The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

Saint Joe

THE ESV & THE LORD JESUS CHRIST



Among the more troubling changes in the new versions is the strategic attack on the Lord Jesus Christ. Some times the attack is small and subtle, such as removing “Lord” or “Christ,” or swipes at the virgin birth or the blood atonement. Other times, the attack is a nuclear assault, such as stripping “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16. But make no mistake – the attack is real. And most people reading just the ESV (or the other versions) never realize this sinister attack on the Lord Jesus Christ.



There’s something very special about the name of “Jesus”.



The Bible says in Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Philippians 2:10 says about the name of Jesus, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;” (Philippians 2:10)



And the ESV removes the precious name of “Jesus” 18 times! And believe it or not – it removes “Jesus Christ” 51 times!



And that’s not all. . . The ESV removes the word “Christ” 39 times. The “Lord” 66 times. And “God” 38 times.

Click to expand...

Rot, Rot and Double rot!

Now Tall, do you honestly believe that you can say in the affirmative, that this could not have been a mistake by the type-setters of the King James 1611 Bible? Can I say in the affirmative that it was a mistake? No. However, I believe the chances that it was a mistake, is far greater than otherwise.

Click to expand...

In cases where it drops a word I think it may have been a mistake. However, that mistake may have been made by the printers, or may have been made by the translators.

In the case of an entirely different reading, I find that quite unlikely. The difference requires not only a change from the to his, but an intentional change of the uppercase L to lowercase to better fit the new interpretation.

No, I don't think that all happened by someone just sticking the letters in haphazardly.

Now Jack, let's look at this case in more detail. Certain directives were given to the KJV translators regarding their work. The first of these is the one that will be helpful here:

“1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.


The different committees even had copies of the Bishop's Bible printed by the king's publisher so that they could make their notes on the text. Essentially they would retain, refine or totally change readings, but some of the committees kept quite a bit of the Bishop's Bible readings.

And what reading do we see in John 15:20 in the Bishop's Bible?

John 15:20 - Remember the worde that I sayde vnto you: the seruaunt is not greater then the Lorde. If they haue persecuted me, they wyll also persecute you. If they haue kept my saying, they wyll kepe yours also.

Compare to the 1611 KJV:
20 Remember the word that I said vnto you, The seruant is not greater then the Lord: if they haue persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they haue kept my saying, they will keepe yours also.

Other than spelling they are virtually identical. So no, I don't think this is just a printing mistake. It appears the 1611 translators retained the reading of the Bishop's Bible, and a later edition, Paris' edition, changed it to match what he thought was more in line with the text, an analogy of a servant/lord relationship. Paris' edition, and the one that followed closely on it, made quite a few changes actually, which you can read about in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible.

And you can also read about the reaction that followed there as well when folks began to complain they were changing the 1611 text.

This resulted in a re-print of the original 1611 Bible by Oxford in 1833. The preface indicates that the reason for publishing it was to address the issue and show just how many changes were made. It also makes a note of the changes made during the earliest editions, during the lifetimes of the original translators.

You can read about it here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=SF1CAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR4&dq=kjv+oxford+reprint+1833&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p7dFVarJBcKfNvjsgOgK&ved=0CCEQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=kjv%20oxford%20reprint%201833&f=false

The changed reading we are looking at is much later than the lifetime of the translators, and was not done with their approval.

Jack Koons said:

While the fact that these changes were made is factual, the reason why needs clarification.

As I make the following statements, I hope the readers (including Joe), are willing to hear me out to the end.

The KJV of 1611 was not without PRINTING errors. Now then, even though there are approximately 400 textual changes made away from the original 1611 Edition, they were not made to change a text that was believed to be correct in 1611, and then found to be in need of correction later: rather; there were “textual” changes made from the 1611 Edition because it was found to be a PRINTING error, (an error that was made in the typesetting in the printing of the 1611), was not discovered until AFTER the printing was complete.

One of the tactics used by, and taught by textual critics to say the KJV is not perfect, is the fact that there are in fact differences between the 1611 and the 1769 we use today. What is not often discussed, is why these differences exist. I do a lot of writing. I write Bible lessons, articles, and other writs. However, I have never printed anything that I have not had to go back and edit my own work. I find typos of all sorts, (even though I have spell check, and normally spell words relatively well). Sometimes I find that my typos are because my brain is moving at a different rate of speed than my fingers. I may think five words, but only type four (or visa-versa).

