Errors in the Bible

[DocCas]

This topic is to discuss charges of "error" in the Bible (any version). If you believe any version has either a textual or translational error, please post the verse and why you think it is in error. Please do not post "Such and such is an error and should read such and such." Post the reading, and why you think it should read differently and post the Hebrew/Greek words, and/or the textual evidence to support your charge of error.

This can be enlightening and educational if done in the right spirit after a bit of personal study.

Snide and ugly remarks will be deleted by the moderator, so let's keep this on a Christian level.

The Moderator

[Dr. Bob]

In a throw back to a discussion started on the old BB and now lost in cyberspace an appropriate start may be with "Easter".

"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." KJV1769

Greek (from Chaldean) is "pascha"; the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it)

Every other time in the LXX and NT that "pascha" is used it is translated "passover".

I've been a Jew and am now a Christian but never have I seen Passover and Easter identified as the same. Why in AD1611 (and earlier English versions) did they do this?

[Forever settled in heaven]

just to add to that, i thought it interesting that at Easter service this morning, they handed out to the kids Easter eggs (evidently wrapped in labour-rich Indonesia) with the greeting inscribed, "Selamat Paska."

so i looks up the Indonesian Bible (hmm, is it the ONLY preserved one?!! ;) n sees (BOLD mine):

Acts 12:4
Setelah ditangkap, Petrus dimasukkan ke dalam penjara. Empat regu tentara ditugaskan untuk menjaga Petrus di situ--masing-masing regu terdiri dari empat orang anggota tentara. Sesudah perayaan Paskah selesai, baru Herodes akan mengadili Petrus di hadapan umum.


Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari (BIS)
Copyright (C) 1994 by
Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia (Indonesian Bible Society).
Released for non-profit scholarly and personal use. Not to be sold for profit.
When making formal public reference to the materials, please acknowledge The Indonesian Bible Society (Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia) as the copyright holder.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
I've been a Jew and am now a Christian but never have I seen Passover and Easter identified as the same. Why in AD1611 (and earlier English versions) did they do this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[DocCas]

The answer us quite simple. (I know there are some on the BB who have an irrational fear of dictionaries, but . . . ) The Oxford English Dictionary states on page 19 of the "E" volume: Easter; 1. One of the great festivals of the Christian church, commemorating the resurrection of Christ, and corresponding to the Jewish passover, the name of which it bears in most of the European languages. 2. The Jewish Passover. Obsolete

In 1611 when the KJV was translated, "Easter" also meant "The Jewish Passover."

smile.gif

[Aaron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." KJV1769

*snip*

Every other time in the LXX and NT that "pascha" is used it is translated "passover".

I've been a Jew and am now a Christian but never have I seen Passover and Easter identified as the same. Why in AD1611 (and earlier English versions) did they do this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's hear your answer, Dr. Bob.

The men who translated the KJV were of a calibre without parallel today. It is hard for me to imagine that if the two (easter and passover) were not the same that they would make such a glaring error.

Thomas Cassidy's explanation seems reasonable to me, and as the KJV translators were comparing and revising previous versions the Old English word simply remained here.

I don't know what the big deal is.

[DocCas]

Chris, if, as you say, "Easter and Passover are not the same" then you will not only have to update the KJV, but virtually every bible in a European language, as well as Forever Settled's Bible (BIS), which uses Paska/Paskah for both Easter and Passover. As was said on another thread, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" smile.gif

[Psalm145 3]

The King James Bible is not in error. The Easter in Acts 12:4 occured after the Passover. Acts 12:3 says it was "the days of unleavened bread." The feast of unleavened bread was after the Passover, see Numbers 28:16-25. But this Easter was after the feast of unleavened bread. It refers to a pagan holiday. Easter was the right translation to distinguish it from the Jewish Passover. The KJV translators were very wise in using the word Easter. They simply used the same reading of Tyndale, Matthews, and Geneva Bible.
We must not neglect the context of the verse, it is a season that is noted.

The King James Bible is the preserved Word of God kept intact in the English language.

Ye Must Be Born Again (http://www.fortunecity.com/boozers/bridge/277/index.htm)

[Dr. Bob]

Was there another (more correct) word for Easter than the Greek "pascha" - which means passover in common useage?

BTW, I have no problem with Thomas' explanation for the translation, just the fact that - although correct in AD1611 as an archaic item then - it is misleading today to have Passover/Easter interchanged.

[DocCas]

That is a good question, Dr. Bob. What I find interesting is that English is one of the few languages which distinguishes between Easter and Passover. The Spanish word for Easter is Pascua; French: Pâques; Portuguese: Páscoa; Dutch: Pasen; Italian: Pasqua. In fact, the only European language that I know of which does make a distinction (other than English, of course) is German which translates Easter as Ostern and Passover as Passah. I suspect the similarity is due to English being a member of the Germanic Cognate Language group. smile.gif

[Chris Temple]

Aaron:

Since the old BB was lost, a lot of people may not be familiar with your position on the Bible and translations.

Would you be good enough to articulate again your position? Thanks.

[DocCas]

I am bringing this topic back to the top so Kiffin can post his opinions and evidences to support them concerning his charge of errors in the KJV. Remember, this forum is not for arguments based on "It is wrong because I say it is wrong", or "It is right because I say it is right", or "The translators of my bible were more spiritual than the translators of your bible" etc., etc., etc. This forum is to evaluate the evidence regarding the charges of error. Have fun and rememgber, this is not a place for anger or name calling, but for honest and intelligent discussion of the issue at hand.

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ok,

I will give it a try then. I think that just about every translation of the Bible has totally messed up when they translate the Hebrew "YHWH" as "Jehovah" or "Lord". Here is my eveidence:

1. YHWH is an Imperfect form of the ancient Hebrew Verb Hawa...which means to be. In the way it is presented in the original Hebrew, it is translated something like "I will be" or "I am". In the context of talking about the eternal God, it is appropriate to use this verb in the completed perfect tense, incompleted imperfect tense. The whole Idea in Exodus 2:14-15 is to remind them that the Great I am who is eternal and has been there for them in the past would be with them and would always be with them.

2. There is a Hebrew word which actually means Lord, it is Adon. Not YHWH.

3. In order for them to get YHWH translated as Lord, they had to go along with a legalistic perversion of YHWH started by the pharisees who were afraid of mispronouncing the name of YHWH and taking the divine name in vain. They added the vowel pointiongs for Adoni to the consonants YHWH to come up with the pronounciation Yahowa (Jehovah in modern day language). Then they just translated it as Lord. The truth is that Jehovah isn't really even a Biblical Hebrew word at all.

Joseph

[DocCas]

I cannot agree that "LORD" is an incorrect translation of the Tetragrammaton. The four letter hebrew word (YHWH) indicates that God is timeless and infinite, for the letters of this Name are those of the words "He was, He is, and He will be." This Name appears in some Hebrew texts with the vowel points taken from Adonai. The Jews traditionally read this word aloud as "Hashem" which literally means "The Name."

No English bible which I am aware of translates this Name as "Lord" but as "LORD" in all caps. This Name also appears several times in the Hebrew text with a prefix and is usually pronounced as a form of Adonai, I.E., badonai, Haadonai, vadonai, kadonai, ladonai, maadonai, and sheadonai.

