Another Riplinger video...

[franklinmonroe]

Mrs. Riplinger now mentions that the name of "Jesus" is omitted from the NKJV text in Mark 2:15. She just mentions it, and moves on to other examples (I'll analyse those later, God willing). But Let us take a look at the KJV verse in its entirety--

And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.​

We see that the name of "Jesus" actually appears twice in the verse. Indeed, the NKJV uses the pronoun "He" (cap H indicates Deity) in place of the first KJV "Jesus". If the two Bible versions are using basically the same underlying Greek text, then how can the NKJV justify using a pronoun instead of the proper name? What is going on?

Well, they can justify it very well, because the Greek word there is not the proper name for our Lord at all. That's right; the KJV has used a non-literal rendering by placing the proper name of "Jesus" into the English text where the Textus Receptus actually has a masculine pronoun.

The Greek word auton, a form of autos (Strong's #846) meaning "he" in this case (not 'she' or 'it'), is the correspondant of the first English occurrence of the word "Jesus". The second English occurrence of "Jesus" is supported by the Greek word Iesous (Strong's#2424) which, of course, is transliterated into English as "Jesus".

Why did the KJV revisors place "Jesus" in the text there? I speculate that they chose to insert "Jesus" to avoid some perceived ambiguity in the text. Not at all uncommon in most translation work (sometimes being accused of doing the Holy Spirit's job). The last time "Jesus" had appeared before verse 15 was back in verse 8; meanwhile, the scene had progressed by using pronouns referring to persons. In addition to the pronouns "his" and "him" in those 7 verses, the word "he" occurs 7 times (6 times directly meaning Jesus). This could potentially cause confusion with another man in the narrative, known as "one sick of the palsy", and this sick man is also referred to as "he" once.

Candidly, I would have preferred that the KJV revisors had inserted it much earlier in the passage to help keep the antecedents clear. Which makes one wonder: Why here and not other places? Is it more important that we know that it was Jesus and not some one else that sat down to eat, than who made the statements and who did the actions in the preceding and following verses? Could not the reader deduce this from the rest of the verse, which does include Jesus by name?

The NKJV leaves the second "Jesus" properly within the text. So, is there any evidence here of a New Age conspiracy to eliminate "Jesus" from the Bible?

 

[Ed Edwards]

HEre is the first Iesus in the KJV1611 Edition
of Mark 2:15 according to Strongs:

G846
αὐτός
autos
ow-tos'
From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109
through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive
pronoun self, used (alone or in the compound of G1438)
of the third person, and (with the proper personal pronoun)
of the other persons: - her, it (-self), one, the other,
(mine) own, said, ([self-], the) same, ([him-, my-, thy-])
self, [your-] selves, she, that, their (-s), them ([-selves]),
there [-at, -by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with], they,
(these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which.
Compare G848.

Here is the Second Iesus in Mark 2:15

G2424
Ἰησοῦς
Iēsous
ee-ay-sooce'
Of Hebrew origin [H3091]; Jesus (that is, Jehoshua),
the name of our Lord and two (three) other
Israelites: - Jesus.

That is what the KJVs do.


Mar 2:15 (KJV1769 with Strong's numbers):
And2532 it came to pass,1096 that, as(1722) Jesus846
sat at meat2621 in1722 his846 house,3614 many4183
publicans5057 and2532 sinners268
sat also together with4873, 2532 Jesus2424
and2532 his846 disciples:3101 for1063 there were2258
many,4183 and2532 they followed190 him.846

This is a double standard so wide any NFL halfback
could run a TD right through the hole.

It is alright for the KJVs to mis-translate
pronouns like this; but my Favorite Bibles:
NIV and nKJV are damned for doing the same thing.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Thanks mods for allowing the thread to continue. And thanks again to contributors to the OP topic and translation issues.

 

[Keith M]

Mrs. Riplinger now mentions that the name of "Jesus" is omitted from the NKJV text in Mark 2:15. She just mentions it, and moves on to other examples (I'll analyse those later, God willing). But Let us take a look at the KJV verse in its entirety--

And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.​

We see that the name of "Jesus" actually appears twice in the verse. Indeed, the NKJV uses the pronoun "He" (cap H indicates Deity) in place of the first KJV "Jesus". If the two Bible versions are using basically the same underlying Greek text, then how can the NKJV justify using a pronoun instead of the proper name? What is going on?

Well, they can justify it very well, because the Greek word there is not the proper name for our Lord at all. That's right; the KJV has used a non-literal rendering by placing the proper name of "Jesus" into the English text where the Textus Receptus actually has a masculine pronoun.

