Anyone else here reads from the American Standard Version?

[OzSpen]

Great - please show me which word(s) in that verse translates into "you say":

ἔστω δέ ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον

Thank you.

net,

Are you telling me that you don't know the meaning of ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον in 2 Cor 12:16? Meaning is not determined by word for word literal translation.

• The KJV translated as "Nevertheless, being crafty I caught you with guile".
• The NIV translates as, "Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery".
• The NRSV translation is, "Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit".

One of the greatest Greek scholars of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson wrote of 2 Cor. 12:16, bringing out the meaning of the Greek,

I did not myself burden you (egw ou katebarhsa huma). First aorist active of late verb katabarew, to press a burden down on one. Only here in N.T. Crafty (panourgos). Old word from pan, all, and ergo, to do anything (good or bad). Good sense is skilful, bad sense cunning. Only here in N.T. and Paul is quoting the word from his enemies. With guile (dolwi). Instrumental case of dolos, bait to catch fish with. The enemies of Paul said that he was raising this big collection for himself. Moffatt has done well to put these charges in quotation marks to make it plain to readers that Paul is ironical (1931. Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Boardman Press, pp. 267-268 .

Oz

 

[ananda]

net, Are you telling me that you don't know the meaning of ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον in 2 Cor 12:16? Meaning is not determined by word for word literal translation.

• The KJV translated as "Nevertheless, being crafty I caught you with guile".
• The NIV translates as, "Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery".
• The NRSV translation is, "Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit".

You are applying eisegesis to this statement made by Paul. You cannot and have not pointed to the exact Greek word(s) which allegedly translates into "you say", because the words aren't there. Neither the meanings of the root words of the Greek text, nor tenses, voices, moods, or the context, supports "you say". You, and the translators of the NLT, ESV, RSV, NRSV, may want the verse to say that, but it doesn't actually say that, or even imply or hint that in the least!

The following translations were honest in their translation of this verse (in rough order from most literal to most dynamic/thought-for-thought):

ISA Interlinear: Let-it-be yet I not overburden you but being-inherently crafty to-guile you I got.
YLT: And be it so, I -- I did not burden you, but being crafty, with guile I did take you;
CLV: Now, let be, I do not overburden you, but, being inherently crafty, I got you by guile!
ASV: But be it so, I did not myself burden you; but, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
DBY: But be it so. *I* did not burden you, but being crafty I took you by guile.
NKJV: But be that as it may, I did not burden you. Nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you by cunning!
KJV: But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
NASB: But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, crafty fellow that I am, I took you in by deceit.
HNV: But be it so, I did not myself burden you. But, being crafty, I caught you with deception.
WEB: But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile.
NIV: Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!

Even the translators of the fairly dynamic NIV translation didn't dare to interpolate that unsupported idea into their text. I have no doubt that these translators believed Paul's writings were "Scripture", and thus kept in mind the warnings of Deu 4:2, 12:32, Rev 22:18, 19 & Prov 30:6.

One of the greatest Greek scholars of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson wrote of 2 Cor. 12:16, bringing out the meaning of the Greek

Your quote from Robertson doesn't contain a shred of evidence which might explain why he believes that the text states or implies that "Paul is quoting the word from his enemies". He simply states that as his belief.

Even if you were correct on this verse, Paul's own actions betray his deceptiveness. We read in 1Cor 9:19-23 how he pretended to be a Jew, pretended to be lawful, pretended to be unlawful, pretended to be weak, etc. in his "ministry". This is the very behavior captured in the word δόλος. Was Messiah anything but exactly Himself in His ministry?

 

[OzSpen]

netzarim,

Verses in the OT and NT cannot be translated in isolation from the context if we are to gain the correct meaning of a verse. Afterall, verse numberings are later additions to the Scriptures.

This is my understanding of the context of 2 Corinthians 12:16:

An explanation of the ESV translation of 2 Corinthians 12:16

The English Standard Version, using formal equivalence translation methodology, reads, ‘But granting that I myself did not burden you, I was crafty, you say, and got the better of you by deceit’ (2 Cor. 12:16 ESV).

