# Biggest errors in the KJV?



## Jeremy Ivens (Jun 17, 2017)

I prefer the KJV for various reasons but I'd like to know the most prominent errors so that I can make note if them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

Jeremy Ivens said:


> I prefer the KJV for various reasons but I'd like to know the most prominent errors so that I can make note if them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The times where it calls the Holy Spirit 'It", and also when it divides up the passage to make it appear that the bible is talking of the great God and savior Jesus as not being Him as both, but the Father and Him being described there...


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 17, 2017)

If you have some leisure time, and patience, here are some articles detailing what might be considered minor errors.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/thayer1.html
And a couple with praise though not blindly;
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjv1.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/barnes1.html


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> If you have some leisure time, and patience, here are some articles detailing what might be considered minor errors.
> http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html
> http://www.bible-researcher.com/thayer1.html
> And a couple with praise though not blindly;
> ...


His web site is a gold mine of information regarding the Bible....


----------



## Jake (Jun 17, 2017)

Textually, the most questionable inclusion is its version of Revelation 16:5 -- https://web.archive.org/web/20100831230353/http://www.bibleone.org/Article.aspx?channel=1&article=33

Of course, your views on other textual issues depend on your views there.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 17, 2017)

Historically, the decision of the translators to render the third Person of the Godhead as "Holy Ghost" in most places but as "Holy Spirit" in a few instances (where the Greek is the same) has led to some regrettable doctrinal errors. For instance, Joseph Smith thought it signaled a difference between the two and this contributed to the unorthodox Trinitarian doctrine in the LDS church. I don't know if you would call this an error in translation, since "ghost" and "spirit" could both be suitable translations of the Greek word (especially in 1611 speech), but it is an issue to be aware of because of historically important interpretation errors.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 17, 2017)

Jack K said:


> Historically, the decision of the translators to render the third Person of the Godhead as "Holy Ghost" in most places but as "Holy Spirit" in a few instances (where the Greek is the same) has led to some regrettable doctrinal errors. For instance, Joseph Smith thought it signaled a difference between the two and this contributed to the unorthodox Trinitarian doctrine in the LDS church. I don't know if you would call this an error in translation, since "ghost" and "spirit" could both be suitable translations of the Greek word (especially in 1611 speech), but it is an issue to be aware of because of historically important interpretation errors.


It is interesting that while most cults will not use any modern bible version, do tend to allow for the KJV, as the JW and Mormons both do...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 17, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> It is interesting that while most cults will not use any modern bible version, do tend to allow for the KJV, as the JW and Mormons both do...


The Jehovah's Witnesses favored the ASV for many years because the translators always used Jehovah for any reference to God. The ASV is thought by some to be the most accurate of the CT. I read a 1920s copy sometimes and I find it disconcerting that they use Jehovah continually since I'm used to other translations that do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version#Usage_by_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses
Also from the Wiki article ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version#Features


> The divine name of the Almighty (the Tetragrammaton) is consistently rendered _Jehovah_ in 6,823 places of the ASV Old Testament, rather than _LORD_ as it appears mostly in the King James Bible. However, there are notably seven verses in the King James Bible where the divine name actually appears which are Genesis 22:14, Exodus 6:3, Exodus 17:15, Judges 6:24, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 and Isaiah 26:4 plus as it's abbreviated form, Jah, once in Psalms 68:4. The reason for this change, as the Committee explained in the preface, was that "...the American Revisers... were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament..."[4] Other changes from the RV to the ASV included (but were not limited to) substituting "who" and "that" for "which" when referring to people, and _Holy Ghost_ was dropped in favor of _Holy Spirit_. Page headings were added and footnotes were improved.


----------



## Timotheos (Jun 17, 2017)

If you haven't read William Combs's article (he's a Detroit Seminary prof), it is quite good.

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1999/Combs.pdf

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 17, 2017)

You mean this doesn't have 100+ posts and hasn't been closed by the admins? 

Seriously, I've heard people who aren't even proponents of the Byzantine Text, let alone the TR, state that they prefer to use the KJV because, after all these years, the problems with it, real or imagined, are well known. That can't be said of many newer versions, especially those that are seemingly updated every 5-10 years.

