Bible Study Modern Versions Lowering the Person of Jesus Christ

[AVBunyan]

Re: Deity

1. No, actually you are the one trusting men. You trust men, who translated the KJV.

2. If God directs all affairs, then I could just as easily argue that God was directing the affairs of the NIV translators when they sat down. So, what makes one better than the other?

3. Such a thing does not, nor never has, existed. God's infallible Word is Jesus Christ.

4. If you believe the sun will come up tomorrow, you are in agreement with the world. How is that relevant?

5. As has been repeated repeatedly in this thread, all modern versions clearly proclaim the diety of Christ.

6. I have read them and I know this. Your links aren't going to change this fact. THe exact translation of an individual verse does not affect overall doctrine. All kinds of false claims can be made by looking at verses out of context, and this is one of them.

1. Now cubed - I think I made myself clear on the matter that I believe God directed the minds and hands of those 1611 translators - this makes me trust the God behind the men - not the men - you misrepresented my statements.

2. Oh, yes - God was in the NIV committee I'm sure. God allows a lot of things to happen - he is God. God lets men produce error so as to weed out the tares - to make people study - to expose the human heart. The difference you ask? By their fruits ye shall know them. I know and have seen the fruits of the King James for 350 years. Why would God wait until Christanity was at its lowest, carnal, and worldy state to "upgrade" his word with an inferior English, inferior scholars, and inferior motives.?

3. Yes - we agree here - but have you ever done a study on the attributes of Christ and compared them to the attributes of the written word? They share many of the same attributes. And by the way - how do you even know what the infallible Word says to you if you do not have an accurate and perfect word?

4. Real simple - there is nothing wrong with believeing the sun will come up. Poor example - you know what I was saying - you just didn't like it. I agree with the world whenever it agrees with the book - when it is contrary then we separate. You, the world, and Rome are in agreement with the modern versions - that should make your nervous as a termite in a yoyo.

5. I think I've arleady agreed with that - but I think I've said repeatedly they also take away from the deity of Christ and the links prove it. Is it ok to lift up Christ in 100 passages but tear it down in 10 passages? The issue is the 10 wrong passages not the 100 right ones.

6. Have you read the links? The links show the attack by the modern versioins on the deity of Christ. Nothing taken out of context - no tricks just plain comparing the verses and taking them as they stand. If you haven't read the links how do you know what they are saying? You are not afraid to read them are you? Go ahead and shut the door and make sure nobody is watching and then read them - you don't have to give a report out on the links. Just get alone so nobody can say you are accountable once you've seen them. But remember God knows - Prov 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

"and this is one of them" - I'm assuming you are referring to Mic. 5:2 in the NIV and others - does not it say that Jesus has origins or not?

God bless

 

[cubedbee]

Re: Deity

1. Now cubed - I think I made myself clear on the matter that I believe God directed the minds and hands of those 1611 translators - this makes me trust the God behind the men - not the men - you misrepresented my statements.

You are the one who started accusing people of putting faith in man. I have made it clear that it is Christ in my heart which communicates God's infallible Word to me. IF either of us is relying on men, as you claim, it must be you, who at least indirectly relies on men, and not I, who doesn't.

2. Oh, yes - God was in the NIV committee I'm sure. God allows a lot of things to happen - he is God. God lets men produce error so as to weed out the tares - to make people study - to expose the human heart.

Precisely what I believe about the KJV.

The difference you ask? By their fruits ye shall know them. I know and have seen the fruits of the King James for 350 years.

I know and have seen the fruits of modern versions for 100 years. Both modern versions and the KJV have resulted in fantastic fruits, proving all are from God.

Why would God wait until Christanity was at its lowest, carnal, and worldy state to "upgrade" his word with an inferior English, inferior scholars, and inferior motives.?

Well, 1) if Christianity was as bad as you made it out to be, maybe that proves that the message was not being effectively communicated in the existing KJV. It makes perfect sense to update an outdated marketing manual to spur new sales. My company does this all of the time. 2) English today is different, not inferior, to King James English. Scholars today are vastly superior--being much mroe educated and having much better tools for scholarship. And you know the motives of nobody except yourself.

3. Yes - we agree here - but have you ever done a study on the attributes of Christ and compared them to the attributes of the written word? They share many of the same attributes. And by the way - how do you even know what the infallible Word says to you if you do not have an accurate and perfect word?

Christ is in me. He doesn't need written words in a language he never even spoke to speak to me.

4. Real simple - there is nothing wrong with believeing the sun will come up. Poor example - you know what I was saying - you just didn't like it. I agree with the world whenever it agrees with the book - when it is contrary then we separate. You, the world, and Rome are in agreement with the modern versions - that should make your nervous as a termite in a yoyo.

Yes, I agree with the world whenever it agrees with the book. And there is nothing in the book, in your KJV version, which claims that it is itself the infallible word of God. Your belief has no scriptural basis.

5. I think I've arleady agreed with that - but I think I've said repeatedly they also take away from the deity of Christ and the links prove it. Is it ok to lift up Christ in 100 passages but tear it down in 10 passages? The issue is the 10 wrong passages not the 100 right ones.