The New Living Translation, using dynamic equivalence as a translation methodology, reads, ‘Some of you admit I was not a burden to you. But others still think I was sneaky and took advantage of you by trickery’ (2 Cor. 12:16 NLT).

The New International Version, using dynamic equivalence, reads: ‘Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!’ (2 Cor. 12:16 NIV).

How is it possible to justify any of these translations from the Greek of 2 Cor. 12:16, which reads, εστω δε εγω ου κατεβαρησα υμας αλλα υπαρχων πανουργος δολω υμας ελαβον (Westcott & Hort Greek text)?
To obtain an understanding of how the

• ESV translates as, ‘I was crafty, you say’;
• NLT translates as, ‘But others still think I was sneaky’;
• NIV translation, ‘Yet, crafty fellow that I am’,

we need to understand the context of 12:16. Simon Kistemaker’s explanation places us in the context of why the ESV and NLT used their particular translations.

Simon J. Kistemaker’s commentary on 2 Cor. 12:16[1]

1. c. Scurrilous Slander​

12:16-18​

‘We surmise that Paul has received an oral report from a person who has recently come from Corinth and has informed the apostle about comments made by his adversaries in the church. Paul has now come to the point of directing a few remarks to the people who are slandering him in his absence.​

‘16. Very well! [You say] that I have not been a burden to you. But [you say] I, as a crafty fellow, took you in by deceit.​

‘Gentleness has now changed to candor. The apostle must address slander that can be counteracted only by confrontation. He alludes to the words spoken by his opponents and which are believed by some members of the church. He realizes that slander can change the relationship between him and the Corinthian church. Therefore, he must deal forthrightly with this evil and eradicate it.

‘Paul knows that an unwholesome sentiment exists in the church. He himself has received no money at all from the Corinthians, and they admit that he has not been a financial burden to them. And that is to his credit. Thus he writes the first words, “Very well!”

‘The next comment, introduced by the adversative but, exposes the sting of slander. The saying that Paul cannot be trusted has been circulating openly in Corinth. The background is that Paul, who refused to accept money for his services, has sent Titus to them with a request for a collection. The slanderers spread the rumor that under the guise of helping the poverty-stricken saints in Jerusalem, Paul and Titus are working to fill their own pockets. These doubters suspect that the money will not go to the poor but will remain with the apostle.

‘Paul uses the Greek term panourgos, which I have translated “crafty fellow.” It conveys the idea of a person who is “ready to do anything” to achieve his purpose.[2] This odious expression originates not with Paul but with his opponents. They use a word that is a cognate of the one the apostle writes to describe the “craftiness” of the serpent deceiving Eve (11:3). Further, they accuse Paul of deceitfully taking in Corinthians who have put their trust in him.​

‘17. Did I take advantage of you through any of the men I sent to you?...’​

Notes:
​

[1] Simon J Kistemaker 1997. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, pp. 430-431.
[2] The footnote at this point was Bauer, p. 608 (Kistemaker 1997:431, n. 64). This is a reference to the Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich Greek lexicon. In my edition of BAG, it is on p. 613 [William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich 1957. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House)]. Arndt & Gingrich’s actual words for the translation of panourgos were ‘in our lit. never without an unfavorable connotation clever, crafty, sly lit. “ready to do anything” (1957:613).​

 

[ananda]

netzarim, Verses ... cannot be translated in isolation from the context if we are to gain the correct meaning of a verse ... This is my understanding of the context of 2 Corinthians 12:16: An explanation of the ESV translation of 2 Corinthians 12:16 ... The English Standard Version, using formal equivalence translation methodology, reads ... The New Living Translation, using dynamic equivalence as a translation methodology, reads ... The New International Version, using dynamic equivalence, reads ... How is it possible to justify any of these translations from the Greek of 2 Cor. 12:16, which reads, εστω δε εγω ου κατεβαρησα υμας αλλα υπαρχων πανουργος δολω υμας ελαβον? To obtain an understanding ... we need to understand the context of 12:16.

