Words, DO matter

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Mar 11, 2011

stilllearning said: ↑

That is an interesting question.

To answer it, we need to determine if the apparent mistake made in the first printing of 1611KJB, in 1John 5:12, was deliberate or an oversight.

If is was deliberate, than it was a swipe.
--------------------------------------------------
Being 400 years removed, we most likely will never know.
But there is no problem, because this particular Bible is no longer in print.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your consistency. Now that you have acknowledged that the KJV1611 is flawed, when was it made perfect?

And, BTW, KJV1611 editions are still in print.

Rippon · Mar 11, 2011

This is for SL.

I'll be quoting from Philip W.Comfort's book: New Testament Text And Translation Commentary.

I will deal with just two passages. The first one is 1 Timothy 6:5.

Westcott and Hort and NU --The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (26th and 27th editions) and The United Bibles Societies'Greek New Testament (3rd and 4th corrected editions)

The WH and NU omit "depart from such men"
Some versions that omit that phrase are RSV,NRSV,ESV,NASB,NIV,TNIV,NEB,NJB,NAB,NLT,HCSB,NET,GW and MLB.

The KJV and NKJ includes it.

Comfort says:"The appended,personal admonition from Paul to Timothy was probably created by some Greek scribe or Old Latin translator who was influenced by 2 Tim 2:19. The appendage took hold in the textual tradtion,was incorporated in TR,and translated in KJV and NKJV. The earliest and best manuscripts support the WH NU reading,which is followed by all modern versions." (p.666)

Regarding 1 John 4:19:

WH NU has "we love"
It is found in RSV,NRSV,ESV,NASB,NIV,TNIV,NEB,REB,NJB,NAB,NLT,HCSB,NET

The variant "we love him" is found in:KJV and NKJV

Comfort says the variants (the other one being "we love God")are cases of scribal gap-filling and are misleading."John was not saying that we love God alone,as a result of him having first loved us;rather,he was saying that we are now able to truly able to love because God demonstrated what love is when he sent his Son to die for our sins. In other words,John purposely left out the object of 'we love' because the object is not of primary importance --the action is." (p.782)

robycop3 · Mar 11, 2011

stilllearning said: ↑

Satan’s most effective lie about the Bible, is that “Words don’t matter”:

Therefore(he says), you can remove them or change them, all you want:
All that is important is that “the message” remains intact!

Satan knows, that if we change the Words, the message will be changed!
--------------------------------------------------
Well lets think about it a minute: How does God the Father, convey His message or His instructions??
By visions, or by dreams, or by placing an idea into our head, or by placing His ideas into the heads of the Apostles??

NO, to all of the above: Here is how he gave instructions to Jesus........
John 17:8
“For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received [them], and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.”

Words are so important, that the LORD would have arranged for His people to have the exact words He wanted them to have, until the end of time.
Click to expand...

Yes-that's why GOD causes new translations 2 B made, while also preserving the older ones. As he causes/allows changes 2B made in the languages, He causes His word 2 B re-translated 2 reflect those changes.

God does NOT limit Himself 2 just one translation, and therefore WE shouldn't try 2 thus limit Him. (as if any man could limit GOD anyway!)

NaasPreacher (C4K) · Mar 11, 2011

stilllearning said: ↑

Satan knows, that if we change the Words, the message will be changed!
Click to expand...

Now you have me confused. First you say that changing the words is bad, then you say that you use an edition of the KJV that changes the words of 1 John 5v12.

So was that change good?

franklinmonroe · Mar 11, 2011

What about this specific missing Greek word in current KJV translations at Matthew 18:6? There are 37 English words in the AV text representing 29 Greek words (of which at least 2 are completely untranslated). Greek below from Stephanus 1550 TR (my bold) --

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me,
Ὃς δ᾽ ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων τῶν πιστευόντων εἰς ἐμέ

it were better for him that a ____ millstone were hanged about his neck,
συμφέρει αὐτῷ ἵνα κρεμασθῇ μύλος ὀνικὸς ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ

and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
καὶ καταποντισθῇ ἐν τῷ πελάγει τῆς θαλάσσης
I have consulted several different TR Greek sources and they agree with each other and with the modern critical Greek texts that the Greek word onikos (Strong's 3684) was inspired by the Holy Spirit at the time when Matthew penned the Gospel. In other words (pun intended), this is not a variant issue.

