KJV Mistake Question

[Linda64]

Originally posted by Bismarck:
What is the difference between "PUT AWAY" and "DIVORCED"?

PUT AWAY

To cleanse oneself of; to remove; to discard from one's life (Ge 35:2; Ex 12:15; De 22:22,24; Jos 24:14; 1Co 13:11). This phrase is used to describe divorce (Le 21:7; Ezr 10:3; Jer 3:1; Mal 2:16; Mt 1:19; 5:31-32; 19:3,8-9; 1Co 7:11).

Way of Life Encyclopedia


Divorce
The dissolution of the marriage tie was regulated by the Mosaic law (De 24:1-4). The Jews, after the Captivity, were reguired to dismiss the foreign women they had married contrary to the law (Ezr 10:11-19). Christ limited the permission of divorce to the single case of adultery. It seems that it was not uncommon for the Jews at that time to dissolve the union on very slight pretences (Mt 5:31-32; 19:1-9; Mr 10:2-12; Lu 16:18). These precepts given by Christ regulate the law of divorce in the Christian Church.

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bob Dudley:
maybe this one will be less controversial. ειδους is translated as "appearance" in 1 Thes 5:22 and should be translated "form".

obstain from all appearance of evil

or

obstain from all form of evil

It's all pretty black and white. They either translated the word correctly or they didn't.

Hmmm. The Greek word ειδους means "a view" and can signify "appearance," "fashion," "shape," etc. Again, I think the problem here is your lack of understanding of the meaning of the word "appearance" rather than a mistake on the part of the translators.

If you will check a good English dictionary you will see that appearance still carries the meaning of "the act or an instance of coming into sight. The act or an instance of coming into public view. The action or process of becoming evident to the senses."

Perhaps the main problem is a misunderstanding of what the verse is saying. It is not saying to abstain from doing things that might look like they are evil, but every time evil makes an appearance we are to abstain from it.

</font>[/QUOTE]I agree with Doc here 100%. I am to abstain every time evil appears. It seem to be grasping at straws to call this a KJV mistake.

 

[Scott J]

Doc Cassidy, Can you help me out and let me know what you think on the issue I raised?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by James_Newman:
How about, if you go around taking the Lord's supper unworthily, not discerning the Lord's body, you're going to go to hell? Yes, I think that is what he is saying.

So you believe that a person can lose their salvation?

The context demands that if you insist that "damnation" as currently understood is correct.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

33Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

The text is talking about Christians, not non-Christians... and there is no indication that this is a reference to your speculations about a Baptist purgatory either. Specifically, it mentions not be condemned with the world... and the world's punishment will not be temporary.

 

[Bob Dudley]

Linda64 said:
This phrase is used to describe divorce

Hi Linda,

I think they are two different concepts. I think the “putting away” is the sin. And divorce was the “remedy” that God instituted through Moses because of our sinful nature. With this in mind, and a proper translation of the Matthew passage, it makes a lot more sense what Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount and when the Pharisees came to question Him about this subject.

Lev 21:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them…

Rules for a priest (note “put away” woman – nothing about divorce):

Lev 21:7 They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God.

Rules for a high priest (note widow and “divorced” woman included - stricter rules):

Lev 21:14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

Rules for the daughter of a priest (note widow and “divorced” treated the same):

Lev 22:13 But if the priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.

“put away” means “put away” in the Hebrew and Greek. This was the sin.

Divorce” means “divorce” in Hebrew and Greek. This is the corrector to the sin so that the people who sin by being separated from each other (for what ever reason) can continue in life without being under sin for the rest of their time on earth.

Ezra felt that he could tell the Israelites to “put away” their wives (without the writ of divorcement) since they were breaking Jewish law by marrying them in the first place.

Malachi restates that it is “putting away” that God hates.

I’m not trying to write doctrine here (although I obviously have an opinion). I’m just saying that the KJV translators translated “put away” as “divorce”. Now, whether you argue that they are essentially the same thing or not, the KJV translators still didn’t translate it the way Jesus said it.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Leviticus 21:7 'put away'
1644. garash
vrg garash gaw-rash' a primitive root; to drive out from a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce:--cast up (out), divorced (woman), drive away (forth, out), expel, X surely put away, trouble, thrust out.

