Bible Study Why I believe the King James Bible is the true word of God

[brandplucked]

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

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

The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#2 The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship.

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail..." Isaiah 34:16.

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

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

"Thy word is true from the beginning, and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Psalm 119:160

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

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

"GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." 1 Timothy 3:16. (compare this verse in the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman) See also John 3:13; Luke 23:42, and 1 Corinthians 15:47.

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

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

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

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


In and by His grace alone,

Will Kinney

 

[cubedbee]

Re: Why I believe the King James Bible is the true word of G

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

This alone proves that the KJV is not the innerant word of God. The Masoretic texts were not completed until centuries after Jesus lived. Jesus and his followers who wrote the New Testament, and certainly knew what God's Word was, quoted from the Septuagint. Here's a couple dozen examples. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/comparisons.html The fact that the KJV translators rejected the Word of God as used by Jesus and his disciples, and instead substituted the false Masoretic makes it clear that the KJV is an extremely errant translation, more errant than most modern translations.

 

[brandplucked]

Pre-Christian Standardized Greek translation of the O.T.?

Hi Cube, I guess if you repeat a Big LIE long enough, people start to believe it. This whole thing about the apostles and the Lord quoting from the LXX is an urban myth. They teach this junk in seminaries and there is zero evidence for any of it. Rather the so called LXX is in reality Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

There is not one scrape of evidence of any B.C. Greek Septuagint text that was ever quoted by the Lord or the apostles. Zero.

You are as accurate in this assertion as you are in how "literal and accurate" the NASB is. What a joke. Care for some examples?

There are several different LXX versions around today and all of them are really horrible "translations". Do you actually read Greek or are you just parroting stuff you got from other "experts"?

The LXX was written AFTER the New Testament was written, and they placed some of the N.T. readings back into the O.T. translations. This is how it really worked.

The NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard all frequently reject the Hebrew readings and either make up a reading, follow SOME LXX readings, or the Syriac, or the Vulgate (all of this is acknowledged in the footnotes of the Holman, RSV and ESV), and they NEVER agree with each other all the way through. Your modern versions are a mixed up hodgepodge of conflicting readings and errors.


Here is part of an article by Scott Jones and he quotes many of today's experts on the LXX who admit there is NO evidence for a pre-Christian Standardized Greek translation of the Old Testament.



I have just concluded an in-depth study on the Septuagint, and I want to
clear up a few misconceptions, for there are a great many misconceptions
about this issue on both sides of the aisle.

First, there is little doubt that Greek translations of portions of the Old
Testament were attempted by private enterprises prior to Christianity.

However, these attempts were scattered; they were alienated not only by
parties, but by geography, and thus none of them were alike. Thus, there is no such thing as "THE" Septuagint prior to Christianity. There is only
scattered attempts at translation, with radically differing texts.
Radically.

Consequently, there is no doubt whatsoever that Jesus and the apostles
quoted strictly from the Hebrew Masoretic text. Not only would they have
done so out of sound doctrinal concerns, but there was no such thing as
"THE" Septuagint in their lifetimes. There were probably different Greek
translations of PORTIONS of the OT, but nothing even remotely standardized.

Kenyon, Würthwein, Swete, Silva, and other OT/Septuagint scholars would
agree that we have no earthly idea what the original form of the so-called
Septuagint was. For example, notice the following quotations -

"None of the various surviving forms of the text has preserved the original
form of the version." Ernst Würthwein, The Text Of The Old Testament, p 61.

(This next quotation is widely quoted on the internet, but the quotation on
the internet is inaccurate - the following is the exact quote from Kenyon's
book verbatim).

"A considerable number of MSS exist which give information AS TO ORIGEN'S HEXAPLARIC TEXT and PARTICULAR PASSAGES in the other columns, as well as Paul of Tella's Syro-Hexaplar version (see p. 58 below), BUT THESE DO NOT GO FAR towards enabling us to recover the LXX text AS IT EXISTED BEFORE ORIGEN; AND THIS REMAINS THE GREATEST PROBLEM WHICH CONFRONTS THE TEXTUAL STUDENT OF
THE SEPTUAGINT." F. G. Kenyon, "The Text of the Greek Bible", p 24 (emphas is added)

"It may also be doubted whether in the year 285 BC there were Jews in
Palestine who had sufficient intercourse with the Greeks to have executed a translation into that language; for it must be borne in mind how recently
they had become the subjects of Greek monarchs... we must also bear in mind that we find at this period NO TRACE OF ANY VERSIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE JEWS INTO THE LANGUAGES OF OTHER COUNTRIES in which they had continued for periods much longer than that of their settlement at Alexandria." Lancelot C. L. Brenton, Septuagint, Introduction, p ii.

"In effect, the great task of Septuagint textual criticism is to reconstruct
the pre-Hexaplaric text, which means undoing Origen's labors so as to
rediscover the form of the "Septuagint" in the second century. Without Greek manuscripts predating Origen, however, that goal is not easily reached." Karen Jobes & Moises Silva, "Invitation To The Septuagint," p 53

I could provide many additional quotes. In short, these scholars - while
they firmly believe that the Septuagint existed prior to Christianity - are
all forced to admit that they have no evidence that any standard text form
even remotely existed.

This is their problem. They make a quantum leap from a mass of evidence that reveals every conceivable mishmash of text forms AFTER Christianity began to flourish, to the unfounded assumption that a standard Greek OT text existed prior to Christianity, and that Jesus and the apostles quoted from this mythical standard text.

Of course, there is not a shred of evidence for this latter assumption.

The greatest witness to any form of Septuagintal text is Origen. Origen
employed a number of symbols in his Hexapla to differentiate his columns of Aquilla, Symmachus, and Theodotian from what Origen considered to be the "LXX," or at least some form of it. These symbols are preserved in many Greek manuscripts, and are thus known as Hexaplaric manuscripts.

However, there is only a paucity of information in these manuscripts,
comparatively speaking. Much of the reconstruction of the LXX and Origen's Hexapla comes from patristic quotations. Thus, once again there is no sound foundation for even recovering Origen's Hexapla, let alone a "Septuagint."

Further still, it is recognized by virtually everyone that various portions
of what passes for the LXX today (Rahlf's, Brenton, etc.), were translated
by different scribes in different time periods. That's why the translation
varies so radically from book to book against the Hebrew MT. In the Torah,
for example, the current edition of the "LXX" follows the Hebrew relatively
closely, but in Jeremiah, Judges, Daniel, Job, and other places, the
translation is so radically different from the Hebrew in some cases that it
is almost unrecognizable.

As Würthwein noted - "We may say in summary that what we find in Septuagint is not a single version but a collection of versions made by various writers who differed greatly in their translation methods, their knowledge of Hebrew, their styles, and in other ways. This diversity which makes it necessary to consider each book of the Bible individually is a large part of the problem posed by Septuagint, making it impossible to formulate the value of the version as a whole for textual criticism in any uniform way." Würthwein, "The Text Of The Old Testament," p 53-54.

Well, I've been very, very basic, but the bottom line is this -

It is a mistake for KJV adherents to insist that there were no Greek
translations of the OT prior to Christianity. There undoubtedly were
translations of portions of the OT, but there is not a shred of evidence
that any of them were widely used or accepted, or that any document such as THE Septuagint existed in any type of vulgar or standardized form.

Even though modern scholars insist that the Septuagint was a widely read and accepted document, not a single, solitary copy was found among the DSS - only a paltry cache of scattered fragments, the dates of which are highly questionable - and thus the evidence just doesn't support their assertion. Ergo, if the Septuagint was such a widely used and accepted document, why weren't any copies preserved among all the great finds at Qumran? Why can no standardized text form be ascertained, such as we are able to discern with the NT in Greek and the OT in Hebrew? Et cetera.

