Errors in the Bible

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I appreciate your attempt to prove the KJV wrong in its translation of "teknon" as "son" but, I fear you may have missed a few obvious passages that support my assertion. See Matthew 9.2; 21.28; Mark 2.5; Luke 2:48; 15.31; 16.25; 1Cor 4:17; Philippians 2.22; 1 Timothy 1.2; 1.18; 2 Timothy 1.2; 2.1; Titus 1.4; Philemon 10;. Now, just for kicks and giggles, check those verses in the NIV! Each and every one of them reads "son" as a valid translation of "teknon" instead of "child" as you claim is the only valid translation. Now, of course, I don't want to rub this in (uh, well, yes I do!) but check the ASV, NASV, NKJV, etc., regarding these same verses and note that virtually every one of them translates "teknon" incorrectly, according to your rules of translation. You won't mind horribly if I don't regard your monolythic rule too highly, will you?

[ May 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Cassidy,

I have never claimed perfection for any version of the Bible. Simply saying, "well see, they do it, too," does not prove me wrong.

This is a word that carries no gender in the Greek. That the KJV, NIV, NASB, or any other version assign it one does not make them correct or you right.

Just because everyone's doing it...

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
[QB]The gender in English is refered to in the masculine when gender is unknown or in doubt. The gender of "teknon" is unknown or indoubt, therefore the KJV translators cannot have erred in assigning masculine gender according to the prevailing rules of English grammar. [/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those were hardly the "prevailing rules of English grammar" as it is translated both ways by the KJV translators. The term is translated "child" 5 times elsewhere when the gender can not be derived from context (I listed them previously).

The term, teknon, is translated as "son" 14 times. In 13 of those instances, I will credit the KJV with "dynamic equivalence" as it is obvious from the context that the term refers to a male in the verse or immediately preceding verses.

Only once in all of the KJV Bible do the translators translate the term, teknon, as "child" when the gender can not be inferred from the context and Matthew 13:12 is it. Why? Your "that's how it was commonly done in 1611" answer doesn't hold water as they do not treat the term like this anywhere else. You give them too much credit.

Again, the Greek has an English equivalent, "child," that is neutral like teknon. That the KJV translators correctly translate it elsewhere goes to show that this was not a "prevailing rule" as you suggest.

Sincerely,

 

“The KJV properly renders qebher as 'the grace' 34 times, but also, without justification, translates Sheol as the grave 31 times and as 'hell' 31 times. In all ten uses of Hades, it is translated 'hell'. The distinction between the intermediate state of the dead in Sheol or Hades and the final state of the wicked in gehenna, 'hell', (used 11 times) was introduced into English religious language through the RV (ASV). These changes have doctrinal implications. The reader of the KJV has no knowledge of what Hades really is unless he knows Greek or is acquainted with later English translations. He thinks of the final place of punishment when he reads 'hell' (Mt 11:23; 16:18; Lk 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20:13; 14) when he should think of the intermediate state of the dead.” Jack Lewis, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, Baker books, 1991. p. 64.

 

“Under the influence of the KJV, ‘Lucifer’ remains a name of the devil; however Isaiah 14:12 really speaks of the King of Babylon and has nothing to say about the devil. The failure to distinguish between daimonios and diabalos, translating both ‘devil’, obscures the fact that in the Greek text of the Gospels there is one devil but many demons. The sufferers of the NT were possessed by ‘demons’ according to the original, not by ‘devils’. They are never said to be possessed by the devil.” (Lewis, p. 65).

 

Thomas,

It seems that you are a bit testy on these issues. I am going to try one more time to address the point and see if I can figure out what you are actually saying. I have noticed that you have a tendency to understand your answers when no one else does. I have seen many times where people ask you the same question again and again that you claim you have answered. In the words of the old axiom, “if the student hasn’t learned then the teacher hasn’t taught.” While not accurate all the time, it certainly seems that people seem to be missing your answers.

Now on this issue, you go back to translators in 1611 when I am referring to modern usage. I do not argue what a word may have meant in 1611. I have already stipulated that the translators were right. Please accept my stipulation. That it was, in your words, “perfectly viable” in 1611 does not testify to its viability today. I made a very specific and defined argument about modern usage. My question was simply, do you think it is appropriate for a translation (not a translator) of Scripture to mislead a reader as to the intent of God’s communication? If not, then do you admit it is an error in modern usage in 2 Thess 2:7? And should it be corrected with a modern version? I didn’t think that was particularly hard.

