Words, DO matter

[annsni]

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.

Actual 1611s are pretty rare. Many that exist are in museums or good libraries because they are 400 years old and don't do well being handled. So our best bet is to enjoy the ones we see online.

I had put the link directly to the 1 John 5 page - what do you think?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Actual 1611s are pretty rare. Many that exist are in museums or good libraries because they are 400 years old and don't do well being handled. So our best bet is to enjoy the ones we see online.

I had put the link directly to the 1 John 5 page - what do you think?

So, do the words 'of God' matter?

 

[stilllearning]

Thank you Ann, for the interesting link(I will save it).

C4K, from what I have found, the word “yeov theos theh’-os” is found in 1John 5:12, therefore it should have been in this Bible.
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, earlier when I said.....

“All the changes made in the following editions of the KJB, had to do with things like, correcting misspelled words etc.”

I should have said.......

“All but one of the changes made in the KJB......”

 

[stilllearning]

So, do the words 'of God' matter?

Yes they do; To me.

 

[annsni]

Thank you Ann, for the interesting link(I will save it).

C4K, from what I have found, the word “yeov theos theh’-os” is found in 1John 5:12, therefore it should have been in this Bible.
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, earlier when I said.....


I should have said.......

So what do you have to say about the KJV? It's obviously not perfect according to the standards you put forth, is it?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Yes they do; To me.

So the KJV 1611 is imperfect, it has a mistake?

Even worse, did the KJV translators take away from the word of God?

 

[stilllearning]

So the KJV 1611 is imperfect, it has a mistake?

Even worse, did the KJV translators take away from the word of God?

The Bible I use, gets 1John 5:12 right!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The Bible I use, gets 1John 5:12 right!

So does mine.

So the KJV1611 is not perfect. Is that correct? Does it take a swipe at the deity of Christ by leaving out 'of God?'

 

[Rippon]

From :The English Bible/From KJV to NIV :A History and Evaluation by Jack P.Lewis.(1981)

To take a Bible version,check it by a limited number of shibboleths,and then declare that it is free of doctrinal problems is to act arbitrarily."Doctrine" means "teaching," and any failure to present the Word of God accurately,completely,and clearly in a translation is a doctrinal problem.The matters we have surveyed in this chapter all affect the teaching the reader is to receive from his Bible.It is naive to declare that they have no doctrinal significance. (pgs.61,62)

Our survey has shown that those who feel they can escape the problem of translations by retreating into the citadel of the KJV have a zeal for God that is not in accord with knowledge. The same sort of attacks that are now made on new translations were made on the KJV when it was new. If the same kind of fine-tooth combing that is expended on the new translations is used on the KJV,we see that the problems of the KJV are as numerous and as serious as those of the new translations. The need for new translations lies in the inadequacies of the KJV...[T]here are no valid reasons for one to declare that it is a mark of orthodoxy to use the KJV as a standard,consulting other translations only for comparisons;and to look with suspicion on the person who calls attention to the shortcomings of the KJV or who has other preferences in his reading.

...But it [KJV] is not the original Bible. The translators worked neither by inspiration nor with special divine approval...Progress has been made since 1611. It is now possible to have a more accurate and a more readable translation than the KJV. (pgs.67,68)

 

[stilllearning]

So does mine.

So the KJV1611 is not perfect. Is that correct? Does it take a swipe at the deity of Christ by leaving out 'of God?'

That is an interesting question.

To answer it, we need to determine if the apparent mistake made in the first printing of 1611KJB, in 1John 5:12, was deliberate or an oversight.

If is was deliberate, than it was a swipe.
--------------------------------------------------
Being 400 years removed, we most likely will never know.
But there is no problem, because this particular Bible is no longer in print.

 

[Rippon]

The Bible says.......


But the NASB & the ESV, say this......

David Lamb asked you about this in post #23.Why do you refer to the KJV as "The Bible",yet do not so with respect to the NASB and ESV? Are not the ESV and NASB Bibles?

