall fall away
[Greek omitted] And having fallen away. I can express my own mind on this translation nearly in the words of Dr. Macknight: "The participles [Greek omitted], who were enlightened, [Greek omitted], have tasted, and [Greek omitted], were made partakers, being aorists, are properly rendered by our translators in the past time; wherefore, [Greek omitted], being an aorist, ought likewise to have been translated in the past time, HAVE fallen away. Nevertheless, our translators, following Beza, who without any authority from ancient MSS. has inserted in his version the word si, if, have rendered this clause, IF they fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add to or alter the Scriptures, for the sake of any favourite doctrine, I have translated [Greek omitted] in the past time, have fallen away, according to the true import of the word, as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses."

Dr. Macknight was a Calvinist, and he was a thorough scholar and an honest man; but, professing to give a translation of the epistle, he consulted not his creed but his candour. Had our translators, who were excellent and learned men, leaned less to their own peculiar creed in the present authorized version, the Church of Christ in this country would not have been agitated and torn as it has been with polemical divinity.

The Adam Clarke Commentary
source

As for the alleged Catholic influence, the Catholic Douay-Rheims version reads "must one BE MADE a witness".

The Douey-Rheims has many verses and phrases in common with other versions. This happens to be one they got right.

For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. John 3:16 Douay Rheims

The end of Revelation in the KJV likely agrees with the Douay-Rheims as well seeing as how they both had the same base source: Jerome's Vulgate. It's all Erasmus had to make his translation. Aleph and B did not contain it.

Just thought I would toss in a few verifiable facts in the midst of all this rampant speculation and hubris.

I will take this as an admission that your previous speculation and hubris was nonverifiable. Else you would have answered the questions I posed.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2793/7.html?#000100

Once again, I am not holding my breath for you to answer these new questions either. You seem to be skilled at not allowing yourself to be trapped into contradiction against your own posts too often. Perhaps you have been called to account before on another forum? Anyone who follows these threads, however, recognizes that your silence speaks volumes.

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

A reissue of my challenge to Will Kinney originally posted September 13, 2004 06:39 PM Eastern:

Will Kinney of Thornton Colorado -

In good faith, I knocked down the straw man you had set up on page 8 of this thread [#2 KJVO commentary]. In doing so I said, "If you have other "reasons" for not answering these questions after this post, please let me know. Since I have answered your questions in good faith, I would ask that you do the same before going on a tangent over these new answers."
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2793/8.html?#000110

As I anticipated, you have no intention of giving me any answers to the refutations I made of your errant points throughout these two threads. You claim to be a defender of the Bible, but you do not act in accordance with the virtues it proclaims.

Just so you know, I am not a seminarian. I have NO formal training in the Bible nor on the subject OF the Bible. I do, however, know what it says and am a faithful student of it. I attempt to live a life that demonstrates that I am not just a hearer of word, but a doer of the word as well. That, sir, is my testimony of what I really think about the Bible. What about you?

If you do not have answers to my questions, then say so. I will appeal to you one more time to show some integrity. You will not even tell me which New Testament verses support Mosaic authorship of Genesis. My 11-year-old could do that. Here, once again, is my list in full quote. I am quite sure you will not answer it. A leopard can not change his spots.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Hi DHK, I noticed you didn't answer my questions to you. Maybe you didn't notice, so here they are again.

I'm glad to see that you are looking to tie up some loose ends with unanswered questions and with both commentary threads becoming so long it would be easy to miss specific questions addressed to specific individuals. In an effort to aid you, I have compiled a short list of the queries I have presented to you that remain unanswered.

The challenge was made to you September 06, 2004 01:12 PM Eastern:

Clint: Your task, Mr. Kinney, is to provide PROOF that the failing belief of the seminary students in 1976 at SBC seminaries was due to modern versions.

