The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

tall73 · May 6, 2015

A re-posting of examples of translations where the KJV does not match every element of the Greek. Each of these include a marginal note from the translators of the KJV noting the more precise Greek translation. Note these margin notes are from the original 1611 manuscript, and do not represent the views of "textual critics" of later years.

In each of these examples I will first post the KJV text, then the margin reading.

Example 1:
2 John 12 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.
Margin: "mouth to mouth"

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".

Example 2:
1Co 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Margin: "Revealing"

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.

Example 3:
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Margin: "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 actual text of the KJV. It should be "taketh", not "took".

Example 4:
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:
Margin: "run"

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. "

Example 5:
Php 2:17 Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.
Margin: "poured forth"

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.

OzSpen · May 6, 2015

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. 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,

You are asking some of the wrong questions:

Why is it that the very few Greek MSS of the Textus Receptus NT did not have the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation and Erasmus had to translate them into Greek from another version?
How did Erasmus know there was 6 verses that were missing from Revelation 22 so that he needed to add them to the MSS at his disposal?
Why did Erasmus choose the Latin Vulgate to translate those last 6 verses into Greek?
How come that the Latin Vulgate was closer to the text of the autographa than the Textus Receptus?
Why has the KJV added verses that were not in the earlier MSS?
You don't seem to be quoting from the 1611 edition of the KJV. Why not? Why are you choosing to use a later revision of the KJV? The thee and thou of the 1769 revision of the KJV are not the language I speak, but the language of the 1611 edition is even more removed from the language I speak. If you are a fair dinkum (I'm an Aussie) supporter of the KJV, why are you not promoting the English of the original 1611 edition?
I have not seen you discussing the fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV included the Intertestamental Books known as the Apocrypha. Why not?

Oz

tall73 · May 6, 2015

Additional examples of the KJV not rendering using formal equivalence of the exact nature Jack's article alleged:

Example 6:
Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Margin: "The word of hearing"

The word preached emphasizes what was preached or proclaimed, which stresses the one proclaiming. However the text says the word of hearing, emphasizing those who were hearing it, but not mixing it with faith.

Example 7:
2Co 12:15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.
Margin: Your Souls

While soul can mean simply a person, the text reads τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, "the souls of you". If you want to translate exactly as in the Greek then you need to include the word souls here and the reader can then determine the meaning overall.

Example 8
2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
Margin: "In the face"

Just as the heart here represents the character of the person, or inner being, etc. so the face here represents the physical appearance. The underlying word is face, and if every inspired word is important then it should be retained and the reader can make the connection to appearance.

Example 9:
Mar 13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
Margin: "the word in the originall, importeth, the paines of a woman in travaile."

You miss part of the idiom with just "sorrows". It is a word denoting anguish or pain, especially of labor pains.

Example 10:
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
Margin: "Is revealed"

The verb translated "it shall be revealed" is actually in the present. This should be reflected in the translation and let the reader decide how it is meant.

Example 11:
Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
Margin: "breath"

The word is literally breath, and also connects it to the next clause, that it spoke.

An additional example that is not referenced in the marginal notes:

Example 12:
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

The word "I will come", ερχομαι, Is in the present "I am coming". People debate why it is in the present, but the text should indicate the actual tense in the text. The usual notion of why it is in the present is that it is an example of a "futuristic present", or in other words, a promise so certain it is spoken of as already fulfilled.

It would read like this:

Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming again, and I will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

"If I go" and "prepare" are in the subjunctive mood, as part of a conditional phrase. "I will receive" is in the future tense. The close connection of the coming again and receiving explains why most take this to mean a futuristic present. However, again it should simply be translated as the tense that it is in the text and then the reader can comprehend what is meant.

tall73 · May 6, 2015

Another consideration when trying to translate the underlying Greek is whether the translation unnecessarily uses different English words to translate the same underlying Greek word when the two instances of the Greek word are in close proximity.

