Amplified Bible and NASB both getting revisions/updates

Biblicist · Jul 22, 2015

Farm Truck said:
Actually, the opposite is true... with the rise of new translations has come false doctrine such as exaggerated grace which is the message the Lord warned us about in the end times when He said people would not endure sound doctrine and would heap to themselves ear tickling preachers.

As I said earlier, ultimately we need to dig in to the original texts... and in doing so, I've found the KJV has the fewest errors when compared to modern translations.

satan has his hand in the modern translations which are done by people with agendas that do not include faithfully following the leading of the Holy Spirit and translate from the wisomd of mankind which is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

It's to satan's advantage to change God's Word and put it out as a legitimate translation to deceive people and he has been quite successful.

Oh . . . which particular version of the King James did the Apostle Paul use? After all, if the translators of the KJV apparently made no "changes to God's Word" then they must have had a copy of a KJV that Paul used.

ToBeLoved · Jul 22, 2015

Well, let's conduct a little experiment.

Someone choose, 5 random books, chapters and verses and let's compare from the KJV, Amplified, NASB, NIV and ESV.

Now, no cheating on choosing 'random', I'll start

1 Corinthians 5:8-10

KJV
"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world."

NASB
"Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world."

NIV
"Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world."

ESV
"Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world."

AMP
"Therefore, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of vice and malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened [bread] of purity (nobility, honor) and sincerity and [unadulterated] truth. I wrote you in my [previous] letter not to associate [closely and habitually] with unchaste (impure) people— Not [meaning of course that you must] altogether shun the immoral people of this world, or the greedy graspers and cheats and thieves or idolaters, since otherwise you would need to get out of the world and human society altogether!"

Ok guys. What's your opinions? I bolded the words that stuck out to me as being different between the versions. Since I chose the random verses, I'll go last.

Biblicist · Jul 22, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
Well, let's conduct a little experiment.

Someone choose, 5 random books, chapters and verses and let's compare from the KJV, Amplified, NASB, NIV and ESV.

Now, no cheating on choosing 'random', I'll start

1 Corinthians 5:8-10

KJV
"Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world."

NASB
"Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world."

NIV
"Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world."

ESV
"Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world."

AMP
"Therefore, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with leaven of vice and malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened [bread] of purity (nobility, honor) and sincerity and [unadulterated] truth. I wrote you in my [previous] letter not to associate [closely and habitually] with unchaste (impure) people— Not [meaning of course that you must] altogether shun the immoral people of this world, or the greedy graspers and cheats and thieves or idolaters, since otherwise you would need to get out of the world and human society altogether!"

Ok guys. What's your opinions? I bolded the words that stuck out to me as being different between the versions. Since I chose the random verses, I'll go last.

You should find the following lexical information to be of some interest where it should help to explain why the task of the various Bible translation committees can be difficult and full of pitfalls. Each 'spoiler' contains references from either five or six lexicons.

Feast/festival (BibleWorks 9)

Friberg Lexicon:

10221 ἑορτάζω celebrate a festival, take part in a feast; metaphorically, of the Christian life likened to a Passover feast kept with unleavened bread (1C 5.8)

LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

15641 ἑορτάζω
ἑορτάζω, Ion. ὁρτάζω: impf. ἑώρταζον (with irreg. augm. in second syll.): f. άσω: aor. i ἑώρτασα (with irreg. augm.), inf. ἑορτάσαι: (ἑορτή):-to keep festival or holiday, Hdt., Eur.

II. to celebrate as or by a festival, Plut.

VGNT Lexicon:

1520 ἑορτάζω [pg 226]
ἑορτάζω.

For this verb which in the NT is confined to 1 Cor 58, but is frequent in the LXX, cf. BGU II. 6466 (A.D. 193), an order issued by a prefect during the short reign of the Emperor Pertinax—ἵνα πάντες ῒδιῆτα@ι] (l. εἰδῆτε) καὶ ταῖς ι‚σαις ἡμέραις ἑορτάσητ@α]ι (l. ἑορτάσητε). See also OGIS 49325 (ii/A.D.) κ@αθ᾽ ἕκαστον ἐνιαυτὸν] ἑορτάζειν τὴν γενέθλιον αὐ@τοῦ καὶ πᾶσιν] ἀνθρώποις αἰτίαν ἀγαθῶν ἡμέ@ραν, with reference to a birthday celebration.