I remind you again of Würthwein's admission - "None of the various surviving forms of the text has preserved the original form of the version." Ernst Würthwein, The Text Of The Old Testament, p 61.

In other words, they say that this "original" form existed (known by the
term Vorlage), but they can't find a shred of evidence to support their
belief. To wit -

No text type of this so-called "Septuagint" has been preserved, and thus,
how strange for a document that was supposed to be THE standard was unable to preserve ANY type of standard form.

Accordingly, it is grossly inaccurate to assert that Jesus and the apostles
quoted from the "LXX," as most of you have seen my short demonstration on Hebrews 11:21 where I show conclusively that the so-called "LXX" quoted from the book of Hebrews, not the other way around. I've appended my short treatise below in case you haven't seen it.

In conclusion, it seems certain that there were a few independent Greek
translations of portions of the OT prior to Christianity, each differing
from translation to translation, but there was no standard LXX whatsoever.

Since no standard LXX existed, it is clear that Jesus and the apostles
didn't quote from it.

Suffice it to say that when Jacob Ben Chayyim amassed all the vast hordes of Hebrew manuscripts and Masoretic literature, he made it possible for the KJV and Luther and others who followed the OT Textus Receptus to produce the most accurate version of the OT that ever existed in one book at one time.

Scott
http://www.lamblion.net

It is quite comical to see just how shoddy mainstream biblical scholarship
is. For example, it is common fare for mainstream biblical scholarship to
state that the writer of Hebrews quoted from the LXX's rendering of Genesis 47:31 when he penned Hebrews 11:21. In other words, that the writer of Hebrews was copying the Greek LXX from Genesis 47:31. Of course, this assertion is ludicrous and is ignorantly made on the following basis ...

The Hebrew text states that Jacob "bowed himself upon the bed's head." The LXX declares that Jacob "bowed himself on the top of his STAFF." Naturally, since the writer of Hebrews used the word "STAFF" instead of "bed's head" he must be quoting the LXX - according to the THEORY, that is.

As is habitual with mainstream biblical scholarship, however, they have
failed to observe the SIMPLE context. You see, in Genesis 47:31 Jacob is in
the tent with Joseph ALONE. Just the two of them. In Hebrews 11:21, on the other hand, the context is ENTIRELY different. In this case, Jacob AND HIS SONS are in the tent with Joseph, an event which is found LATER in the
Genesis passage in 48:1-12, and it is this LATTER passage that the writer of Hebrews is describing, NOT Genesis 47:31 which mainstream biblical
scholarship so ignorantly presupposes. It gets better.

A straight-forward reading of the Hebrew reveals clearly what happened.
Joseph, still in the prone position, leaned on his bed when Jacob first
entered the tent in Genesis 47:31. But when Joseph brought his two sons into the tent later in Genesis 48, then Joseph SAT UP and LEANED UPON HIS STAFF.

This LATTER event is what the writer of Hebrews is recording (all four
persons are now present), and a SIMPLE adherence to context (which is really asking too much of mainstream bible scholars who don't even know what evidence is, let alone how to analyze or interpret it) would have prevented mainstream biblical scholars from making such a bad exhibition of themselves in this matter. There's more.

It becomes eminently clear that the writer of the LXX had the NT before him when he WROTE the LXX - the exact OPPOSITE of what mainstream biblical scholarship ASSERTS. The writer of the LXX confused the context exactly like mainstream bible scholars have confused the context.

Accordingly, the writer of the LXX decided he would help God out and prevent the Holy Spirit from making an error. Consequently, the writer of the LXX interposed the Greek word for "STAFF" into Genesis 47:31 based on the Greek text of Hebrews 11:21, which he had in front of him as he penned the book of Genesis in Greek. In other words, the writer of the LXX decided he was going to harmonize Genesis with the book of Hebrews by clarifying the account in Genesis, only he - like mainstream bible scholars - didn't pay attention to the context and thus, not only did he fail to "harmonize" the account, but in fact introduced yet another of his many legions of errors into the text.

In other words, the writer of the LXX copied Genesis FROM the book of
Hebrews - the exact OPPOSITE of what mainstream biblical scholarship so
ignorantly asserts.

 

[AVBunyan]

Good documetation

Will - I think you would come off better if you were to add some detail :-D

- Just being sarcastic - What I meant was if you were to answer them with one or two line "one-liners" like many do then they might get it - just kidding.

It is funny - folks make a statement - then when you respond and back it up with details then it gets as quiet as a turkey farm on Thanksgiving.

Folks have to realize that we are not here to tear down but to get people to reason and see that they have been sold a bill of goods on these new versions and this LXX stuff.

When God shows them the truth of His words being in the King James Bible then the confusion ends, boldness and confidence reigns, and the saint can then have comfort knowing his has the very words of God in his hands and this will produce power in his preaching, witnessing and ultimately draw him closer to the Saviour. Finally, the saint will be drawn away from the world's false leading in this area.

The problem is when one takes the stand of final authority then he goes against the grain of modern chrisitanity and it takes courage, perseverence, and faith.

Good job Will - stay at it - I just hope folks are reading your posts with an open mind.

God bless

 

[Blazin Bones]

While the KJV is obviously a fair translation, it is not the "inerrant inspired word" for two reasons. First it's not the true Greek or Hebrew. That in itself makes the translation falible. Second, the KJV is not most literal Bible as so many would suggest. In Truth, The NASB is more literal to the true meaning of what was written in the Greek and Hebrew.

My Biggest problem with most KJV only people is that they fail to see that God can work through each translation, even one as horrid as the TNIV and the NWT. While Both translations are clearly of what men think, God's principles and statutes can still be found and followed through those translations. However, I would suggest an NASB or KJV to those who seek to truly know what the origial Bible read as.

 

[AVBunyan]

Which Greek/Hebrew

1. In Truth, The NASB is more literal to the true meaning of what was written in the Greek and Hebrew.

2. My Biggest problem with most KJV only people is that they fail to see that God can work through each translation, even one as horrid as the TNIV and the NWT.

1. Hi Brutus - thanks for your thoughts - you are right - the NASB is a more literal to the Greek and Hebrew but....but..which Greek/Hebrew are we talking about here? The NASB is a translation based upon the Vaticanus/Siniaticus Greek and Hebrew not the Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV came from - two completely different set of manuscripts.

The myth of the day is the average saint has been told that the modern versions are updated KJV with some more light - wrong - the modern versions and the KJV come from two completely different lines of mauscripts - one (Modern versions) originated in Egypt while the KJV orginated from the manuscripts from Asia Minor.

That is why folks say the NASB is closer to the Greek/Hebrew and the Greek/Hebrew is that of the Egyptian flavor - and these corrupt manuscripts are the basis for all the modern versions.

2. God can work through newer versions - never said God didn't - there is some milk there but as Jason so aptly said it is "sour milk" at best. There is some nurtition even in sour milk but the result will be a stunted growth. Some of God's words are even in the newer versions but just because you find a diamond in a septic tank doesn't mean the septic tank is a jewelry store! :o

God bless

 

[Blazin Bones]

1. It is true that The KJV uses different manuscripts, but not all of the manuscripts we have now were used in the KJV's making.

2. Who are we to call God's milk sour. We make God's Milk sour just by being humans do we not? Instead of trying to force God's work through the KJV, why not allow God to reveal himself in his way?

 

[cubedbee]

Re: Pre-Christian Standardized Greek translation of the O.T.

