No Doctrines Are Changed?

[Will J. Kinney]

God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.
Will
------------------------------------------------------------------------
gb asks: "So you are saying that a translation is exactly equivalent to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?"


Yes, I am. The exact equivalent, not necessarily the exact word for word. Sometimes 2, 3 or even more words are required in English to express the text of the Hebrew or Greek, and sometimes it goes the other way, with fewer words of English to express what is in the Hebrew, but the same TEXTS and meaning is preserved in the English of the King James Bible. That is what I believe.


God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.


Could you give some supporting evidence for this statement?

Yes, because the TEXT is ALWAYS RIGHT, while some of the marginal notes are not. Quite simple.

gb>>>So you are saying that the KJV clearly addresses the differences between the two tpes of love used in John 21:15-17? If the KJV is inspired, it must because the Greek text does. "


Yes, just like any other version. There is no difference between these words.

Words for Love in the New Testament - agapao versus phileo.

Many Bible critics like to play the Greek game and impress the unlearned with their supposed superior knowledge of "the original Greek". The phrase "the original Greek" must be intoned with a certain degree of pious solemnity to produce the desired effect.

Here is such a letter I received from a moderator at another Christian club on the internet.

" I do not believe that the KJV is ever truly misleading, BUT, we lost a very important matter when the KJV people translated both PHILEO and AGAPE to "love" in John 21:15-17

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

DARBY -

When therefore they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He says to him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I AM ATTACHED TO thee. He says to him, Feed my lambs.

16 He says to him again a second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He says to him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I AM ATTACHED TO thee. He says to him, Shepherd my sheep.

17 He says to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, ART THOU ATTACHED TO me? Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, ART THOU ATTACHED TO me? and said to him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I AM ATTACHED TO thee. Jesus says to him, Feed my sheep.

The Darby is clear here and yet retains the familiar cadence and feel of the KJV. That little difference, between the words that Jesus and Peter used for "love", is worth a great sermon, all by itself. (end of letter)

These "serious scholars" like to think they are privy to special insights and nuances the rest of us peons of the pews cannot fathom. They take great pains to let us know there are subtle meanings found only in "the original Greek" of which we garden variety Christians remain woefully ignorant until they exercise their priestcraft to open these hidden treasures on our behalf.

They tell us that such a case is found in the New Testament use of two distinct words for love - agape and phileo. You will constantly hear these drones...uh, I mean... scholars tell us that agape means God's unconditional love, while phileo means a friendship type of love.

Well, let's take a closer look at how God uses these two words and see if there is really something to what they say or if is it all hogwash.

John 3:16 "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." The verb used here is form of 'agape', so we are told it always means a God-type unconditional love. OK, but what do we then do with these verses using the same verb?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Agapao

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God." Agapao

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them." Agapao

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." Agapao

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." Agapao

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Agapao

It should be abundantly clear that the scholar who insists the word 'agape' means an unconditional, God-type love has no idea what he is talking about.

Well, what about phileo then? Does it always mean a friendship type of love and not the love of God?

John 16:27 "For the Father himself LOVETH you, because ye have LOVED me, and have believed that I came out from God." Phileo

Revelation 3:19 "As many as I LOVE, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent." Phileo

1 Corinthians 16:22 "If any man LOVE not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." Phileo

Well, then do these two words actually mean the same thing? Let's compare some Scriptures.

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo

John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo

Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo

1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao

Don't let the Bible correctors or "serious scholars" steal your Bible from you or make you think they have inside information that you do not have if you only read the English of the King James Holy Bible. The believing Bible reader will often have far more spiritual understanding than the educated scholar who thinks he can correct or improve upon the Holy Bible God has given us.

Regarding the passage in John 21 that is frequently the occasion of the scholar's assaults, Dr. Thomas Holland has these insightful words of encouragement.

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson01.htm

Dr. Thomas Holland.

The question was asked: "When Jesus confronted Peter and thrice asked, 'Do you love me?' he used two different words in Greek, why wasn't this captured in the English translation?"

The passage is found in John 21:15-17 which reads as follows.