Gingrich Lexicon:

2422 ἑορτάζω
ἑορτάζω celebrate a festival 1 Cor 5:8.* [pg 70]

Malice/evil (BibleWorks 9)

Friberg Lexicon:

14709 κακία, ας, ἡ having the quality of κακός (evil, bad) evil, badness; (1) morally depravity, vice, wickedness (JA 1.21), opposite ἀρετή (virtue); (2) behaviorally dislike, ill will, hatefulness (TI 3.3), opposite κοινωνία (fellowship); (3) as adverse circumstances evil, trouble, misfortune (MT 6.34)

LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

22050 κακία
κα±κία, ἡ, (κακός) badness in quality, opp. to ἀρετή (excellence), Theogn., Soph.

l. κακίαι defects, Luc.

2. cowardice, sloth, Thuc., Plat.

3. moral badness, wickedness, vice, Plat., Xen.

II. ill-repute, Thuc.

III. evil suffered, N.T.

VGNT Dictionary:

2085 κακία [pg 316]
κακία

is used in P Petr II. 23(1)9 (Ptol.) ἰδ@ό]ντες τὴν κακίαν τῶν ἡμῶν, apparently of the damage done to a crop of rye and barley by hail (?): cf. P Flor II. 17611 (A.D. 256) ἐκ τῆς τῶν σύκων κακίας. In P Petr II. 19(2)5 (Ptol.) διὰ τὴν ἐν@εστ]ῶσαν? κακίαν, the reference is to the “idleness” of certain workmen. For the stronger meaning “malice,” “wickedness,” see P Rein 715 (B.C. 141 ?) διὰ πάση]v ἡσυχίας εἶχον τῶι μηδεμίαν ἔννοιαν @κ]ακίας ἔχειν, “je restai complètement tranquille, n’ayant aucun soupçon qu’il me cherchât malice” (Ed.), P Oxy VIII. 11017 (A.D. 367–70) εἴτε ὑπὸ κακίας ἢ καὶ ὑπὸ κακο@βουλεία]ς τῆς πρ@ο]αιρέσεως, “whether from malice or from perversity of judgment” (Ed.); also Preisigke 41276 ἀλότριον ἐμαυτὸν ἐποιησάμην πάσης κακείας καὶ πάσ@ης … ]οτος καὶ ἁγνεύσας ἐς πολὺν χρόν@ον. The special usage in Mt 634 is supported by the LXX, where κακία frequently translates Heb. רָעָה in the sense of “trouble,” “evil circumstances”: cf. Kennedy Sources, p. 100.

Gingrich Lexicon:

3341 κακία

κακία, ας, ἡ badness, faultiness in the sense depravity, wickedness, vice Ac 8:22; 1 Cor 14:20; Js 1:21; 1 Pt 2:16. Malice, ill will, malignity Ro 1:29; Col 3:8; 1 Pt 2:1. Trouble, misfortune Mt 6:34. [pg 98]

Wickedness/evil (BibleWorks 9)

Friberg Lexicon:

22555 πονηρία, ας, ἡ only in a moral and ethical sense in the NT, of intentionally practiced ill will evil, wickedness, malice (LU 11.39); plural, for various expressions of evil-mindedness wicked ways, evil doings, malicious deeds (AC 3.26)

LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

35600 πονηρία
πονηρία, ἡ, (πονηρός) a bad state or condition, badness, Plat.

II. in moral sense, wickedness, vice, knavery, Lat. pravitas, Id., Xen.: in pl. knavish tricks, rogueries, Dem.

2. baseness, cowardice, Eur.

VGNT Dictionary:

3488 πονηρία [pg 528]
πονηρία

is used in connexion with disease in P Tebt II. 2728 (medical—late ii/A.D.) οὐ διὰ . . πονηρίαν καὶ sυν@άρ]tησιν τῶν νόσων, “not because of the malignity or complication of the diseases” (Edd.): cf. OGIS 51910 (c. A.D. 245) πάντων … ἤρεμον καὶ γαληνὸν τὸν βίον δια@γόντων, πο]νηρίας καὶ διασεισμῶν πε@π]αυμένων. In the vi/A.D. amulet, BGU III. 95424 (= Selections, p. 134) the phrase in the Lord’s Prayer is cited as—ῥῦ@σαι ἡ]μᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πο@ν]ηρ@ίας, which some may be tempted to quote in support of the AV of Mt 613.

The compound μειζοπονηρία (= μισοπονηρία) occurs in P Ryl II. 11333 (A.D. 133) τοῦ οὖν πράγματος δεομένου τῆς σῆς μειζοπονηρίας, “since therefore the case requires the exercise of your hatred of wrongdoers” (Edd.).