The passages don't tear down Christ. They simply fail to illuminate some attribute of Christ that the KJV illuminated.

6. Have you read the links? The links show the attack by the modern versioins on the deity of Christ. Nothing taken out of context - no tricks just plain comparing the verses and taking them as they stand. If you haven't read the links how do you know what they are saying? You are not afraid to read them are you? Go ahead and shut the door and make sure nobody is watching and then read them - you don't have to give a report out on the links. Just get alone so nobody can say you are accountable once you've seen them. But remember God knows - Prov 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

Yes, I've looked at the links. They don't show an attack. They show a KJV onlysist twisting modern versions to try to slander them.

"and this is one of them" - I'm assuming you are referring to Mic. 5:2 in the NIV and others - does not it say that Jesus has origins or not?

No, it does not say Jesus has an origin.

 

[AVBunyan]

Enough is enough

Cubed - I think we have gone on long enough. You are wlecome to read and believe whatever you want. I've done all I can to show clear examples from the links and you still can't see it or don't want to. Only God can show you these things - I obviously cannot or did a poor job in trying.

My discussion with you on this matter has ended.

 

[brandplucked]

Thou shalt not kill

Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." (KJV) <-- error

Ex. 20:13, "You shall not murder." (NASB) <-- correct

One single error, and there are more, proves you wrong. Period.{/quote}

Free, this is not an error.

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

Besides not being an error in the King James Bible, what you just did is the ol'switcheroo tactic. "Well, my bible may have errors in it, but so does yours, nyah, nyah, nyah."

You don't believe there is such a thing an inerrant, complete, infallible Bible in any text or any language, do you?

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

"learn Hebrew and Greek"

If you want to be able to read the most accurate copy of the Bible, then I'm afraid you must learn Hebrew and Ancient Greek. Something is always lost in the translation.

Hi element, This really tells us nothing at all. Which Hebrew and which Greek texts are the true words of God? Are you aware that versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard ALL frequently reject the Hebrew readings, and none of them use the same Greek texts as the others?

Your "learn Hebrew and Greek" tells us nothing at all about where the perfect words of God are found today. You don't believe any Bible or any text is the infallible word of God, do you?

Don't worry. You have a lot of company today. Most Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders.



"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).


"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).



"My main concern is with those who profess to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by, what I can only call, surreptitious and devious means, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, a position that is taken widely in the evangelical world. ALMOST ALL OF THE LITERATURE WHICH IS PRODUCED IN THE EVANGELICAL WORLD TODAY FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY... This has become so common in evangelical circles that it is almost impossible to find an evangelical professor in the theological schools of our land and abroad who still holds uncompromisingly to the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. (Herman Hanko, Professor of Church History and New Testament, Protestant Reformed Seminary, The Battle for the Bible, 1993, pp. 2,3).

Amazing Statistics - I was listening to my radio today, and happened to catch Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2

In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted.

Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
95% of the Episcopalian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
82% of the Presbyterian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
77% of American Lutheran Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
67% of American Baptist Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture


_________________
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee Isaiah 26:3


Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

the Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Titus 2:13 (NIV)
while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Titus 2:13 (KJV)
13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

The NIV has Jesus as our God and Savior, while the KJV seperates them.

I guess that means that the KJV robs Jesus of His deity.[/quote]

Hi Dime, No, it means the NIV is missing an important truth because it has not correctly translated the Greek text as does the King James Bible.

Titus 2:13 “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of THE GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ;†Here the critics say the KJB rendering does not fully bring out the deity of Jesus Christ. I don’t really understand what they are talking about, because when I read this passage, it clearly declares that Jesus Christ is the great God as well as our Saviour.

The NKJV, NIV and NASB all join here in rendering this verse as “the appearing of OUR great God and Savior Jesus Christ.†They apparently think this brings out his deity more clearly. However, it is necessary to point out two very important things in this verse. Number one is that the Greek reads exactly as it stands in the KJB, and not as it is in the NKJV, NIV and NASB.

The Greek in all texts reads “the great God and OUR Saviour.†The second thing to point out is the difference in meaning. You see, when Christ appears again in glory, He is the God of everybody - every man, woman and child, believer or unbeliever - but He is OUR Saviour. He is the Saviour of only those who are true Christians, but He is the God and creator of all, and He will be the judge of those who have not believed on Him.

So the KJB is actually more accurate here than the NIV, NKJV and NASB. Other versions that read as does the KJB are the ASV, Webster’s Bible, J.B. Phillips, Tyndale 1525, Wycliffe’s 1380, Cranmer’s Bible 1539, Rheims 1582, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Lamsa of 1933, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 , the Italian Diodati and the Third Millenium Bible.

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Was there a day when God was not the Father of the Son?

AV, your arguments hold absolutely no water with me because I showed 100% clearly that the NIV upholds the deity of Christ.

If the NIV translators were going to try to remove or hid the deity of Christ in their version, they sure did a lousy job.