In an attempt to answer this, you made a post on September 07, 2004 03:00 PM Eastern, which was answered here in full quote: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2793/2.html?#000025

Further refutation to your post was presented here http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2793/3.html#000032

These refutations prompted these questions (in paraphrase):

Using the example of the SBC's "fundamental resurgence," how was such done through democratic process at the convention if so many of the pastors of the churches of the messengers were apostates trained at SBC seminaries?
Were you aware that the examples of "turning from the truth" that you presented are older (sometimes by centuries) than the modern versions that you condemn and can not be credited to modern theological teaching nor modern versions? (By the way, the assertion that Genesis has multiple authors was first credited to Spinoza.)
Do you still think that the question over the term tachash (badger skins) is new or due to Bible versions?
If I were to present to you a conflict between the Masoretic text and the KJV, would you be willing to admit that the KJV has an error(s), or would you denounce the Jewish manuscripts as "corrupt" and "not accurate"?
To which modern versions specifically do you attribute a "turning away" from the "truth"?
Should you answer this last one and your position has not changed, can you cite specific footnotes, introductions, or any other texts within the specified book that would confirm your position?

Further questions that have been left unanswered:

Can you provide PROOF that the use of archaic terminology in the KJV, without the use of an older or unabridged dictionary, does not impede understanding of the Scriptures?
Can you provide PROOF that the KJV translators did not use the Septuagint for the purpose of translating the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament, especially in Job?
Can you provide PROOF that Hebrew translations of the Bible, specifically of Job, agree with the KJV?

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767/16.html?#000233

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:

The KJB is not re-inspired. I never said that. God's words are like water. If I take this same water and put it into another vessel, even of a different shape, and there is no addition or subtraction of the water, it is the same water.

God promised to preserve His inspired words. He did not promise to re-inspire them.

I believe He did both. He inspired them and He preserved them in a Book.

Including the many italicized words? Including the preface? Or are these "impurities" in the water?
What of the changing of the graecized Hebrew name "Iakobos" (Jacob) to "James" in three different New Testament individuals*? Is that the "same water"?

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2767/16.html?#000236

*Note - Depending upon interpretation, it may have actually been more than three Iakobos/Jacob/James changes in the New Testament.
[/QUOTE]http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/2793/7.html?#000100

[ September 17, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

Jason Gastrich · Sep 17, 2004

Clint,

I'm sorry for the problems you've had with your computer and this forum thread.

Is everything fixed, now? In other words, can people post messages without wondering whether or not they will come down?

God bless,
Jason

Clint Kritzer · Sep 17, 2004

Hi Jason -

While technology fails us, I think we can all post with the same degree of assuredness as before. The problem may have occurred from the thread becoming too long. (Another admin had warned me but, alas, I did not heed it.) I have written the webmaster about it and still hope it can be salvaged.

Saving important posts to one's own hard drive is always a good back up. It, at least, prevents one from haveing to repeat their research.

Ed Edwards · Sep 17, 2004

Marking the new topic for notification ...

Samer · Sep 19, 2004

Hi.

Jason seemed very adamant concerning his notion that there is only one meaning to the word "unicorn," and that it must necessarily be some sort of mythological horse with a horn on its head.

I should point out that I am by no means ruling out the possibility that, hey, perhaps the Bible does mean unicorn in the sense that it is commonly misunderstood; I agree with Will that God's Word stands, no matter how much it may appear to conflict with the foolish wisdom of the world.

That being said, I believe Jason is pretty clearly in error on the matter, according to the trusty old Webster's 1828:

"Unicorn
U'NICORN, n. [L. unicornis; unus, one, and cornu, horn.]

1. an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros.

2. The sea unicorn is a fish of the whale kind, called narwal, remarkable for a horn growing out at his nose.

3. A fowl.

fossil unicorn, or fossil unicorn's horn, a substance used in medicine, a terrene crustaceous spar."

Edit to add: I just went back to the debate and realized that Will had linked to an article on his page, and then I clicked to it and found out that he had quoted the same passage out of Webster's, so...whoops! I don't mean to be redundant. But, oh well, maybe some people didn't bother to click on his link.

Jim Ward · Sep 19, 2004

What a debate. Jason has helped to reinforce how correct it is for one to reject the modern versions. he did a better Job then Will in that regard.

Thanks Jason!!!!!!

DHK · Sep 19, 2004

Originally posted by Samer:
Hi.

Jason seemed very adamant concerning his notion that there is only one meaning to the word "unicorn," and that it must necessarily be some sort of mythological horse with a horn on its head.

I should point out that I am by no means ruling out the possibility that, hey, perhaps the Bible does mean unicorn in the sense that it is commonly misunderstood; I agree with Will that God's Word stands, no matter how much it may appear to conflict with the foolish wisdom of the world.

Welcome to the BB Samer. I hope you have a tough skin. You may need it in this forum.