Hence, to keep this concise, the printers had to set the entire Bible from a handwritten manuscript, one letter at a time, on one page at a time. During this process, many setting mistakes were made. Words were missed, miss-spelled, and so forth. Additionally, between 1611 and 1769 the spelling of the English language was still being standardized, and the font was changed from a gothic type, to a roman type.

Additionally, as has been noted, there were also differences between the Oxford and Cambridge Editions. Much work has gone into research to determine the correct rendering of the text.

Jack

I actually had to edit this, I forgot the words, "of speed", (relating to my typing).

Click to expand...

There is no question but that some of the errors in the 1611 editions of the KJV were caused by the printers. There is also no question but that the 1611 editions of the KJV were a horrible mess such as has not occurred in any other English translation of the Bible, and that to even suggest that God was responsible for the mess is blasphemous. Nonetheless, God uses even that which is far from perfect to accomplish His purposes.

The NRSV, on the other hand, includes no printing errors, is the most technically correct English translation in common use, and is written in impeccable English. Nonetheless, it is a mere translation of God’s word to man, and the philosophy of the translators regarding gender inclusiveness and regarding a Jewish rather than Christian interpretation of the Old Testament troubles many Christians. Therefore, it should be used in conjunction with other translations based on other translation philosophies.

SaintJoeNow said:

During our investigation of the ESV several things will be revealed: a web of deceit sustains the modern day Bible publishing market; they all attack the King James Bible; they do not believe in any infallible English Word of God and truth is not their mission. And while this article deals with the ESV, the same indictment applies to virtually every new Bible. Over 300+ versions of the English Bible have been published since the King James Bible of 1611. And every new Bible’s mantra is the same: it’s more accurate; it’s easier to understand and it updates the King James Bible. And every new Bible finds a few thousand (or million) gullible Christians blindly seeking for some miraculous illumination of the scriptures. As Brother Lester Roloff preached many times, “We don’t need to rewrite the Bible, we need to re-read it.”


From Dr. Terry Watkins

Click to expand...

Terry Watkins has a hateful imagination. The actual claims of the publisher of the ESV are found in the preface,

Preface to the English Standard Version The New Version

The Bible

“This Book [is] the most valuable thing that this world affords. Here is Wisdom; this is the royal Law; these are the lively Oracles of God.” With these words the Moderator of the Church of Scotland hands a Bible to the new monarch in Britain’s coronation service. These words echo the King James Bible translators, who wrote in 1611: “God’s sacred Word . . . is that inestimable treasure that excelleth all the riches of the earth.” This assessment of the Bible is the motivating force behind the publication of the English Standard Version.

Translation Legacy

The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.

To this end each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or overlooking any nuance of the original text. The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale–King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work. Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, our goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world and have defined the life and doctrine of the church over the last four centuries.

Translation Philosophy

The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

In contrast to the ESV, some Bible versions have followed a “thought-for-thought” rather than “word-for-word” translation philosophy, emphasizing “dynamic equivalence” rather than the “essentially literal” meaning of the original. A “thought-for-thought” translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive opinions of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture.

Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between “formal equivalence” in expression and “functional equivalence” in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be “as literal as possible” while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence. Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts.

As an essentially literal translation, then, the ESV seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language. As such, the ESV is ideally suited for in-depth study of the Bible. Indeed, with its emphasis on literary excellence, the ESV is equally suited for public reading and preaching, for private read-ing and reflection, for both academic and devotional study, and for Scripture memor-ization.

Translation Principles and Style

The ESV also carries forward classic translation principles in its literary style. Accordingly it retains theological terminology—words such as grace, faith, justification, sanctification, redemption, regeneration, reconciliation, propitiation—because of their central importance for Christian doctrine and also because the underlying Greek words were already becoming key words and technical terms in New Testament times.

The ESV lets the stylistic variety of the biblical writers fully express itself—from the exalted prose that opens Genesis, to the flowing narratives of the historical books, to the rich metaphors and dramatic imagery of the poetic books, to the ringing rhetorical indictments in the prophetic books, to the smooth elegance of Luke, to the profound simplicities of John, and the closely reasoned logic of Paul.

In punctuating, paragraphing, dividing long sentences, and rendering connectives, the ESV follows the path that seems to make the ongoing flow of thought clearest in English. The biblical languages regularly connect sentences by frequent repetition of words such as “and,” “but,” and “for,” in a way that goes beyond the conventions of literary English. Effective translation, however, requires that these links in the original be reproduced so that the flow of the argument will be transparent to the reader. We have therefore normally translated these connectives, though occasionally we have varied the rendering by using alternatives (such as “also,” “however,” “now,” “so,” “then,” or “thus”) when they better capture the sense in specific instances.