What context are you exactly referring to? You repeatedly state "context," but you're not telling me what exactly is the context you're referring to, which supports "you say".

Simon Kistemaker’s explanation places us in the context of why the ESV and NLT used their particular translations ... ‘We surmise that Paul has received an oral report from a person who has recently come from Corinth and has informed the apostle about comments made by his adversaries in the church.

No dice. Your commentator states that he is "surmising".

Definition of "surmise": To suspect; to imagine without certain knowledge; to entertain thoughts that something does or will exist, but upon slight evidence. A thought, imagination, or conjecture, which is based upon feeble or scanty evidence; suspicion; guess. To imagine without certain knowledge to infer on slight grounds; to suppose, conjecture, or suspect; to guess.

He's guessing that there were some who came to accuse Paul. Again, this quote, just like your earlier quote from Robinson, provided no shred of evidence to support the claim for the "you say" reading at all.

 

[OzSpen]

What context are you exactly referring to? You repeatedly state "context," but you're not telling me what exactly is the context you're referring to, which supports "you say".

No dice. Your commentator states that he is "surmising".

Definition of "surmise": To suspect; to imagine without certain knowledge; to entertain thoughts that something does or will exist, but upon slight evidence. A thought, imagination, or conjecture, which is based upon feeble or scanty evidence; suspicion; guess. To imagine without certain knowledge to infer on slight grounds; to suppose, conjecture, or suspect; to guess.

He's guessing that there were some who came to accuse Paul. Again, this quote, just like your earlier quote from Robinson, provided no shred of evidence to support the claim for the "you say" reading at all.

The verse does not make sense without the context that Kistemaker gives of what the opposition to Paul in Corinth is saying. THAT'S the context but you will not get it because you don't want to give Paul a fair hearing.

Bye, Oz

 

[ananda]

The verse does not make sense without the context that Kistemaker gives of what the opposition to Paul in Corinth is saying.

Kistemaker gave no evidence that Paul was addressing accusers, nor reference to this alleged context. Where, in the text of 2Corinthians, does it show that Paul was addressing accusers?

THAT'S the context but you will not get it because you don't want to give Paul a fair hearing.

So, are you also accusing the ISA, YLT, CLV, ASV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, HNV, WEB, and NIV translators of not giving Paul a "fair hearing"?

Shall I believe Paul, the so-called "greatest apostle", who didn't even possess the apostolic power (Mt 10:1, Mk 6:7, Lk 9:1) to drive out the demon which afflicted himself (2Cor 12:7)?!

Shall I believe Paul, the son of Benjamin (Rom 11:1, Phl 3:5, Gal 2:9), the tribe which was prophesied to be a ravening wolf (Gen 49:27)? Messiah warned us about ravening wolves which were false prophets which come to us in sheep's clothing (Mt 7:15). Paul was indeed the Benjamite which ate the prey (killing believers) & divide the spoil (divided believers), again Gen 49:27.

Shall I believe Paul, a self-professed Pharisee well into his "Christian ministry" (Phil 3:5, Acts 23:6), when Messiah already warned us against listening to the Pharisees' doctrines (Mt 16:6,12)? Paul taught against following Torah, just as his brethren the Pharisees did, contrary to what Messiah taught.

Shall I believe Paul, who claimed that it was difficult to follow the Law (Col 2:14, Gal 2:4,3:24-25; 4:3, 4:31; Eph 2:14-16,etc.), when YHWH Himself (Deu 30:11) and the Apostle John said it wasn't difficult (1Jn 5:3)?

Shall I believe Paul, who lied about being the only apostle appointed to the Gentiles?

Do you realize, that we wouldn't be having this discussion, if Paul's theology was indeed in harmony with Messiah's & the Torah and the Prophets? But they aren't in harmony. We are called to choose one or the other. I know whom I believe: YHWH, Messiah, and His genuine Apostles - not Paul.

I've presented a number of evidences against Paul's legitimacy. What evidence do you have, apart from tradition (cf Mk 7:13) and Paul's own testimony, for the legitimacy of his apostleship and authority?

