The NIV , Has it Become the Bible to replace the KJV?

Good evening Dr. Griffen, Dr. Thomas, Webmaster, and other prominent members of the board. Its been a few days since I posted last and I thought tonight would be a good night to drop in and say hi. Hi all.

As far as being a staunch KJVO kinda guy I thought I would ask a couple of questions about scripture. Using the New International Versionª Bible (NIV), answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the NIV Bible verse (Not from footnotes but from the text. Footnotes are not the Bible.).

1. Fill in the missing words in Matthew 5:44. "Love your enemies, ________ them that curse you, _____________ to them that hate you, and pray for them that __________ and persecute you."

2. According to Matthew 17:21, what two things are required to cast out this type of devil?

3. According to Matthew 18:11, why did Jesus come to earth?

4. According to Matthew 27:2, what was Pilate's first name?

5. In Matthew 27:35, when the wicked soldiers parted His garments, they were fulfilling the words of the prophet. Copy what the prophet said in Matthew 27:35 from the NIV.

6. In Mark 3:15, Jesus gave the apostles power to cast out devils and to:

7. According to Mark 7:16, what does a man need to be able to hear?

8. According to Luke 7:28, what was John? (teacher, prophet, carpenter, etc.). What is his title or last name?

9. In Luke 9:55, what did the disciples not know?

10. In Luke 9:56, what did the Son of man not come to do? According to this verse, what did He come to do?

11. In Luke 22:14, how many apostles were with Jesus?

12. According to Luke 23:38, in what three languages was the superscription written?

13. In Luke 24:42, what did they give Jesus to eat with His fish?

14. John 3:13 is a very important verse, proving the deity of Christ. According to this verse (as Jesus spoke), where is the Son of man?

15. What happened each year as told in John 5:4?

16. In John 7:50, what time of day did Nicodemus come to Jesus?

17. In Acts 8:37, what is the one requirement for baptism?

18. What did Saul ask Jesus in Acts 9:6?

19. Write the name of the man mentioned in Acts 15:34.

20. Study Acts 24:6-8. What would the Jew have done with Paul? What was the chief captain's name? What did the chief captain command?

21. Copy Romans 16:24 word for word from the NIV.

22. First Timothy 3:16 is perhaps the greatest verse in the New Testament concerning the deity of Christ. In this verse, who was manifested in the flesh?

23. In the second part of First Peter 4:14, how do [they] speak of Christ? And, what do we Christians do?

24. Who are the three Persons of the Trinity in First John 5:7?

25. Revelation 1:11 is another very important verse that proves the deity of Christ. In the first part of this verse Jesus said, "I am the A__________ and O___________ , the _________ and the _______:"


Let me know how well you do. Remember, footnotes are not bible text.

Mike

 

Mike,

You posted verbatim an NIV questionnaire that I've seen on a variety of KJVO sites, including www.chick.com , and that is generally misleading. However, you demand that the footnotes not be used--you claim that the Bible is the flowing text. Since the NIV translators opted to include passages that were not consistent among the various texts they used, but to footnote them, your question becomes meaningless.

The most misleading and important charge you level against the NIV is the removal of verses testifying to the deity of Christ. However, I refer you to the Gospel of John:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

compare Jn 8:58 to

Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to he Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Clearly, then, these references--absolute, undeniable--are to Jesus' deity. Further, you charge the NIV with removing the deity of Christ from I Timothy 3:16. Let's look at the verse in context, shall we?

I Timothy 3:14-16
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Beyond all question, the mystery ofgodliness is great:
He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was taken up in glory.

The antecedent to "He" is what appeared in a body. This passage is in reference to the mystery of "godliness" and hence the antecedent to "He" CANNOT be other than God. So it is clear that God and no one else was manifest in a body.

In interest of brevity, as it were, I will only take you up on two passages more. One, Revelation. Jesus says, not here in Rev. 1:11, but in Rev. 22:13, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." Clearly, the NIV has the claim of Jesus to be Alpha and Omega.

