The Words vs. the Message

I suspect this will get slammed shut and viewed as another attempt at KJV vs all others
I also predict that the same old arguments will be offered about which words are right, and which edition of the KJV is right and which manuscript is right and where was God's words BEFORE 1611 and blah blah blah.

But they will not really deal with your valid question, will they?

 

Unfortunately, there seems to be some ignorance
(not knowing, not a judgemental term) regarding
MAGIC.

magic - the use of words, spells, and rituals in
seeking or pretending to cause or
control events, or govern certain natural or
supernatural forces

'Magic' is a Pagan religion.
A 'witch' is female of the magic religion.
A 'warlock' is a male of the magic religion.

Deuternomy 18:10-12 (KJV1611 Edition):
There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his sonne,
or his daughter to passe thorow the fire,
or that vseth diuination, or an obseruer of times,
or an inchanter, or a witch,
Deu 18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits,
or a wyzard, or a Necromancer.
Deu 18:12 For all that do these things,
are an abomination vnto the Lord: and because
of these abominations, the Lord thy God doth
driue them out from before thee.

So I damn in God's Name (on God's behalf) such Pagan abominations
as to suggest that God's Holy Written Words contain
mere 'magic', mere 'words' when, in fact, the
very message of God, the message of eternal life;
the Living Word of God: Messiah Jesus, is the end and means
of Salvation to mankind. The individual words contain no
magic, but the message the words relay is from God to we
who have accepted THE MESSAGE leading to our own
individual salvation.

 

Not only is the O.P an abomination before God,
it is also incorrect.

'word' at dictionary.com , bolding by Ed:
–noun
1. a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken
sounds or their written representation,that functions as
a principal carrier of meaning. Words are composed
of one or more morphemes and are either the smallest
units susceptible of independent use or consist of two
or three such units combined under certain linking
conditions, as with the loss of primary accent that distinguishes blackʹbirdʹ from blackʹ birdʹ. Words are usually
separated by spaces in writing, and are
distinguished phonologically, as by accent, in many languages.

...

10. (initial capital letter) Also called the Word, the Word of God.
a. the Scriptures; the Bible.
b. the Logos.
c. the message of the gospel of Christ.

...

 

We have the example recently posted where one Bible translation into another language reads, "Behold, I stand at the door and COUGH" insteada "knock" as the Greek reads in English. Why? Because, to the users of that language, to knock upon another's door is an insult, or a method a thief uses to see if anyone's home...while one COUGHS if trying to legitimately contact whoever's behind that door. In that case, the MESSAGE is carried by different words than the Greek or English carries.

Now, what if a modern English retained the KJV's use of "prevent"? The message would then be altered, wouldn't it? What if an MV used "let" as the KJV does? Again, the message would be entirely different!

In these cases, and many others, the MESSAGE DICTATED THE CHOICE OF WORDS, according to the TIME in which each version was made.

And how important is a group of words if that group carries no MESSAGE?

 

Here is God's words on individual salvation.
But you will be hard pressed to get God's message unless
you know a bit of Latin.

Romans 10:9 (The Latin Vulgate):
quia si confitearis in ore tuo Dominum Iesum
et in corde tuo credideris quod Deus illum
excitavit ex mortuis salvus eris

 

I'm going to make 1611jim mad and deal with your question...or at least try to...

Where's the dividing line? I would agree that words mean things, and that there can be a corruption of the message by a corruption of the words.

But my question is, at what point does "corruption" occur? If one word is changed? (as in differing editions/revisions of KJV) If punctuation is changed? (as in differing editions/revisions of KJV)

If a reader of the word mistakenly says "You" instead of "ye," does that corrupt the Word of God? How is the message changed, if contextually the 2nd person plural pronoun is understood?

point by point:

Fair enough...changing "the" to "a" is substantive. But a couple of points:
1. No translation does this--a non sequitur.
2. What if instead of "the" to "a," someone in reciting the verse mistakenly changed "the root of all evil" to "the root of every evil?" Does that corrupt the Word? You see, some words in Scripture can affect a message more than another. It's why preachers spend more time in a sermon on one word versus another--it carries more meaning.

Example: Luke 2:9 from the Christmas story:

"And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid."