The Greek word auton, a form of autos (Strong's #846) meaning "he" in this case (not 'she' or 'it'), is the correspondant of the first English occurrence of the word "Jesus". The second English occurrence of "Jesus" is supported by the Greek word Iesous (Strong's#2424) which, of course, is transliterated into English as "Jesus".

Why did the KJV revisors place "Jesus" in the text there? I speculate that they chose to insert "Jesus" to avoid some perceived ambiguity in the text. Not at all uncommon in most translation work (sometimes being accused of doing the Holy Spirit's job). The last time "Jesus" had appeared before verse 15 was back in verse 8; meanwhile, the scene had progressed by using pronouns referring to persons. In addition to the pronouns "his" and "him" in those 7 verses, the word "he" occurs 7 times (6 times directly meaning Jesus). This could potentially cause confusion with another man in the narrative, known as "one sick of the palsy", and this sick man is also referred to as "he" once.

Candidly, I would have preferred that the KJV revisors had inserted it much earlier in the passage to help keep the antecedents clear. Which makes one wonder: Why here and not other places? Is it more important that we know that it was Jesus and not some one else that sat down to eat, than who made the statements and who did the actions in the preceding and following verses? Could not the reader deduce this from the rest of the verse, which does include Jesus by name?

The NKJV leaves the second "Jesus" properly within the text. So, is there any evidence here of a New Age conspiracy to eliminate "Jesus" from the Bible?

Of course Riplinger is no more concerned with what the Greek says than with what you and I may have for lunch today. Her only concern is that something differs from what "the Bible" says.

:laugh: :tonofbricks:

 

[Keith M]

I can imagine what logic is behind the people shooting behind a person. You can never change the situation of the shooting behind.

There is the biggest part of your problem with this issue, Eliyahu. You rely on what you think raher than on the truth. No one is "shooting behind" anyone as you falsely claim. What is public is open for public discussion and what is not public is not open for public discussion. Why do you refuse to accept this very simple truth?

 

[franklinmonroe]

G. A. Riplinger in this video continues her comparison of the NKJV to the KJV. She accusses the NKJV of omitting the name of "Jesus" like the Jehovah's Witness' version does, and gives two more examples: Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. Here are the KJV passages in context--

Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.
Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; (Acts 7:44-45)

Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his. (Hebrews 4:7-10)​

Indeed, the NKJV (and NWT) has substituted the name of "Joshua" at both of these places. Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, and Moses' successor. Joshua was originally named "Hoshea" (Numbers 13:16), but Moses changed it. The Textus Receptus actually does have the Greek word Iesous which, when the Latin Iesus is anglicized, becomes "Jesus". This proper name of Hebrew origin means 'Jehovah is salvation'. It is the masculine nominative Greek form of the word, and there other spellings in the Greek of this name depending upon inflection.

It is clear in the video that Riplinger insists that this is the same "Jesus" of the New Testament being described as the pre-existing and eternal God, and that "Joshua" of the Old Testament is not the person being indentified in these scriptures.

The Hebrew word Yahowshuwa or Jehoshua (Strong's #3091) after contraction to Yeshua or Jeshua has assumed the English form "Joshua".

This is not just a NKJV/NWT issue. Most Bible versions have "Joshua" in these verses not "Jesus": ESV, NLT, NIV, NASB, RSV, GWT, BBE, WEB, LIT, Weymouth, and Young's were quickly confirmed online. So, why have all these translators chosen to employ "Joshua" instead of "Jesus"?

The AV 1611 concerning the rendering "Jesus" at Hebrews 4:8 has the following margin note: "That is, Ioshua." The 1560 Geneva Bible has the following marginal note: "He speaketh of Joshua the son of Nun." It seems that many translators (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles) understood this person to be "Joshua" in both places.

The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) renders Joshua’s name as Iesous in the Nehemiah passage as well as throughout the book of Joshua.

Strong's Greek Lexicon: 2424. Iesous ee-ay-sooce' of Hebrew origin (3091); Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites:--Jesus.

Smith's Bible Dictonary: "Jesus Christ — The name Jesus means Savior, and was a common name, derived from the ancient Hebrew Jehoshua."

Easton's Bible Dictionary: Jesus (1.) Joshua, the son of Nun (Act 7:45; Heb 4:8; R.V., "Joshua"). (2.) A Jewish Christian surnamed Justus (Col 4:11). (3.) The proper, as Christ is the official, name of our Lord. To distinguish him from others so called, he is spoken of as "Jesus of Nazareth" (Joh 18:7), and "Jesus the son of Joseph" (Joh 6:42)...