 

[OzSpen]

net,

To what does εστω δε refer (the first two Greek words of 2 Cor. 12:16)?

Oz

Kistemaker gave no evidence that Paul was addressing accusers, nor reference to this alleged context. Where, in the text of 2Corinthians, does it show that Paul was addressing accusers?

So, are you also accusing the ISA, YLT, CLV, ASV, NKJV, KJV, NASB, HNV, WEB, and NIV translators of not giving Paul a "fair hearing"?

Shall I believe Paul, the so-called "greatest apostle", who didn't even possess the apostolic power (Mt 10:1, Mk 6:7, Lk 9:1) to drive out the demon which afflicted himself (2Cor 12:7)?!

Shall I believe Paul, the son of Benjamin (Rom 11:1, Phl 3:5, Gal 2:9), the tribe which was prophesied to be a ravening wolf (Gen 49:27)? Messiah warned us about ravening wolves which were false prophets which come to us in sheep's clothing (Mt 7:15). Paul was indeed the Benjamite which ate the prey (killing believers) & divide the spoil (divided believers), again Gen 49:27.

Shall I believe Paul, a self-professed Pharisee well into his "Christian ministry" (Phil 3:5, Acts 23:6), when Messiah already warned us against listening to the Pharisees' doctrines (Mt 16:6,12)? Paul taught against following Torah, just as his brethren the Pharisees did, contrary to what Messiah taught.

Shall I believe Paul, who claimed that it was difficult to follow the Law (Col 2:14, Gal 2:4,3:24-25; 4:3, 4:31; Eph 2:14-16,etc.), when YHWH Himself (Deu 30:11) and the Apostle John said it wasn't difficult (1Jn 5:3)?

Shall I believe Paul, who lied about being the only apostle appointed to the Gentiles?

Do you realize, that we wouldn't be having this discussion, if Paul's theology was indeed in harmony with Messiah's & the Torah and the Prophets? But they aren't in harmony. We are called to choose one or the other. I know whom I believe: YHWH, Messiah, and His genuine Apostles - not Paul.

I've presented a number of evidences against Paul's legitimacy. What evidence do you have, apart from tradition (cf Mk 7:13) and Paul's own testimony, for the legitimacy of his apostleship and authority?

 

[ananda]

net, To what does εστω δε refer (the first two Greek words of 2 Cor. 12:16)? Oz

The conjunction de simply tells me that what follows is connected to the thought expressed in his previous statement. The present imperative verb esto tells me that he believed that the reality of the situation continued to exist. Why do you ask?

 

[OzSpen]

The conjunction de simply tells me that what follows is connected to the thought expressed in his previous statement. The present imperative verb esto tells me that he believed that the reality of the situation continued to exist. Why do you ask?

Why do I ask? Because εστω δε (estw de) has the meaning 'like our "Let it be so" or "Granted"' (A. T. Robertson 1934. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, p. 948). Robertson has this under the mode of 'permission'.

That's why

• R. C. H. Lenski in his commentary on 2 Corinthians translates εστω δε (estw de) as 'But granted';
• Simon Kistemaker's translation of 'Very well!'. The apostle is addressing slander.
• Paul Barnett's commentary on 2 Cor. 12:16 states that estw de means '"Be that as it may," adding emphatically [as indicated by the emphatic egw] that he had not "burdened" them" with the footnote, 'Gk εστω δε, where δε is a transitional, not an adversative particle. The idiom is used to express a point on which writer and readers are in at least provisional agreement' (1997. Eerdmans, p. 586, also footnote 16).

Also the conjunction de does not only mean a connection, and, but can be used of an adversative, but, as well. However here Robertson, a Greek grammatical expert, has shown that it also means permission - let it be so; granted.


Your resistance to Paul's writings seems to cause you to overlook important Greek grammatical constructs and this one in 2 Cor 12:16 is an example.


Oz

 

[ananda]

Why do I ask? Because εστω δε (estw de) has the meaning 'like our "Let it be so" or "Granted"' (A. T. Robertson 1934. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, p. 948). Robertson has this under the mode of 'permission'.