In the area of gender language, the goal of the ESV is to render literally what is in the original. For example, “anyone” replaces “any man” where there is no word corresponding to “man” in the original languages, and “people” rather than “men” is regularly used where the original languages refer to both men and women. But the words “man” and “men” are retained where a male meaning component is part of the original Greek or Hebrew. Likewise, the word “man” has been retained where the original text intends to convey a clear contrast between “God” on the one hand and “man” on the other hand, with “man” being used in the collective sense of the whole human race (see Luke 2:52). Similarly, the English word “brothers” (translating the Greek word adelphoi) is retained as an important familial form of address between fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians in the first century. A recurring note is included to indicate that the term “brothers” (adelphoi) was often used in Greek to refer to both men and women, and to indicate the specific instances in the text where this is the case. In addition, the English word “sons” (translating the Greek word huioi) is retained in specific instances because the underlying Greek term usually includes a male meaning component and it was used as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws of first-century Rome. As used by the apostle Paul, this term refers to the status of all Christians, both men and women, who, having been adopted into God’s family, now enjoy all the privileges, obligations, and inheritance rights of God’s children.
The inclusive use of the generic “he” has also regularly been retained, because this is consistent with similar usage in the original languages and because an essentially literal translation would be impossible without it.

In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture. (continued below)

The Translation of Specialized Terms

In the translation of biblical terms referring to God, the ESV takes great care to convey the specific nuances of meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek terms. First, concerning terms that refer to God in the Old Testament: God, the Maker of heaven and earth, introduced himself to the people of Israel with a special personal name, the consonants for which are YHWH (see Exodus 3:14–15). Scholars call this the “Tetragrammaton,” a Greek term referring to the four Hebrew letters YHWH. The exact pronunciation of YHWH is uncertain, because the Jewish people considered the personal name of God to be so holy that it should never be spoken aloud. Instead of reading the word YHWH, they would normally read the Hebrew word ’adonay (“Lord”), and the ancient translations into Greek, Syriac, and Aramaic also followed this practice. When the vowels of the word ’adonay are placed with the consonants of YHWH, this results in the familiar word Jehovah that was used in some earlier English Bible translations. As is common among English translations today, the ESV usually renders the personal name of God (YHWH) with the word Lord (printed in small capitals). An exception to this is when the Hebrew word ’adonay appears together with YHWH, in which case the two words are rendered together as “the Lord [in lower case] God [in small capitals].” In contrast to the personal name for God (YHWH), the more general name for God in Old Testament Hebrew is ’elohim and its related forms of ’el or ’eloah, all of which are normally translated “God” (in lower case letters). The use of these different ways to translate the Hebrew words for God is especially beneficial to the English reader, enabling the reader to see and understand the different ways that the personal name and the general name for God are both used to refer to the One True God of the Old Testament.

Second, in the New Testament, the Greek word Christos has been translated consistently as “Christ.” Although the term originally meant “anointed,” among Jews in New Testament times the term came to designate the Messiah, the great Savior that God had promised to raise up. In other New Testament contexts, however, especially among Gentiles, Christos (“Christ”) was on its way to becoming a proper name. It is important, therefore, to keep the context in mind in understanding the various ways that Christos (“Christ”) is used in the New Testament. At the same time, in accord with its “essentially literal” translation philosophy, the ESV has retained consistency and concordance in the translation of Christos (“Christ”) throughout the New Testament.

Third, a particular difficulty is presented when words in biblical Hebrew and Greek refer to ancient practices and institutions that do not correspond directly to those in the modern world. Such is the case in the translation of ‘ebed (Hebrew) and doulos (Greek), terms which are often rendered “slave.” These terms, however, actually cover a range of relationships that require a range of renderings — either “slave,” “bondservant,” or “servant” — depending on the context. Further, the word “slave” currently carries associations with the often brutal and dehumanizing institution of slavery in nineteenth-century America. For this reason, the ESV translation of the words ‘ebed and doulos has been undertaken with particular attention to their meaning in each specific context. Thus in Old Testament times, one might enter slavery either voluntarily (e.g., to escape poverty or to pay off a debt) or involuntarily (e.g., by birth, by being captured in battle, or by judicial sentence). Protection for all in servitude in ancient Israel was provided by the Mosaic Law. In New Testament times, a doulos is often best described as a “bondservant” — that is, as someone bound to serve his master for a specific (usually lengthy) period of time, but also as someone who might nevertheless own property, achieve social advancement, and even be released or purchase his freedom. The ESV usage thus seeks to express the nuance of meaning in each context. Where absolute ownership by a master is in view (as in Romans 6), “slave” is used; where a more limited form of servitude is in view, “bondservant” is used (as in 1 Corinthians 7:21–24); where the context indicates a wide range of freedom (as in John 4:51), “servant” is preferred. Footnotes are generally provided to identify the Hebrew or Greek and the range of meaning that these terms may carry in each case.