A Dictionary of the Bible, by James Hastings: "Jesus — the Greek form of the name Joshua or Jeshua. Jeshua — Yahweh is salvation or Yahweh is opulence."

So, the Jewish person we have described in the English New Testament as "Jesus" of Nazareth actually had the same Hebraic name as the Old Testament hero we have come to know as "Joshua". Among Hebrew and Aramaic-speaking people he was probably called Yeshua; while among Greek-speaking people he would have been Iesous.

These two names have come into English from exactly the same Greek word. Translators must determine which name to place in the English text by interpretation of the context. Much has been written on this subject and I could not begin to include it all here. I hope what I provide below will suffice.

John Gill in his commentary wrote concerning the phrase "brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles" --

that is, they having received the tabernacle from their fathers, brought it into the land of Canaan, which was possessed by the Gentiles, when they entered into it with Joshua their leader, and captain, at the head of them; who is here called Jesus, as he is in (Hebrews 4:8) for Joshua and Jesus are the same name, and signify a saviour; for such an one Joshua was to the people of Israel; and was an eminent type of Jesus Christ, the captain of our salvation, in his bringing many sons to glory:​

Rick Norris has stated that "the old Peshitta Version that is on the line of good Bibles in several KJV-only books also has a name that would be translated 'Joshua' in English at these two verses. Both the 1851 translation of the Peshitta and the 1933 translation by George Lamsa have 'Joshua' at these two verses. The Peshitta included the words for 'the son of Nun' at Hebrews 4:8. Luther's German Bible had a name meaning 'Joshua' at these two verses as have the old Spanish Bibles. John Wesley had 'Joshua' at both these verses in his 1754 New Testament."

Other first century Jewish men were also known by the name "Jesus" at this time. Although not recorded in the Bible as such, Barabbas the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ, was also traditionally known as Jesus Barabbas. But another man is recorded for us in Colossians 4:11; Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, was an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel. In Acts 13:6 there is the false prophet-sorcerer, "a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus"(meaning 'son of Jesus'). It seems that an index of the complete works of Josephus shows references to about fourteen people named "Jesus".

Adam Clarke in his commentary on Acts 7:45 writes that Jesus "should constantly be written Joshua in such cases as the present, in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion."

Matthew Henry in is Biblical commentary on Acts Chapter Four writes--

That tabernacle was brought in by those who came with Jesus, that is, Joshua. And I think, for distinction sake, and to prevent mistakes, it ought to be so read, both here and Heb. 4:8. Yet in naming Joshua here, which in Greek is Jesus, there may be a tacit intimation that as the Old-Testament Joshua brought in that typical tabernacle, so the New-Testament Joshua should bring in the true tabernacle into the possession of the Gentiles.​

Does "Jesus" (not to be understood as the OT Joshua) in Hebrews 4:8 create a theological problem? What is the rest that "Jesus"(God) doesn't give them? (see Psalm 95:7-11)

 

[franklinmonroe]

Mrs. Riplinger next asserts "they deny the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in 2 Thessalonians 3:5." She correctly states that the KJV has "the patient waiting for Christ", then she adds "that's what were doing." She is implying that this verse is describing born-again believers watching attentively for the Lord's imminent return. The NKJV has simply "the patience of Christ."

Here is the KJV verse in context (2 Thessalonians 3:1-5)--

Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have [free] course, and be glorified, even as [it is] with you:
And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all [men] have not faith.
But the Lord is faithful, who shall stablish you, and keep [you] from evil.
And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you.
And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.​

Other versions have translated this verse similarly to the NKJV--

May the Lord bring you into an ever deeper understanding of the love of God and the endurance that comes from Christ. (NLT)

May the Lord direct your hearts into God's love and Christ's perseverance. (NIV)

May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ. (ESV)

May the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God and into the steadfastness of Christ. (NASB)

May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ. (RSV)

and the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God, and to the endurance of the Christ. (Young's Literal Translation)

But the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patience of the Christ. (Darby)​

Now may the Lord direct your hearts toward the love of God and the endurance of Christ. (NET)

The single Greek word that is translated by the KJV as "patient waiting" is hupomone (Strong's #5281) which basically means: 1) steadfastness, constancy, endurance; 2) a patient, steadfast waiting for; or 3) a patient enduring, sustaining, perseverance. The KJV renders this word thus: as "patience" 29 times, as well as "enduring", "patient continuance", and "patient waiting" once each (32 total).