Hi Dime, if a bible version came out all at once that removed the pure doctrine of the deity of Christ, people would not be so easily deceived and they wouldn't buy it. What Satan has to do is gradually change things here and there and slowly introduce false doctrine.

I do agree with one part of your statement. The NIV did do a lousy job

Did you know that the NIV teaches not only that the Son of God had "origins" (just like the JW bible version does in the same verse), but it also teaches that there was a day when God was not the Father of the Son (again, just like the JW version does in the same verse)?

Check out Acts 13:33

There is another phrase. that is “hard to be understood†that has been changed in the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, Holman, and the NASB. It is found in Acts 13:33 where it refers to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The KJB reads, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

The versions that read as the KJB, “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN†are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster’s 1833, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 21st Century KJB. The modern New English Bible and the New Century version both read “raising Jesus from the deadâ€Â. The Living Bible says “bringing Jesus back from the deadâ€Â, and God’s Word Translation says, “by bringing Jesus back to life.â€Â

It is of great interest to see how many foreign language Bibles render this phrase “he hath raised up Jesus AGAINâ€Â. The Spanish says: “resusitándo a Jesusâ€Â, the Latin resuscitans Iesum, the French - en ressuscitant Jesus; the Portuguese- ressuscitando a Jesus, and the Italian has risuscitando Gesu. Thus it is easy to see that they all consider this verse to read as does the KJB. I believe it is referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.


What does the phrase, “This day have I begotten thee†mean? Jesus Christ did not become the only begotten Son at His incarnation. This false doctrine is called incarnational sonship. He was the only begotten Son BEFORE His taking on a human body.

The orthodox doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten before His incarnation was firmly established in 325 A.D at the council of Nicea when the church was combating the teaching of Arianism. Arianism taught that Christ was a created being; that He had an origen and was inferior to God the Father.

Here is part of the well known Nicean Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

I John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." He was the only begotten Son before He was sent into this world.

The NIV teaches heresy with its rendering of Acts 13:33 by saying, "Today I have become your Father." And now the two new versions coming out, the ISV (International Standard Version) and the Southern Baptist Holman Christian Standard also have: "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!! This teaches that there was a time when Jesus Christ was not the Son, and God was not His Father. This is the same teaching and reading of the Jehovah Witnesses' bible version.



In what sense then can Jesus be said to have been begotten on a certain day? This happened at the resurrection.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary: this day have I begotten thee-- (Psalms 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4). Christ has a fourfold right to the title "Son of God"; (1) By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission, as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as "the first-begotten of the dead" (4) By actual possession, as heir of all . I the Everlasting Father have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day of Thy being manifested as My Son, "the first-begotten of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5).The context refers to a definite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on the inheritance (Heb. 1:4)."

B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament: "This day have I begotten thee. What day is referred to in the prophecy? Acts 13:32, 33 answers the question by quoting this very passage and declaring that it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. He was born from the dead and God, who raised him, thus demonstrated that he was his Son. The Expositor's Greek Testament: " Today" is evidently intended to mark a special occasion and cannot allude to the eternal generation of the Son. It is not the beginning of life, but the entrance on office that is indicated and it is as King the person addressed is God's Son. Thus Paul applies it to the resurrection of Christ in Acts 13:33.

Christ refers to Himself in Revelation 1:5 as, "the firstbegotten from the dead", and in Colossians 1:18 He is referred to as the, "firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence."


I believe the NKJV, RSV, ESV, and the NASB are wrong by applying Acts 13:33 to Christ's incarnation instead of His resurrection, and the NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard along with the NWT, are heretical by teaching Christ was not the Son, nor God His Father before a certain day.

I hope this little study has been helpful to you and that we all will appreciate and love the Person of our Blessed Redeemer more for His amazing grace to us unworthy sinners. May our attitude towards His true words as found in the KJB be as that of king David- “Therefore I eteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.†Psalm 119:128.

Will Kinney

 

[element80]

Re: "learn Hebrew and Greek"

If you want to be able to read the most accurate copy of the Bible, then I'm afraid you must learn Hebrew and Ancient Greek. Something is always lost in the translation.

Hi element, This really tells us nothing at all. Which Hebrew and which Greek texts are the true words of God? Are you aware that versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard ALL frequently reject the Hebrew readings, and none of them use the same Greek texts as the others?

Your "learn Hebrew and Greek" tells us nothing at all about where the perfect words of God are found today. You don't believe any Bible or any text is the infallible word of God, do you?

Don't worry. You have a lot of company today. Most Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were made by key Evangelical leaders.



"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).


"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).



"My main concern is with those who profess to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by, what I can only call, surreptitious and devious means, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, a position that is taken widely in the evangelical world. ALMOST ALL OF THE LITERATURE WHICH IS PRODUCED IN THE EVANGELICAL WORLD TODAY FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY... This has become so common in evangelical circles that it is almost impossible to find an evangelical professor in the theological schools of our land and abroad who still holds uncompromisingly to the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. (Herman Hanko, Professor of Church History and New Testament, Protestant Reformed Seminary, The Battle for the Bible, 1993, pp. 2,3).

Amazing Statistics - I was listening to my radio today, and happened to catch Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2

In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted.

Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
95% of the Episcopalian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
82% of the Presbyterian Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
77% of American Lutheran Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture
67% of American Baptist Clergy no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture


_________________
Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee Isaiah 26:3


Will Kinney

Did I say I though that scripture was falliable? No. You're putting words in my mouth. I was merely pointing out that you cannot say the KJV is better because it's not the original. When you translate something, sometimes you are fore=ced to use words who's meanings aren't exactly the same. For example, the word love in the NT can have different meanings. Sometimes it's used for "phileo" which is brotherly love, and sometimes it's used for "agape" which is self-sacraficial love. Because the english language doens't have a words strictly for agape and phileo, the word love was used. It's not wrong, but some of the meaning behind it is lost.

 

[Free]

Re: Thou shalt not kill

Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." (KJV) <-- error

Ex. 20:13, "You shall not murder." (NASB) <-- correct

One single error, and there are more, proves you wrong. Period.{/quote}

Free, this is not an error.

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

Besides not being an error in the King James Bible, what you just did is the ol'switcheroo tactic. "Well, my bible may have errors in it, but so does yours, nyah, nyah, nyah."

You don't believe there is such a thing an inerrant, complete, infallible Bible in any text or any language, do you?

Will K

One error from the site is this: "The two are used synonymously in English and the Scripture. For example, if a man shoots another man in front of a witness, the witness may say, "You killed him." That is true, but he will be charged with murder. Common sense and our English dictionaries demonstrate that these two words mean the same thing."

This absolutely false. "Kill" and "murder" are two different words - all murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. The two words are most definitely not synonomous.

And, yes, of course I believe there is such a thing as an inerrant, complete, and infallible Bible. In the sense you are using "inerrant," which is the typical incorrect understanding of inerrancy, I believe only the original authographs are inerrent.

Check out this link on inerrancy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

That is all I have time for at the moment.

 

[JM]

Even the 'world' can see it.

Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music and Why We Should, Like, Care

Linguist and show-tune aficionado McWhorter (Losing the Race) explores why American language and music are no longer crafted, honored or even well-regarded means of expression. The expected social formality of an earlier era, he argues, was eroded by the individualistic, multicultural values of the 1960s. The result: we talk rather than lecture, and we choose 50 Cent over Mahler. By unearthing Victorian-era speeches, early 20th-century newspapers and presidential addresses from the family Bush, McWhorter shows just how American English has, over time, taken on a permanent casual Friday uniform. McWhorter, who is African-American, suggests that hip-hop, spoken-word poetry and black English are the current defining modes of expression, with their fight-the-power messages of distrusting authority and "keeping it real." But, he notes, in contrast to the gentle, erudite oratories of the past, "[p]oetry that shouts can only be a sideshow. It cannot inspire a nation." Laden with contemporary pop culture references and humorous asides, this is an entertaining polemic that brings linguistics to the people, while lamenting the populist mentality that has made being cool more critical than being articulate.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Product Description:
A rousing polemic in defense of the written word by the New York Times bestselling author of Losing the Race and the widely acclaimed history of language The Power of Babel.

Critically acclaimed linguist John McWhorter has devoted his career to exploring the evolution of language. He has often argued that language change is inevitable and in general culturally neutral-languages change rapidly even in indigenous cultures where traditions perpetuate; and among modernized peoples, culture endures despite linguistic shifts. But in his provocative new book, Doing Our Own Thing, McWhorter draws the line when it comes to how cultural change is turning the English language upside down in America today, and how public English is being overwhelmed by street English, with serious consequences for our writing, our music, and our society.

McWhorter explores the triumph of casual over formal speech-particularly since the dawn of 1960s counterculture-and its effect on Americans' ability to write, read, critique, argue, and imagine. In the face of this growing rift between written English and spoken English, the intricate vocabularies and syntactic roadmaps of our language appear to be slipping away, eroding our intellectual and artistic capacities. He argues that "our increasing alienation from 'written language' signals a gutting of our intellectual powers, our self-regard as a nation, and thus our very substance as a people."

Timely, thought-provoking, and compellingly written, Doing Our Own Thing is sure to stoke many debates about the fate of our threatened intellectual culture, and the destiny of our democracy.
[/img]

 

[AVBunyan]

Even the 'world' can see it.

Timely, thought-provoking, and compellingly written, Doing Our Own Thing is sure to stoke many debates about the fate of our threatened intellectual culture, and the destiny of our democracy.
[/img]

Interesting post Jason - good food for thought - thanks - nice job.

God bless

 

[Free]

I don't understand what it has to do with the topic.

 

[brandplucked]

Re: "learn Hebrew and Greek"

Did I say I though that scripture was falliable? No. You're putting words in my mouth. I was merely pointing out that you cannot say the KJV is better because it's not the original. When you translate something, sometimes you are fore=ced to use words who's meanings aren't exactly the same. For example, the word love in the NT can have different meanings. Sometimes it's used for "phileo" which is brotherly love, and sometimes it's used for "agape" which is self-sacraficial love. Because the english language doens't have a words strictly for agape and phileo, the word love was used. It's not wrong, but some of the meaning behind it is lost.