Fourth, it is sometimes suggested that Bible translations should capitalize pronouns referring to deity. It has seemed best not to capitalize deity pronouns in the ESV, however, for the following reasons: first, there is nothing in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that corresponds to such capitalization; second, the practice of capitalizing deity pronouns in English Bible translations is a recent innovation, which began only in the mid-twentieth century; and, third, such capitalization is absent from the KJV Bible and the whole stream of Bible translations that the ESV seeks to carry forward.

A fifth specialized term, the word “behold,” usually has been retained as the most common translation for the Hebrew word hinneh and the Greek word idou. Both of these words mean something like “Pay careful attention to what follows! This is important!” Other than the word “behold,” there is no single word in English that fits well in most contexts. Although “Look!” and “See!” and “Listen!” would be workable in some contexts, in many others these words lack sufficient weight and dignity. Given the principles of “essentially literal” translation, it is important not to leave hinneh and idou completely untranslated, and so to lose the intended emphasis in the original languages. The older and more formal word “behold” has usually been retained, therefore, as the best available option for conveying the original sense of meaning.

Textual Basis and Resources

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland. The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions. In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition. Throughout, the translation team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding.

Textual Footnotes

The footnotes that accompany the ESV text are an integral part of the ESV translation, informing the reader of textual variations and difficulties and showing how these have been resolved by the ESV translation team. In addition to this, the footnotes indicate significant alternative readings and occasionally provide an explanation for technical terms or for a difficult reading in the text.

Publishing Team

The ESV publishing team includes more than a hundred people. The fourteen-member Translation Oversight Committee has benefited from the work of more than fifty biblical experts serving as Translation Review Scholars and from the comments of the more than fifty members of the Advisory Council, all of which has been carried out under the auspices of the Crossway Board of Directors. This hundred-plus-member team shares a common commitment to the truth of God’s Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy and is international in scope, including leaders in many denominations.

To God’s Honor and Praise

We know that no Bible translation is perfect or final; but we also know that God uses imperfect and inadequate things to his honor and praise. So to our triune God and to his people we offer what we have done, with our prayers that it may prove useful, with gratitude for much help given, and with ongoing wonder that our God should ever have entrusted to us so momentous a task.

Soli Deo Gloria!—To God alone be the glory!
The Translation Oversight Committee*

The publisher also makes these claims in its advertising.

kiwimac said:

Saint Joe

Rot, Rot and Double rot!

Click to expand...

You can easily prove this for yourself....but I guess for you it would take a lot of bravery to do it because your response indicates your fear of the truth.


All of the posts regarding the ESV are well documented. The same kind of expose' can be done for any modern version including the Eastern Orthodox Bible. And the best you can come up with is "Rot, Rot, and Double rot!"?

The following expose' is the kind of easily documented facts that supporters of modern versions do everything the can to avoid looking at and to distract from discussion.



Among the more troubling changes in the new versions is the strategic attack on the Lord Jesus Christ. Some times the attack is small and subtle, such as removing “Lord” or “Christ,” or swipes at the virgin birth or the blood atonement. Other times, the attack is a nuclear assault, such as stripping “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16. But make no mistake – the attack is real. And most people reading just the ESV (or the other versions) never realize this sinister attack on the Lord Jesus Christ.

There’s something very special about the name of “Jesus”.

The Bible says in Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Philippians 2:10 says about the name of Jesus, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;” (Philippians 2:10)

And the ESV removes the precious name of “Jesus” 18 times! And believe it or not – it removes “Jesus Christ” 51 times!

And that’s not all. . . The ESV removes the word “Christ” 39 times. The “Lord” 66 times. And “God” 38 times.

Thanks again to Dr. Terry Watkins for putting this together.

