Can the Devil corrupt God's Word?

[EdSutton]

Firstly, the Satan questioned Eve by corrupting God's Words with adding a word, "not"

Secondly, Eve corrupted God's Words. She was the mother of Dynamic Equivalency.

The serpent cast doubt on (corrupted, in a sense) the Word, but it was not by adding the word "not", however. Re-read the text.

But I do believe Eve "corrupted" by adding to "God's Words", but why quibble over facts?

Dynamic Equivalency?? Let's see - "Dynamic Equivalency" - uh?? Oh, you mean like where the KJV says "God Forbid!", when the Greek text does not have the word "God" there, at all. NOW I get it!

Ed

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I would like to see the following questions fully answered from Scripture--

1. When, and to whom specifically did God promise that His words would not pass away?

2. Where precisely did God promise His words would not pass away from?

3. What exactly are His "words" in context of these proof passages, and how inclusive (or exclusive) is God's promise?

If you are going where I think you are going, I believe I can answer your question with a simple statement. Although this promise was addressed specifically to the disciples as they sat with Jesus on the Mount of Olives, and although His promise was specifically relative to His second coming (rapture), and the fact that the context is such that His words would not "pass away," but rather will be fulfilled, the application and principle of preservation is still quite valid.

Even if this passage (and even Psalm 12:6,7) does not specifically apply to preservation of the Word of God, it most certainly does by application.

 

[Askjo]

Dynamic Equivalency?? Let's see - "Dynamic Equivalency" - uh?? Oh, you mean like where the KJV says "God Forbid!", when the Greek text does not have the word "God" there, at all. NOW I get it!

You need to R-E-A-D Dr. D. A. Waite's comment on "God forbid."

 

[Salamander]

No, the devil cannot corrupt God's word.

How can he, as pointed out, corrupt what an omnipotent God has promised to preserve?

Can man do a bad translation?
Of course.

Isn't corruption also bad?

 

[Logos1560]

You need to R-E-A-D Dr. D. A. Waite's comment on "God forbid."

In the introduction to his translation, Noah Webster noted that the phrase God forbid was used several times in the KJV "without any authority from the original languages for the name of God" (p. ix). The KJV has “God forbid” eight times in the O. T. and fifteen times in the N. T.

KJV-only author D. A. Waite acknowledged that the Greek for the KJV's "God forbid" would be literally translated as "may it not be" (Foes, p. 96). KJV-only author David Cloud described this example as “’a little something like’ that which is called dynamic equivalency today” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 157).

At Acts 10:14, Tyndale's and Matthew's Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV has "Not so." At Acts 11:8, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham's, and Geneva Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV again has "Not so." At 2 Samuel 20:20, the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have “God forbid” twice while the KJV has “Far be it” twice. This verse has the same Hebrew word twice that the KJV rendered “God forbid” several other times.

 

[Askjo]

KJV-only author D. A. Waite acknowledged that the Greek for the KJV's "God forbid" would be literally translated as "may it not be" (Foes, p. 96). KJV-only author David Cloud described this example as “’a little something like’ that which is called dynamic equivalency today” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 157).

Did David Cloud and D. A. Waite agree that the KJV included the dynamic equivalency?

 

[Amy.G]

Can the devil corrupt God's word?


Hebrews
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.


Isaiah
11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.



No, nothing can corrupt God's word.

 

[Ed Edwards]

This whole topic is about a frequently misunderstood
KJV-ism. It is an error of understanding the KJV
not an error in the KJV, but an error taken OUT OF THE KJV.
(The KJV, being a Bible, is inerrant: without errors)

---------------------------
CORRUPT

2Co 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For wee are not as many which corrupt
the word of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of God
speake we in Christ.

Strong's sez:
G2585
καπηλεύω
kapēleuō
kap-ale-yoo'-o
From κάπηλος kapēlos (a huckster); to retail,
that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.

As usual, Strong's lists what the KJVs use last, not what makes the
most sense. But why do the KJVs use 'corrupt'. Here is
a text that preceeds the KJVs:

2 Corinthians 2:17 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
For wee are not as many,
which make marchandise of the woorde of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God in ye sight of God
speake we in Christ.

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

I find it so strange that whole doctrines are made
out of the misunderstanding of a word: the
false assumption that the meaning of 'corrupt'
in 2007 was the meaning of 'corrupt' in 1611, 1769, etc

 

[robycop3]

CAN THE DEVIL CORRUPT GOD'S WORD? Newp, but he can lie about it such as he did to Eve. He told her it was incorrect. He can trick people into thinking it's corrupt by starting false doctrines concerning it. But through it all, God's word remains incorruptible.

 

[Ed Edwards]

-

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

-

 

[Pastor_Bob]

He can trick people into thinking it's corrupt by starting false doctrines concerning it.

Are you referring to the false doctrine of inspiration or the false doctrine of preservation? Those are the two major doctrines concerning the Word of God. Everything we believe relative to the Word of God is hinged upon these two doctrines.