As it is a translation of a proper name, and not of the literal words meaning "He was, He is, and He will be", either "Jehovah", or "LORD" seems fine to me, just as the word for God, "Elohim" is the plural intensive of a form of the Hebrew word "el" meaning literally "to twist" with the idea of "made strong." When we read any bible we don't see "made strong" as a translation of God. smile.gif

[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Kiffin]

Thomas,


KJV "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 but the word is actually hierulous "robbers of temples"

KJV "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 when the Textus Receptus text should be translated "all I acquire"

That is just a couple.

Are You claiming Inerrancy for the KJV? Claiming the KJV has no errors? Do you hold as many Ruckmanites do that the KJV is perfect? If so you are making a claim the KJV translators didn't claim. Check out the article at http://www.communitybaptistchurch.com/Library/kjv_translators.html

[DocCas]

RE: Acts 19:37

The AV reading follows that of the earlier English Versions, including Tyndale and the Geneva. In former times the word "church" was used in a broader sense than it is now.

"It was not unusual for the writers of the Elizabethan age to apply the term which we confine to Christian buildings, to heathen temples. They would speak of the 'church' of Diana, or the 'chapel' of Apollo" (E.H. Plumtre, Acts, Ellicotts N.T. Commentary).

See the commentaries of Poole and Henry as an example of this.

Nevertheless, it is remarkable that in the 71 New Testament occurrences of hieron, the AV always translates it "temple," including verse 27 of this same chapter -- "the temple of the great goddess Diana." But here, and in Romans 2:22 where it is also combined with sulos, 'temple" does not come into the translation.

"Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?"

In two other instances, hieros (the closely related masculine form) is found in combination:

-- hierourgeo, "To labour in sacred things."

" ... I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God ... " (Rom. 15:16).

-- hieroprepees, "That which befits the sacred."

"The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness" (Titus 2:3).

Therefore, it is not unlikely that a broader meaning is intended for hierosulos then strictly "robbers of heathen temples." Indeed, "The noun is more common than the verb for sacrilege in general ... In later comedy the word is used very loosely and generally with great exaggeration as a term of abuse" (Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). Though this silversmith's trade had fallen on hard times, no one was suggesting for a moment that Paul and his associates actually stole from the Temple of Diana. The point the townclerk made was that they were not robbers of churches, i.e. "religious robbers," in the more general sense. Paul did not enrich himself through "religion," nor were the churches, which by this time were springing up throughout Asia Minor, a source of enrichment. The KJV wording highlights what has been the chief accusation (whether justified or not) of the unconverted from that day to this present day: "The preacher is in it for the money!"

"And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you" (2 Pet. 2:3). "Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you?" (2 Cor. 12:9).

This, Paul most certainly did not do! Yet, ponder the wording in 2 Corinthians 11.

"Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service" (2 Cor. 11:7, 8).

smile.gif

[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[DocCas]

RE: Lk 18:12

The Greek here reads "ktaomai" meaning to acquire, get, or procure a thing for one's self, to possess. It is a Present, Middle, Deponent, Indicative.

It is the same word used in Luke 21:19, "In your patience possess ye your souls." and 1 Thess 4:4 "That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;"

smile.gif

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Are You claiming Inerrancy for the KJV?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have made no such claim in anything other than the derivative sense. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Claiming the KJV has no errors?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have made so such claim. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you hold as many Ruckmanites do that the KJV is perfect?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only in the sense of it being "telion" or complete, mature. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If so you are making a claim the KJV translators didn't claim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have made no such claim.

[ May 01, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Kiffin]

So, Thomas you agree with me that the KJV has errors?

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Of course it has errors!!!!!!

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
So, Thomas you agree with me that the KJV has errors?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am still waiting for you to point out a confirmed error. Until you can come up with one, "deponent further sayeth not." smile.gif

[Kiffin]

Thomas,

I already pointed out 2. Some more,

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week . . ." should be translated

literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ."

The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

John 1:31, 33 should say or "baptizing IN water" not with water. This shows the Anglican bias of slanting the text to favor sprinkling or affusion.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits," because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

A. R. FAUSSETT points out this translation error in saying,
“rather, "as a first-fruit." Not merely a "first-fruit" in the sense in which all believers are so,”

Matthew 27:35
they parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they
cast lots.

John Gill
“All this, Beza says, is not in any of the ancient copies; nor is it in the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, but stands in the Vulgate Latin, and in Munster's Hebrew Gospel; “

Jude 4 in the KJV says, "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." By adding an "and," the KJV makes it appear like God and the Lord Jesus are different persons. The NIV says, "deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."

In Titus 2:13, the KJV inserts the word "our" and makes it sound like God and Jesus are different. It says, "The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The NIV and NASB are clearer, "Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." while the KJV is unclear.

Thomas you remain unclear whether you are from the KJV only School of Ruckman, Riplinger, Chick (Who distort the Word of God) or if you are in the Wilbur Pickering Camp of Defending the Majority text but who realize claiming inerrancy for the KJV is silly.

You have shown in your replies the inconsistency in translation of the KJV in various spots and many of it's archaic renderings. Yes people can buy a Dictionary of Old English Words but Christ has not commissioned the Church to teach Shakespeare's English.

[ May 02, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

[Kiffin]

Thomas I asked you the question,


Do you hold as many Ruckmanites do that the KJV is perfect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You reply,

"Only in the sense of it being "telion" or complete, mature."

In What way? What basis? The same statement could be made for the much improved NKJV.

[Chris Temple]

While I do not always agree with Dr. C, let me come to a limited defense of his view :D

As I understand him, Dr. C is not a Ruckmanite or any other type of extreme KJVO view. He does not believe that the KJV is reinspired, and he believes that the original language autographs alone are inspired of God.

He does believe, however, that the underlying texts that the KJV is based on are the best and most reliable, and that the KJV is the best translation of those texts. While he admires the good qualitites of some MVs (NKJV, NASB) he personally believes that the KJV has not yet been surpassed in quality of translation.

Is that a fair assessment of your position, Dr. Cassidy? :cool:

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
I already pointed out 2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And both were adequately dealt with. The first dealt with the word "churches" which had a wider meaning in days past than it does now, and the second was just an error on your part regarding the Greek word. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week . . ." should be translated

literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ."

The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's deal with one at a time. Unfortunately for your position, the Greek word "epiphosko" translated "dawn" means "to grow ligther, to dawn." Have you personally looked these words up in a good Greek lexicon? That is twice you have said it was wrong with the Greek word meaning exactly what the KJV says. In fact every English version says about the same thing, all translating "epiphosko" as "dawn." See the ASV, NASV, NIV, etc.

[ May 02, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Is that a fair assessment of your position, Dr. Cassidy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fairly close. At least close enough that I won't quibble. smile.gif

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
In What way? What basis? The same statement could be made for the much improved NKJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe the KJV is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, perfect word of God in the English language. But as with all such statements, it rises or falls on the definitions of the words used. (Before one can claim to be a theologian, he must first become a philogian!)