If you think what I have done is slander then you might be a bit off on the definition of slander. I have not accused men dead for four centuries of deception. I have questioned the accuracy of the translation for modern usage. That is a very specific and reasonable question. I know you don’t believe “any such thing.” In fact, I stipulated that as well. I was questioning how you maintain your position that the KJV is the best for today in light of the seeming inconsistency of 17th and 21st century English.

Now I have listed five passages where the KJV seems to be in error, not merely becuase of language changes, but actual mistranslations of Greek or additions of words and have asked for your defense of those passages. If you choose to respond fine. If not, fine. Perhaps others will review for themselves and respond if they like.

 

And what 5 passages are mistranslated?

I'd like to know...

 

Rev 17:8 – “and yet is” has no MS support. It should read “and shall come.” All Greek MSS are in agreement that “and shall come” is correct. Erasmus’ copy of Revelation was embedded in a commentary and the copyist who made the text that Erasmus worked from wrote “kaiper estiv” (and yet is) instead of “kai perestai” (and shall come). The TR and KJV has maintained the reading in spite of having no MS support. No less than Edward F.Hills (a staunch defender of the KJV and TR) said it was an error (“Believing Bible Study,” p. 83). Do you agree?

(By the way, the last 6 verses of Rev 22 were not in the commentary Erasmus had so he backtranslated from Latin into Greek leading to 16-17 errors if I remember correctly. I do not have the info here in front of me but perhaps I will look it up).

Rev 16:5 – “shalt be” should be “holy one.” Beza guessed at this one. All previous translations (Matthews, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops, etc) all translate read "holy one" and all Greek MSS read “osios” (holy one). Hills says it is an error. Do you agree?

Rom 7:6 – “that being dead” should modify “we,” not “the law.” All Greek MSS have “that being dead” as a nominative participle modifying “we” rather than a genitive participle modifying the genitive nomou (the law) as the KJV does. Hills says it is an error. Do you agree?

Acts 9:6 – A significant portion of this verse (“And he trembling … said unto him&#8221 has no MS support. Erasmus took it from the Latin Vulgate because he thought the Greek was in error. However, there has never been found any Greek MSS support for it. Is it an error?

Heb 10:23 – elpis (translated “hope” in every one of its other 52 uses in the KJV) is translated as “faith” (pistis) in this verse. Do you have evidence that elpis ever meant hope? Or is this an error on the part of the translators?

The reason I point these out is not to promote another translation necessarily but to answer the argument that the KJV is perfect and without error. My point is that all translation have errors or things that I would disagree with. It is simply inaccurate to claim perfection for the KJV or for any translation.

 

Thomas,

First I know you have made “no such argument” (though it seems you have yet to admit one). I was not specifically referencing you necessarily but all who would care to comment. You are more than welcome to comment or to not comment as you see fit.

Second, I am not sure what you disagree with. You said “you (meaning me) are incorrect ... that all MSS read kai perestai.” If you go back and read my post I am the one who said that all Greek MSS read kai perestai (fut mid ind 3s). It is the “superior text” underlying the KJV that read kaiper estin (pres act ind 3s), a reading you admit is not in the Greek. Then you suggest that a future middle indicative (perestai) should be translated as a present but mention that Greek grammarians do suggest that it is better understood in the future tense. Since it is a future tense that would be the most normal understanding of it, an understanding not communicated by the KJV. So I am not sure what you are saying is incorrect. You have agreed with what I said about the proper Greek text; you have cited Greek grammarians who agree with what I have said about the translation. The only thing you disagreed with was when you said that a future middle indicative should be translated as a present, something you offered no support for outside of your own statement.

Third, I posted them all together so as not to make five posts. They can be commented on individually as people so desire. My apologies for not following the rules of the forum on that issue.

 

I understand that Greek reads in Greek. However, we are talking about the appropriate translation of a Greek future tense verb into English and we are assuming that it is possible to accurately communicate the intention of parestai into English. Now, at the risk of being pedantic and troublesome, allow me to ask for clarification on several points.

You have admitted that all Greek MSS read “kai parestai” (in your words, “All Greek manuscripts (which I am aware of) agree that kai parestai is the correct reading&#8221 . Are you therefore admitting that the TR is in error when it read “kaiper estin”? Or are you disputing that the TR reads “kaiper estin”?

Secondly, having stated your position that perestai is better translated as “is present” or “shall be present,” you again have me confused. “Is present” seems to clearly indicate a current state. “Shall be present” seems to clearly indicate a future state. So which do you think it is? They do not appear to be the same.

