How many translations?

Virgin Born Jewish Messiah

The Jews were not looking for their Messiah to ride into Jerusalem on a donkey either--but He did. They crucified Him not long thereafter--at the hands of the Gentiles.

My biggest problem with many modern "versions/translations" is that they have a tendency to cause confusion among the members--especially at worship meetings. Have you ever tried to follow someone reading a script different from the one you have? Many home bibles are probably quite dusty. Somebody is not preaching The Word. Watered down gospels do not convict, they tickle the ears, which is what many are seeking and getting.

God is not the author of confusion. The author of confusion started confusing us back in the Garden of Eden when he beguiled Eve into believing that the penalty for disobeying God is not death but rather enlightenment.

Satan continues to beguile. He helps us make subtle changes(nuances)(dilution and pollution) in translation which cause doubt and confusion, especially to the young.

The Virgin Birth of Jesus of Nazareth is one of His many credentials. He is unique--or the greatest imposter ever.

Where is your anchor? Will it hold?

Sola Scriptura

Selah,

Bro. James

 

You did not address the issue presented: by asserting that the Hebrew indicates a clearly and explicitly that the female of Ahaz's sign was a "virgin", you make Jesus the second miraculous conception; or do prefer to make Isaiah a liar, and no Hebrew son in Ahaz's lifetime was virgin-borne and named Immanuel?

By the way, the Lord was going to bring destruction upon Ahaz "before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good" (Isaiah 7:16). How long is that? A year, or a few years? I believe the point was that it would NOT be a long time.

 

Our church avoids this problem easily; we have decided that preaching and teaching will be standardized for continuity, using the KJV. Nonetheless, many folks ARE able to follow along using other versions (the NKJV and NASB work particularly well). Personally, I carry a KJV the majority of the time. It is possible that in the future that another version (NKJV, most likely) will become the common text of our services.

The fact that "many home bibles are probably dusty" is the responsibilty of the individual believer, not directly related to "somebody is not preaching The Word".

The Holy Spirit has great power to convict, and from my observations, there have been more people saved outside the availability (historically and globally) of the text of the KJV, than with it.

 

Bro. James, there should be no confusion if the parishioners know their Scriptures, regardless of which version(s) are used. And if they don't know them well, then everyone present using the KJV is still gonna bring some confusion.

The same result could occur if various parishioners were using the Bishop's bible, Coverdale Bible, or AV1611 while the preacher was reading from the Geneva Bible.

Now, can you find any significant mis-translation in any of the MVs you malign? Instead, I find they've correctly rendered some of the words or phrases where the KJV gas booboos, for example they say "Passover" in Acts 12:4 , "the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. and "You shall not MURDER" in Ex. 20:13.

And dusty home bibles are the result of dusty CHRISTIANS.

 

First, in context (I Corinthians 14), the "confusion" is specifically addressing protocol and common courtesy in church services (speaking 'out of turn'), and not just a general statement. Remember that God did confound the languages at Babel.

What does "confusion" mean? Today, we typically tend to think of "confusion" as the psychological state of being disorientated (with respect to time, place, etc.). In the Old Testament, the KJV word "confusion" usually stands for Hebrew terms meaning dishonor, or being ashamed. However in the NT it primarily means disorderliness. In 1828 Webster defined "confusion" thus --

1. In a general sense, a mixture of several things promiscuously; hence, disorder; irregularity; as the confusion of tongues at Babel.
2. Tumult; want of order in society.
The whole city was filled with confusion. Acts 19.
God is not the author of confusion. 1 Corinthians 14.
3. A blending or confounding; indistinct combination; opposed to distinctness or perspicuity; as a confusion of ideas.
4. Abashment; shame.
O Lord, let me never be put to confusion. Psalm 71.
We lie in shame and our confusion covereth us. Jeremiah 3.
5. Astonishment; agitation; perturbation; distraction of mind.
Confusion dwelt in every face.
6. Overthrow; defeat; ruin.
The makers of idols shall go to confusion together. Isaiah 45.
7. A shameful blending of natures, a shocking crime. Leviticus 18:23, 20:12.​

Notice that "confusion" is contrasted in this verse with "peace". Why is irregularity juxtaposed with quietness? Because this has to do with the disturbance of sound (not within the mind). It is not that the message is incoherent to the hearers' minds; it is that no clear message is being received by the audience' ears. Paul is encouraging regularity among speakers and tranquility in the worship service; he concludes the chapter with "let all things be done decently and in order".