Inspired: In the derivative sense. The KJV can only be called "inspired" insofar as it correctly transmits the meaning of the inspired original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek words.

Inerrant. This is a word that was not historically used to define any bible, but was borrowed from astronomy in the early years of this century. In astronomy it means "does not deviate from its course" and was used to describe the orbits of planets. The KJV is inerrant in the sense that it does not deviate from factual truth. That is, there are no proven errors of fact in the KJV.

Infallible. The promises and prophecies of the KJV will never fail to come to pass.

Perfect. In the original meaning of the word, the KJV is complete, mature, nothing lacking. All that was contained in the autographa is contained, in some form, in the KJV.

smile.gif

[Kiffin]

Dr. Thomas,

We can qibble on this for as long as you wish though I don't have the time today. You know that John 1:31 is an inaccurate translation and that the NASB corrects the KJV mistake here. The KJV has mistakes. That is not an attack on the KJV for so does the NIV and NASB. All translations have mistakes Could not what you said regarding the KJV 's infallibilty apply to them all. The Byzantine tradition of manuscripts may be proven to be better than the Alexandrian but that is open for debate. I personaly am in the middle though I lean slightly toward the Alexandrian copies. Regardless, it gives no ammunition for KJV defenders. The NKJV, KJV21 are noble attempts at keeping the KJV tradition alive and of clariying many of the 1769 KJV translations.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
We can qibble on this for as long as you wish though I don't have the time today. You know that John 1:31 is an inaccurate translation and that the NASB corrects the KJV mistake here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We are not quibbling (at least I am not). I pointed out your error regarding your claims that "ktaomai" does not mean "posses" and then shed some light on Acts 19:37. After which I corrected your error regarding "epiphosko." I also asked you to just post one verse at a time, and we will deal with them in that manner. If you wish to now deal with John 1:31, that is fine with me, but I will take your silence regarding my postings as acceptence that the greek supports the KJV translation.

Now, John 1:31. "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water." The Greek word is "en" and can be translated "in," "by," or "with." And the context clearly is drawing a distinction between baptism with water and with the Holy Ghost.

Now, I don't know about you, but when I baptize I always baptize with water. smile.gif

[Kiffin]

Your anaylsis of Acts 19:37 may be correct for Shakespeare's (Ill give you that) day but is not accurate at all for today. The KJV gives the impression that "churches" are being robbed. You may be correct on your English history but that further shows the inconsistent way the the KJV often translates (such as EASTER for PASSOVER, Elijah, Elias).

The KJV Study Bible correctly points out the KJV weakness on Acts 19:37 by stating "Gr. hierosulous should be translated robbers of temples"

John 1:31-33 The meaning of the text was that John was baptizing them in water.

"ev" should be translated IN. Mouton's Analytical Greek Lexicon correctly defines the word "referring to place, in" Unfortunately the NKJV continues the error but the NASB which is more literal correctly translates it "in".

Now Doc, I don't know why we are having this conversation. You say you are not claiming inerrancy for the KJV but refuse to admit it has errors. That is like saying you believe we are all sinners but then state prove it. You are quick to point out an error on those of us who are not KJV only yet are silent when the KJV Only camp claims perfection for the KJV. I went to a school that was Textus Receptus Only and was in the Wilber Pickering School of defending the Byzantine text but was critical of Ruckman and others that practically claim extra Biblical Revelation for the KJV translators.

Why don't you state in layman's terms what you believe regarding the KJV. Do you believe it has errors or not? If you want clearly define your view then this thread is useless.

[ May 02, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

[DocCas]

Asked and answered. Read my prior postings including the first one on this page. And, as you have refused to allow access to your email address, I am unable to answer your question about why we are having this conversation and why I am doing what I am doing. However, as to your complaint that I "refuse to admit (the KJV) has errors" - you have yet to post any evidence which sustains your charge of error. I have defended the KJV reading three times. Once from history, and twice from the Greek words which you claim were incorrectly translated. Both times I showed that the words were translated correctly. If you would like to give another example, I will be glad to deal with it, or, if you would care to give me your email address I will gladly fill you in on a few things you may not be aware of which might help you to not judge me so harshly nor jump to unwarranted conclusions. smile.gif

[Chris Temple]

From a website:

Heb 4:3,5 - the KJV misquotes Ps 95:1. The MV's don’t.

AV (3) For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
NKJV (3) For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest,’" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

AV (5) And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
NKJV (5) and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest."

[Chris Temple]

1 Cor 14:4; etc. - the unwarranted insertion of the word "unknown" (the honest translators left in italics) before "tongue" has led (actually misled) many people to the conclusion that the tongues in 1 Corinthians are some kind on heavenly babbling. Since the translators of the KJV didn’t also insert the word "unknown" in Acts 2, this has allowed charismatics to claim that the tongues of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians are different, a claim which is fundamental to the tongues movement
since clearly the tongues of Acts 2 were real human languages, not babbling (Acts 2:6). The NIV and NASB make no such unwarranted insertion, thus teaching that the tongues of Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians were the same kind.

[DocCas]

Chris, now we are getting somewhere! Let's look at the Hebrews passage first.

Hebrews 4:3 eisercometha gar eis thn katapausin oi pisteusantes kathws eirhken ws wmosa en th orgh mou ei eiseleusontai eis thn katapausin mou kaitoi twn ergwn apo katabolhs kosmou genhthentwn.

Verse 5  kai en toutw palin ei eiseleusontai eis thn katapausin mou.

As you can see, the word "not" does not appear in the Greek text, any Greek text which I am aware of. I checked the TR (3 different editions) UBS, and NA, and none of them have the word "not" (either "me" or "ou") in them.

It is indeed a puzzlement! But I submit it is a textual problem and not a translation problem. In fact, the NKJV translators "cleaned it up" by adding the "not" which they did not put in italics. But I will (grudgingly) give the NKJV two points for consistancy! :D

What I find even more puzzling is that Heb 3:11 quotes the same verse, and this time the "not" is in the English, translated from (ei) which the other verses translate, correctly, "if"! Go figure! smile.gif

PS I don't want to be picky (uh, well, yes I do!), but that is Psalm 95:11 not 95:1. :D

[ May 02, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[DocCas]

1 Cor 14:4 is an interpretation problem, not a translation problem. The "unknown" which was added in 1 Corinthians means, I assume, "unknown to the speaker" and not "unknown to any mortal." And I suspect the reason they did not add "unknown" in Acts 2 is the countries of origin of the people in question are listed so the language, although not understood, would still have been "known" in the sense of "I know it is Parthinian, but I can't understand it." smile.gif

[try hard]

Westcott and Hort? Must be. Really, do you really think Greek scholars of that day would not have seen this? Maybe todays versions are wrong or the Greek text you translate from is not the same one they translated from?


Most Likely Both. :D

[Blade]

Dr. Cassidy,

I have one for you, and I will limit it to only one at this time. I have bolded the portions I wish to address.

Mark 13:12 states:

KJV "Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death."

NASB "Brother will betray brother to death and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death."