Hi Cube, I guess if you repeat a Big LIE long enough, people start to believe it. This whole thing about the apostles and the Lord quoting from the LXX is an urban myth. They teach this junk in seminaries and there is zero evidence for any of it. Rather the so called LXX is in reality Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

There is not one scrape of evidence of any B.C. Greek Septuagint text that was ever quoted by the Lord or the apostles.

Except for the fact that Jesus and his disciples quote from Old Testament passages which are clearly not the Masoretic version.

The LXX was written AFTER the New Testament was written, and they placed some of the N.T. readings back into the O.T. translations. This is how it really worked.

Nope. Completely false. There is abundant historical evidence that the Pentateuch part of the LXX was completed centuries before Christ. I can't find a single reference that claims other wise--please provide if you know of one.

The NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard all frequently reject the Hebrew readings and either make up a reading, follow SOME LXX readings, or the Syriac, or the Vulgate (all of this is acknowledged in the footnotes of the Holman, RSV and ESV), and they NEVER agree with each other all the way through. Your modern versions are a mixed up hodgepodge of conflicting readings and errors.

And the KJV is part of this hodgepodge, not being special. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. God's words were given in Hebrew and Greek and if we want to know the exact words we must learn those language. Any and every translation is always going to be an approximation. This is not because of flawed humans, but because of the inherent limitations created by language differences.

Consequently, there is no doubt whatsoever that Jesus and the apostles
quoted strictly from the Hebrew Masoretic text. Not only would they have
done so out of sound doctrinal concerns, but there was no such thing as
"THE" Septuagint in their lifetimes. There were probably different Greek
translations of PORTIONS of the OT, but nothing even remotely standardized.

Yet, despite them supposedly using the MT, they don't quote from it when quoting from the OT, but instead quote something sorta close to it (which according to you was later copied into the LXX). Let's for a moment assume you are right. If Jesus himself did not find it necessary to quote the exact words of the OT, but instead something close in meaning, then this proves beyong a shadow of a doubt that it is the truth contained in the Bible, and not the exact words, which are holy and which God will preserve.

This is their problem. They make a quantum leap from a mass of evidence that reveals every conceivable mishmash of text forms AFTER Christianity began to flourish, to the unfounded assumption that a standard Greek OT text existed prior to Christianity, and that Jesus and the apostles quoted from this mythical standard text.

Your problem is how to explain the fact that the MT is supposedly the very innerrant words of God, but Jesus and his followers did not find it desirable to quote these very words, but instead put them in their own words.

Of course, there is not a shred of evidence for this latter assumption.

Except the logical assumption that God and his followers would manage to quote God's own words correctly.

Since no standard LXX existed, it is clear that Jesus and the apostles
didn't quote from it.

Yes, but you haven't proved a standard LXX didn't exist. You've simply proved that we can't prove it did. It still may have, and the apostles may still have quoted from it.

Suffice it to say that when Jacob Ben Chayyim amassed all the vast hordes of Hebrew manuscripts and Masoretic literature, he made it possible for the KJV and Luther and others who followed the OT Textus Receptus to produce the most accurate version of the OT that ever existed in one book at one time.

And it's too bad Christ and his followers didn't have the perfect KJV so they could get God's words right. :

It is quite comical to see just how shoddy mainstream biblical scholarship
is. For example, it is common fare for mainstream biblical scholarship to
state that the writer of Hebrews quoted from the LXX's rendering of Genesis 47:31 when he penned Hebrews 11:21. In other words, that the writer of Hebrews was copying the Greek LXX from Genesis 47:31. Of course, this assertion is ludicrous and is ignorantly made on the following basis ...

The Hebrew text states that Jacob "bowed himself upon the bed's head." The LXX declares that Jacob "bowed himself on the top of his STAFF." Naturally, since the writer of Hebrews used the word "STAFF" instead of "bed's head" he must be quoting the LXX - according to the THEORY, that is.

As is habitual with mainstream biblical scholarship, however, they have
failed to observe the SIMPLE context. You see, in Genesis 47:31 Jacob is in
the tent with Joseph ALONE. Just the two of them. In Hebrews 11:21, on the other hand, the context is ENTIRELY different. In this case, Jacob AND HIS SONS are in the tent with Joseph, an event which is found LATER in the
Genesis passage in 48:1-12, and it is this LATTER passage that the writer of Hebrews is describing, NOT Genesis 47:31 which mainstream biblical
scholarship so ignorantly presupposes. It gets better.

A straight-forward reading of the Hebrew reveals clearly what happened.
Joseph, still in the prone position, leaned on his bed when Jacob first
entered the tent in Genesis 47:31. But when Joseph brought his two sons into the tent later in Genesis 48, then Joseph SAT UP and LEANED UPON HIS STAFF.

This LATTER event is what the writer of Hebrews is recording (all four
persons are now present), and a SIMPLE adherence to context (which is really asking too much of mainstream bible scholars who don't even know what evidence is, let alone how to analyze or interpret it) would have prevented mainstream biblical scholars from making such a bad exhibition of themselves in this matter. There's more.

It becomes eminently clear that the writer of the LXX had the NT before him when he WROTE the LXX - the exact OPPOSITE of what mainstream biblical scholarship ASSERTS. The writer of the LXX confused the context exactly like mainstream bible scholars have confused the context.

Accordingly, the writer of the LXX decided he would help God out and prevent the Holy Spirit from making an error. Consequently, the writer of the LXX interposed the Greek word for "STAFF" into Genesis 47:31 based on the Greek text of Hebrews 11:21, which he had in front of him as he penned the book of Genesis in Greek. In other words, the writer of the LXX decided he was going to harmonize Genesis with the book of Hebrews by clarifying the account in Genesis, only he - like mainstream bible scholars - didn't pay attention to the context and thus, not only did he fail to "harmonize" the account, but in fact introduced yet another of his many legions of errors into the text.

In other words, the writer of the LXX copied Genesis FROM the book of
Hebrews - the exact OPPOSITE of what mainstream biblical scholarship so
ignorantly asserts.

This might be a reasonable hypothesis if the words BED and STAFF were completely distinct as they are in English. However in Hebrew (transliteration) the words for these two are MITTAH and MATTAH. And in the original Hebrew, transmitted by God, there were no vowels, so staff and bed were MTTH and MTTH. Given that these words are identical in the original Hebrew, let's look at what each of us our claiming.

You:
1) God inspired Moses to write MTTH, meaning bed, in Gen 47:31
2) God inspired Moses to write MTTH, meaning once again bed, in Gen 48:2 to indicate Joseph sat up in bed
3) God inspired Moses not to write that Joseph leaned upon his MTTH, meaning staff, in verse 48:2
3) God inspired author of Hebrews to refer to Jacob leaning on his staff, which God had kept hidden from man for 1000's of year until revealing it once again to this author.
4) The author of the LXX read the book of Hebrews and went back and erroneously inserted two A's into MTTH instead of an I and an A.

Me:
1) God inspired moses to write MTTH, meaning staff, in Gen 47:31
2) The authors of the LXX and the book of Hebrews both translated this word correctly into Greek as meaning staff instead of bed.
3) The Masoretic Jews, who added the vowels to the inspired Word of God, made a mistake and translated the word as Mittah instead of mattah
4) The KJV translators perpetuated this error.

It's obvious which is more reasonable of a hypothesis.

 

[brandplucked]

Inerrant Bible

Hi AV, thanks for your thoughts and examples. I really like what you have to say about God's Book. I agree that a person can get saved using something other than the King James Bible. No doubt about it. However, their faith will be greatly weakened and they will learn false doctrines along the way.

