Words, DO matter

[jbh28]

The Bible says.......
Luke 2:33
“And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”

But the NASB & the ESV, say this......
Luke 2:33 (New American Standard Bible)
“And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.”

Luke 2:33 (English Standard Version)
“And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.”

(I didn’t have a chance to check the NIV or the HCSB, so you can.)
--------------------------------------------------
Now does this change have ANYTHING to do with the changes in the English language?!?
No it doesn’t!

Not only do the NASB & ESV totally ignore what the original Greek says in this verse, but they also take a swipe at the Deity of Christ, with this change.

Although I could later, give you many other examples of things like this, do I really have to.
This one example, should be enough for anyone who is being honest about wanting a Bible they can trust.

1. They didn't ignore the Greek on this. It's a textual variant. They choose a different variant than the KJV translators did.
2. It does nothing about the deity of Christ in this verse. It would be about the virgin birth if anything.
3. It doesn't do anything to the virgin birth. The NASB and the ESV both confirm the virgin birth. Saying "father" doesn't mean that Joseph was biological father. Joseph did play the roll of "father" here on earth.

Just later in the KJV, Mary calls Joseph Jesus' father. Now unless you really think that Mary was confused(which she wasn't) Mary is referring to Joseph as the roll that Joseph played on earth.
That's the same thing that is happening in verse 33.

 

[annsni]

Good morning Rippon

You asked.......

No, I wasn’t speaking in “vague generalities” off the-top-of-my-head.

And although I am going to be busy again today, here is one solid example, off the-top-of-my-head. But later on I can give you many others.
--------------------------------------------------
The Bible says.......
Luke 2:33
“And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”

But the NASB & the ESV, say this......
Luke 2:33 (New American Standard Bible)
“And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.”

Luke 2:33 (English Standard Version)
“And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.”

(I didn’t have a chance to check the NIV or the HCSB, so you can.)
--------------------------------------------------
Now does this change have ANYTHING to do with the changes in the English language?!?
No it doesn’t!

Not only do the NASB & ESV totally ignore what the original Greek says in this verse, but they also take a swipe at the Deity of Christ, with this change.

Although I could later, give you many other examples of things like this, do I really have to.
This one example, should be enough for anyone who is being honest about wanting a Bible they can trust.

Why does it take a swipe and Jesus' divinity? Joseph was Jesus' father on earth. There is nothing wrong with that. You very much strain at gnats.

 

[David Lamb]

Hi David Lamb

I understand what you are saying......
Some English words, have different meanings today than they did 400 years ago.

And I am all for these kinds of updates.
--------------------------------------------------
But.....Changing the word “prevent”(which means "go before"), to “wait for”(for example), changes the message in the verse.

Our English language is changing, so we do have to keep up, by updating words.
But unfortunately most MV’s are using this updating process, as an opportunity to completely change the meaning of verses.

I am sure, that you are not in favor of that.

But you are still talking about "changing" one English word or phrase for another. Of course you know that the bible was originally written an Hebrew and Greek - the English language wasn't around when it was written.

So (using your example of "prevent" and "wait for"), either might be a wrong translation of the original Hebrew or Greek. I'm no expert in Hebrew or Greek, and anyway, you didn't say which verse uses "wait for" where the KJV uses "prevent", so I cannot say which is right in whatever verse (and version) you were thinking of.

Take another example, Acts 12.4, which in the KJV reads:

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
​

Were the translators of the KJV changing what the earlier English transaltions had? Wycliffe (1395) had:

And whanne he hadde cauyte Petre, he sente hym in to prisoun; and bitook to foure quaternyouns of knyytis, to kepe hym, and wolde aftir pask bringe hym forth to the puple
​

The Geneva Bible (1587) has:

And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intending after the Passeouer to bring him foorth to the people.
​

The Greek word pasca occurs 29 times in the New Testament, and it is always translated "passover" in the KJV, except in Acts 12.4.

I do agree with you that it is wrong to use words that completely change the meaning of bible verses, but the touchstone must be the original languages, not any particular tranlation, however modern or old.

I am puzzled by your words in your reply to Rippon:

The Bible says.......