That's why

• R. C. H. Lenski in his commentary on 2 Corinthians translates εστω δε (estw de) as 'But granted';
• Simon Kistemaker's translation of 'Very well!'. The apostle is addressing slander.
• Paul Barnett's commentary on 2 Cor. 12:16 states that estw de means '"Be that as it may," adding emphatically [as indicated by the emphatic egw] that he had not "burdened" them" with the footnote, 'Gk εστω δε, where δε is a transitional, not an adversative particle. The idiom is used to express a point on which writer and readers are in at least provisional agreement' (1997. Eerdmans, p. 586, also footnote 16).

Also the conjunction de does not only mean a connection, and, but can be used of an adversative, but, as well. However here Robertson, a Greek grammatical expert, has shown that it also means permission - let it be so; granted.

Your resistance to Paul's writings seems to cause you to overlook important Greek grammatical constructs and this one in 2 Cor 12:16 is an example.

Oz

Yes, de can be either a continutative or adversarial conjunction. In the form of an adversarial, it is well expressed in the English word "but". This is the word chosen by the majority of the mainstream translations I listed in an earlier post.

The esto de modifies the first part of his statement which I've underlined:

ἔστω δέ ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον

But (whatever the case might be from the last vers), be it so -> I did not myself burden you.
​

The next conjunction all/alla, introduces a new thought:

... ἀλλ᾽ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον

but -> being crafty, I with trickery/guile/deception, you I caught.
​

The esto de may introduce an adversarial connective to the first thought in v16, but it does not have anything to do with an alleged "you say" in the second thought in v16. My understanding is supported by the majority of mainstream translations out there.

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, de can be either a continutative or adversarial conjunction. In the form of an adversarial, it is well expressed in the English word "but". This is the word chosen by the majority of the mainstream translations I listed in an earlier post.

The esto de modifies the first part of his statement which I've underlined:

ἔστω δέ ἐγὼ οὐ κατεβάρησα ὑμᾶς ἀλλ᾽ ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον

But (whatever the case might be from the last vers), be it so -> I did not myself burden you.
​

The next conjunction all/alla, introduces a new thought:

... ἀλλ᾽ὑπάρχων πανοῦργος δόλῳ ὑμᾶς ἔλαβον

but -> being crafty, I with trickery/guile/deception, you I caught.
​

The esto de may introduce an adversarial connective to the first thought in v16, but it does not have anything to do with an alleged "you say" in the second thought in v16. My understanding is supported by the majority of mainstream translations out there.

Do you see what you do? I provided you with information from Robertson's grammar as to the meaning of estw de. What did you do? You ignored that evidence. I will not engage with you further on this topic as you have no intention of dealing with the evidence I provide.

May you have a good day!
Bye, Oz

 

[ananda]

Do you see what you do? I provided you with information from Robertson's grammar as to the meaning of estw de. What did you do? You ignored that evidence.

I did not ignore your quote. Robertson's claim for "let it be so" or "granted", associated with the first thought of the first part v16, has nothing to do with an alleged "you say" which would be associated with the second part of v16. The conjunction has nothing to do with identifying an alleged third-party source of an alleged claim against Paul.

I will not engage with you further on this topic as you have no intention of dealing with the evidence I provide. May you have a good day! Bye, Oz

You provided no solid evidence - only surmisings, conjectures based on imaginations - and Kistemaker agrees

You rely on church tradition which tells you Paul is legitimate. Please do not fall into the same trap the Pharisees and scribes fell into - relying on man's tradition to try to get around obeying YHWH's clear Word and commandment. Whom will you choose today, Paul or YHWH? Will you ignore YHWH's clear Commandments, in order to save Paul?

 

[KJV1611Warrior]

I am going to share with you some of my observations about the American Standard Version of the Bible.