15: So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16: He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17: He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

There are two different Greek words translated as love in this passage. One is agape and the other is phileo. According to the Greek text the first two times Jesus uses the word love He uses the Greek word agape. Both of these times Peter responds with phileo. On the third time, when Jesus speaks the word love, the word phileo is used by Christ. To this, Peter responds with phileo. Some suggest that the Greek word agape means a deeper love, while the Greek word phileo means friendship or affection.

The King James Bible is not alone in translating both words the same way. The standard Spanish translation is the Valera. What the KJV is to the English-speaking world, the Valera is to the Spanish- speaking world. Each time the Lord asks, "me amas?" to which Peter replies, "Si, Senor; tu sabes que te amo." In every case, the Spanish word for love is used, not two different words.

The standard French Bible is the Louis Segond. All three times the Lord uses the word, "m'aimes-tu," and Peter replies with "t'aime." It is the same French word for love.

The Italian Bible is the Giovanni Diodati. In the gospel according to Giovanni (John), the Italian word "amo" is used throughout the passage.

And, of course, Luther's German Bible uses the German word for love, which is, "lieber."

Even the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RV, ASV RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, and NEB translated both Greek words as love in this passage. So the KJV is not at all alone in its translation.

Most scholars teach the two different Greek words agape and phileo, mean two different things, or at the very least, two different types of love (such as, I love my wife and I love pizza). However, this does not bear itself out in the Greek New Testament. The simple fact is that these two words are used interchangeably, both meaning love. If phileo means friendship and not godly love, then why does Christ use it in Revelation 3:19? "As many as I love, I rebuke."

Both words mean love and are used interchangeably.

Finally, the real issues here was not the change of Greek words. Peter was not grieved because Christ had changed Greek words. He was grieved because he asked three times. It was not the change in words or tense that disturbed Peter. It was, "because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" Does not this passage in John 21 prove the point that agape and phileo are interchangeable? Jesus asks, "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 15), "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 16), and "lovest (phileo) thou me" (vs. 17). When Christ asks this last time, the texts states, "He saith unto him THE THIRD TIME" (vs.17). This is true only if these two words are interchangeable. If they are not interchangeable and carry different meanings, the text is in error, for it was not the third time. If the two words carry the same meaning, the text would be correct as it stands in the Greek manuscripts. (end of Dr. Holland's comments)

Will Kinney

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi brother Bill, I appreciate your responses and input. Actually, I have gotten many of my ideas for the articles I write defending the King James Bible from guys like Larry, James White, Doug Kutilek, and others like them who have no single Bible or text they consider to be the infallible, inerrant word of God.

I get into these discussions not to convince them but to learn what their arguments are and to try to encourage and help other Christians who DO BELIEVE God has kept His promises to preserve His words and has done so in the King James Bible.

So, I often do refer to a certain article on my site because the Whateverists, General Message is Good Enuf for Me, Bible of the Month Club crowd always bring up the same tired criticisms. There is not much originality among them at all. They usually copy stuff they got from some other guy who also doesn't have an inerrant Bible and who thinks if he can poke one little hole in the KJB then he can rejoice that he has proven NO Bible is totally accurate.

As I indicated before, if you would like to bring up one specific example (one at a time, please) of an alleged error in the text of the King James Bible, I will be glad to try to answer it to the best of my ability.

As for my theology, Yes, I am a confirmed 5 point Calvinist, contrary to most, but not by any means all, King James Bible believers.

I have not always believed this way, but years ago God began to open my eyes to these precious truths and I firmly believe them. However, I do not agree with everything Calvin taught. I believe in believer baptism and lean heavily towards a Pre Millenial return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am more of a Calvinistic Baptist, as most Baptists were throughout history until the theological shift started about 100 years ago.

I believe that the doctrines of grace (sovereign election to salvation of God's chosen people) is a completely separate issue from the Bible version issue, and this is my main interest.

A very short testimony. I was not brought up in a Christian home. I was a hippie in college (1965) and got seriously into Eastern religions, Yoga, meditation, drugs, communal living, etc.

I hitched around the country and one day came to a Jesus House of ex hippies. A verse they read to me out of the King James Bible, which almost everybody used then, hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks.