But the NASB & the ESV, say
​

It would be more correct to say:

Some translations, including the KJV, NKJV and Young's Literal Translation, say....

Other translations, such as the NASB & the ESV, say...
​

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hello C4K

Sorry for the delay in my response; I was out of town today.

You asked...........


No, because as we both know, all of those changes had to do with things like, correcting misspelled words etc.

How about 1 John 5v12?

 

[stilllearning]

Yes, words DO matter - yet "seed" is not what was written in the originals, is it?

YES IT WAS........

This Hebrew word in Genesis 17:7, is correctly interpreted “seed”..........
--------------------------------------------------
02233 erz zera‘ zeh’- rah
from 02232; n m; {See TWOT on 582 @@ ‘582a’}

AV-seed 221, child 2, carnally + 07902 2, carnally 1, fruitful 1, seedtime 1, sowing time 1; 229

1) seed, sowing, offspring
1a) a sowing
1b) seed
1c) semen virile
1d) offspring, descendants, posterity, children
1e) of moral quality
1e1) a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
1f) sowing time (by meton)
--------------------------------------------------
It’s root word.......
02232 erz zara‘ zaw-rah’

a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 582}

AV-sow 47, yielding 3, sower 2, bearing 1, conceive 1, seed 1, set 1; 56

1) to sow, scatter seed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to sow
1a2) producing, yielding seed
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be sown
1b2) to become pregnant, be made pregnant
1c) (Pual) to be sown
1d) (Hiphil) to produce seed, yield seed

 

[HankD]

Hello C4K

Sorry for the delay in my response; I was out of town today.

You asked...........


No, because as we both know, all of those changes had to do with things like, correcting misspelled words etc.

So, does this mean that although God does not make big mistakes He can and does make little ones like mispelling a word?

A mistake is a mistake.

In addition the corrections to the AV from 1611 to the present include corrections made to words in respect to number and gender.

God is incapable of the smallest mistake down to the jots and tittles of His word.

Textual/translational mistakes in translations of His word are the fault of man.

The AV still has translational mistakes.

e.g. The very first verse of the Bible Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

"the heaven" is dual plural in the Hebrew text ~ymVh;HaShamim

To be true to the Hebrew text it S/B
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And many MV's have it translated correctly.

And in fact the AV translators got it right in Genesis 2:4

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.​

This is not to discredit these worthy scholars but to illustrate the fact that there are mistakes made by men in every translation of His word.

They and those who followed after them strove for several hundred years to correct all these man made mistakes and inconsistencies they found over the years.

Apparently they missed this one.​

HankD

 

[annsni]

YES IT WAS........

This Hebrew word in Genesis 17:7, is correctly interpreted “seed”..........
--------------------------------------------------
02233 erz zera‘ zeh’- rah
from 02232; n m; {See TWOT on 582 @@ ‘582a’}

AV-seed 221, child 2, carnally + 07902 2, carnally 1, fruitful 1, seedtime 1, sowing time 1; 229

1) seed, sowing, offspring
1a) a sowing
1b) seed
1c) semen virile
1d) offspring, descendants, posterity, children
1e) of moral quality
1e1) a practitioner of righteousness (fig.)
1f) sowing time (by meton)
--------------------------------------------------
It’s root word.......
02232 erz zara‘ zaw-rah’

a primitive root; v; {See TWOT on 582}

AV-sow 47, yielding 3, sower 2, bearing 1, conceive 1, seed 1, set 1; 56

1) to sow, scatter seed
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to sow
1a2) producing, yielding seed
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be sown
1b2) to become pregnant, be made pregnant
1c) (Pual) to be sown
1d) (Hiphil) to produce seed, yield seed

I'm sorry but I do not see the English word "seed" in the original languages.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi jbh28

You said........

1. They didn't ignore the Greek on this. It's a textual variant. They choose a different variant than the KJV translators did.

So translating (Iwshf Ioseph ee-o-safe) as “his father”, instead of “Joseph”, is a textual variant?!?
You may not know, what “textual variant” means.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said........

2. It does nothing about the deity of Christ in this verse. It would be about the virgin birth if anything.

Certainly casting doubt on the virgin birth, IS...an attack upon the Deity of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you realized you slipped, and said.........

