The MOST dangerous profession....

Most of the time either a KJV or an ESV. When studying, I check both for accuracy against the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic as best I can. In the case of this verse, my ESV gets it right and my KJV gets it wrong.

I know it's a big deal to you. It is to me, too. That's why when I look and see that every ancient Greek Bible has "tree of life" I have to conclude that that is what God breathed out to John.

Andy </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, you trusted what your Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic said. And how can you truly trust them as that most, if not all original manuscripts are lost. As I think about this, it really is a blessing that I believe in the King James Bible for authority in faith and practice. I go to it to judge everything. If God wanted us to have the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, he would have provided it to us today, in our language, so that we could refer to it. Half of the people that I and probably you know, do not speak these languages.

 

So did the KJV translators [snipped]. Oh wait ... you trust the KJV translators who trusted the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts but you call people who trust the manuscripts wrong??? That doesn't even make sense ...

Except to judge whether you KJVO doctrine is right. The reason we know that you don't use the KJV as your final authority for everything is that your KJVO is found nowhere in there, but you still believe it. Therefore, you have some authority besides your KJV.

This is hilarious. It really made me laugh. God would have provided the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic in our language????? Are you kidding me??? If it was our language, then it wouldn't be Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. This is totally illogical. I think Ravi Zecharias refers to something like this as a one-ended stick.

The truth is that God has provided the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts for us. I have them here. If you would like to see what God has preserved, there are a number of places you can get them. God did what he said he would do. The fact that you can't read that language is your own fault. I can and many many others who took the time can. Don't develop false doctrines because you are unwilling to do the hardwork of Bible study.

[ December 30, 2003, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

But in being KJVO you have done just that. YOu have supported those who removed (or added words) based on what seems likely to them. REad the history of the TR and the translation of the KJV and you will see that words and phrases were added or removed based on what seems likely to them. That is the only way to do it, since there are variants in the texts.

Why didn't you quote the verse above this one??

Revelation 22:18 18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

This verse seems to condemn the KJV which has added many words to the book.

Truth be told, neither verse applies to faithful translations such as teh KJV, the NASB, the NIV, the ESV, and the NKJV, as well as some others. Let's dispense with this and get on to the text istself.

 

Well, let's see. We don't have the originals but we do have a whole bunch of ancient Greek Bibles (i.e., manuscripts). Each of these Bibles read "tree of life." None of them say anything else. Hmmm, I wonder what the original must have said?

Andy

 

Andy,

That's easy. Whatever the KJV said must be what the originals said...

Forget about what the ancient mss said. According to the militant KJVO's, one would think the KJV was the original autograph and what we should judge all Hebrew and Greek mss by. According to them, the Bible was written in 1611. Or at least that is the feeling I get from their posts here.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Taking away words from the text can affect the meaning.

For instance I dealt with that fact in the KJV Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

In the NASB it is correctly translated that Jesus was made for a "little while" lower than the angels.

"Little while" is in all the Greek texts, TR and non-TR.

The NKJV leaves out the "little while" as well.
This gives the appearance of leaning toward Arianisn and IMO needs to be changed.

HankD

 

Bro. Tim,

Are you forming a TR-only stand as opposed to a translation (KJV) only stand? Of course, you realize that the KJV is a translation, right? Just want some clarification here.

Thanks,

Jason

 

Being a (recently)former KJVO, I was led to believe that since we have the KJV and don't have the originals, that the KJV was not only more important than the originals, but the Greek could be corrected with the KJV. Perhaps just a little glitch in my own corner of KJV-dom.

Jason

 

The rest of my paragraph that you omitted showed how ... by supporting those who have done it.

Not unless you support the Eclectic text and the NASB and NIV and the NKJV. God has providentially preserved and established all these texts. He never limited it to only one.

And I think it is foolhardly to look at other texts and declare then spurious or wrong when such certainty is impossible. If the KJV translators were wrong, then you are preaching something other than teh word of God. Do you not think that you should study it to find out if they were?? Or do you think that you can simply blame them for your own shortcomings?

You don't think "all these curses" are damnation???? The verses are parallel in nature.

It is not one and the same. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was attributing the works of Christ to the power of Satan. This has nothing to do with that.

Which is why I say what I do above. By being KJVO, you have made default decisions that the KJV translators were right. But if they were wrong (and they were in some cases), then you individually will be held guilty and in complicity with them.

But as a whole, I don't think this is being properly applied here. The text is not speaking of individual words, but rather about the truth of God. I think you are taking it a bit far.

But they did. The evidence shows that very clearly. And they changed it. But in being KJVO, you are complicit with them, if this verse should be applied as you say it should.

I think this application is a bit over the top. God did not see fit to preserve for us a perfect manuscript. In his providence, he preserved a multitude of various testimonies, all different from each other, to establish his word. I think it is a serious issue, but not in the manner which you brought forth here.

 

No, that is not "taking away from the words from the book of this prophecy", that is "taking away words from the book of this prophecy". You are trying to impose the meaning of the second phrase onto the first.

If it was purely about a "word count", then even translating doesn't count (which is what the Muslims believe). The KJV's NT has 180,568 words, while the Greek TR (one edition, anyway) has 140,521 words. Has the KJV added over 40,000 words, or has the TR removed over 40,000? Neither, because it's NOT about a word count, but rather about what the words mean that are there - the difference in word count is irrelevant, it's the meaning that's important.

 

aefting asked:

Perhaps it's not a big deal to you if someone modifies God's Word?

Radical KJVers like Homebound aren't really concerned about modifying God's Word, as long as the "right people" are the ones doing it.

 

You mean as long as they are Anglo-Catholic paedo-baptist transubstantiationist celebrators of the Eucharist who made it against the law to print the Bible without the Apocrypha?

HankD

 

HankD asked:

You mean as long as they are Anglo-Catholic paedo-baptist transubstantiationist celebrators of the Eucharist who made it against the law to print the Bible without the Apocrypha?

Yeah, or the occasional popish humanist who couldn't find a reading for some verses, so he just wrote in his own.

 

They *can*, under certain circumstances. But they don't always mean the same thing. You can use different words and still arrive at the same meaning. I agree that taking away words *can* affect meaning - and that's when it's wrong, when *meaning* is affected.

Ah, "ordered" collection. That's something else not yet mentioned. You were only talking about words (the verse does not mention "order"). Order can affect *meaning*, which is what I'm talking about. I like your programming example, BTW, as I am a programmer.

Would this?

"The revelation of Christ Jesus" (same words, same meaning, different order)

Another example:
Here's the KJV: "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Here's the same meaning with different words and different order: "God will take away someone's part out of the holy city and the book of life, and from the things which are written in this book, if that person will take away from the words of the book of this prophecy."

Here's the *same words* as the KJV (no words taken away!), but the meaning is different:
"And if any prophecy shall take away from the words of the book of this God, man shall take away his part out of the things of life, and out of the holy book, and from the book which are written in this city."

What is the most important? The exact words, the exact order, or the meaning? The meaning.

Even comparing the KJV to the TR, we see the TR has 33 words and the KJV has 44 words (and in a different order). Different words, different order, same meaning.

 

Same thing happens when going from the Hebrew to Greek in NT quotations (in the greek MSS) when Jesus read from a "book".

Luke 4
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

(31 words in the TR Greek-Scrivener).

Isaiah 61
1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, ...

(24 words Hebrew Masora)

Also note that Jesus read from a version which adds the words "and recovering of sight to the blind" NOT FOUND in the Masoretic text but FOUND in the LXX:

LXX Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind

Any KJVO Comments?

HankD