The Greek word essentially means 'turned by an donkey'. That is, it is an adjective describing the millstone. Our Lord was emphasizing the size and/or heft of the millstone. He especially articulated an industrial-strength millstone, not a wimpy travel-edition. Do words matter? Do Jesus' words matter? Yes, they do!

The familar stone mill worked by grinding the grain between two stones. One was usually stationary (the bottom stone), while the other was mobile (the top one). The nether 'bedstone' did not need to be particluarly heavy, but the top 'runner' stone did need to bear down with considerable force. It was usually rotated by an animal of burden, like a burro. [My grandparents actually had an early American millstone on their farm; it was extremely heavy. The piece thrown by a woman in Judges 9:53 & 2 Samuel 11:21 must have been small one.]

To be fair, the KJV is not the only version to omit a correspoding English word for onikos. But many other translators have rendered onikos into their text with English words such as "great", "large", "upper" (see Deut. 24:6 KJV), "heavy", and "weighty". Wycliffe --

But who so sclaundrith oon of these smale, that bileuen in me, it spedith to hym that a mylnstoon `of assis be hangid in his necke, and he be drenchid in the depnesse of the see.
The same Greek word is missing from the KJV translation of Luke 17:2 (in the Markan parallel account Christ does not say onikos). So, does this count as two missing words out of the Bible?

stilllearning · Mar 11, 2011

C4K said: ↑

Now you have me confused. First you say that changing the words is bad, then you say that you use an edition of the KJV that changes the words of 1 John 5v12.

So was that change good?
Click to expand...

Great question; But I am super busy now, will answer it soon.

stilllearning · Mar 11, 2011

franklinmonroe said: ↑

What about this specific missing Greek word in current KJV translations at Matthew 18:6? There are 37 English words in the AV text representing 29 Greek words (of which at least 2 are completely untranslated). Greek below from Stephanus 1550 TR (my bold) --

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me,
Ὃς δ᾽ ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων τῶν πιστευόντων εἰς ἐμέ

it were better for him that a ____ millstone were hanged about his neck,
συμφέρει αὐτῷ ἵνα κρεμασθῇ μύλος ὀνικὸς ἐπὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ

and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
καὶ καταποντισθῇ ἐν τῷ πελάγει τῆς θαλάσσης
I have consulted several different TR Greek sources and they agree with each other and with the modern critical Greek texts that the Greek word onikos (Strong's 3684) was inspired by the Holy Spirit at the time when Matthew penned the Gospel. In other words (pun intended), this is not a variant issue.

The Greek word essentially means 'turned by an donkey'. That is, it is an adjective describing the millstone. Our Lord was emphasizing the size and/or heft of the millstone. He especially articulated an industrial-strength millstone, not a wimpy travel-edition. Do words matter? Do Jesus' words matter? Yes, they do!

The familar stone mill worked by grinding the grain between two stones. One was usually stationary (the bottom stone), while the other was mobile (the top one). The nether 'bedstone' did not need to be particluarly heavy, but the top 'runner' stone did need to bear down with considerable force. It was usually rotated by an animal of burden, like a burro. [My grandparents actually had an early American millstone on their farm; it was extremely heavy. The piece thrown by a woman in Judges 9:53 & 2 Samuel 11:21 must have been small one.]

To be fair, the KJV is not the only version to omit a correspoding English word for onikos. But many other translators have rendered onikos into their text with English words such as "great", "large", "upper" (see Deut. 24:6 KJV), "heavy", and "weighty". Wycliffe --

But who so sclaundrith oon of these smale, that bileuen in me, it spedith to hym that a mylnstoon `of assis be hangid in his necke, and he be drenchid in the depnesse of the see.
The same Greek word is missing from the KJV translation of Luke 17:2 (in the Markan parallel account Christ does not say onikos). So, does this count as two missing words out of the Bible?
Click to expand...

Another great question, which I am looking forward to getting into.

See you later.