The translator's note in the NET says--

The genitive in the phrase... “the endurance of Christ” could be translated as either a subjective genitive (“Christ’s endurance”) or an objective genitive (“endurance for Christ”). Either is grammatically possible. This is possibly an instance of a plenary genitive (see ExSyn 119-21; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, §§36-39). If so, the emphasis would be on believers being directed toward the endurance Christ showed which in turn produces endurance in them for him.​

Matthew Henry writes--

That a patient waiting for Christ may be joined with this love of God. There is no true love of God without faith in Jesus Christ. We must wait for Christ, which supposes our faith in him, that we believe he came once in flesh and will come again in glory: and we must expect this second coming of Christ, and be careful to get ready for it; there must be a patient waiting, enduring with courage and constancy all that we may meet with in the mean time: and we have need of patience, and need of divine grace to exercise Christian patience, the patience of Christ (as some read the word), patience for Christ’s sake and after Christ’s example.​

 

[Ed Edwards]

2 Th 3:5 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
And the Lord guide your hearts to the loue
of God, and the waiting for of Christ.

2Th 3:5 (KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers):
And1161 the3588 Lord2962 direct2720 your5216
hearts2588 into1519 the3588 love26 of God,2316
and2532 into1519 the3588 patient waiting5281
for Christ.5547

Strong's sez:

G5281
ὑπομονή
hupomonē
hoop-om-on-ay'
From G5278; cheerful (or hopeful) endurance,
constancy: - enduring, patience,
patient continuance (waiting).

I used the nKJV for over 10 years in my study and teaching
of pretribulation rapture, premillinnial Second Coming.

I had no problems with it.

 

[franklinmonroe]

G. A. Riplinger in the video next states that--

"One of the saddest things I see happening in the New King James is their tendency to move to the Jehovah Witness' rendering 'The Helper'. They don't have 'The Comforter' anymore. OK? They take that name out. And for years and years the Jehovah's Witness have called the Holy Spirit, 'The Helper', becasue they don't believe in the Trinity. They don't believe in the personal nature. So, a force can help you, but a force uh, doesn't comfort you because only a person can confort you. So, they change it to 'The Helper'. But now the New King James is marching along with Jehovah Witness' rendering calling the Holy Spirit 'The Helper'. "​

(*My transcription may not accurrately reflect her intentions in all cases as related to the names of Deity; that is, the capitalization of titles.)

No verse references are given... but here are all four the verses in the KJV where the "Comforter" is used: John 14:16, 26; John15:26; John 16:7. The NKJV does indeed consistantly render the same Greek word as the "Helper". So does the ESV and NASB, also with a cap "H" to show Deity. But the New World Translation of the JWs does not capitalize the words "helper" (nor "holy spirit"). In this sense, the NKJV does not copy the meaning of the NWT. Here is John 14:16 from KJV--

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;​

That Greek word is parakletos which basically means to be summoned, called to one's side, especially to be called to one's aid. It is one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate; one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor. In the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, an assistant.

There is one other occurrance of this Greek word in the New Testament. The entire KJV verse (1 John 2:1)--

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:​

This rendering essential prevents the KJV from using 'The Advocate' for the Holy Spirit in the passages in John. Why does the "Comforter" have a cap "C" in the KJV, but our "advocate" does not? The NKJV has "Advocate" here. Is the KJV implying that there may be other advocates? The NWT consistantly translates the word as "helper" at this verse.

The NIV, NLT, and the RSV translate this word as "Counselor" (some with a note akin to: "Or Comforter, or Encourager, or Advocate"). The Amplified Bible offers some additions like the "Intercessor", and the "Standby". The Rheims just transliterates and capitalizes to show Deity: "Paraclete".

A very similar Greek word paraklesis which basically means: 1) a calling near, to summons especially for help; 2) importation, supplication, entreaty; 3) exhortation, admonition, encouragement; 4) consolation, comfort, solace; that which affords comfort or refreshment; 5) persuasive discourse, stirring address. The KJV translates this word thus: "consolation" 14 times, "exhortation" 8 times, "comfort" 6 times, and "intreaty" once. Here is one verse fromthe KJV (Acts 9:31)--

Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.​

 

[franklinmonroe]

Gail Riplinger next states in this video--

"But I want to show you one of the most serious problems with the New King James is its movement towards 'works salvation'. Where the King James says "narrow is the way", OK? Umm, the New King James says "difficult is the way". Now Jesus Christ is talking about not the Christian walk there, OK? Because we that its hard sometimes. He's talking about salvation... being saved. "Narrow is the way". Now, a slidingboard is narrow but its just about the easiest way to get to Heaven. Shwisssh... you know its narrow, its not difficult...you know, its easy. It is not difficult. "Difficult" is not a correct translation, a correct equivalency for the word "narrow". Because "difficult"... can you imagine telling some one, you know, that "difficult is the way"? That's a 'works' kind of salvation. There's that purgatory and Roman Catholic business working its way in there."​

Here is the KJV verse she is referring to in context (Matthew 7:12-15)--

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.​

The NKJV does indeed have "difficult". The Greek word is thlibo (Strong's #2346) which basically means to press (as in grapes), press hard upon, a compressed way, narrow straitened, or contracted. Metaphorically, it means to trouble, afflict, or distress. The KJV renders it thus: "trouble" 4 times; "afflict" 3 times; "throng", "suffer tribulation", and "narrow" once each.