Finally, I John 5:7. The Comma is footnoted here because it is not in the oldest and best Greek texts available to the NIV translators. Erasmus, who compiled the Greek NT on which the KJV is based, didn't believe in it himself until a manuscript (believed made-to-order) was shown to him to include it. In any case, the proof is inconclusive and its inspiration is questionable.

My friend, we have the Word of God not through some absolutely pure particular text or translation, but through the miracle of God's preservation of thousands of texts, dating earlier than any other work of antiquity and in better agreement than anywhere else! I do not think that we should limit our Bible to one particular manuscript or translation, but rather examine every piece of evidence to avoid the feeble attempts of men to sully God's Word (none of which change any doctrines).

Love in Christ,
Wayne

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cubbies_daddy:
As far as being a staunch KJVO kinda guy I thought I would ask a couple of questions about scripture. Using the New International Versionª Bible (NIV), answer the following questions. Do not rely on your memory. As the Bible is the final authority, you must take the answer from the NIV Bible verse (Not from footnotes but from the text. Footnotes are not the Bible.)...

Let me know how well you do. Remember, footnotes are not bible text.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a nice reprint of Rex Cobb's original work in "Battle Cry" (which can be found at Chick Publications' website--I know, big surprise). This is not a "Bible" test; it is a "KJV" test.

Why can't we use the footnotes? Answer: because, with them your test is worthless (as if it had any merit to begin with). You should really pay less attention to people like Gipp, Cobb, Jack Chick, and others of that ilk and pay more attention to what the KJV translators themselves had to say about marginal notes/footnotes:

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point."

"...it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence..."

"Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

So, whose wisdom should you follow? That of modern KJVOism which tells you that footnotes are not "real Bible" and that they cast doubt upon the scripture? Or, would you follow the advice of the KJV translators themselves (given above) who are responsible for your beloved KJV?

What do you think of footnotes now? To be against them is to differ from the KJV translators and risk attributing yet another belief to them which they did not hold. Remember, the AV1611 did have marginal notes! What's the problem?

Keep trying,

[ May 05, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

 

Cubbies_daddy,

Since loaded test questions are up your alley, here's one for you. Answer the following questions using only the KJV. Heck, it's even shorter than the one you posted. Feel free to use the footnotes if you need help (oh yeah, they took them out; guess you'll have to do without).

(1) John 14:14 contains important proof of Christ's divinity, since prayer is to be offered to God alone. According to this verse, who is it we are to ask for anything in Jesus' name?
(2) Fill in the blanks from Acts 4:25 -- "You spoke by __________ through the mouth of your servant, our __________ David."

(3) In Acts 16:7, Paul and his companions were not allowed to enter Bythinia. According to the verse, the Spirit of __________ prevented them?

(4) In Romans 1:4, who was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead?

(5) An important verse which teaches that the Holy Spirit is a person (and not a "thing" or an impersonal "it" ) is found in Romans 8:26. Find the personal reference to the Holy Spirit.

(6) Fill in the blanks from Romans 8:34 -- "...who is the one who condemns? __________ __________ is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us."

(7) Titus 2:13 is one of the clearest statements of Christ's divinity in the New Testament. According to this verse, for whose glorious appearing do we wait?

(8) Another important verse demonstrating Christ's divinity is found in 2 Peter 1:1. According to this verse, through whose righteousness have we received our precious faith?

(9) Complete the following phrase from the first part of 1 John 3:1 -- "How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is __________!"

(10) Fill in the missing words from Jude 25 -- "...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through __________ __________ __________ __________ , before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen."

Credit to be given to Archangel. This was found on Forever settled in Heaven's website.

Only proving as much as you have,

[ May 05, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

 

Hey, I got sme responces, Right?

Mike

 

And so what will it matter in 100 years or ten years or ____ years.


Mike

 

Bob L. Ross,

It is a pleasure to see you join the discussion. I have read much of your work at the Pilgrim website and enjoyed it greatly. It is apparent that you have a great deal of experience debating/countering the most radical (and not so radical) elements of KJVOism. Certainly your experience will add a great deal to the discourse. Welcome.

Sincerely,

 

Now that everyone has been properly lauded how about a real life question of ownership and credibility?


