New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture

[John of Japan]

Ambidextrous, maybe? I had to stress the methodology of "pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another", somehow, so I followed the article's' wording.

Sorry, if I caused a sharp misunderstanding regarding his overall mental or moral qualities. They just changed what they were doing compared to the impression that was made initially` by the publishes and later in their advertising, etc.

Whatever you want to call it, using a less emotionally charged word for where we saw where "The executive editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version does not advocate the Greek Textus Receptus at all; he is an advocate of the Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, by his own admission."



I was referring to where James Price was speaking about the New Testament like Logos1569 posted:

James D. Price explained that the real reason for this choice of rendering in the book of Acts in the NKJV is that the translators thought that in this context Peter was alluding to Isaiah 52:13, which identifies Christ as the Servant of the LORD (False Witness, p. 25).

From: New Book on the Doctrine of Scripture


HAVE A HAPPY! HAVE A HAPPY LIFE AND YEAR.

Hallelujah!

Cool.

Will do. Thank you.


I'm not KJVO. I just quoted his quote.

Good.

Kjvo Ruckmann was indeed a quack. I don't know much at all about Riplinger. What I've read of her research was sound. Even if someone has fallen for any portion of Ruckman's quackery, if they have the truth in some of their writings I go with it the same as I would from any other person in the world of literature.

IMO, Riplinger is worse than Ruckman, who was very bad! I find it completely ridiculous that she calls all Bibles other than the KJV "New Age Bibles." If a translation is even dynamic equivalence, it is utterly impossible to make it a "New Age Bible." It is absolutely impossible to get New Age Doctrine out of any, ANY, Bible translation.

New Age doctrine includes monism (there is no separation between the physical and immaterial parts of a person, contra Heb. 4:12), humans can become gods, karma, reincarnation, altered states of consciousness, etc., etc. The movement gets its beliefs from Asian religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Shinto, all of which I know well, having lived in the Far East for decades. I even lecture in a college classes on several Asian religions. The Bible directly opposes all of these, so it is idiotic to claim that any translation of the Word of God can be "New Age."

Then there is the matter of knowledge. As wrong as he was about nearly everything, Ruckman at least had a PhD in Bible, but Riplinger had no formal Bible training that I can discover: no BA, no MA, no PhD. Her grad degree was reportedly in home-making! She writes about Greek and Hebrew having never taken a class in either!

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

A "GENERAL" VS "SPECIFIC" ARGUMENT!!!

TWF THEM!!!

YOU GOT 'ER!!!

TWICE!!!

Many times the KJV changes and updates archaic words or phrases in the pre-1611 English Bibles, not rarely as Riplinger claimed.

"Many times" compared to all the times that there are words in the Bible means what?

"Rarely, compared to all the words that are in the Bible means what?

All the words that differ between the early English Bibles and the 1611 KJV are not pure synonyms as Riplinger claims.

All the words that differ, by the nature of the Doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture are going to be entirely synonymous, since they express the same truths in different forms of our language being revised, and according to the Bible's internal witness.

She used the word "pure" synonyms, so since you got her on a purely 'specific' qualifier that we assume is nailing down the exact kind of synonym she is talking about, there is no need to suggest her "pure synonyms" could ever be seen to be synonymous with my idea that, 'generally speaking', the overall truths that they are both expressing are going to be synonymous, whether the actual words themselves qualify under the definition of being considered to be 'synonyms', or a "pure synonym", meaning a 'synonym' letter-by-letter, i.e., "a synonym is ('specifically') a word* with the same or similar meaning to another word in the same language."

*(with 'a word' obviously meaning 'specifically' 'one word',
...ohhhh, you got her there...feel the burn...)

Of course, the definition of 'synonym' above doesn't 'specifically' address the application of updating archaic words in the same language that are so dated that they have required a revision, to more current usages of those same words and 'generally' whether the use of 'more than one word' compared to another 'word', or 'other words', would ever still be called a 'synonym', if it could be, or whether it would just be called something else, like inerrantly and infallibly 'alike' or 'similar' or 'essentially the same in every possible way within the bounds of our language during any age that it has been known the Mankind'.