Proof? All the modern polls of what Christians believe today show that most evangelical seminarians and most pastors do not believe in an Inerrant Bible. This view is now trickling down into the pews. Even people like Josh McDowel (sp) are shocked at how far off doctrinally todays Christian teens are in their beliefs.

There are many examples of false doctrine in various passages of Scripture in all modern versions, and if you begin to compare all the versions closely, there are literally hundreds of verses that have very different meanings from the others. I can easily document all of this from my own studies.

The Bible clearly teaches that there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days. It is happening now at an accelerated rate. Bible believers like you and I are just trying to snatch some out of the fire of unbelief and bring them back to the Book without errors that God has providentially given us.

God bless,

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

Genesis 47:31 - NIV blunder in rejecting the Hebrew text

Hi Cube, Face it, the NIV is wrong. You keep defending the NASB, but it does not agree with the NIV that you are now stubbornly defending. You people with no infallible Bible are totally inconsistent.

Since you brought it up again about how "literal" the nasb is, I will answer that in my next post, but for now, let's look at Genesis 47:21.




In 47:21 the KJB, Revised Version, American Standard Version, NASB, NKJV, Jewish translations, Young's, Darby, Geneva Bible, AND the 2003 Holman Standard, etc. say: "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES, from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof."

However the perverted NIV says: "JOSEPH REDUCED THE PEOPLE TO SERVITUDE". The NIV footnote tells us that this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, but the Hebrew reads "he moved the people into the cities". The NIV is also the reading of the super liberal RSV and NRSV, and they too have the same footnote telling us they have rejected the Hebrew text and followed some other source. This is your NIV.

In this same chapter the NIV again departs from the Hebrew text and mistakenly follows the Greek Septuagint. In verse 31 we read of Jacob making Joseph sware that he would not bury him in Egypt but in the land of his fathers in their buryingplace. "And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself UPON THE BED'S HEAD."

UPON THE BED'S HEAD is the reading of the Hebrew, the Jewish translations, Geneva Bible, the NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Young, Darby, the Holman Standard, ESV and even the liberal RSV and NRSV. Only the NIV, and the TNIV here reject the clear Hebrew text and follows the incorrect LXX at this point. The NIV says "Israel worshipped AS HE LEANED ON THE TOP OF HIS STAFF."

The NIV "scholars" mistakenly applied Hebrews 11:21 to this event in Genesis 47. In Hebrews 11:21 it says "By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."

However, if you look closely at the context in both the New Testament book of Hebrews and especially in Genesis chapters 47 through 49, we see that Joseph did not die during the events of Genesis 47 where the chapter ends with the correct reading that Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head.

In chapter 48 verse one we read: "And it came to pass AFTER THESE THINGS, that one told Joseph, Behold thy father is sick: and he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Then the whole of chapter 48 is taken up with Jacob blessing the two sons of Joseph and all of chapter 49 with Jacob telling each of his own sons what would befall them in the last days. Then Jacob dies at the very end of chapter 49 where we read: "And when Jacob had made an end of commanding his sons, he gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up the ghost, and was gathered unto his people."

The NIV has departed from the clear Hebrew text in Genesis 4:8 and 15; Genesis 47:21, 31 and in Genesis 49:10 and 26.

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

While the KJV is obviously a fair translation, it is not the "inerrant inspired word" for two reasons. First it's not the true Greek or Hebrew. That in itself makes the translation falible. Second, the KJV is not most literal Bible as so many would suggest. In Truth, The NASB is more literal to the true meaning of what was written in the Greek and Hebrew.

My Biggest problem with most KJV only people is that they fail to see that God can work through each translation, even one as horrid as the TNIV and the NWT. While Both translations are clearly of what men think, God's principles and statutes can still be found and followed through those translations. However, I would suggest an NASB or KJV to those who seek to truly know what the origial Bible read as.

Hi Brutus, First of all, you are totally wrong about implying that a translation cannot be the inspired words of God. Where did you ever get the idea that a translation cannot be inspired? You certainly did not get this from the Bible.

Secondly, if as you say, the KJB is not the true Hebrew and Greek, then what, in your opinion, is? Name it for us, OK? Be specific. It would seem too that if you are appealing to the Hebrew, then you and Cube would come up with different bibles as your final authority.

If you go with the Hebrew texts, then you have to reject the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, and Holman Standard, since all these frequently reject the Hebrew readings.

Now, for this oft repeated and totally fallacious idea that the vaunted nasb is so literal, I will post the following examples. I could easily come up with hundreds more, but if you don't "get it" by the time you go through these examples, then you never will.

I apologize for the length, but it could easily be much, much longer. If you are not interested in this, then just skip it.

God bless,

Will

The NASB, just how "literal" is it?


There are hundreds of examples found in the vaunted New American Standard Version of where they are far less "literal" than the King James Bible or, for that matter, the previous Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901.

The following is a very partial and incomplete list of such examples.

Matthew 1:25 Speaking of Joseph and Mary - "AND KNEW HER NOT till she had brought forth HER FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS."

Greek -kai ouk eginwsken auteen. "Knew her not" is not archaic and obviously means to know in an intimate, sexual manner. It is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, but the nasb, niv say: "and KEPT HER A VIRGIN." The only word they got right is "her". God knows how to say "kept" and "virgin" but He didn't say this here.

1 Peter 1:1-2

The modern versions, like the NASB, NIV, rather than being more accurate are actually becoming more and more like an interpretative paraphrase.

KJB "TO THE STRANGERS scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia...ELECT according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through SANCTIFICATION of the Spirit, UNTO OBEDIENCE and SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, Grace unto you, and peace BE MULTIPLIED.

The Greek readings for the capitalized words are the same in all texts. To the strangers...elect - one noun and one adjective - parepideemois eklektois. "to the strangers" or "to the pilgrims" and "elect" is the reading of the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Tyndale, Geneva and the NKJV.

However the NASB changes "to the strangers...elect" to "to THOSE WHO RESIDE AS ALIENS...WHO ARE CHOSEN". Here the NASB changes a simple noun and adjective into two verbs.

KJB "through SANCTIFICATION of the Spirit, UNTO OBEDIENCE and SPRINKLING of the blood of Jesus Christ. Grace unto you, and peace, BE MULTIPLIED."

Here again are three simple nouns, sanctification, obedience, and sprinkling, - and one verb -, be multiplied. The Revised Version, American Standard Version, Geneva, Tyndale, and the NKJV all read as does the King James Bible and the Greek texts.

The NASB makes the following changes: "by the SANCTIFYING WORK of the Spirit, THAT YOU MAY OBEY Jesus Christ AND BE SPRINKLED with HIS blood. MAY grace and peace BE YOURS IN FULLEST MEASURE."

The NASB adds several words not found in any text, changes nouns into verbs, and rearranges the word order by placing Jesus Christ after "obey" instead of after "blood".

1 Peter 1:13 "Wherefore, GIRD UP THE LOINS OF YOUR MIND, be sober..."

Greek - dio anazwsamenoi tas osfuas tes dianoias humon - also reading of the RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva, and NKJV.

NASB - "Gird your minds for action" - omits "loins" and adds "action".
The NIV is worse with "prepare your minds for action".


2 Peter 2:5 "And spared not the old world, but saved Noah, THE EIGHTH person (Greek - ogdoon 8th)a preacher of righteousness.."