FACT: Rupert Murdoch,
Papal Knight,
Publisher of NIV,
Donates $10 Million for New LA Cathedral
web page http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/murdoch.htm

FACT: The only difference between the NIV and the New World Translation deletions is that the JW Bible does not include any footnotes.
web page http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet.htm

Who in their right mind would want a bible (NIV) that compares to a cults bible (NWT) published by a knighted catholic?

Any takers?

 

Another site for all to ponder on!! I have not read any better, decide for yourselves. http://www.integrityonline7.com/zuvich/incover.htm

Also http://www.biblebelievers.com/Floyd_Jones/Jones_Ripped_index.html


"THE LORD COMETH "

[ May 06, 2001: Message edited by: MARANATHA2000 ]

 

Have you actually read the NIV? I have. When I read it, I find that Jesus is God. That clearly disagrees with JW doctrine.

Let me throw your question back at you. How many cults use the KJV? Quite a few! Does that invalidate the KJV? No it doesn't. Your test for the NIV is invalid!

 

Mike,

What you have said is a blatant falsehood. The NWT simply omits Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. The NIV leaves them in the text but places a cautionary note that they are not in several of the best and most ancient manuscripts. You have lied to misrepresent a perfectly acceptable version of the Word of God by comparing it to the JWs' weak attempt to destroy God's message to us.

You can derive the Deity of Christ from an NIV Bible as many times as you want. I'll take two great examples from the Gospel of John, and compare the NIV text to the NWT text.

John 1:1-2
NIV: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

NWT: In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in [the] beginning wth God.

Notice that the NWT willfully and wrongfully inserts an "a" to remove the deity of the Word--Christ--from the JW Bible so that their message can be "proven."

John 8:58:

NIV: "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
[my note: this is, with NO doubt, comparable to Exodus 3:14, where God identifies Himself to Moses as "I AM" in the NIV.]

NWT: Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

(I have checked in at least a dozen different Bible translations; only the NWT and NLT have not used consistent language between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58, thus allowing the attentive reader to easily grasp that Jesus DID say that He was and is God.)

The NWT is a piece of trash that tries to pervert Christian doctrine to Jehovah's Witness doctrine--it makes it easy to deny the deity of Christ, for instance. The NIV is a Bible created in the hopes of allowing the Word of God to reach people in need of salvation. It's what got me to God, and I don't think you should be comparing it to a cultic attack that, I pray, will stand alone as an attempt to tear down God's true Word.

-Wayne

 

Both the KJV and the NWT were produced by an organization which claimed to be God's representatives on earth, and therefore those who uphold the 'authority' of those works are slaves to a dogmatic assumption that their exclusivity is God's own exclusivity. There are some KJVO's, although certainly not all of them, who claim that any new translation of scripture into a different new language must be made from the KJV because the KJV-- not any Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic manuscripts-- is the only perfect word of God.

And this makes American history interesting because, by such reasoing, we Americans resisited the authority of God himself by resisting the British monarchy, which is the same *authority* of God himself claimed by that Scottish thronegrabber which makes the 'authorized' translation that of God himself.

It can easily be seen that differing with those who acknowledge the authority of the Watchtower Society and its publications, and with those who acknowledge the authority of the KJV, yield corresponding results. In both cases it is dogma, not reason, that is the source conflict.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hal Parker:
Have you actually read the NIV? I have. When I read it, I find that Jesus is God. That clearly disagrees with JW doctrine.

Let me throw your question back at you. How many cults use the KJV? Quite a few! Does that invalidate the KJV? No it doesn't. Your test for the NIV is invalid!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may throw the question back at me but it doesn't invalidate the truth.
While studing a little about law, I found this axiom: The number one defence against slander is the truth.

What I have posted here is the truth. Nothing you say or do will change that.
You can cogitate, orate, or intellectually anesthetize, but the truth stays the same.

 

Mike,

What you wrote is NOT the truth. The NIV does teach that Jesus is God. Therefore, it isn't the same as the NWT. You were trying to smear the NIV by associating it with a cult.

I responded by asking how many cults use the KJV. Don't the Mormons use the KJV? Isn't the KJV, the Bible that David Koresh used?