I began to read the Bible along with my other religious books, and God "spoke to me" using John 10 "My sheep hear my voice".

Not long afterwards I became a Christian. I lived in a Christian commune in California for a while, walked pretty well with the Lord for about 7 years and then wiped out really, really badly for another 7 years. My wife divorced me with good reason. I was a drunk and drug user again and had lost my faith.

Then God started to deal in a very unusual way (long story), and brought me back to Himself. That was some 20 years ago. God gave me another wife who also had tried running away from Him but got caught (He always gets His own one way or another), and we have been married for almost 20 years now.

I came to an understanding of the doctrines of grace some 15 years ago, and got interested in the Bible version issue about 5 years ago.

That is the very short version. I am now 57 years old and a new grandpa.

I am a rotten sinner saved by the sovereign mercy and grace of Almighty God the Father through the shed blood of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. I am bound for glory through no merit of my own, and am really looking forward to seeing His lovely face and falling before him on mine for the first 100 years, and loving Him with an unsinning heart.

Praise our Blessed Saviour.

Your brother in Christ,

Will Kinney

 

[Orvie]

Will, Our BV/T differences aside, your testimony was a blessing. God bless you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Good testimony, Brother WIll.
Thank you for sharing.

Will J. Kinney: " ... others like them who have no single Bible
or text they consider to be the infallible, inerrant word of God."

IMHO this desire to have one and only one
is a false desire, an unnatural desire (AKA: lust).

In fact, the Providencial Protection of God's Holy Written
Word is so bountiful that there are over 200 English
Bibles which contain the error-free, infallible, inerrant
written word of God. This is NOT A SINGLE BIBLE but multiple
Bibles. Ain't God GOOD!

FOr this topic, remember the various
doctrines coming from the KJV are
greater than the various doctrines that
have been fostered in the last 30 years
since the NIV starrted outselling the KJVs.

 

[Jim Ward]

Yet every other example of lust involves wanting more then one, or one other then what you have or soemthing that is someone elses.

Maybe this explains why someone has a different definition. Trying to cover his own lust?

 

[Plain Old Bill]

Bro. Will,
I noticed in your articles that you are somewhat familiar with the Third mellineum Bible. Do you think that version has any proximity to the KJV?
Also Have you looked at the New Scofield(not counting the notes) at all? What do you think?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Jim Ward:
Yet every other example of lust involves wanting more then one, or one other then what you have or soemthing that is someone elses.

Can you be a bit more specific
on this? I have gotten a lot of mileage out
of lust = unnatural appetite. You have
a better definition?

1. A person doesn't
naturally desire to snort coke, it is an
acquired taste, an unnatural appetite,
a lust -- only one snort at a time is
desired.

2. A person doesn't naturally desire
to drink alcohol. Most forms taste so
bad that one has to overcome this taste
to acquire the habit. One does not have
a natural appetite for alcohol, the sppetite
is unnatural, alcohol is a lust.

I gave my examples of what i meant,
give examples of what you meant.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
... Larry, James White, Doug Kutilek, and others like them who have no single Bible or text they consider to be the infallible, inerrant word of God.

But I would suggest that you as well do not have any single Bible or text that fits that category. When you claim the KJV as the only one, surely after 5 years you realize that there are differences in the text. The issue cannot be the amount of differences (the MVs differ from teh KJV a lot vs. the various KJVS only differ a little). The issue is not amount; it is the fact that they differ at all. And if only one Bible can be the word of God, you have language problems. It is not enough to say that different languages are a different matter. They are different ... period. So you are willing to admit that more than one set of words can be the word of God. We are also willing to admit that. I think you are inconsistent.

I do appreciate your testimony even though we seriously disagree on this. I too am a firm believer in the doctrines of grace. But I would rather you not call into question my love or devotion to his word. The fact that I hold a different position, the position historically held by all fundamentalists and orthodox believers throughout church history, does not mean that I hate God's word or am willing to change it. His word is my authority and that is why I believe what I do.

 

[robycop3]

Thanx for posting your testimony, Will. I see more where you're coming from, although I totally disagree with your onlyism fantasy.