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

The same word, in the same form, is translated both "rejoice" and "glory". The force of "And not only so, but....also" would be strengthened if the two terms were rendered similarly. The parallel is not as obvious when it is translated with two different words. Here is what it might look like with a consistent English word:

Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3 And not only so, but we rejoice in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

Then one gets the notion that not only do we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, but also we rejoice in tribulation.

PrincetonGuy · May 7, 2015

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. 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

This is what I know for an incontrovertible fact:

1) The original words used to pen the 66 documents that the large majority of Protestant Christians believe to be canonical are unknown.
2) The original documents were copied and subsequently lost or destroyed; and copies were made of these copies, and copies were made of those copies, etc.
3) Errors were made in copying the originals and the copies
4} The evidence currently available supports the belief that the original documents making up the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, with some parts of some of them being written in Aramaic; and the belief that the original documents making up the New Testament were written in Greek.
5) Very numerous scholars have examined the ancient Old and New Testament documents, and in those belonging to the New Testament there are approximately 300,000 variants with over 20,000 of them appearing in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.
6) Numerous scholars, often working in teams, have produced editions of the Greek New Testament based upon their study and analysis of ancient Greek manuscripts containing all or part of the New Testament.
7) These numerous scholars have represented a very wide spectrum of theological thought, and there is no evidence that their theology influenced, to even the slightest extent, the Greek texts that they produced.
8) Many hundreds of New Testament scholars publishing today in peer-reviewed academic journals dealing with the Bible agree that the current Greek text of the New Testament is greatly more accurate than the textual basis of the New Testament in the KJV, and very few, if any, disagree.
9) The quality of the translation work on the KJV was poor, and the quality of the English is distinctly substandard.
10) The English in the KJV has become ridiculously archaic, and every year it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand.

We saw in post #662 in this thread that a preacher preached a sermon based upon a severe misunderstanding of Numbers 10:2 and that as he preached, the congregation, also unable to understand the KJV, shouted “Amen” to the preacher’s nonsense.

The concept “of a whole piece” found in the KJV at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the Hebrew text; and the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁ&#1492

” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is not found in the KJV. However, the concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁ&#1492

” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is found in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate at Numbers 10:2,

fac tibi duas tubas argenteas ductiles [fac (make) tibi (you) duas (two) tubas (trumpets) argenteas (silver) ductiles (beaten)

Therefore it is found in the Douay Old Testament of 1609,

Numbers 10:2. Make thee two trumpets of beaten silver, wherewith thou mayest call together the multitude when the camp is to be removed.

The concept of “hammered work (מִקְשָׁ&#1492

” found in the Hebrew text at Numbers 10:2 is also found in the Septuagint at Numbers 10:2,

Ποίησον σεαυτῷ δύο σάλπιγγας ἀργυρᾶς, ἐλατὰς ποιήσεις αὐτάς, καὶ ἔσονταί σοι ἀνακαλεῖν τὴν συναγωγὴν καὶ ἐξαίρειν τὰς παρεμβολάς.

There is absolutely no doubt but that the King James Version seriously mistranslated Numbers 10:2, and no amount of faith in or philosophy about God can change that. Neither can any amount of faith in the translators of the KJV change that. Moreover, the mistranslation of Numbers 10:2 in the KJV is not at all an isolated incident. Nor are the mistranslations the only problem with the KJV. Indeed, many more problems with the KJV have already been documented in this thread.

I believe in God and all of His attributes as found in the Bible, but none of His attributes give us any indication of any kind that He preserved the Scriptures any more that he preserved the fossils of dinosaurs, giant ground sloths, and Saber-toothed cats—let alone any indication that God had anything at all to do with the KJV or even that He thinks that it is a reasonably accurate translation.

PrincetonGuy · May 7, 2015

Jack Koons said:
4) Finally, may we all consider what we may learn one from another, that all might be edified. I am a firm believer in the preservation of the Holy Scriptures, I hope we can discuss this issue in a way that honors our Heaveny Father.