Here are few of the other KJV verse where thlibo is found --

And whether we be afflicted, [it is] for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, [it is] for your consolation and salvation. (2 Corinthians 1:6)

For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without [were] fightings, within [were] fears. (2 Corinthian 7:5)

For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know (1 Thessalonians 3:4)

They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Hebrews 11:37)​

The KJV rendering of "throng" seemed unusual. Its seems pretty clear that it means that the crowd might nearly 'crush' him (which is how the ESV and NKJV have rendered it here). I wonder what "throng" meant in Jacobean-Elizabethan English? Here is Mark 3:9--

And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him.​

The ESV has "the way is hard"; while Young's has "compressed the way"; the ASV and Darby have"narrow is the gate" and then "straightened the way". The KJV word "strait" represents the Greek word stenos which means narrow, or straight. It only appears in the New Testament 3 times (twice in Matthew 7). The other verse is Luke 13:24--

Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.​

Several versions place "narrow" here in Luke (ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, Darby). The only occurrance of the Greek word platus for "wide" in the entire New Testament is in this passage. The only time that thlibo is translated "narrow" in the entire New Testament is in this passage (in fact, the only time the English word "narrow" is found in the KJV NT). Matthew Henry wrote--

Secondly, That the way is narrow. We are not in heaven as soon as we have got through the strait gate, nor in Canaan as soon as we have got through the Red Sea; no, we must go through a wilderness, must travel a narrow way, hedged in by the divine law, which is exceedingly broad, and that makes the way narrow; self must be denied, the body kept under, corruptions mortified, that are as a right eye and a right hand; daily temptations must be resisted; duties must be done that are against our inclination. We must endure hardness, must wrestle and be in an agony, must watch in all things, and walk with care and circumspection. We must go through much tribulation. It is hodos tethlimmeneµ—an afflicted way, a way hedged about with thorns; blessed be God, it is not hedged up. The bodies we carry about with us, and the corruptions remaining in us, make the way of our duty difficult; but, as the understanding and will grow more and more sound, it will open and enlarge, and grow more and more pleasant.​

 

[Ed Edwards]

BibleGateway.com has the nKJV which says:

Matthew 7:13-14 (nKJV):

The Narrow Way

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate
and broad is the way that leads to destruction,
and there are many who go in by it.
14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way
which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

In fact, the nKJV uses 'narrow' twice in this passage
whereas the KJV1769 uses 'narrow' only once.
Does that make the nKJV TWICE AS GOOD AS THE KJV
by the 'standard' of the speaker?

 

[Keith M]

Ed, by Riplinger's standards there will never be ANY version as good as the "KJV." Wonder which one of the KJVs she uses???

 

[franklinmonroe]

BibleGateway.com has the nKJV which says:

Matthew 7:13-14 (nKJV):

The Narrow Way

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate
and broad is the way that leads to destruction,
and there are many who go in by it.
14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way
which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Thank you, Ed. As can be seen, the verse could be properly translated as 'narrow is the gate and narrow is the way', or maybe even 'strait is the gate and strait is way', but these do not have as pleasant a rhythm to them. Clearly, it is the "gate" that is both strait and narrow, not the "way".

The word "way" in the Greek is hodos (Strong's #3598) which literally means a way, a travelled road, or a travellers way, a journey; but metaphaphorically it can mean a course of conduct, a manner of thinking, feeling, or deciding.

So, the phrase can be understood that the strait, narrow "gate" is our salvation, the entrance to a restricted course of conduct which is the Christain's "way".

