[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism  (Read 39451 times)

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #60 on: November 08, 2004, 08:15:39 AM »
brainplucked, I have acknowledged already that instead of saying 'original texts ', I should have said early manuscripts.
That is a non-issue.
'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

Lieberman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
  • I'm a Llama
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #61 on: November 08, 2004, 09:15:59 AM »
From an outsider's perspective, it seems to me that KJV-onlyism is better than the alternative. Is that what I am hearing?

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #62 on: November 08, 2004, 09:20:21 AM »
Dear Judy,

Please pardon me for asking, but why are you taking this so personally?  We are talking about the word of God here.  Our personal feelings and opinions don't matter one iota.  We shouldn't be trying to defend ourselves.  We should be witnessing for Jesus, and for the word of God.

Revelation 20:4

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.


You said:
<<<- One has every right to check out the claim that the KJV is the most faithful rendention of Scripture, and reach their own conclusion.>>>

Judy, if we reach our own conclusion, aren't we doing what is right in our own eyes, thus making ourselves our final authority instead of the word of God being our final authority?


Please look at your tag line on all of your posts, Judy:


Psalms 119:89

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.


Don't you believe this? 


Please remember how our Lord told us to pray in Matthew 6:


Matthew 6

9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11  Give us this day our daily bread.

12  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.


In earth, as it is in heaven...forever.

And our Lord told us to pray to our Father that He will give us this day our daily bread.  Many false Bible versions claim that that means literal food...in fact, I believe that I read that one of them translates it as "Give me my three square meals a day."  But you and I know that "our daily bread" is the word of God.  So let me ask you, would our Lord tell us to pray for our daily bread if there wasn't any perfect daily bread to be given?  I don't think so, and I don't think you do either.

So I ask you to please take these things into consideration, to not take this personally, to realize that God hasn't forsaken us and gone back on His word because He cannot lie...and to realize that we do have the inerrant word of God...in the King James Bible. 

Now old yacky Minna will hush for today.  (Sigh of relief from everybody?)  ;D

Many Blessings,
Minna
P.S. Will Kinney's user name is "brandplucked"  not "brainplucked," as you called him.  ::)

judykanova

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 918
  • Gender: Female
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #63 on: November 08, 2004, 01:48:37 PM »
Quote
Judy, if we reach our own conclusion, aren't we doing what is right in our own eyes, thus making ourselves our final authority instead of the word of God being our final authority?

Minna, we're talking about two different things here.  I'm talking about reaching one's own conclusion about which Bible version is best; you're talking about reaching conclusions about what Scriptures themselves say.  See the difference?

Yes, I am taking this personally.  I imagine you would feel much the same way if something you said 9 months ago, was taken out of context, overblown to mean things it was never intended to mean, called names like hypocritical, and attempts made to box you in, such that if you came to our own defense, you're also labeled as being always 'offended'

brandplucked, my apologies for mistyping your name.

I've said all I wanted to say at this point, and if some choose to misunderstand, so be it. 

judy
'For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.'   Ps 119:89

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #64 on: November 08, 2004, 04:52:29 PM »
Hi Lieberman, you ask: "From an outsider's perspective, it seems to me that KJV-onlyism is better than the alternative. Is that what I am hearing?"

Well, that definitely is my position.   

My position on the Holy Bible - also known as the King James Version.

The Bible believer first looks to God and His word to determine what the Book says about itself.

The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7: "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."

Psalm 138:2: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name
for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his
truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of
his heart to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Isaiah 59:21: "... My Spirit that is upon thee [Isaiah], and my words
which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out
of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith
the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Matthew 5:17-18: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto
you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

God has promised to preserve His wordS here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.

I believe the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and complete words of God for the following reasons:

#1 The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. The Old Testament oracles of God were committed to the Jews and not to the Syrians, the Greeks or the Latins.  "What advantage then hath the Jew?  or what profit is there of circumcision?  Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2)  The Lord Jesus Christ said not one jot or one tittle would pass from the law till all be fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.
 
"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

#3 I believe in the Sovereignty and Providence of Almighty God. God knew beforehand how He would mightily use the King James Bible to become THE Bible of the English speaking people who would carry the gospel to the ends of the earth during the great modern missionary outreach from the late 1700's to the 1950's. The King James Bible was used as the basis for hundreds of foreign language translations, and English has become the first truly global language in history.

#4 The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English version that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God.

"A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." Proverbs 14:5

#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV and Holman)

#6 The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

The Bible itself prophesies that in the last days many shall turn away their ears from hearing the truth and the falling away from the faith will occur. The Lord Jesus asks: "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:8

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD." Amos 8:11

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jeremiah 6:16


In and by His grace alone,
Will Kinney

Dave Taylor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #65 on: November 08, 2004, 05:44:46 PM »
Will Kinney wrote:
Quote
#5 At every opportunity the King James Bible exalts the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as the sinless, eternally only begotten Son of God who is to be worshipped as being equal with God the Father. All modern versions debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.