As far as the word "unicorn" is concerned it was the foolish wisdom of the world (the KJV translator's world) that mistranslated the word in the first place. The word unicorn should have never been used. If the word means "rhinocerous," then why didn't they use the word "rhinocerous?" If the word means "wild ox," as many others believe, then why didn't they translate the word "wild ox?" Either way, they mistakenly translated the word "unicorn" which most dictionaries define as a Greek mythological creature--a horse having one horn protruding out of its head--part of the ancient Greek pagan religion.
I am sorry, but I don't believe that God is teaching Greek pagan religions here. In fact Job lived around the time of Abraham, long before the Greeks even existed. The translation is a mistake. It is ridiculous to say that it is even close to being accurate. It isn't. It is a glaring mistake in the KJV. But for pride the KJVO crowd won't admit it.
DHK

artbook1611 · Sep 19, 2004

Why does everyone make a big deal about unicorns?

Uni= one
corn= horned
Thus simply a one horned animal.

There are also two horned animals and they are called Bi-corns . Bi= two, corn= horned.
(See Websters)
They are NOT that mythical horse that everyone usually thinks of, with a spike sticking out a foot and a half.

gb93433 · Sep 19, 2004

Anyone seen a unicorn yet? Maybe that could be a rhino instead. But of course that would ruin the KJVO theory of translation.

altalux · Sep 19, 2004

Greetings,

Before the debate came about, I was about 95% sure that the KJV was God's choice for the English language. My reasoning was pretty simple: God knew that English would become the most widespread language in history and that the world would chiefly be evangelized by English-speaking people. For centuries, the Hebrew text had been preserved to the extent that neither jot nor tittle had been altered by the time of Jesus, who promised it would remain unchanged to this day (Mt 5:18). Certainly the omnipotent God could preserve his word (which he has magnified even above his name - Ps 138:2) for a few more centuries for the common man and children of our generation, and we also have the promise of Jesus to rest in. There are far more people alive today who speak English that have ever spoken Hebrew or Greek. So, I reasoned that a loving God would have a Bible in English that I and countless other non-scholars could read. But, which one? I soon learned that many of our modern versions were translated partially from manuscripts discovered in the 20th century. Are we really supposed to believe that God hid his word under a bushel for some 1900 years until it could be uncovered by archaeologists? I then noticed that almost all modern versions were translated from corrupted Greek manuscripts. One need not be a scholar to verify this. Mark 1:2 in modern versions typically reads "As it is written in Isaiah...", but then quotes Malachi 3:1 (not Isaiah). The Holy Spirit writing through Mark would not have made such a blunder. It seems obvious that before we start talking about how to translate various verses, we need to start with the correct manuscripts. So, I tossed out all my versions that had the name of "Isaiah" in Mark 1:2 - they were not the word of God, so I could not trust them. Amazingly, it took me several months to toss them out, but eventually I had to reason that it was foolish to cling to them just because I liked the way they sounded. What was the point in reading them if they were not the word of God? This left me with few options. I finally settled on the old KJV, because the newer (1982-present) KJ versions have yet to withstand the test of time nor yet endured the blood of martyrs nor has God used them in any major revival to date.

Thus I reasoned that if God has blessed an English bible (and this would be in full keeping with his character and love for us) it would be the Authorized 1611 King James Version of the Holy Bible with the well-accepted 1789 spelling revisions. Why the 1789 version? Because that is the version which can easily be found in almost any bookstore and can be picked up by any child, and with the help of an English dictionary can be easily understood. It is also the version which has been distributed in the millions freely by groups such as the Gideons without any profit motive. I realize that many scholars may scoff at this line of reasoning, but I assure you that any child can follow it. The 1789 KJV contains the often-enumerated 66 books, 1189 chapters, and 31102 verses as "translated out of the original tongues and with the former translations diligently compared and revised" into the English language. On a more trivial note, it contains 789630 words (27013 of which are in italics) and 3222408 letters (115705 in upper case, 3106703 in lower case). And for the truly curious, it also contains 70685 commas, 26140 periods, 12718 colons, 10149 semicolons, 3297 question marks, 2936 paragraph symbols (in addition to the 1189 paragraph divisions implied by each new chapter), 2041 apostrophes, 779 hyphens, 313 exclamation points, 223 opened parentheses, and 223 closed parentheses. This is how the Bible has been passed down in English for over 200 years now, with only minor spelling changes going back another few hundred years. Millions of souls have been saved by and millions martyred in defense of these words. Now, can anyone *prove* that, for example, all 70685 commas are ordained by God? I doubt any man could do so, but it just makes perfect sense to me that the God who preserves jots and tittles could have easily ordained even the lowliest comma. More importantly, why wouldn't he?