NASB - "preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, WITH SEVEN OTHERS"

1 Corinthians 4:15 "for in Christ Jesus I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU through the gospel."

ASV, RV = KJB Greek - ego humas egennesa

NASB - "I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"

Acts 2:30 In Acts 2:30 we are told of David: "knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of THE FRUIT OF HIS LOINS, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne", but the NKJV changes this to "of the fruit of his BODY". There is a different Greek word used for "body" (soma) but this is not it. The Greek here is all texts is "of the fruit of his loins" (ek karpou tees osphuos autou) and so read the KJB, RV, ASV,Lamsa, Darby, Douay, Third Millenium Bible, Green's literal translation, Young's, Tyndale and Geneva Bibles. However the NASB and NIV join the RSV, ESV, and ISV (International Standard Version) in completely paraphrasing this as "ONE OF HIS DESCENDANTS".

1 Corinthians 8:4 "We know that an idol is nothing in the world."

Greek - oidamen hoti ouden eidwlon en kosmw. Even the niv, nkjv agree with the KJB but the nasb says: "we know that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN IDOL in the world." I'm sure the Catholic church is glad to hear this.

1 Corinthians 10:18 "behold Israel AFTER THE FLESH"

RV, ASV = KJB Greek - kata sarka

NASB - "Look at THE NATION Israel."

2 Corinthians 1:17 "did I USE LIGHTNESS?"

Greek - tn elaphria exreesameen

NASB- "I was not vacillating"


2 Corinthians 2:9 "that I might know the proof of you"

Greek - hina gnw teen dokimeen umwn

RV, ASV, NKJV, Young's, Tyndale, Geneva = KJB.

NASB - "that I might put you to the test"


2 Corinthians 6:11 "our mouth IS OPENED UNTO YOU"

Greek - to stoma hemwn anewge pros humas

RV, ASV = KJB.

NASB - "our mouth HAS SPOKEN FREELY to you"


2 Corinthians 8:7 "and in YOUR love to US"

NASB - "in the love WE INSPIRED in you"


2 Corinthians 11:29 "who is OFFENDED and I BURN NOT?"
Greek - tis skandalizetai kai ouk puroumai

RV, ASV = KJB. NASB - "Who IS LED INTO SIN WITHOUT MY INTENSE CONCERN?"


2 Corinthians 13:1 "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every WORD (rema) be established.

RV, ASV, NKJV = KJB. NASB - "Every FACT is to be confirmed by the testimony..."


2 Corinthians 13:5 "Jesus Christ is in you, EXCEPT YE BE REPROBATES"

Greek - ei meeti adokimoi este

RV, ASV, Geneva, Douay = KJB. NASB "unless indeed YOU FAIL THE TEST."


Colossians 2:17 "Which are a shadow of things to come; but THE BODY (to soma) is of Christ."

RV, ASV = KJB. NASB, NKJV - "the SUBSTANCE is of Christ."


Colossians 3:22 "servants, obey your masters ACCORDING TO THE FLESH...not with EYESERVICE"

Greek - kata sarka...mee en ophthalmodouleiais

RV, ASV = KJB. NASB - "masters ON EARTH...not with EXTERNAL service."

Colossians 4:5 "REDEEMING the TIME"

Greek - ton kaipon exagorazomenoi

RV, ASV = KJB. NASB - "MAKING THE MOST OF the OPPORTUNITY."

Genesis 20:16

Genesis 20:16 KJB "And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver; BEHOLD, HE IS TO THEE A COVERING OF THE EYES, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she WAS REPROVED."

Versions that agree with the KJB here are the ASV of 1901, Geneva Bible, the Spanish, Hebrew-English of 1936, Douay, Darby and Youngs. I only mention other versions that support the KJB, not because I believe they are equally as valid as the KJB, but to show that the KJB is not alone in its rendering of certain verses. The modern version proponents like to gang up on the KJB, like it is the only Bible that reads a certain way. This is totally not true, as you can see.

In order to understand what is going on, we need to look at the context. Abraham went down into Egypt with his wife Sarah, and fearing for his life, Abraham said that Sarah was his sister. King Abimelech took Sarah and was going to make her his wife, but God came to Abimelech by night in a dream and told him that Sarah was married. Fearing that God would kill him, he restored Sarah to Abraham. So when Abimelech says "he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee and to all other" it clearly means that now that it is publicly known that Abraham is your husband, he will act so as to cover other men's eyes from looking at you as a potential wife. It is pretty obvious if you just look at the context and translate what the Hebrew says.


NKJV- "Then to Sarah he said, "Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver, INDEED THIS VINDICATES YOU before all who are with you and before all others. Thus she was reproved."

The NKJV footnote at least tells us that literally the Hebrew says "a covering of the eyes for you", even though they did not translate it correctly. What does "this vindicates you" mean anyway?

NASB "Behold, IT IS YOUR VINDICATION before all who are with you, and before all men YOU ARE CLEARED." So was she "reproved" or "cleared"?

NIV "This is to COVER THE OFFENSE AGAINST YOU before all who are with you; you ARE COMPLETELY VINDICATED." The NIV omits both words "Behold" even though they are in the other versions, and in the God inspired Hebrew. I guess they feel free to edit God's words and consider literally thousands of them to be excess baggage. The only part they partially got right is "cover" but there is no word for "offense" in any text.

So was she vindicated, or was the offense covered, was she reproved or cleared? Hey, all bibles are the same. It's just semantics, right? All three (the NKJV, NASB, & NIV disagree with each other; they do not follow the Hebrew and they are far from the real meaning of what is going on here, as is clearly shown in the King James Bible.

I believe the modern perversion editors are proceeding from a position of unbelief, and so God has blinded their minds to the truth. You mess with the Book, and God will mess with your mind.


2 Timothy 3:9 "But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, AS THEIRS ALSO WAS."

"As theirs also was" - so read all texts and the RV, ASV, NKJV. The NASB 1977 read: "as also that of those (two) came to be." However the NASB 1995 now reads: "just as JANNES AND JAMBRES FOLLY was also." - none of which is in italics nor found in any text anywhere.

Exodus 3:19 "And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, NO, NOT BY A MIGHTY HAND."

So reads the Hebrew text, the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby and Green's interlinear. However the NASB follows the LXX and Vulgate readings and even paraphrases this. The RSV, ESV both say "unless compelled by a mighty hand" and then footnote that this reading comes from the Greek and Vulgate, but that the Hebrew reads "not by a mighty hand". But the NASB says: "will not let you go, EXCEPT UNDER COMPULSION". Not only does it change the meaning of the KJB by following the LXX instead of the Hebrew, but it even paraphrases this and omits "mighty hand".

Exodus 4:13 "Send, I pray thee, BY THE HAND of him whom thou wilt send." The NASB, along with the RSV, NIV omits "by the hand", though found in the RV, ASV, NKJV.

Exodus 5:21 "ye have made OUR SAVOUR TO BE ABHORRED". So reads the Hebrew and the RV, ASV, but the NASB says: "made US ODIOUS", and then footnotes the literal meaning of "savor".

Exodus 6:4 "the land OF THEIR PILGRIMAGE, wherein they were strangers." So reads the Hebrew, the RV, ASV, NKJV, but the NASB along with the RSV, ESV, NIV omits these words.

Exodus 6:9 "but they hearkened not unto Moses for ANGUISH OF SPIRIT, and for cruel bondage." So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, but the NASB omits the word "spirit" as does the NIV and says "on account of their DESPONDENCY, and cruel bondage."

Exodus 6:12 and 30 - "how then shall Pharoah hear me, WHO AM OF UNCIRCUMCISED LIPS?" So reads the Hebrew as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, Douay, Darby, Young's, Geneva, etc. but the NASB says: "for I AM UNSKILLED IN SPEECH", while the NIV has "I speak with faltering lips".