If you know what I mean:

Maybe, she is 'generally' expressing the hope that she has been understood to be saying that 'the words' in the two are 'practically identical', especially when she has spoken in a way that you, 'specifically', find to be 'imprecise' or 'unclear' ('synonyms') or 'hard to understand' (not a pure synonym).

Then, the wording in any other given version would just look very similar to all these versions below, that came before the KJV, regardless of which example of Preservation we considered, as we see from Proverbs 11:30;

(KJV) "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."

(1611 KJV) "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life: and hee that winneth soules, is wise."

(1587 Geneva Bible) "The fruite of the righteous is as a tree of life, and he that winneth soules, is wise."

(1568 Bishops Bible) "The fruite of the ryghteous is a tree of life: and he that winneth mens soules is wise."

(Geneva Bible 1560) "The fruite of the righteous is as a tree of life, and he that winneth soules, is wise."

(The Great Bible 1539) "The frute of the ryghteous is a tree of lyfe: and he that endeuoureth him selfe to wynne mens soules is wyse."

(Matthew's Bible 1537) "The frute of the righteous is as the tree of lyfe, a wyse man also wynneth mens soules."

(Coverdale Bible 1535) "The frute of the rightuous is as the tre of life, a wyse man also wynneth mens soules."

(1388 Wycliffe) "The fruyt of a riytful man is the tre of lijf; and he that takith soulis, is a wijs man."

(Webster's Bible 1833) "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."

when in others, owing to the fact that they were Reconstructed from very different sets of manuscripts**, not so much at all...

C*********t Versions

(GNB) Righteousness gives life, but violence takes it away.

(HCSB) The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but violence takes lives.

(The MESSAGE) A good life is a fruit-bearing tree; a violent life destroys souls.

(NLT) The seeds of good deeds become a tree of life; a wise person wins friends.

(NRSV) The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but violence takes lives away.

(RSV) The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, but lawlessness takes away lives.

...even though some people apparently can't tell them apart anyway.

All it takes to be in that kind of shape is to ignore the first group of passages listed above and to never bring them under consideration, except when confirming that they are purely ignorable and to remain, therefore, oblivious to their safety.

**THE PRESERVED VERSIONS' ORIGINAL LANUGAGE MANUSCRIPTS AS WELL AS THOSE USED BY THE RECONSTRUTIONISTS THAT I COULD FIND LOOK JUST ALIKE TO ME:

11:30 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
פְּֽרִי־צַ֭דִּיק עֵ֣ץ חַיִּ֑ים וְלֹקֵ֖חַ נְפָשֹׂ֣ות חָכָֽם׃

משלי 11:30 Hebrew OT: WLC (Consonants Only)
פרי־צדיק עץ חיים ולקח נפשות חכם׃

משלי 11:30 Paleo-Hebrew OT: WLC (Font Required)
פרי־צדיק עץ חיים ולקח נפשות חכם׃

משלי 11:30 Hebrew Bible
פרי צדיק עץ חיים ולקח נפשות חכם׃

Hebrew Text

¶ פְּרִי־צַדִּיק עֵץ חַיִּים (3) וְלֹקֵחַ (2) נְפָשׂוֹת (1) חָכָם׃


(1) חָכָם׃ – (Chakham) Wise

(2) נְפָשׂוֹת – (Nephesh) Soul

(3) וְלֹקֵחַ - (laqach) means win or take

Affected Teaching

"As you can see in the above 6 versions that 5 of them state lawlessness or violence takes away lives. The NLT states that a wise person wins friends. There is nothing in the Hebrew Text which even comes close to both of those interpretations."

"The NLT speaks about a wise person who wins friends and that is good advice. It is better to win friends than enemies but the word friend is not in view in this verse."

 

[Logos1560]

All the words that differ, by the nature of the Doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture are going to be entirely synonymous, since they express the same truths in different forms of our language being revised, and according to the Bible's internal witness.

Are the 1560 Geneva Bible's rendering "ostriches" and the 1611 KJV's rendering "owls" pure synonyms?