3. It doesn't do anything to the virgin birth. The NASB and the ESV both confirm the virgin birth. Saying "father" doesn't mean that Joseph was biological father. Joseph did play the roll of "father" here on earth.

Indeed it is taking a swipe at the virgin birth.

But to an unsuspecting baby Christian, who reads “his father” in THE BIBLE, it can cause real harm to their faith.
--------------------------------------------------

The point being made is TRUST.

If you can’t trust a Bible to translate the Greek word for “Joseph”, as “Joseph”, what other liberties might they be taking?

 

[stilllearning]

I'm sorry but I do not see the English word "seed" in the original languages.

Ann; You do realize, that the Book of Genesis was not originally written in English, don’t you?

The word “seed”, is an English translation for the Hebrew word “erz zera‘ zeh’- rah”.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again David Lamb

You said......

“But you are still talking about "changing" one English word or phrase for another. Of course you know that the bible was originally written an Hebrew and Greek - the English language wasn't around when it was written.”

Yes, I am aware of that.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you talked about “Easter”......

“Take another example, Acts 12.4, which in the KJV reads:
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”

Now this is a good example of a “textual variant”.

The real reason that word Easter was used in Acts 12:4, is because Tyndal, in his translation of the Bible into English in 1526, used this word instead of Passover, and therefore the translators of the KJV, in 1611 decided to use it also.

Now, the question still remains unanswered:
Why would Tyndal choose to use this word in the first place?
And then why would the translators of the KJB, decided to follow his lead?

Certainly, they were men of God, who fervently prayed and sought the Lord’s will. Yet this is the word, they ended up using.

I am not sure of the answer. But it could have been part of the LORD’s plan; For all those Bible haters, who would look for an excuse to attack the Bible;
So He decided to give them one.
--------------------------------------------------
As for why I refer to the Bible that I trust to be God’s preserved Word, as “the Bible”, while calling all of the MV’s by their acronyms;
I do this to express my complete trust in the Bible God has preserved for me.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi C4K

Yes, I am aware of what you have said about the changes made in 1John 5:12, and as yet I have not confirmed that the original 1611 was different than the later editions.

But thank you for this reminder. I will look deeper into it and let you know what I find out.


PS.
Thank you very much, for not closing this thread.

 

[annsni]

Hi jbh28

You said........


So translating (Iwshf Ioseph ee-o-safe) as “his father”, instead of “Joseph”, is a textual variant?!?
You may not know, what “textual variant” means.
--------------------------------------------------
You also said........


Certainly casting doubt on the virgin birth, IS...an attack upon the Deity of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you realized you slipped, and said.........


Indeed it is taking a swipe at the virgin birth.

But to an unsuspecting baby Christian, who reads “his father” in THE BIBLE, it can cause real harm to their faith.
--------------------------------------------------

The point being made is TRUST.

If you can’t trust a Bible to translate the Greek word for “Joseph”, as “Joseph”, what other liberties might they be taking?

Did Mary take a swipe at the virgin birth when she called Joseph Jesus' father?

 

[InTheLight]

Words do matter. Consider the KJV translation of Matthew 5:48.

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Has any Christian attained perfection, like the Father in Heaven? Don't think so.


How about where the KJV tells you to stop drinking water and drink wine instead:

1 Tim. 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.


stilllearning, I'd like to get your interpretation of Psalm 104:4:

“Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire”

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Hi C4K

Yes, I am aware of what you have said about the changes made in 1John 5:12, and as yet I have not confirmed that the original 1611 was different than the later editions.

But thank you for this reminder. I will look deeper into it and let you know what I find out.


PS.
Thank you very much, for not closing this thread.

There is not much more to need - the 1611 referred to 'the sonne' and later editions have 'the son of God.' Do those words matter?

 

[annsni]

Hi C4K

Yes, I am aware of what you have said about the changes made in 1John 5:12, and as yet I have not confirmed that the original 1611 was different than the later editions.

But thank you for this reminder. I will look deeper into it and let you know what I find out.


PS.
Thank you very much, for not closing this thread.