Gingrich Lexicon:

5264 πονηρία

πονηρία, ας, ἡ wickedness, baseness, maliciousness, sinfulness Mt 22:18; Lk 11:39; Ac 3:26; Ro 1:29; 1 Cor 5:8; Eph 6:12; pl. malicious acts Mk 7:22.* [pg 164]

Epistle/letter (BibleWorks 9)

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Abridged 1 Volume Edition):

epistello, epistole.

The verb epistello means “to transmit a message,” and the noun epistole denotes “what is transmitted,” usually a “letter.”

1. In the NT the few instances of the verb (Acts 15:20; 21:25; Heb. 13:22) suggest the authoritative and almost official nature of the early Christian epistle. The NT epistles bear this character. They speak a definitive word about individuals, humanity, and the Christ event as God’s eschatological act. They show that the world cannot escape this word. They thus correspond to prophecy in the OT. 2 Cor. 3:Iff. seems to reflect Paul’s conviction that all his epistles are ultimately Christ’s. The use in this passage is, of course, figurative. Paul does not need human authorization in the form of letters of recommendation, for the church itself is an epistle that Christ has written through him. The Spirit has written this epistle on the heart. The use of the metaphor shows plainly that with Christ the true apostle has a necessary place in God’s work of revelation and reconciliation.

Friberg Lexicon:

11043 ἐπιστολή, ῆς, ἡ a transmitted message letter, epistle (AC 9.2); metaphorically, of the church as a message produced by Christ, especially as a commendation of the success of the founding apostle (2C 3.2, 3)

LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

17036 ἐπιστολή
ἐπιστολή, ἡ, (ἐπιστέλλω) a message, command, commission, whether verbal or in writing, Hdt., Att.; ἐξ ἐπιστολῆς by command, Hdt.

2. a letter, Lat. epistola, Thuc., etc. Hence ἐπιστολιμαῖος

VGNT Dictionary:

1639 ἐπιστολή [pg 246]
ἐπιστολή.

Preisigke in his Fachwörter, p. 90, has classified various more or less technical usages of this common word. Thus in P Amh II. 6410 (A.D. 107) the copy of an official letter addressed to the strategus with reference to the public baths of Hermopolis is headed—ἀντίγραφον ἐπιστολῆς, and in P Hamb I. 18ii. 6 (A.D. 222) a συνκολ(λήσιμον) is mentioned αὐθ(εντιkῶν) ἐπιστολ(ῶν) καὶ βιβλ(ιδίων) ὑποκεκολ(λημένων). In BGU IV. 1046ii. 5 (not before A.D. 166) (= Chrest. I. p. 315) we learn that the persons selected for certain public duties were appointed by the epistrategus—δι᾽ ἐπιστολ(ῆς) κομισθ(είσης) καὶ προγρα(φείσης) (“openly placarded up”); while in Chrest. I. 2616 (A.D. 135) a petition, instead of being lodged in the usual way as a ὑπόμνημα, takes the form of an ἐπιστολή: see Wilcken’s note ad l. In BGU IV. 11357 (prob. B.C. 10) κατὰ] νομογραφικὴν ἐπισt@ολήν, the word is = “despatch,” and in the business letter P Giss I. 10520 (V/A.D.) λήμψῃς ἐπιστολάς it is = “receipt.” The range of the word was thus wide, and its official usage in the above-noted instances may serve as a needed corrective to the over-emphasis which Deissmann (BS, p. 3 ff., LAE, p. 217 ff.) is inclined to lay upon the “popular” character of the Pauline ἐπιστολαί: see Milligan Documents, p. 94 f.

We may further cite BGU III. 82720 (undated) ἰδοὺ d@ὴ] τρίτην ἐπιστολήν σοι γράφω, which recalls 2 Pet 31 with an opening like 2 Cor 1214, and P Oxy XII. 14092 (A.D. 278) τῆς γραφείσης ἐπιστολῆς εἰς κοινὸν ἡμῖν στρατη@γοῖς καὶ δε]καπρώτοις, with reference to a “circular letter” addressed to the strategi and δεκάπρωτοι of the Heptanomia and Arsinoïte nome by the diœcetes. For the diminutive it is enough to refer to the soldier’s letter to his mother, ib. 14813 (early ii/A.D.), in which he explains the reason why he has been so long in sending her an ἐπιστόλιον—διότι ἐν παρεμβολῇ ἠμι kaiÅ οὐ δι᾽ ἀσθένε@ι]αν, ὥστε μὴ λοιπou/, “that I am in camp, and not that I am ill; so do not grieve about me” (Edd.), and P Par 454 (B.C. 153) ἀπόντος μου πεφρόντικα ὑπέρ σου χρήσιμα τῶν σῶν πραγμάτων ἅ σ@οι] δεδύνημαι διασαφῆσαι διὰ τοῦ ἐπιστολίου, cf. 2 Cor 1011.