Finally, "the author" are added English words, provided by the translators and not from any ancient text. Robert Young's very literal version inserts alternative words: "for God is not [a God] of tumult, but of peace, as in all the assemblies of the saints."

 

Nuances of confusion

Confusion: non-intellectual, I do not know for sure, so I will do nothing. Intellectual,agnostic, I cannot know for sure, so will I will do nothing.

More: one is saved by grace through faith, not of works, lest any should boast; but you must be baptized and keep the faith to keep your salvation. That is contradictory confusion--another false gospel.

If the KJV-1611 has been good for nearly 400 years, why change? Millions of souls have been called out using this translation. Some folks do not like how it impacts their theology and/or lifestyle. Many of us have a religion which conforms to our lifestyle rather than a lifestyle which conforms to our religion.

There are still two streams of Bibles, one of them is seriously corrupted. Choose wisely.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

How do you account for the fact that cults have used the KJV-1611, as you have put it?

 

Cults and Scripture

There have been many cults in this world since Nimrod and Easter-eth started theirs. Cults have difficulty holding up under the scrutiny of The Word of God. The largest Christian denomination is in fact a cult which has persisted since the 4th century, state religion or not. They have their own set of manuscripts, bibles etc., and have probably burned many KJV Bibles; in fact many English bibles through the 16th and 17th cent. There was a serious effort to destroy the English Bible and the translators. Why?

The 19th century produced a large cultic group, actually the original group split-- one in Salt Lake City, the other in Missouri. The original group was started by one Joseph Smith, Jr. who said he had an apparition and he came up with some KJV complementary,sacred writings, including a whole new rewrite of Bible doctrine, also U.S. History. There are still millions who follow J. Smith--they call themselves Christians, also Mormons.

One more: the 20th century produced a group called among other things, The Watchtower. They have their own English translation, called New World. They have a Greek Interlinear as well, with lots of footnotes. They have changed the meaning wherever the original did not agree with their doctrine. Check how they translated John 1:1. This is a multi-million member group all over the world. They probably do not call themselves Christian, but rather Witnesses of Jehovah.

I would not agree that cults use the KJV much--Rev. 22: 18-20 gets them all including the one on Vatican Hill.

I am not KJVO. God bears witness to His Word in spite of how man has watered it down. Actually, Eph. 2:8, in the Duay-Confraternity reads almost the same as the KJV. Just stay away from the footnotes. There is a stiff penalty for adulterating the Word of God.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

No names please--Rule #___

The rip between the Arminius and Calvin still rages--the scripture is not ambiguous.

KJV moral codes do blend well with our modern society. Modest apparel has taken a new definition. The standards of God do not change.

God said what He meant, meant what He said, that settles it. Whether we believe it or not changes nothing.

Shalom,

Bro. James

 

Bro James, the passage concerning modest apparel relates more to women who over dressed than under dressed... The meaning has indeed been changed by those who insist on a form of dress that satisfies them and demonstrates a holier than thou spirit. The modesty spoken of there was for those who were showing off... in many fundamental churches the standard of women wearing dresses clearly lines those folks up on the wrong side of that scripture.

As for the rest of this, millions have been saved with modern versions... and I have personally known people in strong KJV churches who wouldn't read their Bible because they weren't educated enough to grasp it and wouldn't ask for help for fear of being looked down on... and the fear was justified.

Incidentally, both the individual who feared and one of the primary legalists who she was afraid of are now out of church.

 

Do you know the original languages of the Scriptures?

 

Modern Modesty

How about the one where the wife is to wear a head covering to show her subjection to her husband? This obviously is not in vogue any more, in fact it is a bone of contention. Also, the one that says the husband is the head of the wife is hotly contested of late.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

These statements do not illustrate "confusion" neither in the KJV NT sense (disorder), nor the common modern sense (disorientation). The statement 'I do not/cannot know for sure, so I will do nothing' is a very clear course of action based upon lack of information (not mingled or disorganized information). You have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to learn.

You have ignored the Isaiah 7:14 "virgin" dilemma, again. It is more damaging to your credibility here to not respond to a direct question at all, than to admit you don't know, or confess you were wrong.

 

If you think that the two streams of Bibles argument is valid, do you recommend the KJV for following some renderings from Jerome's Latin Vulgate usually put in the bad stream and some renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims N. T. made from the Latin Vulgate?

