Matthew 6:27 and 33

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Apr 4, 2004.

  1. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matthew 6:27

    "Which of you by taking thought can add one CUBIT unto his STATURE?"

    All the Greek texts read the same here and the word is clearly "one cubit" (peexun hena). A cubit is a measure of length about 18 inches.

    Agreeing with the correct reading " add one CUBIT to his STATURE" found in all Greek texts and in the King James Bible are: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, the NKJV 1982, Webster's 1833, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Douay 1950, Bible in Basic English 1961, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Spanish Reina Valera 1960, Italian Diodati, Green's interlinear, KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

    The New English Bible 1970 and Weymouth both say: "can add a single foot to his height?"

    Even The Message 2002 reads: "Has anyone by fussing in front of the mirror ever gotten taller by so much as an inch?"

    However the NIV and the 2002 ESV say: "Which of you by worring can add a single HOUR to his LIFE?"

    The NASB is interesting in that from 1960 to 1977 it read as the RSV: "Which of you BY BEING ANXIOUS can add one CUBIT to his LIFE SPAN?" Now, a cubit is a measurement of length or height, but not of time. The NASB is clearly wrong. Then in 1995 the NASB changed its text once again and now reads: "Which of you by BEING WORRIED can add a SINGLE HOUR to his LIFE?" The word peexun does NOT mean "hour", which would be the Greek word hora, but it means a cubit!

    There are presently two more modern versions coming out and they disagree with each other too. The Holman Christian Standard says: "Can any of you add a single CUBIT to his HEIGHT by worrying?", but the ISV (International Standard) has: "Can any of you add a single HOUR to your SPAN OF LIFE by worrying?"


    Matthew 6:33

    "But seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

    The modern scholars continue to change both their Greek texts and their translations. They have no settled and firm words of God and continue to disagree with each other about what God wrote and how to translate it.

    The words OF GOD (tou theou)in the phrase "the kingdom of God" are found in the Majority of all Greek texts, the Old Latin 150 A.D., which predates by 200 years anything we have in Greek, the Syriac Peshitta 250 A.D., Harkelian, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, Ethiopian, and Slavonic ancient versions. These all read as does the King James Bible.

    The RV, ASV, RSV 1952, NASB, NIV and the 2001 TNIV all omit the words OF GOD, and say: "Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness..."

    According to the UBS critical text itself, ONLY Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit the words OF GOD, and these two "oldest and best manuscripts" even disagree with each other! Sinaiticus says "the kingdom and his righteousness", while Vaticanus reverses the reading and has: "the righteousness and his kingdom", and these are supposedly the "best", even though they differ from each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.

    Bible versions that correctly read as the King James Bible - "Seek ye first the kingdom OF GOD, and his righteousness" are: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Bishop's, Geneva 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, Douay 1950, Hebrew Names Version, and the brand new Holman Christian Standard, and the 2002 International Standard Version.

    The former Nestle-Aland critical Greek text, upon which most modern versions are based, omitted the words OF GOD, but now they have put them back in their Greek text but still in brackets, indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

    However as newer versions roll off the presses they keep changing the way Scripture reads. Other modern versions still based primarily on the Westcott-Hort text but having put the words OF GOD back into the English text include the NRSV 1989, ESV 2002, Good News Bible, New American Bible 1970, Contemporary English Version 1991, The Message 2002, Today's English Version 1992, Holman Christian Standard 2002, and the ISV.


    All you need to know what God REALLY said, is go to some seminary where they will take your money, rob you of your faith in a God-inspired Bible, scramble your brains learning "the original languages", and then you too can come out with your own different bible version and make a lot of money peddling the words of God. - OR you can believe God's promises to have preserved His inerrant words and that they are found today in the King James Holy Bible.

    Will Kinney
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Will I find it interesting what you wrote. Could help us to solve the problem presented when reading Mt. 8:28; Mk. 5:2; and Luke 8:27?

    There are two in MT. and one in the others.

    So why the differences?
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    While I agree with you that some of the modern translations go overboard with dynamic equivalence, the rhetoric following your anlysis is faulty because it is destructive to your own cause.

    All of these accusations can be applied to the KJV and the translators of the same.

    The KJV translators went to seminaries which were for the most part founded and perpetuated by the Church of Rome. This fact influenced their work, they applauded "saint Jerome" and acknowledged our debt to him for the Latin Vulgate (of which they chose several readings to include in their work).

    These men must have had their "brains scrambled" because they were educated in the "original languages" and loudly proclaimed the same in the introduction of their work. Later they shamelessly revised their work and came out with different "corrected" editions (things which are different are not the same).

    In spite of their "scrambled brains" one of the revisions was a very good thing in that it was to eliminate the heretical RCC Apocrypha from "the King James Holy Bible" (although certain die-hard publishers will sell you (and make a profit) a KJV with the Apocrypha) as well as the monthly almanac which honored several RCC saints, two of whom were past "popes".