Leviticus 21:14 'divorced'
1644. garash Same Hebrew Word, Same Definition.

Now, whether you argue that they are essentially the same thing or not, the KJV translators still didn’t translate it the way Jesus said it.

And you know this because? Were you there when Jesus spoke? Or when the Levitical Laws were handed down?

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Doc Cassidy, Can you help me out and let me know what you think on the issue I raised?

Even though we see a difference in the meaning of the words today, in the early 17th century the words were synonyms.

 

[Johnv]

KJV Mistake Question

I would respond with a question:

So what? The KJV is a good and faithful translation. It's not perfect, and does not claim to be. Nevertheless, it is a very good translation, and worthy of use for scriptural study and teching. The issues of "mistakes", "errors" etc, are issues of split hairs. So long as one does not subscribe to any unscriptural single-translation-onlyism, I see no reason to get all worked up over translational/entymological errors or the like.

 

[TCassidy]

John, I agree with you (sort of). What I was trying to point out is that most of the "errors" identified in the KJV by anti-KJVOs are no more errors than the "errors" identified in the modern versions by KJVOs.

When an anti-KJVO claims he can list errors in the KJV then lists only minor nuance quibbles he falls right into the KJVOs hands! He is shown to be petty, ignorant, or just plain wrong!

If we are going to engage in this type of discussion we better have all of our ducks in a row or we will do nothing more than give additional ammunition to the most radical of the KJVOs.

I can give examples where the KJV follows no existing Hebrew text, but, instead, reads as does the LXX or the Latin Vulgate. I can show you a conjectural emendation added to his edition of the TR by Beza which made its way into the KJV with absolutely no Greek manuscript support. I can list about 40 readings in the KJV that have no Greek manuscript support but instead seem to have originated in the Latin Vulgate or in some cases the Complutensian Polyglot.

But even then I am not arrogant enough to assume the inclusion of those readings is an error, only that I lack the manuscript evidence to substantiate the origin of the reading.

The point is, if we are honest, that we all, including the KJVOs, and TROs have an acceptable range of variation we are willing to tolerate in our bibles. The problem arises when one of us assumes the others are all wrong because we have either a narrower or wider acceptable range. The KJVOs say that, even though the most common 1762/1769 KJV differs from the 1611 KJV in over 1,000 places, those differences are within their acceptable range of variation. And when the TRO says that the differences between Erasmus's, Beza's, and Scrivener's TROs are within his acceptable range of variation, but then they deny the Majority Text proponent the same latitude, or when the Critical text (all 30+ editions, all different!) proponent denies the MT or TR proponent the same latitude, we come into needless conflict.

My point is (finally) that, in my considered opinion, neither side (for the most part) has done their homework on this issue and both sides are equally guilty of the same fallacy.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
My point is (finally) that, in my considered opinion, neither side (for the most part) has done their homework on this issue and both sides are equally guilty of the same fallacy.

Except, of course, for the fact that KJVOism is false doctrine.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
John, I agree with you (sort of). What I was trying to point out is that most of the "errors" identified in the KJV by anti-KJVOs are no more errors than the "errors" identified in the modern versions by KJVOs.

When an anti-KJVO claims he can list errors in the KJV then lists only minor nuance quibbles he falls right into the KJVOs hands! He is shown to be petty, ignorant, or just plain wrong!

That or it demonstrates the folly. By splitting hairs like these examples, the KJVO must falsify his own position by responding. He must say that the KJV doesn't say what it says or else that it isn't the Bible for today.

Because you and I do not accept these types of things as "errors" in the sense of detracting at all from scripture, our beliefs are not falsified simply because these things exist.

Thanks for the response btw.

On that verse however, here is the dilemna I see for KJVO's. They must backpeddle and say well damnation meant judgment when the KJV was made... while simultaneously condemning MV's for using judgment in the text.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Except, of course, for the fact that KJVOism is false doctrine.