For the first 31 years of my life, it was all about POWER. I was a physically-strong person & near the top of my class scholastically.

I joined the Navy immediately after HS & was there 1966-70 as a Pharmacist's Mate, serving in 'Nam on land from Nov.'68 till my DC June '70.

Soon after DC, I met the woman who became my wife 4 years later. Meanwhile, I became a steelworker & played semipro football in the OVFL.I also resumed an amateur boxing career begun while in HS, also participating in "underground" tuff-man contests under a pseudonym, as was common practice.

I was a busy man, living a hedonistic lifestyle, not thinking of God whatsoever, believing I was Superman, indestructible. Then, I was laid off as a steelworker, & used govt. assistance to take police training. I worked as a cop for a large city, and REALLY fell into a godless lifestyle, glorying in power and authority, doing things that shows such as "The Shield" only hint at. As the AC/DC song says, I was truly on the "Highway To Hell".

But my parents, devout Christians, had not forgotten me. They prayed daily for me. One day I stopped by to tell Dad that I was facing the inevitable about playing football-I bruised more easily and healed more slowly than before-and Dad said, "Well, some day, you'll be MY age, if God allows you to live long enough, and you'll appreciate the little things more." I dwelt on "if God allows' for awlile, remembering a police buddy who'd died in a wreck while on duty, and a fotball friend, younger than I, who'd collapsed & died while in training. I wondered what had happened to their SOULS. That evening, for the first time in years, I sat down & read a Bible. I continued this nightly for over six months, coming to the realization that I was no better in God's sight than anyone else, and that He'd been very patient with me so far. I began to realize that I was a GROSS SINNER, & that I'd been blessed with parents who hadn't rejected me as "the black sheep of the family". And my wife had patiently put up with all my "macho parties", having 25 men at our home, all of us bragging about how we'd busted and/or beat up some local "undesirables", or other unsavory things we'd done as "Oakland Rider" style cops. Yes, indeedy, we thought of OURSELVES as the "saviors" of the world from the forces of evil, and that those idiots who made laws restricting the use of force by us had never been out on the street to know that force was necessary, especially to put repeat offenders out of business for good. WE JUST DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE WERE WORSE THAN MANY OF THOSE WE BUSTED!

Thank God, He was patient with me! Finally, on Thanxgiving Day, 1979, I fully realized I WAS A SINNER, HEADED TO HELL, and that ONLY JESUS CHRIST could and would forgive my sins and save me from hell. Right there at dad's dinner table I renounced my sins and asked Jesus to take over my life and believed in Him as God, Savior, and Lord.

From that day onward, I've sought to do what Scripture plainly says to do, and to find out what he wants me to do each day for Him. I soon realized I could no longer be both a cop and a Christian and so resigned as a cop.(yes, I realize there are many Christian cops, but now I know it wasn't God's will for me to remain a cop, maybe because I'd sinned so much as a cop.) I put my navy training to work & became a paramedic, serving till I was recalled as a steelworker in 1984.

As for the KJVO issue, I was introduced to it in 1982, having been a Christian for not quite 3 years. I've studied it thoroughly, and have found it to be a false doctrine, entirely man-made, without any Scriptural support. In my Christian life, I've come across many other false doctrines, such as those proclaimed by the RCC, but by sticking to Scripture, I've seen through them all. Soon after I was introduced to the KJVO myth, I became stuck in Armstrongism for almost 2 years, till I saw ole Herbie was preaching Annihilationism, something quite contrary to Scripture. I soon saw through his other hooey, again by sticking with Scripture. This is the main reason I reject the KJVO myth-NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT! It has no FOUNDATION! Its man-made origins are quite clear. No matter how much sugar the KJVOs put upon it, it still has a core of mud.

Will, you still haven't left ALL your hippie days behind because you've taken up yet another far-out man-made theory. You've fallen prey to a totally man-made doctrine that is simply NOT SUPPORTED in Scripture. You TRY to rationalize it by comparing Bible versions & saying, "This aint the KJV, so it's wrong". That WON'T WORK! You try to tell us who do NOT buy the KJVO myth that "we have no final authority". Again, you're wrong. OUR final authority is GOD, whom the KJVO tries to LIMIT by casting aspersions upon copies of His word they don't like.