And thanks to Wescott and Hort for there ungodly affiliations and terrible works which are the basis of nearly all modern versions and make them all easy to expose as un-biblical.

SaintJoeNow said:

You can easily prove this for yourself....but I guess for you it would take a lot of bravery to do it because your response indicates your fear of the truth.


All of the posts regarding the ESV are well documented. The same kind of expose' can be done for any modern version including the Eastern Orthodox Bible. And the best you can come up with is "Rot, Rot, and Double rot!"?

The following expose' is the kind of easily documented facts that supporters of modern versions do everything the can to avoid looking at and to distract from discussion.



Among the more troubling changes in the new versions is the strategic attack on the Lord Jesus Christ. Some times the attack is small and subtle, such as removing “Lord” or “Christ,” or swipes at the virgin birth or the blood atonement. Other times, the attack is a nuclear assault, such as stripping “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16. But make no mistake – the attack is real. And most people reading just the ESV (or the other versions) never realize this sinister attack on the Lord Jesus Christ.

There’s something very special about the name of “Jesus”.

The Bible says in Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Philippians 2:10 says about the name of Jesus, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;” (Philippians 2:10)

And the ESV removes the precious name of “Jesus” 18 times! And believe it or not – it removes “Jesus Christ” 51 times!

And that’s not all. . . The ESV removes the word “Christ” 39 times. The “Lord” 66 times. And “God” 38 times.

Thanks again to Dr. Terry Watkins for putting this together.

Click to expand...

Terry Watkins apparently could not tell the truth if his life depended upon it. The ESV calls Jesus “our great God and Savior” in Titus 2:13. The KJV, however, denies in Titus 2:13 that Jesus is God, expressly teaching that God and Jesus are two separate beings. The authorized revision of the KJV (the Revised Version) corrected this shameful rendering in 1881, and the correction also appears, of course, in the RSV and the NRSV. Notice also that the NRSV, being a model of excellence in English grammar, places a comma after the word savior, emphasizing that our great God and Jesus Christ are one and the same being.

Titus 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, (ESV)

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (KJV)

Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ; (RV)

Titus 2:13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, (RSV)

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (NRSV)

SaintJoeNow said:

Because of the controversy surrounding the use of gender-inclusive language in Bible translations, another revision of the RSV was published in 2001—one that would correct its inaccuracies, update some of its archaic language, and make it more literal. There was a problem, however, since the designation NRSV was already taken, another name had to be chosen. The name decided on was The English Standard Version (ESV). So now we have in the marketplace two rival revisions of the RSV—the NRSV and the ESV—both claiming to be legitimate successors.

from Dial-the-truth ministries

Click to expand...

This quote proves that Dial-the-truth ministries is a ministry of lies rather than of God. The truth regarding the ESV is that late in 1999, Wayne Grudem, a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and Lane Dennis, president of Crossway, began negotiating with the National Council of Churches, the copyright holders of the RSV, to use the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version as the basis for a new translation. In September, 1998, the National Council of Churches agreed to grant permission for that use of the 1971 revision of the Revised Standard Version. The result was the ESV.

The Bible stands though the earth may crumble,
And the mountains fall and the hills may tumble.
I will plant my feet on it's firm foundation
For the Bible stands.

And whenever a fake Bible is given to me or found abandoned and unclaimed, it goes in the trash. NIV, RSV, NRSV, AVR, SBD, NWT, ASB, ESD, LSD, MCC, XYZ........all go in the trash if they are left for me to dispose of.

They can cut my hand off and throw it in the trash with my King James Bible over my dead body.

Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. - Numbers 10:2

The Two Trumpets... The Spirit and the Word...

The Spirit never contradicts the Word
The Word never contradicts the Spirit


Because they come out of the same piece if you will. An anointed minister will be loyal to both the Word and the Spirit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGg0LLD17Fo

rockytopva said:

Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. - Numbers 10:2

The Two Trumpets... The Spirit and the Word...

The Spirit never contradicts the Word
The Word never contradicts the Spirit


Because they come out of the same piece if you will. An anointed minister will be loyal to both the Word and the Spirit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGg0LLD17Fo

Click to expand...

AMEN!!!! That's good stuff, plain and simple. People make careers out of discounting the simplistic truth and beauty of things like this. A lot of them claim they have the Spirit to guide them into all truth, but they don't have the word of God to verify that what is being revealed to them is the Truth.