Job 30:29 ostriches (Geneva, NKJV) owls (KJV)

Isaiah 13:21 ostriches (Geneva, NKJV) owls (KJV)

 

[Logos1560]

Gail Riplinger declared: “The words that differ in the early English Bibles are pure synonyms” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 859).

Does Gail Riplinger think that the 1535 Coverdale's Bible's rendering "do penance" is a pure synonym with the KJV's rendering "repent"?

In his introduction to a facsimile reprint of the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, S. L. Greenslade noted that though in 1535, Coverdale "normally says repent, or sometimes amend, he ten times has '(do) penance'" (p. 15). The rendering "penance" can be found in Coverdale's Bible at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Are the 1560 Geneva Bible's rendering "ostriches" and the 1611 KJV's rendering "owls" pure synonyms?

They were probably emus or peacocks for all the difference it makes.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Does Gail Riplinger think that the 1535 Coverdale's Bible's rendering "do penance" is a pure synonym with the KJV's rendering "repent"?

"Bring forth therefore fruits meet for Repentance", Matthew 3:8 is a command of God through John the Baptist for those who say they are saved and are ready to be baptized, need to have shown and continue to indicate by their behavior that there are specific things they have done and are doing that have returned a Spiritual harvest to them.

It is like he was telling them, "if you are truly penitent, and if you have a proper sense of sin, and you really have true repentance for your sins, we should be able to be see you do the kind of works that are suitable for us to consider that you have truly repented, and will show us that we may be able to trust the genuineness of your repentance, in order for us to conclude that you have actually been saved and are now a candidate for being baptized".

In other words, John the Baptist wanted them to have done penance for them to appear to be penitent, where he could feel confident that they have really experienced the repentance that God gives every soul He Saves.

1. Definitions: we can observe the nuances in the subtle variation between Penance and Repentance by observing that, strictly speaking, Penance refers to acts of remorse, while Repentance is a heartfelt turning away from sin towards God.

So, John the Baptist was simply requesting to see the evidence of their heartfelt turning away from sin towards God associated with Repentance, by seeing them performing acts which reflect their remorse and that give the indication that they have been made fully aware of the seriousness of their sin, which goes by the word Penance.

Repentance is leaning more toward an Internal expression of an individual's Worship of God, while Penance is going to be more of an External expression of Experimental Religion, which is equally Considered and Accepted by God as Worship, also.

While it is grammatically possible to differentiate a subtle nuance in the usage and application of what the Author's Intention was where the word Repentance and Penance are seen to both be translations of μετανοια, but they are precious little variations within the same species of the original word.

"Benson Commentary uses Repentance and Penitent as synonyms:
"Matthew 3:8. "Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for repentance" — That is, a change of temper (Repentance) and behavior (Penance), answerable thereto; forsake, as well as confess, your sins, (Repentance) and let the integrity, regularity, holiness, and usefulness of your lives, (Penance) manifest the sincerity of your repentance.

"It is a metaphor taken from trees, which discover what quality they are of by the fruits they bear; in allusion to which, pious men are called trees of righteousness, Isaiah 61:3; and their works, fruits of righteousness, Php 1:11.

"Let it be observed, further, that as the original word, μετανοια, here rendered repentance, properly signifies a change of mind, from the approbation and love of sin to an aversion and hatred to it, in consequence of a deep conviction of its evil nature and destructive tendency; (see on Matthew 3:2) (Repentance).

"so, wherever this is, there will, of course, be an entire reformation of life, a ceasing to do evil, (Penance) in all respects, according to the knowledge and ability of the penitent, and a learning to do well."

"Hence it is styled repentance from dead works, Hebrews 6:1; and repentance unto salvation not to be repented of, 2 Corinthians 7:10; that is, such as is not reversed by any voluntary returning or relapsing into our former sins."