From Expositor's Bible Commentary 6-Volume New Testament--

"...the other road is "narrow"- but two different words are used: stene ("narrow," Mt 7:13) and tethlimmene (Mt 7:14), the latter being cognate with thlipsis (2347) ("tribulation"), which almost always refers to persecution. So this text says that the way of discipleship is "narrow," restricting, because it is the way of persecution and opposition-a major theme in Matthew..."​

Warren Wiersbe writes in Bible Exposition Commentary--

"The broad way is the easy way; it is the popular way. But we must not judge spiritual profession by statistics; the majority is not always right. The fact that “everybody does it” is no proof that what they are doing is right. Quite the contrary is true: God’s people have always been a remnant, a small minority in this world. The reason is not difficult to discover: The way of life is narrow, lonely, and costly. We can walk on the broad way and keep our “baggage” of sin and worldliness. But if we enter the narrow way, we must give up those things. Here, then, is the first test: Did your profession of faith in Christ cost you anything? If not, then it was not a true profession. Many people who “trust” Jesus Christ never leave the broad road with its appetites and associations. They have an easy Christianity that makes no demands on them. Yet Jesus said that the narrow way was hard. We cannot walk on two roads, in two different directions, at the same time.​

Vine says thlibo means to to suffer affliction, to be troubled, with reference to sufferings due to the pressure of circumstances, or the antagonism of persons. In the present use the verb in the perfect tense conveys the idea of that which is narrow or strait (cramped, a position of acute difficulty), hemmed in, like a mountain gorge. Vine adds thlibo]/i] when referring to the way is ‘rendered narrow’ by the Divine conditions, which make it impossible for any to enter who think the entrance depends upon self–merit, or who still incline towards sin, or desire to continue in evil.

BDAG says that thlibo is used of a road, a narrow, confined road and therefore a source of trouble or difficulty to those using it (Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature)

Here is how a few more versions articulate the meaning--

But the gate is narrow (contracted by pressure) and the way is straitened and compressed that leads away to life, and few are those who find it. (Amplified Bible)

The narrow gate and the hard road lead out into life and only a few are finding it." (Phillips' New Testament in Modern English)

Because narrow is the gate and compressed is the road, the one which leads away into the life, and few there are who are finding it. (Wuest)

because narrow is the gate and contracted the road which leads to Life, and few are those who find it. (Weymouth)

How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it (WEB)​

The English word "strait" as a noun means: 1) narrow channel joining two larger bodies of water; or 2) position of difficulty, perplexity, distress, or need. Often used in the plural: in desperate straits. As a modern adjective the word "strait" means: Difficult; stressful. Having or marked by limited funds or resources.
The archaic meanings of "strait" as an adjective were: 1) narrow, affording little space or room; confined. Fitting tightly; constricted. 2) Strict, rigid, or righteous. Which meaning did the KJV revisors intend? In any case, it should not be confused with 'straight' which means extending continuously in the same direction without curving (perfectly horizontal or vertical; level or even).

A.T. Robinson said in his Word Pictures of the New Testament: The Authorized Version "at the strait gate" misled those who did not distinguish between "strait" and "straight." He also writes concerning 'straitened the way': The way is "compressed," narrowed as in a defile between high rocks, a tight place like stenoxwria in Romans 8:35. "The way that leads to life involves straits and afflictions" (McNeile).

 

[Ed Edwards]

Franklinmonroe

G. A. Riplinger in the video next states that--

"One of the saddest things I see happening in the New King James is their tendency to move to the Jehovah Witness' rendering 'The Helper'. They don't have 'The Comforter' anymore. OK? They take that name out. And for years and years the Jehovah's Witness have called the Holy Spirit, 'The Helper', becasue they don't believe in the Trinity. They don't believe in the personal nature. So, a force can help you, but a force uh, doesn't comfort you because only a person can confort you. So, they change it to 'The Helper'. But now the New King James is marching along with Jehovah Witness' rendering calling the Holy Spirit 'The Helper'. "

(*My transcription may not accurrately reflect her intentions in all cases as related to the names of Deity; that is, the capitalization of titles.)

Thank you for that transcript, Brother Franklinmonroe.

However, in it I detect a DOUBLE STANDARD.
Looking at the actual scripture we find:

John 14:26 (nKJV):
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
will send in My name, He will teach you all things,
and bring to your remembrance all things
that I said to you.

John 14:26 (KJV1611 Edition):
But the Comforter, which is the holy Ghost, whom the Father
wil send in my name, he shal teach you al things,
& bring al things to your remembrance, whatsoeuer
I haue said vnto you.

John 14:26 ;(KJV1769 Edition from Crosswalk.com ):
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever
I have said unto you.

The nKJV is damned for using 'the Helper' instead of
being like the KJVs and using 'the Comforter'
but nothing is said about the KJV1611 using small 'h'
in the 'holy Spirit' unlike the KJV1769 which uses
a capital 'H' in 'Holy Spirit'.

 

[Salamander]

um, the gate is the way.:tonofbricks:

 

[Salamander]

Franklinmonroe

Thank you for that transcript, Brother Franklinmonroe.

However, in it I detect a DOUBLE STANDARD.
Looking at the actual scripture we find:

John 14:26 (nKJV):
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
will send in My name, He will teach you all things,
and bring to your remembrance all things
that I said to you.