Sorry, Will-you've taken up another BUMMER.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Hi Bill, you ask: "I noticed in your articles that you are somewhat familiar with the Third mellineum Bible. Do you think that version has any proximity to the KJV?
Also Have you looked at the New Scofield(not counting the notes) at all? What do you think?"

The TMB is based on the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the KJB, even more so than the NKJV, and the meaning is generally much more in line with the KJB than the NKJV by far.

I haven't read much of it but I have found places where it is wrong. For instance 1 Cor. 15:33.

The TMB reads much like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, all of which miss the point.

The true Bible says: "Evil communications corrupt good manners." It is speaking of things that are SAID, and refers back to verse 12 where some among them were saying there is no resurrection of the dead.

It concerns false doctrine and what is spoken.

However the niv, nkjv, TMB, nasb have given us a popular saying, but not the truth of the passage. The say something like "Bad company corrupts good morals."

Also the TMB I believe is wrong in Romans 7:15. I know what all the Greek experts will say, but they are wrong and the KJB is right. Paul obviously KNEW what he was doing because he explains it in great detail.

"That which I do I ALLOW not" is the correct meaning of the passage, and also is in the Geneva Bible, Mace 1729 N.T,, Websters, Bishop's, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

The TMB joins the nkjv, niv,nasb is "I know not".

As for Scofield, they keep changing the text and often don't tell you they have done so.

I will stick with the King James Bible as the inerrant word of God.

God bless,

Will

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:


gb>>>So you are saying that the KJV clearly addresses the differences between the two tpes of love used in John 21:15-17? If the KJV is inspired, it must because the Greek text does. "


Yes, just like any other version. There is no difference between these words.

This might be a convenient out for you but God inspired two different words, not one. Therefore there is a difference between the words or else you cite God for making an error.

BTW, it is interesting that you now excuse the KJV by comparing it to "any other version". Just another double standard, huh?

The phrase "the original Greek" must be intoned with a certain degree of pious solemnity to produce the desired effect.

There should be a respect for the original Greek. As distasteful as it apparently is for you, God chose that language to inspire the NT into. Period. Since God chose it, it must have been the perfect vehicle for His purpose.

Regarding the passage in John 21 that is frequently the occasion of the scholar's assaults, Dr. Thomas Holland has these insightful words of encouragement.

Noteworthy that you accept what this guy has to say while at the same time ignoring what God did. God used two different words. Neither you nor Holland should be spending time and effort explaining away what God did say in order to maintain belief in something He never said.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

My Dear Bro. Will,
I am sure you will stick with the KJV and I certainly see nothing wrong with that.Thankyou for your comments on the Scofield and TMB.I went out looking for a TMB today but could'nt find one.I think I'll look on line some more and read it more before I make a buying decision.
I will be online less hopefully for some time.I have been out of work due to medical reasons since last september but go back to work this wednesday.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
1 Cor. 15:33.

The TMB reads much like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, all of which miss the point.

The true Bible says: "Evil communications corrupt good manners." It is speaking of things that are SAID, and refers back to verse 12 where some among them were saying there is no resurrection of the dead.

It concerns false doctrine and what is spoken.

The problem here once again is an issue about how much we honor what God said, as opposed to man's translation. The word means "company or association." It does not mean "communication." Those who believe the doctrine of verbal inspiration must side with teh clearer and more accurate translation of the NASB here.

Also the TMB I believe is wrong in Romans 7:15. I know what all the Greek experts will say, but they are wrong and the KJB is right. Paul obviously KNEW what he was doing because he explains it in great detail.

"That which I do I ALLOW not" is the correct meaning of the passage, and also is in the Geneva Bible, Mace 1729 N.T,, Websters, Bishop's, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

The TMB joins the nkjv, niv,nasb is "I know not".

Once again, verbal inspiration is the key. God inspired "ginosko" a word that means "know." 213 times the KJV got this idea in the word. For some reason, they did not get it right in this verse. Paul is saying that he does not fully understand the conflict between what he desires to do and what he does. It is a testimony to the power of sin in the life.