Here in this Greek-English dictionary Repentance is the first definition given and Penance is the second; for you guys to always create some sharp misunderstanding to sharpen your axes against anyone who professes that they have a preference for the King James Bible, just because there isn't anything that can be said to recommend translations generated exclusively from the comparison of the smallest sampling of the worst original language manuscripts known to Mankind, is boring me.

enμετάνοια in English - Greek-English Dictionary | Glosbe

Translation of "μετάνοια" into English; repentance, penance, penitence are the top translations of "μετάνοια"into English.

Greek-English dictionary

repentance

noun

"condition of being penitent"


The meaning of PENANCE is an act of self-abasement, mortification, or devotion performed to show sorrow or REPENTANCE for sin.

So, the command to, "Bring forth, therefore, fruits meet for Repentance", and the command to, "do Penance", when viewed in their shared Algebraic Identities*, and have virtually identical identities,

*(which are equations that hold true for all values of the variables involved.)

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

I find it completely ridiculous that she calls all Bibles other than the KJV "New Age Bibles."

It is absolutely impossible to get New Age Doctrine out of any, ANY, Bible translation.

The Bible directly opposes all of these, so it is idiotic to claim that any translation of the Word of God can be "New Age."

"New Age Bible Versions by GAIL RIPLINGER"​

is not a book about Translation Preferences.
It is about Spiritual Warfare. It is about the War on the Word of God.

Looks like it is what they say that her book is a "meticulously documented volume which reveals a coordinated departure from Doctrinal Truth through modern Bible translations" and she is "exposing the removal, rewording, and dilution of thousands of critical phrases and verses."

"What This Book Uncovers":

"1. The Downgrading of Christ"
"Riplinger documents the systematic removal of Christ’s Titles, His Divinity, and even His Name from key verses.
Example: KJV (Daniel 3:25):
“…the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
NIV, ESV: “…like a son of the gods.”
A subtle change? No — a Doctrinal Demolition.

"2. The Removal of ‘Holy’"
Riplinger notes how “holy” is stripped from men, angels, prophets, and even from the phrase “Holy Ghost.” This is not accidental. It obscures the Character of God and the Sacredness of Scripture itself.

"3. Altered Salvation Verses"
"Many verses that clearly define salvation by grace through faith are reworded to sound ambiguous, works-based, or mystic. Words like blood, repentance, and hell are often diminished or removed.

"4. New Age Parallels"
"Riplinger traces how the same phrases found in Occult and New Age literature appear—word for word—in the footnotes and text of modern translations. This is not coincidental. It is part of what she terms the Luciferian* c*********t."

"5. The Spirit Behind the Translations"
"Riplinger exposes the spiritual and philosophical backgrounds of the men behind the new texts, such as Westcott and Hort, showing their involvement in Occultism and disdain for biblical Christianity."

You probably don't want to see a bunch of New Threads on some of these topics, whether they reference her book or not, but a lot of this stuff that I am aware of is pretty devastating and are things that any Christian should be brushed up on.

Just the two historical facts that The Revised Version is not a Revision of the King James Version and The New King James Version is also not a New King James Version hardly at all, should be enough for anyone to place a sizable question mark on those pop phenomena to ask why were they called those things then?

What's up with that, for God's Sake?

That should make anyone wonder long and hard.

And where are Westcott and Hort, who started all this mess, these days anyway, because their text makes up the lion's share of the influence exerted upon most every one of the modern bibles.

I think what I know about it is not for the faint of heart, much less her book which is "dense, heavily footnoted, and at times overwhelming in scope — but necessary for any believer who values truth."

*for the modern King James Version 'critic' person who thinks they know everything about various versions of the bible to disprove, especially since they don't even realize that according to the Bible, it is actually the 'critic' of their very soul, and not visa versa.

"For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12.

It judges, a discerner
κριτικὸς (kritikos)
Adjective - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's 2924: Critical, able to judge or discern.
From krites; decisive, i.e. Discriminative."

She writes about Greek and Hebrew having never taken a class in either!

Maybe with whatever knowledge she may have gained in whatever environment, even if she is right and she knows why, she could go back and pay for and attend some classes in a school, so that she would have an education.

 

[Logos1560]

In an article "Why I Wrote the Book: New Age Bible Versions," Gail Riplinger stated: "Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God--so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger--God as author and Riplinger as secretary" (The End Times and Victorious Living, January/February, 1994, p. 15).

By claiming that God is the "author" of her book, Gail Riplinger seemed to place her book on the same level with God's Word.

Concerning this statement made by Gail Riplinger, KJV-only pastor Phil Stringer stated: “It is literally a claim to divine inspiration” (Messianic Claims of Gail A. Riplinger, p. 29). Concerning her interview entitled “Testimony, Question and Answer,” Phil Stringer added: “She claims that she was just a secretary—the words were the Holy Spirit’s” (p. 31).

 

[Logos1560]

In his review of the book New Age Bible Versions, KJV-only advocate David Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource" (O Timothy, Issue 8, 1994, p. 3). In another issue, David Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "contains so much that is indefensible, that is pulled out of context, that is inaccurate, that is off course, that is speculative, that the reader can never know when perusing any page whether he is reading truth or fancy" (Issue 6, 1995, p. 8). David Cloud referred to “Riplinger’s conspiratorial, conjecture-filled approach” (Examining, p. 17).


A review of Riplinger's book by the Trinitarian Bible Society (a group which defends the KJV) stated that her book "contains many factual errors, false innuendoes, mistakes in logic, misquotations, and instances of misleading research" (p. 1). This review also noted: "Truth must be defended by truth and not by innuendo, slander, personal attack, false doctrine, poor research, misleading statements, and faulty scholarship, as is done in this book" (p. 2).

 

[John of Japan]

What's up with that, for God's Sake?​

Please do not take the Lord's name in vain. The KJV forbids that.

 

[JD731]

In his review of the book New Age Bible Versions, KJV-only advocate David Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource" (O Timothy, Issue 8, 1994, p. 3). In another issue, David Cloud noted that Riplinger's book "contains so much that is indefensible, that is pulled out of context, that is inaccurate, that is off course, that is speculative, that the reader can never know when perusing any page whether he is reading truth or fancy" (Issue 6, 1995, p. 8). David Cloud referred to “Riplinger’s conspiratorial, conjecture-filled approach” (Examining, p. 17).


A review of Riplinger's book by the Trinitarian Bible Society (a group which defends the KJV) stated that her book "contains many factual errors, false innuendoes, mistakes in logic, misquotations, and instances of misleading research" (p. 1). This review also noted: "Truth must be defended by truth and not by innuendo, slander, personal attack, false doctrine, poor research, misleading statements, and faulty scholarship, as is done in this book" (p. 2).

I don't have much confidence in Gail Riplinger for several reasons but I have been looking for some proper adjectives that describes my view of John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion." You have nailed it here without even trying.



Note to self: bookmark this post for an adjective library source of cutting someone up really bad.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

the list from the link given in the OP is linguistically ignorant.

Looks like you're saying that someone who doesn't fully approve of the language used in the King James Bible should be called 'linguistically ignorant'. Wow.

All of those words can be found in a good dictionary, and an educated person (even an American!) regularly uses many

I'd say, "Crazy Americans", if I wasn't afraid you'd say it was a Hate Crime

Anyone who doesn't know that (including the webpage author) doesn't read much or pay attention to scholarly or other high level works.

Oh, my God, finally someone takes up for God's Holy Bible as it is written and isn't crying or making excuses for some urgent need to dumb down it's vocabulary!

That list is just ignorant!

It certainly is and always has been.

Now, we have the other extreme perspective articulated, which is to say that the King James Version has to translated into Modern English before they can expound it, which as I've said is the preacher's job, to make everything clear to their audience that they want to be sure they understand.

However, as a preacher, although I am always happy to preach from the KJV when asked, it is sometimes a problem when I have to translate the text into modern English before I can expound it.

Now, wait a minute. Which is it?
People are ignorant just to mention anything about special words used in specific applications, like the KJV is doing, or is there a double standard that also says that the KJV has to be translated before it can be taught from?

You keep using inconsistent double standards in your misleading accusations

Either way. I guess it's O.K.