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Rippon

Mr. Lewis made some interesting statements about me.

He said........

“Those who feel they can escape the problem of translations”

I am not escaping anything.
I personally choose, to believe every word of my Bible; Being ready to face every challenge from people who say it has “mistakes”, by saying....“Show them to me”!

Being just a man, with limited knowledge, I have always done the best I could to respond to every charge and always seem to come out with more understanding of God’s Word and faith in God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------
He continues.......

“...retreating into the citadel of the KJV”

I prefer to call it, the citadel of God’s Word.
--------------------------------------------------
Next he said.......

“....have a zeal for God that is not in accord with knowledge.”

I have faced this accusation many times before and I always ask, “who’s knowledge am I lacking”? Because if it was Divine knowledge, than the Lord would have quickly let me know about it and I would have repented.

Unfortunately, the source of the knowledge Mr. Lewis is referring to is man’s knowledge. And I fully admit, that I am lacking in man’s knowledge, especially that knowledge that lifts itself above God’s Word.

You see, I see the Bible as being “above” all the petty arguments about translation problems and bad scholarship, because it is a supernatural document(not just a book).
--------------------------------------------------
My favorite statement of Mr. Lewis..........

“The need for new translations lies in the inadequacies of the KJV.”

Who on Earth, has the authority or knowledge, to call the KJB inadequate?

As I have said here many times before; For hundreds of years, a lot more Godlier people than we, loved and cherished the KJB and saw it as the infallible Word of God.

Then people in this Spiritually darkened age(the last of the last days), have the audacity to declare that “no translation can be trusted”. Then they go the next step and say that none of the ancient Greek mss’s are correct, and that we need today’s scholars to keep searching for the true word of God within them.

I would laugh at this, if it wasn’t so sad.
--------------------------------------------------
Next he talks about orthodoxy..........

“There are no valid reasons for one to declare that it is a mark of orthodoxy to use the KJV as a standard,consulting other translations only for comparisons;and to look with suspicion on the person who calls attention to the shortcomings of the KJV or who has other preferences in his reading.”

Orthodoxy is a funny thing. Because all it means is “approved by man”, and man rarely gets anything right.
When Jesus came he was “Unorthodox”, because the orthodox crowd had it wrong.
In fact, every Old Testament and New Testament preacher, were also considered unorthodox, for the same reason.

Therefore, I am glad, that in today’s Christendom, I am considered unorthodox, because of the faith that I place in God, being able to preserve for me a perfect Bible.

 

[stilllearning]

David Lamb asked you about this in post #23.Why do you refer to the KJV as "The Bible",yet do not so with respect to the NASB and ESV? Are not the ESV and NASB Bibles?

Yes they are and I own many of them.

And even though I never refer to them and will probably never give them to anyone, I just can’t bring myself to throw them away, because if nothing else was available, I would be glad to use any of them.

 

[Rippon]

Yes they are and I own many of them.

And even though I never refer to them and will probably never give them to anyone, I just can’t bring myself to throw them away, because if nothing else was available, I would be glad to use any of them.

Okay,to be clear, those other versions are all Bibles in your view. Right?

 

[Rippon]

From The Book By Lewis

The KJV added "unto him"in John 3:34.On this phrase men built an elaborate doctrine of measures of the Spirit in which Jesus alone had the Spirit "without measure." The addition makes the passage say something quite different from what it says in the Greek. They built a doctrine of the second blessing on "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts 19;2),which should have read "when ye believed." People made a rule of ascetic behavior out of "Touch not;taste not;handle not" (Col. 2:21), which they could not have done had the context been made clear. A great deal is made of the command "from such withdrawl thyself" (1Tim. 6:5), but readers of the KJV are oblivious to the fact that the command rests on the poorer text of a textual variant. The same is true of "We love him, because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19), but how different that statement is from "We love because he loved us." "He that is begotten of God keepeth himself" (1 John 5:18) is quite different in teaching from "the one who was born of God keeps him safe," but the readings rest on a textual variant. (p.65)

 

[rsr]

Now every poor Christian, who may be reading through Genesis 17 and Galatians, in any of these MV’s, will miss out on the blessing of seeing what God was talking about, because the word “seed”, was changed to “descendants”.

I must say I am sympathetic to your case. Unfortunately, the KJV does not, in fact, translate it as a plural in this instance.

Now, you insist that the KJV translates it as a singular. On the face, there is no way to know, since seed may be either singular, singular collective, or plural. Look at the context of the verse:

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

Repeatedly, the KJV uses their, which by the rules of English grammar means the antecedent is plural, not singular. So Genesis 17 cannot be used as a proof text in this instance. Reading the passage in the KJV would, in fact, lead you to believe that the seed is indeed plural.

A better case would be Genesis 22, where the KJV does not discernibly translate it as a plural. Even then, one would not know from a bare reading of the Genesis text whether a singular or plural is meant.

BTW: The ESV and Holman use offspring, which like seed, can be either singular or plural. The NASB uses seed .

 

[Askjo]

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

According to a few scholars, they said that a hebrew word means EITHER heaven or heavens. Genesis 1:1 is Heaven because God began to create. Genesis 2:1 is heavenS and Genesis 2:4 is heavens because God completely created. They are perfect doctrinally.

 

[stilllearning]

Good evening Rippon

Thanks for these five examples, but as you realize there is not a “mistake” within any of them. I mean each correctly translates what the original language says.

But you never said that they were mistakes, just that they confused people.
--------------------------------------------------
The first......
John 3:34
“For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].”

Unfortunately a lot of people do not know what these italicized words mean:
i.e. (That they were added by the translators for clarity.)

This is one thing I love about the KJB; It translators, italicized every word they added.
But I really don’t see how adding these words takes away from a correct interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------
Second.......
Acts 19:2
“He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.”

And you said.......

“They built a doctrine of the second blessing on "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" (Acts 19;2),which should have read "when ye believed."

Today, we would say, “when ye believed”, but in the time of Acts 19, when talking to followers of John the Baptist, it would have been right to say, “since ye believed”.
--------------------------------------------------
Third.......
Colossians 2:21
“(Touch not; taste not; handle not;”

This is exactly what the original language says.

But your source stated....

People made a rule of ascetic behavior out of "Touch not;taste not;handle not".

Not very many people and not for a long time and they should have rightly divided the Word of God.
--------------------------------------------------
Fourth........
1 Timothy 6:5
“Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”

Note: “withdraw thyself” is translated from “aphistemi”, and that is exactly what the Bible says.

This is a classic example of out of control egg-headedness.
Your source writes....

“the KJV are oblivious to the fact that the command rests on the poorer text of a textual variant”,

.....which translated means, “They don’t agree with me so they must be stupid.”

There is nothing wrong with this verse.
--------------------------------------------------
And fifth......
1 John 4:19
“We love him, because he first loved us.”

The only thing you source could find wrong with this verse is, “the readings rest on a textual variant”: Clearly an overused excuse.
--------------------------------------------------
By the way, I have a real textual variant for you.

For hundreds of years, Christians rightly divided the New Testament, in their definition of the word “disciple”(student). “A student of Christ”
A believer, who wisely sat at Jesus’ feet to learn.

Clearly understanding that because of the conditions of discipleship, this could not be talking about simply being a Christian, but something else.

Well all that changed, when somebody had the bright idea of changing the meaning of Matthew 28:19, by applying a textual variant of their own.

But I will save this for another thread.

 

[Rippon]

This is one thing I love about the KJB; It translators, italicized every word they added.

No,you are mistaken. And besides,every KJV is different. The 1611 KJV used italics far less than some modern King James Versions.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Just popping in to say, "WOW, the audacity!"

Carry on...