Jack

In order to honor our heavenly father, is it not necessary that when objective, concrete evidence is posted proving that there are flaws in the KJV, subjective arguments based upon ones personal, speculative philosophy about God and His doings regarding the Bible and the KJV in particular give way to proven, objective facts? Is God honored when men skirt the objective facts and repeat over and over again their speculative, subjective arguments that prove nothing?

The KJV is flawed, as has been proven in this thread, and questions about why God would allow that to happen belong in a different thread.

James Is Back · May 11, 2015

Mod Hat On

Thread has undergone a cleanup. If your post is gone that is the reason. I will remind everyone of 2 things:

1.When posting articles from sites,always post the link to the article(providing that it doesn't contain profanity or vulgarity)and only post 20% or less of the article.

2.When disagreeing with somone's position on a topic,always address the post not the poster. Don't make things personal and always respect each other in a loving and civil matter. No flaming or goading please. Thank you!

Mod Hat Off

SaintJoeNow · May 12, 2015

It is easy to show that any modern version cannot possibly be the word of God because of the doctrinal CHANGES by changing key words, and the doctrinal CHANGES supported by deletions of scripture.

Only the King James Bible qualifies as the word of God preserved as God in his word promises to preserve it.

The OP here is supporting the King James Bible as the preserved word of God, and that implies that all modern versions are NOT the preserved word of God.

All modern versions are basically the same in CHANGING doctrines by changing key words and deleting key passages which allow false religions to use the Bible to support their false teachings. These changes are easy to point out. The ungodly roots of all modern versions tying back to the influences of Wescott and Hort are another topic, or perhaps the other side of the same coin which is the wooden nickel of books which claim to be Bibles and try to pass themselves off as the real nickles.

I'll pick on the NIV here, since t is easy to show the NIV cannot possibly be the Word of God, and because it creates lies against the Word of God, (including changing the Biblical doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture) it can only be a book from Hell.

I have the highest respect for some people who reject the King James Bible being the word of God preserved without error for the English speaking world.
My beloved and much missed mentor who traveled the world in revival ministries with the Sutera twins was one of those people. I said to him before the same thing I am about to say here, and it didn't bother him because he was a godly man who simply was not interested in arguing the subject and did not think it important enough for him to in any way try to tell me I am wrong for believing the King James Bible is God's word without error.
His response was simply to say he held the King James Bible in highest regard above all modern versions because of the obvious poetic beauty and power of wordings. He understood that modern versions compromised these things in order to sell themselves as easier to read by eliminating archaic usages of words such as "thee" and "thine". My mentor did not reject the King James Bible as being God's word without error, nor embrace it as such. He won my respect and deep appreciation because of his Godly character; a born-again child of God who had been broken by God in his old age after decades of hard-heartedness as an average church attending Baptist who appeared to be doing all the things a Baptist is supposed to do and not doing the things a Baptist is not supposed to do. It is a rare thing for anybody who rejects the King James Bible as the preserved word of God to earn my respect. If my mentor had tried to support a perverted (perversions of scripture easily documented) book which claims to be the Bible like the NIV, I would have had to separate from him. It's a divisive issue when people want to make it a divisive issue. My mentor had the wisdom of humility to avoid divisions over the issue, and he taught me the wisdom of humility to see the fruits of God's proving in His ministers.

revrobor · May 12, 2015

I am familiar with the CEV, NASB, Berkley, NKJV and Good News and there is not one word that has been changed that changes any major doctrine. Preise God for the new translation and paraphrases that make it easy for people to understand Scripture. I think your argument is falling on deaf ears.

tall73 · May 12, 2015

SaintJoeNow said:
It is easy to show that any modern version cannot possibly be the word of God because of the doctrinal CHANGES by changing key words, and the doctrinal CHANGES supported by deletions of scripture.