Colossians 1:16 in the King James Bible reads, "For by him were all things created..." Notice that ALL things were created BY the Lord Jesus Christ. If you'll take a quick look at the ASV, you'll find that "BY" has been changed to "IN." This is no subtle difference. The Jehovah Witnesses false religion deny that Jesus is Almighty God, they believe that God created all things "IN" Christ; but not "BY" Christ Himself in His own Godhead power. It is a grave danger to translate this verse as the ASV has done. Jesus Christ is the Creator! Jesus was not created, but He did create all things. John 1;1-3 will affirm this! I am very leery of any publication that speaks of creation occurring "through" or "in" Christ. The issue is over the deity of Jesus Christ. As God Almighty, Jesus created ALL things by the very Word of His mouth (2nd Peter 3:5)!


The ASV attacks the Godhead by removing 1st John 5:7. The ASV reads, "And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth." The King James Bible (KJB) reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Though the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible; the word "Godhead" most certainly is (see Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9).

Only the King James retains the CORRECT translation of 1st John 5:7. I bought a Textus Receptus years ago for about $80. The Textus Receptus (or "received text") are the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which the King James translators accepted as inspired by God. I looked in my Textus Receptus and was satisfied to find 1st John 5:7. Don't let anyone tell you that 1st John 5:7 is not in the Greek, I'm looking at it in front of me!


James 5:16 in the ASV makes a horrible change. The ASV reads, "Confess therefore your sins one to another..." The KJB reads, "Confess your faults one to another..." We are never to confess our SINS to anyone except God alone (1st Timothy 2:5). The ASV is catering to the Catholics who believe that they must confess their sins to a priest. Of course, this is sheer heresy. We are never to confess our sins to a minister or priest, who are saturated with sins themselves! The Bible tells us to confess our FAULTS to one another, NOT sins. A fault may be coming to work cranky or perhaps lacking understanding when under pressure. We all have faults. Ephesians 4:30-32 commands us to be "kind, tenderhearted and forgiving to one another." We should be nice to people, but don't disclose anything which could come back to haunt you. We should let people know that we have feet of clay, but never show anyone your feet! Only God needs to know our sins, not man.


Colossians 1:14 contains a vicious attack on the blood of Christ, it is REMOVED completely. The ASV reads, "in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins." However, the KJB reads, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" Did you see that phrase "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" that they removed? How wicked for anyone to diminish and corrupt the Word of God. All modern translations woefully attack Christ's deity and the blood of Christ.


Acts 12:4 contains heresy in the ASV. The ASV reads, "...intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people..." The KJB reads correctly, "...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." Which is it, Passover or Easter? Passover is a sacred holyday, instituted by God for Israel. Easter is a pagan festival. They both cannot be correct! The King James Bible is very accurate. Notice in Acts 12:2 that is was already the "days of unleavened bread." Leviticus 23:5,6 clearly teaches that the Passover day fell upon the 14th day of the first month. The feast of unleavened bread began on the 15th day of the first month. So there is no way Acts 12:4 could be the Passover if the days of unleavened bread were already taking place in Acts 12:2. The King James Translators knew what they were doing.


1st Timothy 3:16 in the ASV reads, "...He who was manifested in the flesh..." The KJB correctly reads, "...God was manifest in the flesh..." Why would anyone removed "God" to be replaced with "He." This Scripture directly teaches that God became flesh in the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. The NIV is even worse, reducing this precious Scripture down to "...He was revealed in a body..." It is sacrilegious blasphemy!


Philippians 2:6 should be sufficient in itself to make you mad enough to burn your American Standard Version. The ASV reads a shocking, "who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped." So the ASV says that Jesus couldn't grasp being equal with God. Let's look at the King James Bible which reads, "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Big difference huh! Jesus was equal with God in every way because He is Almighty God. The ASV (as well as ALL modern translations) attacks Christ's deity in numerous places. The ASV may not be as bad as the NIV, but they were BOTH cut from the SAME cloth (i.e., the same corrupt Greek text). Danger!


John 1:3 has a subtle, but detrimental change. The ASV reads, "All things were made through him..." The KJB reads, "All things were made by him..." It may not seem like a big deal unless you understand that the Jehovah Witnesses (and other false religions) don't believe that Jesus created the world in His own power. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is as omnipotent (i.e., all powerful) as God the Father, for He is God the Father (Isaiah 9:6; Colossians 2:9; Revelation 1:8). Jesus solely created the universe. All the power of the Holy Spirit belongs to Christ (John 3:34). So God didn't create anything "through" Jesus; but rather, ALL THINGS were made "BY" Jesus, Who is Almighty God.


2nd Timothy 2:15 in the ASV reads, "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God..." The KJB reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God..." The word "study" is much more direct and clear than to simply say "give diligence." Of all the bible versions sold on the market today, only the King James commands us to STUDY! Of course, greedy heretics don't want you to study your Bible. For centuries, Catholics have been discouraged from studying the Bible. The Vatican wants you to be stupid enough to allow your priest to fill your head with vain traditions and lies of the devil. You had better study! Jesus commanded us in John 5:39... SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES!!! Of course, if you have an ASV then you have no command to study do you?

 

[ananda]

Colossians 1:16 in the King James Bible ... If you'll take a quick look at the ASV, you'll find that "BY" has been changed to "IN." ... James 5:16 in the ASV makes a horrible change. The ASV reads, "Confess therefore your sins one to another..." The KJB reads ... Colossians 1:14 The ASV reads, "in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins." However, the KJB reads ... 1st Timothy 3:16 in the ASV reads, "...He who was manifested in the flesh..." The KJB correctly reads ...; Philippians 2:6 ... The ASV reads a shocking ... Let's look at the King James Bible ...; John 1:3 has a subtle, but detrimental change. The ASV reads ... The KJB reads ...; 2nd Timothy 2:15 in the ASV reads ... The KJB reads ...

These arguments you listed above are invalid. It is illegitimate to check one copy against another copy for accuracy. They must be compared to the original.

You cannot determine the faithfulness of, say, a Methodist believer by comparing him to a Lutheran believer, no matter how much another Lutheran-only believer might desire to do so. You compare both of them to the original - Messiah Himself.

In the same way, we determine the faithfulness of "believer" KJV and "believer" ASV to the Hebrew & Greek originals.

The ASV attacks the Godhead by removing 1st John 5:7... Only the King James retains the CORRECT translation of 1st John 5:7. The Textus Receptus (or "received text") are the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which the King James translators accepted as inspired by God. I looked in my Textus Receptus and was satisfied to find 1st John 5:7. Don't let anyone tell you that 1st John 5:7 is not in the Greek...

The 1Jn 5:7 reading is only found in a small handful of extremely late Greek manuscripts. It is not found at all in the vast majority of manuscripts, nor is it found in any early manuscript.

Acts 12:4 contains heresy in the ASV. The ASV reads, "...intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people..." The KJB reads correctly ... ;

No the KJV doesn't read correctly. In Acts 12:4, the Greek word, even in the Textus Receptus, is πάσχα - pascha - Passover. This Greek word, found elsewhere in the New Testament in 28 places, is always translated Passover in the KJV. The ASV translates Acts 12:4 correctly.

Even the KJV translators themselves say:

(1611) We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession ... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.... No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it ... (The Translators to the Reader, p. xix).

or, updated into modern English ...

We don't deny - no, we actually affirm that it is true - that the most humble translation of the Bible in English by other translators like ourselves also contain the Word of God; no, it is the Word of God. There is no reason why such translations should not be considered the word, or why they should not be translated into current English, even though that some imperfections and blemishes may be found in them ...

 

[KJV1611Warrior]

I see you are not interested in truth. Your (per) version denies the deity of Jesus Christ. You are wrong about "passover" in the Textus REceptus btw. I have more than provided sufficient evidence condemning all modern versions based on the Alexandrian texts used by KNOWN occultists Westcott and Hort. The ASV was the first revision of their original work.

 

[KJV1611Warrior]

Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

 

[ananda]

I see you are not interested in truth.

I'm quite interested in truth. In fact, you'd probably find me to be one among few believers who is willing to and does question ALL traditions in order to find the truth of any matter. Are you interested in seeing the truth?

Your (per) version denies the deity of Jesus Christ.

Really? "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." - Jn 20:27,28, ASV.

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." - Jn 8:7

You are wrong about "passover" in the Textus REceptus btw. I have more than provided sufficient evidence condemning all modern versions based on the Alexandrian texts used by KNOWN occultists Westcott and Hort. The ASV was the first revision of their original work.

I've probably read much of the same materials you have read on this issue. I was once KJV-only.

The Alexandrian texts do not differ in any prominent or significant way from the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine texts, or the Majority Texts. Minor differences are found among all of the text types, but they do not significantly impact any doctrine.

 

[OzSpen]

I see you are not interested in truth. Your (per) version denies the deity of Jesus Christ. You are wrong about "passover" in the Textus REceptus btw. I have more than provided sufficient evidence condemning all modern versions based on the Alexandrian texts used by KNOWN occultists Westcott and Hort. The ASV was the first revision of their original work.

Unfortunately, your BIG TIME bias is coming through. It will be impossible to have a rational discussion with you about this topic when you make these kinds of one-sided, biased statements.

Bye, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I'm quite interested in truth. In fact, you'd probably find me to be one among few believers who is willing to and does question ALL traditions in order to find the truth of any matter. Are you interested in seeing the truth?

Really? "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." - Jn 20:27,28, ASV.

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." - Jn 8:7

I've probably read much of the same materials you have read on this issue. I was once KJV-only.

The Alexandrian texts do not differ in any prominent or significant way from the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine texts, or the Majority Texts. Minor differences are found among all of the text types, but they do not significantly impact any doctrine.

Oz

 

[childofdust]

Anyone else here reads from the American Standard Version?

Oh dear. Oh my. I never really looked at it, but I just gave it a gander and it's basically KJV 1.2. Ack!

One example of its multitudinous infelicities:

A brutish man knoweth not; Neither doth a fool understand this: When the wicked spring as the grass, And when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; It is that they shall be destroyed for ever.
Psalm 92:7-8 (Hebrew - or verses 6-7 in Vulgate), ASV

A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever:
KJV

The difference: Nil.
The result: Disgusting!

Interestingly, few translations seem to veer from this complete atrocity:

A senseless man has no knowledge, Nor does a stupid man understand this: That when the wicked sprouted up like grass And all who did iniquity flourished, It [was only] that they might be destroyed forevermore.
NASB

The stupid man cannot know; the fool cannot understand this: that though the wicked sprout like grass and all evildoers flourish, they are doomed to destruction forever;
ESV

A stupid person does not know, a fool does not understand this: though the wicked sprout like grass and all evildoers flourish, they will be eternally destroyed.
HCSB

The dullard cannot know, the stupid cannot understand this: though the wicked sprout like grass and all evildoers flourish, they are doomed to destruction forever,
NRSV

YUCK!

The nice thing about the translations other than KJV and ASV, though, is that they are actually written in English as we read it and understand it. The word "brutish," for example, in the KJV/ASV is simply grotesque. And words like "knoweth" or "do flourish" are abysmal. And what does it possibly mean to be destroyed "forever"? Are we talking cycles of destruction or continual destruction or what? It could mean that the destruction is so final that such people will never see the light of day again. The phrase is not only unclear, but almost comical since it seems to imply that what is "destroyed," is not quite destroyed yet. There must be a better way of understanding the temporal markers than "destroyed forever" (whatever that means). Rather, I think, the temporal markers are an answer to the problem at hand (see below for more).

It is only by the time we reach HCSB and NRSV that we leave behind the dependence upon male gender that has nothing at all to do with the meaning of the Hebrew text. The Hebrew is speaking of collective categories of all people, not speaking of an "X kind of male."

And then the reference to "grass" seems out of place. Really? Wicked people and those who work injustice and wrong are being referred to as natural green verbiage that gives life to flocks and has no negative association? I'd think, rather, that the idea is a little more nuanced than that.

So here is how I translate it:

The incompetent one does not know,
the fool does not comprehend this:
when the wicked sprout like weeds
and all troublemakers flourish,
[it is] only until their extermination.