You make some pretty bold and staggering statements with this claim above Will.

I thought I would search out a few scriptures from modern translations; to see if they do, as you claim, 'debase and lower the Person of Christ in various ways.'

I chose the following verses, of which magnify and uplift Jesus Christ to the highest of glory; to see if they render Him debase and lower in any way from the KJV.


John 10:30
KJV
"I and my Father are one."
NKJV
"I and My Father are one."
NASB
"I and the Father are one."
NIV
"I and the Father are one."
Holman
"The Father and I are one."


I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being declared to be one with the Father?






John 14:6
KJV
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
NKJV
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
NASB
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. "
NIV
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. "
Holman
"Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."


I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being declared the only way to the Father?






Acts 4:10-12
KJV
"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. "
NKJV
"let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the "stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.'Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." "
NASB
"let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by this name this man stands here before you in good health. "He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.""
NIV
"then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. 'Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." 
Holman
"let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified and whom God raised from the deadby Him this man is standing here before you healthy. This Jesus is The stone despised by you builders, who has become the cornerstone. There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved."


I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being the only name under heaven for salvation?







Philippians 2:9-11
KJV
"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth"
NKJV
"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "
NASB
"For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "
NIV
"Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. "
Holman
"For this reason God also highly exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being the one whom all people will bow and confess to be Lord?




Colossians 1:14-17
KJV
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:   And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. "
NKJV
"in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist."
NASB
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.  He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. "
NIV
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. "
Holman
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation; because by Him everything was created, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.
"


I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being the creator and sustainer of all things, having dominion over all creation?







Colossians 2:9-10
KJV
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power"
NKJV
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. "
NASB
"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority"
NIV
"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."
Holman
"For in Him the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily, and you have been filled by Him, who is the head over every ruler and authority."


I don't see where either of the 5 newer translation debase or lower the Person of Christ in this verse. 
Can you get any 'higher' than being Deity, head over every power and authority?






If the modern Bible versions are making Christ be debase and lowered, they sure did miss these verses. 

Why do you believe these particular verses did not debase, dilute, or lower the Person of Christ?


Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #66 on: November 08, 2004, 11:23:19 PM »
Quote
Judy, if we reach our own conclusion, aren't we doing what is right in our own eyes, thus making ourselves our final authority instead of the word of God being our final authority?

Minna, we're talking about two different things here.  I'm talking about reaching one's own conclusion about which Bible version is best; you're talking about reaching conclusions about what Scriptures themselves say.  See the difference?


Dear Judy,

No, I don't believe we are talking about two different things.  If we reach our own conclusion about which Bible version is best, then we are being our own final authority.   

I don't know what else to say to you except that I pray that you will see what I am talking about.

Blessings,
Minna

John

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
  • A man with God is always in the majority-John Knox
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #67 on: November 09, 2004, 12:40:12 AM »
Psalms 12
6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7  Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


The word preserve means to keep, and is used in Psalm 119 in a similar manner. The idea is that the person keeps the law by hearing and obeying.

Ps 119:69 
The proud have forged a lie against me: but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart.

Ps 119:115  
Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.


When Psalm 12 says "...thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" it means that we shall keep the words of the LORD (to do them). It is not speaking about writing down the words of the LORD and perserving them in a mason jar. It is not secretly hinting that someday there will come a generation that gets to perserve the words of the LORD -- that being 1611. We perserve or keep the words of the LORD within us and then we obey it. Do you see the difference?

OK, let's look at it differently. If it were talking about perserving God's word in some perfect written form, where is this perfect form?  Do you say "the KJB". But read the verse again, "from this generation for ever". There must be a whole series of "perfect" translations in every language throughout history, all prior to the KJV, to preserve it from that generation (during the psalmists day) unto our day.  What are these perfect translations?  The Septuagent? A Greek translation of the Hebrew, is that perfect?  We can easily show that it is not. Which version then and in what language. Or is God unconcerned with perfection until the KJB was created?  Bibles such as Tyndale's, Bishops, Wycliff's, Geneva and on and on ... they were not perfect English translations to be certain -- but the King James Version is?  Do you see how rediculous this is?  There was no 'perfect' translation until it was done in 1611 and in English?  How euro-centric of us to think so.  How did Jesus suffice to use the Septuagent (indeed He did) and the disciples too when it wasn't a perfect translation? Yet, Jesus used the imperfect Greek translation of the Hebrew.

The reason the KJV-only position gets itself into a connundrum, is because it is a fallacy. If God preserved His word in a perfect written form He would not have waited until 1611 to do it. He would not have written that it would be preserved in all generations and let 2000 years pass before allowing English scholars to get the job done. I know that the KJV-only reply is that there were perfect texts floating around "out there" somewhere in every generation. Forget it -- it is utter nonsense.