Correction, they use a different underlying text. They did not start with the KJV and start deleting things randomly.

tall73 · May 12, 2015

SaintJoeNow said:
Only the King James Bible qualifies as the word of God preserved as God in his word promises to preserve it.

Joe, please address these 12 examples, of which there are more, where the King James Translators used dynamic equivalence.

11 of these include a marginal note from the translators of the KJV noting the more precise Greek translation than what was put into the text.

In each of these examples I will first post the KJV text, then the margin reading.

Example 1:
2 John 12 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.
Margin: "mouth to mouth"

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".

Example 2:
1Co 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Margin: "Revealing"

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.

Example 3:
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Margin: "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 actual text of the KJV. It should be "taketh", not "took".

Example 4:
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:
Margin: "run"

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. "

Example 5:
Php 2:17 Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.
Margin: "poured forth"

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.

Example 6:
Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Margin: "The word of hearing"

The word preached emphasizes what was preached or proclaimed, which stresses the one proclaiming. However the text says the word of hearing, emphasizing those who were hearing it, but not mixing it with faith.

Example 7:
2Co 12:15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.
Margin: Your Souls

While soul can mean simply a person, the text reads τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, "the souls of you". If you want to translate exactly as in the Greek then you need to include the word souls here and the reader can then determine the meaning overall.

Example 8
2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
Margin: "In the face"

Just as the heart here represents the character of the person, or inner being, etc. so the face here represents the physical appearance. The underlying word is face, and if every inspired word is important then it should be retained and the reader can make the connection to appearance.

Example 9:
Mar 13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
Margin: "the word in the originall, importeth, the paines of a woman in travaile."

You miss part of the idiom with just "sorrows". It is a word denoting anguish or pain, especially of labor pains.

Example 10:
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
Margin: "Is revealed"

The verb translated "it shall be revealed" is actually in the present. This should be reflected in the translation and let the reader decide how it is meant.

Example 11:
Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
Margin: "breath"

The word is literally breath, and also connects it to the next clause, that it spoke.

An additional example that is not referenced in the marginal notes:

Example 12:
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

The word "I will come", ερχομαι, Is in the present "I am coming". People debate why it is in the present, but the text should indicate the actual tense in the text. The usual notion of why it is in the present is that it is an example of a "futuristic present", or in other words, a promise so certain it is spoken of as already fulfilled.

It would read like this:

Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming again, and I will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

"If I go" and "prepare" are in the subjunctive mood, as part of a conditional phrase. "I will receive" is in the future tense. The close connection of the coming again and receiving explains why most take this to mean a futuristic present. However, again it should simply be translated as the tense that it is in the text and then the reader can comprehend what is meant.

OzSpen · May 12, 2015

revrobor said:
I am familiar with the CEV, NASB, Berkley, NKJV and Good News and there is not one word that has been changed that changes any major doctrine. Preise God for the new translation and paraphrases that make it easy for people to understand Scripture. I think your argument is falling on deaf ears.

Well said.

SaintJoeNow · May 14, 2015

OzSpen said:
Well said.

Sure, when modern versions change "the Son" referring to Jesus Christ into "a son" who could be anybody, or changing Jesus into one of many sons, it's not a significant doctrinal change. There are hundreds, thousands, of these kind of changes in modern versions. Modern versions are fake Bibles they are not the word of God, they do not contain or convey the word of God because God cannot lie.

How in the world a Christian can say modern versions, which are fraudulent imposters claiming to be Bibles, make no significant changes in doctrine is mindboggling to me.

Yes this argument in support of the fact that God promised to preserve His word and He has preserved it certainly falls on deaf ears. Many people just don't want to believe God does not allow them to change His word.

SaintJoeNow · May 14, 2015

SaintJoeNow said:
Sure, when modern versions change "the Son" referring to Jesus Christ into "a son" who could be anybody, or changing Jesus into one of many sons, it's not a significant doctrinal change. There are hundreds, thousands, of these kind of changes in modern versions. Modern versions are fake Bibles they are not the word of God, they do not contain or convey the word of God because God cannot lie.