The Greek word for "son" is 'teknon' which literally means, child. The KJV even translates it so in other passages. The NASB and others correctly translate it as "child." This is inconsistency in translation of the same word at best (the context doesn't demand 'son' vs. 'child') and mistranslation at worst (seems more likely).

Another quick note about the above (I don't have a copy of the TR, but from another source I am told) the Greek is missing the definite article both times it is used here. Therefore, "the father...the son" has no Greek basis and "the" should at least be italicized.

Is this a mistranslation or not? Should "the" be italicized (or even there at all) or not?

Just curious,

[Kiffin]

Thomas,

I am not judging you harshly. I am just asking a question on your position and do not mean anything personal towards you. I am pretty sure you are sharper on your Greek than I am and most people on this forum. I am curious why you think the KJV has no errors. You can email me any time at reformedbaptist@baptistmail.com

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
KJV "Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death."

NASB "Brother will betray brother to death and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death." . . . Is this a mistranslation or not? Should "the" be italicized (or even there at all) or not? Just curious,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is more a function of the vagaries of English grammar than a mistake of translation. In English, when gender is in doubt or unknown, the masculine is the accepted gender. We have gotten away from that in the past couple of centuries, but it was very common in the 17th century.

And the absense of the definate article does not necessitate the addition of the same in English, but does help. Greek, like Russian, often lacks articles. They are implicit in the nouns used and are often supplied by the translators as a grammatical device. They are not truly added, as they are implicit in the grammar of the Greek. The Jehovah's Witnesses try to make the lack of a definate article in John 1:1 an issue by claiming the indefinate article should be supplied. They are incorrect. smile.gif

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
This is more a function of the vagaries of English grammar than a mistake of translation. In English, when gender is in doubt or unknown, the masculine is the accepted gender. We have gotten away from that in the past couple of centuries, but it was very common in the 17th century.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are playing on the fact that a son is a child. Still, the terms are not equivalent. While a son is a child, a child is not necessarily a son.

The KJV translators had no difficulty translating teknon correctly as "child" in Mat. 10:21, Lk 1:7, Acts 7:5, Rev. 12:4, 5. They knew how to translate it correctly. So, I doubt this was "just how they did it in 1611."

A separate Greek word for son, huios exists. A son is, by definition, a male offspring of a parent. A child, in the sense of teknon is either son or daughter.

Going strictly by English then and now, "child" is the correct choice. If "Son" were taken at face value, it would mean that fathers will not betray their daughters, only their sons. The Greeks suggests that either/both will be betrayed.

Son was not the correct choice then, nor is it the best choice today. This is a mistranslation. It gets close, but uses an unequivalent term to translate a word for which an equivalent term exists (both now and then).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And the absense of the definate article does not necessitate the addition of the same in English, but does help. Greek, like Russian, often lacks articles. They are implicit in the nouns used and are often supplied by the translators as a grammatical device.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that the presence of the definite article here doesn't change the meaning; however, it doesn't serve to clarify it any more than leaving it out. At any rate, the words do not exist in the Greek and should at the very least be italicized.

As it stands in the KJV, there are two "the"s that aren't necessary (but don't detract from the passage) that do not exist in the TR and are not indicated by italics.

I know it is a picky point, but the MVs are more faithful to the text here than the KJV is.

Others fluent in Greek, please chime in with your 2 cents...

[ May 03, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
Son was not the correct choice then, nor is it the best choice today. This is a mistranslation. It gets close, but uses an unequivalent term to translate a word for which an equivalent term exists (both now and then).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I appreciate your attempt to prove the KJV wrong in its translation of "teknon" as "son" but, I fear you may have missed a few obvious passages that support my assertion. See Matthew 9.2; 21.28; Mark 2.5; Luke 2:48; 15.31; 16.25; 1Cor 4:17; Philippians 2.22; 1 Timothy 1.2; 1.18; 2 Timothy 1.2; 2.1; Titus 1.4; Philemon 10;. Now, just for kicks and giggles, check those verses in the NIV! Each and every one of them reads "son" as a valid translation of "teknon" instead of "child" as you claim is the only valid translation. Now, of course, I don't want to rub this in (uh, well, yes I do!) but check the ASV, NASV, NKJV, etc., regarding these same verses and note that virtually every one of them translates "teknon" incorrectly, according to your rules of translation. You won't mind horribly if I don't regard your monolythic rule too highly, will you? :D

[ May 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I appreciate your attempt to prove the KJV wrong in its translation of "teknon" as "son" but, I fear you may have missed a few obvious passages that support my assertion. See Matthew 9.2; 21.28; Mark 2.5; Luke 2:48; 15.31; 16.25; 1Cor 4:17; Philippians 2.22; 1 Timothy 1.2; 1.18; 2 Timothy 1.2; 2.1; Titus 1.4; Philemon 10;. Now, just for kicks and giggles, check those verses in the NIV! Each and every one of them reads "son" as a valid translation of "teknon" instead of "child" as you claim is the only valid translation. Now, of course, I don't want to rub this in (uh, well, yes I do!) but check the ASV, NASV, NKJV, etc., regarding these same verses and note that virtually every one of them translates "teknon" incorrectly, according to your rules of translation. You won't mind horribly if I don't regard your monolythic rule too highly, will you? :D

[ May 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Cassidy,

I have never claimed perfection for any version of the Bible. Simply saying, "well see, they do it, too," does not prove me wrong.

This is a word that carries no gender in the Greek. That the KJV, NIV, NASB, or any other version assign it one does not make them correct or you right.

Just because everyone's doing it... smile.gif

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
This is a word that carries no gender in the Greek. That the KJV, NIV, NASB, or any other version assign it one does not make them correct or you right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you for finally agreeing with me. That is what I said in my original post. The gender in English is refered to in the masculine when gender is unknown or in doubt. The gender of "teknon" is unknown or indoubt, therefore the KJV translators cannot have erred in assigning masculine gender according to the prevailing rules of English grammar. smile.gif

[ May 03, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[DocCas]

Now, if you really want to obsess over an error of gender in a bible, check out Romans 8.16 in the NIV. "Pneuma" is clearly neuter as is the pronoun, but, oh oh! The NIV changes the neuter Greek pronoun to the masculine English pronoun "Himself!"

Funny. I see a lot of obsessing over "son" as a translation of "teknon" but nobody seems to be obsessing over "Himself!" smile.gif

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
[QB]The gender in English is refered to in the masculine when gender is unknown or in doubt. The gender of "teknon" is unknown or indoubt, therefore the KJV translators cannot have erred in assigning masculine gender according to the prevailing rules of English grammar. smile.gif[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those were hardly the "prevailing rules of English grammar" as it is translated both ways by the KJV translators. The term is translated "child" 5 times elsewhere when the gender can not be derived from context (I listed them previously).

The term, teknon, is translated as "son" 14 times. In 13 of those instances, I will credit the KJV with "dynamic equivalence" as it is obvious from the context that the term refers to a male in the verse or immediately preceding verses.

Only once in all of the KJV Bible do the translators translate the term, teknon, as "child" when the gender can not be inferred from the context and Matthew 13:12 is it. Why? Your "that's how it was commonly done in 1611" answer doesn't hold water as they do not treat the term like this anywhere else. You give them too much credit.