Exodus 13:9 and 16 - "And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for FRONTLETS BETWEEN THINE EYES". So reads the Hebrew, RV, ASV,NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, but the NASB says: "phylacteries ON FOREHEAD". The word is "eyes" and "forehead" is a different Hebrew word.

Exodus 13:8 "...and the children of Israel went out WITH AN HIGH HAND." The hand referred to here is that of God Himself who delivered the children of Israel out of Egypt. See Exodus 6:1; 7:4,5; 9:3; 13:3,9,14; and Psalm 89:13.

Versions that read what the literal Hebrew says here "with an high hand" are the RV, ASV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Geneva, Young's, Darby. However the NASB, along with the NKJV, NIV read: "went out BOLDLY". The RSV, NRSV, ESV also got this wrong - "went out DEFIANTLY".


Exodus 20:10 "nor thy stranger that is WITHIN THY GATES". So reads the Hebrew, the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, and even the NIV. But the NASB has "sojouner WHO IS WITH YOU" - thus omitting the literal word "gates".

Exodus 28:3 "And thou shalt speak unto all that are WISE HEARTED, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom..."

The Hebrew text literally reads "wise hearted" and so do the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, Youngs, Darby, Douay, Geneva and Spanish versions. However the NASB along with the NKJV, NIV, Holman, RSV, ESV etc. read: "speak to all the GIFTED ARTISANS" (Skillful persons, skilled men"). A man may be a gifted artisan, but not wise hearted. Likewise a man may be wise hearted but not a gifted artisan. The meaning is not the same, and the NASB, NKJV, NIV are not at all literal. The same thing is done in Exodus 31:6; 35:10, 25; and 36:1,2,4, 8.

Exodus 32:9 "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a STIFFNECKED people."

There are two Hebrew words here - "stiff" and "neck" and so read the RV, ASV, NKJV and even the NIV. However the NASB reads: "an OBSTINATE people". The phrase "stiffnecked people" is found 8 times in the O.T. and only once in the N.T. in Acts 7:51. But in the NASB is occurs zero times in the O.T. but once in Acts 7:51. This connection between the O.T. references and the N.T. is obscured in the NASB because they did not translate it literally.

Numbers 14:9 "...neither fear ye the people of the land; FOR THEY ARE BREAD FOR US; their defence is departed from them..."

So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Youngs, Geneva, and even the RSV, and ESV. However the NASB says: "THEY SHALL BE OUR PREY". The NIV has "we will swallow them up", and Holman has: "for we will devour them" - none of which is the literal translation of the Hebrew text.

Judges 11:35 "for I HAVE OPENED MY MOUTH unto the LORD, and I cannot go back." This is the literal reading and that of the RV, ASV, Geneva, and Jewish translations.

However the NASB and the NKJV say "I have given my word"

Judges 15:8 "And he smote them HIP AND THIGH with a great slaughter" So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, Geneva and the Jewish translations. The NASB paraphrases this as "he struck them RUTHLESSLY"

Psalm 144:14

King James Bible
"That our OXEN MAY BE STONG TO LABOUR; THAT THERE BE NO BREAKING IN, NOR GOING OUT, that there be no complaining in our streets."


This is the reading of the KJB, 1936 Jewish translation, the Geneva Bible, Third Millenium Bible, Webster's, and the KJV 21st Century Version.

Charles Spurgeon comments: "Verse 14. That our oxen may be strong to labour; so that the ploughing and cartage of the farm may be duly performed, and the husbandman's work may be accomplished without unduly taxing the cattle, or working them cruelly. That there be no breaking in, nor going out; no irruption of marauders, and no forced emigration; no burglaries and no evictions."

"THAT THERE BE NO BREAKING IN, NOR GOING OUT" is likewise the reading of the Revised Version, ASV, NKJV, Darby, and many others. Even the NIV says: "That there be no breaching of the walls, nor going into captivity."

John Gill notes: "that there be no breaking in: of the enemy into the land to invade it, into cities and houses to plunder and spoil them; nor going out: of the city to meet the enemy and fight with him, peace and not war is desirable; or no going out of one's nation into captivity into a foreign country."

And Matthew Henry also says: "Let not our enemies break in upon us; let us not have occasion to march out against them."


However when we look at the New American Standard Version (NASB) we get a very different message. The NASB says: "Let our CATTLE BEAR, WITHOUT MISHAP AND WITHOUT LOSS."

The confusion is further seen by the RSV, NRSV and ESV, all of which are revisions of one another. The RSV and ESV say: "Let our cattle BE HEAVY WITH YOUNG SUFFERING NO MISHAP OR FAILURE IN BEARING." Then in a footnote the ESV says: "Hebrew- no breaking in or going out"!! -just like the KJB has had it all along.

However the NRSV, which was done after the RSV and before the ESV says: "MAY THERE BE NO BREACH IN THE WALLS, NO EXILE."

Psalm 146:3 "Put not your trust in princes, nor in THE SON OF MAN, in whom there is no help."

"Son of Man" is 1121 (ben) 120 (Adam), and is correctly translated as "son of man" in the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Geneva, RSV, ESV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations. However the NASB, NIV both say "put not your trust in princes nor IN MORTAL MAN". A quick look at the NASB concordance shows they have translated # 1121 as "son" 4,321 times, and as "mortal" only once, and that is here.

Galatians 1:20 "Now the things which I write unto you, BEHOLD, before God, I lie not." The simple word 'behold' is a fixed form idou, and is correctly translated as 'behold' in the KJB, RV, ASV, Tyndale, Geneva etc. However the NASB joins the NIV here and says "I ASSURE YOU" instead of 'behold'. Yet looking at the NASB concordance we see they have translated this same word as 'behold' 187 times, but only once as 'I assure you', and that time is here.

Acts 2:30 "Therefore BEING (huparxwn) a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of THE FRUIT OF HIS LOINS,(ek karpou tns osphuos autou)ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, HE WOULD RAISE UP CHRIST, to sit on his throne;"

The Alexandrian texts omit "according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ" and so do the NASB, RSV, NIV. The words are found in the Majority of all texts, as well as D, plus at least 13 uncial (capital letter) copies, the Old Latin, Syriach Harclean, and Coptic versions.

However, intead of the literal "being" a prophet,the NASB says: "BECAUSE he was a prophet" but more importantly instead of "of the fruit of his loins", which is found in all texts and is the reading of the Revised Version, ASV, Tyndale, Douay, Darby, Young's, Geneva and Lamsa's translation of the Peshitta, the NASB joins the RSV, ESV, and NIV in saying "ONE OF HIS DESCENDANTS".

The NKJV alters the text slightly by saying "of the fruit of his BODY", when the word does not mean 'body', but 'loins' and even the NKJV has so translated it in other portions.

Acts 2:43 "And fear came upon every soul" (egeneto de pasn psuxn fobos) Revised Version, ASV, NKJV, Geneva, Tyndale = KJB.

NASB "And everyone kept feeling a sense of awe" - total paraphrase

NIV "Everyone was filled with awe" - the only thing possibly right is "awe".

Acts 5:17, 21 "Then the high priest rose up, and ALL THEY THAT WERE WITH HIM..." RV, ASV, NKJV = KJB (panteV oi sun autw), but the NASB joins the NIV with "and all his associates".

Acts 5:20 "Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LIFE." So read the RV, ASV, NKJV, Youngs, RSV, ESV etc. (panta ta rhmata thV zwhV tauthV ) but again the NASB reads like the NIV saying "speak...THE WHOLD MESSAGE of this Life", while the NIV has "the FULL MESSAGE of the NEW (not in any text) life."