Hi element. First, you have no way AT ALL of determing if the KJB matches the originals or not, so don't automatically assume that they don't.

Secondly, are you sure about this phileo/ agape myth? I think not. You are just repeating something you have never actually studied out for yourself, aren't you? Here is some information that may change your mind about this. Check it out for yourself.

God bless,

Will K


Words for Love in the New Testament - agapao versus phileo.

Many Bible critics like to play the Greek game and impress the unlearned with their supposed superior knowledge of "the original Greek". The phrase "the original Greek" must be intoned with a certain degree of pious solemnity to produce the desired effect.

Here is such a letter I received from a moderator at another Christian club on the internet.

" I do not believe that the KJV is ever truly misleading, BUT, we lost a very important matter when the KJV people translated both PHILEO and AGAPE to "love" in John 21:15-17

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.



These "serious scholars" like to think they are privy to special insights and nuances the rest of us peons of the pews cannot fathom. They take great pains to let us know there are subtle meanings found only in "the original Greek" of which we garden variety Christians remain woefully ignorant until they exercise their priestcraft to open these hidden treasures on our behalf.

They tell us that such a case is found in the New Testament use of two distinct words for love - agape and phileo. You will constantly hear these drones...uh, I mean... scholars tell us that agape means God's unconditional love, while phileo means a friendship type of love.

Well, let's take a closer look at how God uses these two words and see if there is really something to what they say or if is it all hogwash.

John 3:16 "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." The verb used here is form of 'agape', so we are told it always means a God-type unconditional love. OK, but what do we then do with these verses using the same verb?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Agapao

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God." Agapao

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them." Agapao

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." Agapao

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." Agapao

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Agapao

It should be abundantly clear that the scholar who insists the word 'agape' means an unconditional, God-type love has no idea what he is talking about.

Well, what about phileo then? Does it always mean a friendship type of love and not the love of God?

John 16:27 "For the Father himself LOVETH you, because ye have LOVED me, and have believed that I came out from God." Phileo

Revelation 3:19 "As many as I LOVE, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent." Phileo

1 Corinthians 16:22 "If any man LOVE not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." Phileo

Well, then do these two words actually mean the same thing? Let's compare some Scriptures.

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo
Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo
John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo
Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo
1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao

Don't let the Bible correctors or "serious scholars" steal your Bible from you or make you think they have inside information that you do not have if you only read the English of the King James Holy Bible. The believing Bible reader will often have far more spiritual understanding than the educated scholar who thinks he can correct or improve upon the Holy Bible God has given us.

Regarding the passage in John 21 that is frequently the occasion of the scholar's assaults, Dr. Thomas Holland has these insightful words of encouragement.

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/lesson01.htm

Dr. Thomas Holland.

The question was asked: "When Jesus confronted Peter and thrice asked, 'Do you love me?' he used two different words in Greek, why wasn't this captured in the English translation?"

The passage is found in John 21:15-17 which reads as follows.

15: So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16: He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17: He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

There are two different Greek words translated as love in this passage. One is agape and the other is phileo. According to the Greek text the first two times Jesus uses the word love He uses the Greek word agape. Both of these times Peter responds with phileo. On the third time, when Jesus speaks the word love, the word phileo is used by Christ. To this, Peter responds with phileo. Some suggest that the Greek word agape means a deeper love, while the Greek word phileo means friendship or affection.

The King James Bible is not alone in translating both words the same way. The standard Spanish translation is the Valera. What the KJV is to the English-speaking world, the Valera is to the Spanish- speaking world. Each time the Lord asks, "me amas?" to which Peter replies, "Si, Senor; tu sabes que te amo." In every case, the Spanish word for love is used, not two different words.

The standard French Bible is the Louis Segond. All three times the Lord uses the word, "m'aimes-tu," and Peter replies with "t'aime." It is the same French word for love.

The Italian Bible is the Giovanni Diodati. In the gospel according to Giovanni (John), the Italian word "amo" is used throughout the passage.

And, of course, Luther's German Bible uses the German word for love, which is, "lieber."

Even the NIV, NASV, NKJV, RV, ASV RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, and NEB translated both Greek words as love in this passage. So the KJV is not at all alone in its translation.

Most scholars teach the two different Greek words agape and phileo, mean two different things, or at the very least, two different types of love (such as, I love my wife and I love pizza). However, this does not bear itself out in the Greek New Testament. The simple fact is that these two words are used interchangeably, both meaning love. If phileo means friendship and not godly love, then why does Christ use it in Revelation 3:19? "As many as I love, I rebuke."

Both words mean love and are used interchangeably.