Again, the Greek has an English equivalent, "child," that is neutral like teknon. That the KJV translators correctly translate it elsewhere goes to show that this was not a "prevailing rule" as you suggest.

Sincerely,

[DocCas]

Okay Blade, have it your way. Every single bible translator who has ever worked on an English version has it wrong. You, and ONLY you have it right. Just a few more little tid bits of knowledge and you will have achieved omniscience!

[DocCas]

Larry, this is the proper forum for the discussion of errors in the KJV. smile.gif

[Chris Temple]

“The KJV properly renders qebher as 'the grace' 34 times, but also, without justification, translates Sheol as the grave 31 times and as 'hell' 31 times. In all ten uses of Hades, it is translated 'hell'. The distinction between the intermediate state of the dead in Sheol or Hades and the final state of the wicked in gehenna, 'hell', (used 11 times) was introduced into English religious language through the RV (ASV). These changes have doctrinal implications. The reader of the KJV has no knowledge of what Hades really is unless he knows Greek or is acquainted with later English translations. He thinks of the final place of punishment when he reads 'hell' (Mt 11:23; 16:18; Lk 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20:13; 14) when he should think of the intermediate state of the dead.” Jack Lewis, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, Baker books, 1991. p. 64.

[Chris Temple]

“Under the influence of the KJV, ‘Lucifer’ remains a name of the devil; however Isaiah 14:12 really speaks of the King of Babylon and has nothing to say about the devil. The failure to distinguish between daimonios and diabalos, translating both ‘devil’, obscures the fact that in the Greek text of the Gospels there is one devil but many demons. The sufferers of the NT were possessed by ‘demons’ according to the original, not by ‘devils’. They are never said to be possessed by the devil.” (Lewis, p. 65).

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas,

It seems that you are a bit testy on these issues. I am going to try one more time to address the point and see if I can figure out what you are actually saying. I have noticed that you have a tendency to understand your answers when no one else does. I have seen many times where people ask you the same question again and again that you claim you have answered. In the words of the old axiom, “if the student hasn’t learned then the teacher hasn’t taught.” While not accurate all the time, it certainly seems that people seem to be missing your answers.

Now on this issue, you go back to translators in 1611 when I am referring to modern usage. I do not argue what a word may have meant in 1611. I have already stipulated that the translators were right. Please accept my stipulation. That it was, in your words, “perfectly viable” in 1611 does not testify to its viability today. I made a very specific and defined argument about modern usage. My question was simply, do you think it is appropriate for a translation (not a translator) of Scripture to mislead a reader as to the intent of God’s communication? If not, then do you admit it is an error in modern usage in 2 Thess 2:7? And should it be corrected with a modern version? I didn’t think that was particularly hard.

If you think what I have done is slander then you might be a bit off on the definition of slander. I have not accused men dead for four centuries of deception. I have questioned the accuracy of the translation for modern usage. That is a very specific and reasonable question. I know you don’t believe “any such thing.” In fact, I stipulated that as well. I was questioning how you maintain your position that the KJV is the best for today in light of the seeming inconsistency of 17th and 21st century English.

Now I have listed five passages where the KJV seems to be in error, not merely becuase of language changes, but actual mistranslations of Greek or additions of words and have asked for your defense of those passages. If you choose to respond fine. If not, fine. Perhaps others will review for themselves and respond if they like.

[Biblethumper1611]

And what 5 passages are mistranslated?

I'd like to know...

[Pastor Larry]

Rev 17:8 – “and yet is” has no MS support. It should read “and shall come.” All Greek MSS are in agreement that “and shall come” is correct. Erasmus’ copy of Revelation was embedded in a commentary and the copyist who made the text that Erasmus worked from wrote “kaiper estiv” (and yet is) instead of “kai perestai” (and shall come). The TR and KJV has maintained the reading in spite of having no MS support. No less than Edward F.Hills (a staunch defender of the KJV and TR) said it was an error (“Believing Bible Study,” p. 83). Do you agree?

(By the way, the last 6 verses of Rev 22 were not in the commentary Erasmus had so he backtranslated from Latin into Greek leading to 16-17 errors if I remember correctly. I do not have the info here in front of me but perhaps I will look it up).

Rev 16:5 – “shalt be” should be “holy one.” Beza guessed at this one. All previous translations (Matthews, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops, etc) all translate read "holy one" and all Greek MSS read “osios” (holy one). Hills says it is an error. Do you agree?

Rom 7:6 – “that being dead” should modify “we,” not “the law.” All Greek MSS have “that being dead” as a nominative participle modifying “we” rather than a genitive participle modifying the genitive nomou (the law) as the KJV does. Hills says it is an error. Do you agree?

Acts 9:6 – A significant portion of this verse (“And he trembling … said unto him” ;) has no MS support. Erasmus took it from the Latin Vulgate because he thought the Greek was in error. However, there has never been found any Greek MSS support for it. Is it an error?

Heb 10:23 – elpis (translated “hope” in every one of its other 52 uses in the KJV) is translated as “faith” (pistis) in this verse. Do you have evidence that elpis ever meant hope? Or is this an error on the part of the translators?

The reason I point these out is not to promote another translation necessarily but to answer the argument that the KJV is perfect and without error. My point is that all translation have errors or things that I would disagree with. It is simply inaccurate to claim perfection for the KJV or for any translation.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:The reason I point these out is not to promote another translation necessarily but to answer the argument that the KJV is perfect and without error.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I will assume the question is directed toward me, so allow me to point out that I have made no such argument. smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Rev 17:8 – “and yet is” has no MS support. It should read “and shall come.” All Greek MSS are in agreement that “and shall come” is correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sorry, Larry, but you are incorrect. All Greek manuscripts (which I am aware of) agree that kai parestai is the correct reading, but it is correctly translated "and is present" or simply "and is." Some Greek gramaticians suggest it is better understood in the future tense as "and shall be."

And remember the forum rules. Post one verse at a time for discussion. smile.gif

[ May 08, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas,

First I know you have made “no such argument” (though it seems you have yet to admit one). I was not specifically referencing you necessarily but all who would care to comment. You are more than welcome to comment or to not comment as you see fit.

Second, I am not sure what you disagree with. You said “you (meaning me) are incorrect ... that all MSS read kai perestai.” If you go back and read my post I am the one who said that all Greek MSS read kai perestai (fut mid ind 3s). It is the “superior text” underlying the KJV that read kaiper estin (pres act ind 3s), a reading you admit is not in the Greek. Then you suggest that a future middle indicative (perestai) should be translated as a present but mention that Greek grammarians do suggest that it is better understood in the future tense. Since it is a future tense that would be the most normal understanding of it, an understanding not communicated by the KJV. So I am not sure what you are saying is incorrect. You have agreed with what I said about the proper Greek text; you have cited Greek grammarians who agree with what I have said about the translation. The only thing you disagreed with was when you said that a future middle indicative should be translated as a present, something you offered no support for outside of your own statement.