By your line of reasoning that should also smear the KJV. If your claim that the NIV is just like the Bible the JW's use invalidates the NIV. Then why doesn't the fact that so cults use the KJV invalidate the KJV? You can't have it both ways.

 

From a great article by James Martin at http://www3.sympatico.ca/jrm/kjv.htm

"One verse in the NIV is used by cultists to prove that Christ was created (Mic 5:2)."

The same is true of the KJV. Cultists frequently use Rev 3:14 to try to say that Christ was created. The KJV says that Christ is the “beginning of the creation of God.” The NIV says that Christ is the “ruler of God’s creation.” If we have to reject a translation because cultists can abuse a verse in it, then we have to reject all translations (and the original). This is why there is more than one verse in the Bible.

"The KJV exalts Christ more than the modern versions."

Jn 1:18 - NIV, NASB call Christ God, but the KJV doesn’t
Titus 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1 - NIV, NASB call Christ God but the KJV speaks of Christ and God as being two different people
Rom 1:3 - KJV says that Christ was “made” (created?)
Lk 1:35 - KJV calls Christ a “thing”. We believe that He was a person before birth, not a “thing”. Also see Rom 8:26 where the KJV calls the Holy Spirit “it”. We believe that the Holy Spirit is also a person - not just an “it” like the cultists believe.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cubbies_daddy:
FACT: Rupert Murdoch,
Papal Knight,
Publisher of NIV,
Donates $10 Million for New LA Cathedral<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FACT: Rupert Murdoch did not translate the NIV or have anything to do with it.

One of his companies (Zondervan?) published it. Get it straight.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FACT: The only difference between the NIV and the New World Translation deletions is that the JW Bible does not include any footnotes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FACT: You are WRONG. Try picking up an NIV and reading it instead of believing what others say about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Who in their right mind would want a bible (NIV) that compares to a cults bible (NWT) published by a knighted catholic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. You insist upon using the official version of the Mormons, Adventists, and (formerly) JWs. By your reasoning, "who in their right mind would want a bible" (KJV) that is "a cults bible?"

Your faulty reasoning proves nothing.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
"One verse in the NIV is used by cultists to prove that Christ was created (Mic 5:2)."

The same is true of the KJV. Cultists frequently use Rev 3:14 to try to say that Christ was created. The KJV says that Christ is the “beginning of the creation of God.” The NIV says that Christ is the “ruler of God’s creation.” <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cultists claim all kinds of things, most of which are untrue. As to the variant "beginning" of God's creation and "ruler" of God's creation, the Greek word is "arche" (arxh) which mean "the beginning" or "the origin." It can also mean "the first place" and could be understood (a bit of a stretch) to mean "ruler" in the idea of the ruler being the first amoung his people. But "the beginning" in the sense of origin seems to me to be the meaning which best fits the context. Jesus Christ is the origin of creation, in Him and by Him all things consist. He began (is the beginning of) the creation by the creative act recorded in Genesis 1. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jn 1:18 - NIV, NASB call Christ God, but the KJV doesn’t.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually the versions you listed call God a begotten being. God is not begotten, Christ was begotten of the Father. The reading "Son" in that verse is the correct reading. If "begotten God" stands, then the Mormons are going to have a field day! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Titus 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1 - NIV, NASB call Christ God but the KJV speaks of Christ and God as being two different people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, if a person reads any of the versions he will come to understand that Christ is God. The KJV reading connects the two with a conjunction the other versions do not. The meaning is the same. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rom 1:3 - KJV says that Christ was “made” (created?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually it is a statement of his physical descent from David, not a statement of his being a created being. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lk 1:35 - KJV calls Christ a “thing”. We believe that He was a person before birth, not a “thing”. Also see Rom 8:26 where the KJV calls the Holy Spirit “it”. We believe that the Holy Spirit is also a person - not just an “it” like the cultists believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You will have to take that up with the Holy Spirit who inspired the Greek words in question, which are neuter and not masculine.