Jack Koons said:

Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction (4/4)

Formal Equivalence means that when a word is translated from the Greek into English, the form of the word must be carried into the new language. In other words, if the Greek word is a noun, the English word must take the same form, that is, a noun. If the Greek word is a verb, the English word must be a verb. If the Greek word is a pronoun, the English word must be a pronoun, and so on. Also, implicit in formal equivalence is the number of the word, such as singular or plural. If the Greek is singular, then the English must also be singular, if plural, the translation must also be plural. Past tense must always be translated as past tense, future tense as future, perfect tense as perfect, and so on.

Click to expand...

If derivative inspiration is derived from such, then the KJV has a problem--at least in the text itself.

The translators have numerous comments in the margin that start with Gr. These let the reader know what the more literal Greek reading is when the text does not completely translate it according to the Greek.

Often this is due to smoothing idoms, etc. Either way though, if you are contending every number, tense, etc. must be carried over in the translated text, this is not always the case. The reading in the margin then notes what it would have been .


An example where this involves an idiom would be 2 john 12.


The text reads:
Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

The margin notes that the actual Greek says "mouth to mouth". When people were actually talking together in-person the idiom would be speaking "mouth to mouth," rather than the idiom we are accustomed to, "face to face. "



Now an example of where we see "face to face" in the actual text is in I Cor. 13.

1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

In both English and Greek here it is "face to face", because it is not referring to speaking in person, but seeing each other in person.


As a translator it is always difficult to know when to sacrifice relaying the actual words used in order to avoid confusion due to cultural differences. And in English we get what "face to face" means. However, it is not rendering word for word, etc. as the Greek says "mouth to mouth".


Now another example, not necessarily regarding an idiom is I Cor 1:7

1Co 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

The King James Margin notes indicate that "coming" is literally 'revealing". Again, they were aware of the more literal translation that would convey the underlying Greek, but went for something slightly more interpretive.


An example where the tense of the verb was changed is Hebrews 2:16

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The margin note reads:

"He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold."

First off the margin indicates present tense, which is the actual tense in the Greek verb.

Secondly note that "him the nature of" and the latter "him" are all supplied words. If they were not supplied, and the correct tense were restored it would read "for verily He took not angels, but he took on the seed of Abraham.

Or as the margin reads, "He taketh not hold of angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold'

The word for "taketh on" is usually used to mean "help". Hence some more recent versions translate this as "it is not angels he helps, but the seed of Abraham.

Not only does this require no supplied words, but it maintains the present tense of the verb.

Whether we accept the alternate reading or not, the verb tense is incorrect in the KJV.

Now if it is your contention that every word must be exact, as each one was inspired, then this is not the case.

There are many, many more of these Greek notes. It is not as though the translators did not know the literal reading of the Greek. They supplied it in the margin.

2 Th 3:1 Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:

The KJV again put a fairly interpretive reading with "have fee course". The margin notes, and the text reflect that it simply says "run". It would read "that the word of the Lord may run, and be glorified, even as it is with you. "

Again, the translators note it in their margin that this is the literal Greek reading.




Php 2:17 Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.

The note by the translators in the margin, and the Greek text, note that offered here is more literally "poured forth". Many modern versions elaborate slightly to indicate the meaning of poured, likely in connection with a drink offering.

So there are times when the text of the KJV does not match in every way the Greek, as is required if you are trying to have derivative inspiration by bringing over the formal equivalent.

To give an idea of how many of these readings there are that give a more literal reading of the Hebrew or Greek I will quote from the Introduction to the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, by F.H. Scrivener.

https://archive.org/stream/cambridgeparagra00scri#page/n14/mode/1up

"4,111 express the more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Chaldee"

"112 present us with a more literal rendering of the Greek than was judged suitable for the text. "

Click to expand...

The reality is that, unless you demand your audience be familiar with all of the idioms of the time, and have some idea of the range of meaning for various Greek/Hebrew words, it is almost impossible for even the most literal translations to avoid some use of dynamic equivalent, or thought translation.

You could possibly put each word, each part of speech, each tense, number, etc. in English, but it may not be readily understandable to a general audience.

In any case, the KJV did not do that. They did not render each word, each part of speech, each tense number, etc. At least they did not in the actual text.

SaintJoeNow said:

The Bible stands though the earth may crumble,
And the mountains fall and the hills may tumble.
I will plant my feet on it's firm foundation
For the Bible stands.