Now, on to the debate. I am not really going to declare a winner here. In fact, at this point in time, Jason has yet to post his Round 7 rebuttal. So far, both Jason and Will have given excellent input into the issue. Although I will say that Jason's arguments have done nothing to disprove the KJV, nor do they do anything for my faith. An atheist, for example, is not likely to be impressed with Jason's explanation that certain manuscripts have the "right number" in the 8/18 and 22/42 age paradoxes. Such an atheist will likely ask, "Where was this all-powerful God of yours when his holy men were selecting the manuscripts to translate?" And, if he is a particularly sharp atheist, he will quickly point out that referring to non-Hebrew manuscripts violates Romans 3:2 and Psalms 147:19-20. On the other hand, did Will really prove the KJV is inerrant? Well, yes and no. He skillfully defended the "problem" verses presented to him, but there are many more such issues that were not raised in the debate. I will say that I have never seen a KJV "problem" that could not be defended. Some of them are very challenging riddles, but none of them can be easily dismissed as erroneous as in the case of the modern-day renderings of Mark 1:2 (above).

By the way, there is another explanation for the 8/18 paradox which I prefer: In the confusion of the Babylonian captivity, Josiah (the rightful king in God's view) annointed his 8-year old grandson Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) as king (II Chr 36:9). He had adopted him into full sonship. In God's eyes, this 8-year-old boy was the rightful king, but he did not get to actually reign until almost 11 years later. Here's why: That very year, Nebuchadnezzar (a mere man) made Zedekiah king (II Chr 36:10). The people of the land (more mere men) soon made Jehoahaz king (II Kings 23:30). After 3 months, Pharaohnechoh (another mere man) installed Jehoiakim as his vassal (II Kings 23:33-37) who reigned until Jehoiachin finally took his rightful place on the throne at age 18 (II Kings 24:8). God hints that he never recognized these three man-made kings as they are left unnamed in Mat 1:11 - "And Josias begat Jechonias [Jehoiachin] and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon."

Here is my summary of the pertinent point made in the debate. I'll leave it to each individual to decide in his own heart the truth on each issue.

1. Explain the age difference of Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 (42 years old) vs. 2 Kings 8:26 (22 years old).
Negative: Some Greek Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac manuscripts that give the correct number (22).
Positive: See http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html for plausible explanations.

2. Explain the age difference of Jehoiachin in 2 Chron.36:9 (8 years old) versus 2 Kings 24:8 (18 years old).
Negative: One Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint manuscripts, and the Syriac all get the number right.
Positive: See http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/8or18.html for plausible explanations.

3. In Luke 14:26, are we to actually "hate" our family members?
Negative: The word translated “hate” in the KJV is the Greek word “miseo” which means “love less.”
Positive: The context suggests he may have meant to "love less," but this would only be an interpretation of the passage, not a faithful rendering of what Jesus actually said.

4. 1 Kings 17:22 vs. Acts 26:23 - Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead or not?
Negative: The Greek word “protos” was translated into the English word “first.” It means “foremost in importance.”
Positive: Many people were raised from the dead prior to the cross, yet they later died. Jesus was the first to be "resurrected," never to die again.

5. Ecclesiastes 1:4 vs. 2 Peter 3:10-13 - Will the earth abide forever or not?
Negative: The Hebrew word “olam” was translated “forever” and it actually means “the vanishing point is concealed.”
Positive: Like the saints, the earth will be renewed from corruptible to incorruptible: same earth, different form.

6. Leviticus 11:6 - Do rabbits really chew the cud?
Negative: Rabbits practice refection which is chewing partially undigested food that comes out of the anus.
Positive: See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/rabbits.asp

7. 1 Kings 19:16 vs. 2 Kings 9:2 - Was Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi?
Negative: Alleged contradiction. No explanation given.
Positive: One of the meanings of "son" is "decendant." Jesus himself is called the son of David many times, thus this meaning was commonly understood.