Both of these issues directly address the issue of verbal inspiration. Did God use the word that he wanted to use? If he did, what authority does a translator have to use another word for it? I don't think the translator has any authority to do such. That is why I must side with most of the modern versions on these verses ... I believe in verbal inspiration.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
[qb]... Larry, James White, Doug Kutilek, and others like them who have no single Bible or text they consider to be the infallible, inerrant word of God.

No offense and I am very serious about this question. I do not understand something. Do you think the 1611 version to be the accurate Word of God or one of the many versions that were later published and how do you reconcile that "man" decided to remove the apocrypha from the KJV 1611? So, I guess what I'm asking did God guide the translators or the revisionists, in your belief? You are speaking of specific "Word of God" that is inerrant therefore I do not see how a book that is modified many times to correct errors in the translation can be considered errorless, unless it is the final revision and why do you think that this final revision gives us the privilege of an inerrant Word of God?

 

[Phillip]

"That which I do I ALLOW not" is the correct meaning of the passage, and also is in the Geneva Bible, Mace 1729 N.T,, Websters, Bishop's, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.

The TMB joins the nkjv, niv,nasb is "I know not".

As for Scofield, they keep changing the text and often don't tell you they have done so.

I will stick with the King James Bible as the inerrant word of God.

God bless,

Will [/QB][/QUOTE]

Uh, 'scuse me. Although I have not looked this up in the Greek. The word "allow" has an older meaning of "know" or "provide information for", etc. Very much like me asking you "what will you allow?" As in the question: What do you know? and what will you say? etc.

Unless the Greek says otherwise, I would say the translation itself is very accurate in both accounts due to the time in which they were translated.

 

[gb93433]

God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.
Will
------------------------------------------------------------------------
gb asks: "So you are saying that a translation is exactly equivalent to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts?"


Yes, I am. The exact equivalent, not necessarily the exact word for word. Sometimes 2, 3 or even more words are required in English to express the text of the Hebrew or Greek, and sometimes it goes the other way, with fewer words of English to express what is in the Hebrew, but the same TEXTS and meaning is preserved in the English of the King James Bible. That is what I believe.

So then tell me why the word for “for you”= is not translated in Gen 12:1? That word is very significant in the meaning of the text.


God overode the opinions of some KJB translators and had the correct meaning put into the TEXT.


Could you give some supporting evidence for this statement?

Yes, because the TEXT is ALWAYS RIGHT, while some of the marginal notes are not. Quite simple.

You are right, the text is always right. The text of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greeek.

gb>>>So you are saying that the KJV clearly addresses the differences between the two tpes of love used in John 21:15-17? If the KJV is inspired, it must because the Greek text does. "


Yes, just like any other version. There is no difference between these words.

Really? Then why the two different words?

Words for Love in the New Testament - agapao versus phileo.

Many Bible critics like to play the Greek game and impress the unlearned with their supposed superior knowledge of "the original Greek". The phrase "the original Greek" must be intoned with a certain degree of pious solemnity to produce the desired effect.

Here is such a letter I received from a moderator at another Christian club on the internet.


These "serious scholars" like to think they are privy to special insights and nuances the rest of us peons of the pews cannot fathom. They take great pains to let us know there are subtle meanings found only in "the original Greek" of which we garden variety Christians remain woefully ignorant until they exercise their priestcraft to open these hidden treasures on our behalf.

They tell us that such a case is found in the New Testament use of two distinct words for love - agape and phileo. You will constantly hear these drones...uh, I mean... scholars tell us that agape means God's unconditional love, while phileo means a friendship type of love.

No scholar would ever tell you such nonsense! A person who knows enough to be dangerous might though. But not one who has studied the two words in their context and outside of the Bible would say such things.

Don't let the Bible correctors or "serious scholars" steal your Bible from you or make you think they have inside information that you do not have if you only read the English of the King James Holy Bible. The believing Bible reader will often have far more spiritual understanding than the educated scholar who thinks he can correct or improve upon the Holy Bible God has given us.

Regarding the passage in John 21 that is frequently the occasion of the scholar's assaults, Dr. Thomas Holland has these insightful words of encouragement.