HankD · Mar 12, 2011

Askjo said: ↑

According to a few scholars, they said that a hebrew word means EITHER heaven or heavens. Genesis 1:1 is Heaven because God began to create. Genesis 2:1 is heavenS and Genesis 2:4 is heavens because God completely created. They are perfect doctrinally.
Click to expand...

RE: Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4
Well, that's a possibilty askjo and fine if you choose to believe it, but it can't be proven. Here is what is provable:

1) In Genesis 1:1 the word "created" is in the perfect tense indicating completed action. The word "heaven" is plural in both passages and both passages speak of completion of creation.

Genesis 1:1 is a the statement of creation as completed indicated by the perfect tense.

The rest of the chapter gives those details God wants us to know in their order of importance,
Genesis 2:4 reiterates that completion and then begins an expanded detail concerning Adam and Eve.

2) The provable. While this word Shayim is somewhat idiomatic, the AV is inconsistent in translating this word
with no explanations apart from subjective musings and that is the point of my post.

e.g. KJV Psalm 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice.

The ASV and NKJV translate it properly:

ASV Psalm 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heaven of heavens, which are of old; Lo, he uttereth his voice, a mighty voice.

NKJV Psalm 68:33 To Him who rides on the heaven of heavens, which were of old! Indeed, He sends out His voice, a mighty voice.

In other places the AV does translate it properly:

KJV Deuteronomy 10:14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

Any translation of the Scripture by man (apart from NT quotes of the OT involving inspiration) is flawed to one degree or another.

I don't have any pleasure in pointing out these flaws (AV or MV) except to prove a point and I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers,
but I do try to be a realist to the best of my ability when it comes to every jot and tittle of every word in the original language texts.

No translation of the Scripture is perfect (don't tell the Latin Vulgate Only folks).

HankD

Logos1560 · Mar 13, 2011

Do the words of the good 1560 Geneva Bible matter in the many places where the KJV translators changed them? Here are some examples from the book of Acts.