Reactions: Like 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 18, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> You mean this doesn't have 100+ posts and hasn't been closed by the admins?



I was thinking the same thing - on both counts!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ZackF (Jun 18, 2017)

I'm going to plug for the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. The notes are fantastic at correcting blatant errors and any necessary updating of the translation. Daniel 9:7 is good example. I've came across others in my enjoyable tenure with this study bible.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 18, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> You mean this doesn't have 100+ posts and hasn't been closed by the admins?





kainos01 said:


> I was thinking the same thing


----------



## MW (Jun 18, 2017)

Christopher Fowler, Puritan Sermons, 5:589:

"Object. II. 'Your translations are faulty.' (Harding, Rhemists.)

Answer. 'This is said a thousand times, but never proved; an untruth, joined with slander;' so Jewel -- 'a spiteful lie;' so Cartwright answers the Jesuits. 'Show them,' saith he. 'Dr. Martin did attempt it, but was laughed at for his folly by his friend. The words may be short, but the sense is incorrupt.'"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jun 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> His web site is a gold mine of information regarding the Bible....



True. Too bad Michael Marlowe walked away from it three or four years ago.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 19, 2017)

ZackF said:


> I'm going to plug for the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. The notes are fantastic at correcting blatant errors and any necessary updating of the translation. Daniel 9:7 is good example. I've came across others in my enjoyable tenure with this study bible.



Did you know that Reformation Heritage Press has published the "Thoughts for Personal and Family Worship" as a separate volume (_Family Worship Bible Guide_)? I have one and am enjoying it a lot.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The times where it calls the Holy Spirit 'It"



Is it fair to call this an 'error' when the word is definitely neuter in the Greek? (However much we wish it wasn't.) I would argue not.


----------



## ZackF (Jun 19, 2017)

bookslover said:


> Did you know that Reformation Heritage Press has published the "Thoughts for Personal and Family Worship" as a separate volume (_Family Worship Bible Guide_)? I have one and am enjoying it a lot.


Yes I am aware of that volume. It hasn't made sense to me to buy it since I have the notes in my bible.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 19, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Is it fair to call this an 'error' when the word is definitely neuter in the Greek? (However much we wish it wasn't.) I would argue not.


While that is technically true for the Koine Greek used, there is still no valid reason to ever have the Spirit Himself called an it...


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 19, 2017)

bookslover said:


> True. Too bad Michael Marlowe walked away from it three or four years ago.


i wonder why he did that?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 19, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> You mean this doesn't have 100+ posts and hasn't been closed by the admins?
> 
> Seriously, I've heard people who aren't even proponents of the Byzantine Text, let alone the TR, state that they prefer to use the KJV because, after all these years, the problems with it, real or imagined, are well known. That can't be said of many newer versions, especially those that are seemingly updated every 5-10 years.


the big problems with all of this revising seems to be that it is mainly due to commercial concerns, such as marketing for new Sunday school and literature, and also that at times the revision made a good thing worse, such as the Niv 2011....


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 19, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> If you haven't read William Combs's article (he's a Detroit Seminary prof), it is quite good.
> 
> http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1999/Combs.pdf


The author did a very nice job in detailing the known mistakes of the KJV, but without trashing it a s a reliable version to still be used...


----------



## MW (Jun 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> While that is technically true for the Koine Greek used, there is still no valid reason to ever have the Spirit Himself called an it...



There are very good reasons for literally translating the Greek and retaining the distinctions in English that are present in the original. The Holy Ghost is a gift from the Father and an agent of Christ as well as being a person. A theological dogma should not destroy variation, especially when the variation contributes to a breadth of understanding the dogma.


----------



## MW (Jun 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The author did a very nice job in detailing the known mistakes of the KJV, but without trashing it a s a reliable version to still be used...



The author rejects the belief that he holds an inerrant Bible in his hands. Yet he claims to detect and correct errors in a translation of the Bible. By so doing he is claiming to hold an inerrant Bible, only it remains unpublished.


----------



## Jeremy Ivens (Jun 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> the big problems with all of this revising seems to be that it is mainly due to commercial concerns, such as marketing for new Sunday school and literature, and also that at times the revision made a good thing worse, such as the Niv 2011....