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson01.htm

Anyone who has studied these passages would know better than to spew out such ignorance as the author has stated. But don’t let him kid you to think that the two types of love are exactly equivalent. They are not. If one were to do a serious study you would notice the diferences. Sometimes subtle and sometimes not.

Dr. Thomas Holland.

The question was asked: "When Jesus confronted Peter and thrice asked, 'Do you love me?' he used two different words in Greek, why wasn't this captured in the English translation?"

The passage is found in John 21:15-17 which reads as follows.

15: So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16: He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17: He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

There are two different Greek words translated as love in this passage. One is agape and the other is phileo. According to the Greek text the first two times Jesus uses the word love He uses the Greek word agape. Both of these times Peter responds with phileo. On the third time, when Jesus speaks the word love, the word phileo is used by Christ. To this, Peter responds with phileo. Some suggest that the Greek word agape means a deeper love, while the Greek word phileo means friendship or affection.

The King James Bible is not alone in translating both words the same way. The standard Spanish translation is the Valera. What the KJV is to the English-speaking world, the Valera is to the Spanish- speaking world. Each time the Lord asks, "me amas?" to which Peter replies, "Si, Senor; tu sabes que te amo." In every case, the Spanish word for love is used, not two different words.

The standard French Bible is the Louis Segond. All three times the Lord uses the word, "m'aimes-tu," and Peter replies with "t'aime." It is the same French word for love.

The Italian Bible is the Giovanni Diodati. In the gospel according to Giovanni (John), the Italian word "amo" is used throughout the passage.

And, of course, Luther's German Bible uses the German word for love, which is, "lieber."

Even the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RV, ASV RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, and NEB translated both Greek words as love in this passage. So the KJV is not at all alone in its translation.

Most scholars teach the two different Greek words agape and phileo, mean two different things, or at the very least, two different types of love (such as, I love my wife and I love pizza). However, this does not bear itself out in the Greek New Testament. The simple fact is that these two words are used interchangeably, both meaning love. If phileo means friendship and not godly love, then why does Christ use it in Revelation 3:19? "As many as I love, I rebuke."

I don’t know of one scholar that teaches this. Ask this so called scholar to name one. In fact the scholars I had for teachers would not call these men he mentions as scholars but as ignorant men who think they know so much. In fact they are put in the category as having the same attitude as the KJVO’s.

Both words mean love and are used interchangeably.

That is true but they still do not mean the same thing. He fails to mention that there is an overlap of meaning and does not say what it is.

Finally, the real issues here was not the change of Greek words. Peter was not grieved because Christ had changed Greek words. He was grieved because he asked three times. It was not the change in words or tense that disturbed Peter. It was, "because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" Does not this passage in John 21 prove the point that agape and phileo are interchangeable? Jesus asks, "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 15), "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 16), and "lovest (phileo) thou me" (vs. 17). When Christ asks this last time, the texts states, "He saith unto him THE THIRD TIME" (vs.17). This is true only if these two words are interchangeable. If they are not interchangeable and carry different meanings, the text is in error, for it was not the third time. If the two words carry the same meaning, the text would be correct as it stands in the Greek manuscripts. (end of Dr. Holland's comments)

Will Kinney

Sometime pull out your concordance and just check out his work. You will find that he does not know so much as he thinks he does. If you ever do any extrabiblical work it will really tell you of his nonsense.

There are differences in the two words. At times they do overlap but there are differences. He never mentions what the differences are other than to slam some ignorant men whom we often find in churches that make great claims. I have tried to pastor some of those scholars with little to no success because they will not learn. They are proud and make great claims of such knowledge. Those he calls scholars are those who have done a few word studies but really don’t know much at all. They just think they do.

 

[gb93433]

Will,

What you have been led to believe about phileo and agapao translated as love is the same thing as the lumber salesman selling you Meranti and telling you it is Honduras Mahogany. They look similar but are not at all the same. The trained person knows the difference.

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Scott>>>Noteworthy that you accept what this guy has to say while at the same time ignoring what God did. God used two different words. Neither you nor Holland should be spending time and effort explaining away what God did say in order to maintain belief in something He never said. "

OK, Scott. Would you be so kind as to point out the subtle nuances of distinction in these verses for us?