Acts 5:30 "whom ye slew and hanged on A TREE" (kremasanteV epi xulou) Tree is the correct reading found in the RV, ASV, NKJV and even the NIV, but the NASB says: "by hanging Him on A CROSS". Cross is a totally different word.

Acts 7:23 "when he was FULL forty years old, IT CAME INTO HIS HEART to visit his brethren the children of Israel.

The stated fact that Moses was 40 years old is found in Tyndale, Geneva, Young's, the NKJV, NIV, RSV, and ESV, but the NASB says he was approaching 40, and so not quite there yet.

"It came into his heart" is the literal reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV and ESV, but the NASB again paraphases, but not as badly as the NIV which says: "he decided".

NASB "But when HE WAS APPROACHING the age of forty, it entered his MIND..."
anebh epi thn kardian autou

Acts 7:25 "For he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God BY HIS HAND would deliver them"

oti o qeoV dia ceiroV autou
"by his hand" is the reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV. But the nasb joins the niv and says: "THROUGH HIM".

Again the same thing is seen in Acts 7:35 "the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer BY THE HAND OF the angel which appeared to him in the bush." en ceiri aggelou "by the hand of" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, but the NASB says " with THE HELP of the angel" while the NIV says merely "through the angel".

Acts 9:28 "And he was with them COMING IN AND GOING OUT at Jerusalem"

So read the RV, ASV,and NKJV eisporeuomenoV kai ekporeuomenos but the NASB joins the NIV and says: "and he was with them MOVING ABOUT FREELY"

Acts 10:20 "and go with them, DOUBTING NOTHING, for I have sent them."

mhden diakrinomenoV and so read the RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Young's. The NASB says "go with them WITHOUT MISGIVINGS", while the NIV joins the RSV, ESV and says: "DO NOT HESITATE to go with them". In addition to this, the NASB adds a word not found in any text by saying: "for I have sent them MYSELF".

Acts 15:2 "Paul and Barnabas had NO SMALL dissension and disputation with them". "no small" (ouk oligns) is the literal reading of the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, but the NASB says "had GREAT dissension", while the NIV reads: "had SHARP dispute". Now, Goe knows how to say "no small" and He knows how to say "great" (megaln), and here He clearly says "no small" dissension.

Acts 26:25 "words of truth and soberness" KJB, RV, ASV. alhqeiaV kai swfrosunhV rhmata Nasb "words of sober truths"

Acts 28:10 "Who also honoured us with many honors" RV,ASV = KJB.
NASB - "honored us with many marks of respect" (oi kai pollaiV timaiV etimhsan hmaV)

Acts 28:26 "Hearing ye shall hear...and seeing ye shall see" RV, ASV, NKJV, Youngs = KJB. NASB "You will keep on hearing...and you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive." ( akoh akousete kai ou mh sunhte kai bleponteV bleyete kai ou mh idhte)

Mark 7:22 Here the Lord is telling us what evil things come out of the heart of man and defile him. Among these things listed are: "wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, AN EVIL EYE, blasphemy..."

All Greek texts read the same here with "an evil eye" (Ofthalmos poneros). This is literally what the text says and so read the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, Geneva and several others. However beginning with the RSV, and now in the NASB, NIV, ESV, they have changed this to "ENVY".

An evil eye is not the same thing as envy. There are many passages in both testaments that speak of an evil eye, and in none of them is it referring to envy. According to Webster's dictionary, an evil eye is a glance held to be capable of inflicting harm or injury because of the malice of the person looking. The primary motive of an evil eye is malice, not envy.

Here is just one of the many uses of this phrase - "an evil eye". Deuteronomy 15:9 "Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and THINE EYE BE EVIL against thy poor brother, and thou givest him not..."

The intent is malice, not envy. Not only have the NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV mistranslated the words here but have missed the intended meaning.

Mark 13:22 "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, NO FLESH (sarks) should be saved." All texts read "flesh" and so do the RV, ASV, NKJV, Tyndale, Geneva, etc. However the NASB says: "No LIFE would have been saved", while the NIV has "No ONE", and the ESV has "no HUMAN BEING would be saved." All three are paraphrases.

Mark 14:44 "Whomsoever I shall kiss, the same is he; take him, and lead him away SAFELY."
SAFELY is asphalws, and is so rendered by the RV, ASV, NKJV, Youngs, and even the RSV. However the NASB, NIV, ESV have paraphrased this as "lead him away UNDER GUARD."

Ezekiel 19:7 "He KNEW their desolate palaces, and he laid waste their cities."

"He KNEW" is the reading of the Hebrew texts, and that of the RV, ASV, 1917 JPS, Geneva, Darby, Youngs, and the NKJV. However the NIV say "He BROKE DOWN their strongholds" and then footnotes that this is from a Targum (an interpretation) but that the Hebrew reads "he knew". The NASB says "he DESTROYED their fortified towers", and the ESV says: "he SEIZED their WIDOWS"!!

Ezekiel 19:10 "Thy mother is like a vine in THY BLOOD". So read the RV, ASV, Geneva, Youngs, Green and others, but the NASB says: "your mother is like a vine in YOUR VINEYARD". So does the NIV, RSV and NRSV. The NIV footnote tells us this reading comes from 2 manuscripts, but that most Hebrew mss. read "thy blood".

Ezekiel 20:5,6, 15, 23 and 28: "In the day when I chose Israel, and LIFTED UP MY HAND unto the seed of the house of Jacob...I LIFTED UP MY HAND unto them, saying, I am the LORD your God."

The literal Hebrew reading is "I lifted up my hand" and so read the RV, ASV, Geneva, Youngs, Darby and many others, but the NASB, along with the RSV, paraphrases this as "I SWORE". The verb "to swear" is a different Hebrew word.

Ezekiel 20:26 "all that OPENETH THE WOMB" is the literal Hebrew reading and that of the RV, ASV, Geneva, Darby, Young, but the NASB along with the NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV all paraphrase this as "THE FIRSTBORN". The Hebrew word for "firstborn" is an entirely different word.

 

[brandplucked]

1. It is true that The KJV uses different manuscripts, but not all of the manuscripts we have now were used in the KJV's making.

2. Who are we to call God's milk sour. We make God's Milk sour just by being humans do we not? Instead of trying to force God's work through the KJV, why not allow God to reveal himself in his way?

Hi Brutus, it is obvious from the implications of your remarks that you do not believe any Bible or any text in any language is now the infallible, complete and true words of God. If I am wrong (which I am not) then please name precisely what your final written authority is, and tell us where we can get a copy.

Secondly, you ask about letting God reveal Himself in His way. As I understand the Bible, God's way of revealing Himself is through His written words. Now if we have a hundred different bible versions out there all teaching very different things in hundreds of passages, then this results only in confusion. Is this God's way?

Doesn't the Bible speak about how in the last days many shall turn away from the truth and depart from the faith? Mine does. Haven't you read the latest polls and Barna research about how shallow and anti-biblical the views of many Christians are today?

I will be glad to post specifics if you wish.

Do you believe any Bible or any text is the inspired, infallible word of God? If so, then why are you defending all these contradictory and perverted bible versions?

If you want specifics on which doctrines are perverted in the new versions, I can provide several examples if you wish.

In and by His sovereign grace,

Will K

 

[cubedbee]

Re: Genesis 47:31 - NIV blunder in rejecting the Hebrew tex

Hi Cube, Face it, the NIV is wrong. You keep defending the NASB, but it does not agree with the NIV that you are now stubbornly defending. You people with no infallible Bible are totally inconsistent.

Since you brought it up again about how "literal" the nasb is, I will answer that in my next post, but for now, let's look at Genesis 47:21.