Gingrich Lexicon:

2631 ἐπιστολή

ἐπιστολή, ῆς, ἡ letter, epistle Ac 9:2; 23:25; Ro 16:22; 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 3:1; 10:9; 1 Th 5:27. [pg 76]

Associate/company (BibleWorks 9)

Friberg Lexicon:

25469 συναναμίγνυμι active mix, mingle together, as when mixing ingredients for medicine; figuratively and only middle or passive in the NT mingle oneself with, intermingle, associate with (1C 5.9)

Louw-Nida Lexicon:

4.1 συναναμίγνυμι ; συγχρ ὁμιλία, ας f: to associate with one another, normally involving spacial proximity and/or joint activity, and usually implying some kind of reciprocal relation or involvement - 'to associate, to be in the company of, to be involved with, association.' συναναμίγνυμι: ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις 'I wrote you not to associate with immoral people' 1 Cor 5.9. συγχράομαι: οὐ γὰρ συγχρῶνται Ἰουδαῖοι Σαμαρίταις 'for Jews do not associate with Samaritans' Jn 4.9. Some scholars interpret συγχράομαι in Jn 4.9 as denoting the use of the same dishes or utensils, so that one may translate this expression in Jn 4.9 as 'Jews do not use dishes together with Samaritans' or 'Jews and Samaritans do not use the same dishes.' Such an interpretation, however, is based upon etymological arguments for which there seems to be no certain justification in general Greek usage. συναπάγομαι: μὴ τὰ ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες ἀλλὰ τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόμενοι 'do not be proud, but associate with humble people' Ro 12.16. It is also possible to interpret the phrase τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόμενοι in Ro 12.16 as meaning 'share in doing what is humble' (see 41.22). ὁμιλία: μὴ πλανᾶσθε Φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρηστὰ ὁμιλίαι κακαί 'do not be fooled: to associate with bad people can ruin a good character' 1 Cor 15.33 .

In translating terms referring to association, one may employ a number of different kinds of expressions, for example, 'to have something to do with,' 'to keep company with,' 'to go around with,' 'to join in doing things together,' or 'to become a companion of.' Sometimes association is spoken of in terms of the impression made upon others, for example, 'to be seen often together,' 'to be regarded as close friends,' and even idiomatically as 'to be another person's shadow.'

LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

40813 συναναμίγνυμι

συν-αναμίγνυ¯μι, f. -μίξω, to mix up together: Pass. to be associated with others, c. dat., Luc.

VGNT Dictionary:

4053 συναναμίγνυμι [pg 602]
συναναμίγνυμι,

“mix up together,” thence metaph. in mid. “associate with” (1 Cor 59, 11, 2 Thess 314). For the corr. adj. συνανάμιγος (not in LS8), see P Oxy IV. 71816 (A.D. 180–192) προσεφώνησεν @τὰς τέσσαρας ταύ]τας ἀρούρας τῆς βασιλικῆς συναναμίγους εἶναι τῇ ὑπαρ@χούσῃ μοι γῇ τῶ]ν πεντήκοντα τριῶν, “stated that these 4 arourae of Crown Iand were included in the 53 arourae belonging to me” (Edd.). For the single compd cf. P Eleph 2911 (iii/B.C.) ἕως τοῦ σοι συμμei/ξαι, and P Par 4925 (c. B.C. 161) (= UPZ i. p. 309) ἤσχυνται συμμεῖξαί μοι.

Gingrich Lexicon:

6090 συναναμίγνυμι

συναναμείγνυμι mix up together, pass. mingle or associate with 1 Cor 5:9, 11:2 Th 3:14.* [pg 190]

Immoral people/fornicators (BibleWorks 9)

Friberg Lexicon:

22688 πόρνος, ου, ὁ in the NT a man who has sexual intercourse with a prostitute fornicator, sexually immoral person (1C 5.9); distinguished from μοιχός (adulterer) in 1C 6.9 and ἀρσενοκοίτης (sodomite or homosexual) in 1T 1.10

Louw-Nida Lexicon:

8.274 πόρνος, ου m: one who engages in sexual immorality, whether a man or a woman, and in some contexts, distinguished from an adulterer or adulteress - 'a sexually immoral person.' ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις 'in the letter that I wrote you I told you not to associate with sexually immoral people' 1 Cor 5.9.