Acts 1:3 presented (Geneva, NKJV) shewed (KJV)
Acts 1:3 that he had suffered (Geneva) his passion (KJV) His suffering (NKJV)
Acts 1:4 but to wait (Geneva, NKJV) but wait (KJV)
Acts 1:19 their own language (Geneva, NKJV) their proper tongue (KJV)
Acts 1:20 charge (Geneva) bishopric (KJV) office (NKJV)
Acts 1:22 be made (Geneva) be ordained (KJV) become (NKJV)
Acts 2:8 language (Geneva, NKJV) tongue (KJV)
Acts 2:13 They are full (Geneva, NKJV) These men are full (KJV)
Acts 2:15 since it is (Geneva, NKJV) seeing it is (KJV)
Acts 2:34 sit at (Geneva, NKJV) sit thou on (KJV)
Acts 3:12 So when Peter (Geneva, NKJV) And when Peter (KJV)
Acts 3:12 or godliness (Geneva, NKJV) or holiness (KJV)
Acts 3:17 I know (Geneva, NKJV) I wot (KJV)
Acts 3:18 thus fulfilled (Geneva, NKJV) so fulfilled (KJV)
Acts 3:23 shall be (Geneva, NKJV) shall come to pass (KJV)
Acts 3:25 to Abraham (Geneva, NKJV) unto Abraham (KJV)
Acts 4:18 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
Acts 4:28 to do (Geneva, NKJV) For to do (KJV)
Acts 5:16 were all healed (Geneva, NKJV) were healed every one (KJV)
Acts 5:21 all the elders (Geneva, NKJV) all the senate (KJV)
Acts 5:35 Men of Israel (Geneva, NKJV) Ye men of Israel (KJV)
Acts 5:41 So they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
Acts 6:11 against Moses and God (Geneva, NKJV) against Moses and against God (KJV)
Acts 7:6 But God (Geneva, NKJV) And God (KJV)
Acts 7:11 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
Acts 7:17 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 7:20 acceptable unto God (Geneva) exceeding fair (KJV) well pleasing to God (NKJV)
Acts 7:25 that God (Geneva, NKJV) how that God (KJV)
Acts 7:38 congregation (Geneva, NKJV) church (KJV)
Acts 7:40 know not (Geneva) wot not (KJV) do not know (NKJV)
Acts 8:23 For I see (Geneva, NKJV) For I perceive (KJV)
Acts 8:27 to worship (Geneva, NKJV) for to worship (KJV)
Acts 9:8 from the ground (Geneva, NKJV) from the earth (KJV)
Acts 9:9 ate nor drank (Geneva, NKJV) did eat nor drink (KJV)
Acts 9:16 how many things (Geneva, NKJV) how great things (KJV)
Acts 9:22 the Christ (Geneva, NKJV) very Christ (KJV)
Acts 9:38 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 10:2 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
Acts 10:9 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 11:1 Now the (Geneva, NKJV) And the (KJV)
Acts 11:25 to seek (Geneva, NKJV) for to seek (KJV)
Acts 11:28 famine (Geneva, NKJV) dearth (KJV)
Acts 12:4 passover (Geneva, NKJV) Easter (KJV)
Acts 12:9 knew not (Geneva) wist not (KJV) did not know (KJV)
Acts 13:10 straight ways (Geneva, NKJV) right ways (KJV)
Acts 13:16 hearken (Geneva) guide audience (KJV) listen (KJV)
Acts 13:20 about four (Geneva, NKJV) about the space of four (KJV)
Acts 13:22 will do (Geneva, NKJV) shall fulfill (KJV)
Acts 13:35 wilt not (Geneva) shalt no (KJV) will not (NKJV)
Acts 13:36 with his fathers (Geneva, NKJV) unto his fathers (KJV)
Acts 14:14 But when (Geneva, NKJV) Which when (KJV)
Acts 14:15 O men (Geneva) Sirs (KJV) Men (NKJV)
Acts 14:23 in whom (Geneva, NKJV) on whom (KJV)
Acts 14:25 to Attalia (Geneva, NKJV) into Attalia (KJV)
Acts 14:26 commended (Geneva, NKJV) recommended (KJV)
Acts 15:3 sent (Geneva, NKJV) brought (KJV)
Acts 15:7 know that (Geneva, NKJV) know how that (KJV)
Acts 15:23 and the brethren (Geneva, NKJV) and brethren (KJV)
Acts 15:25 to us (Geneva, NKJV) unto us (KJV)
Acts 15:29 from things (Geneva, NKJV) from meats (KJV)
Acts 15:40 commended (Geneva, NKJV) recommended (KJV)
Acts 16:4 to keep (Geneva, NKJV) for to keep (KJV)
Acts 16:10 to preach (Geneva, NKJV) for to preach (KJV)
Acts 16:14 things which Paul spake (Geneva) things which were spoken of Paul (KJV)
things spoken by Paul (NKJV)
Acts 16:22 them to be beaten with rods (Geneva, NKJV) to beat them (KJV)
Acts 16:31 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
Acts 16:34 household (Geneva, NKJV) house (KJV)
Acts 17:4 joined in company (Geneva) consorted (KJV) joined (NKJV)
Acts 17:6 But when they (Geneva, NKJV) And when they (KJV)
Acts 17:26 to dwell (Geneva, NKJV) for to dwell (KJV)
Acts 17:34 among whom (Geneva) among the which (KJV) among them (NKJV)
Acts 18:5 the Christ (Geneva, NKJV) Christ (KJV)
Acts 18:28 the Christ (Geneva, NKJV) Christ (KJV)
Acts 19:28 Now when they (Geneva, NKJV) And when they (KJV)
Acts 19:33 to the people (Geneva, NKJV) unto the people (KJV)
Acts 20:1 to go (Geneva, NKJV) for to go (KJV)
Acts 20:9 overcome with sleep (Geneva) sunk down with sleep (KJV) overcome by sleep (NKJV)
Acts 20:10 But Paul (Geneva, NKJV) And Paul (KJV)
Acts 20:13 Then we (Geneva, NKJV) And we (KJV)
Acts 20:28 whereof (Geneva) over the which (KJV) among which (NKJV)
Acts 21:38 the Egyptian (Geneva, NKJV) that Egyptian (KJV)
Acts 22:2 he said (Geneva, NKJV) he saith (KJV)
Acts 22:6 as I journeyed (Geneva, NKJV) as I made my journey (KJV)
Acts 22:6 near (Geneva, NKJV) nigh (KJV)
Acts 22:8 to me (Geneva, NKJV) unto me (KJV)
Acts 22:17 Syrtes (Geneva) quicksands (KJV) Syrtis Sands (NKJV)
Acts 22:20 clothes (Geneva, NKJV) raiment (KJV)
Acts 22:21 Then he (Geneva) And he (KJV) Then He (NKJV)
Acts 22:27 to him (Geneva, NKJV) unto him (KJV)
Acts 22:30 On the next day (Geneva) On the morrow (KJV) The next day (NKJV)
Acts 23:3 to him (Geneva, NKJV) unto him (KJV)
Acts 23:9 Then there (Geneva, NKJV) And there (KJV)
Acts 23:14 oath (Geneva, NKJV) curse (KJV)
Acts 23:32 And the next day (Geneva) On the morrow (KJV) The next day (NKJV)
Acts 23:34 read it (Geneva, NKJV) read the letter (KJV)
Acts 24:1 came down (Geneva, NKJV) descended (KJV)
Acts 24:4 courtesy (Geneva, NKJV) clemency (KJV)
Acts 24:11 to worship (Geneva, NKJV) for to worship (KJV)
Acts 25:30 commanded his accusers (Geneva, NKJV) gave commandment to his accusers (KJV)
Acts 25:34 had read it (Geneva) had read the letter (KJV) had read it (NKJV)
Acts 26:28 to become (Geneva, NKJV) to be (KJV)
Acts 28:21 Then they (Geneva, NKJV) And they (KJV)
Acts 28:21 any evil (Geneva, NKJV) any harm (KJV)
Acts 28:24 some were persuaded (Geneva, NKJV) some believed (KJV)
Acts 28:27 should return (Geneva) should be converted (KJV) turn (NKJV)