Have you been reading my posts? I haven't mentioned either the NASB or the NIV in this thread. I've been attacking your belief in the innerancy of the KJV, not defending the innerrancy of other versions. I don't know how you think I'm defending something I haven't even mentioned, so maybe you need to reread my words?

In 47:21 the KJB, Revised Version, American Standard Version, NASB, NKJV, Jewish translations, Young's, Darby, Geneva Bible, AND the 2003 Holman Standard, etc. say: "And as for the people, HE REMOVED THEM TO CITIES, from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof."

However the perverted NIV says: "JOSEPH REDUCED THE PEOPLE TO SERVITUDE". The NIV footnote tells us that this reading comes from the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint, but the Hebrew reads "he moved the people into the cities". The NIV is also the reading of the super liberal RSV and NRSV, and they too have the same footnote telling us they have rejected the Hebrew text and followed some other source. This is your NIV.

Once again, I never mentioned the NIV, let alone to claim it as "mine" I am simply attacking the perverted KJV, not trying to defend the perverted NIV.

In this same chapter the NIV again departs from the Hebrew text and mistakenly follows the Greek Septuagint. In verse 31 we read of Jacob making Joseph sware that he would not bury him in Egypt but in the land of his fathers in their buryingplace. "And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself UPON THE BED'S HEAD."

UPON THE BED'S HEAD is the reading of the Hebrew, the Jewish translations, Geneva Bible, the NASB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Young, Darby, the Holman Standard, ESV and even the liberal RSV and NRSV. Only the NIV, and the TNIV here reject the clear Hebrew text and follows the incorrect LXX at this point. The NIV says "Israel worshipped AS HE LEANED ON THE TOP OF HIS STAFF."

I will repeat myself. The original Hebrew lacked vowels. Staff and bed are identical in Hebrew written without vowels. It doesn't matter what any translation reads, the original Hebrew can be validly read as either bed or staff.

The NIV "scholars" mistakenly applied Hebrews 11:21 to this event in Genesis 47. In Hebrews 11:21 it says "By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."
However, if you look closely at the context in both the New Testament book of Hebrews and especially in Genesis chapters 47 through 49, we see that Joseph did not die during the events of Genesis 47 where the chapter ends with the correct reading that Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head.

Hebrewes does not say "When he was dead" but "When he was dying." Joseph was clearly dying in Chapter 47, since that is the reason he called in his descendents in order to bless them. Moreover, if Joseph really was leaning on his bed in Genesis, then why did the inspired author of Hebrews get it wrong and say he was leaning on his staff?

The fact of the matter is, we know Moses was inspired by God to write Genesis, and that he wrote it without vowels, allowing Joseph to lean either on a bed or on a staff, depending on what vowels were inserted. The further fact of the matter is that the inspired author of Hebrews, referring to Genesis in Greek, said that Joseph leaned on his staff. The author of Hebrews, not some non-Christian Jews centuries after Christ who decided to insert vowels into God's Word, is who we as Christians should be looking for to know how to translate the passage in Genesis.

 

[brandplucked]

mythological LXX

Quote:
The LXX was written AFTER the New Testament was written, and they placed some of the N.T. readings back into the O.T. translations. This is how it really worked.


Cube>>>Nope. Completely false. There is abundant historical evidence that the Pentateuch part of the LXX was completed centuries before Christ. I can't find a single reference that claims other wise--please provide if you know of one.

Cube, didn't you read the "short" article I posted about the LXX? There were several direct quotes from various LXX experts who all admit that they have nothing of any real evidence of a Pre-Christian LXX. The so called LXX that we have today is actually Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, both written long after the N.T. was completed.

Now, if you care to bring up a specific verse to look at, this would be better than mere assertion on your part. God can "quote" or amplify or apply a specific O.T. verse to a N.T. situation any way He wishes. Afterall, He is the Author of Scriputure.

Most of the N.T. quotes do not match either the word for word Hebrew or the LXX. Often, there are very good reasons why this is so.

Your position is still that there is no inerrant, infallible and inspired Book on this earth. All your intellectual verbiage cannot hide this simple fact - You do not believe in an inerrant Bible.

Will K

 

[cubedbee]

Re: mythological LXX

Your position is still that there is no inerrant, infallible and inspired Book on this earth. All your intellectual verbiage cannot hide this simple fact - You do not believe in an inerrant Bible.

I am not trying to hide it. There is no verbiage. There is no innerrant Bible translation. There has never been an innerrant Bible. The Bible is a book. It contains some words of God. It also contains some words of men. But all of it proclaims God's Word, Jesus Christ, our saviour. It is idolatry to elevate a book, written thousands of years after the true perfect Word of God was given to us, to a state of perfection.

 

[Khristeeanos]

I still find it ironic that it is mainly Protestants who uphold the perfection of the King James Bible and consider it alone to be the Word of God and all others are inspired by Satan to lead people to hell when those who translated it were people who hated and killed Protestants due to their "heresy" doctrine.

 

[Relic]

.

I think all of these threads should be kept together.


Modern Versions Lowering the Person of Jesus Christ:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=14281

Study Bibles:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=13961

Why I believe the King James Bible is the true word of God:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=14419

A successful Deception? :
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=14194


.

 

[Khristeeanos]

.

I think all of these threads should be kept together.


Modern Versions Lowering the Person of Jesus Christ:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=14281

Study Bibles:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=13961

Why I believe the King James Bible is the true word of God:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=14419

A successful Deception? :
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=14194

I think we should concentrate more on living out the Gospel and Great Commission instead of trying to force our favorite Bible translation on other people.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Hi Brutus, First of all, you are totally wrong about implying that a translation cannot be the inspired words of God. Where did you ever get the idea that a translation cannot be inspired? You certainly did not get this from the Bible.

Secondly, if as you say, the KJB is not the true Hebrew and Greek, then what, in your opinion, is? Name it for us, OK? Be specific. It would seem too that if you are appealing to the Hebrew, then you and Cube would come up with different bibles as your final authority.

If you go with the Hebrew texts, then you have to reject the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, and Holman Standard, since all these frequently reject the Hebrew readings.

Now, for this oft repeated and totally fallacious idea that the vaunted nasb is so literal, I will post the following examples. I could easily come up with hundreds more, but if you don't "get it" by the time you go through these examples, then you never will.

I apologize for the length, but it could easily be much, much longer. If you are not interested in this, then just skip it.

God bless,

Will

1.What is the Inspired word of God? Simple: The Hebrew and the Greek. All else are just translations. All imperfect in their own ways.

2.What is true to the Greek and Hebrew? The NASB. Why is it more literal:

the NASB is a more literal to the Greek and Hebrew but....but..which Greek/Hebrew are we talking about here? The NASB is a translation based upon the Vaticanus/Siniaticus Greek and Hebrew not the Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV came from - two completely different set of manuscripts.

Go ahead and argue which manuscripts you feel are better. You won't prove any thing because we don't know what the originals exactly said.

Proverbs 21:2. Remeber, the Lord looks on the heart not which book you read.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

1.What is the Inspired word of God? Simple: The Hebrew and the Greek. All else are just translations. All imperfect in their own ways.

2.What is true to the Greek and Hebrew? The NASB. Why is it more literal:

the NASB is a more literal to the Greek and Hebrew but....but..which Greek/Hebrew are we talking about here? The NASB is a translation based upon the Vaticanus/Siniaticus Greek and Hebrew not the Greek and Hebrew texts the KJV came from - two completely different set of manuscripts.

Go ahead and argue which manuscripts you feel are better. You won't prove any thing because we don't know what the originals exactly said.

Proverbs 21:2. Remeber, the Lord looks on the heart not which book you read.

Amen.