Thirdly, you assert that “It is clearly better translated ‘is present’ or ‘shall be present.’" Should it have been clear to the translators of MVs who unaminously (with the exception of the NKJV that follows the TR’s “kaiper estin&#8221 translate it a future tense? It seems to me that something as clear as you assert it to be would not have been missed by translators obviously well versed in the language, much more so than you or I. Here I am questioning your assertion of clarity since you have not cited anyone who agrees with you on this. JFB seems to agree with the MVs on this issue. Thomas says this is the “past-present-future phenomenon from earlier in the verse in a slightly different form” (2:294). Even Lenski who says that the tenses are past/present/future only in relation to each other says “shall be present” is future in the verse (though I presume past to him; p. 500). It seems to me that no one argues a lack of an “active vice state of being verb.” They seem to argue that it means just what the MVs say it does.

Perhaps there are grammarians or commentators of reasonable stature that support your position (whatever it is I am still not sure). If so, please cite them. I would be very interested in taking a look at them.Perhaps you agree with the MVs against the KJV. I honestly have not figured out what you are saying.

I do agree with you that YHWH is to be the object of worship and several times he is referenced in Rev as him “who is and was and is to come” (or words to that effect). If indeed this beast is the false counterpart who is being contrasted (as I think is surely right), does it not make sense that John would use very similar language (is, was, and is to come) as well as use similar language that what was used earlier in the verse? I would certainly think so.

That is why it seems to me that the KJV is in error or at least misleading on this. They rightly translated the Greek they had. They, as you admitted, simply had the wrong Greek.

Interested in your thoughts and clarifications.

BTW, you last comments on other versions were most instructive. I did not know that. I am curious as to what you think that indicates or if it indicates anything at all.

 

The smiley faces in the previous post were an interjection by some evil spirit in my computer. I have no idea how they got there. Maybe it was Westcott and Hort ... Hmmmm ...

That is a joke for all you who are already replying ... Relax

 

The KJV of God's Word is without error, no matter what men may say.

It is the only English version that is preseved without error from the Textus Receptus.

It seems hard for some to believe that the God who "breathed' us into existence would want us to have his perfect word and to "know" that we have it, but it is true.

Just like the whole concept of salvation it is too simple for most to believe.

It is also true because He promised he would preserve it for us. (Psalms 12: 6 - 7).

Read it. Believe it. Apply it. Don't let the experts tell you otherwise.

God Bless.

 

Alex H. Mullins,

As usual, your post proves absolutely nothing and asserts the same, tired old KJVO claims. You never enter discussion about specific passages, debates, etc. How about discussing evidence for a change; we are now abundantly aware of your opinions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex H. Mullins:
It is also true because He promised he would preserve it for us. (Psalms 12: 6 - 7).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "preserv[ation]" in Psalm 12:7 refers to the needy of Psalm 12:5, not the "words" of verse 6.

Waiting for some real substance from you...

 

Alex,

I hate to be so abrupt, but allow me to give you a frank question.

HOW do you know it's the KJV? HOW do you know that the TR is the uncorrupted text, and not one based on a long tradition that absorbed a handful of additions into God's Word?

You have no evidence. You have no argument (aside from bad interpretation of Ps. 12:6-7). All you have is a belief that there is a single, perfect Bible edition and that the KJV is it--a link made ex nihilo. There is no logic, no connection between the idea that God preserved His Word, and the hypothesis that the King James Version is that preserved Word. Most of the arguments are based on issues of what is footnoted vs. not, which means that the argument is circular--were there additions to the Bible text or subtractions? (Additions seem more likely to have happened.)

I John 5:7. Was the text that Erasmus edited (known as the TR after the KJV was made) perfect before or after the Comma Johanneum was added? Did the Holy Spirit re-inspire the wording as Erasmus added articles to the Greek? Was it by the hand of God, not of the Catholic Church, that the Comma was added to Erasmus' text in the first place, mysteriously recreating wording that didn't exist in any of the Greek mss we had until then? There is no way that both can be right at the same time, so be careful of your answer.

Revelation 22:19. Was the shift from ligno to libro in the Vulgate that Erasmus used an error, as it certainly seems to be? It seems odd that such an interesting reading would be miscopied--given the significance of Book of Life earlier in Revelation. Were the Greek scribes all under some kind of spell such that the "true" reading was "restored" by this late scribal error? Is the KJV the real deal or not?

If your answer is "yes," then find the idea of re-inspiration of Scripture in Scripture. It's not a hard test...is it an idea given by God, or is it just the thoughts of fallible men?

Does your view hold any water at all, or is it just based around circular logic?

-Wayne