Third, I posted them all together so as not to make five posts. They can be commented on individually as people so desire. My apologies for not following the rules of the forum on that issue.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Second, I am not sure what you disagree with. You said “you (meaning me) are incorrect ... that all MSS read kai perestai.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You said, in your first post, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>“and yet is” has no MS support. It should read “and shall come.” All Greek MSS are in agreement that “and shall come” is correct.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I responded by reminding you that the Greek does not read in English but in Greek. And, as I pointed out, the translation "shall come" would demand an active vice state of being verb, which is lacking from the Greek text. It is clearly better translated "is present" or "shall be present."

Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown state, "was, and is not, and yet is--A, B, and ANDREAS read, "and shall come" (literally, "be present," namely, again: Greek, "kai parestai"). The Hebrew, "tetragrammaton," or sacred four letters in Jehovah, "who is, who was, and who is to come," the believer's object of worship, has its contrasted counterpart in the beast "who was, and is not, and shall be present," the object of the earth's worship [BENGEL]. They exult with wonder in seeing that the beast which had seemed to have received its death blow from Christianity, is on the eve of reviving with greater power than ever on the ruins of that religion which tormented them."

What is even more interesting is that Wyclif, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Rheims all leave the clause out entirely. The first reference to it is to be found in the Geneva of 1557, which was perpetuated in the KJV. It may also be pointed out that even the Latin Vulgate reads "bestiam quia erat et non est."

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Pastor Larry]

I understand that Greek reads in Greek. However, we are talking about the appropriate translation of a Greek future tense verb into English and we are assuming that it is possible to accurately communicate the intention of parestai into English. Now, at the risk of being pedantic and troublesome, allow me to ask for clarification on several points.

You have admitted that all Greek MSS read “kai parestai” (in your words, “All Greek manuscripts (which I am aware of) agree that kai parestai is the correct reading” ;). Are you therefore admitting that the TR is in error when it read “kaiper estin”? Or are you disputing that the TR reads “kaiper estin”?

Secondly, having stated your position that perestai is better translated as “is present” or “shall be present,” you again have me confused. “Is present” seems to clearly indicate a current state. “Shall be present” seems to clearly indicate a future state. So which do you think it is? They do not appear to be the same.

Thirdly, you assert that “It is clearly better translated ‘is present’ or ‘shall be present.’" Should it have been clear to the translators of MVs who unaminously (with the exception of the NKJV that follows the TR’s “kaiper estin” ;) translate it a future tense? It seems to me that something as clear as you assert it to be would not have been missed by translators obviously well versed in the language, much more so than you or I. Here I am questioning your assertion of clarity since you have not cited anyone who agrees with you on this. JFB seems to agree with the MVs on this issue. Thomas says this is the “past-present-future phenomenon from earlier in the verse in a slightly different form” (2:294). Even Lenski who says that the tenses are past/present/future only in relation to each other says “shall be present” is future in the verse (though I presume past to him; p. 500). It seems to me that no one argues a lack of an “active vice state of being verb.” They seem to argue that it means just what the MVs say it does.

Perhaps there are grammarians or commentators of reasonable stature that support your position (whatever it is I am still not sure). If so, please cite them. I would be very interested in taking a look at them.Perhaps you agree with the MVs against the KJV. I honestly have not figured out what you are saying.

I do agree with you that YHWH is to be the object of worship and several times he is referenced in Rev as him “who is and was and is to come” (or words to that effect). If indeed this beast is the false counterpart who is being contrasted (as I think is surely right), does it not make sense that John would use very similar language (is, was, and is to come) as well as use similar language that what was used earlier in the verse? I would certainly think so.

That is why it seems to me that the KJV is in error or at least misleading on this. They rightly translated the Greek they had. They, as you admitted, simply had the wrong Greek.

Interested in your thoughts and clarifications.

BTW, you last comments on other versions were most instructive. I did not know that. I am curious as to what you think that indicates or if it indicates anything at all.

[Pastor Larry]

The smiley faces in the previous post were an interjection by some evil spirit in my computer. I have no idea how they got there. Maybe it was Westcott and Hort ... Hmmmm ...

That is a joke for all you who are already replying ... Relax

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Are you therefore admitting that the TR is in error when it read “kaiper estin”? Or are you disputing that the TR reads “kaiper estin”?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I would hardly characterize my belief that all of the Greek mss known to me read "kai perestai" as an "admission" as if I was admiting to some wrong doing, but I certainly believe, and have so stated, that all Greek mss known to me so read, and that the TR (all editions known to me) reads "kaiper estin." There are several places the TR seems to have no valid underlying Greek mss, nor ever Latin support, and this is obviously one of them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Secondly, having stated your position that perestai is better translated as “is present” or “shall be present,” you again have me confused. “Is present” seems to clearly indicate a current state. “Shall be present” seems to clearly indicate a future state. So which do you think it is? They do not appear to be the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know which one is correct. There is evidence to support both readings. And quite frankly, it makes not one whit of difference to me. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thirdly, you assert that “It is clearly better translated ‘is present’ or ‘shall be present.’" Should it have been clear to the translators of MVs who unaminously (with the exception of the NKJV that follows the TR’s “kaiper estin” ;) translate it a future tense?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You will have to ask them what should or should not have been clear to them. I can't speak for them (and neither can you). I have already posted the comments of well established Greek scholars which support my assertion. If you disagree with them you will have to take that up with them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If so, please cite them. I would be very interested in taking a look at them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I already did. Look back at my cite of JFB. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, you last comments on other versions were most instructive. I did not know that. I am curious as to what you think that indicates or if it indicates anything at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It tells me the reading of either phrase is in doubt and both seem to have been missing from not only the earlier versions, but also the vulgate. smile.gif

And the addition of the odd smiley faces in your post is due to you adding certain punctuation marks in conjunction with an open or close parenthesis. Colon + close parenthesis produces smile.gif Colon + open parenthesis produces :( Semi-colon + close parenthesis produces ;) and last but certainly not least, my favorite, colon + upper case D produces :D

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Alex H. Mullins]

The KJV of God's Word is without error, no matter what men may say.

It is the only English version that is preseved without error from the Textus Receptus.

It seems hard for some to believe that the God who "breathed' us into existence would want us to have his perfect word and to "know" that we have it, but it is true.

Just like the whole concept of salvation it is too simple for most to believe.

It is also true because He promised he would preserve it for us. (Psalms 12: 6 - 7).

Read it. Believe it. Apply it. Don't let the experts tell you otherwise.

God Bless.

[Blade]

Alex H. Mullins,

As usual, your post proves absolutely nothing and asserts the same, tired old KJVO claims. You never enter discussion about specific passages, debates, etc. How about discussing evidence for a change; we are now abundantly aware of your opinions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex H. Mullins:
It is also true because He promised he would preserve it for us. (Psalms 12: 6 - 7).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "preserv[ation]" in Psalm 12:7 refers to the needy of Psalm 12:5, not the "words" of verse 6.

Waiting for some real substance from you...

[Wayne Rossi]

Alex,

I hate to be so abrupt, but allow me to give you a frank question.

HOW do you know it's the KJV? HOW do you know that the TR is the uncorrupted text, and not one based on a long tradition that absorbed a handful of additions into God's Word?

You have no evidence. You have no argument (aside from bad interpretation of Ps. 12:6-7). All you have is a belief that there is a single, perfect Bible edition and that the KJV is it--a link made ex nihilo. There is no logic, no connection between the idea that God preserved His Word, and the hypothesis that the King James Version is that preserved Word. Most of the arguments are based on issues of what is footnoted vs. not, which means that the argument is circular--were there additions to the Bible text or subtractions? (Additions seem more likely to have happened.)

I John 5:7. Was the text that Erasmus edited (known as the TR after the KJV was made) perfect before or after the Comma Johanneum was added? Did the Holy Spirit re-inspire the wording as Erasmus added articles to the Greek? Was it by the hand of God, not of the Catholic Church, that the Comma was added to Erasmus' text in the first place, mysteriously recreating wording that didn't exist in any of the Greek mss we had until then? There is no way that both can be right at the same time, so be careful of your answer.

Revelation 22:19. Was the shift from ligno to libro in the Vulgate that Erasmus used an error, as it certainly seems to be? It seems odd that such an interesting reading would be miscopied--given the significance of Book of Life earlier in Revelation. Were the Greek scribes all under some kind of spell such that the "true" reading was "restored" by this late scribal error? Is the KJV the real deal or not?

If your answer is "yes," then find the idea of re-inspiration of Scripture in Scripture. It's not a hard test...is it an idea given by God, or is it just the thoughts of fallible men?

Does your view hold any water at all, or is it just based around circular logic?

-Wayne

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex H. Mullins:
[QB]The KJV of God's Word is without error, no matter what men may say.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe God's word is without error. However, I have already demonstrated several places where the KJV is clearly without Greek textual support and therefore has an error of either translation or transmission. I could list more. I do not understand why this is hard to grasp. Are you claiming that God added to his word in 1611? If you think the KJV is without error than you have to claim that becuase part of Acts 9:6 was added (as well as other verses). I don't think God added to his word in 1611. I think Erasmus erred by including something that he had no MSS support for.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is the only English version that is preseved without error from the Textus Receptus.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The KJV does not even accurately reflect the TR. In Heb 11:24, it contradicts the TR.

In Rev 17:8, I have just shown you a place where the TR has a reading that has no, absolutely no, support from the Greek manuscripts. I have further shown you where it came from: A scribe trying to reconstruct the text that was embedded in a commentary took the letters "kaiperesti" and read "kaiper estiv" instead of "kai perestai." The letters were wrongly divided by someone without access to a Greek manuscript. Now are you saying that a 16th century scribe copying an embedded text from a commentary got it right when no Greek manuscript before did? Surely you cannot truly believe that. Like it or not, Alex, the TR got it wrong here. There is no Greek manuscript support for it. Even Thomas agreed with that (I think). Your assertion simply is not true. YOu are failing to deal with the actual evidence. You have ignored it in favor of a closely held belief.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It seems hard for some to believe that the God who "breathed' us into existence would want us to have his perfect word and to "know" that we have it, but it is true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree and I will join you in showing them from Scripture that God has given us his word and that it is without error in the original writings.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is also true because He promised he would preserve it for us. (Psalms 12: 6 - 7).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting that you again bring this verse up. If you read the context of the Psalm and the Hebrew text, you will see that there is ample evidence that the verse is referring to the godly man not the words. If the preservation refers to the words, it is a very uncommon way for the Hebrew to say that. There would be pronoun disagreement or a defective writing of the pronominal suffix. The plain reading of the Hebrew is that God preserved the godly man.

Furthermore, think about the word "from" ("min" in the Hebrew). Does it mean away from (I will keep it away from this generation forever). Does it mean "from the time of this generation" thereby implying that it was not kept up until that time. Does it appply only to the word that was written at that time? Does it apply to all that has ever been written? Now I don't think that passage is that hard to understand. The Psalmist is concerned that the godly man is ceasing to exist. He appeals to the promise of God that he will preserve his godly man and the psalmist takes comfort in that. A promise to preserve the word does not even fit the context of the Psalm.

Furthermore, this verse is found in the NASB, NIV, and all other translations. Therefore, to which translation does it refer? You have asserted that it refers the the KJV but there is no textual evidence for that assertion. It is pure conjecture on your part. You have bought an oft repeated argument without thinking about the consequences of it. If I declare that it means that the NASB is the perfectly preserved word and you cannot, on the basis of the text, disagree. The point is that all versions have that and supposing for the moment that it does apply to the word (which I grant only for the sake of argument), it equally applies to all versions that contain the verse.

Let me ask you this Howard. Compare a Cambridge "1611" with an Oxford "1611" in Jeremiah 34:16 and tell me which one is actually the inspired and inerrant one. They both cannot be. I am curious as to your decision making process for things like these.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Compare a Cambridge "1611" with an Oxford "1611" in Jeremiah 34:16 and tell me which one is actually the inspired and inerrant one. They both cannot be. I am curious as to your decision making process for things like these.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, actually, there is no such thing as a "Cambridge 1611" or an "Oxford 1611." The 1611 edition was printed by Robert Barker. The Cambridge edition we now use is the 1762 edition and the Oxford edition we now use is the 1769 edition. The Cambridge edition reads, in the passage in question "ye" and the Oxford reads "he." The Cambridge is correct, for the Hebrew is plural. This is merely a typo which was introduced into the Oxford edition by the type setter. I am sure you have heard the old saying, "Watch your "p"s and "q"s." That was told to apprentice type setters so they would take care to look carefully at the slug to make sure it was a "p" and not a "q" for they are identical except for one being the reverse (side to side) of the other. I am also sure you are aware that type is laid backward so the "p" would appear as a "q" and vice versa. Well, in the late 18th century a "y" slug looked just like an "h" slug except for being reversed top to bottom. This printers error has gone uncorrected in most Oxford editions since 1769. However, there are some Oxford type bibles not printed in the United Kingdom which have corrected the error. smile.gif

[ May 09, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas,

That is why I put "1611" in quotes. I was pointing out to Alex exactly what you have pointed out ... that there was an error in subsequent editions of the KJV(since “things that are different are not the same” ;), however slight it may have been. I figured that you would have known the difference and the answer.

On the previous issue, one last comment. I agree with you that there is not a great difference on the issue. For those who claim that the KJV is inerrant and based on an inerrant text, however, this is a significant issue. It can hardly be inerrant when there is a “new reading” that is not attested in the Greek. It seems that both the internal and external evidence argue against the TR. The MajT even disagrees with the TR. I found the fact that it was missing from other versional evidence especially instructive. That does not seem to be a great issue between you and I since we both seem to agree that the TR has an incorrect or at least unattested reading. It must be of great concern for Alex however.

However, on JFB, I did not necessarily understand them to be agreeing with you or for that matter disputing you. I pulled my old copy off the shelf to look at it for myself. It seemed to me they were fairly ambivalent about it, not really leaning one way or the other. That is why I asked for sources that agreed with you.