Askjo · Mar 13, 2011

HankD said: ↑

RE: Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:4
Well, that's a possibilty askjo and fine if you choose to believe it, but it can't be proven. Here is what is provable:

1) In Genesis 1:1 the word "created" is in the perfect tense indicating completed action. The word "heaven" is plural in both passages and both passages speak of completion of creation.

Genesis 1:1 is a the statement of creation as completed indicated by the perfect tense.

The rest of the chapter gives those details God wants us to know in their order of importance,
Genesis 2:4 reiterates that completion and then begins an expanded detail concerning Adam and Eve.

2) The provable. While this word Shayim is somewhat idiomatic, the AV is inconsistent in translating this word
with no explanations apart from subjective musings and that is the point of my post.

e.g. KJV Psalm 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice.

The ASV and NKJV translate it properly:

ASV Psalm 68:33 To him that rideth upon the heaven of heavens, which are of old; Lo, he uttereth his voice, a mighty voice.

NKJV Psalm 68:33 To Him who rides on the heaven of heavens, which were of old! Indeed, He sends out His voice, a mighty voice.

In other places the AV does translate it properly:

KJV Deuteronomy 10:14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

Any translation of the Scripture by man (apart from NT quotes of the OT involving inspiration) is flawed to one degree or another.

I don't have any pleasure in pointing out these flaws (AV or MV) except to prove a point and I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers,
but I do try to be a realist to the best of my ability when it comes to every jot and tittle of every word in the original language texts.

No translation of the Scripture is perfect (don't tell the Latin Vulgate Only folks).

HankD
Click to expand...

Genesis 1:1 -- what is heaven?

Genesis 2:1 -- what are heavens?

Ed Edwards · Mar 13, 2011

Question of the day:

Php 1:22 (KJV1769ish type edition, e-sword.com)
But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.

What does "I wot not" mean?
Answer: I don't know.
Yes, exactly correct.

Php 1:22 (Geneva Bible 1599 edition, e-sword.com):
And whether to liue in the flesh were profitable for me, and what to chuse I knowe not.

Even in 1599 the wot/wit/wot (1st person, second person, third person: singular) verb was gone from Modern English (It was a nice Middle English word. The nown 'wit' still means 'know, as intellectually').
So why did the KJV use the archaic term? So the KJV would sound biblely?

Amy.G · Mar 14, 2011

Ed Edwards said: ↑

So why did the KJV use the archaic term? So the KJV would sound biblely?
Click to expand...