Now we have Mark 13:

Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

We correctly understand this to mean that God's decrees, all the things writtenin the Bible, will all come to fruition -- nothing and no one will escape the things God has decreed to occur. Heaven and earth will be destroyed with fire on that last day -- including all the KJV Bibles -- all burned up. But God's words will be fulfilled and stand forever. Now, the KJV-Only position is that when God destroys the world with fire the "words shall not pass away", meaning, we will have millions of copies of the KJB in heaven with us forever. Since the KJV will never pass away -- being perfect. Of course they will deny this but still insist that God's written word will not pass away in this world because we have the KJV. But it doesn't say "in this world" -- it means essentially the word of God will never ever pass away!  Either the KJB will never pass away of the word of God spoken of in Mark 13 is NOT speaking of a written Bible. Anymore than Psalm 12 is speaking of preserving a written Bible.

Do you see now -- there is NO PERFECT BIBLE!  There never has been a perfect translation -- no one has ever seen such a thing. It is ignorance and folly to believe God inspired the KJV translators to create a pefect Bible. You will not find support in the Bible and it is logically indefensible. But if you are illogical and desire it to be so .... then you can fantasize that it is true. Children do the same with Santa and the easter bunny. But mature Christians should put on the mind of Christ and leave these fairy tales behind.

__________________________
Quote
God has promised to preserve His wordS here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.


No! God did not promise to preserve His words on earth. Such subtle trickery. God promised that though the earth shall pass away His words will not pass away. God has not promised to leave us with a perfect written testament to His words. God is saying that His words will not pass away -- they will be DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. Everything God has said will come to be, not one portion of God's word will fail - not one!  It is deceiptful to twist Scripture into making it say "heaven and earth will pass away but the KJB will continue forever". Yet, here we are, arguing against precisely such a deceiptful and utterly rediculous belief as this.

__________________________

Quote
People will assume getting parallel bibles is a good thing to do because John has one and sees nothing wrong with it. Yours may be fine, but what about mine? We are our brothers keeper.

People can do as they like, but what I said was a clear denoncing of modern versions based on the W&H critrical text. The very reason I am creating my own parallel study bible is because all the open market parallel editions are contain the corrupted versions. I think it was plain enough when I said that these modern version should be collected and burned. I wasn't mincing words.

____________________________ _

Quote
You have told us that no translation is perfect and that only the originals were.  We all know the originals no longer exist and in fact they never were all together in one Book to begin with.  So to follow the logic of your analogy, we would then have to conclude that the Word of God (the Lord Jesus Christ) either 1. no longer exists; or 2. is not perfect.


Here is another example of the KJV-only fallacy and prezel logic. If the perfect written word of God does not exist (original autographs) then God does not exist or is imperfect?  Insanity. Well, the original manuscripts do not exist anymore, only many, many copies of varying quality. Though the KJV-only belief system will not allow it, we have unprecedented attestation to the originals in 5300+ Greek manuscripts and though not perfect we can reassemble the text with great accuracy. No, not perfect accuracy, but that is the reality and no wishful thinking can change it.   

____________________________ _________


Quote
You still do not have any single Book you can confidently call the inspired, inerrant, complete and final word of God.  You are no different than the Whateverists who promote a multitude of conflicting comic book bibles.  It is just a question of degree and personal preference.

By these statements I have to conclude the owner of them is either massively ignorant or retarded, or both. So you believe, if we reject your thinking we are left in utter dispair because we don't have the complete word of God. The KJV is not inspired, inerrant or the final word of God -- despite your boasting -- and no sane person is in despair because of it. Those of us who live in the world of reality know that we don't need prefection in order to use the Bible and come to truth. The small number of verses that are in question between the TR and Majority texts is mostly minor and do not affect doctrinal positions.  The errors in the KJV and other translations are normally identified by the good Bible student in day-to-day studies. It is only the KJV-only positon that is left stuck unable to correct the errors -- for in the world of Mother Goose -- everything is perfect.


____________________________ _-

Quote

John, I agree with what Minna said about your point of Young translating the word as "sabbaths".  It makes no sense at all.  Truth is the word for sabbath is always in the plural, just like the word "heaven" is frequently in the plural but it should be translated as a singular.

What Young ignorantly did was to always make sabbath a plural and he ends up with nonsense.

Notice for example (and there are many in Youngs) Matthew 12:1 in Youngs - "At that time did Jesus go on the SABBATHS through the corn, and his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears, and to eat..."

Come on, John.  How is this the "sabbaths" (plural).?


Well, let's take a look.

Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,



Young's Literal version has it correct. The King James Version has it quite wrong (that means it is not infallable for you in fantasy world). The Greek word used for Sabbath is the same sabbaton, it is plural in verse 2 where it is mistranslated as day of the week in most bibles. The words "day of" is added by the translator and does not appear in the Greek. To understand this verse (and others like it: Matthew 28, Mark 16:9, Luke 24, and John 20:1) we must understand that God knows what He is talking about, even if the translators failed to trust Him. The KJV translators could not understand the literal translation and removed Sabbaths (plural) in verse 2 for week (singular) and added "day of" to try and make sense of it. They should have trusted God (they were fallable men, you should know by now).

The Old Testament Sabbath system (Saturday) that had pointed to the rest we have in Christ had PASSED AWAY on that morning Christ arose. The rest was fulfilled in Christ, therefore the Sabbath type was fulfilled in Christ. But there was yet a Sabbath (because God says so that's why) and it was to be Sunday. Christ arose early in the morning of the first of the SABBATHS. It was the first Sabbath of many more to come, the word of God telling us that he arose on the first of the sabbaths. The teaching of this verse is identical to that of Matthew 28:1. The last Old Testament Sabbath is past because it is Sunday, the day Christ rises from the dead. This Sunday is the first of a new era of Sabbaths.

You can read more about this here: http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/frame/ or on this site.

The point is clear. If the King James version purposefully mis-translated these verses (and others) to smooth out the reading. Just as you couldn't make sense of it (hopefully you are beginning to see it now) so too the men doing the translation felt it necessary to "fix" God's word. They neednt have bothered, they were the one's in error not God. Now, a KJV-only position will never dwelve deeply to understand the truth being presented here. They will make excuses and continue the "no known errors" chant even in the face of the evidence. Believe me, this is hardly the only error in the KJV. But you only need one to ruin the KJV-only position -- if their world-view were capable of allowing reality in. But, alas, there minds are sealed tight as a drum lest they see their error. They believe they are defending God's honor. They think God has actually said He would make a perfect translation -- therefore, they can never give in, lest God be made a liar. Unfortunately, they don't understand what God did say and needlessly embarrass themselves defending a statement or idea that is not found in God's word. It is sad and ironic, but nonetheless it is where we are left.


Quote
Youngs "literal" translation is another bogus bible, yet he supposedly adopted the same underlying texts (he didn't always do this, and he has some really messed up translations)  God never set His seal of divine approval on this mess and He never will.

Actually, if Young's is "bogus" then there is no hope for the KJV. Young's is more literal and more exact in verb tenses and shades of meaning -- that was the reason it was created. If being more accurate is "bogus" then what do we say of the less accurate KJV? He used the same Greek (Received Text) as the KJV but adhered to better rules for translating tenses. Here's an example from the preface to show how shades of meaning can be improved:


For example, in Mat. 2.4, Herod is represented as enquiring "where Christ ' should be born. But "Christ" is the surname of the man Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation is, that King James' Translators omitted the definite article which occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where "the Christ" should be born. Herod knew of "the Christ," the Messiah, the long promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears up the whole. There are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say any thing of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original.


Now you say, "God never set His seal of Divine approval on this mess". Are you on speaking terms with the Almighty? Did He reveal to you personally that the KJV is the divine Bible but Young's is a "mess" and "bogus"?  Are you sure that God didn't set His divine seal upon the Geneva Bible?  Perhaps God's divine seal was on Tyndale's Bible? No you say? Oh, I see ... the KJV is divine and inspired because YOU SAY SO. Of course, how silly of me to think otherwise.

When we turn to the KJV translators, we find they did not find there version inspired or prefect. They replied to those who found fault with their work siting that it had merit though it contained imperfections. No, they weren't talking about type setting errors -- they meant their sinful state would produce errors as natural men do. Read it for yourself:

As the King's speech, which he uttereth 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 offendor maculis, etc. Horace. 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) James 3:2 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....

The King James translators did not think that other translations that preceeded theirs to be inferior. They wanted to make a good one (Geneva and Bishops Bibles) better -- one that would unite everyone to one principal good one.

But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. 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, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but {we intended} 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 endeavor, that our mark.


These same men said also that they looked upon other translation works created before theirs was finished as the word of God also. They did not think for one moment that they had THEE one true and inspired Bible perfect in all its ways. Read it for yourself:

Now to the latter we answer; 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 theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.


So, these men made what they hoped was a better, more accurate Bible. One that would join everyone together in one good well-done version. And they succeeded. Then along came Wescott and Hort and a variety of corrupt Bibles were produced. In reaction to this was born the KJV-only position -- kind of an extreme over reaction to the destruction that was occurring to the word of God. The thinking is easy to fall into. If the modern versions are corrupt then (by comparison) the KJV is much more pefect, well, nay, it is near perfect ... even, inspired, perhaps God-breathed and immutable -- ah, it is perfect. In wishing to defend the better translation they fell into their own prideful snare. And here we are today debating this very thing as if it had legs to stand on.

Can you see that the KJV-only movement is a snare to understanding Scripture and a distortion of what God really says about keeping or preserving His word? Do you see how men have felt compelled to claim inerrancy in the face of attacks that the KJV is based on poor scholarship and erroneous Greek texts. Rather than arguing their case they made their case unassailable -- it is perfect -- now go away.  Well, it is not perfect. We don't have to act like children claiming our daddy can out do and out perform another kid's dad. The KJV is better than any Bible based on the W&H Greek text -- it is about as good, in most respects, to those based on the TR. It stands or falls on its own merits. The KJV-only position is for scared children frightened and confused -- it's time to come out from under the bed and stop hiding in a fantasy world of perfection. Though imperfect, you can defend its underlying Greek as superior overagainst those modern version without resorting to outlandish claims of divinity. Don't be scared to face the truth -- it won't hurt -- you just have to start to examine and compare verses and check the Greek like every other mortal.

Picture Buzz Lightyear pointing his wristband laser at the enemy and you have the mental picture of KJV-onlyists. The KJV can't fly, it isn't from a galaxy far away, it does not have superpowers -- it's just a good translation made by men from the better Greek. End of story (I mean, "to infinity and beyond").

Play time is over.

john
Si hoc signum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes!

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #68 on: November 09, 2004, 01:33:09 AM »

The errors in the KJV and other translations are normally identified by the good Bible student in day-to-day studies. It is only the KJV-only positon that is left stuck unable to correct the errors -- for in the world of Mother Goose -- everything is perfect.


Dear John,

Rather you realized it or not, your entire post was of a very hateful attitude.  Why are you making King James Only people out to be your enemy?

Many of your comments struck a bad note with me, but the one quoted above was really off tune.  So you are saying that anyone who is a King James Only person is not a good Bible student, and that we are unable to correct the errors?   Right?  And you are saying that all non-King James Only people can normally locate and correct ALL of the errors?  Right?

Then I'll ask once again, would you or someone else in this forum who does not believe in being a King James Only person (and that seems to be about everyone else here except for Will Kinney and me, since no one else has spoken from the King James Only position), please share with us a list of ALL of the errors in the King James Bible that you have found in your day-to-day studies or post a website of ALL of the errors others have found in the King James Bible in their day-to-day studies, since you say that we are unable to correct the errors in our Mother Goose world, and so that we all might know what they are and where they are located in the Bible?

Thank-you.

Blessings,
Minna

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #69 on: November 09, 2004, 04:09:49 AM »
>>>
John, I agree with what Minna said about your point of Young translating the word as "Sabbaths".  It makes no sense at all.
<<<

On the contrary. With a diligent study, it makes "PERFECT" sense. It may make no sense to some people who haven't studied the issue, but it makes perfect sense to God who authored it penned. The fact is, interpretations belong to God, so we can make perfect sense of it by faithfully following the divinely inspired text (Sabbaths).


Quote
>>>
Truth is the word for Sabbath is always in the plural,
<<<

That is untrue. Sabbath is written in both singular and plural form. And those "experts" who claim that nevertheless, it doesn't make a difference, are experts in egregious effusion only. e.g.,


Matthew 12:5
  • "Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days [Plural] the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath [singular], and are blameless?"

In this verse of Matthew we have both the plural and singular used. Why? Because in the first instance it speaks of many Sabbaths (KJV translated Sabbath days), and in the second instance it is referring to the Sabbath of rest itself.

And really, to believe that God inspired singular and plural words to be written in scripture "for no reason at all" is an example of man's careless truculence in dealing with their own opinions of the Bible. God inspires plural and singular for a reason. Just as when God inspired written Seed, not seeds:

Galatians 3:16
  • "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Would you take this scripture and say the plural and singular differences are really not important and mean nothing? Plural forms of words are there for a reason, not by coincidence. The same with singular. The "Seed" Was Christ. What we need is careful study of the words, not emasculating them by taking and merging them into one, weakening their meaning with these modern translations.

Matthew 12:2
  • "But when the pharisees saw it, they said unto Him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath [singular] day."

Here again, the word Sabbath (translated Sabbath day) is singular because they are talking about what the disciples did on this "particular" Sabbath day. Thus God inspired it to have the correct gender and number singular.

Again:

Mark 16:1
  • "And when the Sabbath [singular] was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."

Here the word Sabbath is singular, and the reason is because it is speaking of a single day (Saturday, the Sabbath after Christ's death) that had past. These were just a few examples. While on the other hand:

Matthew 28:1
  • "In the end of the Sabbaths [plural], as it began to dawn toward the first of the Sabbaths [plural], came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."

Here the Sabbaths are plural to indicate the end of one era of Sabbaths (Old Testament) and the beginning of another era of Sabbaths (New testament) with Christ's resurrection on "Sunday." Sunday, the day of Resurrection, is the beginning of the New Testament Sabbaths.

So in conclusion, just because someone, be it translator, author, so-called Greek "experts," or laymen doesn't understand why God inspired His particular words, doesn't mean that they should be changed. That is precisely what I like about the KJV, because the translators "strived" for a "word for word" translation, rather than a idea for idea as the NIV. How would man even know what the idea of God had in His mind in authoring something? The fact that it's not translated "Sabbaths" as it is in the Greek only proves that the KJV is not a perfect translation as some suppose. But God's word, from which the KJV was taken, is a perfect word. We don't need to make the KJV into something that it's not, in order to have a pure word. It is an excellent translation of the word of God which doesn't, and didn't need replacing, nor did we need parallel Bibles for corrective measures, but it's not a perfect translation. What it needs is faithful students to recognize that Bible study is more than leaning unto the various interpretations, ideas and translations of men.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #70 on: November 09, 2004, 04:28:25 AM »
The fact that it's not translated "Sabbaths" as it is in the Greek only proves that the KJV is not a perfect translation as some suppose. But God's word, from which the KJV was taken, is a perfect word. We don't need to make the KJV into something that it's not, in order to have a pure word.

You, too, Mr. Warren?

Minna

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #71 on: November 09, 2004, 04:29:58 AM »
>>>
Mark 16:1-2
1  And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,
2  and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun,

We soon find that the King James Version is wrong and Young's is correct, especially if we refer back to the TR and check the Greek to be sure. That morning at the tomb was the first of the New Testament Sabbaths!
<<<

Again, the point (at least the one I am making) is completely missed here. My point is that the church doesn't need several other versions of the Bible in order to know that the Greek word there is [sabbaton], meaning Sabbaths. I certainly didn't go to Young's Literal Translation (a good translation, by the way) to find this out. I (and I'm sure many others) learned this from comparing scripture with scripture, and with some study comparing words in the Greek. Something which should be done in any serious Bible study. Not by comparing Bible versions with other Bible versions. In other words, we didn't "need" a new version of the Bible for "ANYONE" to know that this word is "sabbaton," meaning Sabbaths. It's superfluous! What the church "really"  needs is Christians with a heart not to be so indolent in studying the bible.

And I reiterate (because I don't think that it can be said too often), I am one hundred percent sure that God is not pleased by a multitude of different English Bibles all with different words purporting to mean the same (or different) things. And the fact is, when there was "virtually" only the KJV of the bible, I dare say that the authors, preachers, and teachers I have read of that time were "infinitely" more faithful to scripture, and had more knowledge of the Bible than most Christians today with their computer searches, parallel Bibles and modern versions. That is because they had a heart to study and were more faithful and diligent. For all our new versions and modern translations and Parallel comparisons, the church today is in the worst condition that its ever been in. Does that say something about the "helpfulness" of Parallel bibles and Modern versions in understanding Scripture? ..Yes, I think so. It says they are "not" necessary and that they (generally) "haven't" helped the church in understanding. All they've done is serve to divide and convolute the whole issue.


Quote
>>>
Now if we trusted only the KJV we would have missed an important truth (as we would also sadly with the NKJV).
<<<

It's not a question with me of trusting the KJV, it is a question of the KJV being the overall most faithful version of the Bible. And no, using it I did not miss an important truth about the word Sabbaths. Not at all.  As the faithful fathers also didn't before these new versions came along. Without any help from parallel bibles or modern versions I learned relatively early on, that the word was "Sabbaths."

...and I'm not that smart.

I didn't have to go to other translations, see what YLT said, or buy a parallel Bible for this enlightenment. ..and neither does anyone else. All they have to do is study scripture like the Apostles did. ..earnestly! The fact is, if you have a parallel Bible, and are involved in a sound exegesis of scripture, you would "still" have to go to a concordance (at the very least) to make sure we understand "the word." Comparing scripture with scripture. We certainly wouldn't simply trust the translators of the YLT anymore than we would the KJV or the RSV. So then, what's the point of having all these versions except to confuse and misrepresent that God's word can be legitimately translated 30 different ways. Something we both know is not true.


Quote
>>>
If I carry a parallel bible how has that offended you?
<<<

I can only speak for myself. It doesn't offend me, I'm just a man putting his pants on one leg at a time just like you. I believe supporting 50, 40 or 30 variations of God's word is an offense to God. Selah. i.e., the NIV says there is no mark 16:17-20, while the KJV says there is. So then can I glorify God by supporting both? No, not at all. I can only bring distortion to an already confusing issue.

I understand every man has to answer for his own actions. I'm certainly not going to judge anyone, as that's not my job. My job is to bear witness to what I see as the truth of Scripture, faith and practice. Whether anyone likes it or not, I can't worry about that. I don't say what I do to please men or women, but rather to do the will of God.

Ephesians 6:6-7
  • "Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
  • With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:"

I simply do not believe that multiple Bibles or variations of the word (parallel if you will) are a God glorifying act for anyone. I believe that having these multiple and different Bibles is not the wisest thing for conscientious Christians to do. I believe that it's very short sighted at best. Often we have our eyes so much on ourselves, that we can't see the forest for the trees. I've learned long ago that the minute that a Christian says he believes the word of God is against any practice that men use, he's immediately accused of being judgmental, legalistic, or worse. I can't let that bother me, I call it like I see it.

We all will do what we think is best, and my view is this modern day phenomenon of multiplying Bible versions is not a prudent thing. Nor is tacit support of their creation by using them. If one is using Youngs Literal Translation and feels it is the most faithful translation, then I see no reason to "also" use the NIV (just an example) to have something to allegedly test it against. Test it against the Greek and Hebrew, comparing scripture with scripture, not against another translation. Why have a KJV, an NEB, an NASB, an NIV, and a RSV? It just doesn't make sense Biblically, and only opens up a pandora's box which can never be shut. As a testimony to this truth, the NIV, which is one of the most unfaithful Bibles around, is today thee most popular Bible of the church. And the reason it is "BECAUSE" Christians one day decided that it would be a big help to them in understanding scripture to also have and use this version. So what started out as thinking it might help, has now become the unfaithful word of choice for the church. The thing is, all sorts of bad ideas are spread by men with the "best of intentions." Happens all the time.

All I'm saying is that faithful Christians should also be wise Christians and conscientious Christians guarding against degradation. We never miss the water until the well runs dry. This world is of "cause and effect," and if we are not diligent, we find ourselves seeing the effect and realizing we are part of the cause of things we would have never thought important.


Quote
>>>
These things are minor and a matter of personal needs based on what works for you.
<<<

   "..Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" (James 3:5b)

Yes, but that is also what is said about "EVERY BAD" thing that has/is happening to the church. It's always a minor disagreement. It's always a matter of "personal needs" based on what works. It's always a little thing--until it isn't. Like I said, "personally," I don't believe Christians "NEED" modern versions or parallel versions and I believe they are not a help but are a hindrance to the Christian community. That's what I believe. But I also believe that it's everyone's own call. On that point, I think we can agree.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #72 on: November 09, 2004, 04:48:24 AM »
>>>
Genrev ,
I went to the site you gave above, and now I see where all of this is coming from and why the folks on this forum believe as they do...Harold Camping!!!
<<<

What a wild and unsubstantiated presumption! People in this forum believe the way they do because of their belief in the "authority" of the inerrant word of God, not because of any man, any church, any group, parallel bibles, the Pope, tea leaves or any misguided belief that the KJV of the Bible is a perfect translation. The issue here is what does the word of God "actually" say, not a link someone shares or how I can justify my unjustifiable belief of a perfect KJV translation.

When we deal with the facts rather than rhetoric, "sabbaths" is the correct translation, the actual word inspired written by God! Anything else is not a actual word for word translation but is rendered by extension or implication.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Genrev

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #73 on: November 09, 2004, 05:46:32 AM »
What a wild and unsubstantiated presumption! People in this forum believe the way they do because of their belief in the "authority" of the inerrant word of God, not because of any man, any church, any group, parallel bibles, the Pope, tea leaves or any misguided belief that the KJV of the Bible is a perfect translation. The issue here is what does the word of God "actually" say, not a link someone shares or how I can justify my unjustifiable belief of a perfect KJV translation.

But how can we believe in the "authority" of the inerrant Word of God and how can we know what the word of God actually says if we don't believe it exists anywhere now? 

And were the scholars who translated the Hebrew and Greek meanings into English in the concordances (Strong, Young, etc.) any more knowledgeable than the King James translators?  How are we to know which of these translations to believe when there are so many different opinions?  Why are they used as the final authority in Bible study?   

I just don't get the reasoning behind this belief.   How can one reverence the King James as the best translation, say that they believe in the "authority" of the inerrant Word of God, but at the same time say we don't have it anywhere, and thus shed doubt upon it?


Minna

brandplucked

  • Guest
Re: The King James Only Controversy - King James Onlyism
« Reply #74 on: November 09, 2004, 06:13:26 AM »
Hi Dave, thanks for the few verses you provided where the modern versions do teach the correct doctrine. 

However there are many places where they clearly do not.

I will post a separate topic called Are Any Doctrines Changed in the Modern Versions?  I hope you read it carefully and I think you will see that they all lower the Person of Christ and God the Father.

For right now, here is something to consider about Philippians 2.

 
Philippians 2:6-7 Not Robbery to be Equal With God, of No Reputation

The Similarity of Modern Versions with the Jehovah Witness Version

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, THOUGHT IT NOT ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD: but MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."

The phrase "thought it not robbery to be equal with God", as found in the King James Bible, clearly teaches that Jesus Christ was in fact God.

Notice the comments of a couple of orthodox commentators.

John Gill

"thought it not robbery to be equal with God" the Father; for if he was in the same form, nature, and essence, he must be equal to him, as he is; for he has the same perfections, as eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, immutability, and self-existence: hence he has the same glorious names, as God, the mighty God, the true God, the living God, God over all, Jehovah, the Lord of glory… the same works of creation and providence are ascribed to him, and the same worship, homage, and honour given him: to be "in the form of God", and to be "equal with God", signify the same thing, the one is explanative of the other: and this divine form and equality, or true and proper deity, he did not obtain by force and rapine, by robbery and usurpation, as Satan attempted to do, and as Adam by his instigation also affected;

Matthew Henry

" He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; did not think himself guilty of any invasion of what did not belong to him, or assuming another’s right. He said, I and my Father are one, Jn. 10:30. It is the highest degree of robbery for any mere man or mere creature to pretend to be equal with God, or profess himself one with the Father. This is for a man to rob God, not in tithes and offerings, but of the rights of his Godhead."

"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is not only the reading of the King James Bible but also of Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Young's, Hebrew Names Version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's 1833 translation, Wycliffe, and the NKJV 1982 edition (but not the 1979 NKJV).

By being equal to God, Jesus Christ was not stealing or taking something that did not belong to Him. He was and is equal to God the Father.

However many modern versions give us a rendering that means the exact opposite. I am presently in a discussion with a Jehovah Witness who, of course, denies that Jesus Christ is God. He says: "As for Philippians 2:6, the ambiguity is simply one that is shared by many translators and exegetes. The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV states that some of the key words used here "had puzzled interpeters" and are "problematic."

The New World Translation, which the JW's use, says: "although he was existing in the form of God, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God."

Then he proceeds to show the readings found in many modern versions.

NASB " did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"

Revised Standard Version "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"

New Jerusalem Bible "did not count equality with God something to be grasped"

Emphatic Diaglott "yet did not meditate a Usurpation to be like God"

21st Century Free " he never even considered the chance to be equal with God."

Revised Version "counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God."

Goodspeed "he did not grasp at equality with God."

NKJV 1979 edition "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped."

NIV "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped".

Keep in mind that this is a Jehovah Witness who is using these modern version to support his view that Jesus Christ was not God!

To get a clearer idea of just how different in meaning the phrase is, "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" from "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" compare the following statements.

"The black man thought it not robbery to be equal with the white man." In other words, he was not stealing something that did not belong to him; he is equal to the white man.

"The black man did not regard equality with the white man a thing to be grasped." He didn't even try and thought it way beyond him.

The meaning found in the NASB, NIV, NKJV 1979 edition, ESV, RSV is totally different from the one found in the King James Bible and others which reveal the full deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Another change in meaning is found in verse 7 where we are told that Christ "MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION". This is one of those "ambiguous, problematic" passages that the JW guy says has puzzled interpreters. The verb used here has variously been translated as "to be made void", "to be made of none effect", "to be in vain" and "made of no reputation". The King James translators got it right and many other versions give us a nonsensical reading.

Other Bibles that exhort us to follow the example of Christ, who "MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION" are Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', the Geneva Bible, NKJV 1982 edition (but not the 1979 NKJV), Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. The Wycliffe Bible of 1395 says: "He lowered Himself,taking the form of a servant".

However instead of "made himself of no reputation", the NIV, NASB, RSV, and NKJV 1979 edition again match the New World Translation of the JWs. They say Christ "emptied himself" (NASB, NKJV 79, RSV, NWT) or "made himself nothing" (NIV). Now if Christ made himself nothing or emptied himself, there was NOTHING THERE. If I empty a box, what remains? Nothing.

The Lord Jesus Christ was not empty or nothing when He came to earth. He was full of grace and truth. In Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. But He did make Himself of no reputation. He was born in a stable, from a common and poor family; He came not to seek His own glory but that of His Father, and He often told others He had healed to tell no one. When the multitudes wanted to make Him king, He departed into a mountain alone. How different from our sinful tendency to want to be recognized, make a name for ourselves, and have others look up to us as some great one.

Not all bibles teach the same thing. Many modern versions continually downgrade the glory and deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The King James Bible exalts the Lord Jesus Christ to His rightful place as "God manifest in the flesh" 1 Timothy 3:16. Compare the NASB, NIV and NWT here for such an example. See also Romans 14:10, 1 John 5:7, 1 Cor. 15:47 and Luke 23:42.

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow...and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Will Kinney

 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]