How in the world a Christian can say modern versions, which are fraudulent imposters claiming to be Bibles, make no significant changes in doctrine is mindboggling to me.

Yes this argument in support of the fact that God promised to preserve His word and He has preserved it certainly falls on deaf ears. Many people just don't want to believe God does not allow them to change His word.

You can't change my word any more than you can change God's word. Modern versions change God's word so it is no longer God's word. If you take one word of mine and change it, it is fraud.

That is the child-like simplicity of believing God....believing He said exactly what He said to me in His word and nobody can change it. All modern versions basically say "here's my version of what God said". Your version is not God's version, I believe God's word and nobody's version of if. I have His word in English, and His word proves all differing versions are fraudulent..

tall73 · May 14, 2015

SaintJoeNow said:
You can't change my word any more than you can change God's word. Modern versions change God's word so it is no longer God's word. If you take one word of mine and change it, it is fraud.

Joe, the 12 examples below show that the KJV translators did not in fact follow every word in the text itself.

11 of these include a marginal note from the translators of the KJV noting the more precise Greek translation than what was put into the text.

In each of these examples I will first post the KJV text, then the margin reading.

Example 1:
2 John 12 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.
Margin: "mouth to mouth"

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".

Example 2:
1Co 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Margin: "Revealing"

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.

Example 3:
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Margin: "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 actual text of the KJV. It should be "taketh", not "took".

Example 4:
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:
Margin: "run"

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. "

Example 5:
Php 2:17 Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.
Margin: "poured forth"

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.

Example 6:
Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Margin: "The word of hearing"

The word preached emphasizes what was preached or proclaimed, which stresses the one proclaiming. However the text says the word of hearing, emphasizing those who were hearing it, but not mixing it with faith.

Example 7:
2Co 12:15 And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.
Margin: Your Souls

While soul can mean simply a person, the text reads τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν, "the souls of you". If you want to translate exactly as in the Greek then you need to include the word souls here and the reader can then determine the meaning overall.

Example 8
2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
Margin: "In the face"

Just as the heart here represents the character of the person, or inner being, etc. so the face here represents the physical appearance. The underlying word is face, and if every inspired word is important then it should be retained and the reader can make the connection to appearance.

Example 9:
Mar 13:8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
Margin: "the word in the originall, importeth, the paines of a woman in travaile."

You miss part of the idiom with just "sorrows". It is a word denoting anguish or pain, especially of labor pains.

Example 10:
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
Margin: "Is revealed"

The verb translated "it shall be revealed" is actually in the present. This should be reflected in the translation and let the reader decide how it is meant.

Example 11:
Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
Margin: "breath"

The word is literally breath, and also connects it to the next clause, that it spoke.

An additional example that is not referenced in the marginal notes:

Example 12:
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

The word "I will come", ερχομαι, Is in the present "I am coming". People debate why it is in the present, but the text should indicate the actual tense in the text. The usual notion of why it is in the present is that it is an example of a "futuristic present", or in other words, a promise so certain it is spoken of as already fulfilled.

It would read like this:

Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming again, and I will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

"If I go" and "prepare" are in the subjunctive mood, as part of a conditional phrase. "I will receive" is in the future tense. The close connection of the coming again and receiving explains why most take this to mean a futuristic present. However, again it should simply be translated as the tense that it is in the text and then the reader can comprehend what is meant.

SaintJoeNow · May 15, 2015

If anybody wants to know what God's word is, I have a copy of it here beside me. If anybody does not want to know what God's word is, there are 300 fraudulent imposters of it.
I'm glad God preserved His word and gave it to me in English. Isn't it wonderful how He could create us from dust and then give us His word, His loveletter, so we can know Him and trust Him and nobody can tell us He did not say to us exactly what He said? I love my heavenly Father and I thank Him for His word.