VGNT Dictionary:

3499 πόρνος [pg 529]
πόρνος,

literally a “male prostitute,” but generally understood in the NT in the sense of a “fornicator.” Deissmann (LAE p. 319 ff.) compares the list of the vicious, including πόρνοι, in 1 Cor 69 f., 1 Tim 19 f., with the corresponding designations inscribed on the counters of a popular game, which are also found in the “scolding” of Ballio the pander in Plautus Pseudolus 360 ff.

Gingrich Lexicon:

5281 πόρνος

πόρνος, ου, ὁ one who practices sexual immorality, a fornicator 1 Cor 5:9–11; Eph 5:5; 1 Ti 1:10; Hb 12:16; Rv 22:15. [pg 165]

Covetous/greedy (BibleWorks 9)

Friberg Lexicon:

22097 πλεονέκτης, ου, ὁ as one who wants more than his share, especially of material possessions covetous, greedy or grasping person (1C 5.10; EP 5.5)

Louw-Nida Lexicon:

25.23 πλεονέκτης, ου m: (derivative of πλεονεξία 'greed,' 25.22) one who is greedy or covetous - 'greedy person, covetous person.' οὐ πάντως τοῖς πόρνοις τοῦ κόσμου τοῦτου ἢ τοῖς πλεονέκταις καὶ ἅρπαξιν 'now I do not mean people of this world who are immoral or greedy or are thieves' 1 Cor 5.10.

LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

34809 πλεονέκτης

πλεον-έκτης, ου, ὁ, = ὁ πλέον ἔχων, one who has or claims more than his due, greedy, grasping, arrogant, Thuc., etc.:-as Adj., λόγος πλ. Hdt.; Sup. πλεονεκτίστατος, Xen.

2. πλεονέκτης τῶν πολεμίων making gain from their losses, Id.

VGNT Dictionary:

3423 πλεονέκτης [pg 518]
πλεονέκτης,

“covetous”: cf. P Magd 5 recto7 (B.C. 221) πλεονέκτης ὤν. The adv. πλεονεκτικῶς occurs in OGIS 66516 (A.D. 48) ὑπὸ τῶν πλεονεκτικῶς καὶ ἀναιδῶς ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἀποχρωμένων. On the fragment of a vellum leaf, P Oxy XV. 1828 recto4,belonging probably to iii/A.D., and containing ethical instructions, reference is made to ὁ ψε]u,στης καὶ ὁ πλεονέκτης @καὶ ὁ ἀποστε]ρητής.

Gingrich Lexicon:

5189 πλεονέκτης

πλεονέκτης, ου, ὁ one who is greedy, a covetous person 1 Cor 5:10f; 6:10; Eph 5:5.* [pg 160]

Swindlers/extortioners (BibleWorks 9)

Friberg Lexicon:

3634 ἅρπαξ, gen. αγος (1) vicious, ravenous, destructive, like a wild animal (MT 7.15); (2) violently greedy (LU 18.11); substantivally robber, swindler (1C 6.10)

Louw-Nida Lexicon:

57.239 ἅρπαξ, αγος m: (derivative of ἁρπάζω 'to carry off by force,' 57.235) one who carries off the possessions of another by force - 'robber, plunderer.' οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν 'robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God' 1 Cor 6.10 ; ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὥσπερ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἅρπαγες, ἄδικοι, μοιχοί 'that I am not like other people, robbers, unjust, adulterers' Lk 18.11. For an interpretation of ἅρπαξ as an adjective in Lk 18.11, see 25.25.

LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

6468 ἅρπαξ

ἅρπαξ, αγος, ὁ, ἡ, (ἁρπάζω) rapacious, Lat. rapax, Ar., Xen.

II. as Subst.,

1. ἅρπαξ, ἡ, rapine, Hes.

2. ἅρπαξ, ὁ, a robber, plunderer, Ar.

VGNT Dictionary:

565 ἅρπαξ [pg 79]
ἅρπαξ.

Deissmann (LAE p. 321 n 1) notes that ἅ was current as a loan-word in Latin comedy: in Paul “it should probably not be translated ‘robber’ but rendered by some other word like ‘swindler’ (‘extortioner,’ AV, RV).”

Gingrich Lexicon:

924 ἅρπαξ

ἅρπαξ, αγος adj. rapacious, ravenous Mt 7:15. As noun robber, swindler Lk 18:11; 1 Cor 5:10f; 6:10; Tit 1:9 v.l.* [pg 26]

Idolators (BibleWorks 9)

Friberg Lexicon:

7986 εἰδωλολάτρης, ου, ὁ idolater, one who worships idols (1C 5.11), opposite one who is God-fearing or devout (θεοσεβής)

Louw-Nida Lexicon:

53.64 εἰδωλολάτρης, ου m: a person who worships idols - 'idolater, worshiper of idols.' μηδὲ εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε 'do not be worshipers of idols' 1 Cor 10.7.