 

Bro. James: //Where is your anchor? Will it hold?//

I carry five anchors with me to teach my Sunday
School class. They are 5 or 6 men 52 to 69-years old.
They all have a different Bible.
One is illiterate (62-years-old).

Bro. James: //My biggest problem with many modern "versions/translations" is that they have a tendency to cause confusion among the members--especially at worship meetings. Have you ever tried to follow someone reading a script different from the one you have?//

That statement seems to me to contradict your
other statement.

Let me see, for 30 years I've attended 150 meetings
a year (50 weeks x 3 meetings). That 4,500
meetings where I might be looking at some other
Bible than the speaker. I have no problem keeping up with
the readings. It really isn't hard. I've explained to
3ed graders why their Bible might not read like mine.
Most of them understood. A couple didn't understand
in the 3ed grade but one by the 4th and another one
by the 5th grade figured it out. But the other 50-60
caught on to it in the 3rd grade.
Pastors/Sunday School teachers who can't explaine this
simple fact of life to a child IS NOT QUALIFIED
FOR THEIR POST.

--------------------------------------------------

Clean1 on another venue:

Your misunderstanding of this scripture does NOT support
your contention. So your contention fails.

'confusion' here in the KJV is the opposite of 'peace'
not the opposite of 'understanding' which your conclusion
needs. I call this logical error 'error by ellipsis (...)', the part of the verse
which has been omitted by the ellipsis (...)
shows clearly that 'confusion' is the opposite of 'peace'.
Use the Bible to understand the Bible!

Here is the Strong's description of the Hebrew term
translated in 1611 with the words "the author of confusion"
Note the complete absence of the modern meaning (2006) of
the word 'confusion' which is 'misunderstanding'.
Sorry, someone is trying to put new wine into old skins -
it just doesn't work

G181
ἀκαταστασία
akatastasia
ak-at-as-tah-see'-ah
From G182; instability, that is, disorder:
- commotion, confusion, tumult.

 

Amen, Brother Logos1560 -- Good question! :thumbs:

To bad the early Church didn't have 1950s simplifications in
their minds when they mixed the two lines

 

Being almost no one has a 1611...it would seem you should revise your statement.

Why was it ever updated?

If someone were to read a 1611, it would cause *ahem* confusion in the worship assembly...it's not the same as your 1769 or 1823.

(what's good for the goose...)

 

Brother James , you know I respect you . But you need to reread a lot of older posts on these BibleVersions/Translations threads . It will give you a great deal of valuable info .

As it is you are falling into one trap , then another . You say you aren't KJVO but it looks as if you are , for now . Some excellent points have been brought up by men here . You would be well-advised to listen to their words of counsel .

BTW , my pastor preaches from the NASB ( pre-1995 ) . I usually follow along with my NLTse and it is no problem tracking him . At other times I switch-off to the TNIV or HCSB -- still no problem .

One of my Sunday School teachers uses the KJV -- it's easy to follow !

 

Let's get a bit of our history straight, please. Not to mention a few facts, as well. First the adherents of the two systems you are attempting to refer to are "Arminians" and "Calvinists", which are mis-named for two individuals. Jacob Harmenzoon (Jacobus Arminius) and John Calvin. The problem with this is that Calvin was not a "Calvinist", and Arminius was not an "Arminian".

These systems arose after the death of the namesakes, and by a half-century, in the case of Calvin. Followers and admirers of of Arminius, known as the Remonstrants, came to agree with Arminius, that some of the teachings ascribed to Calvin (which really should be considered more as those of Beza) were unscriptural, and composed, developed, and filed the Five Articles of Remonstrance, in Amsterdam, I think, a year after Arminius' death at the young age of 49. (Calvin also died fairly young at 54. In fact, many of the Reformers died fairly young, and many of them, such as Tyndale, Hus, Lattimer, Servetus, Ridley, Esch and Voes, to name seven, were greatly 'helped' along, in this regard.)

These Articles of Remonstrances were and are the foundational basis of and for what is called Arminianism.

The response to this was the convened Synod of Dordt, where the "Five Points" were formulated in response. The Canons of Dordt were and are the basis of and for what is called Calvinism.

FTR, not one of Luther, Melanchthon, the martyrs above, Calvin, Arminius, or Beza, ever saw a KJV. And the Geneva Bible was only published in 1860, four years before Calvin's own death.

I'll agree with the second phrase you used here, somewhat at least.

The Scripture is not ambiguous in the least, IMO.

However, our very limited understanding of Scripture is infinitely less clear cut, it would appear.

Ed