SaintJoeNow · May 15, 2015

Why English speaking people want to believe God did not care to give them His word in English I do not know. I'm glad God gave me His word and nobody can change it because He is my Father and nobody can change or deny His word. They can try, but it won't fly. The word of God is preserved forever and my Father is bigger and more powerful than the people who try to say He was unable and/or unwilling to preserve His word and give it to me in my own language, He is bigger and more powerful than the people who change His word and make new versions which they say are His word but I know they are not because they are different than God's word. I know my Father's voice, I know His word, and it's not in fake Bibles any more than it was in the devil's mouth when he quoted scripture to Jesus trying to tempt Jesus to make Him sin. God's word is not in fake Bibles any more than it was in the serpent's mouth when he said "yea, hath God said...." when he twisted God's word to trick Eve and she was deceived by the twisting of God's word and she sinned..

You can't fool me with any modern version. This is what preservation of scripture is about. We either have God's word or we don't. People who say we don't have it and we have to examine old manuscripts to try to find it will never have it because the originals are lost. They will say I don't have God's word but I know I have God's word and I don't need to go back to any old manuscripts. God took care of that for me and the entire English speaking world already and I thank Him for it. You don't have to believe God in this matter, and you don't have to thank Him like I do in this matter.

When people say we do not have God's word in English, I say they do not have it but I DO have it. They do not know I have it and I know they don't have it because they say it is not preserved to they can't possibly have it. I know they can have it if they will believe they have it, but sadly, the percentages today say most people do not believe they have God's preserved word.

If they are godly people like my mentor was who did not believe in King James Bible as the only English translation qualified by God as His word, they won't bother me.

PrincetonGuy · May 15, 2015

SaintJoeNow · May 15, 2015

SaintJoeNow said:
Why English speaking people want to believe God did not care to give them His word in English I do not know. I'm glad God gave me His word and nobody can change it because He is my Father and nobody can change or deny His word. They can try, but it won't fly. The word of God is preserved forever and my Father is bigger and more powerful than the people who try to say He was unable and/or unwilling to preserve His word and give it to me in my own language, He is bigger and more powerful than the people who change His word and make new versions which they say are His word but I know they are not because they are different than God's word. I know my Father's voice, I know His word, and it's not in fake Bibles any more than it was in the devil's mouth when he quoted scripture to Jesus trying to tempt Jesus to make Him sin. God's word is not in fake Bibles any more than it was in the serpent's mouth when he said "yea, hath God said...." when he twisted God's word to trick Eve and she was deceived by the twisting of God's word and she sinned..

You can't fool me with any modern version. This is what preservation of scripture is about. We either have God's word or we don't. People who say we don't have it and we have to examine old manuscripts to try to find it will never have it because the originals are lost. They will say I don't have God's word but I know I have God's word and I don't need to go back to any old manuscripts. God took care of that for me and the entire English speaking world already and I thank Him for it. You don't have to believe God in this matter, and you don't have to thank Him like I do in this matter.

When people say we do not have God's word in English, I say they do not have it but I DO have it. They do not know I have it and I know they don't have it because they say it is not preserved to they can't possibly have it. I know they can have it if they will believe they have it, but sadly, the percentages today say most people do not believe they have God's preserved word.

If they are godly people like my mentor was who did not believe in King James Bible as the only English translation qualified by God as His word, they won't bother me. Godly people who give themselves for Jesus and for His gospel are my kind of people if they are King James Bible only or not.

tall73 · May 15, 2015

SaintJoeNow said:
The word of God is preserved forever and my Father is bigger and more powerful than the people who try to say He was unable and/or unwilling to preserve His word and give it to me in my own language....

But you say He was not able to give it to anyone else in their language, or in your language up until 1611. And you refuse to address the 11 examples posted where the KJV translators admit that they did not use a literal translation.

The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

Sophia7's husband

Regular Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Veteran

Veteran

CF's Official Locksmith

Junior Member

Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Regular Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Junior Member

Junior Member

Veteran

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Similar threads