I wot not. :laugh::laugh:

Mexdeaf · Mar 14, 2011

Amy.G said: ↑

I wot not. :laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...

I trow not.

Jerome · Mar 14, 2011

Ed Edwards said: ↑

Even in 1599 the wot/wit/wot (1st person, second person, third person: singular) verb was gone from Modern English
Click to expand...

How did you deduce that?

HankD · Mar 14, 2011

Askjo said: ↑

Genesis 1:1 -- what is heaven?

Genesis 2:1 -- what are heavens?
Click to expand...

Hmm, thought I had answered this askjo but it seems to have disappeared.

My answer was that in both these passages the word for "heaven/heavens" is plural.

That is the primary issue.

Presumably it is dual plural because it signifies the "heaven" where the birds fly (the atmosphere) and the vault or canopy of "heaven" where we see the sun, moon and stars dwell (outer space).

HankD

stilllearning · Mar 14, 2011

Hello franklinmonroe

Sorry for the delay in responding to your question, but I am in the middle of a family emergency at this very moment;
But I have found some free time, so here is my response.

First of all, many people might question, that with all the catastrophic things that are happening all over the world right now, why waste our time talking about the accuracy of our Bible?
(Well this is a perfect time!)

Because the only answers to all of life’s problems are found in God’s Word; Therefore it is important that we KNOW that it can be trusted!
--------------------------------------------------
You asked..........

“What about this specific missing Greek word in current KJV translations at Matthew 18:6? There are 37 English words in the AV text representing 29 Greek words (of which at least 2 are completely untranslated). Greek below from Stephanus 1550 TR (my bold)”
Click to expand...

We have crossed swords before, so you know that you can’t expect me to respond from a preponderance of knowledge, in the area of the original languages.
As I have said many times before, my study of the original languages is mainly limited to the Strongs definitions.

The first thing I did was to take an extra close look at Matthew 18:6, and I discovered that the word “millstone” was identified by 2 corresponding Greek words........
(1) “moo’-los” (millstone) and
(2) “on-ik-os” (The word you discovered to be “untranslated”
-So you were right: “on-ik-os” was left untranslated!-

I also discovered, that the root word for “on-ik-os” is “on’-os”(ass)!
-So you were right again!-

I.e. A Greek word, that Jesus spoke in Matthew 18:6, was not included in this verse, when it was translated into English.
--------------------------------------------------
Therefore, as I often do, when faced with a question of this caliber, I turned to someone who was more educated than myself.

Here is what John Gill says about this.......
“The mill stone, in the original, is called mulov onikov, which may be rendered "the ass mill stone," being either the nether mill stone, as some think, which was called "the ass," because, like an ass, it bears the chief of the weight and burden; or else respects such mill stones as were turned about by an ass, in distinction from those that were turned by the hand; for that it was usual with the Jews to make use of asses in grinding, as well as other nations, is certain: hence we read {a} of ayxyr armx "the ass of mills," that were employed in grinding in the mills, and of one that turned his mill with wild asses {b}: but it is further to be observed, that mention is made {c} of dy lv Myxr lv rwmx, "the ass of an handmill": which the commentators say {d}, was a beam on which an handmill was fixed, and was called "the ass." Now, I should rather think that this is meant than the other. It does not seem likely that a nether mill stone, or one that required an ass to turn it, should be tied to a man’s neck, in order to drown him, when cast into the sea; for our Lord must be thought to refer to a practice somewhere in use: but rather, that such a beam, or log, of an handmill, so called, were wont to be put about the necks of malefactors, in drowning them. Our Lord’s sense is, that it was much better for a man to endure the severest temporal punishment, rather than by offending, and evil treating any of his disciples, expose himself to everlasting destruction. The phrase of having a mill stone about the neck, I find, is sometimes used to denote anything very troublesome and burdensome {e}.”

As you can see, we are not the first Christians to be faced with this question.

So the answer seems to be; That the reason the translators of the KJB did not include this particular Greek word, when translating this verse, was because it would have be redundant.
--------------------------------------------------
Now for the bigger question; Does this constitute “a mistake”, in the KJB?