Now, the point of all this is simple. If the anti KJVO faction can prate on about words that essentially mean the same thing, but claim they are "different" in the KJV and therefore wrong, why do you deny the KJVO faction the same right and refuse to allow them to say that the "changes" in the modern versions are "errors." You claim these are errors in the KJV when they say essentially the same thing. You interpret (mis-interpret?) the verse then blame your interpretation (mis-interpretation?) on the KJV instead on your ability (or lack thereof) to comprehend the English language, or you say that the KJV is in error for faithfully translating a neuter pronoun from Greek then applaud the modern versions for changing the pronoun. It seems to me that the KJV is the more accurate translation of the Greek word, and the modern versions have the better theological interpretation of the words. Which begs the question. Do you want your bible to accurately translate the Greek into English, or do you what the translators to interpret it for you, and thus do your thinking for you? That is the question.

[ May 07, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

I am new here although I have read along for a number of months. I may not get all the formatting right but I hope you will follow the thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As to the variant "beginning" of God's creation and "ruler" of God's creation, the Greek word is "arche" (arxh) which mean "the beginning" or "the origin." It can also mean "the first place" and could be understood (a bit of a stretch) to mean "ruler" in the idea of the ruler being the first amoung his people. But "the beginning" in the sense of origin seems to me to be the meaning which best fits the context. Jesus Christ is the origin of creation, in Him and by Him all things consist. He began (is the beginning of) the creation by the creative act recorded in Genesis 1. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While you may be right about “beginning” being the proper translation here in Rev 3:14, to call “ruler” a bit of a stretch seems out of line with BAGD, Friberg, Louw-Nida, and LSJ (Classical Greek for those unfamiliar). It is very easy to inconspicuously omit the evidence that would verify the legitimacy of a possible translation and thus unfairly paint certain versions as illegitimate when indeed they are not. “Ruler” is clearly within the semantic domain and could be exactly what John intended. However, “beginning” is also in the semantic domain and it could be what John intended. My point is to show that the NIV is legitimate, a fact which you seem only begrudgingly to acknowledge through the omission of valuable evidence. I have noticed in reading along that there is a tendency to argue for the side that one holds without admitting and dealing with the contradicting evidence. (I am not addressing anyone in particular here). Good argumentation requires dealing even with the evidence that would refute your own position.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Actually the versions you listed call God a begotten being. God is not begotten, Christ was begotten of the Father. The reading "Son" in that verse is the correct reading. If "begotten God" stands, then the Mormons are going to have a field day! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In John 1:18, God/Son is called monogenes, a word meaning “unique” or “only.” The KJV translates it “only begotten” with reference to Christ (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18) and once referring to Isaac (Heb 11:17). In its others NT uses, the KJV uses “only” (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). BAGD, Louw-Nida, Friberg, NIDOTTE, and LSJ all assert that the meaning deals with uniqueness or something that is one of a kind. In this verse, the Mormon’s field day springs from a faulty understanding of the meaning of the word. Thus, their field day falls flat on its face. Unfortunately their field day is prolonged only by the unfortunate choice of “only begotten” for a word that means “only” or “unique.” To my chagrin, the NASB95 (my Bible of choice) made the same choice. However, I preach right it and make it clear what the word means. On the issue of God/Son in this verse, the modern versions reading of “God” is clearly more sound on the doctrine of deity, though the KJV is not a gross error. Deity is found in either rendering; it is simply more clear in the NIV. Given the choice, Theos is a lot closer to “God” then “uios” is.

On Romans 8:26, you say,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You will have to take that up with the Holy Spirit who inspired the Greek words in question, which are neuter and not masculine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.

You seem like you have a deep enough background to understand that the neuter pronoun is used there because pneuma is a neuter noun. The necessity of gender agreement is a grammatical point. While technically the KJV is right, theologically the sense of the passage is clearly “he” or “himself,” that is, the Spirit. The KJV is unfortunate in that it gives those who wish to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit ample opportunity to do so. The Spirit is not an “it” and should not be referred to as one.

On your concluding paragraph, I have not read anyone on here claiming perfection for the MVs. I think what Christ was pointing out was that those who claim that the KJV has no translational errors are not in line with the evidence. There are clearly some translational choices made in the MVs that I believe are incorrect. I think from reading Chris and others, they would say the same though I do not wish to put words in their mouths.