Finally, the real issues here was not the change of Greek words. Peter was not grieved because Christ had changed Greek words. He was grieved because he asked three times. It was not the change in words or tense that disturbed Peter. It was, "because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" Does not this passage in John 21 prove the point that agape and phileo are interchangeable? Jesus asks, "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 15), "lovest (agape) thou me" (vs. 16), and "lovest (phileo) thou me" (vs. 17). When Christ asks this last time, the texts states, "He saith unto him THE THIRD TIME" (vs.17). This is true only if these two words are interchangeable. If they are not interchangeable and carry different meanings, the text is in error, for it was not the third time. If the two words carry the same meaning, the text would be correct as it stands in the Greek manuscripts. (end of Dr. Holland's comments)

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Inerrant, infallible Bible

Check out this link on inerrancy: http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

That is all I have time for at the moment.

Hi Free, that is a great quote and I agree heartily with all that it says. However, do you personally believe such a thing as an inerrant, infallible Bible in any language actually exists today?

If so, could you please be very specific and name it for us, so we can all go out and get ourselves a copy of it to compare all the multiple-choice, contradictory versions? Does such a Bible exist in fact, or are you talking about a mystical bible that only exits in your own mind?

That would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Will K

 

[AVBunyan]

Understand

I don't understand what it has to do with the topic.

I can see what Jason was alluding to.
Of course I can see why some folks may not see it.

God bless
Brett

 

[brandplucked]

Inerrant, infallible, completly true Bible

And, yes, of course I believe there is such a thing as an inerrant, complete, and infallible Bible. In the sense you are using "inerrant," which is the typical incorrect understanding of inerrancy, I believe only the original authographs are inerrent.

Uh, Free, this quote of yours is representative of what I have found over the years when discussing the existence of an infallible, wholly true Bible. You guys are illogical, inconsistent and very confused. You no longer know how to think straight, and then you accuse the Bible believer (King James Holy Bible) of being cultic, anti-intellectual, or a moron.

Free, just look at what you say here. You say you believe there is an inerrant , infallible Bible. They you say that you believe ONLY the original autographs ARE inerrant, as though you had the originals right there on your desk and were comparing them to the various versions out there.

Free, you are flat out lying. There ARE no originals. What you really believe is that "once upon a time, and far, far away, there WERE some originals that never formed a single Book at any time, but these have long since disappeared, and now all we have are thousands of variants scattered hither and yon, and nobody is really sure what God wrote or wanted us to know. But we do have what most reputable scholars think is probably a pretty good approximation of what God maybe said regarding the general idea of some sort of salvation message and a few other things of minor importance."

Why don't you Whateverists guys just come out and speak clearly about what you really believe? Why try to make us think you know what the originals ARE saying because YOU have access to them and you are sure they don't match the King James Bible?

The simple fact is you do not have (present tense) any Bible or any text in any language that you honestly believe IS NOW the infallible, complete, and wholly true words of God. If I am wrong about this, then tell us all very plainly what this infallible Bible is called and where we can all get ourselves a copy.

Will

 

[Free]

Free, just look at what you say here. You say you believe there is an inerrant , infallible Bible. They you say that you believe ONLY the original autographs ARE inerrant, as though you had the originals right there on your desk and were comparing them to the various versions out there.

Free, you are flat out lying. There ARE no originals.

I haven't lied at all. Once again a KJVO makes a mountain out of a mole hill. We do not have the originals or know where they are, but no one knows for certain if they are or are not in existence. It was just a choice of word. :-?

Your argument actually makes no sense. It is obvious that the autographs are inerrant, and it is also plainly obvious that when one translates from any language to another, the translation will never say exactly what the original langauge said. Period. Anyone who has taken any second language knows this.

But we do have what most reputable scholars think is probably a pretty good approximation of what God maybe said regarding the general idea of some sort of salvation message and a few other things of minor importance."

Now who is being irrational? You are sticking up for KJVOism yet you just admitted that "we do have what most reputable scholars think is probably a pretty good approximation of what God maybe said."

Which is it? Is KJVOism true or what you said true? Because they are two very different positions.

Why don't you Whateverists guys just come out and speak clearly about what you really believe? Why try to make us think you know what the originals ARE saying because YOU have access to them and you are sure they don't match the King James Bible?

You say that "[we're] illogical, inconsistent and very confused," yet why don't you read what you write? The whole point of KJVOism is that they think the KJV says exactly what the autographs said and that the KJV itself is inspired like the autographs.

No one, not I or anyone else in here, has ever said that they have access to the originals. :-?

The simple fact is you do not have (present tense) any Bible or any text in any language that you honestly believe IS NOW the infallible, complete, and wholly true words of God.

You really need to go back and reread my previous post. It is your understanding of inerrancy and infallibility that are wrong, which is why I said only the autographs are/were inerrant in the sense of inerrancy that you are thinking. Please read what I write before making such posts.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Sorry I haven't been participating in this thread anymore. I simply don't know enough on this topic to say one way or the other.

 

[brandplucked]

Infallible Bible

Free, just look at what you say here. You say you believe there is an inerrant , infallible Bible. They you say that you believe ONLY the original autographs ARE inerrant, as though you had the originals right there on your desk and were comparing them to the various versions out there.

Free, you are flat out lying. There ARE no originals.

I haven't lied at all. Once again a KJVO makes a mountain out of a mole hill. We do not have the originals or know where they are, but no one knows for certain if they are or are not in existence. It was just a choice of word. :-?