Let's compare some Scriptures.
Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo
Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo
John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo
Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo
1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Larry>>>Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
1 Cor. 15:33.
The TMB reads much like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, all of which miss the point.
The true Bible says: "Evil communications corrupt good manners." It is speaking of things that are SAID, and refers back to verse 12 where some among them were saying there is no resurrection of the dead.
It concerns false doctrine and what is spoken.
------------------------------------------------------------------------The problem here once again is an issue about how much we honor what God said, as opposed to man's translation. The word means "company or association." It does not mean "communication." Those who believe the doctrine of verbal inspiration must side with teh clearer and more accurate translation of the NASB here.

Larry, maybe those who have lost their marbles will side with the NASB here, but I certainly won't. Your "scholarship" is a marvel to behold.


I Cor. 15:33 "Be not deceived: EVIL COMMUNICATIONS CORRUPT GOOD MANNERS."

Paul has been talking about the doctrine of the resurrection, and how our whole faith is made vain if this fact is not true. He has mentioned in verse 12 "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

Imagine that, some "Christians" were saying and telling others that there is no such thing as the resurrection. This is the context of Paul's statement in verse 33 - evil communications.

The word is homiliai - plural, not singular, and it comes from the verb to speak, to talk, to commune. It pertains to what is being said; thus communications. We get the word homily from this Greek word.

The verb is homilew and is found four times in the New Testament. In Luke 24:14 it is translated as "talked" - "and they TALKED together of all these things which had happened." In Luke 24:15 "while they COMMUNED", Acts 20:11 "and TALKED a long while, even till break of day", and in Acts 24:26 "wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and COMMUNED with him."

The Wycliffe bible 1395 says "evil speeches destroy good conduct". Tyndale renders 1 Cor. 15:33 as "malicious speakings corrupt good manners", while the Geneva Bible says: "evil speakings corrupt good manners." The Bishop's Bible 1568 has: "evil words corrupt good manners."

Agreeing with the King James Bible "evil communications corrupt good manners" are Young's, Darby, Coverdale 1535, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the Douay Version 1950, and the Spanish Reina Valera "las malas conversaciones corrompen las buenas costumbres",



However the NKJV, NASB, and NIV, as well as many other modern versions like the RSV, ESV, ISV, have messed up what this verse actually says, and have replaced it with a popular proverb: "Bad company corrupts good morals." Well, this may be true, but it is not what God has inspired to be written here in this verse. I would say "bad bibles corrupt good minds."


Will Kinney

 

[Will J. Kinney]

Also the TMB I believe is wrong in Romans 7:15. I know what all the Greek experts will say, but they are wrong and the KJB is right. Paul obviously KNEW what he was doing because he explains it in great detail.
"That which I do I ALLOW not" is the correct meaning of the passage, and also is in the Geneva Bible, Mace 1729 N.T,, Websters, Bishop's, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible.
The TMB joins the nkjv, niv,nasb is "I know not".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Larry>>>-Once again, verbal inspiration is the key. God inspired "ginosko" a word that means "know." 213 times the KJV got this idea in the word. For some reason, they did not get it right in this verse. Paul is saying that he does not fully understand the conflict between what he desires to do and what he does."


Larry, you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is - your opinion.

Several other translations are just like the King James Bible. They didn't just make this up or totally goof up the meaning by accident.

Paul did "know" what he was doing because he explains the whole process for us.

According to Liddell and Scott Abridged Lexicon, 17th edition, 1887 on page 142 one of the meanings of ginoskw is "to decide upon, to determine, to decree".

"That which I do I ALLOW not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I WOULD NOT, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

Paul did not want to do, or permit himself to do these things. He would not do them, and it was no longer he but sin that dwells in him.

Not only do Bishop's Bible, Geneva, Webster's, and Mace N.T. say what is in the KJB "I allow not", but Wesley has "I approve not", Darby has "I do not own", and Young gives the same meaning with "I do not acknowledge". To acknowledge has the idea of approving or permitting.

Your particular opinion just happens to differ from that held by others.

Will Kinney