Except Logo1560 will always be discomfited, because if he's not vexed with one conundrum, it's another mammoth conflagration devastator.

(These words are also found in the KJV so please understand the NKJV was not published because the KJV is too difficult to read.)"

Believe that Epiphany, folks.

God forbid.

God forbid that I should ever disturb any Roman Catholic's tinkering around in their teachings, by saying, "God forbid".

"CCC 2146 The second commandment forbids the abuse of God's name, i.e., every improper use of the names of God, Jesus Christ, but also of the Virgin Mary and all the saints."

Please do not take the Lord's name in vain. The KJV forbids

The phrase I suggested expresses, "on the behalf of the honor of God," and implies a formal or theological action of representation.

I deplore you, In Heaven's Name, "for God's Sake", can't be considered sinful or blasphemous, considering Bible passages like Isaiah 43:25 and Matthew 10:22:

Isaiah 43:25
"I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, For My [God] Own Sake, and remembers your sins no more.

or

Matthew 10:22
You will be hated for My Name Sake

As that definition is presented in 1. & 2., below;

My intention was entirely distinct from how the common idiom is used to express the kind of impatience or self-righteous indignation you are experiencing and as you might use it in a crude and profane way in everyday common language, or unmannerly thought life, shown in definition 3., here;

 

[John of Japan]

Looks like you're saying that someone who doesn't fully approve of the language used in the King James Bible should be called 'linguistically ignorant'. Wow.

Yep.

I'd say, "Crazy Americans", if I wasn't afraid you'd say it was a Hate Crime

There are plenty of crazy Americans.

Oh, my God, finally someone takes up for God's Holy Bible as it is written and isn't crying or making excuses for some urgent need to dumb down it's vocabulary!

Please don't take the Lord's name in vain.

I never have believed in "dumbing down" the Bible.

It certainly is and always has been.

Now, we have the other extreme perspective articulated, which is to say that the King James Version has to translated into Modern English before they can expound it, which as I've said is the preacher's job, to make everything clear to their audience that they want to be sure they understand.

I oppose dynamic equivalence in modern Bibles, but do not oppose any good Bible translation.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

However, as a preacher, although I am always happy to preach from the KJV when asked, it is sometimes a problem when I have to translate the text into modern English before I can expound it.

Now, wait a minute. Which is it?
People are ignorant just to mention anything about special words used in specific applications, like the KJV is doing, or is there a double standard that also says that the KJV has to be translated before it can be taught from?

In the Preface of the Translators to the Reader, the translation committee of the KJV wrote, ‘We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession……containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.’

I could easily be persuaded to join a campaign to promote the Received Text, and I would gladly give financial support to a new Bible translation using that text if it is felt that the N.K.J.V. is not good enough. What I will not do is try to foist a 500 year-old translation with archaic language on the churches; firstly, because it’s a lost cause, and secondly because even if it succeeded it would be a retrograde step. The K.J.V. shares one feature with every other translation: it was made by fallible, sinful men. Infallibility does not rest with the translators, it rests in the original Greek and Hebrew texts. That is why it is helpful to have someone who knows those languages in every congregation. The K.J.V. falls short on at least two counts:-

1. The English language, like every other, has changed over the past four hundred years. Words alter their meanings over time. In 2Thes 2:7, the K.j.V. translates, ‘Only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.’ The word ‘let’ in the 17th Century, meant to restrain or hinder; today, of course, it means ‘allow.’ Therefore the verse means the exact opposite of what the A.V. says it means. The N.I.V. (and other modern versions) translate correctly, ‘But the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’
Another example is found in Psalm 5:6a. 'Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing.' Is this some sort of Divine threat to credit brokers or car salesmen? Not at all; the N.K.J.V. correctly renders it as, 'You shall destroy those who speak falsehood.' That might certainly cover some used car salesmen, but the application is far wider.

2. Some of the language in the A.V. is scarcely comprehensible even allowing for the archaic language. Consider Ezek 41:7. ‘And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers; for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst.’ This may be a word-for-word translation, but what on earth does it mean? A translation that is so literal that no one can understand it is of limited use.