Your argument actually makes no sense. It is obvious that the autographs are inerrant, and it is also plainly obvious that when one translates from any language to another, the translation will never say exactly what the original langauge said. Period. Anyone who has taken any second language knows this.

Free, you just did it again! There ARE no originals. They WERE inerrant, but you do not know what they SAID. God either preserved His pure words or He lied and He didn't. You do not have any inerrant Bible. You do not believe such a thing exists right now. Just come out and admit it. The truth will set you free.

But we do have what most reputable scholars think is probably a pretty good approximation of what God maybe said regarding the general idea of some sort of salvation message and a few other things of minor importance."

Now who is being irrational? You are sticking up for KJVOism yet you just admitted that "we do have what most reputable scholars think is probably a pretty good approximation of what God maybe said."


Free, you missed the whole point I was making. I was being facetious. I was putting words into your mouth as though this is what YOU believe - not me. I do believe the King James Bible is God's pure words and they are always true. I can tell anyone where they can be found today. You can't.



Free, why don't you then tell us which bible version out there you think is the "best guess" we have today? Which one do you think is closest to the non-existent originals which you have never seen and do not possess?

If you can be more specific, then I can address some specific verses.

Here are just a few of hundreds of examples I can bring up from my own studies.


Hosea 11:2 "As THEY called them, so they went from THEM: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images."

Here, the "they" who called them, and the "them" from whom the children of Israel went, are the prophets God sent to call His people to repentance, and urge them to return to the true worship. Compare 11:7.

The reading of "as THEY called them, so they went from THEM" is found in the KJB, NKJV, RV, NASB, Geneva, Youngs, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish Reina Valera, and even the ESV.

However the NIV, RSV and NRSV say: "The more I called Israel ("Israel" is not in any text), the more they went FROM ME." Then the NIV, RSV footnote that the "I" and the "ME" come from some Septuagint versions, but that the Hebrew texts read "they" and "them". Daniel Wallace's goofy NET bible version also reads like the NIV, thus rejecting the Hebrew readings.

The new Holman Standard decided to mix things up by saying: "As they called THEM, the more they went from ME." It then footnotes that the LXX has "ME", but the Hebrew reads "them". Why didn't the NIV and Holman also note that instead of reading "I called MY SON out of Egypt" in verse one, the LXX says: "I called HIS CHILDREN out of Egypt"? The LXX is a horrible mishmash of confused readings, yet most modern versions freely and inconsistently choose to follow it whenever the mood strikes them.

Hosea 11:4 "I drew them with cords of A MAN, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their JAWS, and I laid meat unto them."

"cords of A MAN" is the Hebrew reading and that of the RV, ASV, NASB, Geneva, Young's, Darby, and the Jewish translations. However the NKJV says: "with GENTLE cords" and then footnotes that the literal Hebrew is "a man". The NIV has: "with cords of HUMAN KINDNESS", and the ESV "cords of KINDNESS", but then footnotes that the literal Hebrew is "cords of a man", just like the KJB has it.

One of the most pretentious of versions now held in high esteem by all the Bible correctors is Daniel Wallace's NET bible. This goofy piece of garbage actually reads: "I led them with LEATHER cords, with LEATHER ropes."!!!! Then the good doctor Wallace tells us in his footnote: "This homonymic root is well attested in Arabic - skin; leather.

Will it ever dawn on people that the "notable scholars" of today have completely lost their marbles?

"take off the yoke on their JAWS" is the reading of the Geneva, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV and Holman Standard, but the NKJV joins the NIV saying: "take the yoke off their NECK", and then footnotes again that the literal Hebrew is "jaws".

11:7 KJB "And my people are bent to backsliding from me; though they (the prophets) called them to the most High, NONE AT ALL WOULD EXALT HIM." (the people would not exalt God).

In this verse the NKJV, RV, ASV, Darby, and NASB are in agreement with the KJB but the NIV, Holman, and ESV have: "My people are determined to turn from me. EVEN IF THEY CALL TO THE MOST HIGH, HE WILL BY NO MEANS EXALT THEM." This is a totally different meaning.

Just to make things more interesting, the RSV says: "My people are bent on turning away from me, SO THEY ARE APPOINTED TO THE YOKE, AND NONE SHALL REMOVE IT." Boy, am I glad that is all cleared up for us. Remember what James White says: we get a clearer picture by comparing all the versions.

Now with Daniel Wallace's ongoing "masterpiece of modern scholarship" we have a new twist to add to the pile. His NET version says: "My people are obsessed with turning away from me; they call to BAAL, BUT HE WILL NEVER EXALT THEM!" Then Doktor Wallace tells us: "The meaning and syntax of the MT is enigmatic."


11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS." The Bible versions that agree with the King James Bible in that Judah IS YET FAITHFUL are the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, Young, Spanish Reina Valera, Green's interlinear, the Hebrew-English 1936, and the Third Millenium Bible. But the NKJV puts a new twist here saying: "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful."

This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One."

The NASB, NIV and TNIV completely spin this verse around to mean the opposite with: "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One."

The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure. If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God?

Hosea 12:4 "Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake WITH US."

"WITH US" is the reading of the Hebrew texts, as well as that of the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Geneva Bible, Young's, Darby, and the 2001 ESV. However, the RSV, NIV and Holman Standard all follow the Greek Septuagint and Syriac, instead of the Hebrew texts. The NIV and Holman Standard say: "and talked WITH HIM there."



Hosea 13:9 "O Israel, THOU HAST DESTROYED THYSELF: BUT IN ME IS THINE HELP."

So read the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, Young's, Green's MKJV and interlinear, Douay, Webster's, KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

But the NASB, NIV say: "It is your destruction, O Israel, that you are against me, against your help." Just to make it interesting, the New English Bible and the Bible in Basic English say: "I have sent destruction on you, O Israel. Who will be your helper?"

Then the ESV clarifies this further by saying: "HE destroys you, O Israel, for you are against me, against your helper." The Holman Standard takes another stab at it with: "I will destroy you, Israel; you have no help but Me."

Adam Clarke comments: "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself - These evils come not by my immediate infliction; they are the consequences of thy own crimes. "But in me is thine help" -Though thou hast destroyed thyself, yet in me alone can thy help be found" - others read, And who will help thee? reading mi, who, for bi, in me. Though this is countenanced by the Syriac, yet there is no evidence of it in any of the MSS. yet collated, nor do I think it to be the true reading."

13:10 God says to Israel "I WILL BE YOUR KING" in the KJB, NKJV, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, but the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB ask "WHERE IS your king?" The RSV, NRSV, and Holman Standard all have an interesting footnote here. Their footnotes reads " Greek, Syriac and Vulgate read "Where is your king?", while the Hebrew Masoretic text says "I will be your king."

Daniel Wallace's idiotic NET bible version says: "WHERE THEN IS your king, that he may save you in all your cities?" Then he footnotes: "The Masoretic Text reads the enigmatic I want to be [your king].. which makes little sense...All the versions (Greek, Syriac, Vulgate) read the interrogative Where. The textual corruption was caused by metathesis of the y (yod) and h (hey). Few translations follow the MT: I will be thy/your king (KJV, NKJV). Most emend the text: Where is your king?(RSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, CEV)."

There it is, right before your eyes in black and white. This "eminent textual scholar" openly admits that the Hebrew texts say "I will be your king", but says it makes little sense, and that it is better to "emend" (change) the text, as do many modern versions!!!

Other textual scholars take the opposite view. Jamieson, Faussett and Brown remark: " I will be thy king;--the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, "Where now is thy king?" [MAURER]. English Version is, however, favored both by the Hebrew, by the antithesis between Israel's self-chosen and perishing kings, and God, Israel's abiding King (compare Ho 3:4, 5)."

Hosea 13:14

One of the most beautiful verses in Hosea has been destroyed by many modern versions. In the KJB, RV, ASV , Darby, Geneva, Young, 1917, 1936 Hebrew-English versions, and the Spanish of 1909 we read in Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death; O death, I will be thy plagues; O Grave, I will be thy destruction, REPENTANCE shall be hid from mine eyes."

In other words, God has promised to destroy death and He will not change His mind nor alter His purpose. Every commentator I looked up had basically the same understanding of this beautiful passage. John Gill comments:" repentance shall be hid from mine eyes; that is, the Lord will never repent of his decree of redemption from hell, death, and the grave; nor of the work of it by Christ; nor of the entire destruction of these things; which being once done, will never be repented of nor recalled, but remain so for ever."

BUT, instead of "repentance shall be hid from mine eyes" the NKJV has "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction. PITY is hidden from My eyes."

The NIV has " I WILL HAVE NO COMPASSION" and the NASB "compassion will be hidden from my sight". This perverted rendering doesn't fit the context, and makes no sense at all.

Again, Daniel Wallace, from Dallas Theological Seminary, has given us "the latest in scholarly findings". His NET bible version has totally turned things upside down, disagreeing even with the NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman Standard.

His NET version actually reads this way: "Will I deliver them from the power of Sheol? No, I will not! Will I redeem them from death? No, I will not! O Death, bring on your plagues! O Sheol, bring on your destruction! My eyes will not show any compassion! "

It just keeps getting better and better, doesn't it?

The King James Bible is the only true word of God. Don't accept any poor imitations.

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Sorry I haven't been participating in this thread anymore. I simply don't know enough on this topic to say one way or the other.

Hi Dime, thanks for the note. I appreciate your honesty. Maybe God will open your eyes to see where the real Holy Bible is today. It is all by sovereign grace.

Please check out my website for more information and examples of how perverted the modern bible versions are. They are not the true words of God. The gospel is still in them, and God can and does use them to bring His people into the kingdom, but their faith will be greatly weakened and their minds confused.

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

The proof of this is the undeniable fact that according to most recent polls, the majority of evangelical seminarians who know anything about the issues involved, no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Satan has been setting this thing up for a long time. In fact, every since the garden of Eden.

Most Christians today are members of the "Yeah, hath God said...? Society", many without even knowing it.

God bless,

Will K