LSJ Lexicon (Abridged):

12650 εἰδωλολάτρης

εἰδωλο-λάτρης, ου, ὁ, ἡ, (λάτρις) an idol-worshipper, idolater, N.T.

VGNT Dictionary:

1201 εἰδωλολάτρης [pg 183]
εἰδωλολάτρης

and εἰδωλολατρία are regarded by Nägeli (p. 51) as Christian formations: cf. the Acts of the martyrdom of Christina PSI I. 2721 (v/A.D.) ἐξῆλθεν τὸ πῦρ αἄφν@ω (l. ἄφνω) καὶ ἀπέκτ]εινεν ψυχὰς @εἰδωλολατ]ρῶν. A compound εἰδωλοποιητής is found in Vett. Valens p. 11234. Εἰδωλομανία, a stronger formation than εἰδωλολατρία, appears quater in Barlaam and Ioasaph (viii/A.D.), e.g. ch. i. § 3 τῷ τῆς εἰδωλομανίας ἐμελαίνετο ζόφῳ, “(Persia) was darkened with the gloom of idolatry.”

Gingrich Lexicon:

1896 εἰδωλολάτρης

εἰδωλολάτρης, ου, ὁ idolater 1 Cor 5:10f; 6:9; 10:7; Eph 5:5; Rv 21:8; 22:15.* [pg 56]

Farm Truck · Jul 22, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
Oh . . . which particular version of the King James did the Apostle Paul use? After all, if the translators of the KJV apparently made no "changes to God's Word" then they must have had a copy of a KJV that Paul used.

That's hilarious... oh wait, were you serious?

Biblicist · Jul 23, 2015

Farm Truck said:
That's hilarious... oh wait, were you serious?

Being the wonderfully gracious and humble person that I am, this means that even though I refuse to employ sarcasm, I am certainly content to employ situational-irony where my replies at times can become somewhat whimsical. [mmm...this line sounds somewhat sarcastic to me...but of course this would only be an illusion].

My point was two-fold, where we have to ask, if the King James English New Testament is "the faultless Word of God", what happened before this time? We certainly had two earlier English translations prior to the KJV but were these to be deemed as "faultles for their day" or were they merely pretenders to the future KJV? Then we need to ask did the Father only provide a "pure" text for we Anglophiles or did he also produce faultless texts for the other languages as well?

Next we have the Greek text of the KJV which did not exist until 1516, so we have to ask why there was no perfect Greek text prior to Erasmus and of course more recent studies have demonstrated that the eclectic Greek text behind the KJV is inferior to the contemporary GNT5/USB4 Greek text.

PS. About 20 years ago I did actually meet a lady who thought that Paul used the KJV. Up until this time I presumed that the line that says "if the King James was good enough for Paul then its good enough for me" was a throw-away line!

Svt4Him · Jul 23, 2015

Farm Truck said:
Actually, the opposite is true... with the rise of new translations has come false doctrine such as exaggerated grace which is the message the Lord warned us about in the end times when He said people would not endure sound doctrine and would heap to themselves ear tickling preachers.

As I said earlier, ultimately we need to dig in to the original texts... and in doing so, I've found the KJV has the fewest errors when compared to modern translations.

satan has his hand in the modern translations which are done by people with agendas that do not include faithfully following the leading of the Holy Spirit and translate from the wisomd of mankind which is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

It's to satan's advantage to change God's Word and put it out as a legitimate translation to deceive people and he has been quite successful.

Again this is simply not true, but I'll humour you, please site these studies you claim exist that show the KJV to be the most accurate. The problem with such a broad statement simply shows a lack of understanding to rules of interpretation, which are used in many areas including administrative tribunals and law. And it depends on what you are looking for. If you want a more literal translation then go with the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the King James Version (KJV), and the English Standard Version (ESV). A more “flowing” translation is the New International Version (NIV), and even more loose is the Phillips Translation and the Living Bible.

None of them are better than the others. It's cool that we have those....now translate what I just said there when I said it was cool, and you'll understand one of the issues that translators face.

Svt4Him · Jul 23, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
From my experience, at least from within the Australian context, is that over the years I have not failed to notice that our cults, along with those congregations that are overly bearing and where their prone to false doctrine, that the use of the KJV seems to go hand in hand with errant doctrine; maybe things are a bit different overseas.