You know, the way that I would frame this question is.......
“Does this mean that God, was unable to perfectly preserve His Word for His people?”
(Does this decision, to not include this word in Matthew 18:6, rise to the level of casting doubt upon the perfection of God’s Word?)

I didn’t think, that I would be able to come up with another way of putting this question, but I did.....
“Am I going to allow this knowledge, to destroy my faith in God’s Word?”

No I won’t!
--------------------------------------------------
I won’t........because my faith in the Bible(the KJB), rests in three areas:
(1) I trust it unconditionally, because for the last 30 years, as I have been personally studying it, God Himself has used it’s words to touch and change my life(personally), and the lives of an untold number of people that I have used it to minister to.

(2) I trust it unconditionally, because for 280 years or so, it was the only Bible that most English speaking Christians used, with “no complaints”.
(I have said this before and people have asked for proof of this statement.)

Well for the last 100 years or so, the MV’s have been becoming more and more popular, so this statement isn’t true for about that period of time.
And in the 1600's when the KJB was first introduced; It didn’t find immediate popularity, among the majority of Christians, so we can say that this statement wasn’t true for that time period.

But(and this is a fact), as more and more Christians were exposed to it, it GAINED in popularity! And continued to gain in popularity for 200 years.
Now, if indeed the KJB was the sham, that most of it’s detractors say it is, this would not have happened.

(3) And thirdly, I trust it unconditionally, because I have been OPEN, for the Lord to break me from it, and to guide me into using some MV; And although I really like the Amplified Bible(the one I have), I am simply not hearing from the Lord at all, about making this change; And He speaks to me every day!

As I have always said, I don’t care what MV people use, as long as that “use only ONE”.
If anybody uses more than one English version, it will chip away at their faith in God’s preserved Word.
--------------------------------------------------
Did you realize, that your faith can be being chipped away at, and you might not even realize it.
Faith, is one of those things, that we can “have”, but “not have”, at the same time........
Mark 9:24
“And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”
--------------------------------------------------

I apologize franklinmonroe, because I know that this is not the answer that you were hoping for.
And you will probably accuse me of being unteachable, in this area; And as I have stated you are right.

For me, the Bible(the KJB), is a Rock, that I am building my life and eternity upon, for the three reasons that I have stated.

Have a great day

stilllearning · Mar 15, 2011

Hello C4K

Thanks for waiting for my response to your question.

You asked........

“Now you have me confused. First you say that changing the words is bad, then you say that you use an edition of the KJV that changes the words of 1 John 5v12.
So was that change good?”
Click to expand...

You shouldn’t be confused, because you know where I stand on this issue.

There are “good” changes, just as there are “bad” changes.

The “change”, that you discovered in the very first edition of the KJB in 1John 5:12, is a good change.

You may notice, how I framed the word “change”: Because this really wasn’t a “change”:
(Any more than correcting a “typo”, is a change.)
--------------------------------------------------
This all came about because of the statement that I made........

“All of the changes made in the KJB from 1611 to 1769, were simply correcting typo’s or misspelled words.”
Click to expand...

Then you pointed out the words missing from 1John 5:12, in it’s first edition.

Well upon further reflection of this “mistake”, I have come to the conclusion, that it was also a typo.

Because their was no other reason, for these words to have been left out of Verse 12, and then replace in the next edition!
--------------------------------------------------
Which brings me to the “bad” changes made in the Bible.

Bad changes are changes made, in light of flawed logic.
I call it flawed logic, because logic dictates that if we once had a perfect English Bible, than it would be impossible for us to suddenly(in 1881), come to the conclusion that the Bible is no longer perfect.

If we could travel back in time 200 years(to the year 1811), and speak to average English speaking Christians, that were sound in their faith and loved the Lord, and were to ask them....”Is your Bible perfect”?
I am sure, that 100% of them would shout “YES IT IS”!

Now you might be able to find some Bible scholars of that time, that would have other opinions, but that doesn’t mean anything. (There have always been unbelievers.)
--------------------------------------------------
You might ask me; “How can I know for sure, that average Christians in 1811, would answered in this way?”
Well, because the Church is still here and I got saved.

If what happened in 1881, had happened in 1781 and been accepted like it was from 1881-1901, the Christian Church as we know it, would not be in existence today!

