What's wrong with "bishop" and "bishopric"? Nothing!

translation and How do we know?

Hi Mexdeaf. I understand what you are saying and how you are seeing his example of "translating" as it is used in the Bible. However I still believe he has a good point on what the word "translate" means and how it is used in the English Bible (KJB). To "translate" literally means "to carry across", or to 'change from one place to another'. We use the word "translate" when we talk about carrying God's words across into another language. It just so happens that the word "translate" also means "to change from one place, position, or condition to another."

His point was not showing examples of where words were carried across into another language, but how people and things were changed from one position or condition to another. I think it is still a good point.

This is a very good question and I think it is central to any discussion about whether or not there exists such a thing as a preserved, complete and inerrant Bible or not.
How do we tell is God was involved in the translation? Excellent question.

I think we can see the clear hand of God in the King James Bible like no other. God cannot lie. Therefore if something claims to be the word of the Lord, then it cannot contain lies. It is like a false witness or a true witness. A true witness in a court of law has to always tell the truth. One little lie and he is discredited as being a false witness.

A false witness can tell the truth a lot of the time, but when he finally tells a lie, he is charged as a false witness.

There is much more as to why I believe we can see the sovereign hand of God in bringing forth the King James Bible in history as His pure words, but for now I'll limit myself to this one point about being either a true or a false witness. The very first article I wrote has to do with Seven ways to tell the True Bible from the False ones.

Check it out and see if any of the points make sense to you.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/7ways.html

By the way, I appreciate the fact that you are thinking about this most important issue and that you came back with some very good questions. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I will do what I can to try to address the ones you toss my way.

God bless,

Will K

 

Is there a complete and inerrant Bible or not?

Hi Annie. Thanks for getting back to me on this and for addressing the questions I asked. Again, I will take up a couple of your main points and address them separately.

So, by your own definition, you have limited the extent of what "inerrancy" means. According to your view, as I understand it, the "exact words" are not inerrant, but somehow the "doctrinal messages" are.

I assume you are aware of the fact that the various versions out there today like the RSV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard and the King James Bible differ among themselves in some cases by literally THOUSANDS of textual words, including anywhere from some 45 entire verses being omitted from the New Testament texts of some (RSV), and 17 (NIV, NASB) or 18 (ESV) whole verses omitted from others, and that not one of them agrees with any other both textually and in the actual meaning of hundreds of verses, even when they supposedly agree as to which texts to translate.

There are numerous examples of where modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman reject the clear Hebrew readings outright, and in some cases they just "make up" the text in question, and not one of these always does this in the same places. They all think the Hebrew texts have either been lost or corrupted, but they do not agree even with each other as to where or when.

So I hardly see how any of these can be considered the true and inerrant words of God. If you change, omit or add to the actual inspired texts, then you necessarily change the "message"

As for all these modern versions teaching the same "doctrinal messages", that is hardly the case at all. For example, the NASB teaches that God was DECEIVED by the children of Israel in Psalm 78:36, but the KJB, NIV, ESV, NKJV and even the previous ASV do not teach this. Does the NASB translation tell the truth there and give us correct doctrinal theology about Who God is? The NASB portrays Jesus Himself as being a liar in John 7:8-10 when He says He is NOT going to the feast, and then He does go. But the NIV, NKJV do not have that problem there.

Then the NIV, along with the RSV, ESV teaches that Jesus Christ has "origins" in Micah 5:2, but the NASB, NKJV, ASV and KJB do not, but that He is eternal and from everlasting. Which one gives us the "inerrant doctrinal message"? The NIV also teaches that there was a certain day when God became the Father of the Son of God (just like the JW version) in Acts 13:33, whereas the NASB, ESV, NKJV and KJB refer to the resurrection of Christ from the dead when He was begotten from the dead and became the "first begotten from the dead" (Rev. 1:5).

I have found some serious doctrinal problems with every modern version out there, and they prove themselves to be false witnesses to the Truth of God. You may not agree with me on these, but for those who are interested I put together a study about "No Doctrines Are Changed?" It can be seen here.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

So, basically what you seem to be saying is that there really is not such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language on the earth today. Is this a fair summary of what you believe about "The Bible"?

I will also address the other interesting point you brought up.
Thank you,

Will K

 

"the Book of the Lord" and where is it?

Hi Annie. Now we get to a very interesting question you bring up. Basically you are asking us Where was the perfect, complete and inspired book of the LORD before 1611. Right?

I first posted:
God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away.
And then you came back with:

Annie, I believe that what you and all the other "No Bible is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God" folks are missing is not taking into account the Sovereign God of the universe acting in history to bring about His perfect and preserved Book, according to His promises.


Again, let me address this issue in two parts, OK/

Here is the first part.

Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their "bibles", nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.

Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this "scholarly process" Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.

I often hear objections raised by "scholars" who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: "Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?" or "What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?". Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.

Don't the "scholars" who put together the constant barrage of "new and improved, based on the latest findings" type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don't the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps their's will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be "the closest to the originals" of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).

Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this "scholarly process" and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don't get it.

The indebtedness of the King James Bible translators to their predecessors is recognized most clearly in the Preface to the reader where they state in no uncertain terms: "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.

I'll get to the second part of my answer to you about "Where was the complete "book of the LORD" before 1611? in a moment.

God bless,
Will K

 

Does the King James Bible only position "blow up"?

Does the KJV only position “blow up”?

“Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD, and read” - Isaiah 34:16

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” - 1 Corinthians 1:19

The one argument the “No Bible is inerrant” crowd continually throws in our face as being unanswerable is this: “Where was the perfect and inerrant Bible before 1611?”

Here are some direct quotes from a seminarian who thinks this question completely destroys our position. He writes: “I must ask you this in return, where was the Word of God prior to the KJV being written? This is where your position blows up at. You MUST claim that God didn't write an infallible Bible until 1611 if you hold to all of this. Can you name where the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God existed before the KJV was translated?" The answer needs to stay consistent with your position. Don't say they were found here or there. You MUST, to be consistent, say a specific Bible in a specific language that the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God" were located.”

Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and inerrant Bible in ANY language (including their Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and inerrant Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions. They don’t defend any of their modern versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, NKJV or Holman Standard as being the inerrant words of God in contrast to the other versions. Most of them don’t claim to have an inerrant Bible but they take offense at our claim that we do.

There are only three options open to them. #1. “Only the originals were inspired and inerrant.” It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible and they have not seen a single word of these “originals” a day in their lives. It also leaves us without a perfect and inerrant Bible NOW.

#2. “All reliable bible versions (NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, KJV, Spanish, German etc.) are the inerrant words of God.” How someone with the discernment of lime jello can say such a thing is beyond me, but I do run into this type of nonsense. These versions differ among themselves by omitting or adding literally THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament alone, and the modern versions change the meanings of hundreds of verses and often reject the Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places as the others. Not one of them agrees textually with any other in scores if not thousands of places. Try arguing that they are all “the inerrant words of God” before a court of law or even a high school debating team and you will be laughed out of the room.

#3 There really is a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible and history and the internal evidence points to the Authorized King James Bible as being the Final Written Authority and the true words of the living God. You only have these three options. There is no other alternative.

There is a huge difference between the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God. As God says in Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Far as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

And again God says in 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

I readily admit that “the book of the LORD” (the Holy Bible) was in a rather lengthly process of being perfected and brought to full maturity, but I and thousands of other Bible believers hold that the final product was and is the King James Bible. In general terms the Bible versions that existed before the perfection of the King James Bible followed the same Hebrew texts and the traditional Greek texts. For example, you will find 1 John 5:7 in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1560 to 1602. However there was no perfect and inerrant Bible until God brought forth His finished product in the King James Bible.

“God calls those things that be not as though they were”

I believe that those who say there must have been a perfect Bible before the King James Bible or our position falls to the ground as being inconsistent are guilty of using the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of God, and their thinking is decidedly unbiblical.

Was there a perfect Bible consisting of the present 66 book canon in the year 90 A.D? No. Not all of it had even been written yet. Why is it that the God of history didn’t allow the invention of the printing press until around 1455 A.D? Most Christians didn’t even have an opportunity to have their own copy of any printed Bible till around 1550.

In the wisdom of God something can be in the process or even non-existent and yet God calls it done. This is totally contrary to the wisdom and ways of men. God refers to “the book of the LORD” before it is even finished and certainly before it was gathered into one single volume.

Read through the 34th chapter of the prophet Isaiah. Here God records the coming judgments upon all nations when the host of heaven shall be dissolved and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll. We find similar reference to these future events in the book of the Revelation. Though none of these things had actually happened at the time Isaiah wrote them, yet God sometimes referred to these events as having already happened. - “he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.”; “my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:2, 16)

So too in this chapter we read about “the book of the LORD”. “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...” (Isaiah 34:16) What exactly was this “book of the LORD” at Isaiah’s time in history? Was it all the books of the Bible written up till the time of Isaiah? Was it just the book of Isaiah? In either case the Bible as we know it today was not a completed Book. Isaiah was still being written at this time and there yet lacked many other Old Testament books still to be written. And that’s not even mentioning the entire New Testament. Yet God calls it “the book of the LORD” and commands us to read it.

God can and does refer to the Book of the Lord as being a real object even though it is still in the process of being written and perfected. Yet He sees the end from the beginning and refers to a future event (from our point of view) as a present reality.

 

Where is "the book of the LORD"?

Let’s look at some other Biblical examples of where God calls something that is not as though it were. In Genesis 17:5 God tells Abraham: “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; FOR A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE THEE.”

The Bible critic using human logic and wisdom can easily say: “Hey, wait a minute. Abraham didn’t have any children at this time. There was no Isaac nor Ishmael; no Esau nor Jacob, and certainly not the nation of Israel much less other nations (plural). God must be wrong. The Bible can’t be true and inerrant.”

Yet the verse is repeated again in the New Testament were we read in Romans 4:17 “(As it is written, I HAVE MADE THEE a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and CALLETH THOSE THINGS WHICH BE NOT AS THOUGH THEY WERE.”

What we see here is God naming something as real and yet it wasn’t fulfilled in history till some 2000 years later. God was in a long process of gradually bringing about the fulfillment of His promises, yet He referred to them as something He had already accomplished.

Psalms 12:6-7 says: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

I believe that these verses, like many other Scriptures, have a double fulfillment. It can only be seen in the second way after it has happened, not before. How many prophecies of Christ Himself were not understood until after they had happened? Many if not most of them.

Even at the time of the writing of Psalm 12 not all but maybe half of God's words had been penned, yet they are and were pure at that time. Are all the rest of the O.T. books that were written after David penned Psalm 12 part of the words of the Lord? Yes, we believe so. How about the whole New Testament, are they also part of the pure words of the Lord? Again, we affirm that they are. If God was going to keep them from this generation for ever, then He must have included what He knew would be written in the future as a present reality - the words of the LORD. Obviously God's words over the centuries had become corrupted through false readings, omissions and additions. If God did not purify them, then there never would have been a perfect Bible.

We see the same Biblical principle in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in John 17:4 where He says: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I HAVE FINISHED THE WORK which thou gavest me to do.” Again, the Bible critic will protest. “Now just hold on here a minute. Jesus hadn’t gone to the garden where He prayed with great drops of blood. He hadn’t yet been betrayed nor handed over to the Roman authorities. He certainly hadn’t yet died on the cross for our sins nor risen from the grave three days later. How can He then truthfully say that He had finished the work God gave Him to do? He must have been mistaken.”

Yet in the wisdom of God the thing was so sure that He refered to it as a present reality - a finished work - even though in human terms His redemptive sacrifice was not accomplished till some time after these words were spoken by our Saviour.

A third Biblical example that shows the principle of how God can refer to something as already existing (the book of the Lord) when from our point of view it doesn’t at all, is found in Ephesians 2:4-6. Here we read: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

God speaks of this glorious redemption and new life from the dead as being a present reality which has already been accomplished - “quickened together with Christ, raised up and seated in the heavenly places” - Yet multiplied millions of us all over the world had not even been born yet, let alone had made some kind of a “decision for Christ”! Yet God refers to them as already done. We are seated together in the heavenly places.

In the same way, the King James Bible believer does not need to somehow trace all the way back in history to try to find any perfect and inerrant Bible that existed before God brought the finished product of the King James Bible on the scene in 1611. The Sovereign God of history sees the end from the beginning and He can refer to the true “book of the LORD” even when, from our point of view, it wasn’t yet complete nor perfected.

As the King James Bible translators themselves wrote in their Preface: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."

The King James Bible believer is the only one today who consistenly, historically and logically stands for the doctrinal truths that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words and that there really exists such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible.

Remember, God says: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ...even God who calleth those things which be not as though they were.” (1 Cor. 1:19-20; Romans 4:17

For some additional thoughts on the subject Where was the word of God before 1611 and its purification process please see my article here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

 

Show us your 'inerrant' bible please

Hi Tom. Would you mind telling us all what your "inerrant, inspired word of God" translation is? If you really believe that it is the inerrant Bible, then by logical necessity the other versions are not inerrant when they do not match either textually or in clear meaning what your inerrant and inspired translation says. Right? Are you willing to take that logical stand and suffer all the oncoming flak for your position on what you believe is the inerrant Bible, or are you more of a double-speak fence sitter type?

What do you say?

God bless,
Will K

 

Ouch, my rear end hurts

Tom, are you aware that your "inerrant and infallible" NASB keeps on changing its very text from edition to edition. This is not a case of accidental printing errors, but of actual textual changes. In fact, the l995 NASB edition omitted just shy of 8000 English words from the 1977 edition. There is a whole book in print documenting every example. I have a copy of it right here. It's called Double Jeopardy, the NASB Update by Laurence M. Vance.

Did you know that your inerrant and infallible NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel." But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years, and in BOTH cases they just made up these numbers out of thin air and they are STILL wrong?

Is your inerrant NASB correct when it tells us in Psalm 78:36 that the children of Israel DECEIVED Him? It doesn't say they "tried to deceive Him" but they deceived Him

Are you also aware that your infallible NASB keeps omitting some 15 entire verses from the New Testament text, but then in another NASB edition it puts them back in the text but this time in [brackets] indicating doubt as to their "reliability"? Must be nice to carry around an infalllible bible that [brakets entire verses].

I doubt you will respond in a convincing way to support how the NASB can be infallible and inerrant when it deliberately keeps on changing both its O.T. and N.T. texts from one edition to the next, but if interested, here are some documented examples you can look up and see for yourself.

The ever changing "literal", infallible and inerrant NASB exposed

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/whbins.html

Will K

 

Genesis 25:16 of Castles and Nations and the inerrant Bible

Genesis 25:16 Of Castles and Nations.




Hi Bob. Thanks for the questions. I think the way to resolve the difficulty you think you see here is to look more carefully at the English words used and their various meanings.

I notice that in both examples you bring up of individual words you tell us that the word “nations” and “castles” ISN’T IN ACCORD WITH THE HEBREW. Well, brother, that is your first wrong assumption and you only reveal here that the English translation is not in accord with YOUR understanding of the Hebrew. Other Bible translators and some of them Jewish, who probably know their own language a little better than you do, disagree with you on this.

Let’s start off with your first objection - that of the word “nation”. The word “nation” does not always refer to a territory marked by clear borders and a ruling seat of government, as in the nation of the USA or Canada. The word nation comes from the Latin word natio which is the past particple of the verb nasci, meaning to be born. In Spanish to be born is nacer, and from it we get nación or nation. In English we have the related words nascent = coming into being, being born, beginning to form - thus we speak of the nascent moon or a nascent state of affairs. Another related word in natal, pertaining to birth.


When we use the word “nation” it does not necessarily mean a sovereign political state with well defined borders and a central government. We can also use the word nation to describe a body of people with a common descent and culture. We still talk about the early native American Indians as the Cherokee nation, the Comanche nation, etc.

The particular Hebrew word used in Genesis 25:16 is found only three times in the O.T. Once it is translated as ‘nations’ and twice as ‘people’. In Genesis 25:16 the King James Bible says: “These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their towns, and by their castles: twelve princes according to their NATIONS.”

The same Hebrew word is translated as “people” in Numbers 25:15 “Zur was head over A PEOPLE”, and in Psalm 117:1 we see the Hebrew parallelism of equating one thing with another term. “O praise the LORD, all ye nations: praise him, all ye PEOPLE.” Here the first word for “nation” is the usual one as found in Genesis 21:18 that you mentioned earlier. The word “people” here is equated in meaning with “all ye nations”.

In fact, the Hebrew word you referrenced before in Genesis 21:18 “I will make him a great nation” is also translated as “people, heathen, and Gentiles” in the KJB. Versions like the NASB translate this same word as “nation, Goiim, herds and people.” The NIV translates it as “nation, people, gentile, countries, foreign, kind, and pagan nation.” So again, when you tell us that the translation of “nation” is “NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE HEBREW”, there are obviously many other bible translators who disagree with your opinion.

When we see the inerrant King James Bible use the word “nations” in Genesis 25:16 to describe the descendants of the 12 PRINCES, who were the sons of Ishmael, we are looking at the various groups of people related by blood, language and traditions.

Don’t pick a definition that doesn fit and then try to claim error in the King James Bible. Be of faith and look for the explanation that makes the most sense; not the one that creates the biggest contradiction. Unless of course you are LOOKING FOR contradictions.


Oxford Compact Dictionary defines Nation =
• noun a large body of people united by common descent, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.
— ORIGIN Latin, from nasci ‘be born’.


The Cambridge Dictionary gives two definitions of the word nation.
1 a country, especially when thought of as a large group of people living in one area with their own government, language, traditions, etc:
All the nations of the world will be represented at the conference.
The Germans, as a nation, are often thought to be well organized.
Practically the whole nation watched the ceremony on television.

2 a large group of people of the same race who share the same language, traditions and history, but who might not all live in one area: the Navajo nation

Not only does the King James Bible say “twelve princes, according to their NATIONS.” but so also do the following Bible translations: the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Webster’s 1833, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, the Douay-Rheims, the Hebrew Names Version, Green’s literal 2000, the NKJV 1982, and the 21st Century KJV.



#2 Castle

Objection raised: “Also in Genesis 25:16 it has castles which isn't in accord with the Hebrew. These were nomadic people which lived in tents, they didn't have castles, encampments would have been a better word or tents.”


Brother Bob, again we need to properly define out English words to see how they are being used in a particular context. And again we see that there are some Bible scholars who disagree with you about being “in accord with the Hebrew”.

Castle - Easton’s Bible Dictionary = Castles are also mentioned (Genesis 25:16) as a kind of watch-tower, from which shepherds kept watch over their flocks by night.

The Dictionaries give a variety of meaning to the English word “castle”. It does not always mean the same thing in every context. Please notice definition#3 and notice the origin of this word which has come to us from the Latin language.


Castle -
1. a fortified, usually walled residence, as of a prince or noble in feudal times.
2. the chief and strongest part of the fortifications of a medieval city.
3. A STRONGLY FORTIFIED, PERMANENTLY GARRISONED STRONGHOLD.

Etymology Dictionary - castle = late O.E. castel, from O.N.Fr. castel, from L. castellum "FORTIFIED VILLAGE," dim. of castrum "fort;"


Encyclopedia Britannica - The word "castle" (castel) was introduced into English shortly before the Norman Conquest to denote a type of fortress, then new to the country, brought in by the Norman knights ...The essential feature of this type was a circular mound of earth surrounded by a dry ditch and flattened at the top. Around the crest of its summit was placed a timber palisade.

This particular Hebrew word has been translated even by such modern versions as the NASB as “battlement”, and by the NIV as “tower” in the Song of Solomon 8:9.

Not only does the King James Bible translate Genesis 25:26 as “by their towns, and by their CASTLES” but so too do Wycliffe 1395, the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster’s 1833, Douay 1950, the Hebrew Publishing Company translation 1936, the 21st Century KJV Version 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

The “castle” spoken about in this passage is not the ornate, fortified carved stone residence of a feudal lord. Rather it was a fortified garrison set up to protect the local villages and towns. It is the same word translated elsewhere in the NIV and NASB as “tower” and “battlement”.

If a person states “I believe The Bible is the inspired and inerrant words of God”, we should then examine this profession to see if it is indeed true. Does this person have a real and tangible Book made up of paper and ink that he can read, memorize and believe EVERY word found withing its pages? Or does this person pick and choose among the various manuscripts, different conflicting versions, and preferred translations of individual words to essentially make up their own variety of an “inspired and inerrant Bible” as they go along according to their own understanding?

By His grace believing the Book,

Will Kinney

 

The infallible Bible = KJB

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Tom, are you aware that your "inerrant and infallible" NASB keeps on changing its very text from edition to edition. This is not a case of accidental printing errors, but of actual textual changes.

Hi gb. Not true. There have been updates on spelling and the correction of a few unintentional printing errors. Nothing like the continual INtentional and deliberate textual changes in the varying NASBs.

The simple fact is, the King James Bible has never been "revised". There have been different editions of the King James Bible, in which the Gothic type was changed to Roman type, the spelling of various English words was updated, some minor punctuation changes were made, and several minor printing errors were corrected, but the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts have never changed at all.

Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

For more on the Printine Errors Ploy, please see:

ttp://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html

Will K

 

The ever changing "inerrant" NASB

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will J. Kinney
Did you know that your inerrant and infallible NASB of 1972 and 1977 reads: "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned THIRTY TWO years over Israel." But the 1995 edition of the NASB has changed the 32 years to now read 42 years, and in BOTH cases they just made up these numbers out of thin air and they are STILL wrong?

Well gb, unless they have changed it AGAIN, the 1995 copy of the NASB I have right here in front of me says "Saul was THIRTY years old when he began to reign, and he reigned FORTY TWO years over Israel."

So, what does your 1995 NASB edition say?

Will K

 

False doctrines prove them to be false witnesses

Hi Annie. Again, not true. IF all you had was the NIV, it cleary teaches that the Son of God had origins and that there was a day when God became his Father. This is rank heresy and both Micah 5:2 and Acts 13:33 read exactly the same in the JW version as in the NIV. In fact, the Jehovah Witnesses use Micah 5:2 and Acts 13:33 as they stand in the NIV as well as proof texts to teach that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is NOT eternal God.

So when the JW's get to those passages that seem to teach that Jesus is God, they will say, Well, yes, but a CREATED God and one who is less than ETERNAL God.

You obviously do not understand what Acts 13:33 is talking about. Maybe this will help.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Acts13-33.html

Will Kinney