Quite often (but not always), when I come across statements where people say that they only need the 'Holy Spirit to teach them', that this tends to often reflect either a disdane for doctrine in general or that there is an attitude of rebellion in play where they simply refuse to listen to anyone other than themselves, where I wonder why this type of attitude seems to be overly represenative of the KJV/KJVO fraternity.

So I wonder if I can legitimately pose the question, is a strong adherence to the KJV in itself a sign of rebellion and un-teachability? I appreciate that there are many parts of the USA where people are essentially compelled to use the KJV so my question certainly does not apply to them.

There's a great book called the KJV Bible only controversy. Some people chose to die on hills that have no meaning, I'm thinking this is one of them.

http://www.christianbook.com/king-j...ode=WW&netp_id=558428&event=ESRCN&view=covers

Biblicist · Jul 23, 2015

Svt4Him said:
There's a great book called the KJV Bible only controversy. Some people chose to die on hills that have no meaning, I'm thinking this is one of them.

http://www.christianbook.com/king-j...ode=WW&netp_id=558428&event=ESRCN&view=covers

I remember buying D.A. Carson's book The King James Controversy way back around 1983-86. About that time I had moved away from the KJV to the NASB and in 1988 I moved over to the NIV. The NASB is still my favourite but as the NIV became the main English translation it made sense to make the move and since that time Zondervan have produced a superb range of lexicons and other aids for the NIV which makes it a great study Bible.

As for the KJV, it has certainly had its innings but as with the old dried bones of the dinosaurs it really is little more than a museum piece.

ToBeLoved · Jul 23, 2015

Can we get back to the original conversation?

Do you guys know specifically why these two versions would need to be 'updated' and what the 'updates' entail?

Biblicist · Jul 23, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
Can we get back to the original conversation?

Do you guys know specifically why these two versions would need to be 'updated' and what the 'updates' entail?

As for the NASB/95, unless we know what the changes will be with the intended third edition of the NASB, then we really cannot comment; though I suspect that the reasons might be along marketing lines. The main problem with both the original NASB and the NASB/95 is with its notoriously 'wooden reading style' where this 'woodenness' can make it uncomfortable for public speaking, though it is certainly a superb study Bible.

As for the Amplified "Bible", I seriously doubt if they could ever make enough changes that would be enough to turn it into a legitimate Bible.

ToBeLoved · Jul 23, 2015

I'm going to poke around the internet and see if I can find out any specifics.

Biblicist · Jul 23, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
I'm going to poke around the internet and see if I can find out any specifics.

Hopefully they won't be going down the egalitarian pathway where brothers become "brothers and sisters"; where one day some translation might decide to employ "brothers, sisters, boys and girls" for adelphos.

FerventDisciple · Jul 24, 2015

The only additional information I have right now on the NASB is in it's current stage it will be called NASB2016 or NASB16. It will not have egalitarian language.

The next release of information on it will not be until December.

I wish at least once a thread on Bible translation would not turn into a debate about the KJV. I don't like KJV Onlyism or KJV bashing.

Biblicist · Jul 24, 2015

FerventDisciple said:
The only additional information I have right now on the NASB is in it's current stage it will be called NASB2016 or NASB16. It will not have egalitarian language.

The next release of information on it will not be until December.

Thanks for the update. If they're concentrating on altering the difficult reading style of the NASB without any silly incursions into egalitarianism then this new third edition should be interesting.

I wish at least once a thread on Bible translation would not turn into a debate about the KJV. I don't like KJV Onlyism or KJV bashing.

I know. . . you're right, but when KJV types jump into threads such as this without thinking things through, it's sort of like playing with puppies or little kids where their rather fun to play with.

Farm Truck · Aug 7, 2015

Do not be deceived folks, all these updates and revisions are an open door to demonic influence to change what God says.

To get to what God actually said one needs to dig in to the original Hebrew and Greek and the KJV is the version that has fewer errors than these modern versions coming out now that are changing away from what the original languages said.

No, the KJV is not perfect but it's been around so long that it's errors are well known.

The newer translations make light of sin and the more modern translations are gay friendly and some even teach not practicing environmentalism is a sin!

Let's not be naive concerning satan's involvement in re-writing the Bible.
his ganda ain't propa!

Biblicist · Aug 7, 2015

Farm Truck said:
Do not be deceived folks, all these updates and revisions are an open door to demonic influence to change what God says.

To get to what God actually said one needs to dig in to the original Hebrew and Greek and the KJV is the version that has fewer errors than these modern versions coming out now that are changing away from what the original languages said.

No, the KJV is not perfect but it's been around so long that it's errors are well known.

The newer translations make light of sin and the more modern translations are gay friendly and some even teach not practicing environmentalism is a sin!