The Church moves on Faith, and the declaration made in 1881, that was then supported by BB Warfield, dealt a devastating blow to the Rock that the Churches faith is based upon.

Now I know, that people will say that the Rock, the Church is based upon is Christ; And they would be right.
But after accepting Christ, the Church must grow(not in numbers, but in individual maturity); And for us to grow in the Grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, we must have faith, in the Bible that we study.
--------------------------------------------------
This long held notion, that the copies are not inspired, as the originals were, was limited to a few unbelieving Bible scholars, for centuries;

But as time passed, a perfect opportunity presented itself in the late 1800's, when the world was being impressed with so many modern scientific discoveries and inventions, that a certain segment of the Church was ready to be introduced, to a “new and improved” Bible.
--------------------------------------------------
The Changes that resulted from Wescott & Hort’s work, were BAD changes!

Because they were not made, to correct archaic or misspelled words;
But they were made, to “correct the Bible”!

The established Bible, that God had given the English speaking Church, from 1611/1769, needed no correction.

Rippon · Mar 15, 2011

stilllearning said: ↑

But(and this is a fact), as more and more Christians were exposed to it, it GAINED in popularity! And continued to gain in popularity for 200 years.
Now, if indeed the KJB was the sham, that most of it’s detractors say it is, this would not have happened.
Click to expand...

Who are these detractors? Do you regard Bible scholars,who,upon solid evidence, detect errors in the TR to be detractors?

Who is calling the KJV a sham? Are you copying Robert Snow's misuse of the word?

As I have always said, I don’t care what MV people use, as long as that “use only ONE”.
If anybody uses more than one English version, it will chip away at their faith in God’s preserved Word.
Click to expand...

Where are you coming up with this nonsense SL? Why must folks use only one translation -- one "version" of the original? Who says that will chip away at their faith? You and KJVO extremists? That's utter rubbish. Have you considered the possibility that it would help believers to use and compare several versions? Do you disregard the wisdom of Miles Smith in his famous Preface to the KJV?

Rippon · Mar 15, 2011

Speaking Of Logic...

stilllearning said: ↑

If we could travel back in time 200 years(to the year 1811), and speak to average English speaking Christians, that were sound in their faith and loved the Lord, and were to ask them....”Is your Bible perfect”?
I am sure, that 100% of them would shout “YES IT IS”!

Now you might be able to find some Bible scholars of that time, that would have other opinions, but that doesn’t mean anything. (There have always been unbelievers.)
Click to expand...

So,you are claiming that if Bible scholars don't believe that the KJ Version of the original is perfect then they rate as unbelievers in your estimation! What gall you have SL. Believing in the perfection of a Bible version does not constitute saving faith.

The Church moves on Faith, and the declaration made in 1881, that was then supported by BB Warfield, dealt a devastating blow to the Rock that the Churches faith is based upon.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea how wrong you are about B.B.Warfield. He was a bulwark against liberalism. He was a staunch defender of the Faith once delivered. You need to read up on his works Stilllearning.

The Changes that resulted from Wescott & Hort’s work, were BAD changes!

Because they were not made, to correct archaic or misspelled words;
But they were made, to “correct the Bible”!
Click to expand...

The English of the Revised Version was poor. But generally the changes were indeed improvements. if you are going to beat up on W&H,I suggest you take your animosity somewhere else with other folks who believe all those conspiracy theories.

The established Bible, that God had given the English speaking Church, from 1611/1769, needed no corrections.
Click to expand...

On the contrary...

Rippon · Mar 15, 2011

Stilllearning,you have responded to several posts which were after mine (#62). Do you find the information too tough to deal with?

Words, DO matter

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

robycop3 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

stilllearning Active Member

stilllearning Active Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Askjo New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Amy.G New Member

Mexdeaf New Member

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

stilllearning Active Member

stilllearning Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Words, DO matter

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

robycop3 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

franklinmonroe Active Member

stilllearning Active Member

stilllearning Active Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Askjo New Member

Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

Amy.G New Member

Mexdeaf New Member

Jerome Well-Known Member Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

stilllearning Active Member

stilllearning Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

robycop3 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Logos1560 Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Jerome Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter