15 by the Uninformed & 85 by Scholars & their Followers
by Dr. L. Bednar
Pointless criticisms by the uninformed
In many internet articles, objections to the concept of KJV inerrancy are pointless & unrealistic, reflecting a lack of linguistic skills and misjudgment of KJV language.
1. Critics lacking in grammar skill say the KJV has dead men wake up in the morning. The KJV Isa.37:36 says, the angel of the Lord…smote…of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses. The KJV follows Hebrew syntax closely if there’s no confusion of sense, and the clear sense is that live Assyrians wake up to find 185,000 of their men dead. A colon (indicated by the Hebrew) regulates word order, dividing the verse into two clauses; the second is equivalent to the first, and the order makes the first they refer to the subject, Assyrians, and the next they refer to the dead. Following literal Hebrew so closely reveals translator trustworthiness.
2. It's said by some amateur commentators that the KJV incorrectly renders Dt.24:1, saying of a man who desires a divorce from his wife, due to an uncleaness in her, then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. They claim the verse should read and he writes instead of let him write, thinking the KJV gives the statement the appearance of a commandment. Actually this claim is indicative of a lack of the commentators' knowledge of the contextual sense and Hebrew grammar so that they look to renderings of modern versions for an alternative to their thought that the KJV makes divorce a commandment.
On the basis of grammar alone, the verse can be rendered either way, and modern versions render writes for what can be a Hebrew perfect verb with and attached as a simple conjunction. The KJV makes the conjunction serve as what is called the waw consecutive that converts a perfect verb to an imperfect that is usually expressed with a future sense. Thus the Hebrew would literally read, and he will write that has the same sense as let him write in the KJV. The choice must be decided on the basis of context, and the commentators don't grasp the contextual sense and the grammar, while modern translators misrepresent the context & grammar, as noted below.
Contextually this rendering relates to
Mt.19:7,8 where in verse 7 Pharisees reveal that they view Dt. 24:1
as a command of Moses for a man to divorce a wife who has an un-
cleanness. However, in verse 8 the Lord Jesus corrects this notion by
telling them this is not a command, but is a permission to divorce
based on the hardness of the hearts of men seeking the divorce. That
is, a hard-hearted man who is willing to divorce a wife who depends
on him for her living would only make her life miserable and wretched
if he had to remain married to her. Thus the KJV Dt.24:1 let him
write is indicative of permission for divorce in such a case as
an act of mercy on the wife who would be better off alone than continuing to be married to such a man.
The modern-version and he writes is clearly incorrect since it results in making verse 1 of Dt.24:1 an incomplete sentence that must be joined to verse 2 for completion, while the Hebrew text clearly ends the sentence in verse 1. In accord with the Hebrew text, the KJV rendering ends the sentence in verse 1, so let him write or he will write is the true rendering, though the jussive sense of let him write is better English.
3. Summarizing a number of minor internet commentaries
a. A linguistically-limited commentator complains that the KJV language at 2 Sam. 14:20 is very confusing, making no sense. The verse refers to the fact that Joab told a woman to speak to king David about a certain matter, and after she does this, David asks her if Joab has moved her to say what she spoke. She responds to David, saying To fetch about this form of speech hath thy servant Joab done this thing: The term fetch about is an older English expression that requires no effort to understand in terms of modern English, fetch clearly meaning bring, and fetch about meaning bring about or bring to pass, so it means to cause or To bring about this form of speech.
b. It's said that the Latin terms Jupiter applied to Barnabus and Mercurius applied to Paul by citizens of Lystra in Acts 14:12 of the KJV are erroneous in that they don't truly translate the Greek, and supposedly the Greek names Zeus and Hermes are correct. But those who say this don't seem to realize that in the Greek text, Greek names would be assigned to these false gods, whatever the actual names were in the native language of Lycaonia spoken by these citizens (14:11). No one knows what names were actually used, but the inerrant Greek would be fully equivalent, making it readily possible to derive an English equivalent. Clearly, in an English translation, the names utilized will reflect English culture, and English is far more kindred to the Latin than it is to the Greek. Thus Latin names like Jupiter & Mercurius are the ones likely to apply in the KJV, and more likely to be understood by English readers. Indeed Lystra was a city in the Roman empire at this time in history, so the Latin names are the logical choices. Some theorize that the local language was Greek, but there is no basis to conclude this.
c. A commentator expresses the notion that the term testament in the KJV is better rendered covenant, but that view fails to recognize the centrality of Jesus Christ in the plan of God for mankind's salvation. A primary purpose of a testament is to serve as a will that involves the death of a testator, and this is taught in Hebrews 9:16,17 that says For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. The New Testament era is based upon the death of the Savior for the redemption of mankind, so testament is the proper term. Now strictly speaking, the Old Testament is a covenant that God made with His people before the time of the Cross, so the KJV can rightly render covenant in this section of scripture. However, the Old era prefigures the New with ordinances that point to the Savior and His death, so to utilize Old Testament in the New is proper. Yet in Hebrews 10:29 the term covenant appears in the KJV in relation to the Savior and to the shedding of His blood, evidently in the sense of a final all-inclusive covenant covering both eras of the history of God's people, this covenant invoking the testaments. The KJV Romans 11:27 and several Hebrews-epistle verses speak of the Old Covenant in this fashion, tying it to the better covenant endowed through Christ. The KJV Luke 1:72 & Acts 3:25 rightly speak of remembering the covenant God gave to Abraham, while Galatians 3:15-17 speaks of a covenant of a man in relation to that made with Abraham. Clearly, it's no surprise to find either term in scripture.
d. Mark 12:29, 32
KJV: 12:29: And Jesus answered him (a scribe) The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord.
12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
ESV: 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
12:32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him.
Either rendering of verse 29 is possible since the syntax taken from the Hebrew can be interpreted either way. However, the KJV rendering is better since the concept of one Lord doesn't conflict with the doctrine of the Trinity, each person in the Trinity having the status of Lord over all the universe. The KJV verse 32 properly applies the oneness to the term God, emphasizing the oneness of the three persons in their deity, and also refuting the heathen concept of various numerous gods.
On the other hand, the ESV "the Lord is one" can be viewed as referring to one person with the title of Lord, which would contradict Trinity doctrine, especially since verse 32 in the ESV follows up with "he is one," eliminating the term God (the term God is abs- ent here in critical Greek texts) to suggest a possibility of one person as both Lord and God involved in the overall context, when there are really three persons.
On the other hand, the ESV "the Lord is one" can be viewed as referring to one person with the title of Lord, which would contradict Trinity doctrine, especially since verse 32 in the ESV follows up with "he is one," eliminating the term God (the term God is absent here in critical Greek texts) to suggest a possibility of one person as both Lord and God involved in the overall context, when there are really three persons.
It's interesting to realize that the KJV provides the rendering that affirms the doctrine of the Trinity as applying boldly in the New Testament and subtly in the Old, whereas the modern versions favor, to one degree or another, the incomplete view of God held by Old-Testament Hebrews. Is that divine Providence telling us something about the best version? Further, while the Greek can be rendered teacher or master, the ESV teacher loses the sense of Lord, while master in the KJV reinforces it, and master is indicated contextually in that the scribe recognizes that Jesus shows mastery of the teaching of the Old Testament.
e. The anti-KJV sentiment of some commentators is so absurd that they think the KJV Old Testament rendering of Sion for Zion, usually an alternative name for Jerusalem, is translation error. Actually, when proper names are rendered, transliteration of them is required, and the common Hebrew term can be pronounced in English with either a Z or an S sound at the first letter. The 1611 KJV rendered Sion in several verses of the Psalms, but the Z sound soon became favored & predominant, and Sion persisted only in Psalm 65:1. Sion also appears in Dt.4:48, but here it refers to a different place with a Hebrew name that has a distinct S sound at the first letter.
Now there is an intriguing possibility regarding persistence of Sion in Psalm 65:1 that in this verse can be indicative of an association with both Jesus Christ the Savior and the New Jerusalem that supersedes the old one. This is suggested in that Sion is the term consistently rendered in the Greek New Testament, and the only rendering avail- able to the church in the first few centuries because the Greek Septuagint was the only form of the Old Testament available then. Thus Psalm 65:1 may offer a providential note on the ultimate plan of God for Israel when new Hebrew believers recognize Jesus Christ as their Messiah, and the New Jerusalem as their ultimate home. This is indicated in Romans 11:26 that says And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, and this concept is supported by other passages (eg. John 12:15, 1 Peter 2:6, Rev.14:1). The link of Psalm 65:1 to this concept would be the first clause, Praise waiteth for thee, O God in Sion, for the praise of God by Israel that still awaits applies to the Millennium when Jesus Christ rules all nations. A Psalm of David is where this concept would be found since Christ is called the Son of David, and, while there are other Old Testament verses that subtly speak of Christ, a very subtle reference to the concept would likely be the one where it appears, in response to Israel's disobedient rejection of her Messiah. All this would be presented in the KJV for English-speaking Hebrews.
f. Some commentators express disdain over use of the term hate in Luke 14:26 where the KJV reads as follows:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Actually the common meaning of the Greek here is hate, which term is used at times to signify a lesser degree of love such that one who is loved less than another is said to be hated by contrast. Thus the KJV is saying that, to be a disciple of Christ, one must love Him above even close family members. Clearly that means that a disciple must be willing to reject the desire of one's own family to impose their will on him if their will is contrary to that of Christ. A common case of such a situation is that in which family members insist that one of their family must remain true to their religion, rather than follow what they consider to be the extremes of faith in Christ. That hate doesn't refer to despising the family is clear in that one must hate his own life, or love his life less than his love of following Christ.
4. Some internet commentators express the notion that KJV inerrancy requires exact literality of agreement with its textual basis. Actually total literality isn’t possible due to different syntax, grammar and word sense of different languages. An inerrant trans- lation will be an exact equivalent of its inerrant textual basis, which requires following the context & sense of meaning of each Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic passage in totally accurate fashion, while being as literal as possible. We consider a few illustrations.
a. It’s said the KJV Luke 24:19 doesn’t follow the Received Text, its Jesus of Nazareth agreeing with critical texts, while the Received Text reads Jesus the Nazarene. The point is invalid, for the two terms are equivalent, and interchanging them would have no effect on accuracy, this being just a matter of variant language style. Furthermore, there is no involvement of manuscript preference here since, as advocates of modern versions often point out, KJV translators had no access to Greek manuscripts that are the main basis of critical-text New Testaments, these manuscripts being discovered long after the KJV was translated.
b. Lk.23:34. The issue is the same when the KJV renders cast lots, this plural term appearing in the critical text, and the singular lot in the Received Text. To cast a lot refers to the fact that one instance of this act is involved, while casting lots refers to the plurality of devices used in the act. The terms are equivalent in denoting the act of casting lots, and again this is just language style. Again, either term is consistent with inerrancy, and no one can say KJV translators preferred manuscripts of the type that are the main basis of critical texts.
5. Various cases of equivalent passage sense in text changes supposedly associated with KJV revision
Some suggest KJV inerrancy is denied by revisions that change text content, but there have been no actual revisions that affect text accuracy. The primary changes are those of language up-dating & printing style, and these just allow complete communication as readers lose knowledge of some term meanings, and experience difficulty in reading early types of printing.
Now, as noted above, there are differences in literality among various KJV editions in that the wording can vary a little, but the sense of meaning is unchanged, and a high degree of literality is retained, which is a basic criterion for achieving inerrancy.
The process of achieving inerrancy in KJV translation extended somewhat beyond the first edition, further editing being done to complete the perfection process, including increases in literality where possible. Enhancing literality in such cases doesn't affect text accuracy since passage sense is unchanged, and there is no effect on context. Initial valid language was replaced with valid equivalents that are simply more literal, and total literality in translation is never a requirement since it isn't even possible.
As the illustrations below indicate, language changes in the later renderings are really understood in the earlier ones. Some of the illustrations also present spelling changes that have occurred since the 1611 edition was published.
a. Mt.16:16 Thou art Christ became thou art the Christ, the being understood in the early rendering.
b. In 1 Cor.4:9 approved unto death became appointed unto death, and approved has the sense of appointed here.
c. 1 Jn.5:12 - hath not the Son became an equivalent hath not the Son of God, and Son of God is understood in the term Son.
d. 1 John 5:12 – the Sonne, hath vs. the Son of God hath. Sonne plainly refers to the Son of God in this context, and the spelling change has no effect on language sense.
e. In Josh.13:29 - Manasseh became an equivalent the children of Manasseh, and the added language is readily understood in the early term.
f. Joshua 3:11 – Arke
of the Couenant, euen the Lord became ark of the covenant of
the Lord, and even of the Lord is an equivalent way to say
of the Lord. Again a spelling change has no effect on the sense of the language.
g. 2 Kings 11:10 – in the Temple became in the temple of the LORD, and the Temple in this context clearly means the temple of the Lord.
h. Jeremiah 51:30 – burnt their dwelling places became burned her dwelling places, and their in reference to people of Babylon is equivalent to her as the nation Babylon.
i. Daniel 3:15 – a fierie furnace became a burning fiery furnace, and the early render- ing is equivalent in sense to the later, even though the addition of burning is more literal, and again changed spelling has no effect on the sense of language.
j. Isaiah 49:13 – for God became for the LORD, and God is equivalent to the Lord, the latter simply being more literal since LORD is the common rendering of the Hebrew term in the KJV.
In such cases the earlier renderings have the same sense and fit the context just as well as the later ones, so inerrancy isn't affected. The only factor involved is a desire to be as literal as possible in translation, while also following changes in spelling.
Printer temporary mistakes
Some say printing mistakes deny inerrancy, but printers are not part of the process of generating an inerrant text, their work being subject to the errors of carelessness. No one claims that inerrancy extends to every copy of the text, and correction of errors in printing extends inerrancy from the work of the translators to copies in general.
Translator temporary mistakes
Initially translated texts require study & correction of minor mistakes, and editing that corrects these is part of the process of achieving inerrancy. Editing is at times delayed until a subsequent edition is issued, so achieving inerrancy can be delayed, but it will always be achieved in an authorized translation like the KJV. Indeed persistence of uncorrected mistakes is one mark of an unauthorized translation, as is the case at times with modern English versions.
Some unlearned commentators, who allege mistakes in the present KJV text simply misjudge it (see essays 5a,c,d & 6c,d & 7a & 11d). However, there are many ongoing uncorrected mistakes in the modern versions that are severe problems, even involving an ongoing absence of authentic passages, including some that have minor manuscript support, but are seen to be authentic on the basis of undeniable support of context & grammar (see essay 4a on the Johannine Comma especially, and essay 3 that reveals the basic cause of minor manuscript support in such cases).
Typical examples of early temporary
minor mistakes in the KJV that are problems of printing or translation
are noted below. Again some of the spelling changes that have
occurred since the 1611 edition are illustrated. In cases of translation error, the change should be viewed as editing common to translation, and simply delayed for a limited time until after the 1611 edition, usually by 1613, and at times by 1629 or 1638.
a. 1 Corinthians 12:28 – helpes in gouernments was corrected to helps, government
b. 1 Corinthians 15:6 – And that was corrected to After that
c. Jeremiah 31:14 – with goodnesse was corrected to with my goodness
d. Ezekiel 6:8 – that he may was corrected to that ye may
e. Ezekiel 24:5 – let him seethe was corrected to let them seethe
f. Ezekiel 24:7 – powred it vpon the ground was corrected to poured it not upon the ground
g. Ezekiel 48:8 – which they shall was corrected to which ye shall.
h. Psalm 69:2 - seeke good was corrected to seek God, an obvious printing error, yet one that correctly equates good with God, so it may be that in an authorized version, even a printing error can be providentially regulated at times.
6. Some internet commentators make the silly point that scripture itself doesn't say the KJV is God's inerrant Word. Well it doesn’t say any particular Greek and Hebrew texts are God’s inerrant Word either. God's Word never has to justify itself in any way, but simply reflects His sovereignty.
In such matters scripture allows people to arrive at their own conclusions, exercising judgment on what is of high quality and great importance in life. People have a right to choose man’s inventions in preference to God’s Word, if they wish, just as they have a right to choose insane salvation-by-works philosophy of men, in preference to God’s salvation by grace taught in scripture. They are permitted to prefer evolution-theory insanity over the teaching of creation in God’s Word if they prefer to live like animals. They are permitted to rationalize away natural disasters and the economic hardships that befall a nation that turns its back on God, their views allowing them to retain their carnal liberal life-styles and remain on a course to condemnation. We’re all given the right of choice in all things so that we might be fairly and rightly judged in the day of final judgment.
7. Some internet commentators make the silly point that KJV translators didn't claim their text was inerrant. Well, any translators making that claim would reveal a gigantic disgusting egoism. The modesty of KJV translators in regard to their work, despite the unparalleled excellence of their scholarship, is indicative of reverence for God and His Word. God does not use arrogant men, but chooses the humble & reverent, and in the case of the KJV committee, He chose men like this who also possessed scholarship credentials far beyond those of scholars today (see, The Learned Men, Article #25, Trinitarian Bible Society, London).
8. Critics berate the KJV Lk.14:10 word worship applied in praise of men who humble themselves. But Greek doxa here varies in sense from praise to adoration, and that’s the exact meaning of worship, so the KJV translation is perfect. A problem exists only with those who restrict the word meaning to the sense of adoration.
9. Critics mock KJV chapter headings in Song of Solomon that relate the book to the church. But the church has always been God’s plan for His people, and it appears in typological form in the Old Testament. The book’s dealing with married love could not qualify it for the canon, its true qualification being its relation to an ultimate marriage and love of Christ and His church, and true preachers like Spurgeon understood this. Chapter headings aren’t part of an inerrant text, but they do serve to guide readers in regard to interpretation.
10. Critics mock the title saint applied to scripture writers in Bible-book introductions of the KJV, the title not being in the Greek. This Anglican title is actually providential, emphasizing the unique status of apostolic penmen authorized by Christ, the saints who knew Christ or His apostles personally, making their work a blessing to all the saints. The book is all about the saints and their service to the Lord, and it’s hardly improper to stress this in a section outside the text where inerrancy is not a factor.
11. Supposedly, KJV inerrancy is refuted by use of italics to signify words not literally in the textual basis, and by omitting words that are in the basis, and by marginal notes indicative of alternate readings.
Actually, italicized & omitted words are a necessary normal part of translation since no two languages are alike in syntax & word sense, and some words must be added, and some must be eliminated to provide the proper sense in English.
Alternative renderings in marginal notes do not affect KJV inerrancy, some being valid or alternatives & others just possibilities. They reflect translator conscientious- ness by providing alternatives to enable others to judge their work, and the KJV translators evidently desired outside input to reach the highest possible state of text accuracy, not considering themselves as infallible; yet their renderings in the text are the factor determining accuracy, and the leading of God in their choices without their awareness seems to be one way that God works among men of his choosing (as in the case of their use of the Genesis replenish in essay 15, and the case of work of Theodore Beza in Essay 4f on lack of conjectural renderings in the Received Text).
KJV critics say seraphims
in the KJV Isaiah 6:2 & elsewhere misspells seraphim,
the Hebrew plural of seraph.
The same is true of cherubims (Gen.3:24 & elsewhere). What they forget is that the Hebrew "im" plurality suffix is
unknown to most English readers, and the best way to render the terms
in English is to transliterate them, and to assign a familiar s
on the end. Further, seraphims & cherubims, being
closer to the actual spellings, are preferred over seraphs & cherubs.
Now to clarify further correct assignment of names in the Hebrew text, we note that there are times when a Hebrew term is specifically identified in the text so that it can be transliterated with the English suffix ites. However, in the case of the seraphim & cherubim, the terms refer to angelic beings of unknown specific nature, so no English form of the names like seraphites & cherubites can be utilized that would have any real meaning. To illustrate this differentiation, readers can consider Nehemiah 3:26,27. In the KJV the terms Nethinims in verse 26 and Tekoites in verse 27 both refer to people groups helping in restoration of Jerusalem upon return from captivity. Nethinims are said to be temple servants, as the term is rendered in the NIV, but they have no one identity based on this name, having only one that signifies their current work. Thus again the KJV correctly transliterates the term completely, except for the addition of s for the sake of English readers. On the other hand, Tekoa is a known town in Judah, so a people group identified with this town is rightly called Tekoites in the KJV, referring to their known identity, the transliterated Hebrew Teko'im not being applied here.
13. 2 Kings 2:23 KJV: And he (Elisha) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way,, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head, go up thou bald head.
Many of the children were then slain by
bears as a consequence of their disrespect and arrogance, which is
disturbing to us, but that cannot change what the texts says. Some
commentators say the text should read in accord with a Hebrew term
meaning youth, which they feel would be indicative of teenagers. But
the Keil & Delitzsch commentary refers to these youth as small boys,
and the reason is clear, for the term that follows the Hebrew for
youth describes them as small, referring to children, in accord with
the KJV. However much readers may dislike a scripture account, the truth cannot be changed to suit their wishes.
14. Genesis 1:2
KJV: And the earth was without form and void...
Supposedly, the Hebrew for was
should be rendered became, which is how gap-theory
evolutionists want to define it to support their concept of a re-creation. Actually, the verb commonly means become or to be, depending on context & supportive
language. Keil & Delitzsch note that the Hebrew terms for without
form & void refer to what is already in that barren
state, not something that becomes, or is made, that way, so was is
supported by related language, and this joins to the subsequent verses that all speak of creation acts.
15. Genesis 10:9
KJV: He (Nimrod) was a mighty hunter before the Lord...
Some commentators think the verse should read a mighty hunter in place of the Lord, but the normal sense of the Hebrew is before the Lord. The expression before the Lord means to the face of the Lord, which to some is equivalent to in the face of the Lord. The Hebrew term can mean against the Lord, but that can't be supported by context, so nothing but before the Lord can be assumed. The logical sense of the terminology here is that Nimrod operated as a mighty hunter in the presence of the Lord, whatever Nimrod's inclination toward God might have been.
Misleading criticisms of scholars & their followers
16. Acts 19:37 In the KJV a townclerk says of men accused of crimes against Diana the “goddess”…these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. Critics say robbers of churches should be robbers of temples (guilty of temple sacrilege), according to the lexicons. However, the rendering of the critics is redundant, offering one idea twice, that the men were not guilty of sacrilege, and were not blasphemers. KJV translators rendered the subject Greek term temple in Acts 19:27, so they understood the usual sense, but saw that context required a different rendering in 19:37. Context always guides language choice.
Applying context: Acts 19:1 notes Christian disciples in Ephesus, and Acts 19:8-19 notes many Ephesians leaving false gods in favor of Christianity, so churches were popular at Ephesus at this time. Verse 20 says, So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. Verse 23 notes a furor over this evangelism, saying, And the same time there arose no small stir about that way, referring to Christ-worship competing with Diana-worship. The term churches here signifies assemblies, both Christian & pagan (Christ’s church vs. satan’s imitation - any use of robbers of assemblies would miss the emphasis on religion). Idolators would call their assemblies churches to link them to the standard of victorious Christianity (as they do today). The term serves to contrast defeat of a false church with victory by the true church. In saying the men are not church robbers, the clerk is saying they won by divine favor, not by means of robbery or sacrilege, in regard to Diana’s assemblies.
The critics’ rendering, robbers of temples, or robbing religion of reverence (sacrilege), misses the true sense, which is loss of worshipers or robbers of churches (assemblies: people are the church). Acts 19:37 refers, not just to blasphemy, but robbery of Diana-worshipers who buy idols, the latter being the complaint of idol-maker Demetrius, and the cause of the no small stir in Ephesus. And the critics’ rendering doesn’t contrast Christ-worship with Diana-worship, losing emphasis on victory of the true church over the false one.
The Greek here has a broader sense than usual, necessitating context study to avoid blindly substituting English for Greek. Critics with a little knowledge of Greek criticize the laborious work of consummate KJV language masters.
17. The Greek Received Text is not a single text? Scholars say it's a series of related ones that differ a little. However, text determination should be viewed as a perfection process in which no one person has God’s guidance in rendering His Word. Minor variants were removed as the perfection process of the Received Text began with Erasmus, continued with Stephanus, and neared completion in the 1598 edition of Beza that was the main basis for the KJV. In God’s providence, the final form was determined by the large exceptionally-qualified KJV committee as they examined the various editions. This KJV final form declared the Received Text to the world, and Scrivener derived it roughly, contrasting it with the Alexandrian-type text of Westcott and Hort that was about to begin mesmerizing scholars.
It's important to realize that Received-Text editions, from the 3rd of Erasmus onward, differ only by literality variance, except for the case of Stephanus that exhibits a little grammatical error. They each preserve all authentic passages, and the proper sense of each passage, while presenting a normal high degree of agreement in literality, which is indicative of inerrancy preservation. In the present writer's view, the KJV itself finalized a process of achieving the optimum literality of the Received Text, presenting the English equivalent. This matter is discussed in essay 4i on this website.
18. Scholars note the 1611 KJV included apocrypha: They “forget” to say these weren't in the biblical text, but were just an appendix to the Old Testament, and were entitled Apocrypha. In Catholic versions they're mixed with canonical books to suggest authenticity. The KJV did not identify them as scripture, and even as an appendix they began to be excluded as early as 1629, so very early the authority of the KJV exceeded that of English tradition. This occurred in a nation in which tradition is of great authority, suggesting providential intervention.
19. Misprint Correction:
Ruth 3:15. In the KJV first edition he (Boaz) went into the city after Ruth's marriage proposal, but in next two editions she (Ruth) did. Scholars can’t decide the issue, but she fits context best, and quickly prevailed. Yet both went into the city, Ruth to tell Naomi results of the proposal (3:16), and Boaz to act as a kinsman redeemer (4:1), so accuracy & truth were never lost. The change is just one of editing, a normal part of translation work that was delayed briefly until after the first edition, and the best rendering soon prevailed in the process of achieving inerrancy.
Jeremiah 34:16: The KJV Oxford & Cambridge editions differ very slightly here, the
man his servant, and every man his handmaid,
had set at liberty…being identical to the Oxford,
except that in the latter he replaces ye; both preserve contextual sense, for the people are indicated
by he or ye.
The Cambridge ye
is the people, and in the Oxford, he in, every
man his servant, and every
man his handmaid, whom
set at liberty, is the
people. Ye is
correct Hebrew, and he is
printing error, yet the renderings are equivalent, and use of he
meets the requirement of exact equivalence needed for inerrancy.
Evidently, even a printing error in the KJV may at times be
providentially offset so that there is no error in the sense of meaning. Likely, what we have here are combined divine and human factors in generating an inerrant text, the divine factor allowing the human, while ensuring exact equivalence of inerrancy (see essay 4i for related comment on this concept).
20. Romans 7:6 - KJV
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead
wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit; and
not in oldness of the letter.
It is suggested that the KJV incorrectly says that being dead (the law) wherein we were held, the underlined term reflecting the genitive of the Greek, offered by Beza; this term appears in the nominative in all Greek manuscripts so that the supposed reading is, having died to that in which we were held. Supposedly, the KJV reading indicates that the law died to us, when the true sense is that we died to the law.
The KJV reading, that the law died to the people of God (not others), is very viable since that is the way that His people become dead to the law. Indeed, that concept is taught in Romans 7:2-3 that speaks of the wife as freed from the law of her husband in that this law dies to her by the death of the husband. If she marries a second time while the husband is alive, she is guilty of adultery, and this compares with following a new law when God has not yet ended the reign of the old one, or has not yet caused the old law to die to her. The comparison relative to God's people is made in verse 7:4 where the people become dead to the old law through the sacrifice of Christ who has made the old law dead to them, and brought them into a spiritual marriage to Him. Thus verse 7 can refer either to the death of the law to God's people from verses 2,3 or to the result of this, the death of the people to the law in verse 4. However, the root cause of our death to the law, the law's death to us through Christ, would be the main factor. The all- important death of Christ on the Cross is how death of the law to us was achieved, for by His death He slew the sin and its condemnation that made the law alive to us. He caused the death of the law to us to make us dead to the law, which is what verse 7:4 teaches in saying we have died to the law by the body of Christ. Thus the two readings are equivalent, either preserving inerrancy, while KJV translators chose to emphasize that which glorifies the role of Christ in this matter.
Now a case can be made that the two contrasting readings are not actually different, Beza's rendering saying the same thing all Greek manuscripts do. That would provide a specific reason why the 1611 KJV provides the common sense in the marginal note, being dead to that (wherein we were held), while an equivalent sense is preferred in the text. In support of this concept, the Greek-text comma after the law can prevent the following that from acting as a relative pronoun introducing a restrictive clause linked to the law, so that that being dead wouldn't refer to the law, and this phrase in the KJV would relate grammatically to we rather than the law. The comma would extend the link of we from deliverance from the law in the clause before the comma, to death to the law in the clause after the comma. With we as the focus, we read we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, which has the same sense as...we are delivered from the law, that being dead to that in which we were held...
Now there's a potential problem with this second explanation in that the genitive term is singular, which seems to conflict with a reference to we. However we seems to have a contextual collective-singular sense emphasizing that the people of God as one group or persona are referred to as dead to the law. This is suggested since in all 18 verses that follow verse 7:6, Paul references himself with the pronouns I & me as a persona collectively representing all of God's people as one. Thus the genitive singular in verse 7:6 may serve as a transition from the regular plural sense of brethren, ye & we in verses 7:4-5 to the singular collective persona sense of verses 7:7-25.
21. John 14:14 Praying and asking in the name of Jesus
KJV: If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
NASV: If you ask Me anything in My name I will do it.
Critical-Greek texts here read, If you ask me anything in the name of me, and the first me looks like a spurious addition, for it's unnecessary & misleading. In effect, this is saying ask me in the name of me. If use of the first me were correct, there would be no need to say in my name, and the passage would logically read If you ask me anything, I will do it, but to include me in addition to my makes the verse refer exclusively to Christ and eliminates any role of the Father. On the other hand, the language If you ask anything in my name, I will do it, properly conveys the concept of asking the Father in the name of Jesus, Jesus being the one who the Father authorizes to grant requests. Thus both the Father and the Son are involved in granting prayer requests, which is far more logical than the reading of the critical-Greek text.
22. An effect of Hebrew poetic expression: Some commentators suggest the Hebrew for dwell in Psalm 23:6 can be rendered return, and the ESV offers return to dwell in the footnotes. Actually the spelling can apply to dwell or to return (see Davidson, The Ana- lytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon), and both apply in Ps.23:6, but dwell is proper English, as in the KJV & other versions. The dual sense is distinctive of Psalms poetic style in which return echoes the sense of the correct dwell related to dwelling forever.
In Psalm 23:6 David speaks of God's goodness following him all the days of my life (the earthly life) and returning to life in the house of God to dwell there forever. The Hebrew for forever here is literally length of days that can refer to the earthly life, but a poetic Hebrew ambiguous verb form for dwell or return invokes a sense of eternity with God, a return forever to dwell in the house of the Lord who gave life at the start. The house of the Lord here can't be the earthly temple or tabernacle since the temple hadn't yet been built in David's time, and the tabernacle wasn't a place where he could dwell all the days of his life, so David's house of the Lord in this verse would refer to the heavenly abode of God, in agreement with the sense of return echoing the sense of dwell that would signify a life-to-death transition in Ps.23:6.
That the term return can invoke the sense of a life-to-death transition is seen in Ecc. 12:7 that says of death, and the spirit shall return (the Hebrew specifies return) unto God who gave it. In Gen.3:19 God says in regard to Adam's sin, in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread (will labor in the earthy life for sustenance), till thou return (the Hebrew specifies return) unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken...and Adam is to return to the ground at death. The added sense of return in Ps.3:6 indic- ates that the time spoken of is forever, not just the earthly life.
That dwell usually doesn't involve a life-to-death transition is seen in various non- poetic verses, such as Gen.4:20 where earthly persons dwell in tents and have cattle. However the same can be true of poetic verses, as in Ps.27:4 where David says that I may dwell (no ambiguity) in the house of the Lord all the days of my life (not Hebrew length of days), to behold the beauty of the Lord and to inquire in his temple. Here the house of the Lord is called a temple, so whatever earthly temple God might appear in, like the tabernacle, or any place where He is when He answers David's questions, is evidently being referenced, and David can inquire of God wherever that place happens to be. His inquiries would be for earthly guidance since no such guidance would be needed in heaven, and he often inquired of God during his earthly trials. The beauty of the Lord would refer to God's frequent gracious deliverance of David during the trials. All this is indicated as the Hebrew specifies dwell that is not commonly associated with a life-to-death transition here.
23. Philip.2:6,7 Greek/English mismatch and Kenosis: NASV translators equate literal Greek and English here, rendering the Philip. 2:7 Greek heauton ekenosen as Jesus emptied Himself. This can support kenosis theory suggesting He gave up non-moral attributes of deity, such as omnipotence, omniscience and the like. But He who calmed a storm at sea by His word and spoke into existence new matter from bread and fish, never gave up any attributes of deity
The true passage sense is giving up privilege as deity, humbling Himself by the Cross to accomplish our salvation (e.g. divesting oneself of his prerogatives. Pershbacher. 1990. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Hendrickson). This is the meaning of the KJV, made himself of no reputation. The KJV handles language mismatch by an exact English equivalent of the true sense of the literal Greek.
24. Scholars say Greek hades, usually hell in the KJV, differs from hell (Gr. gehenna). But hades is usually the fiery hell of the rich man in Lk.16:19-31, and Hebrew sheol also signifies that at times, but at times both mean death. Passage context indicates that hades, and also sheol at times, signify fiery hell for souls that will later be cast into a final hell, the lake of fire (Greek gehenna) in resurrected bodies.
However, the notion of scholars that Hades/sheol is an underground abode for all the dead is based on mythology, for the righteous have always gone up, and the wicked always down, even in the Old Testament days. Pro.15:24 says, The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath, so hell (sheol) below was for the foolish. Sheol in Dt.32:22 is associated with burning fire, and in Ps.86:13 deliverance of the soul from lowest hell in sheol indicates degrees of punishment of the soul.
25. 1 Kings 20:38. The KJV says, So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face; the prophet confronted king Ahab anonymously. Critics say the Hebrew here for the KJV ashes means bandage, which seems to fit, the prophet incurring a deliberate wound in disguising himself. But a bandage would cover the wound to nullify the purpose of wounding, and a bandage could be used without any wounding. As part of the ruse, wounding was for an effect visible to the king. Actually, the Hebrew here has a more general meaning than that of a bandage, covering being correct (sash or headband are suggested, but a headband over his eyes would hinder his vision, and sash is too general in its sense). Study indicates the term refers to a film of mud or sooty ash masking the face without hiding the wound. Ashes is correct, also symbolizing failure & repentance (sackcloth & ashes), which is the image used by the prophet to get a right response to the ruse. The feigned repentance of the prophet for failure to guard a prisoner of war was condemned by Ahab, just as Ahab’s failure to do God’s will in not destroying an enemy king was condemned by God.
26. 2 Sam. 6:19, 1 Chron. 16:3, Song. of Sol. 2:5, Hos. 3:1 Supposedly, a KJV flagon (of wine) in these verses should be raisin cakes according to some scholars, and lexicons tend to support this opinion, but the meaning of the Hebrew term is obscure, and other scholars say the reference here is to wine. A comparable situation exists with the KJV a good piece of flesh in 2 Sam.6:19, some scholars rejecting it in favor of date cake, which is unlikely due to the redundancy of the two types of fruit cakes and the related loaf of bread. Three types of grain-based foodstuff, especially the closely-related raisin cake & date cake would offer no expected variety pertaining to a meal of celebration, and this part of the text appears to be unrelated to the sacrifices offered by David in the preceding context.
Rabbinical tradition supports a good piece of flesh, and Hebrew tradition is more authoritative than scholar opinion regarding Hebrew language. Indeed scholars are so uncertain of the rendering here that some propose a reference to wine in lieu of piece of flesh (see Keil & Delitzsch Com.). It seems likely that the KJV translators benefited by God's providence in enabling their scholarship through access to historical records unavailable to later scholars, which would mean the KJV exhibits accuracy in some areas that can't be achieved in modern versions that don’t follow the KJV.
27. 1 Kings 10:28. The KJV linen yarn is often said to be an incorrect translation, but again the sense of the Hebrew is obscure, and certain translations and commentaries offer renderings supportive of linen yarn. The situation here is like that with flagon of wine noted above in item no. 25 in that there are different possible renderings in the opinions of scholars (see Keil & Delitzsch); kue, referring to a locale in Egypt, seems to be the most common, the main one assigned in lexicons, and modern translators & critics tend to follow this. Another suggestion of scholars is the rendering company in lieu of kue, illustrating how greatly the renderings can vary when the opinions of scholars are applied.
It’s often assumed the pertinent Hebrew term is the locale name with a preposition attached as a prefix (Hebrew mem for English from since the associated vowel point, hireq, is common with the preposition). Yet the term can be a common noun formed by use of a preformative mem on a verb (hireq is also commonly associated with mem on nouns), the noun meaning collection (Brown-Driver-Briggs). The verb can have the sense of twist or stretch, associated with terms like threads or strands in languages related to Hebrew. All this is suggestive of a collection of threads or strands twisted or stretched in a fabric, which accords with the KJV linen yarn. In God's providence KJV translators may have had access to historic records on this subject that later ceased to be available. This possibility is better based than the opinions of modern scholars, especially in light of the knowledge that KJV scholarship greatly exceeded that of today (see The Learned Men, Article 25, Trinitarian Bible Society, London).
28. Proverbs 29:18
KJV: Where there is no vision, the people perish, but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.
NASV: Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, but happy is he who keeps the law.
Supposedly the KJV perish is not the best rendering, the more common sense of the Hebrew term being indicative of people acting as they wish without restraint. Actually, this is one of many cases where the common meaning doesn't apply fully, serving only to introduce the full sense of the teaching. The sense of people unrestrained applies in many contexts, but here the teaching applies to the final result of being unrestrained due to a lack of vision, which is destruction. Scholars these days seem to concentrate on grammar without properly considering the context.
Now the meaning of vision is a focus on the future and consequences of behavior. To keep God's law means to forsake sin, and the ultimate end of this behavior is peace with God that will result in true happiness. On the other hand, people with no vision for the future simply do as they please, and the ultimate consequence is destruction since no civilization, or people group, can survive long if individuals ignore the welfare of others and their nation as a whole. In such circumstances, it won't be long before everyone is unhappy, and hostile toward others, and a breakdown of a civilization, a people group, will occur; the ultimate likely consequence is destruction of their form of government, which even creates a potential for forces hostile to a nation taking advantage of the situation. Indeed, this lack of vision was the factor that caused the downfall of many past civilizations, the Roman empire being one of the most notable in this regard, and the U.S. is currently on the same tragic course.
Ironically, what we have here in the rendering of this Proverbs verse is a problem with modern translators who don't have enough vision to see beyond common grammar, and thus can't foresee the ultimate consequences of a lack of vision in a people group or a nation.
29. Mark 4:37 Ralph Earle criticizes the KJV (see evengelicaloutreach.org/KJVO.htm)
KJV: And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.
Quoting Earle: The Greek does not have the aorist tense suggesting completed action (see the Blass-Debrunner Grammar), but the present infinitive of continuing action. So a better translation is 'already filling up' (NASB) or 'nearly swamped' (NIV). If the boat had been 'now full' (KJV), it would have been at the bottom of the lake!" (p. 37).
The KJV now full has the sense of the boat being as full as it could be without sinking, yet on the verge of sinking due to the threat of continuing water entry into the boat, which is why the disciples in the boat feared for their lives, but were not yet in the water. The NIV nearly swamped is a valid alternative expressing the same thought, but the NASV misses this sense. The boat wasn't in the process of filling up, as in the NASV, but had now reached this point of maximal water intake, and was either still taking on water, or about to take on more, and sink. Earle is correct in saying the verb is not aorist, but the continuing action has reached the point of being perilous, and this point is presented as if it were a brief halt in the action of the context.
The Received Text and modern critical texts read the same in this verse, and the sense is construed incorrectly by Earle because he concentrates on grammar, and misses the contextual sense. Context is always the main matter presented, and the chief role of grammar is to support the context. This is extremely important since no two languages are exactly alike, and Greek & English often use somewhat different grammar to say the same thing.
30. Does God show respect of persons? Israel in Egyptian Bondage.
2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abra- ham, with Isaac and with Jacob.
2:25 And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them.
6:5 Servants be obedient to them who are your masters according to the flesh.
6:9 And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Despite the protests of some, there is no contradiction in these passages, for there are different meanings of the word respect according to differences in the context in which it is utilized. In the example from Exodus, the meaning is that God has respect unto people according to their need, which was clearly very great for Israel in bondage in Egypt, and was a need only He could meet. On the other hand, the Ephesians pass- age tells us something quite different, that there is no respect of persons with God in that a man's status in life counts for nothing with God, wrongdoing being rewarded appropriately whether a man is a servant or a master. This also applies to other aspects of status, like the economic, political & ethnic. We are motivated to learn this important lesson fully through what is only an apparent contradiction.
31. Psalm 77:2. Modern scholars say the KJV my sore ran in the night should be, my hand was stretched out. Hand is the common rendering of the Hebrew, but was stretched out, while grammatically possible, is a less-common sense, flowed or gushed forth being the common one, and my hand flowed or gushed forth would be a nonsensical expression in poetry or prose. Actually, the scholar rendering is possible grammatically, but the KJV rendering is the correct one according to context & syntax.
Hebrew poetry of Psalms is often uniquely expressed in terms of metaphors, and the likely sense of hand here is power (e.g. in the hand or power of someone) so that the thought has to do with hurt in the soul. That is, the psalmist tells of the power of his soul as lost in his distress, his power flowing out from a wound/sore of the soul, as indicated by the following language my soul refused to be comforted, which directly parallels, and thus reflects, the clause on the running sore; related parallel lines are characteristic of Hebrew poetry. In such poetry a wound in the soul is likely to be expressed as a running sore, as indicated by the verse-10 term infirmity (sickness) to describe the psalmist's spiritual condition.
Now my hand was stretched out can be taken as a poetic metaphor, but it would not parallel the following phrase, and ceased not, while my sore ran properly parallels it, and my hand was stretched out would not correlate with the infirmity of verse 10. In- deed, my hand was stretched out would be discordant with the overall sense of verse 2. The first clause of the verse, In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord, introduces the concept that the speaker is in some trouble, and this clause is rightly followed by a description of the trouble as the running sore of the soul, and that clause is properly followed by a parallel note on a lack of comfort of the soul. Thus the three clauses are parallel & interrelated, which rightly places them all in one verse. On the other hand, my hand was stretched out as a metaphor in the second clause of verse 1 would disrupt the parallelism and the interrelationship of the three verse clauses. Indeed my hand was stretched out could be seen as metaphorically paralleling verse 1, and so would not fit rightly in verse 2, especially since it would then be disconnected from verse 1 by the first clause of verse 2. It’s no surprise that the Hebrew grammarian & commentator, Rabbi David Kimchi, rendered the verse to speak metaphorically of a running sore. The KJV translators were true experts in Hebrew, and clearly agreed with Kimchi’s rendering, but modern translators are not such experts, and those of them who are not native Hebrew speakers fall short of the mark.
Modern scholars often inadequately grasp Hebrew poetry, failing to differentiate it adequately from prose. The commentator Adam Clarke is among those who did not understand this issue in Ps.77:2, and he influenced many others. Use of metaphoric language utilizing physical concepts to refer to spiritual ones appears in many places in the Psalms, and a few of the numerous cases are noted below.
Ps.22:12. Many bulls have compassed me, referring to strong human adversaries.
Ps.44:19...the shadow of death, referring to the prospect of death.
Ps. 45:5. Thine arrows are sharp, referring to God's judgments or punishments
Ps.69:1...the waters are come in unto my soul, referring to a flood of trouble.
Ps.80:8. Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it, referring to God's establishment of the nation of Israel.
Ps.102:9. For I have eaten ashes like bread, referring to a daily ruination experience.
Ps.109:18. As he clothed himself with cursing, referring to the manner of a man who is totally characterized by cursing
32. 1 Thess. 5:22. Supposedly, the KJV Abstain from all appearance of evil should be, Abstain from every form of evil. Either rendering of the Greek is possible, and form here can be used in the same sense as appearance, or it can be understood as speaking of the type of evil. The KJV all appearance is superior in that it teaches an important truth, that believers are to avoid all activity that can be associated with evil, even that simply suggestive of evil, like patronizing a restaurant that serves alcohol, or paying undue attention to persons of the opposite gender, which can make observers leery of one's testimony. The problem with every form of evil is that it most likely would be interpreted as speaking only of every type of evil. The sense that's most comprehensive would apply to instruction for believers like those in Thessalonica who would need to practice godliness in every way, as emphasized in the very next verse that says, And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
33. Mark 9:18. It's said that the KJV pineth away should read as becomes rigid, but pineth/withering away is the usual rendering of the Greek, and is proper here, fitting context. Becomes rigid might result from withering away, but is only a possibility, so there’s no reason to vary from the usual pineth/withering away.
34. Mark 6:20. Supposedly, the KJV observed him, regarding Herod about John the Baptist, should be preserved him. The Greek means kept/maintained and that is a common sense of observed in older English (e.g. observed teachings, as in Mk.10:20, Mt. 23:3, 28:20, Acts 16:21, 1 Tim.5:21). Indeed, learning older-English terms is a good way to keep our minds alert to word sense, and thus sharpen interpretive skill.
35. John 20:17 Supposedly, the KJV Touch me not, spoken by Jesus to Mary after the Resurrection, should be, Do not keep holding me. But the Greek is generally Touch me not, and scholars just feel an alternative is needed since, in Mt.28:9, two women hold him by the feet, and in Lk.24:39 He said to His disciples, handle me, all of this contact occurring after the Resurrection. Actually, the John 20 context offers no sense of Mary holding Him, and reverence would require only a touch. She was the first one who saw the Savior after the Resurrection and wouldn’t be able to refrain from touching Him to ensure the reality of His presence. After one person touches Him, others are permitted to do so.
36. 2 Kings 23:29. Supposedly Pharaoh Necho went to aid the king of Assyria, in contrast with the KJV rendering that speaks of the Pharaoh going against the king. Actually, from the Hebrew language in 2 Kings 23, there is no indication that Pharaoh went to aid the king, and the crucial preposition here means “against” at times. The matter is finalized by the fact that 2 Chron. 35:20-24 describes the same incident, and clearly tells us that Pharaoh went to “fight against” the king.
Archaeological study indicating an alliance between the king and Necho changes no- thing in the text, for people often change relationships with others when there is a change in circumstances that can change their attitudes toward others, especially to- ward those in leadership positions.
37. KJV terminology
a. Supposedly, shoes should be sandals in the New Testament, but this notion lacks credibility. Sandals were not the only type of footwear of early New Testament days, a sturdy type being needed for walking on the longest trips, and Roman soldiers of that day wore heavy stitched boots, sandals not being suited for use in warfare. Translators can’t know which type applies in each context, and shoes is a general term suited to describe footwear in general in that day. KJV translators rendered sandals when this was appropriate in relation to context.
b. Supposedly ointment was contained in a flask, not the KJV box, but that ignores the fact that some ointments are salves, and salves aren’t contained in flasks. That type of ointment today is contained in wide-mouth bottles, and if the ancients of those days had no such bottles, a box would be the logical type of container used.
c. Supposedly the text should speak of men reclining at tables, not sitting at them, and reclining was common, but that’s not the only possibility. Once tables are in use, at times men will sit on pillows or rugs, or the tables will be high enough to permit use of stools. KJV translators would know it was inappropriate to assume reclining as the only possibility, and rightly used a term with general application. Sit or sitting is proper since this has a general sense of being placed at a table, as in saying a book sits on a table. A book can be placed in different positions, lying flat and closed or open, or can be standing on edge along with others that are restrained within book-ends.
d. Supposedly text language requires wineskins, not bottles, but bottle doesn’t have the limited sense commonly applied today, referring to any container that bottles or holds a liquid. Further, bottles is well understood by modern readers, but wineskins presents a lack of familiarity in meaning, and it represents an unhealthy habit of life.
e. Supposedly lamp as a container of oil in a lampstand is the correct terminology in scripture, while the KJV candle and candlestick are not. Actually, only the meaning that scholars assign to a candle or a candlestick is incorrect, for generically a candle refers to a flame on a stick, like a Roman torch. A lampstand like the candelabrum had arms like sticks to which cups with oil were attached, which fits the generic sense of a candlestick. But to speak of lamps on stands isn’t always correct, for stand can refer to something quite different, like a small table or a column with a flat top. A translator can't always know which term applies in any given context, so the generic candle or candlestick is always correct terminology.
38. James 5:16
KJV: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
NIV: Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed…
The NIV sins differs from the KJV faults. The disagreement is due in part to different Greek words for faults and sins in the two types of Greek texts, and in part to the fact that the word in the Received Text can refer to sin in some contexts. Scholars tend to favor the renderings of manuscripts they prefer, and they dismiss this KJV rendering, thinking it has the wrong sense of the word in the Received Text. This is presumption, and it’s the scholars who have the wrong sense, due to their opinions and preference.
We must first see that confessing our faults to one another is an appropriate measure in Christian relationships, faults being errors by which we offend a brother in such things as gossip or harsh criticism. If we confess the faults to a brother we've wronged, we will indeed promote healing, and healing is the purpose of the confession, as the context plainly shows. As verse 16 says, it’s righteous men whose prayers to God for healing are heard, and righteous men confess their faults to each other, to heal their relationships with each other, that their prayers for God’s healing won’t be hindered.
But is it proper to confess our sins to each other, and is that likely to bring any kind of healing? Likely it will bring disgust, disrespect and perhaps heart-wounding gossip as people get a revealing look at a human heart. Our confession of sin is not to be to men (including clergy) but to God who alone deals rightly with such things, as 1 John 1:7-9 tells us. God alone forgives sins and cleanses us of them, and our brethren can never do such things, so why would we confess sins to anyone but God? We must confess faults affecting our brethren so that we can be forgiven by them, and so that healing of all types might be able to take place.
Thus a little trust in the sovereignty of God in guiding the rendering of His preserved traditional word and a little common sense show us He has not failed to give to us His true rendering. And it shows us what translators can produce in this modern era.
The New King James Version renders trespasses, which is technically correct since faults in our dealings with brethren are trespasses. But that term includes sins, which are trespasses against God (Col.2:13, 2 Cor. 5:19, etc), and here this word will include confessing sins to each other. The word is too inclusive since confessing trespasses to each other would be confessing our sins as well as all our faults, the offenses against God and our brethren.
KJV: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind…
NIV: Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels dis- qualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.
The KJV logically speaks of the error of worshiping angels in the sense of giving them adoration, which is costly in terms of rewards, for God alone is to receive worship of this type. The passage goes on to say that those who promote worship of angels can’t know any reality in this matter since they can’t see the invisible realm of angels to verify any such teaching. They can see validity in such things by a carnal imagination.
But the NIV Greek text offers a slight wording change that greatly affects contextual sense, and violates common sense, yet some scholars try to defend the indefensible. In contrast with the logical KJV teaching, the NIV illogically suggests the teacher of angel worship has seen something of invisible angels in support of his untenable position. Yet scholars actually suggest the NIV is correct and the word not is a later corruption in the text. That ignores the problem, simply justifying a rendering of the preferred type of Greek text without questioning contextual problems that it introduces. White justifies it, saying we don’t have to see the NIV as speaking of a false teacher actually seeing invisible things but just imagining he has seen them (White, J.R. The King James Only Controversy, p182). But that requires reading an interpretation into the text when the literal interpretation on actually seeing something is the one likely to be surmised by readers. Literal clarity of expression is the only way to avoid confusion in this case, and is thus the only rule indicative of the authentic rendering. The inerrant rendering can only be the clearly expressed one in the KJV. Further, the modern-version Greek-text meaning in this matter isn't certain, as NRSV footnotes indicate, pointing to a probable corruption in that text. For such reasons, it's far more likely not was wrongly dropped from the NIV Greek text rather than wrongly added to the KJV Greek text. One gets weary of violations of common sense in arguments aimed only at justifying the preferred Greek text-type of scholars.
We should compare the NIV rendering of the subject passage with that of other modern versions.
NASV…and the worship of angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen…
NRSV…and worship of angels, dwelling on visions…
Other modern versions offer a variance based on a unique interpretation, suggesting the false teacher sees visions. This offers specific sense on seeing things in the unseen realm, but is again just an interpretation read into the text, so this can’t be used to justify the absence of not in not seen. Further, as noted the meaning of this form of the text is uncertain, suggesting corruption, and there’s no certainty that visions are even implied. And why add a thought on visions when the passage logical meaning is served properly by speaking of things that can’t be seen, so the additional thought is quite superfluous to communication needs. Absence of not looks much like a corruption by an ancient copyist imposing his own interpretation on the modern-version text.
And the NIV committee requires reinforcement of its interpretation, adding goes into great detail (on what he's seen). This interpretation, while possible, is only a private one, and other modern versions indicate that the false teacher bases his teachings on visions, not necessarily upon their great detail, but on their importance to the teacher. Adding the thought on great detail will reinforce the notion that the teacher imagines things to support his teaching. But as already noted, this interpretation is not literal, and must be read into the text. The NIV committee appears to show concern over the problem of seeing things in the unseen realm by choosing an interpretation that adds something in support of this notion.
There is another factor involved in this matter. The critical-text visions he has seen lends credence to a form of false worship practiced in early Colosse, a cult involving a worship of angels, and likely related to Gnosticism, suggesting this reading originated with such a cult. Given the widespread fervent devotion to Gnosticism in the early few centuries of the church, it is quite likely that the critical-text rendering is the result of tampering by such heretics, both Gnosticism & the Alexandrian-type of text primary to modern critical texts being associated with early Alexandria Egypt. The reading would be an effort to legitimize worship of angels, while chastising participants who tried to make themselves overly important in the practice.
40. Mark 10:21
KJV: Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treas- ure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
NIV: Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack.” He said, “Go sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, ____? ___ follow me."
Modern scholars attempt in some detail to justify their opinion that their "best" Greek text is correct here, and that the underlined clause in the KJV doesn’t belong there. J.R. White (p159) agrees with scholars who suggest the clause doesn't belong in the text (evidently we’re supposed to believe scholars have magical insight into all that God’s Word is supposed to say). He supports the omission in his preferred type of Greek text by noting other passages in modern versions speak of taking up the cross so that there’s no intent to eliminate this doctrine from modern versions. He also notes that the KJV Matthew and Luke parallel passages dealing with the same incident do not include the note about taking up the cross. He concludes that modern versions have the correct original reading, and that in the KJV Greek text the clause in question must be due to some scribe adding a corruption to the text in Mark. He assumes this is likely since the clause is included elsewhere in scripture so that it would seem natural to scribes to add it in this passage. This is merely a totally subjective analysis by White and those of his persuasion based on their belief of the superiority of their preferred text. To them, deletions in their favorite text aren't conceivable. They simply won't explore the concept of a correct KJV rendering that conflicts with their preferred text, so we must do it for them.
The teaching on taking up the cross is an important and neglected one in any era, but especially in ours that is so bent on self-gratification, and so opposed to self-sacrifice. In conjunction with the incident in Mark, the clause is important in completing the sense of what our Lord teaches us in this passage. It does not matter one iota that the clause is present elsewhere in modern versions. The whole point is that it has very important application within the context of this passage in Mark, and its omission here adversely affects what is taught from context, indicating syntactical error. The reader won’t see its importance in the context of this passage if he must make a connection through other passages elsewhere in scripture. It must be present in each passage where it is needed to complete the context. In this passage it is essential as part of the Lord's teachings on the impossibility of earning our salvation.
In the passage containing Mark 10:21, our Lord corrected a young man's thought that salvation was earned by keeping of the works and letter of the law. The Lord showed him how wrong such thinking is by showing him the great severity of requirements for the perfect keeping of the law in human strength. Salvation by this means would necessitate acts like giving away everything he owned to benefit the poor. But even that was only one of the things that would be required to earn his own salvation, a task so difficult, it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (10:25). Giving up all of their wealth in order to keep the law perfectly is one of those things that are impossible for many men to do, but many other things like this are involved in the perfect keeping of the law. Giving away his wealth was just the one thing this particular young man was entirely incapable of in his own strength. Others might be able to do this, but not other acts of great sacrifice required in perfect keeping of the law. All such things are quite well summarized in the clause take up the cross, which refers to a willingness to give up all self desire for the sake of God, even the desire for life itself. This shows the young man and all readers just how impossible it is to earn salvation by perfect keeping of the law, requirements being far too great to accomplish in human strength alone. Things like this begin to be possible only after God's power of salvation touches a life.
Thus the clause in question is necessary to complete all that our Lord teaches us here. Without the clause, the full passage sense is lost, for it’s not only the inability to part with riches that keeps us from following God in our own strength. Self-deprivations of all types required for perfect keeping of the law, all those that hinder our following in our own strength, are summed up in take up the cross. The passage teaching must be complete, and is only if the clause in question is included, so it can only be authentic, showing us that the critical-text syntax is faulty due to omission. Some who believe in works salvation may prefer to omit the clause to make their mode of salvation more palatable, but this only encourages their error.
As for absence of the clause in Matthew and Luke parallel passages on this incident, many parallel passages have partial information regarding an event under discussion. Partial information would be providentially ordained so that serious study by cross-referencing is needed to reveal the full story, and to motivate full and thorough study and understanding of the teaching. Details reserved for each account complement each other, and each account amplifies the other to complete our knowledge of the incident. A reference to the same incident dealt with in Mark 10 appears in verse 19:16 of a parallel Matthew passage. Here we see that the young man’s question in complete amplified form is, what good thing shall I do, concerning the things he thought he had to do to acquire salvation. This amplifies the question and proves that the young man did harbor the notion that he could do good works to earn salvation. Matthew's amplification is needed to provide the full proof of passage meaning on unbiblical works-salvation philosophy. Good appears only in Matthew, but it’s a very important cross reference note that helps explain text meaning, and does White think that too is spurious?
The clause take up the cross in Mark regarding the incident is missing in the modern-version critical Greek texts. With no related clause in parallel passages, the reader is deprived of the knowledge of the full severity of trying to earn salvation. Without the clause, the only teaching is that giving up riches is required to keep the law, when much more is required. All readers must be told every severe self-deprivation required in trying to earn salvation by perfect keeping of the law. They must learn this so that they might know that salvation is obtained without human works through the power of God alone. This is crucial for edification of readers, and can’t be omitted without impairing the teaching, so the phrase in question can only be authentic.
41. Matthew 14:9 The KJV reads, And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it (the head of John) to be given her (Herodias’ daughter). The KJV Mark 6:26 reads…for his oath’s sake… Oath’s is correct in both accounts since context reveals one oath that is stated once in Matthew, but twice in Mark (Mt.14:7, Mk.6:22,23). Critics claim KJV error since the Greek in both verses reads oaths, plural, saying, because of the oaths. But the Greek text notes one oath spoken twice, and the KJV uses the singular sense of this oath. This is just a lexical variance between Greek and English, and the English is preferred in an English version. But the Greek is fine if there’s no confusion of sense, and the 1611 KJV used the plural oaths (lit. older-English othes) sake (same as sake of the oaths - older English has no apostrophe for singular or plural possessive, as in Col.3: 6). Another example of such lexical variance is Gal.6:11 where Greek grammasin (letters) is letter in the KJV, for context shows Paul wrote one Galatians letter, and the Greek denotes various letters (writings) in that one letter.
42. Mark 10:24
KJV: Jesus answereth again...Children, how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.
NIV…"Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God…
The KJV says that trusting in riches sidetracks us from trust in Christ to get to heaven. The NIV says there is a hard way to heaven that can only be by hard works, in contrast with trusting Christ to gain heaven. Text critics favor a short works-salvation reading from just 4 manuscripts. They say conservative scribes added words, disliking a harsh short reading (works salvation is harsh),* and a works-salvation rendering is said to be the true, though harsh, one.
*White, p168, claims the traditional text adds the phrase on riches to smooth transition to verse 25 that deals harshly with rich men. This is just his imagination, for without the phrase, we can’t tell why there’s difficulty with riches in verse 25.
43. Titus 2:13, 14
KJV: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us…
NIV: while we wait for the blessed hope the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ Who gave himself for us to redeem us…
White (p201) and others say the KJV here (and also in 2 Pet.1:1) offers an inaccurate syntax that separates Christ from the title the great God, supposedly suggesting He’s not to be called God, and supposedly the NIV, NASV & NKJV correct this. But the KJV follows literal Greek better than the others do, in a majesty of language to convey a message on the majesty of Christ our God. By speaking of His deity and salvation role separately, the KJV emphasizes His majesty in its totality. An of in the expression blessed hope and the glorious appearing of directly associates this expression with, the great God and our Savior. The expression refers to Christ in the Second Advent, so the great God and our Savior can both refer only to Christ. What the KJV says so eloquently is that Christ is the great God on the one hand, and our great Savior on the other hand, which is a reason to rejoice, for it means our salvation is totally secure. This is a literary device of emphasis by diction that often characterizes the KJV.
Modern critics don’t grasp the literary riches of the Greek, and the English patterned after it, that are so superior to contemporary English. The NIV (and NASV & NKJV) is linguistically acceptable, but lacks the best communication by removing the emphatic language. In the process the NIV claims for Christ only the title of our great God and Savior, as if he were only our God. As the KJV so rightly says, He is the great God, the God of all creation, and He who is as great as this has consented to be our Savior. Thus the effect in the KJV is exaltation of Christ, which is the opposite of that perceived in it by modern scholars due to their limitations in grasping true biblical language.
One wonders if White thinks saints and faithful brethren (Col.1:2) separates saints and faithful brethren, as if they were two different types. Or does he think God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col.1:3) separates God from the Father, as if the Father were not God?
44. Lk.18:12. The KJV I give tithes of all that I possess in Lk.18:12 supposedly should say all that I gain to limit the tithe to the increase of wealth. But this is a case of a given word having more than one sense with changes in context, and the full extent of tithing is lost by use of gain. The pertinent Greek word here is used also in Luke 21:19 and 1 Thess. 4:4 where gain is clearly not a good choice.
KJV: In your patience possess ye your souls.
NIV: By standing firm you will gain life.
In Luke 21:19 the Greek can be read as saying life, or salvation, is gained by standing firm in trials, which would be supportive of works salvation. The Greek verb sense varies with context, and the KJV handles the matter well in Luke 21:19, expressing it in terms of the soul’s security revealed by our patience in trials. Here context teaches what Matthew 10:22 says, he that endureth to the end shall be saved, meaning our salvation is proved if our faith endures all trials inflicted on us. In Luke 21:19 the KJV Possess ye your souls correctly speaks of controlling circumstances, as in 1 Thess.4:4 (same Greek verb) that tells a man to possess or control, not gain, his vessel (self) in sanctification and honor. Thus the KJV possess imparts the proper sense of Luke 21:19, to possess, control or master our souls to speak in the power of God’s salvation in us, to foil those who would condemn us by using our words against us.
There is no error in the KJV Luke 18:12. The Greek speaks of a man giving tithes of all that he possesses, in the sense of all that comes under his control, or all that he is the master of, which is equivalent to all that he has gained from this world from the time he began to earn his living. Thus the sense of gain here is gaining everything the world has given the man, which is all that he possesses. When he says I give tithes of all that I possess, he speaks of his habit of giving tithes throughout the entire time that he has been making his living, which communicates the true sense better than all that I gain.
45. Acts 2:38 & 22:16. It's suggested KJV translators were biased about the mode of baptism and rendered baptism instead of immersion, but this notion reflects bias of those who don’t grasp language mechanics. Some English words derive from the practice of transliteration, changing letters and sounds of words of other languages to corresponding English (e.g. Greek transliteration paradeisos and English paradise), and the words are usually well-defined. But modern translators transliterate some poorly defined words, rather than translating them by contextual study. This makes a reader uncertain of word meaning, complicating interpretation. For example, hades a transliteration deriving from the Greek aides, leaves a reader mired in mythology on a 2-compartment world under the earth for the blessed & condemned dead, whereas the translation hell clarifies the normative meaning as a place for the condemned only (see eschatology section of this writer’s Systematic Theology book, Mechling publishers, for a discussion of hades).
On rare occasions, no English word properly reflects the biblical one, and translators must transliterate, as in the case of baptizo, a transliteration of the Greek. The closest English word, immerse, doesn’t convey the significance of the term, for immersion can be for various reasons, like physically cleansing the body, drowning a victim or looking for something on the bottom of a body of water. Baptism is symbolic of identification with Jesus Christ in His death, burial and resurrection, and immerse doesn’t convey this, even though the Greek word refers to immersion as the mode of baptism, so this is one of those relatively few instances where transliteration is required.
46. Galatians 3:24. Supposedly, in the KJV the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, the term schoolmaster should be attendant, in the sense of one who is a supervisor of the young, but scholars get hung up on grammar, and miss the specific sense of a Greek term that context requires, missing the purpose of the law here. The law was indeed a supervisor, an attendant that pointed out the teaching to be followed when mankind was young in the Lord, but it was even more important for them to understand the teaching. The law showed mankind how impossible it is to please God perfectly by our own works, and thus is a master teacher, or schoolmaster, preparing people to receive Christ as the only means by which they can please God. Without the law, this entire matter of pleasing God would be obscure and totally misunderstood. The law brings us unto Christ, in the same sense that technical training increases our knowledge to bring us into the practice of something like automobile mechanics.
The fact that the phrase to bring us is not in the Greek is not a factor since context requires it, and it's needed to complete the English sense of the Greek. The truth of all this is seen in the fact that modern missionaries have found that uncivilized tribes with no previous exposure to scripture, can be brought to Christ in large numbers, and in lasting fashion, only by first teaching them the Old Testament basis of the law that reveals what sin is all about, and why it is that everyone so desperately needs Christ.
47. Leviticus 6:21, 8:28, 17:6, 23:8. In these verses, the KJV speaks of an offering as a sweet savour unto the Lord. Supposedly sweet savour (taste) should be something like soothing aroma, the sense appealed to here being that of smell rather than taste, but that's a misunderstanding of figurative language common to the Old Testament. It's inappropriate to speak of God as if He reacted to offerings the way men react to various matters. The term sweet savour is a figurative reverent way to say that God was pleased with an offering, in the sense of terminology like “we have had “a taste of the good life,” a figurative sense, not a literal one.
48. Genesis 49:6: Jacob's sons "digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox"?
The correct translation
might be either of the above renderings. The Hebrew usually rendered
can also be
uprooted, an equivalent to digged
the other term, usually rendered ox,
is very close in spelling to a term for wall.
translators placed houghed
a marginal note, so they recognized two possible renderings and
chose the one dealing with a wall,
and they aren't the
only ones choosing the wall
versions that do so include the historic Peshitta, Latin Vulgate &
Aramaic Targumim, and the Wycliffe version of 1395, the Bishop's
Bible of 1568, Douay Rheims of 1582, Geneva of 1587, Reina Valera of
1601, Italian Diodati of 1649 and a 1936 version of the Jewish
Publication Society. Further, ancient Hebrew commentary supports the
rendering, while Tyndale & the Septuagint favor the ox
rendering. Now the current Septuagint text is unreliable, and support for this
rendering is offered mainly by most modern English versions & newer
Catholic versions (see brandplucked.webs.com/gen496diggeddownwall.htm by Will Kinney for a complete treatment of this matter).
Different translators & commentators have read the verse differently, but prevalent older support for the wall rendering vs. prevalent newer support for the ox render- ing, is indicative of early language-convention up-dating to deal with problems caused by polysemy (multiple possible meanings of a word), in conjunction with use of Matres Lectionis, certain consonants that also served as vowels in text history preceding the church era by several centuries. Differential support would arise if Hebrew shor, now meaning ox, originally meant ox or wall, but was limited to ox by language up-dating in the Masoretic Text when context refers to the literal animal, while the dual meaning still applied elsewhere. Shur, which now means wall in the Masoretic Text, would be part of language up-dating that keeps wall separate from ox when context refers to a literal wall. The historic long vowels in shor & shur would very likely be included in language up-dating since they are very similar in form, being based on two slightly different modifications of one consonant. That a Hebrew word could once have such widely different meanings as ox & wall is not a surprise, for Hebrew polysemy often results in this (e.g. shalom can mean peace, ease, kindness, intact, prosperity or salvation, and shoqoq can mean narrow or dried-out). Contrary to modern scholars, the wall rendering can't be dismissed on the basis of grammar.
Now Gen.49:6 has to do with two of Jacob's sons killing a group of Hivites whose leader defiled Dinah, sister of the sons (see Genesis 34). The ox rendering is favored by modern scholars who suggest a literal mention of cattle in Genesis 34 can imply a hamstringing of some of them, but contextually, involvement of the sons with cattle of the Hivites was solely that of possessing them after the conquest, in contrast with houghing or hamstringing any of them, so context doesn’t support the ox rendering. The digging down of a literal wall might be implied by the conquest, but this too is not supported by context.
Actually neither rendering applies literally, for Gen.49:6 utilizes poetic expression in speaking of Jacob's sons, and Hebrew poetry commonly uses figurative language. Hamstrung an ox can figuratively signify the circumcision by which the two sons tricked the Hivites and caused them too much pain to defend themselves. But in Gen.49:6, Jacob speaks of his displeasure with his two sons, and nothing in Genesis 34 relates the circumcision to his displeasure noted in Gen.49:6. Actually, figurative language applies to Jacob's fear over loss of a wall of ethnic & religious isolation of his family that kept them beyond the attention of heathen like the Hivites, a wall that soon would be broken down, up-rooted, or digged down as others of the land sought revenge, and this is why God told Jacob to leave the land in Gen.35:1. Disruption of the isolation is the problem that Jacob speaks of in Gen.34:30, so the wall rendering is established by context.
That figurative language of two grammatically-possible widely-different renderings would survive language-convention up-dating suggests a deliberate effort of scribes to make the circumcision of the ox rendering link to the primary wall rendering since the circumcision led to the killings that caused loss of the wall. This would indicate an original dual meaning of shor, and would prove language up-dating to deal with ambiguity of polysemy. Grammar would have a role in proving the true Gen.49:6 rendering, while context is the crucial factor that is to be emphasized, an emphasis often needed to understand biblical Hebrew.
49. Isaiah 13:15. Here the KJV says of the fate of Babylon, Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Critics say joined should be captured since all Hebrew texts define it that way, but it appears the sense of the word has changed over the centuries since some early texts rendered joined/added to, and some modern authorities assign such a meaning. Other texts with joined are English versions prior to the KJV, including the Geneva, Luther’s 1545 German Bible, the 1815 Albert Lowth version, the Douay Rheims, and the rather recent Darby & Young’s versions. Major older com- mentators also support joined, including Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Gill & Albert Barnes (Steven Avery, AV1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=933). All those of other lands joined to Babylon at the time of the attack would be marked for destruction, and verse 15 everyone that is found includes those captured, so captured would be redundant. Verse 14 speaks of every man (all not joined in) fleeing to his own land during the attack, and Babylon was an historical known meeting place for diverse nations doing business there, many of which would likely join in. To say everyone who is captured shall fall by the sword in verse 13 misses the distinct contextual point of destruction so complete that native Babylonians & all forces joined in are decimated.
KJV translators showed great skill in understanding contextual factors needed to optimize translation, in addition to advanced knowledge of the biblical languages and various related languages. On the other hand, modern scholars seem to rely greatly on lexicons & grammar, often missing contextual implications of a passage, despite the fact that context is the primary matter communicated by a language, and they seem never to consider changing language convention. KJV translators and other early authorities evidently had access to textual sources not available to modern lexicon authors & translators, while the more recent authorities like Darby, Young & Barnes rightly represent the matter on the basis of contextual considerations.
50. Various problems arise from the effect of biased modern scholarship on those who lack understanding of Greek & Hebrew/Aramaic, as in the case of Young's translation of Acts 16:17 where a devil-possessed women follows Paul around, proclaiming his ministry of teaching the message of salvation.
The same (woman) followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the serv- ants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.
A preacher by the name of Dan Corner, who shows no evidence of knowledge of the Greek, operates a website criticizing the KJV in accord with biased views of modern scholars. Corner touts Young's translation that questions the KJV the way instead of a way (evangelicaloutreach.org/KJVO.htm), making the following statement:
"The KJV (and the NIV) are both wrong according to the actual Greek rendering! The Greek does not have the definite article which would yield "the way of salvation." Young's Literal translation is exactly as its name indicates -- a literal Greek to English rendering of this verse based on the TR -- "a way of salvation." This rendering is much more consistent with the immediate context where we see a demon speaking through a girl describing Paul's message to the people. Demons want us to believe that there are multiple ways to God, Jesus just being one of the many ways (mere opinion). John 14:6 shows how narrow the road is. See also Mat. 7:13,14."
Dan Corner prefers Young's translation, based on his own thinking about the context, but nearly all other translations agree with the
KJV. It's true that the indefinite article often applies when the
text has no definite article, but that is not always the case. If Corner took one look at Berry's interlinear, he would see that the
is implied in Acts 16:17 (it's in parenthesis). In Acts 16:17
an implied the
would relate to the fact that there is only one way to salvation.
It's hardly likely that Paul would be so disturbed by the maid if she
were speaking of a false salvation since false gods were very common
in the lands where he worked and ministered. On the other hand, if she
were speaking of the true salvation, that would rankle Paul since no
true minister wants a testimony from one inhabited by a devil. That
would be a mockery, which is why our Lord Jesus told devils that He
cast out of people not to testify of His identity (see Mark 1:24,25).
A notable example of the proper use of the definite article the when it's not literally in the Greek appears in the present writer's essay 5-g that deals with love of money as the root of all evil in 1 Tim. 6:10, where the sense of the passage is a bit subtle and requires the definite article.
Differences in Greek and English language convention cause variety in how the article is handled in translation, and there are many cases when the is literally in the Greek but is not translated since it's contrary to English-language convention (e.g. Mark 5:21 & the Jesus in the Greek). Corner also follows Dr. Young's biased criticism of the KJV Mat.2:4 where Herod speaks of Christ.* Young & Corner think Herod would say the Christ, but this is just a case of different language convention. We don't normally say the Christ, and the KJV renders the text for English-speaking people.
*Corner's comment: In response to the definite article being unjustly added or omitted, Dr. Robert Young wrote in the preface to the revised edition of his translation of the Bible:
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
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
instances in the New Testament where these translators have thus
omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of
the great number of passages where they have inserted
it, though not in the original"
Young's comments indicate a surprising ignorance of the wide lattitude of translator choice on use of the article. For example, the definite article is often ignored to present the best English sense, and the indefinite article is often used despite its non-existence in the Greek.
51. Does God tempt men? Abraham & Isaac on the Mt. of Moriah.
1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
22:1 And it came to pass after these things that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him...
22:2 Take now thy son...and offer him there for a burnt offering...
There is no contradiction of James with Genesis because tempt has different senses of meaning in the two passages. In James tempted has the common sense of enticement to do evil, but in Genesis tempt has a more general sense of trying the resistance of a person to departing from normal behavior, as discussed below.
Tempt here in Genesis doesn’t have the sense of test used in the NIV, for the seeming death of Abraham’s son was far too serious a matter to justify use of the trivial test. A test has to do with performance, as in a math test or a test drive, or it relates to investigation, as in "test the waters." It will not likely have any serious consequences, and there may be opportunities to correct any minor ones. Tempt is correct, having a sense of trying one’s resistance to departing from normal behavior, as in the case when Christ said (Mt.4:6,7), we don't tempt God in an act like leaping from a great height to force Him to intervene, and God’s acts are never subject to our testing.
In any instance, the direction of departure from normal behavior can be for good or evil, depending on context, and in our subject passages, the contexts are different. James says God doesn’t tempt man to depart from proper behavior and do evil. But in Genesis, context confers a different word meaning, the temptation ultimately being to Abraham's great good. By obedience in an extreme departure from normal behavior toward Isaac, Abraham will be honored as the father of the committed kind of faith that pleases God, one that places God's will above even love of family. And of course there’s no intent to harm Isaac since the Lord has a ram standing by as the intended sacrifice (Gen.22:13).
Scholars would change the Genesis tempt to test in their effort to remove any sense of stigma with tempt. But the meaning in context is clear and free of stigma, and test is too trivial to describe the magnitude of Abraham’s faith. The word doesn’t convey the full meaning of what was at risk for Abraham. He wasn’t simply tested to see how well he would do, or if he would react favorably, for God foreknows all things, and knew what Abraham would do (He requires acts of obedience as a matter of record, and the angel speaking for God in saying now I know in 22:12 means, now I've seen your faith put to the test that others may hear of it). Abraham was tempted to the very limit of human endurance, the ultimate positive nature of the temptation notwithstanding. That is, God tempted Abraham for a good ultimate cause, causing Abraham to be tempted to stop being obedient to God. There’s a two-fold aspect to the temptation, the divine positive one and the human negative one.
Clearly the consequences were potentially very serious for Abraham or his son, and he was sorely tempted to disobey, not merely tested. But God knew His man and knew he was up to this challenge, and such a challenge was meant for Abraham alone because of his unique role in history as the father, or forerunner, of all the faithful. Abraham had come to understand without question that the God who gave him this miracle son under impossible earthly conditions (the deadness of Sarah's sterility in old age) could restore the child again from the dead if he had actually been required to sacrifice him (Heb.11:17,19). There was no doubt in Abraham's mind that Isaac was going home with him alive that day (Gen.22:5). We see in this passage the greatest exercise of faith in the entire recorded history of mankind, and we see why Abraham truly is the father, or forerunner, of the faithful, and we see how ultimately good Abraham's temptation really was.
While tested isn’t adequate, tried (Heb.11:17, KJV) is, for Abraham's faith was put to the sorest trial that can befall a man (James equates temptations & trials - Jas.1:2,3). A trial can have devastating results that the word test can't rightly communicate. For example, no one being tried in court for murder would think of himself as being tested, the consequences being far too serious to justify use of such a trivial term. He would be tried and found guilty unto death, or innocent and set free. He would not just be tested to see how well he would do or how he would react. Abraham was tried and found worthy of exaltation in the face of extremely serious potential consequences for his beloved son or himself. But we should realize that Abraham's trial consisted mainly of a severe temptation to be disobedient. Temptation was the specific major aspect of Abraham's experience, and the trial was the general tenor of his experience. Thus in a general sense, he was tried, as in Hebrews, and more specifically, in his trial he was tempted, as in Genesis.
52. Authority in the KJV: Paul’s conversion, Acts 9:7, 22:9
9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
9:7 And the men who traveled with him stood speechless,hearing the voice, but seeing no one.
22:9 And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.
Scholars say the KJV doesn’t distinguish nuances of meaning in a Greek term, using an English one twice, when two are required. Greek for hear refers to detecting sound in 9:7, and hearing with understanding in 22:9. It’s said the KJV misses the sense in 22:9, but the KJV hear signifies more than receiving sound into the ear. It includes hearing with understanding, as when a father says to his son, "Hear (understand) me son, lest I chastise you." Passage sense follows grammar/context, and in the KJV 9:7 an article a before voice makes the hearing indistinctive (Greek has no indefinite article, and here the has an indefinite sense of a - KJV, NKJV, NIV all show this). With no clear origin, the voice is just a sound of a voice requiring no response. In 22:9 the voice that spake to me shows a voice with a message speaks (the has a definite sense here).* but Saul’s men were not to know this, hearing just the sound of a voice, as in 9:7. Thus there is no error in the KJV, for 9:7 says the men heard just the sound of a voice, and 22:9 says the same thing more specifically, that they did not hear, or understand, the voice.
*An Acts 9:7 indefinite sense is due to the genitive case of voice that makes the preposition of understood (The sound of a voice: See Vine’s Exp. Dict. for hear). In 22:9 voice is in the accusative case so that the has the usual definite sense.
Now NASV translators missed a second sense of the Greek for hear, understand being too narrow. Saul had to obey the voice (he said, what wilt thou have me to do?) He well knew obedience was required of him as he fell down in fear of the awesome presence confronting him. The others heard just a sound of a voice, not needing to understand and obey. The KJV hear has a sense of understanding and obeying, as in our case of the father who says to his son, "hear (understand & obey) me lest I have to discipline you," while the NASV understand clearly does not have the latter sense.
The KJV presents the grammatical accuracy of inerrancy. Actually, it's the NASV that presents a contradiction by missing the grammar, for its Acts 9:7 on the men hearing the voice connotes understanding (and obeying), but its Acts 22:9 says they didn’t understand the voice.
53. Does God remember and forget?
2:23 And it came to pass…that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage.
2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abra- ham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.
Many people of good intent believe that, when scripture speaks of God "forgetting" or "remembering" a matter, this is a reference to His choosing to exert His sovereignty within Himself. An example would be the earlier sin of saved persons, knowledge of which God would choose to forget by eradicating it from His own memory. This seems to be an orthodox interpretation, but if God did eradicate something from His own memory, there would be something He does not know, and we could not then refer to Him as the omniscient God.
Scholars think the terms remember & forget are not at all proper for use in referring to God, but the terms simply acquire a secondary meaning arising from their use in regard to man’s weak memory. Scripture doesn’t respect man's coloring of remember in speaking of God, but demands the basic meaning. The basic sense of remember is to bring a matter forward from the past for present consideration of needed action. God or man can remember the past misconduct of a party by reminding him it hasn’t been properly dealt with (e.g. We’ll remember this behavior the next time you need a favor). God or man can forget things like sin & guilt by dismissing or ignoring charges and pardoning a party (e.g. we'll forget your poor judgment since you meant well). And in saying things like "Remember the Alamo" or "Remember your upbringing," we don’t mean these things have been lost from memory, but that they should be brought out of the shadows of the past and fulfilled, commemorated, or otherwise rightly acted upon.
Thus Exodus tells of God choosing to remember, or bring a past matter up for present consideration to fulfill an old promise. His Covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had reached the time of fulfillment during Israel's bondage, and God remembered the covenant by acting upon it, and fulfilling it. This type of word meaning is seen in similar use in Genesis 9.
9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between you and every living creature of all flesh: and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Here God says that by displaying the rainbow, He will remember His covenant against future floods. He is not speaking of remembering a covenant lost from memory, for He must display the rainbow in order to remember the covenant. He is speaking of His display of the rainbow as a sign that commemorates, or remembers to us, His coven- ant against another world wide flood.
54. Was there a church in the Old Testament era?
This is he, (Moses) that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers.
The KJV Acts 7:38 may seem anachronistic in calling the Old Testament wilderness wanderers under Moses a church in the wilderness. We usually think the term church applies only to New Testament people who are recipients of the gospel, are dependent on Christ for their needs and are under Christ's authority. But if we recall the basic definition of church and keep in mind the role of the preincarnate Christ in theophany in the lives of Old Testament people, we’ll see that there are times when use of the term church to refer to God's Old Testament people is proper. We’ll see that there was an Old Testament typological church, even as we see cases of typology of Christ in the Old Testament.
The Greek term for church in Acts 7:38 refers to a called out gathering of people. When the term is used in reference to a church, it signifies a gathering of God's people who are called out of the world to be separate unto Him to follow Him, and that is just what the wilderness wanderers were. God called them out of Egypt, which symbolizes the world, and they were gathered together and separated unto Him, following Him through the wilderness to Canaan.
And the wilderness wanderers were a church in every other sense of the word. They were a church in that the gospel was given to them. The Hebrews epistle writer reveals this in Heb.4:2 that says, For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them (the wilderness wanderers – the gospel as defined by the rock & the brazen serpent noted below).
And they were a church in the sense that their needs were met by Christ. Paul tells us this in saying the water of life from the rock in the wilderness had a spiritual essence in that it was supplied by the preincarnate Christ who is the Rock of our faith (1 Cor. 10:4, And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ). The wanderers are further shown to be a church whose needs were supplied by Christ in Hebrews 4:8 that speaks of Jesus as the one able to give them rest in the wilderness (Contrary to scholars, Jesus here is not Joshua - see the discussion beginning on p322 of this writer's Hermeneutics text for further comment). And their need for forgiveness of sin was supplied by the brazen serpent that was lifted up in a typology of the Crucifixion.
Finally, the wanderers were a church in that they were under Christ's authority. The logical reason Moses was not permitted to enter the promised land, after striking the rock from which water came, would be that he struck that which symbolized Christ the authoritative head of the wilderness church. This is clear in that a previous account in Exod.17:1-7 shows us Moses commanded by God to strike the rock for water, which is symbolic of smiting the suffering servant Christ, the Rock of our faith, on the Cross so that the spiritual water of eternal life might come forth. Later, Num.20:1-13 shows Moses commanded by God to speak to the rock for water, which symbolizes asking the resurrected all-authoritative Christ for the water of life. When Moses in anger with the rebellious people struck the rock the second time, this symbolized recrucifixion of the all-authoritative resurrected head of the church. And when Moses referred to himself (and Aaron) as giving the water, he symbolically usurped Christ’s role as the giver of the water of eternal life. These are the indicated reasons Moses was refused entrance to Canaan, the earthly promised land.
And we further see Christ's authority over the wilderness wanderers in Joshua 5:13-15 that shows us Christ in theophany as Captain of the Host, before whom Joshua, the leader succeeding Moses, bows before deciding Israel's actions in battle.
From our New Testament viewpoint, we see that elements of the gospel, in typological form, are presented above, and the wilderness wanderers were a typological church in the wilderness, even though they didn’t know it, and even though the term church was not official at that time. It appears the KJV translators were providentially guided to enlighten us over a matter we might not otherwise notice, but many moderns refuse the enlightenment.
And we should be able to see that the church instituted by God began typologically in an early primitive state, and progressively developed throughout the Old Testament. We can see the church in existence in shadowy prefiguring forms from the beginning, for the fall of man into sin was followed by the promise that the Savior, king of the church, would bruise the head of the serpent satan in Gen.3:15. And Abel's animal sacrifice for sin in Gen.4:4 is logically a first response of man to God's requirement of a sacrifice of an innocent animal for sin. Abel's offering prefigured the levitical animal sacrificial system, that in turn prefigured the perfect lamb of God on the cross of Calvary.
A more developed state of church typology is seen in the case of Noah and his family who, like the completed church, were called out to be separate from the world. They were placed in the ark of safety, and the ark can be seen as a prefigurer of Christ, the New Testament ark of safety. They, like the completed church, were placed in God's ark of safety to spare them from the wrath of God's judgment on the world.
The typological church was in a still more developed state at the time of the exodus when Christ in theophany directly controlled affairs of His called-out and separated Old Testament people.
All of this is in accord with Revelation 13:8 that tells us Christ, the king of the church, was God's plan from the beginning of man's history (the passage notes that Christ the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world for our salvation). The final step in the development of the church as God's institution was completed, and the church was openly and formally revealed to the world on the Day of Pentecost when the Spirit of God was poured out upon men for empowerment of the work of the church.
55. Sinner or sinless?
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Some resolve this seeming contradiction by saying Christians don’t practice sin, but there is no contradiction. In Rom.7:20 Paul says, it’s not truly he who sins, for he’s no longer in the old man but in the new one that never sins, being born of God. Sin is attributed to the old man, not Paul whose heart is after God in the new man. He gives up the old man to crucifixion, so he’s righteous before God. All things are become new due to a choice to identify only with the new man. There is no contradiction.
56. The Holy Ghost received since or when we first believed? Acts 19:2
KJV: He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye be-lieved? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
NIV…"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
Some say this KJV translation is poor in that it is seen as supporting the concept of a second reception of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life. They say the KJV speaks of receiving the Spirit sometime after an initial act of belief, supposedly implying the possibility of an earlier first reception when they first believed. White* speaks of schools of im-proper theology arising from this KJV rendering. Supposedly, the NIV (and NASV & NKJV) rendering eliminates this kind of interpretation.
*White, The King James Only Controversy, p230
We must realize that no man can stop those who twist scripture to their liking, and no one should alter scripture in an effort to hinder their doing so. No one has a right to impose private opinion on scripture, as scholars indicate has been done in modern versions here. If scripture does teach a second Holy Ghost reception, none should dare to say otherwise.
But this passage teaches nothing about a second reception of the Holy Ghost, no matter how it’s rendered. With either rendering, the men Paul met have not so much as heard of the existence of the Holy Ghost, so there’s no question that they didn’t receive the Holy Ghost any time when or since they believed. The passage teaches an occasional delay in Holy Ghost reception after initial belief. There plainly never was any first reception of the Holy Ghost in the lives of these men. Clearly there is no confusion whatever regarding a second reception here, except in the minds of scholars who believe they have the right to render scripture the way they feel is best for us, as if their opinions were sovereign.
But which is correct, since or when? Since is the more common Greek lexical sense, but neither word can be preferred from the logic of the passage context. The passage teaches a delay in imparting salvation to some believers, likely infrequently. These men hadn’t receive the Holy Ghost when or since they believed, but are about to. Both are true renderings, but only one is correct. Scholars confuse the issue for those not realizing their need to keep strictly to historic preserved scripture.
Scholars imply that true belief must
produce immediate salvation, and they don't seem to accept the indication of a
delayed reception of the Holy Ghost. Well it clearly is true that scripture
teaches that true belief does produce Holy Ghost reception and salvation. But
do we automatically receive the Holy Ghost as soon as we believe, or is there
ever any delay between the time of our first belief and the actual imparting of
the Holy Ghost in salvation? Have scholars never heard of someone believing,
but not receiving assurance of salvation until sometime after a period of
seeking and praying? Why can’t God choose just when the moment of salvation
occurs in the believing heart? In such a matter, that is beyond our right to
speak, let no one presume to speak for God, as scholars seem to think they can,
insisting that Holy Ghost reception can
only happen when we believe and not since then. When this passage clearly teaches that a delay in the reception occurs at
times, let modern scholars hold their peace and let historic preserved
scripture stand as it is and say just what it will. However much true scripture
may disagree with private interpretations of scholars, people of faith want to
hear God speak, not scholars. KJV formal equivalence here achieves proper conformity
to historic truth, avoiding misleading contemporary notions related to
modern-day theological error.
57. Differing lineages of Jesus’ human side: Defining sonship.
1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon…
1:15 and Mattan begat Jacob;
1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph which was the son of Heli
3:31 Which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
3:32 Which was the son of Jesse.
Genealogies of Jesus through Joseph seem to conflict, but only in Matthew does the terminology clearly assign to Joseph a biological father (i.e. Jacob begat Joseph). In Luke, Joseph is said to be the son of Heli, which can be a son by marriage, or a son-in- law. In Jewish culture a son-in-law was close to his adopted family, being the legal heir of the father of his wife if there was no natural son. Thus genealogy in Luke can be that of Mary biologically, a vital truth. Jesus must be in the line of David to be the legal heir to David’s throne, and Joseph is of David’s lineage, as in Matthew, meeting this requirement. But this satisfies only the legal sense since Joseph is only the foster-father of Jesus, the Holy Ghost being His true father. But if Mary too were descended from David, then Jesus Christ would be the heir by His only biological parent as well, and so the true heir in every way.
Romans 1:3 affirms matters, saying…Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. Heli as Mary’s biological father is also affirmed by the Talmud.* Thus Mary is David's descendant through Heli, and the lineage of Joseph through Heli is an adoptive one. From the genealogies above, Mary is a descendant of David through David's son Nathan, and Joseph is a descendant through David's son Solomon, the two sons being together at Jerusalem, and Jesus’ claim to David’s throne is validated.
*Horae Hebraicae, Lk.3:23. Lightfoot cites Talmudic writers who imagineafterlife punishment for Mary, daughter of Heli, for her role as Jesus’ mother.
Now Matthew lists 14 generations before and after the carrying-away into Babylon, but there seems to be 13 in one of the groups. This is due to use of the word about (Mt.1:11) that roughly gives the time of Jechonias’ birth in relation to the carrying- away event serving as the reference point, and Jechonias’ birth isn’t precisely related to it, his generation spanning it. Thus his generation is counted before and after the event for continuity in generation relationships, and 14 generations lived before, and 14 lived after the carrying-away.
58. Crowing of the rooster: Once or twice? Subtle Greek-text accuracy
Mk.14:30…before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Lk.22:34… the cock shall not crow this day, before thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.
Mt.26:34… before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
Jn.13:38….the cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
KJV translators rendered exact English equivalents of the Greek, as literal as possible, despite frequent Greek/English mismatch. The exact literal Greek is rendered here, despite possible misreading of the sense, for careful reading is all that’s necessary to see the sense.
Luke, Matthew & John all say the same thing in somewhat different words, all saying there were three denials before the cock crowed. Now in Mk.14:68 the cock crows after Peter’s first denial, and after a third denial in 14:72. This agrees with the others in that the first denial occurred before the cock crowed, and the second and third cases occurred before a second crowing. Thus Peter denied the Lord three times before the cock crowed, doing so at two separate times that each preceded a crowing of the cock. In Luke, Matthew & John, the crowing is treated as a compound one that began at a first denial, and ended at a third one. Greek & English often read differently.
KJV handling of such matters in this way marks a translation that is as faithful as possible to the biblical languages, while offering correct English, resulting in what has been called Biblical English.
59. God the great “I Am.” Exodus 3:14
KJV: I AM THAT I AM.
NIV: I AM WHO I AM
Hebrew grammar allows That or Who here. Scholars prefer a personal pronoun Who to refer to God, but the result is poor in the extreme. Who is a relative pronoun just equating I AM with I AM, but That is a vital conjunction teaching the eternality of God. The KJV, I AM THAT I AM, is equivalent to, I AM so THAT I AM, or I AM in order THAT I AM. God says, I AM throughout eternity past so that I AM throughout eternity future. Indeed, KJV terminology is inclusive of all attributes of God that are unchanging from eternity past to eternity future. The NIV (& other modern versions) loses this teaching on the eternality of God and His other attributes, accomplishing nothing but a meaningless equating of I AM with I AM.
The KJV in this passage also refers to God as the uncaused cause of all else. He is just because He is, the sovereign power who needs no outside authority for His acts. That is crucial to this sense also.
The KJB Psalm 90:2 comments further on I AM THAT I AM, showing that from eternity past to eternity future, God and His attributes are always present-tense.
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth…from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
The NIV loses teaching on God’s eternality and sovereign power by stressing a sense of personage, and it poorly signifies personage by indicating God will be who He wants to be, implying arbitrariness. The NIV may even be seen as saying, I AM who I AM, and what of it? Clearly translators must be diligent to avoid such accidents, as those of the KJV were, reverently expressing both God’s person and His attributes.
60. God Repents? Jeremiah 18:8,10
8. If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then will I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
Scripture doesn’t respect man’s coloring of repent. God doesn’t repent in the sense of changing His mind (1 Sam.15:29) or behavior. He repents by changing His judgment. For example, if we die before we’re saved, we’re judged and sent to hell. If we repent of our sin and are saved, our choice of salvation has importance only if God repents of our judgment. He never changes judgment for sin, but makes it conditional on our change of mind. Jeremiah says God repents or changes His judgment of an evil nation if it gets right with Him, and He changes good judgment that He would have conferred upon a nation that has become unrighteous. Repenting of good clearly shows that God's type of repenting has nothing in common with man's type of repenting. Clearly repent here can only mean changing of judgment.
61. Which high priest, Abiathar or Ahimelech?
Mk.2:25,26 in the KJV attributes to Christ the statement that, when David ate sacred showbread while fleeing from Saul, this was…in the days of Abiathar the high priest… This supposedly contradicts 1 Samuel 21:1-6 that names Abiathar’s father Ahimelech as high priest during this incident. Some suggest error in the Greek of Mark, but that’s incorrect. The RSV & NRSV say…when Abiathar was high priest, which does conflict with 1 Sam. 21:1-6. The right reading in the KJV (and most versions) is, in the days of Abiathar the high priest, meaning in the days of the Abiathar who would be known as the high priest when David became the king.
62. A scholar of former days, Kenneth Wuest, (p57)* rejects the KJV Heb.12:2, Who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, saying this has Jesus getting self-serving joy from the cross. He rightly says Jesus wasn’t self-serving, but prefers a sense of the Greek preposition translated for predominant in ancient papyri (not preserved in scripture), instead of the joy that was set before him, He endured the cross (joy of prior proximity to His Father in heaven).
*Wuest, The Practical use of the Greek New Testament. p57. Moody Press, revised 1982, D.L. Wise - out of print, but available in some libraries.
But the verse tells us Jesus endured the cross since it was crucial to man. The joy set before him, the joy at hand at the Cross, not earlier in heaven, was anything but self-serving. It was His joy in giving salvation to souls otherwise doomed to hell. Thus the KJV for the joy is the true rendering. Convoluted scholar reasoning destroys common-sense rend-erings, the type we expect of God, who logically would want His Word to be understood by the common man.
63. Poor word choice: Man a little lower than God? Psalm 8:5
Another indication of KJV providential guidance is selection of translators who reject human self-interest that changes true contextual sense of a Greek or Hebrew word of variant meaning.
KJV: For thou (God) hast made him (man) a little lower than the angels…
NASV: Yet thou hast made him a little lower than God.
NASV translators reject an alternative Hebrew sense required by context; elohim, that usually means God, has a plural sense, and at times it signifies angels or men of high authority, and also refers to the Trinity. The NASV places finite man just a little lower than infinite God, which is absurd in the extreme. Man is somewhat lower than angels that dwell in the realm of heaven in God's presence, and work God's will on man.
A proper translation of Psalm 8:5 is provided by the inspired Hebrews-epistle writer who renders the word in question, angels.
KJV: Thou madest him a little lower than the angels.
NASV…made him for a little while lower than the angels.
NASV translators had to accept angels in Heb.2:7 and refute their Ps.8:5 reading, but added while (a linguistic possibility) to suggest man ruling angels in the future (1 Cor. 6:3, Heb.2:5) after a temporal lower estate. That can seem to justify the NASV Ps.8:5, suggesting a future estate above that of angels and perhaps a little lower than that of God. But Ps.8:5 refers to the past at creation, not the future, and Jesus said we’ll be equal to angels after the resurrection (Lk.20:36), so now we’re inferior to angels, not a little lower than God who is infinitely superior to all. And while isn’t in Ps.85 of the Hebrew text, as seen even in the NASV, so the NASV Heb.2:7 misrepresents Ps.8:5.
NASV scholars likely tried to justify their disagreement with the inspired writer of Hebrews. That’s innovation, not translation.
Now malak is the usual term for angel, but elohim signifies angels as representatives of God (Lk.2:9). And a little lower than angels reflects the difference between man and angels as small compared with God’s infinite superiority over all creatures.
64. Drink ye all of it: The cup in the Lord’s Supper: Mt. 26:27
KJV: And he took the cup…saying Drink ye all of it.
NASV…Drink from it, all of you;
Scholars say the KJV confuses passage sense, making the verse say the disciples were to drink all the juice in the cup, when all means they were all to partake. But Matthew language has a dual sense, saying they were all to drink, as in Mk.14:23, and that the symbol of Christ’s precious blood is all to be partaken of, nothing wasted in reverence for Him. Mark has one thought and Matthew has both. In the English of Mark, all appears right after its only associated pronoun they, and before drank to read, they all drank of it, which is proper since emphasis in the Greek is on it as the cup. In the English of Matthew, all appears right after the first associated pronoun ye and after Drink and can read, Drink of it ye all (disciples). But Drink ye all of it is required since all also associates with it, emphasis in the Greek being on it as the blood of Jesus. In Mt.26:28 Jesus says of it, as He speaks of the juice, For this is (signifies) my blood, placing emphasis on His blood rather than the cup. In Matthew the note on the blood is directly tied grammatically to it by the conjunction For, while in Mark the cup ties to it this way. In Matthew the KJV preserves the two Greek senses by invoking both in English, and thus fully preserves passage inerrancy, while the NASV offers mere translator-preferred interpretation.
65. John 5:2-7 in the NIV– Textual critics ignore an obvious omission
5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem near the sheep gate a pool which in Aramaic* is called Bethesda…
5:3 Here a great number of disabled people used to lie…
5:5 One who was there had been an invalid for 38 years.
5:6 When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, He asked him, “Do you want to get well?”
5:7 “Sir” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.”
*The text says Hebrew, not Aramaic. In N.T. times Hebrews commonly spoke Aramaic, but Hebrew language applied to matters of faith. Studies suggest Bethesda is Hebrew, and that Bethzatha is the Aramaic equivalent (Hodges, Z.C. The Greek Text of the KJV. “Which Bible.” p29).
The absence of verse 4 in the NIV critical Greek text obscures passage sense. Why did the man need to get in the pool, why did he need to do so before others, and why was stirring of the water important?
The KJV has a verse 4 that answers these questions. It says, For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease (dis - ease) he had. This explains all the above-noted questions on why the man needed to enter the pool, why he had to get in first and what stirring of the pool was all about.
Scholars reject this, despite its solution to the problem and despite its presence in most Greek manuscripts. They claim the true verse is lost, for manuscripts they favor lack it.*And they reject it since the 2nd-century church didn’t locate the miraculous pool,** but it would pass away as New Testament healing focused on Christ, and the passage itself marks this change in the manner of healing.
*White, The King James Only Controversy. p156, feels a need to include such a verse could make a scribe add it, so he expects poor language in his favored Greek text. He stresses an error of adding to the text and objects to speaking of deletion here, despite obvious indicated deletion in the NIV.
**Hills, E.F. 1988. The King James Version Defended . p145
66. Know the Word, or present our humanity to God? 2 Tim. 2
15: Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16: But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase…
17: And their word will eat as does a canker…
18: Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
15: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
The Greek for show signifies prove in this context (and Acts 24:13), proving ourselves true to His Word to avoid doctrinal error.
The NIV present yourself is a wrong sense of the Greek. We don’t present ourselves approved unto God, offering our humanity in the form of works, as if to impress Him. God judges our works, but we are not worthy by those works, only Christ’s work being worthy. And in the NIV, relating of approved to workman more directly than to God separates 2:15 from the passage topic, to stress good works. Further, its and…handles makes knowing the Word a lesser concept than works, and correct handling of the word becomes an act of doing works correctly. On the other hand, the KJV preserves the true sense.
67. Mk.16:9-20 An incomplete Gospel?
And they…fled from the sepulchre…neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
Scholars say Mark's Gospel ends on this note of fear, the last 12 KJV verses supposedly being unauthentic, even though the content of those verses is in the other gospels. Supposedly Mark omits the report of Mary Magdalene to disciples, the Emmaus road meeting with Jesus, the great commission and the Ascension. Others claim there is a lost true ending different from that of the KJV.*
*White, p256, suggests that error in the 12 verses refutes their authenticity, such as Jesus appearing in another form in 16:12, saying this denies a physical resurrected body, but it was a supernatural physical body (Lk.24:33-40). He notes 11 disciples in 16:14 (no Thomas makes 10), but the 11 would be the Jn.20: 26 group with Thomas present in the gathering following the one in which Thomas was not present. He also says Jesus wouldn’t likely rebuke disciples for unbelief in their fearful post-Crucifixion state, but He did just that earlier when they were fearful (Mt.8:26). Mere speculation of men can’t discredit God's Word.
Such theories arise because a Latin and two Alexandrian manuscripts and a Syriac version omit the 12 verses. But they're in many Greek and Latin manuscripts, versions and quotes of church elders, and the Latin manuscript omitting them shows evidence of Docetist tampering. Scholars support their view by using manuscript preference and imaginative arguments on a writing style of the 12 verses said to be different from that of Mark.
Several verses in Mark 16:9-20 are supported by similar topics noted in other gospels.
1. Verse 9 is supported by John 20:17 where the Savior tells Mary not to touch Him, whereas others were invited to touch Him in other gospels, which reflects the first statement of this matter to Mary in Mark 9. Further, the note of 7 devils cast out of Mary appears also in Lk. 8:2.
2. Verse 10 on Mary reporting the Resurrection to disciples is supported by Lk.24:10 & Jn.20:18
3. Verse 11 on the lack of belief of Mary’s report by the disciples is supported by Lk.24:11.
4. Verse 12 on the Resurrected Christ appearing to two disciples is supported by Lk.24:13
5. Verse 14 on Christ appearing to disciples as they sat at meat is supported by Lk.24:33-41.
6. Verse 15 on the Great Commission is supported by Lk.24:47 & Mt.28:19,20.
7. Verse 19 on the Ascension is supported by Lk.24:51 & Acts 1:9
8. Verse 20 on the beginning of fulfillment of the Great Commission by the disciples follows logically from verse 19 in Mark, and is supported by Acts 1:8
Invalid objections of scholars to the last 12 verses of Mark 16
1. Scholars think the direct connection of baptism to salvation in Mark 16:16 teaches baptismal regeneration. Actually, the rest of the verse speaks of damnation as a result of failure to believe, not of any failure to be baptized, so baptism is related to salvation for a reason other than as part of the salvation experience. The way baptism relates to salvation is simply that it testifies of true belief that has already been achieved, this first public testimony being the first act of obedience signifying that true belief has occurred. Frther, it’s a permanent reminder that the believer has died to the old life, and in obedience to Christ is never to return to it.
2. Scholars think verse 17 on signs following them that believe encourages practices of the Charismatic movement, but signs did follow those of the first-century church as they spread the faith over the known world of that time. This was a temporary matter showing God’s approval of a previously non-existent church that taught new doctrines only implied in the Old Testament era, and that approval is what tongues-speaking & casting out of devils is all about in this verse.
3. Scholars think verse 18 encourages the snake-handling of some Pentecostals, but it simply says the disciples would face dangers like accidental encountering of poisonous reptiles in their ministry, and that God would protect them from this danger as they sought to establish the new gospel in the world. Indeed that is exactly what happened to the apostle Paul in Acts 28:3-6. Mark 16:18 doesn’t only specify a dealing with reptiles, for it also tells of accidental drinking of poisonous liquids that won’t harm them (as they seek normal bodily needs). The final note in the verse speaks of laying hands on the sick for recovery from illnesses, and that too was part of the proof of God’s hand on the early disciples in all the matters that they would encounter in doing God’s work.
68. Micah 5:2 Modern-translator theological confusion
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
…whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
…whose origins are from of old from ancient times.
This one from Bethlehem whose goings forth (correct Hebrew) are from everlasting is the eternal Christ who has no beginning of days. Now the RSV term origin, while it is a possible rendering of the Hebrew, is erroneous in this context since it cannot refer to Christ who is eternal God having no beginning of days. To say He has an origin is to say He had a beginning point in time, which would make Him a mere man of ancient times. This rendering is no surprise since this version is the work of liberal scholars, and they are the type who view the Savior as a mere man.
Now the grammar here refutes the RSV rendering since origin is singular, while the Hebrew for this term is plural, as in the KJV goings forth. Thus the RSV rendering looks like a deliberate attempt to portray the Savior as a mere man, twisting grammar to achieve this effect. However, the committee left itself a way out of this situation if they received severe criticism. They could claim that Micah, a Hebrew prophet, refers to the Hebrew concept of the identity of the Messiah. Hebrews think of Messiah as a mere man descended from David, but empowered by God to defeat enemies of Israel and bring peace, prosperity & righteousness to the land. Thus the RSV reference to his origin in ancient days could be said to refer to the knowledge that Messiah would be a certain descendant of David, who lived in the 11th century B.C. They could then claim use of the singular origin was just a simple translator error.
Now the NIV committee seems to have swallowed this deception by the RSV group, but they nonetheless rendered plural origins, rather than the singular, in keeping with the Hebrew grammar. This rendering may be based on the notion of the Hebrews that the Messiah can be any of various different men who may appear in any age of history, and would be identified by success in bringing peace, prosperity and righteousness to the nation. Of course the problem that results is that the Hebrew concept of Messiah is a misinterpretation of the various Old Testament prophecies that plainly reveal Jesus Christ as God's one true Messiah, as in the case of Isaiah 53, Isaiah 50:6, Isaiah 7:14, Numbers 24:17 & Psalm 2:7, and Micah 5:2 reveals Bethlehem as the place from which the Messiah came forth, which agrees with the New Testament accounts of His birth in human form. One wonders how the NIV translators could overlook the theological implications of their rendering of Micah 5:2, for their version indicates that the Savior had multiple origins, as if reincarnation of God were possible Even reincarnation of mere men is a mere fantasy that has no biblical support whatever.
69. Mk.1:2 3 Illogical grammar of textual critics
KJV: As it is written in the prophets, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
NIV: It is written in Isaiah the prophet: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”…A voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for Him.
The critical Greek-text reading is erroneous, for this reference to John the Baptist is partly in Mal.3:1 and partly in Isa.40:3, so the prophets in the Received Text is the true reading. But critics favor their Greek text, despite its clear error. They assume that, in assigning the words of two prophets to just one, modern versions are correct since this is the reading of the Greek text that they assume is best. But this is the matter that must be proved, and it can’t be assumed.
They invent a theory to support their opinion, saying New Testament quotes of the Old Testament tend to reference only a major prophet who gave the passage, ignoring a contributor of lesser stature. But part of the Mark passage is only in Malachi and part only in Isaiah, and elimination of the reference to Malachi in the NIV makes Isaiah speak the quote of Malachi.
Further, Mark tells of John's mission from the perspective of God the Father, Malachi from that of Christ and Isaiah from that of John, and all three perspectives are part of the interpretation.
An early copyist could create this critical-text error since similar quotes in Mt.3:3 and Lk.3:4 note only Isaiah's part, but a copyist who attributes to Isaiah what Malachi said is in error. Each gospel writer references different parts of the Isaiah/Malachi texts for purposes of his account. Each has his own purpose, as we see in that Luke continues the Isaiah quote with more content from Isa.40:4-5, while Mark and Matthew do not.
Scholars would "correct” supposed New Testament error by attributing to Isaiah what Malachi said. They actually try to justify this, saying the New Testament may ignore prophets of lesser stature and favor those of the greater, but God allows no respect of persons, so their effort to justify poor language is compounded by their unsound claim. They cite Mt.27:9 on the potter's field and 30 pieces of silver in Judas’ betrayal as illustrating their claim. They assume Jeremiah gives part of the Matthew quote, and Zechariah the most, only Jeremiah being named due to his greater status. But no Mt. 27:9 tie to the Jeremiah book exists [see Jer.32:6 15, 18:2 3 offered by scholars, but potter and field there refer to different matters, and the field in Jer.32 sells for 17 shekels (weight) of silver, which isn’t likely the same as 30 pieces (number)]. Further, Matthew's words have no syntactical likeness to those of Zechariah, so Matthew didn’t quote Zechariah or Jeremiah. Evidently Matthew quoted what Jeremiah spoke orally for recording in non-canonical writing later canonized in the New Testament. The KJV rendering is the only logical inerrant one.
70. Matthew 18:18
Christ says to His disciples, Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. It’s said that use of this simple verb tense has heaven backing up whatever disciples decree on earth, when the meaning is that their acts are already approved in heaven before the disciples enact them. Scholars would render the verse, in accord with the Greek verb tense, “Whatsoever you bind or loose on earth will have already been bound or loosed in heaven.” But this is unnecessary English convolution, for the KJV rendering is the best simple way to handle the verse that speaks of authority of a church to exercise discipline with its members. By staying within scriptural limits, the church and its leaders are authorized by God to discipline, and the scriptural guideline is the heavenly authorization. A church exercising biblical prerogatives is acting with God’s prior approval so that things it binds or looses are already bound or loosed in heaven. This is clear from simple contextual considerations, Greek verb tense not withstanding, and no “clarifying” language convolution is required.
71. I Samuel 2:25
KJV: If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?
In this passage it's thought by scholars that the judge should read God since the Hebrew for judge is Elohim, a term commonly referring to God. However Elohim at times refers to men of high authority who do the bidding of God by God's decree, and that's the sense of the judge here since he is contrasted with the Lord as the superior ultimate judge in the following part of the verse. The law is God's decree, and judges serve Him, so the judge here simply represents God. There are no capital letters in Hebrew language, so context is the only way to decide which sense of Elohim applies in a passage. KJV translators recognized God's indirect involvement here through His decree, as indicated by the fact that they capitalized the J of judge in the 1611 edition.
72. John 3:8
A commentator expresses the notion that the KJV The wind bloweth in John 3:8 should read the Spirit breathes. He doesn't seem to realize that in some contexts the Greek means wind rather than Spirit, and bloweth rather than breathes, and The wind bloweth is the only contextually-logical rendering here. Here Christ says to Nicodemus The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit. Here the wind bloweth is used as a metaphor to teach a man about being born by the Spirit, an act he doesn't understand. Our Lord as the master teacher knew that He must use a familiar illustrative concept to enable Nicodemus to grasp a new concept totally unknown to him.
On the other hand, the clause The Spirit breathes, and you hear the sound thereof is incorrect since no one hears the Spirit breathe in the process of the spiritual birth. Further, the concept of the Holy Spirit was unknown to the Hebrews at this time in history when they perceived God as distinctly singular, and the suggested alternative clause would be meaningless to Nicodemus who needed to understand in familiar terms being born of the Spirit, a concept totally unknown to him.
73. Genesis 7:22
KJV: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
This description of the effect of the great flood on land life-forms, human & animal, is contested by J.D. Price (a member of the NKJV committee) since the Hebrew text literally says breath of (the) spirit of life rather than the KJV breath of life. Actually, the fully literal sense of the Hebrew here illustrates a Hebrew-text tendency toward non-essential extra language at times, and there is a more common opposite tendency toward brevity of language, one or the other characterizing Hebrew syntax at different times. In English versions it's unnecessary to include verbosity, and it's often necessary to add words in cases of language brevity. The subject verse illustrates one of the different ways that different languages express a matter. Indeed, in English it is not correct to associate spirit of life with nostrils in regard to people since human spirit is on a higher level; in the case of animals, the proper approach is to associate breath of life with nostrils because land-animal life-forms in general, especially lower ones, can't be said to have life in the sense of a spirit, intuition being their only likely non- physical form of life. Thus when both forms of life are combined in one passage sense, the KJV breath of life in nostrils, which is basic to the life of both forms, is correct, spirit of life being specific to humanity in English. The KJV presents entirely accurate English that doesn't change verse sense in any degree, while retaining a good degree of agreement in literality with the Hebrew, which is what proper translation is all about.
74. Dr. Price thinks 2 Chron.2:13 in the KJV wrongly implies that Huram, the name of a man serving King Huram, was the king's natural father because father really refers idiomatically to a master craftsman. Thus Price suggests the KJV misrepresents 1 Kings 7:14 that actually speaks of this craftsman as having a deceased man of Tyre as his natural father. In 2 Chronicles 2:13,14 the king of Tyre, Huram, communicates by a letter to king Solomon, saying:
2 Chronicles 2:13,14
KJV: And now I have sent a cunning man endued with
understanding, of Huram my father's, the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre, skillful to work in gold...
The underlined portion
in the KJV does not refer to the king of Tyre as the having the craftsman as his
natural father. The KJV says the craftsman is of Huram, or of Huram in the sense of being his father's craftsman, (Hebrew-type syntax) and his father is unnamed. Contrary to Price, the KJV clearly isn't saying the craftsman is Huram's natural father since in the very next Chronicles verse the KJV says that the craftsman's father was a man of Tyre (italicized was in the KJV indicates the translators knew he was dead) with a mother of the daughters of the tribe of Dan. This agrees with the KJV 1 Kings 7:14 saying the craftsman's mother was a widow, her husband having been of the tribe of Napthali, and this is the passage informing translators of 2 Chron.2:13,14 that the craftsman's father was dead when Huram sent the craftsman to Solomon. The KJV translators clearly did not call the craftsman the natural father of king Huram.
Now father has a sense of meaning related to that noted above. Price speaks of it as an idiomatic sense, in the form of an originator, or father, of a profession or art. (Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon); this is how it's used in 2 Kings 2:12 where Elisha cries out My father, my father to Elijah ascending to meet the chariot of Israel taking him to God's kingdom. Elijah was a father to Elisha in the sense of a mentor who groomed him for a prophet's ministry. Thus in the KJV, the king of Tyre speaks of his craftsman as a man endued with understanding, that of Huram in the sense of the understanding of his art-originator. Thus, in 2 Chron.4:16, Huram is now called Solomon's father in the sense of a father overseeing some of the work in the building of Solomon's temple.
75. Dr. Price makes yet another incorrect claim of error in the KJV at 1 Chron.16:23 where the KJV renders show forth in regard to God's salvation, and he claims the NKJV is more accurate.
1 Chron. 16:23
KJV: Sing unto the Lord, all the earth; show forth from day to day his salvation.
NKJV: Sing to the Lord, all the earth; Proclaim the good news of his salvation from day to day
says of the KJV, "It misses the reference to verbal proclamation
and the good nature of the news. The NKJV has made the text closer to
the message of the Hebrew text." Well it's true that the Hebrew
here commonly speaks of proclaiming good news, but that's already indicated by the phrase Sing unto the Lord, and by speaking of the salvation by God that is by
definition good news. Further, the meaning of the
Hebrew is make known or show forth, and the KJV show
forth is more accurate in this context since the proclamation by
earth includes more than the verbal witness of people; the great
benefit of God's salvation is also upon the earth itself, its functioning of nations, and its animal & plant life, and even some of its topography, all of which contributes to an optimal estate of the earth by God's blessing in
relation to His salvation of people.
76. Price claims still another error in the KJV and the Hebrew text, one that he says is corrected in the NKJV. One man representing Israel is speaking.
KJV...Israel sent messengers unto Sihon king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place.
NKJV...Israel sent messengers to Sihon king of the Amorites, king of Heshbon; and Israel said to him, "Please let us pass through your land into our place.
Supposedly, the plurality of the people of Israel requires the plural pronouns us & our. Actually the my here follows a figurative sense of Israel as a collective singular entity so that my represents Israel as singular, while us represents the plurality of the people involved. This is the reason the nation Israel is represented as speaking. The matter is one of various unique features of Hebrew language, and the KJV preserves the unique sense of what is presented by the Hebrew text. The same pattern appears in Judges 11:17 that says, Then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom, saying Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land. A similar expression appears in Exodus 4:22,23 where God speaks about His people enslaved in Egypt, saying to Pharoah, through Moses, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, let my son go that he may serve me...This type of expression isn't common, but it's a valid feature of the Hebrew text, and various languages speak of a nation in the sense of a figurative singularity (e.g. America and her history).
Dr. Price claims still another error in the KJV associated with his claim of error
in the Masoretic Text, and resultant difficulties indicate that his
opinion is incorrect.
1 Chronicles 6:28a
KJV: And the sons of Samuel; the first-born Vashni and Abiah
NKJV: The sons of Samuel were Joel the firstborn, and Abijah the second
The opinion of Price is fraught with difficulty. If the NKJV reading were correct, the Hebrew text itself would offer no name to Samuel's firstborn, assigning error to the Hebrew. Further, Hebrew for Vashni would mean and second, which would have to be assigned to the name Abijah, but the Hebrew would literally read and second and Abijah, so the double and would indicate Abijah doesn't actually link to second; thus one of two uses of and in the Hebrew would have to be omitted in the translation, further assigning error to the Masoretic Text. The result of all this is that the Hebrew would say literally And sons of Samuel the firstborn and second and Abijah, which would be nonsensical. Normal Hebrew syntax involves placing of a name adjacent to a term indicative of birth-order, as seen by the effort in the NKJV to do so with Abijah & Joel (see also Gen.22:21, 35:28, 38:6 Num.22:21, Josh.17:1).
Thus the KJV Vashni as a name is the indicated correct rendering, the name having a figurative sense of and second that is likely indicative of a symbolic name referring to the firstborn son of Samuel as marking a second epic in Samuel's life; the implied first epic would be Samuel as reaching a high position as prophet & priest of Israel so that the second epic would be the birth of his first son who would continue to fill this office. The literal proper name of the firstborn son would be Joel, as indicated in 1 Samuel 8:2. Chronicles often presents a second sense of terminology in Samuel & Kings, which is the concept of amplification noted by the present writer in essays 6c,d, 7b & 11h. The KJV is doubtless correct, especially since it's supportive of the accuracy of the Masoretic Text here, while the NKJV is not.
78. Isaiah 65:11
KJV: But ye are they that forsake
the Lord, that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that
troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number.
verse relates to those who reject the Lord, as spoken of in the
context around the verse, and the above language fits the context
properly. However, it has been said that the KJV terms troop
and number should be rendered fortune &
destiny, respectively. The names of pagan gods of fortune and
destiny are transliterated here, but the literal meaning of the names
are troop and number, so the KJV rendering is superior
since it provides realistic interpretation, rather than any mythical
sense attached to the names (for further input, I recommend
79. Isaiah 19:10
KJV: And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish.
NIV: The workers in
cloth will be dejected, and all the wage earners will be sick at
NASV: And the pillars of Egypt will be crushed; All the hired laborers will be grieved in soul.
The extreme difference between the KJV and modern-version renderings of this verse, and a variety of renderings in historic translations, all point to unusual grammatical circumstances in the history of this vetse, though some conclusions can be drawn on the basis of grammar. The KJV purposes is a suitable rendering, while NIV workers in cloth is possible, but it produces two clauses in the verse that both say the same thing in different words, suggesting unreliable translation. The NASV pillars is viable gram- matically, but doesn't fit well with the sense of the verse, looking like an effort to make the two verse clauses somewhat different, and indicating the translators were aware of weakness in their rendering. Further, the KJV make is a more likely rendering than earning or laborers.
for modern translators is that modern lexicons are the work of scholars who simply evaluate the current Hebrew text, having little understanding of matters like changing language convention over the centuries, especially changing spelling, so contextual study becomes the chief guide to true readings in cases of uncertainty.
The context of concern here begins in verses 5,6 where the waters of Egypt, the sea, rivers & brooks are to be dried up as part of God's judgment of the nation. In verse 7 the plant life growing in or near the waters will perish, and in verse 8, fishermen, those who fish in the brooks and those who cast nets in other waters will all come to a sorry state of deprivation. Verse 9 indicates that even those who produce the nets, and related items referred to as made of fine flax, will all come to a sorry end. Thus verse 10 in the KJV, that concludes the context on the sorry state of the waters & fishing, gives a logical rendering, referring to conditions so bad that even efforts to survive by making sluices and ponds for trapping and nurturing fish do not succeed.
Now grammatical evidence that the KJV has the correct rendering of verse 10 becomes clear. The KJV fish is grammatically correct since it is a contextually-logical rendering of a Hebrew term commonly rendered soul or life, the sense of life in this context referring to fish as living creatures vital to the sustenance of life in Egypt, and in short supply due to a curse on the land. The available evidence points clearly to the KJV verse-10 rendering as the correct one., and this becomes even clearer as we consider problems with the NIV & NASV renderings.
The NIV offers a secondary thought from verse 9; the problem
existing for those who make nets for fishing is
made the primary thought of verse 10, which leads to the sense of clause
redundancy, and misses in verse 10 the concept of failure of the last hope of survival through creating sluices & ponds for fishing. The NASV rendering of verse 10 also does not speak of the failure of the last hope of survival.
80. Judges 12:14
Modern scholars criticize the rendering nephews in the KJV. This verse in the Hebrew speaks of one of the judges of Israel as having 40 sons and 30 son's of sons, the latter today referring to grandsons. A problem with rendering grandsons is that the Hebrew can be more general in meaning, perhaps referring to an extended family that would include the modern sense of nephews, and the KJV nephews originally had the sense of grandsons, as well as sons of brothers & sisters. In Judges 12:4 the context is not specific enough to allow grandsons, so the KJV correctly covers all possibilities by use of the inclusive older-English nephews.
A similar situation exists in the New Testament.
KJV: 1 Timothy 5:4
But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
The Greek here for nephews usually has the
general sense of descendants, including sons, grandsons and the
modern nephews. The older KJV nephews includes all such
possibilities, in keeping with the context that isn't any more
specific than this.
81. Genesis 36:24
KJV...this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.
Modern scholars prefer the rendering hot
springs to mules, but either one can apply, according
to the lexicons. The context is very limited, and nothing in it
justifies hot springs, while mules is justified since
mules are hybrid offspring of asses & horses, and could be
expected to be found in near proximity with their kindred creatures,
in contrast with the situation in the wilderness with animals that
are potentially hostile or otherwise inhospitable to grass-feeding
creatures like asses.
82. 2 Chronicles 33:18,19 KJV
18. Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and
his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him
in the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold, they are written in
the Book of the Kings of Israel.
19. His prayer also, and
how God was entreated of him, and all his sin...and the places
wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images,
before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of
The word rendered seers in verse 19 (Heb. hozai) has an uncertain meaning. It's said by some to be a proper name, but others say it signifies seers, or prophets. The NIV, ESV and certain other versions agree with the KJV, and the same is true of the NASV, but in indefinite fashion through use of a transliteration, the Hozai. The Holman and others transliterate Hozai, which of course is essentially the same as the Hozai.
term sense seems to be seers since it is likely a plural form
of the singular Hebrew for seer. The unique spelling of hozai
may well be a remnant of early days before some language-convention
up-dating occurred, with the older form being retained to show
readers the fact of changing spelling. This appears likely since the different current spelling of the plural form is noted in verse 18. Now
the term in verse 19 may simply be the participial form, though the
spelling would still be questionable in such a case.
a reference to God speaking to Manasseh by His prophets in 1 Kings
21:10,11 that correlates with the statement in Chronicles on the
history of Manasseh recorded in a related Book of the Kings of
Israel, which likely was decisive for some translators, while
others preferred to transliterate the term and leave the meaning
Thus, while evidence of the correct use of the
term is modest, the seers in the KJV is the best that can be
provided in the lack of definite knowledge. There are times when some
modern translators recognize the wisdom of the KJV, while others
keep going their own way.
83. Matthew 1:25
KJV: And knew her not till she (Mary) had brought forth her firstborn son: and he (Joseph) called his name Jesus.
The term firstborn is
absent in critical texts at Matthew 1:25, which is a serious error,
for it is vital to the truth of Mary as a virgin at the
time of the birth of Jesus. Use of firstborn is consistent in
the KJV, appearing again in Luke 2:7, and here critical texts have
the term, so they're inconsistent. Lack of the term in Matthew of the
critical texts is strongly indicative of scribal error, either
accidental or deliberate.*
*White, The King James Only Controversy, p157, speaks of the term in Matthew as borrowed from Luke by a scribe, which is just speculation with no foundation in fact. We expect consistency of this vital point in true scripture, and an absence of the term in critical texts is likely a result of tampering. Evidence provided on this website indicates Gnostic tampering was notable in the early church, and the human Virgin Birth was a primary hindrance to their dogma (see essay 3). Selective removal is likely since manuscripts of that day would be limited to one or a few scripture books for an unknown, possibly lengthy, time until they could be combined in a scroll, and Gnostics might have access only to Matthew in this case. Such selectivity is suggested by absence of the Resurrection account of Mark in some Alexandrian texts, and by the fact that the Savior's bodily Resurrection was another problem for Gnostic dogma. A potential for selective tampering would also result from known lack of unification of Gnostic sects that held variant prominent dogmas.
84. Matthew 25:13
KJV: Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
The underlined clause is absent in critical Greek texts, which is a problem, for without the clause, the crucial aspect of what the day & hour are specifically about is missing. Christ's return to invoke the advent of the kingdom of heaven is the subject of verses 1-13.* The same concept appears in Matthew 24:44, and a consistent witness to this matter is expected of true scripture, as is the case with the KJV Greek Received Text.
*Again White rationalizes that the clause is borrowed, this time from Matthew 24:44. It is absurd for White to be so confident of this explanation when error in critical texts at Matthew due to carelessness or incompetence of scribes is just as likely. The most likely scenario is removal of the term from Alexandrian texts by dishonest scribes, in view of the overall shorter nature of of these texts and their link to a city noted for promotion of Gnostic dogma contrary to the complete deity of Jesus Christ.
The return of Christ indicated by the underlined clause would trouble Gnostics since they thought Christ fulfilled His mission at the Cross to enable supposed release of hidden knowledge in mankind that would lead to salvation and a release from evils of the human body that they proposed. Scripture plainly teaches that Christ's return relates to the general bodily resurrection of all (e,g. John 5:28,29).
85. Matthew 20:16
KJV: So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called but few chosen.
The latter clause is a logical extension of the first, for it explains the reason for the order of the first and last, and thus has the appearance of authenticity. Indeed, it is the logical conclusion of what the parable teaches in verses 1-20.
The clause is missing in critical
texts, and again White suggests borrowing by a scribe, this time from
Matthew 22:14. It certainly would be dishonest determined scribes
who would keep doing such a thing, and there is no known basis for this presumption, while there is a known historical Gnostic motive for removal in Alexandrian texts.
The verse relates to the
preceding passage in describing the entry into the kingdom of heaven
as determined by God without consideration of the merit of men. A
motive for removal of the subject clause in manuscripts underlying
critical Greek texts would be works-salvation dogma of
Gnostics, based on things like asceticism & striving for their
"release of hidden knowledge within all men."
86. Matthew 8:29
KJV: And behold, they (devils) cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God
zealous orthodox scribe invented by White strikes again in Matthew,
and would seem to be devoted to changing the scripture text. This
sort a thing would hardly be characteristic of a zealous orthodox
scribe, but would readily characterize a Gnostic meddler, as
indicated by another instance of this sort of thing here in Matthew
8:29. The critical texts omit the name Jesus, as if to
disconnect Him from association with Son of God. This
disconnect suggests tampering in support of dogma of a prominent
sect of Gnostics that viewed Jesus as only a man temporarily
indwelled by the divine Christ.
87. Matthew 27:35
KJV: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
NIV: When they had crucified him, they divided up
his clothes by casting lots.
KJV: And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
NIV: and they divided up his
clothes by casting lots
The underlined portion of Matthew 27:35 is absent in critical texts, and White implies his invented zealous orthodox scribe striking again in Matthew, but such a lengthy portion would not likely be eliminated by an orthodox scribe. This time the parallel verse that White's invented scribe could borrow from for Matthew 27:35 is Luke 23:34 that is a briefer related summary not similar enough to Matthew 27:35 to speak of borrowing, indicating error in White's thinking. More logically, the presence in Luke in critical texts of the elements of the underlined portion of Matthew 27:35 can be due to loss of the underlined portion in Matthew of the critical texts. There is no real reason to imagine that conservative scribes would see a need to transpose any portion from another gospel (in truncated form or otherwise) since the gospels often differ in details. Further, potential evidence of language deletion by gnosticism-oriented scribes of Alexandria is widespread. In the present case, fulfilled prophecy of scripture adds the nature of the miraculous here, and the centering on garments worn by Jesus Christ would make the Matthew verse very troubling to a Gnostic sect that viewed Him as a phantom spirit that only seemed to have a body. The Luke verse doesn't mention the aspect of prophecy.
88. John 9:35
KJV: Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he
had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of
NIV...Do you believe in the Son of Man?
We keep seeing that disturbing trend toward diminishing the deity of Jesus Christ so characteristic of Gnosticism & the Alexandrian texts, but White shows no evidence of being troubled by it. He notes the manuscript evidence, with the Alexandrian-type pitted against the Traditional, that actually indicates a superiority of the Traditional, which he dismisses on the basis of a presumed likelihood that Son of God would be substituted for Son of man by orthodox scribes. In this mere conjecture, he says it's very difficult to understand how the opposite could occur, that Son of man could be substituted for Son of God, which is just his deference to the position of modern scholars on such matters. Actually, the most appropriate expression when speaking about belief is Son of God, the term Son of man being most appropriate in speaking of the human side of Jesus Christ as He fulfills ministry on behalf of man, or appears as the Son of Mary.
89. Ephesians 3:14
KJV: For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
NIV: For this reason I kneel before the Father.
White notes that manuscript support here amounts to a typical pitting of Alexandrian texts against the Byzantine, with the latter also being supported by the Western-type text in this case. He explains the presence of the underlined phrase in Byzantine texts as due to the use of the terminology, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in Ephesians 1:3 being carried over and added to Ephesians 3:14. However, once again deletion is just as likely from the standpoint of scribal meddling. Moreover, the reader is wise to be suspicious of a text showing a tendency to remove a reference to the deity of Jesus Christ, as the Alexandrian texts do rather often, and in essay 3 on the present website, we have shown evidence of support for Gnostic dogma on a supposedly less- than-divine Jesus in Alexandrian texts.
Now readers might ask why, if Gnostics were at work in Ephesians, terminology on
God as the Father of Jesus Christ in Eph.1:3 is undisturbed. The reason would be that
Eph.1:3 can be dismissed by an indication that it can be verbally
interpreted in favor of Gnosticism, while Eph.3:14 cannot, as
explained in essay 3. Context that follows verse 3:14 speaks of
the Father working through Jesus Christ to greatly benefit mankind, so the direct connection of Jesus Christ to God the Father
in the context can't be denied, and Gnostics would need to remove the underlined phrase in order to support their dogma. On the other hand, Eph.1:3 could
simply be dismissed in verbal interpretation as Paul's personal view
of Jesus that would be expected in this introductory part of the
epistle. As noted in essay 3, the most effective way that Gnosticism
could have been so successful in competing with the true church is by
seeming to agree in major degree with the New-Testament basis for
all that was believed by the church, and this would necessitate
selective imposition of their dogma on the text in any copies coming into their possession. The scene of Gnostic activity would often be Alexandria, Egypt, a center of Gnostic dogma, and major locale of the origin of Alexandrian texts.
90. Matthew 6:9-13 The Lord's prayer
KJV: After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. 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
NIV.....And lead us not into
temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (underlined clause is absent - note: the evil one is incorrect, the Greek the evil referring to evil in a general sense, and here the is dropped, and evil, an adjective, functions as a noun).
Now in regard to critical-text passages absent in the Traditional Text, but supported by White, we examine some showing evidence of relating to carelessness, rather than tampering.
In commenting on absence of the underlined portion in the NIV and its critical text at Mt.6:13, White is subjective, just offering an opinion of the cause of the difference as his usual supposed result of a scribal addition in Matthew. He speaks of the absence of the underlined portion of the verse in his two preferred Alexandrian manuscripts and certain others, plus absence in early patristic commentaries of Tertullian, Origin and Cyprian. He also notes a number of variants in the longer ending of Matthew that cause him to suspect the portion is part of variety in scribal irregularity that he says is a sure sign of a later addition to Matthew. He doesn't say whether his preferred manuscripts show variety in this verse that would be indicative of error. It's important to realize that manuscript evidence isn't always decisive due to a propensity for error in any human work, so the internal evidence is often decisive.
Context favors the authenticity of the underlined portion as properly indicating the power that is able to lead the believer away from temptation, and deliver him from evil, leading him all the way to God's kingdom, all of which is for the glory of God. It is the logical recognition of God as the one in control, and able to answer the petitions.
the KJV parallel Luke 11:2-4 passage, we note that the underlined portion in
Matthew isn't in Luke, but are the gospels supposed to be alike in
every detail? If so, what is the purpose of having 4 of them? They all
differ somewhat, especially that of John, which is likely for the
purpose of providing supplemental information, each supplying some
matters that others don't, necessitating careful study of
God's Word through cross-referencing, rather than the common cursory reading. Indeed Luke is notable for shorter renderings of
matters discussed in Matthew, especially the Sermon on the Mount,
that in Luke consists of 30 verses in 6:20-49, and in Matthew
covers 109 verses from 5:1 - 7:27. There's no valid reason to assume that a
portion in one gospel absent in another is a result of scribal error.
Even if there were a difference due to such error, it could
just as likely result from omission as addition, and extensive
omission can be indicated by the shorter general nature of Alexandrian
texts that White favors.
Regarding other aspects of Matthew and Luke in the Lord's prayer, Luke 11:12-4 in the NIV is much shorter than it is the KJV, which White assumes is a result of
a scribe importing Greek words from Matthew into Luke in the Traditional Text. He keeps on
proposing scribal habits of adding to the text, but again there would be no reason to exclude scribal habits of
subtracting from the text; in a given passage Luke is often shorter than Matthew, yet this isn't always the case, and the value of
cross-referencing can apply in any way that one gospel can differ
from another. Indeed, as White notes, Luke 4:34 and Mark 1:24 both
differ from Matthew 8:29 in that devils inhabiting a victim speak to Jesus as He is about to cast them out, saying in the
Luke and Mark verses,"...What have we to do with thee thou Jesus
of Nazareth." Both of these gospels reference the fact
that Jesus was a resident of Nazareth, while Matthew says "...What
have we to do with thee Jesus, thou Son of God." Again scribal
addition or subtraction is possible, but a likely explanation is that
Luke & Mark reveal the devils' knowledge of who Jesus is from an
earthly standpoint, while Matthew reveals that they know who Jesus is
from the heavenly one, both points being understood by
Often differences between Luke and Matthew are minimal, and this is indeed seen to be the case with the entire passage on the Lord's prayer, as we see by comparing the full text of Matthew 6:9-13 with that of Luke 11:2-4 in the KJV.
And he said unto them, When ye pray say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
The underlined portions in Luke are all present in Matthew's
account, and they're all
absent in critical Greek texts. United Matthew & Luke testimony of these portions, and testimony of Matthew about the final clause in the prayer, offer a credible witness of the Traditional Text against the Alexandrian, and against White's selective speculation on transposing of text portions in the Traditional. Cases of variant renderings among the gospels should be viewed as part on their preserved inherent nature if there is no indication of willful tampering. White's speculation about supposed Traditional-Text tampering is invalid unless accompanied by logical known historical factors, and factors that he suggests are just biased & subjective, not taking into account the error in hand-written manuscripts in general, and an inability to identify the manuscript type in which accuracy has been sustained.
91. John 3:13
KJV: And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in
NIV: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one
who came from heaven - the Son of Man.
White admits that the manuscript evidence and patristic support for the underlined clause is impressive, but he sees no need to depart from his Alexandrian texts that he seems to view as decisively authoritative, no matter what the case may be. But there's good reason to depart from them since, as he himself notes, the absence of the clause detracts from the fact of the omnipresence of the Lord Jesus Christ. There could be no better reason to dismiss the Alexandrian reading as erroneous. Yet White says there is no reason to depart from the majority of translators' preference for the short reading because they could find no discernible reason to reject it (see essay 3 for a good reason to depart from it.). An obvious question is, what good reason is there to prefer it, if one can dare to question the accuracy of the Alexandrian texts favored by scholars.
Actually, there is good
contextual logic supporting the underlined phrase, the Lord's
complete familiarity with heaven by his descent from heaven
indicating it is his usual abode, by His return to heaven as His
usual abode, and by constant contact with His Father in heaven.
Indeed, as He hung on the Cross, He said to an adjacent thief, who
had become a believer, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise
(Lk.23:43). After the Cross, He was in the grave for three days, and
then remained on earth 40 more days (Acts 1:3) before ascending to
heaven. The indication is that He was present in heaven while He was present on
the earth, which speaks of His omnipresence, likely in the person of the Holy Spirit who is also known as the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9).
92. John 6:47
KJV: Verily, verily, I
say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting
NIV: I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting
White discounts the phrase on me due to combined papyrus & Alexandrian support for its absence, but the paprii come from Egypt, just as the Alexandrians do, so this is just a case of Egyptian texts pitted against the Traditional Text. White also says on me is what he expects as a shift to John's classical style of expression by a scribe adding to a verse, but when did an agreement with John's classical style of expression become the evidence against a phrase being written by John? The obvious fact that belief in Christ alone qualifies one for salvation argues overwhelmingly for the authenticity of on me, and John's classical writing style would logically be the only style involved. Nonsense like that proposed here by White is characteristic of unrealistic attitudes of scholars toward the orthodox nature of true scripture ordained and preserved by God.
93. Romans 15:16
KJV: That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to
the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of
the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sancti- fied by the Holy
NASV: to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles,
ministering as a priest the gospel of God, that my offering
of the Gentiles might become acceptable, sanctified by the Holy
White suggests the NASV (& NIV) captures the Greek priestly language in which Paul in some figurative sense acts like a priest, offering up the Gentiles as an acceptable sacrifice (White's term) to God, but that picture in the NASV is quite erroneous, and the error is finalized by use of the term my offering, that completes the picture of Old Testament sacrifice. The NIV is a little less problematic here, using the term priestly duty rather than the NASV as a priest, and not adding the pronoun my. The NKJV, ASV, ERV and even the Roman Catholic Duay Rheims version, are similar to the KJV, while the popular modern versions other than the NASV read much like the NIV.
problem in the NASV is that the
Greek for priest, as used in the New Testament, applies
as just a vague reflection of the actual Old-Testament office, and is
rightly replaced by minister in the New Testament where it
refers to one who assists people by publicly ministering to their
needs, mainly their spiritual needs. NASV translators added to
the error my offering; my isn't in either type of Greek text. Old-Testament priests offered up sacrifices, but Paul and all
ministers in the New-Testament era never did that, just giving forth
the Word by which souls are received up to God by the one offering of
the Lord Jesus Christ of Himself. He, the true High Priest, is the
only priest serving in the New Testament era, and any effort to place a mere man in a role
like that of a priest is highly inappropriate.
94. Ephesians 2:1
KJV: And you hath he quickened who were dead in tresspasses and sins;
NASV: And you were dead in your tresspasses and sins,
NIV: As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,
White speaks of modern versions as not engaging in the same creative translation as the KJV here, referring to the fact that the Greek has the underlined clause in verse 5 alone, not in verse 1. However, the subject clause appears also in verse 1 of the RSV & NKJV. The NIV substitutes And as for you in the location of the questioned clause, recognizing that the Greek implies something not directly stated at first, and creating awkward English. Different languages can express a matter differently, and the Greek leads up to a thought that it delays expressing until verse 5. For good comprehension and com- munication in English, the KJV and others begin the thought in verse 1. The best communicative translation is part of the nature of the correct type, and is not a creative one.
95. White criticizes word selection in various KJV passages, but he doesn't grasp the real meaning of these terms, or their sense according to context.
1. Hebrews 13:21 & 2 Timothy 3:17:
He says a better alternative to the KJV perfect is the NKJV
complete, but complete is what perfect
means, for nothing is ever perfect until it's complete, and perfect best describes our attitude in serving the Lord, while complete can suggest never missing an opportunity to serve, which is unrealistic.
Ephesians 4:12: He says a better alternative to the KJV perfecting
of the saints is the NKJV equipping of the saints, but
equipping is only one aspect of perfecting.
3. 2 Timothy 3:12:
He says the KJV all that will live godly in Christ Jesus is a
very unfortunate rendering, advocating the NKJV all who desire to
live godly in Christ Jesus, yet as he himself notes, will
can have the sense of desire, and that is the case
4. Romans 12:8: He says a better alternative to the KJV
he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity (let him do
it is added for clarity of sense) would be the NKJV he who
gives, with liberality, but in this context the Greek refers to
simplicity in the sense of purity, or giving without any
self-exaltation or expectation of commendation: to give with liberality does not specify that sense.
5. Luke 3:14:
He says a better alternative to the KJV Do violence to no man
(regarding behavior of soldiers) would be the NKJV Do not
intimidate anyone, but intimidate is just one sense of the
Greek, for all types of rough treatment that a soldier might inflict upon others as a result of his position,
rather than his duty, is condemned here by the Greek, and
violence is a proper term indicating this. Military violence isn't considered in the context, and verses 8-14 deal with peace-time behavior of the people in general & the publicans, as well as soldiers, and this is why John includes the need for soldiers to avoid false accusations against others.
6. 2 Timothy
3:3 & Titus 1:8: He says a better alternative to the KJV those
that are good & good men is the NKJV good in the
sense of what is good, but expressions like
these are equivalent since all the good practiced in these
verses is practiced by people.
Indeed all the
good noted by the Greek here is related to love, and love necessarily
will relate to people. Even when we speak of matters like loving
sports, or shopping, or the weather, we are speaking of these matters
in regard to their effects on, or participation in, by people. We
don't love an inanimate quality strictly in terms of itself. Despite the sinful nature of men, there are practitioners of good who contrast with those of evil.
96. Galatians 5:19-21 - KJV
19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleaness, lasciviousness.
20. Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21. Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have told you in times past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
The term murders is absent in critical Greek texts, and White doubts its authenticity on the basis of Alexandrian manuscripts, a papyrus, opinion of modern scholarship and a lack of patristic support. Further, he resorts to his usual position of a supposed likelihood of transposing, in this case from Romans 1:29 where envy & murder occur together.
the fact that envy & murder occur together is more likely an indication of a common reation of the two terms in human behavior. Further, manuscript support
of murder is substantial, and again the matter involves pitting of Alexandrian texts against the Traditional, and absence
of the term in patristic quotes isn't significant since this
argument from silence is not convincing, as most scholars today now realize. Indeed, it's far more likely that an authentic term
will be accidentally lost in a long list like that of Gal.5:19-21, rather than willfully transposed from Romans, as is likely
since the Romans epistle is distant from Galatians in the New
Testament book order. Further, a strong indication of the authenticity of
the term is the fact that murder, one of the worst of sins, would not be
excluded from the list of very serious sins noted in this very comprehensive
listing. Again White reasons in an unrealistic way.
97. Colossians 2:11
In whom (Christ) ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
The underlined portion is lacking in critical Greek texts, and White (p181) notes that it's present in Sinaiticus, as well as the Traditional Text, but is absent in Vaticanus and a few others. He attributes its presence in the Traditional and Sinaiticus texts to what he calls a later correction tendency toward Byzantine (Traditional) readings, which is just an opinion of scholars who favor the Alexandrian-type texts, and there is no way to show that this is a correct understanding of text history.
It is always safer to judge the merit
of readings by internal evidence, and here context is decisive. The
Greek for body commonly refers to a human body, usually a
living one. At times the sense is that of an aggregate body of
living believers in Christ, and it's this body that's addressed in
this verse, which is clear since Paul speaks to believers in general
at Colossae. In the absence of the phrase, the verse has the sense of
putting off the body of the flesh, and the living body of believers
is not at all what is to be put off through the circumcision of
Christ, and certainly no individual human body is put off in this
sense. Clearly the sin of the flesh is put off by the
circumcision of Christ, such a circumcision referring to the
cleanliness imparted by forgiveness of sins through the salvation
conferred by Christ, figuratively reflecting physical circumcision as a type of cleansing. The rendering of the KJV is equivalent to saying, in putting of the sins of the flesh off the body, or off Christ's people.
98. 1 Peter 2:2
KJV: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
NASV: like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,
White (p183) tries to deny the sense of works-salvation that the underlined portion of the text can suggest to readers, but there is a possibility of the verse being read that way. Even if we ignore that possibility, there is still a problem with the sense taught here, one that reveals a lack of authenticity of the underlined portion. How can anyone grow in respect to salvation when salvation is a one-time experience accomplished through the work of Christ as a sinner confesses his sin, and asks God for forgiveness? It is after salvation that we grow in sanctification as we desire to honor our Lord because He saved us. To make good sense, critical Greek texts would need to read that you may grow as a result of salvation, or that you may grow after your salvation. The phrase in respect to salvation does not properly present such truth, serving only to confuse the sense and make it uncertain, indicating a false addition.
Actually the critical Greek-text reading here is even less suitable than that of the NASV. Literally, it reads...you may grow to (or into) salvation, which clearly implies salvation by human works. The subject portion is doubtless an added spurious phrase, and we should ask where White's "orthodox" zealous scribe is in this case, the type of scribe that so consistently adds text portions from other scripture passages.99. 1 Corinthians 10:28
KJV: But if any man say unto you, This (food) is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
The underlined clause is absent in critical Greek texts, and White rejects its validity as a supposed carryover from verse 26 in this chapter, his usual type of argument in dismissing Byzantine readings. His argument is just his way to account for the clause presence, and its absence in verse 28 of critical texts can readily arise from a tendency for Alexandrian-text scribes to overlook a repeat use of the clause due to its so-recent appearance in verse 26. White supports his conclusion with the notion that the clause does not fit the context here.
Actually, White misses the contextual
support for repeat use of the clause. In verse 26 Paul tells Christians to eat whatever is placed before them without questioning its
past history since all that occurs in earth is the fulness of God's
direct or permissive will. This applies in a specific case in verse 27 where unbelievers invite a believer to a meal, and the believer is not to question the source of the meat being served. However, verse 28 speaks of a man telling the believer that the meat derives from animals sacrificed to idols, and thus is to be refused for the sake of the one revealing the connection to idol worship, and for the sake of conscience. In verse 28 Paul repeats the clause on
fulness to indicate that this situation too is part of the fulness of the earth that God wills
or permits. The second appearance of this terminology serves to expound the matter in regard to a specific instance of its observance with respect to meat sacrificed to idols, and to reveal a circumstance in which an excption to eating without any questioning applies, and even the exception is part of the fulness of God in the earth. It becomes clear that the fulness term in verse 28 is contextually authentic.
100. 1 Corinthians 11:24
KJV: And when he had given thanks, he brake
it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken
for you: this do in remembrance of me.
NIV: and when he had given
thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for
you; do this in remembrance of me.
The words Take, eat are absent in critical Greek texts, and White fails to note that the broken in broken for you is also absent in critical Greek texts. He says the absence of Take eat pits Alexandrian and Traditional Texts against each other, which is typical of the differences in translation renderings. As is his habit when the two texts disagree, he says words appearing only in the Traditional Text are improperly borrowed from other verses, Take, eat supposedly being transposed from Mt.26:26. He doesn't seem to realize that the NIV rendering offers grammatical nonsense. When the Lord says this do in remembrance of me, this can only refer to an action to be accomplished by the disciples, and this is clearly the Take, eat in the KJV. Absence of this clause in the NIV leaves readers with no knowledge of what action the disciples were to take, and absence of logical knowledge characterizes Alexandrian texts. The logical reading is clearly that of the KJV Greek Received Text.