And whenever a fake Bible is given to me or found abandoned and unclaimed, it goes in the trash. NIV, RSV, NRSV, AVR, SBD, NWT, ASB, ESD, LSD, MCC, XYZ........all go in the trash if they are left for me to dispose of.

They can cut my hand off and throw it in the trash with my King James Bible over my dead body.

Click to expand...

Why are you not accepting earlier English Bibles than the KJV? These Bibles were earlier than the 1611 KJV: Wyclif, Tyndale/Coverdale, Geneva.

Why are you not treating the 1611 KJV as a 'fake Bible' and abandon it in favour of earlier English Bibles?

rockytopva said:

Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. - Numbers 10:2

The Two Trumpets... The Spirit and the Word...

The Spirit never contradicts the Word
The Word never contradicts the Spirit


Because they come out of the same piece if you will. An anointed minister will be loyal to both the Word and the Spirit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGg0LLD17Fo

Click to expand...

SaintJoeNow said:

AMEN!!!! That's good stuff, plain and simple. People make careers out of discounting the simplistic truth and beauty of things like this. A lot of them claim they have the Spirit to guide them into all truth, but they don't have the word of God to verify that what is being revealed to them is the Truth.

Click to expand...

A lot of people claim that they have the Spirit to guide them into all truth, but they do not have the word of God to learn whether what is being revealed to them is the Truth. Unfortunately, R. W. Schambach is one of those people. He used the KJV to verify what was revealed to him, but unfortunately, the KJV was too difficult for him to read and he therefore misunderstood it. Consequently the basis of his sermon, that both trumpets were made from the same piece of silver, was in reality a revelation from his overactive imagination. The KJV does NOT say that both trumpets were made from one piece of silver; it says, “of a whole piece shalt thou make them.” This is an unfortunate paraphrase. The Hebrew text says that each trumpet was to be made of one piece of silver hammered, מִקְשָׁה, into a trumpet. In the authorized 1884 revision of the KJV, the paraphrase was removed and a literal translation given,

Num. 10:2 Make thee two trumpets of silver; of beaten work shalt thou make them: and thou shalt use them for the calling of the congregation, and for the journeying of the camps.


The translators of the KJV somewhat updated Numbers 10:2 in the Bishop’s Bible but they failed to very the accuracy of that translation. After all, the Geneva Bible agreed with it—so it must be right! Wrong!

Num. 10:2 Make thee two trumpettes of siluer: of an whole peece shalt thou make them, that thou mayest vse them to call the congregation together, and when the campe shall iourney. Bishop’s Bible

Num. 10:2 Make thee two trumpets of siluer: of an whole piece shalt thou make the, that thou mayest vse them for the assembling of the Congregation, and for the departure of the campe. Geneva Bible

Num. 10:2 Make thee two trumpets of silver; of a whole piece shalt thou make them: that thou mayest use them for the calling of the assembly, and for the journeying of the camps. (KJV)

Num. 10:2 Make thee two trumpets of silver; of beaten work shalt thou make them: and thou shalt use them for the calling of the congregation, and for the journeying of the camps. (ASV)

Num. 10:2 "Make two silver trumpets; of hammered work you shall make them; and you shall use them for summoning the congregation, and for breaking camp. (RSV)

Num. 10:2 "Make yourself two trumpets of silver, of hammered work you shall make them; and you shall use them for summoning the congregation and for having the camps set out. (NASB)

Num. 10:2 Make two silver trumpets; you shall make them of hammered work; and you shall use them for summoning the congregation, and for breaking camp. (NRSV)


Had R. W. Schambach acted responsibly and checked the Hebrew text, or not having the education to be able to do that, had simply checked a much more accurate translation than the KJV, he would not have preached such a shameful sham of a sermon.

Much is always said by both modern scholarship, (and by armchair scholars as well), as to the many "improper" translations made by the KJB translators. If these accusations are true, I have often wondered why God bothered using any of the "pre-Westcott and Hort" scholars at all? After all, consider the following: (according to modern scholarship) 1) These scholars has little actual knowledge of the original Biblical Languages; 2) The MSS used were very inferior to those used today; and 3) The underlying text of the KJB (and all other reformation Bibles), were based on only a handful of these inferior MSS.

Why in the world, would an omnipotent and omniscient God do such a thing? Shouldn't He have preserved His word in a monolithic text, (to avoid all this confusion), and then waited until modern textual critics came along with their vast knowledge of the Biblical Languages, along with all the superior MSS, and their superior methodology, to translate His words into the languages of the world, so we wouldn't even have to have this discussion?