Let's not be naive concerning satan's involvement in re-writing the Bible.
his ganda ain't propa!

Sad . . . very sad indeed!

Farm Truck · Aug 7, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
Sad . . . very sad indeed!

Yes, very sad that many Christians are gullible to accept these new versions that change what God originally said in a lot of places in scripture.

And now, for a moment of silence

Biblicist · Aug 7, 2015

Farm Truck said:
Yes, very sad that many Christians are gullible to accept these new versions that change what God originally said in a lot of places in scripture.

And now, for a moment of silence

I've often wondered why the various cults along with those congregations that have a reputation where their leadership tries to strong-arm their congregation that they also seem to be strong supporters of the KJV - well actually, I don't wonder, as it makes perfect sense that those who rely on human precepts will naturally be inclined to rely on the now very tired and dated KJV.

As for those who you deem to be "gullible", why is it that the best and brightest Spirit led theologians also reject the the KJV? Of course I would never ask a theologian if they still used the KJV as I know that they would look at me as if I was on another planet.

By the way, do you know how to tell if someone is a strong KJV advocate; they're the ones who frequently refer to the Amplified "Bible". Since the 70's it has never failed to amuse me with how these "true-blue" and "loyal" KJV advocates so readily jump to their Amplified but of course I know that they do so because they cannot understand much of what they read in the KJV. If they had any sense of integrity or where they at least should be able to come to their senses, they shouild be able to quickly realise that their over dependence with the Amplified "Bible" is telling them that they need to change to an English version.

We also have the many "faithfull" KJV users who quickly jumped ship once the NKJV was released, mind you, if any version came out before the NKJV that had "KJV" in its name then I suspect that many KJV users would have moved over to it even it they printed it using crayon. Of course there are many NKJV users who even today oddly believe that their NKJV is a KJV, how misguided these poor individuals are.

Excluding those who have the misfortune of attending a congregation that is still focused on the KJV, I am of the strong opinion that any strong allegience to the KJV is indicative of someone who has lost connection with the Word to the degree that they have grabbed hold of the KJV as a means of comfort, where their connection to this very dated human tradition helps them to relate to the Bible, along with the many human doctrines that have been built up around the KJV. This is a very common affliction that comes from deep within our human fraility.

Farm Truck · Aug 8, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
why is it that the best and brightest Spirit led theologians also reject the the KJV?

Because they are busy learning how to be gay friendly and becoming a part of the one world religion... so they are hardly the "best and brightest" which is laughable! ^_^

Most so-called theologians reject being born again too which is their claim that Jesus is a liar.

I wouldn't wipe with the writings of theologians as their views are nothing more than the wisdom of men which is the wisdom from below which is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

Most of the guys wouldn't know God is He waled up to them wearing a red hat saying "I AM He"

LoveofTruth · Aug 8, 2015

Farm Truck said:
Actually, the opposite is true... with the rise of new translations has come false doctrine such as exaggerated grace which is the message the Lord warned us about in the end times when He said people would not endure sound doctrine and would heap to themselves ear tickling preachers.

As I said earlier, ultimately we need to dig in to the original texts... and in doing so, I've found the KJV has the fewest errors when compared to modern translations.

satan has his hand in the modern translations which are done by people with agendas that do not include faithfully following the leading of the Holy Spirit and translate from the wisomd of mankind which is earthly, sensual, and devilish.

It's to satan's advantage to change God's Word and put it out as a legitimate translation to deceive people and he has been quite successful.

Yes and the early writers , before the Alexandrian text and vaticanus were out wrote in their writings using the Textus receptus, or majority text. and they used verses that are not in the so called oldest manuscripts many times. This proves that the KJV text were correct. And used since the beginning.

What some dont realize in the modern world is that many doctrine sof the faith are affected and a heretic can use the missing parts to preach his heresy even stronger.

For example all true believers know that Jesus didnt have a human father. And the KJV says "Joseph and his mother". but the new versions say "his father and mother". So now a heretic comes along and quotes from the NIV etc and says Jesus had a human father and shows a the verse, and says if he had a human father then he was not God and he had sin because the sin is passed on from the male Adam etc. And using the new versions they will have trouble to rebuke him. But if we use the KJV we can rebuke him

There are so many scriptures that can be used to show this.

Amplified Bible and NASB both getting revisions/updates

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Custom Title:

Full Gospel believer

Legend

Legend

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Selah

Full Gospel believer

Custom Title:

Full Gospel believer

Custom Title:

Full Gospel believer

Custom Title:

Christ builds His church from within us

Similar threads