 

[robycop3]

Are you referring to the false doctrine of inspiration or the false doctrine of preservation? Those are the two major doctrines concerning the Word of God. Everything we believe relative to the Word of God is hinged upon these two doctrines.

Well, there's the false doctrine that's a fave item of discussion here. And there are false doctrines built around one verse or set of verses such as the "prayer of Jabez" thingie of a coupla years ago. Also, there are the various "Bible Code" lies, including the "Da Vinci Code" garbage. There's Riplinger's "acrostic algebra".

There are umpteen other man-made "isms", all false doctrines about God's word saying this or that.

I have learned over the years to believe God's word literally until symbolism is clearly used. this has enabled me to see right through the devil-spawned lies about the Scriptures. But we must be ever-vigilant...we must remember that our adversary is the 4th most-powerful being there is, surpassed in power only by the Holy Trinity, & that he's busy 24/7 trying everything from brute force to new guile every second, minute, & hour to attempt to deceive the Christian in order to limit his witness, and to keep the lost in their current state.

His lies about God's word won't cease until he's no longer of this world.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

...we must remember that our adversary is the 4th most-powerful being there is, surpassed in power only by the Holy Trinity, & that he's busy 24/7 trying everything from brute force to new guile every second, minute, & hour to attempt to deceive the Christian in order to limit his witness, and to keep the lost in their current state.

His lies about God's word won't cease until he's no longer of this world.

This is the exact motivation behind my position relative to the version issue. I choose to believe that the witnesses clearly indicated that the Byzantine family of mss have been providentially preserved down through Christendom. I choose not to accept that the Word of God was lost until the 1880s when a few recent mss were found that didn't agree with one another much less the majority of extant mss.

 

[robycop3]

I choose to believe that, according to the prophesied increase of knowledge, God caused many mss that had been unknown to modern man to have been brought to light again in the last 200 years, this broadening our knowledge of God's word. I also choose to believe that had they really been corrupt, that He wouldn'ta allowed them to have remained in existence, let alone brought back to light to be included with those already being used to make Bible translations.

I choose to believe GOD CAN DO ANYTHING, including presenting His word to us in amy manner *HE* jolly well chooses, whether man agrees with Him or not.

I choose to believe the devil CANNOT corrupt God's word, but he can trick men, even devout Christians, into believing falsehoods about it.

I choose to believe only those doctrines of worship derived from Scripture, either directly or by unmistakable implication. I choose to believe that God has placed everything He wants us to know about Himself, for now, within His Scriptures. I choose to believe that if a doctrine of worship isn't in Scripture, it's false.

I choose not to believe God retired in 1611 from presenting His word in the languages current for the time.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I choose to believe that...
I also choose to believe that...
I choose to believe...
I choose to believe...
I choose to believe...
I choose to believe that...
I choose to believe that
I choose not to believe...

Good men and women have shed their blood so that you and I can believe whatever we want to believe.

 

[Mike Berzins]

This whole topic is about a frequently misunderstood
KJV-ism. It is an error of understanding the KJV
not an error in the KJV, but an error taken OUT OF THE KJV.
(The KJV, being a Bible, is inerrant: without errors)

---------------------------
CORRUPT

2Co 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For wee are not as many which corrupt
the word of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of God
speake we in Christ.

Strong's sez:
G2585
καπηλεύω
kapēleuō
kap-ale-yoo'-o
From κάπηλος kapēlos (a huckster); to retail,
that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.

As usual, Strong's lists what the KJVs use last, not what makes the
most sense. But why do the KJVs use 'corrupt'. Here is
a text that preceeds the KJVs:

2 Corinthians 2:17 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
For wee are not as many,
which make marchandise of the woorde of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God in ye sight of God
speake we in Christ.

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

I find it so strange that whole doctrines are made
out of the misunderstanding of a word: the
false assumption that the meaning of 'corrupt'
in 2007 was the meaning of 'corrupt' in 1611, 1769, etc

The idea that the word of God can not be corrupted, makes perfect sense if your only infallible word of God is contained in heaven. To us that believe the the King James Bible is the infallible word of God, however, it can be corrupted. All you have to do take a pen and cross out I John 5:7-8, or change "God was manifest in the flesh" to "He (Jesus) appeared in a body" or stick the word "a" in front of "God " in John 1:1. And now you have the word of God "corrupted".

Of course, God does preserve it. And although he may let a particular infallible copy become corrupted for a time, he always resurrects his word soemwhere in the end.

And regarding the idea that just because it was corrupted by a man means it was not done by the devil, just read where the Lord Jesus Christ says to Peter "Get behind me Satan".

By the way Ed, if the KJB is individually, the inerrant word of God, then wouldn't I be correct in taking the KJB's definition of corrupt ahead of the word of some fallible man named Strong?

Matthew 6:

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

So back in 1611, did those poor, ignorant, tv-deprived translators think that the moths and rust were making mechandise of men?

 

[Mike Berzins]

No, the devil cannot corrupt God's word.