As the atheists tell me, "I think there are a lot of things that God could have done to make this a lot better world." In this case, preserve a single perfect Bible, with His Seal of Approval, right on the front cover.

This is what I know:

1) The words of Scripture were given to holy men by the Holy Spirit.
2) God used other holy saints to copy those "words".
3) The method of every man involved in bringing us the Received Text, and the KJB, was working by faith, through submission to the Holy Spirit.
4) The men who developed textual criticism did not believe the Scriptures were Divinely inspired, or Divinely authoritative.
5) Many of those who are students of textual criticism today, deny the Bible as being historically accurate, (at least one of which, has posted in this very thread).

We must ask ourselves, "To which of the above 'camps', do I need to affiliate with?

For me, it is having faith in the power of God!!!

Jack

Jack Koons said:

Much is always said by both modern scholarship, (and by armchair scholars as well), as to the many "improper" translations made by the KJB translators.

Click to expand...

Jack, when you post articles making claims that every word is properly equivalent in number, tense, etc. you have to know that this will be challenged when it is not the case. And the source of these were the margin notes of the translators themselves!

Blaming modern scholars is not going to change what the text of the KJV says. Moreover, in the list I posted it is not as though the KJV translators did NOT know what the literal reading was, because it was in their margin notes. They just thought it better to be not so literal in the actual text that would also be used in public reading, etc.

So it is not an issue with modern scholars claims, however much you would like that smokescreen. And it is not an issue with the translators' lack of knowledge. They chose not to render every word exactly. And that kills the theory of derivative inspiration referenced in your article.

If you can offer no better answer than to blame the later scholars for something they had nothing to do with (the translation of the KJV), how can we take your view of derivative inspiration seriously?

If these accusations are true, I have often wondered why God bothered using any of the "pre-Westcott and Hort" scholars at all? After all, consider the following: (according to modern scholarship) 1) These scholars has little actual knowledge of the original Biblical Languages; 2) The MSS used were very inferior to those used today; and 3) The underlying text of the KJB (and all other reformation Bibles), were based on only a handful of these inferior MSS.

Click to expand...

Since I did not claim the KJV is a poor translation this misses the point completely. Saying that the KJV is not perfect in every way is not saying it is a poor translation.

It is not all or nothing. The KJV can be a good translation without being perfect. And just as the translators of the KJV said, the earlier English Bibles were ALSO the word of God, though not perfect either.

Why in the world, would an omnipotent and omniscient God do such a thing? Shouldn't He have preserved His word in a monolithic text, (to avoid all this confusion), and then waited until modern textual critics came along with their vast knowledge of the Biblical Languages, along with all the superior MSS, and their superior methodology, to translate His words into the languages of the world, so we wouldn't even have to have this discussion?

Click to expand...

More of the same. Stop blaming modern scholars for margin notes by the KJV translators themselves.

As the atheists tell me, "I think there are a lot of things that God could have done to make this a lot better world." In this case, preserve a single perfect Bible, with His Seal of Approval, right on the front cover.

Click to expand...

More of the comparisons to atheists? Noting the margin notes by the translators makes us akin to atheists? No, it clearly does not. This is simply a smokescreen at this point.

This is what I know:

1) The words of Scripture were given to holy men by the Holy Spirit.
2) God used other holy saints to copy those "words".
3) The method of every man involved in bringing us the Received Text, and the KJB, was working by faith, through submission to the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Agreed on all points. But you have yet to address the fact that those men working on the KJB expressly said that the Holy Spirit had left some things uncertain. Those same men said that they should not be captive to only one reading. Those same men put over a thousand margin notes which revealed MORE PRECISE renderings of the underlying languages than was included in the text.

4) The men who developed textual criticism did not believe the Scriptures were Divinely inspired, or Divinely authoritative.
5) Many of those who are students of textual criticism today, deny the Bible as being historically accurate, (at least one of which, has posted in this very thread).

We must ask ourselves, "To which of the above 'camps', do I need to affiliate with?

For me, it is having faith in the power of God!!!

Jack

Click to expand...

No, we must ask why you are dodging very specific examples that point out the flaws in the theory you quoted, derivative inspiration, by trying to talk about the modern critics again.

Whatever the KJV translators did with their translation has ZERO to do with Hort, etc. If you will not look at the examples in the KJV, and the notes in the margin by its translators, then you really are just giving up the argument altogether on this critical point.