Yes, we know that, but my point is that you cannot fight a false doctrine with more falsehood.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by Scott J:
On that verse however, here is the dilemna I see for KJVO's. They must backpeddle and say well damnation meant judgment when the KJV was made... while simultaneously condemning MV's for using judgment in the text.

Yes, and they would be equally wrong.

 

[Bob Dudley]

I'm not trying to point out gross errors in the KJV. I don't think there are any. I think the KJV is the best English translation around today. My only point was that it is not inspired, it uis JUST a translation. The original autographs are what are inspired. The KJV is the ONLY English version I ever preach from or use in my own personal devotions.

 

[Salamander]

For your presumption to hold water, God would have to be less than God in His ability to preserve His Word that He holds above His very name.

Can't anyone see the danger in what the ideal of "only the originals" being inspired means?

If the King James Bible isn't inspired then NONE are inspired and God isn't Omniscient, but I have news for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
Except, of course, for the fact that KJVOism is false doctrine.

Yes, we know that, but my point is that you cannot fight a false doctrine with more falsehood.

</font>[/QUOTE]Sure you can, happens all the time in this arena!

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
On that verse however, here is the dilemna I see for KJVO's. They must backpeddle and say well damnation meant judgment when the KJV was made... while simultaneously condemning MV's for using judgment in the text.

Yes, and they would be equally wrong.

</font>[/QUOTE]Nope, as I explained, judging onesself is judgement, not damnation.

If I judge myself and am saved, then when I partake of the fruit of the vine as representative of the Blood of Christ, then I cannot be drinking damnation to my soul.

If an unsaved person judges himself and then drinks unworthily, he does invite judgement, but definitely drinks damnation that will result in pending judgement to come.

I love the preciseness of the King James Bible, don't you?

Well you would, if you'd take time to think about these things!

 

[Bob Dudley]

Bro Salamander said:
For your presumption to hold water, God would have to be less than God in His ability to preserve His Word that He holds above His very name.

Can't anyone see the danger in what the ideal of "only the originals" being inspired means?

If the King James Bible isn't inspired then NONE are inspired and God isn't Omniscient, but I have news for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, brother, but I just don't see your logic. I don't see how saying the KJV isn't inspired leads to God not being omniscience. I mean, couldn't the NIV people say the same thing of their translation?

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bob Dudley:
Or πασχα in Acts12:4 is tanslated "Easter" instead of "Passover". I don't think it changes any one's doctrine but it's still wrong.

Again, if you will look up the word "easter" in a good dictionary you will see that it used to also mean "The Jewish Passover."

</font>[/QUOTE]Uh, I suppose your opinion would decide what is a good dictionary, and since the two different times can be on the same day, you would then be correct, but the two different events don't always fall on the same day.

Easter is correct chronologically to Luke's penning down the Word of God. Easter is the time set aside by the ecumenicalists and the religionists as the time to recognise the Ressurection which has nothing to do with the Jewish Passover except that the Passover is only a shadow of things to come, namedly the Ressurrection.

Now if Luke had said, "..after Easter, when Christ arose", and he didn't, then the arguement against the use of Easter would hold water, and it still doesn't.

 

[Salamander]

Originally posted by Bob Dudley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bro Salamander said:
For your presumption to hold water, God would have to be less than God in His ability to preserve His Word that He holds above His very name.

Can't anyone see the danger in what the ideal of "only the originals" being inspired means?

If the King James Bible isn't inspired then NONE are inspired and God isn't Omniscient, but I have news for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, brother, but I just don't see your logic. I don't see how saying the KJV isn't inspired leads to God not being omniscience. I mean, couldn't the NIV people say the same thing of their translation? </font>[/QUOTE]No, your arguement against the King James proves the NIV wrong for not using the word "damnation" and instead leaving the reader to think because he drank the fruit of the vine therefore he judged himself and will not be judged.

The King James is very precise, the NIV leaves to much open for misguidence.