John 14:26 (KJV1611 Edition):
But the Comforter, which is the holy Ghost, whom the Father
wil send in my name, he shal teach you al things,
& bring al things to your remembrance, whatsoeuer
I haue said vnto you.

John 14:26 ;(KJV1769 Edition from Crosswalk.com ):
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever
I have said unto you.

The nKJV is damned for using 'the Helper' instead of
being like the KJVs and using 'the Comforter'
but nothing is said about the KJV1611 using small 'h'
in the 'holy Spirit' unlike the KJV1769 which uses
a capital 'H' in 'Holy Spirit'.

A typo doesn't equal a different word.

In the sense of "helper", the word conotates an assitence, but the word "Comforter" indicates authority and subjectivity.

The Holy Ghost is not my co-pilot, He's the Pilot!:godisgood:

 

[franklinmonroe]

G. A. Riplinger in this video next contends that NKJV improperly renders the inspired scripture with the word "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22, instead of the KJV word "faith".

Here is the entire KJV verse including surrounding text (Galatians 5:18-25)--

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.​

The word translated by the KJV as "faith" is pistis (Strong's #4102) in the underlying Greek. This word has two basic meanings: 1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; or 2) fidelity, the character of one who can be relied on which called faithfulness. The KJV rather consistantly renders this word as "faith" in 239 of 244 occurrences ("assurance", "believe", "belief", "them that believe", and "fidelity" only once each). When the KJV revisors employed "faith" in Galatians 5:22, which meaning did they intend?

Some other versions have translated pistis thus: "faithfulness" by the NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, GWT ; "faith" by BBE, WEB, Young; "good faith" by Weymouth; "fidelity" by Darby.

The Webster's 1828 English Dictionary defines "faith" in as many as 12 different ways, some meanings clearly eliminated by the context; "faith" as a system of doctrines believed, for example, as in the Jewish faith. "Faith" in this verse means either "belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth... Faith is a firm, cordial belief in the veracity of God, in all the declarations of his word; a full and affectionate confidence in the certainty of those things which God has declared, and because he has declared them", or "faithfulness; fidelity; a strict adherence to duty and fulfillment of promises."

In contrast to the "works of the flesh" (fornication, idolatry, murder, and similar conduct), Christians are to supposed to manifest behavior like cheerfullness, patience, kindness, and moderation influenced by the Spirit. By substituting the word 'belief' in place of "faith" in the phrase it can be more easily recognized that 'belief' is not an expressed action that can be taken towards others like the other beneficial "fruits" (even the immoralities listed are all deeds). A Christian actions may or may not be consistant with what they say they believe, but their actual 'beliefs' remain in the domain of their heart and mind. However, faithfulness is a behavior that can be outwardly demonstrated for others (for example, fidelity to a spouce, to one's nation, and the kind), and can reasonably be depended upon by others. I think in this context Paul is admonishing that we should be characterized by our trusted loyalty and keepers of our promises. We should put our "fruit" on display.

Ironically, Riplinger states that we fail and "are not always faithful"... which is precisely the point; that is, the Wicked are well known for their lying and cheating, but the Coverted should be trustworthy. Incidently, Christians are not always loving, patient, or kind either.

Albert Barnes writes on the meaning of the word "faith" in this verse: "The word here may be used in the sense of fidelity, and may denote that the Christian will be a faithful man--a man faithful to his word and promises; a man who can be trusted or confided in."

Barclay writes about the fruits of the Spirit that "faith" is "the idea is that the Spirit of God works in us faithfulness both to God and to people. "It is the characteristic of the man who is reliable."

Martin Luther wrote: "In listing faith among the fruits of the Spirit, Paul obviously does not mean faith in Christ, but faith in men. Such faith is not suspicious of people but believes the best. Naturally the possessor of such faith will be deceived, but he lets it pass. He is ready to believe all men, but he will not trust all men. Where this virtue is lacking men are suspicious, forward, and wayward and will believe nothing nor yield to anybody..."

Matthew Henry writes--

He particularly recommends to us, love, to God especially, and to one another for his sake,—joy, by which may be understood cheerfulness in conversation with our friends, or rather a constant delight in God,—peace, with God and conscience, or a peaceableness of temper and behaviour towards others,—long-suffering, patience to defer anger, and a contentedness to bear injuries,—gentleness, such a sweetness of temper, and especially towards our inferiors, as disposes us to be affable and courteous, and easy to be entreated when any have wronged us,—goodness (kindness, beneficence), which shows itself in a readiness to do good to all as we have opportunity,—faith, fidelity, justice, and honesty, in what we profess and promise to others,—meekness, wherewith to govern our passions and resentments, so as not to be easily provoked, and, when we are so, to be soon pacified,—and temperance, in meat and drink, and other enjoyments of life, so as not to be excessive and immoderate in the use of them.​

First Corinthians 4:2 (KJV) says, "Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful."

 

[robycop3]

Basically, GAR speaks against any word changes from the KJV. problem is, she's seldom correct. But being honest or correct doesn't always sell boox, does it?

 

[Salamander]

If I have faith as Galatians speaks towards all men in believing them to be of good character until their actions say otherwise, or in the reverse that I should prove myself to be otherwise, that would be inline with Scripture. But if I have faithfulness towards men in any endeavor they, or I, participate, then I am open to any activity including gross sin.

I love the way the KJB is so precise in our English language, AREN'T YOU?

 

[franklinmonroe]

In this video Riplinger next makes issue of the NKJV rendering of "continue to believe"* in 1 John 5:13, instead of the KJV words "may believe". Here is the verse in both versions--

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (KJV)

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. (NKJV)

(*Italics are provided by the NKJV which indicates words provided by the translators not directly supported by Greek text)​

The final phrase "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" is troubling because these people have already been confirmed as believers; it would seem completely unnecessary for John to give them his written arguments to convince them to become believers if they are already believers. So, did John wrongly call them converts in the first place? Or, did he incorrectly claim to actual converts that it is his apologetics allows them to so believe?

The word translated in English as "believe" in both places represents two different case forms (inflection) of the Greek word pisteuo which basically means: 1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in; or 2) to be intrusted with a thing. It is translated the great majority of KJV occurrences as "believe" (239 of 248).

The only question here is whether the additional words "continue in" clarify or obscur the understanding of this scripture verse. This last phrase of the verse is a variant not supported by the Greek text of many contemporary versions; consequently, there is relatively few comparitive translations. The Last Days Bible and Tyndale's have "faithfulness" (both based on TR). From Young's Literal Version--

These things I did write to you who are believing in the name of the Son of God, that ye may know that life ye have age-during, and that ye may believe in the name of the Son of God.​

The underline calls to attention a different rendering of the first form of pisteuo by Young. I think the reason has to do with what is known the Greek language as a word's 'Mood' (which part of the Tense). The Mood of the first "believe" is in the Participle See which is when the Greek participle corresponds for the most part to the English participle, reflecting "-ing" or "-ed" being suffixed to the basic verb form. The participle can be used either like a verb or a noun, as in English, and thus is often termed a "verbal noun" (from online Blue Letter Bible).

I confess that I do not fully comprehend the Greek Moods nor is it necessary for the current analysis, but what is significant is that the second "may believe" is in a different Mood. It is in the Subjunctive See which can be explained as the mood of possibility and potentiality. The action described may or may not occur, depending upon circumstances. This explains the use of "may" in conjunction with "believe" to have a complete translation. The larger point is that there is a difference between the first and second forms of pisteuo.

Breaking down the verse into component parts may assist in revealing the truth we seek. The first words of the first phrase identifies the author's subject: "These things have I written" is all the evidence that John has previously presented "that ye may know that ye have eternal life"(which is the second complete phrase).

The following words of the first phrase "unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God" identifies his audience as a group of believers. It very much seems that First John is written exclusively to believers; look at the use of "we" in the KJV opening (also throughout) and a closing verse of the book --

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

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.(1 John 5:20)​

How then should we interpret the last phrase "and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God"?

Albert Barnes wrote concerning this phrase "that you may continue to believe, or may persevere in believing. He was assured that they actually did believe on him then; but he was desirous of so setting before them the nature of religion, that they would continue to exercise faith in him. It is often one of the most important duties of ministers of the gospel, to present to real Christians such views of the nature, the claims, the evidences, and the hopes of religion, as shall be adapted to secure their perseverance in the faith."

John Gill wrote concerning these that may believe on the name of the Son of God "which they had done already, and still did; the sense is, the above things were written to them concerning the Son of God, that they might be encouraged to continue believing in him, as such; to hold fast the faith of him and go on believing in him to the end; and that their faith in him might be increased; for faith is imperfect and is capable of increasing, and growing exceedingly: and nothing more tends unto, or is a more proper means of it, than the sacred writings, the reading and hearing them explained, and especially that part of them which respects the person, office, and grace of Christ..."

David Guzik writes about this verse: "In stating the message so plainly, John hopes to persuade us to believe. Even if we already believe, he wants us to know that you have eternal life, so we can have this assurance, and so that you may continue to believe."