Now...if a modern version changes "round about" to "all around," how does that compromise the Gospel message if that is an exact 21st century equivalent to "round about?"

This was dealt with earlier...but furthermore...the KJV talks about faith from all angles...faith in Christ included! (Galatians 3:26). So...the KJV does not exclude faith "in" Christ. The NIV in Ephesians 6 refers to faith from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ...so there Christ is the SOURCE of faith...just like in the KJV! Philippians 1 talks about faith "of" the Gospel of Christ.

So they both reference faith in and faith of. Were there a corrupt scheme in place, I would expect all references to be deleted. House of cards, my friend.

Straw man. I believe in OSAS, and use more recent versions. I know many Christians who use the KJV alone, and do not believe in OSAS (I disagree with them). You can't tie version usage to this issue.

Finally...as has been discussed before...we run into a great deal of trouble when we leave the English tongue. Just ask John of Japan why the KJVO issue does him absolutely no good in Japan.

avbunyan, I appreciate your respectful tone and civility in which you bring your points to the table. You have done a good job here of dealing with issues, and not ad hominem attacks. Keep it up. (let's see that from "both sides!")

 

For the importance of individual LETTERS in the
KJVs see IN AWE OF THY WORD, Understanding the
King James Bible its Mystery & History, Letter by Letter
(A.V. Publications Group, 2003) page 109.

That is an argument about Gail Riplinger's misunderstanding
of the meaning of 'letters' similiar to the
misunderstanding of 'words' above.
Neither argument shows that the KJVs are
any better a Bible than any other English Version.

 

I believe someone is confusing the word with THE WORD. When the WORD became flesh, it was not the words you see written in the book.

 

A lotta confusion has been caused by people trying to fit a word whose meaning has changed since it was used in the KJV, into a newer version, ignoring its changed definition, and using that word to declare a newer translation of a Greek or Hebrew word or phrase wrong. A classic example is "study" in 2 Timothy 2:15. The Greek word the KJV renders 'study" here is 'spoudazo' which means "strive, endeavor, work diligently". Now in 1611, one definition of 'study' was same as the definition of 'spoudazo' and is thus correct in the KJV. However, OUR main use of 'study' as a verb is "to examine closely with the object of learning", which is NOT an interpretation of 'spoudazo'. Therefore, later translators rendered 'spoudazo' in the language contemporary for THEIR times.

We see "Study to be quiet in 1 Thess. 4:11, and here the Greek 'philotimeomai' certainly means 'strive to make something happen'. The AV mens' use of 'study' here clearly shows its 1611 meaning that's no longer in much use. To use 'study' in such a manner in a MV would certainly be confusing if not downright incorrect. Thus, the change in wording from 'study' to 'endeavor' isn't merely a change for change's sake; it's called for by the changes in the language.

 

Yep, in English both are 'word'.
But in Greek sounding English words we have:


Logos - the Living WORD of God, Messiah Jesus

Rhema - the Written WORD of God, the Holy Bible.

 

Kowabunga, Dude!

Now, if only certain well-meaning folks would remember that active languages(and the words within them) change over time....

Ex...If I wereta've typed in what we now call chatroom-Ese in HS, I woulda been considered a dunce...no, wait...that's SPELLINGNESS-CHALLENGED!

 

Disagree all you want but the critical factor of words is that they transmit a message accurately. In human terms, there will always be an issue of which words do that best. The only exception to this rule was the original words inspired by God and directly supervised by Him. Those words in Greek, Hebrew, and possibly Aramaic make up the only text ever written in any language with no possibility of improvement.

God did not likewise inspire the words of the KJV. It is a faithful version of God's Word only insomuch as it accurately communicates the meaning of the originals to the reader. If the reader doesn't understand it well then it is perfectly legitimate for them to use a version that likewise transmits that message in a language that they do understand.

The words are important... but not because there is only one way of accurately expressing God's Word in English.

Seldom in all of scripture do the words "word" or "words" refer to individual units of speech. Predominantly they refer to "saying" or "sayings", ie "message".

And you think God intended for us to bicker over the letter of the law while ignoring the "message" the way the Pharisees did? Goodness NO.

Believe what? Writings. What is significant there? That they debate over exactly what Moses wrote or that they obeyed the message God revealed through him?

The answer is very obvious.

Without a great deal of doubt (considering passages like Luke 4:18 v Isa 61:1), the words used in the scrolls used by Jews in Jesus' day were not facsimiles of what was written by the OT authors. Jesus quite notably didn't make an issue of it.

How do you keep someone's "words" as in individual units of speech? Write them in your notebook and put them in your safe?

No. You keep His "sayings, message, commands, intents, will, revealed truth". If you want to keep His individual units of speech then you need to learn at least 3 new languages to the point where you use them exclusively in your religious life.

JESUS NEVER SPOKE A WORD IN ENGLISH DURING HIS EARTHLY MINISTRY. THEREFORE, NOT A SINGLE WORD IN THE KJV WAS A WORD HE SPOKE. Same for every other word written in the original texts.

If it is words by the definition that you insist then there is no such thing as a valid translation. They are all necessarily corrupt because they are all translation works of men by the intelligence of men. There is absolutely no evidence that the KJV translators or any other legitimate translator claimed inspiration or had it. Only the cults like JW's and Mormons claim such.

OTOH, virtually all of these texts support and affirm accurate translations if you respect the context and apply the correct definition of "word" (ie. message, saying, revelation, will, intent, purpose, etc).

Do you really want to apply that rule to the KJV?

If so, please tell me about "God forbid" in the book of Romans. Please explain to us the variants within the last 7 verses of Revelation and in particular the 2nd occurrence of "book" in verse 19 which has absolutely NO Greek support at all. It entered the TR through Erasmus who lacked the passage in Greek and so back translated his RCC Latin Vulgate to recreate the passage.

That by definition must be "corrupt" right? A text with no Greek support whose origin was a RCC scholar referencing an RCC Bible.

If the message is important... this "corruption" in no way corrupts the KJV as the "Word of God". However if every single word is absolutely critical... then you should immediately discard your KJV Bible for it is without question corrupt by your definition.

 

Logos doesn't always refer to Christ. It often refers to the scriptures.

If I understand right, rhema is much more flexible like our word "word". Logos seldom relates to individual units of speech, right?

Working off memory here... I've intentionally ignored this non-sense for the most part recently.

 

Then according to your line of reasoning, the words are most important while the message is only secondary. That would mean that we all need to learn Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. After all, the form of the words in English is always different that the form of the words in the originals.

 

That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of their's of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God:

as the King's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendar maculis, etc.

A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all,)

also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand; yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars.
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
For what ever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

PREFACE TO THE KJV

 

Here is God's words on individual salvation.
But you will be hard pressed to get God's message unless
you know a bit of Western Apache.

Romans 10:9 (Western Apache):
Nize'di', Jesus sheBikehn hoshdlaa,
nniiyugo, la'iiBik'ehgo'ihinan Jesus daztsaadi'
nayihilna'ii nijii yune' hondlaayugo hasdannah doleel.

(Western Apachee has three different 'a' symbols
two of which are not distinguishable in the internet
character set. So i've use the same 'a' symbol
for all three.)

 

The KJV was a revision of the earlier 1568 Bishops' Bible. The first rule given the KJV translators was: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." Are you claiming or implying that if there were any individual words in the Bishops' Bible that were errors or corruptions, that the entire message of the Bishops' Bible became corrupt, and that the KJV was thus a revision of a corrupt Bible?

Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets [or italics]” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57). Concerning the Bishops‘ Bible, Scrivener asserted that “it is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase” (Authorized Edition, p. 62). Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text” (History, p. 286). The following examples should support and confirm the above statements. Some of the additions may have first been added in the Great Bible or another earlier English Bible. The Bishops’ Bible added the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“ More Old Testament examples could be given.


More such examples of additions are also found in its New Testament. Would Bradley, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates consider the Bishops' Bible's addition at John 18:13 ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"] to be a faithful or perfect translation? At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “by any means“ at Luke 10:19, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“

The actual facts concerning the Bishops’ Bible raise some interesting questions. If the KJV kept one or more of the additions found in the Bishops’ Bible, should it have kept them all? Are any of these examples of over-translation where the translators added words without valid support from the text? Would these additions in the Bishops’ Bible be considered “foreign matter?“ Can the water of the Bishops’ Bible poured into the KJV be both salt water and fresh? If the water of the Bishops’ Bible was mixed with any additions, impurities, errors, or mistranslations, by what miraculous process were they removed perfectly as that water was poured into the KJV? When the KJV translators kept some of these additions from the Bishops’ Bible, did God also add them to His Word in Heaven according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning? Would Ruckman consider these examples part of the “genuine work of updating and revision from the Bishops” (Differences, p. 5)? Some of these examples would seem to be dynamic equivalencies according to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning. How many words are found in the Bishops’ Bible that are left out of the KJV? On what authority and consistent basis did the KJV translators remove added words found in the Bishops’ Bible at some verses but keep the added words at other verses? According to KJV-only reasoning, was the KJV a revision of an earlier English Bible that had many dynamic equivalencies? According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning, was the KJV a revision of an earlier Bible that was not self-attesting and self-authenticating? According to a consistent application of some KJV-only claims, was the KJV a revision of an earlier English Bible made by “crooked thieving Bible correctors” or “Bible correcting wolves in sheep’s clothing?” According to KJV-only reasoning, was the KJV a revision of an earlier English Bible that was not profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness?


Is the Bishops' Bible rendering at Ecclesiastes 11:1 ["Lay thy bread upon wet faces"] more accurate or more faithful than that of the Geneva Bible ["Cast thy bread upon the waters"]? At Ecclesiastes 12:1, the Bishops’ Bible began the verse: “Remember thy maker the sooner in thy youth.” It rendered Psalm 19:2 as follows: “A day occasioneth talk thereof unto a day: and a night teaches knowledge unto a night.” It began the second verse of Psalm 23 as follows: “He will cause me to repose myself in pasture full of grass.“ Its rendering of Job 41:7 was: “Canst thou fill the basket with his skin or the fish panier with his head?” Its translation of Job 7:12 was: “Am I a sea, or a whale fish, that thou keepest me so in prison? At Acts 1:3, the Bishops’ Bible has “many tokens” where the Geneva Bible has “many infallible tokens.“ The Bishops’ Bible has “Whitsuntide” (1 Cor. 16:8) where the Geneva has “Pentecost.“ At John 11:4, “infirmity” is the Bishops’ rendering where the Geneva has “sickness.“ Is the Bishops’ Bible rendering at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 6:11 [“And some such like you were”] superior to the Geneva Bible rendering [“And such were some of you”]? Is the Bishops’ Bible rendering near the end of 1 Corinthians 8:1 [“knowledge maketh a man swell”] better than the Geneva Bible rendering [“knowledge puffeth up“]? At the end of Luke 23:40, the Bishops’ Bible has “damnation” where the Geneva Bible has “condemnation.“ Is the Bishops’ Bible rendering “Jews’ Easter” at John 11:55 an improvement over the Geneva Bible rendering “Jews’ Passover?“ Is the Bishops’ Bible reading “his father” at Luke 2:33 better than the Geneva Bible reading “Joseph?“ Are all the renderings of this English foundation for the KJV faithful, perfect, pure, and true as some KJV-only authors claimed? Can KJV-only advocates explain the Holy Spirit’s role in all these renderings found in the English foundation of the KJV? It should be clear that the Holy Spirit’s guiding of the translators of the Bishops’ Bible did not result in perfect translating or result in an improvement over the Geneva Bible at every verse. Can KJV-only advocates explain how their claims about the doctrine of preservation apply to all these renderings in this earlier English Bible of which the KJV was a revision?

 

I often believe our words or language is one of our biggest hadicaps or limitation when trying to fully understand, comprehend or experience GOD. Words are only part of the message and a small part at that. God is much, much more than what is written to man and even John pointed out that Jesus did and said more things that could ever be written in a book.

When we worship or try to understand God we naturally fall back on our best understanding which is usually based on our language. But God is Spirit, and we are to worship and know him in Spirit.

Think on this, why does man need an intercessor? Why would God value a prayer that contains only moanings? Why would our thoughts be so important that Jesus would say if you think your brother dead you are guilty of murder? Why is it man has Gods word yet can't obey or live according to his will?