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
For those who claim that the KJV is inerrant and based on an inerrant text, however, this is a significant issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Here is where I disagree. I believe both the traditional text and the KJV are inerrant. However, the problem seems to be that we have a different definition of "inerrant." The popular definition of "inerrant" is, in my oppinion, faulty. Inerrancy, as it applies to the apographs/versions simply means "without proven error of fact." The minor variants which have so far been offered as proof of error (errancy) in the TR/KJV do not produce an error of fact. And it is just this kind of nit picking which I am doing battle against. And, again, if the BRAPPs (I love that new acronym!) can nit pick the TR/KJV then it is only fair that the KJVOs can nit pick the Critical Texts and the versions translated from them. smile.gif

[Chris Temple]

Dr. Cassidy:

I have not seen you answer these "errors" yet :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
“The KJV properly renders qebher as 'the grace' 34 times, but also, without justification, translates Sheol as the grave 31 times and as 'hell' 31 times. In all ten uses of Hades, it is translated 'hell'. The distinction between the intermediate state of the dead in Sheol or Hades and the final state of the wicked in gehenna, 'hell', (used 11 times) was introduced into English religious language through the RV (ASV). These changes have doctrinal implications. The reader of the KJV has no knowledge of what Hades really is unless he knows Greek or is acquainted with later English translations. He thinks of the final place of punishment when he reads 'hell' (Mt 11:23; 16:18; Lk 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27; Rev 1:18; 6:8; 20:13; 14) when he should think of the intermediate state of the dead.” Jack Lewis, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, Baker books, 1991. p. 64.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
I have not seen you answer these "errors" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What's to answer? Mr. Lewis makes an assertion regarding the translation of "sheol" "hades" "gebher" and "gehenna." It is obvious that all of them refer to some aspect of the afterlife and are often context driven. To slavishy translate any Hebrew word the same every time it is used is to greatly misunderstand the fluidity of the Hebrew language! This is just another example of the silly nit picking that is used by both side of the versions argument in an attempt to discredit the other side. It is laughable when used by either side. Not to mention the criticisim of the KJV (as well as other versions) is often based on doctrinal presuppositions rather than translational or textual considerations.

[ May 10, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

[Chris Temple]

So you are saying hades, gehenna, sheol and hell are all the same place? :confused:

[DocCas]

No, Chris, I am saying exactly what I said! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is obvious that all of them refer to some aspect of the afterlife and are often context driven.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[PreservedWords]

Dr. Casidy
Thank you for your comment:
&gt;&gt;&gt;
And, again, if the BRAPPs (I love that new acronym!) can nit pick the TR/KJV then it is only fair that the KJVOs can nit pick the Critical Texts and the versions translated from them.
&gt;&gt;&gt;
I'm glad to see you like the new acronym!

[Will Kinney]

Revelation 16:5 "and shalt be"
Larry, your post was:"Rev 16:5 – “shalt be” should be “holy one.” Beza guessed at this one. All previous translations (Matthews, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops, etc) all translate read "holy one" and all Greek MSS read “osios” (holy one). Hills says it is an error. Do you agree?"
The Greek text Beza used said kai esomenos, and shalt be. We no longer have this Greek manuscript, as we no longer have the vast majority of manuscripts copied throughout the centuries. Of all that were, we have only a fraction, and no originals.
Beza stated in his Latin commentary of this verse in 1589 that the text he was using was worn at this place, but in view of the trinitarian phraseology used in Rev. 1:4,8; 4:8, and 11:17 he said: "And so without doubting the genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was certainly there, shall be."
The KJB translators did not use only one Greek text, Erasmus, Stephanus or Beza, but thought prayerfully and discussed the various readings. I believe they were guided by God. You do not.
This reading is also found in a Latin commentary by Beatus of Liebana in 786 AD, when he was discussing a commentary on the passage by Tyconius in 380 AD. Beza did not use this, but it further corrpborates the reading.
The texts here are somewhat confused. The oldest we have is P 47 which is different than Sinaticus, and Sinaticus is different yet from A and C. None of these agree perfectly.
The KJB reading is still retained in the NKJV, Webster's 1833 translation, the 21st Cent. KJB, the Third Millenium Bible and Youngs.
Your nasb and niv do not always follow the same texts either in Revelation. In Rev. 15:3 the KJB reads "king of SAINTS", the nasb follows A with "king of the NATIONS" while the niv follows different texts with "king of the AGES".
In Rev. 21:3 "and shall be their God" in in the ASV, KJB, and NIV, but the nasb follows a different text and omits it.
In Rev. 22:21 the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with YOU ALL" of the KJB, is replace in the nasb with ALL, following only A, and forsaking Sinaticus, while the niv follows Sinaticus in a paraphrase of "with GODS PEOPLE." I can show other examples in the book of Revelation where the niv follows one text and the nasb another.
How about Rev. 13:1 where the KJB says "and I stood upon the sand" while the nasb 1972 says HE stood, but the 1995 says the DRAGON stood. There is no text anywhere that says "dragon" in your 95 update.
The difference between you and me is I believe God has given us in the English language all of His pure words, you do not believe they exist in their purity anywhere on this earth.

[Pastor KevinR]

I know I'm joining late, so maybe I'm repeating others, as I don't have time, nor do I want to take the time to read every word written about errors...however The Bible has no errors, whereas man's versions, including the AV1611 has it's share as it's been well written by the above already.Personally, I prefer the NKJV based on the Majority Text, and yes, it has man's errors in it! What's good for the goose...those who say the NIV attacks the deity of Christ haven't read enough, or at least they haven't been fair,why? because the NIV in many places makes the deity of Christ plain, whereas the KJV in the exact same place obscures His deity.Why are these people silent about this? No,I am no fan of that version, but the fact remains, the question is not comparing translations, in chosen verses to prove points,but what does the Textual evidence say? Although there are no originals, we have scores of reliable MSS,and they are in substantial agreement..

[Pastor Larry]

Will,

You say that Beza faithfully restored what was certainly there. Did you read what I said? No Greek manuscript reads what Beza “faithfully restored.” I am not sure what the problem here is because that is pretty clear. “And shalt be” is found only in the TR; nowhere else. Even the most staunch of KJV defenders, Edward Hills, admits there is an error at this point and I can assure you he knows much more than you do. Are you suggesting that God added to his word something that never before was there? You are forced to suggest that it existed in manuscripts that we no longer have. Yet that is very tenuous at best, ridiculous at worst. You cannot argue for the existence of something based on the fact that it doesn’t exist. That would be like me saying that you had a hundred dollar bill in your pocket this morning and the way that I know it is because it is no longer there. It is absurd to argue in such a manner.

You say that the KJV translators considered thoughtfully and prayerfully various readings. What readings did they have? History records for us that they had very few. The vast majority of manuscripts have been discovered since then I believe. Erasmus used less than a dozen. Where are the various readings they considered?

Then you comment on the difference between the NASB and the NIV. I will join you in discussing them. I am not arguing for perfection. Where they differ, either one is wrong or both is wrong. They must be considered on an individual basis.

The difference between you and me is that you believe something that you have no Scriptural support for and which you hold in spite of the evidence of providential history that refutes you. I believe that Scripture says that God perfectly inspired his word without error and has apparently chosen to preserve it through providential means rather than miraculous means. You fail to understand some basic principles of textual transmission and criticism and are thus making some very strange statements and arguments.