    No doubt the Crown received an abundance of profit from the sale of this Bible in that it was THE "Authorized Version" of a Church which (at the time) violated all the Baptist distinctives, persecuted and killed Baptists and other anti-establishment and dissenting Christians.

    FWIW, Had you left out the last paragraph I would not have responded.

    HankD
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Will Kinney:The NASB is interesting in that from 1960 to 1977 it read as the RSV: "Which of you BY BEING ANXIOUS can add one CUBIT to his LIFE SPAN?" Now, a cubit is a measurement of length or height, but not of time. The NASB is clearly wrong.

    Will, you're trying to sneak one by us again. When you told us that the Greek 'peexun' is "cubit", why didn't you also mention that the Greek word 'helikia', rendered "life span", actually MEANS "life span. or age"?

    This seems to be a problem to many translators, since the LOGICAL statement would be "stature", but don't fault those versions which made a LITERAL translation of the Greek. The AV translators & others made a LOGICAL rendering of what was in front of them, while others translated it LITERALLY.

    As for Matthew-Can you prove that some later scribe didn't ADD the material you say is OMITTED?

    All you need to know what God REALLY said, is go to some seminary where they will take your money, rob you of your faith in a God-inspired Bible, scramble your brains learning "the original languages", and then you too can come out with your own different bible version and make a lot of money peddling the words of God. - OR you can believe God's promises to have preserved His inerrant words and that they are found today in the King James Holy Bible.

    OR-we could believe your half-truth "scholarship" without checking for ourselves, and be as deeply stuck in a man-made false doctrine as YOU are.
     
  5. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Roby, I thought maybe one of you guys would come up with this. You say:

    Will Kinney:The NASB is interesting in that from 1960 to 1977 it read as the RSV: "Which of you BY BEING ANXIOUS can add one CUBIT to his LIFE SPAN?" Now, a cubit is a measurement of length or height, but not of time. The NASB is clearly wrong.


    Will, you're trying to sneak one by us again. When you told us that the Greek 'peexun' is "cubit", why didn't you also mention that the Greek word 'helikia', rendered "life span", actually MEANS "life span. or age"?

    This seems to be a problem to many translators, since the LOGICAL statement would be "stature", but don't fault those versions which made a LITERAL translation of the Greek. The AV translators & others made a LOGICAL rendering of what was in front of them, while others translated it LITERALLY."

    Uh, Roby, the KJB rendering is BOTH logical and literal. I know the word helikia can mean either "stature" or "age", but the deciding factor is the word CUBIT. As I stated, a cubit is a measurement of height or length, not one of time.

    It should be clear that "knowing the Greek" is not sufficient for giving us a perfect Bible. Your modern scholars are blinded by God because of their unbelief. The whole structure is built on the foundations of men like Bruce Metzger and other liberal apostates who do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

    As for not knowing who added what or omitted what, that is the Whateverists problem, not mine.

    God bless,

    Will K
     
  6. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    gb posts: Could help us to solve the problem presented when reading Mt. 8:28; Mk. 5:2; and Luke 8:27?
    There are two in MT. and one in the others.
    So why the differences? "

    gb, you are missing the obvious point of my little study on Mat. 6:27, 33. In the case you mention the same thing is recorded in all bible versions. They are all three correct unless you think God made a mistake.

    Two are mentioned in the two accounts and only one is the focus of the other. This is not a problem of different readings or meanings from one bible version as compared to another bible version - they all say the same things in those instances.

    However, in the two examples I brought up (Mat. 6:27, 33) there is a definite difference in both text (33) and meaning (27), and all the versions do NOT agree among themselves.


    Hank, your position is still focused on man and your view of the preservation of God's words is humanistic, naturalistic and evolutionary in nature. This is why you do not have any complete, inerrant and inspired words of God to recommend but offer us instead a multiplicity of conflicting versions. The result is confusion and uncertainty.

    Have it your way. Do what you want. I certainly cannot stop you. Go with the flow, wherever it may take you.

    Will K
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    "focused on man" - the KJVO are focused on man as well the KJV translators were men, King James was a man, etc...

    Some KJVO are not only focused on man but are their clones spreading division, insult and innuendo among the brethren.

    Personally Will, I happen to believe that the TR and the Masoretic text are the preserved Word of God and not any of the translations of the same including the KJV which has "a multiplicity of conflicting versions" between 1611 and 1853.

    HankD
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    More attacks on God's word from someone with an unbelieving mindset about Scripture. Will, you love your own too much to submit it to God's word. You love the sound of your own voice to listen to Scripture on this matter. You continually engage in blatant attacks on God's word because you will not take the time to learn the doctrine of Scripture. How long must we put up with this nonsense? You are creating confusion in the minds of people and ruining their faith by telling them that God's words can't be trusted because you don't understand them. Your mind is not the test of truth. And God's word will be God's word no matter how many times you attack it.
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    “All you need to know what God REALLY said, is go to some seminary where they will take your money, rob you of your faith in a God-inspired Bible, scramble your brains learning "the original languages", and then you too can come out with your own different bible version and make a lot of money peddling the words of God. - OR you can believe God's promises to have preserved His inerrant words and that they are found today in the King James Holy Bible.”

    Will Kinney


    Will I find it interesting what you wrote. Could help us to solve the problem presented when reading Mt. 8:28; Mk. 5:2; and Luke 8:27?

    There are two in MT. and one in the others.

    So why the differences?
    =====================================================================
    By asking a question I stayed as close to the topic as you did by the statements you made. I just responded to your comments by asking a simple question that would demand a simple response. I thought that perhaps it would give you a chance to shine. But instead you chose not answer the question. Does that mean you do not know the answer? I’ll bet there are a few who would like an answer to that question.

    You do know that the pedobaptists who translated the KJV had to scramble their brains learning "the original languages". They had to do this for people like you who would not have been able to read the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. I wonder how much money the pedobaptists have brought in as a result of the sale of their translation over the years? And you people like you still support them?

    Sometime it would be good if you would start a topic on the textual variants among the manuscripts used to transalte the KJV. I'll bet all of us would be interste in that topic.

    [ April 04, 2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]
     
  10. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry posts: "More attacks on God's word from someone with an unbelieving mindset about Scripture.... You continually engage in blatant attacks on God's word because you will not take the time to learn the doctrine of Scripture. How long must we put up with this nonsense? You are creating confusion in the minds of people and ruining their faith by telling them that God's words can't be trusted because you don't understand them. "

    Larry, it is your conflicting "bibles" that create the confusion. So, of the examples I gave, Matthew 6:27 and 33 with different meanings and different texts, even among your versions based on Westcott-Hort, which of all those is the true word of God, in your esteemed opinion?

    You sound full of righteous indignation and piety by apparently believing all the conflicting versions are the true, inspired words of God, and accuse me of attacking the word of God by pointing out the obvious.

    After all those posts under the topic of "There are no conflicting bibles", do you still hold this view?

    If so, you and I are world's apart in our thinking.

    Oh, and Hank. King James definitely was a man but he had nothing to do with translating the Holy Bible that now is referred to by his name. It was and still is called The Holy Bible. I trust God and His promises to give us His inerrant Book.

    Blessings,

    Will K
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Will Kinney:It should be clear that "knowing the Greek" is not sufficient for giving us a perfect Bible. Your modern scholars are blinded by God because of their unbelief.

    I see you've passed "Mind-reading 101" from Calvin U.


    The whole structure is built on the foundations of men like Bruce Metzger and other liberal apostates who do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

    Actually, it's built by men who wanted to know what God REALLY said to His writers, as much as language differences will allow. They were NOT content to accept a 400-yr-old opinion made long before some 5000 Scriptural mss were found.

    As for not knowing who added what or omitted what, that is the Whateverists problem, not mine.

    That's quite evident it's not YOUR problem. You don't wanna know the truth, so you settle for a man-made myth. In ways, it reminds me of the drunk who say, "I don't got no probs with anyone else-THEY have probs with ME."
     
  12. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    OK. Will, get yourself (if you haven't already) a First Edition 1611 AV facsimile of the King James Bible and you will see the names of the translators in the Introduction/Prologue. For your reading pleasure you can learn about each of them at this website: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/transtoc.htm

    They were mortal human beings prone to error (and indeed even guilty of heresy) unless of course you attribute to them the endowment of Plenary Verbal Inspiration which is normally reserved for prophets and apostles and those who had an historical first hand experience with God of being "god-breathed".

    Since with God all things are possible, so is this. But it seems highly unlikely since it was not so mentioned in His Word and these men denied infallibility to themselves and later proved it by humbly correcting their work (and those who filled up their ranks) over the centuries.

    HankD
     
  13. TC

    TC
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    10
    It's obvious that either way, the meaning is the same - worrying will not add one single thing to your life. Nothing conflicting - or confusing - about that.
     
  14. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,118
    Likes Received:
    319
    So also the KJV conflict between the revisions 1611/1769.

    Often when KJVO have to admit to "errors"
    they make much ado about the "small" number
    and "unintentional" type of "errors" which
    the later KJV revisions correct over the
    earlier ones.

    However, God is not capable of making ONE
    error of the SMALLEST kind. If so, we could
    trust neither God or His Word.

    All errors are introduced by man both in the
    mv's as well as the TR based Bibles including
    the KJV.

    What difference does it make in the final
    analysis whether the scribal and/or printer
    errors are intentional or not?

    We have the resource and tools to virtualy
    re-construct the NT. Why waste time and energy
    with useless rhetoric and even worst, name
    calling (directly or implied)?

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...