How can he, as pointed out, corrupt what an omnipotent God has promised to preserve?

Can man do a bad translation?
Of course.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of God's method of preservation.

Luke 21: 16-18
16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

Many were burned at the stake for the word of God. Even their hair burned and so "perished". But this is not a contradiction of the scripture. When God resurrects them, he will give them a new body, with hair, and in the end not a hair of their head ultimately perished.

It's the same way with the preservation of Israel. The nation was gone for two thousand years, but God preserved it by way of resurrection, and now it is back.

So it is with the preservation of God's word. There might be a time when God seems to have not preserved it from our vantage point, but in the end it is restored. When Moses broke the ten commandment, the word of God seemed to be lost, but God restored it.

The dry bones of Ezekiel, the pen knife in Jeremiah, the examples could be multiplied many times.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I agree, someone has a basic mis-understanding of preservation .

 

[Ed Edwards]

Mike Berzins: //By the way Ed, if the KJB is individually,
the inerrant word of God, then wouldn't I be
correct in taking the KJB's definition of corrupt
ahead of the word of some fallible man named Strong?//

I will be taking the definition of corrupt from Strong
way ahead of people who don't, can't, or won't notice that
different Greek Words are translated into the
English 'corrupt'.

Matthew 6:19-20 (KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers):
Lay not up2343, 3361 for yourselves5213 treasures2344
upon1909 earth,1093 where3699 moth4597 and2532
rust1035 doth corrupt,853 and2532 where3699
thieves2812 break through1358 and2532 steal:2813
20 But1161 lay up2343 for yourselves5213 treasures2344
in1722 heaven,3772 where3699 neither3777 moth4597
nor3777 rust1035 doth corrupt,853 and2532 where3699
thieves2812 do not3756 break through1358
nor3761 steal:2813

Strong's sez:
G853
ἀφανίζω
aphanizō
af-an-id'-zo
From G852; to render unapparent, that is, (actively)
consume (becloud), or (passively) disappear (be destroyed):
- corrupt, disfigure, perish, vanish away.


2Co 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For wee are not as many which corrupt
the word of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of God
speake we in Christ.

Strong's sez:
G2585
καπηλεύω
kapēleuō
kap-ale-yoo'-o
From κάπηλος kapēlos (a huckster); to retail,
that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.

Hello, different Greek word, same English word.

I notice you quote my quote of the Geneva Bible of 1587.
But you didn't bother to respond to the fact that a Bible
before the KJV1611 Edition contained
a word other than 'corrupt' in 2 Cor 2:17.

Here is Mat 6:19 in the Geneva Bible:

Lay not vp treasures for your selues vpon the earth,
where the mothe and canker corrupt,
and where theeues digge through and steale.

Different Greek word; same English word

Show me the verse where 'corrupt' is defined
in the KJB.
In fact, I've got several KJVs, are they all
the KJB? Did you read the result of my survey here
several years ago which shows how people here
define KJB?

IMHO the Devil can huckser the Bible
but if the Devil contaminates the Bible
the defense is to have several different translations
of the Bible . The one-and-only-one mindset does
NOT allow for God's Written Word to be Preserved.
If a Bible is contaminated, then only a multitude
of versions can show the contamination.

Again, you are talking to the guy who is writing a
book: working title is: COMMON DOCTRINAL ERRORS
CAUSED BY MISREADING THE KING JAMES.

"Corruption" will be one of the chapters :wavey:

(Notice the non-carismatic Baptist smilie - only waves one hand
at a time and his feet never leave the ground)

 

[EdSutton]

This is the exact motivation behind my position relative to the version issue. I choose to believe that the witnesses clearly indicated that the Byzantine family of mss have been providentially preserved down through Christendom. I choose not to accept that the Word of God was lost until the 1880s when a few recent mss were found that didn't agree with one another much less the majority of extant mss.

I choose to believe that, according to the prophesied increase of knowledge, God caused many mss that had been unknown to modern man to have been brought to light again in the last 200 years, this broadening our knowledge of God's word. I also choose to believe that had they really been corrupt, that He wouldn'ta allowed them to have remained in existence, let alone brought back to light to be included with those already being used to make Bible translations.

I choose to believe GOD CAN DO ANYTHING, including presenting His word to us in amy manner *HE* jolly well chooses, whether man agrees with Him or not.

I choose to believe the devil CANNOT corrupt God's word, but he can trick men, even devout Christians, into believing falsehoods about it.

I choose to believe only those doctrines of worship derived from Scripture, either directly or by unmistakable implication. I choose to believe that God has placed everything He wants us to know about Himself, for now, within His Scriptures. I choose to believe that if a doctrine of worship isn't in Scripture, it's false.

I choose not to believe God retired in 1611 from presenting His word in the languages current for the time.

Uh, I know I'm no scholar, but only the Language Cop, but what is the difference between "choose" and "choose". Would either one of you two gents mind explaining the difference to me?

Ed