This. I know that translations by necessity will probably need corrections but the fact that the ESV was claimed to be fine as is and then a few months later they made corrections bothers me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bookslover (Jun 20, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> While that is technically true for the Koine Greek used, there is still no valid reason to ever have the Spirit Himself called an it...



True. This is a case where a translation must be made for theological reasons (taking the teaching of all of Scripture on a subject) rather than for grammatical reasons. Fortunately, this doesn't have to be done too often.


----------



## Beezer (Jun 20, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> the big problems with all of this revising seems to be that it is mainly due to commercial concerns, such as marketing for new Sunday school and literature...



So in your opinion new revisions have been introduced motivated by financial gain and not a desire to improve upon a particular translation's text? Can you give some examples? I would agree that the English speaking world has been flooded the past 15 years with all sorts of translations (both new and updated), but I would be uncomfortable with speculating the underlying reasons behind it might be for financial profit.


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 20, 2017)

Beezer said:


> So in your opinion new revisions have been introduced motivated by financial gain and not a desire to improve upon a particular translation's text? Can you give some examples? I would agree that the English speaking world has been flooded the past 15 years with all sorts of translations (both new and updated), but I would be uncomfortable with speculating the underlying reasons behind it might be for financial profit.


Just an observation, I'm only stating my impressions with no specific data to support them, but the ESV, for example, has had a tremendous promotional campaign, by the publisher, to try and overtake the KJV and the NIV. At least I've read that more than a few times.
I recently saw someone remark that they have a policy of updating the ESV every five years. Personally, if that timeline is correct, I would think it is out of their seeking accuracy, or perhaps inclusive language, more than for profit.
On the other hand, the translators, proofreaders, printers, binders, do not donate their time and material. I have no idea what the cost of publishing a completed Bible is, but it is probably substantial. Having an inventory of same laying in a warehouse unpurchased and a publisher will soon be closing their doors. So the commercial aspect has to be reckoned with, and not necessarily considered 'making merchandise out of the Word of God.'

Edit; Here is a brief article on the ESV publishing history and current revision policies ;
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-the-esv-bible


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

MW said:


> There are very good reasons for literally translating the Greek and retaining the distinctions in English that are present in the original. The Holy Ghost is a gift from the Father and an agent of Christ as well as being a person. A theological dogma should not destroy variation, especially when the variation contributes to a breadth of understanding the dogma.


Jesus Himself though called the Holy Spirit as a Him, so we should acknowledge that is how God sees Himself.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

MW said:


> The author rejects the belief that he holds an inerrant Bible in his hands. Yet he claims to detect and correct errors in a translation of the Bible. By so doing he is claiming to hold an inerrant Bible, only it remains unpublished.


Inerracy only applies towards the original Language texts, as we have now infallible texts used to translate infallible translations for us today. There are no 100% accurate to the originals is use today, but that is not requited in order to have the word of God to us today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

bookslover said:


> True. This is a case where a translation must be made for theological reasons (taking the teaching of all of Scripture on a subject) rather than for grammatical reasons. Fortunately, this doesn't have to be done too often.


This should have not been done in the case of translating the Person of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

Beezer said:


> So in your opinion new revisions have been introduced motivated by financial gain and not a desire to improve upon a particular translation's text? Can you give some examples? I would agree that the English speaking world has been flooded the past 15 years with all sorts of translations (both new and updated), but I would be uncomfortable with speculating the underlying reasons behind it might be for financial profit.


I do not think just for financial rewards, but was a large part of when the Niv was revised in 2005 and then again 2011, due to Zondervan taking away all 1984 versions, and same thing to happen now with the Csb replacing the Hcsb.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> Just an observation, I'm only stating my impressions with no specific data to support them, but the ESV, for example, has had a tremendous promotional campaign, by the publisher, to try and overtake the KJV and the NIV. At least I've read that more than a few times.
> I recently saw someone remark that they have a policy of updating the ESV every five years. Personally, if that timeline is correct, I would think it is out of their seeking accuracy, or perhaps inclusive language, more than for profit.
> On the other hand, the translators, proofreaders, printers, binders, do not donate their time and material. I have no idea what the cost of publishing a completed Bible is, but it is probably substantial. Having an inventory of same laying in a warehouse unpurchased and a publisher will soon be closing their doors. So the commercial aspect has to be reckoned with, and not necessarily considered 'making merchandise out of the Word of God.'
> 
> ...