8. 1 Samuel 28:6-7 vs. 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 - Did Saul inquire of God or not?
Negative: In 1 Samuel 28:6, this Hebrew word for "inquire" can be translated "demand." When Saul sought the Lord in this way, He did not hear him. In 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, this different Hebrew word for "inquire" means "worship," "seek," "search," "follow" and "ask." Saul did not do this and this is part of the reason why God judged Him by taking his life.
Positive: Two separate incidents. On one occasion, Saul inquired of the Lord; on the other, he did not.

9. Psalm 92:10, etc. - Do or did unicorns really exist?
Negative: Unicorns are fictional/mythological, therefore the KJB is in error.
Positive: See http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html

On the unicorn issue (#9): I know this may sound ridiculous, but from a strictly legalistic debate standpoint, unless Jason can prove unicorns never existed, he has no case against the KJV. This is a very old atheists' line which has been answered many, many times by Christians, especially creationists. Will is one of these Christians. Although usually regarded as mythical, there is no real proof that unicorns never existed (and for that matter, neither can we ever really prove that a race of one-eyed humanioids never existed - I hope everybody gets my point), so it is foolish to immediately assume the KJB is in error. Strange as it may seem, there are a lot of historical references we can examine regarding unicorns, some of which were mentioned by Will. Marco Polo, upon visiting Java, described them as "scarcely smaller than elephants. They have the hair of a buffalo and feet like an elephant's. They have a single large black horn in the middle of the forehead." As an eyewitness, he used the word "unicorn" in his account. Although the Bible never says the unicorn was horse-like in appearance, Pliny mentions "a very ferocious beast, similar in the rest of its body to a horse, with the head of a deer, the feet of an elephant, the tail of a boar, a deep, bellowing voice, and a single black horn, two cubits in length, standing out in the middle of its forehead." Aristotle spoke of this creature as the "Indian ass" and Ctesias of Cnidos spoke of it as "the wild ass of India". It should be noted that the 1828 Webster's Dictionary makes no reference whatsoever to the word "unicorn" connoting anything either mythical or equine, rather it is defined matter-of-factly as "an animal with one horn; the monoceros, this name is often applied to the rhinoceros [Rhinoceros unicornis]" and as "a fish of the whale kind, called narwal [now commonly spelled "narwhal", Monodon monoceros], remarkable for a horn growing out at its nose" and as "a fowl" [Latin names added in brackets].

Allow me to comment on #7, then I'll sign off (Lord willing) - Was Jehu the son or grandson of Nimshi? I was really surprised that Jason brought this tired old athiests' argument up. It has been answered countless times by Christian apologists, past and present. I am even more surprised that Jason still thinks there is a KJB error here. What kind of answer has he been giving to atheists all these years? I'm sure if we search hard enough, we can find some obscure manuscript(s) where this "error" was "corrected" by well-meaning scribes. However, we would then have to find similar manuscrips that "correct" the 15 "errors" of the term "son of David" in the NT (oulined below). But, there is no need to do so. As Will and hundreds of other Christian writers have clearly explained, "son" can and often does mean "descendant". And, no, we do not need to consult a Hebrew or Greek lexicon for this. The modern-day Webster's defines "son" as "a male offspring esp. of human beings: a male adopted child: a male descendant." Similarly, one of the definitions of "father" is "forefather" or "ancestor." Likewise, "to beget" can include many generations and adopted sons. Would the use of the word "descendent" be clearer for modern-day readers? Perhaps, but there is neither error nor contradiction here in the KJV. But, lo and behold, we really do not need to consult Webster on this. As Will explained, the use of the word "son" is clarified in repeated contexts indexing the KJB alone. To clarify further by example, here is every KJB NT verse where the term "son of David" is used by people (and even an angel) who knew fully well that David lived and died several centuries priorly. In only one NT verse (Luke 3:31) does "son of David" mean the direct first-generation offspring of David:

Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 9:27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
Matthew 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
Matthew 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Matthew 20:30 And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
Matthew 20:31 And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
Matthew 21:9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Matthew 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
Matthew 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
Mark 10:47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
Mark 10:48 And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
Mark 12:35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
Luke 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luke 18:38 And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
Luke 18:39 And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.

artbook1611 · Sep 19, 2004

Wow, Altalux
I really enjoyed reading your post. It was a breath of fresh air and every word carefully selected. I appreciate you're views and thank you for posting.

#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

<img src=/Ed.gif>

New Member

New Member

<b>Moderator</b>

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member