Here is a link to an online facimile to the KJV 1611 and you can see clearly what verse 12 says:

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1483

 

[rbell]

So, stilllearning...if you are bothered by what I've quoted from you below...then you must be bothered by what C4K asks you. To not be would be intellectually inconsistent. If the "father" passages you quote "take a swipe at Jesus' divinity," then so does the variants of 1 John 5:12 (1611 vs. later versions).

Since I see neither as problematic, my view is consistent and I have nothing to reconcile.

You aren't so fortunate here.

No, I wasn’t speaking in “vague generalities” off the-top-of-my-head.

And although I am going to be busy again today, here is one solid example, off the-top-of-my-head. But later on I can give you many others.
--------------------------------------------------
The Bible says.......
Luke 2:33
“And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.”
But the NASB & the ESV, say this......
Luke 2:33 (New American Standard Bible)
“And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.”

Luke 2:33 (English Standard Version)
“And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.”

(I didn’t have a chance to check the NIV or the HCSB, so you can.)
--------------------------------------------------
Now does this change have ANYTHING to do with the changes in the English language?!?
No it doesn’t!

Not only do the NASB & ESV totally ignore what the original Greek says in this verse, but they also take a swipe at the Deity of Christ, with this change.

Although I could later, give you many other examples of things like this, do I really have to.
This one example, should be enough for anyone who is being honest about wanting a Bible they can trust.

How about 1 John 5v12?

There is not much more to need - the 1611 referred to 'the sonne' and later editions have 'the son of God.' Do those words matter?

 

[stilllearning]

There is not much more to need - the 1611 referred to 'the sonne' and later editions have 'the son of God.' Do those words matter?

Certainly these words do make a difference.

You undoubtedly own an original copy of the 1611 KJB, but unfortunately I do not.
So I went online and Googled....”Read the original 1611 kjv”

My head is still spinning, from all the Bible hating sites that came up.
Boy, people come out of the woodwork, to badmouth the Bible.

Anyway, I was unable to find a site, that would allow me to search the 1611 KJB for myself, so we are at an impasse.
You claim that the 1611 KJB, leaves these words out, but you can not prove it to me.
--------------------------------------------------
Two suggestions:

(1) You are mistaken: For sure leaving the words, “of God” out of this verse, would be a big deal.
And against my better judgement, I looked inside some of these Bible hating sites, and quickly looked for any reference to 1John 5:12, and found none.
It is interesting, of that all these thousands of people looking for dirt on the KJB, that I wasn’t able to find one of them, that brought this up.

(2) Or, you are right, and these words ware not found in the original:
If this is the case, may I PM you with my address here in New Mexico:
And could you send me your copy of that Bible, for me to see for myself.
I promise to return it in as soon as I am finished.


Let me know

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

There is a link provided for you above.

 

[annsni]

Certainly these words do make a difference.

You undoubtedly own an original copy of the 1611 KJB, but unfortunately I do not.
So I went online and Googled....”Read the original 1611 kjv”

My head is still spinning, from all the Bible hating sites that came up.
Boy, people come out of the woodwork, to badmouth the Bible.

Anyway, I was unable to find a site, that would allow me to search the 1611 KJB for myself, so we are at an impasse.
You claim that the 1611 KJB, leaves these words out, but you can not prove it to me.
--------------------------------------------------
Two suggestions:

(1) You are mistaken: For sure leaving the words, “of God” out of this verse, would be a big deal.
And against my better judgement, I looked inside some of these Bible hating sites, and quickly looked for any reference to 1John 5:12, and found none.
It is interesting, of that all these thousands of people looking for dirt on the KJB, that I wasn’t able to find one of them, that brought this up.

(2) Or, you are right, and these words ware not found in the original:
If this is the case, may I PM you with my address here in New Mexico:
And could you send me your copy of that Bible, for me to see for myself.
I promise to return it in as soon as I am finished.


Let me know

I already posted a link to a fascimile copy of the 1611. Have you seen it?

Here is a link to an online facimile to the KJV 1611 and you can see clearly what verse 12 says:

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1483

 

[stilllearning]

I already posted a link to a fascimile copy of the 1611. Have you seen it?

I didn’t see your link, until I had already posted my last response.

Boy I was hoping to get my hands on a real old Bible, from C4K.