Why don’t you take a moment to address 2 Thess 2:7 since you seem adept at explaining why the KJV is the best translation. Their choice of “letteth,” while perhaps appropriate in the 17th century, seems clearly inappropriate in the 21st since the meaning is diametrically opposed. The one that “letteth” is indeed not letting anything; he is restraining (which incidentally is what “katexo” means).

1 Thess 4:15 is a similar spot using “prevent” when Paul clearly had no intention of the meaning associated with prevent in 21st century English. The word Paul used (phthano) clearly means to precede (the unanimous voice of the MVs).

What these last two things have in common is that they are not textual variants. They are interpretational choices made by translators, using words that have changed meanings in the 400 intervening years.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I am new here although I have read along for a number of months. I may not get all the formatting right but I hope you will follow the thought.

&lt;snip&gt;

I have not read anyone on here claiming perfection for the MVs.

&lt;snip&gt;

Why don’t you take a moment to address 2 Thess 2:7 since you seem adept at explaining why the KJV is the best translation. Their choice of “letteth,” while perhaps appropriate in the 17th century, seems clearly inappropriate in the 21st since the meaning is diametrically opposed. The one that “letteth” is indeed not letting anything; he is restraining (which incidentally is what “katexo” means).

1 Thess 4:15 is a similar spot using “prevent” when Paul clearly had no intention of the meaning associated with prevent in 21st century English. The word Paul used (phthano) clearly means to precede (the unanimous voice of the MVs).

What these last two things have in common is that they are not textual variants. They are interpretational choices made by translators, using words that have changed meanings in the 400 intervening years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seem to have misunderstood the intent of my post. I did not assert that anyone made claims of inerrancy for any modern versions, just as I do not make such a claim (in that context) for the KJV.

As to "letteth" and "prevent" nobody I know of is claiming those would be the best possible choice of words today, in the early 21st century. However, it is incorrect to claim them to be an error in translation, for in the early 17th century both words had different meanings then is common today. Just because the language has changed in the past 390 years does not mean the translation committees erred in 1607-1611.

 

Dr. Cassidy,

With due respect to your involvement in this board as the moderator, I have read for a considerable period of time as an observer not involved in the argumentation. It was my observation from early on that you were claiming superiority for the translation of the KJV, even beyond the textual basis for it. You have stated on numerous occasions that you do not claim inerrancy for the KJV. Yet you have yet to admit an error in it for modern usage and understanding.

With regard to “letteth” and “prevent,” if someone read that today and applied modern understanding to it, would they be in error? I think you would certainly have to answer yes. If that is the case, then would you not have to admit that the KJV is at best misleading? Does not that make it in error for the modern reader since it does not communicate the intent of the passage?

You say that no one you know of is arguing that “letteth” and “prevent” are the best choice of words today. Have you not read Alex Mullins, Trinity26, and others on this very board that would have to make that very claim based on what they have said? Surely are you familiar with Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, formerly Hyles (who would gladly use a modern version today), etc. who have made the exact claim that I have referenced. I know of lots of people who would make that claim. Perhaps you yourself would not make that claim but it seems in your posts that you have been adamant that the KJV does not need changing. It seems that you believe it only needs a 20 volume OED for proper understanding. I do not mean to misrepresent you. However, that is the implication (my understanding of the logical end) of the answers you have so far given to the various verses listed in this thread. With regard to 1 Cor passage referenced on another thread, you said that if one had a OED they would understand strait. Well sure … but the other option is to have a MV and they would understand much quicker and easier.

I guess the question is simply this. Do you believe that the KJV should be changed to reflect modern linguistic convention for the modern reader? Or do you believe that the KJV remains the best translation for the modern reader? (I am not there asking about textual preferences.) At what point would you say that we need a Bible in the common language of the day?

While we are on the topic of “errors,” what about Matt 23:24 where the KJV has “strain at a gnat” when the Greek text (take your pick) clearly means “strain out a gnat”? There are clearly two different meanings involved. Which one is right?