The modern versions need not be updated that quickly though, as the source etxts such as Greek texts are not updated that quickly.


----------



## RAR (Jun 20, 2017)

Beezer said:


> So in your opinion new revisions have been introduced motivated by financial gain and not a desire to improve upon a particular translation's text? Can you give some examples? I would agree that the English speaking world has been flooded the past 15 years with all sorts of translations (both new and updated), but I would be uncomfortable with speculating the underlying reasons behind it might be for financial profit.


Think about this though. Was it really necessary for Holman to publish a translation, so soon after the success that Crossway had with the ESV? How does this help the average lay person, or new believer in having to decide which Bible is the Bible?


----------



## Jeremy Ivens (Jun 20, 2017)

RAR said:


> Think about this though. Was it really necessary for Holman to publish a translation, so soon after the success that Crossway had with the ESV? How does this help the average lay person, or new believer in having to decide which Bible is the Bible?



It does not. Even James White said it's for the money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

RAR said:


> Think about this though. Was it really necessary for Holman to publish a translation, so soon after the success that Crossway had with the ESV? How does this help the average lay person, or new believer in having to decide which Bible is the Bible?


I think that the success of the Esv was prompting them to get the Csb out quicker, in order to try to cut into their market share.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 20, 2017)

Jeremy Ivens said:


> It does not. Even James White said it's for the money.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sad to say, many decisions, even in Christian circles, comes down to the dollar.


----------



## bookslover (Jun 20, 2017)

Jeremy Ivens said:


> This. I know that translations by necessity will probably need corrections but the fact that the ESV was claimed to be fine as is and then a few months later they made corrections bothers me.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



It was worse than that. For about 28 seconds earlier this year, the ESV people said that they were now calling it the "Permanent Text," in which changes would be minor and rare. Well, they got thoroughly laughed at and derided for that decision (and rightly so), after which they dropped the idea entirely. And I report this as a big fan of the translation.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jun 20, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus Himself though called the Holy Spirit as a Him, so we should acknowledge that is how God sees Himself.



The Holy Spirit inerrantly referred to himself in the neuter when inspiring the pertinent texts. Are we to correct him in our translation?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Jun 20, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus Himself though called the Holy Spirit as a Him, so we should acknowledge that is how God sees Himself.



The AV translates the Paraclete sayings in John 14-16 with masculine pronouns.

Again, the translation should reflect the diversity of the original. The Spirit is not merely a person but also fulfils an office. One should not so emphasise His personality as to obscure His office, nor vice versa. Both should be made apparent in the translation. To give an example, your president is referred to as "he," but his presidency is referred to as "it."

It is particularly appropriate to refer to the Spirit officially in those places where His work in believers is described. Besides, there is an age-old debate as to whether the Holy Spirit can be said to "personally" dwell in believers.


----------



## MW (Jun 20, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Inerracy only applies towards the original Language texts, as we have now infallible texts used to translate infallible translations for us today. There are no 100% accurate to the originals is use today, but that is not requited in order to have the word of God to us today.



In taking this fatal step you have committed yourself to a belief in an "errant" word of God. This is something that the holy Scripture NEVER teaches. It is a doctrine devised by human imagination.


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 20, 2017)

MW said:


> In taking this fatal step you have committed yourself to a belief in an "errant" word of God. This is something that the holy Scripture NEVER teaches. It is a doctrine devised by human imagination.


WCF 1.8 distinguishes carefully between the original Hebrew and Greek texts, which are the ultimate authority in all controversies in religion, and translations of these originals into various languages which by their nature can only have a derived inerrancy. That is, they are inerrant insofar as they are an accurate rendition of the original Greek and Hebrew. Otherwise, there would be no need to retain the right to appeal to the Greek or Hebrew, and we would have to decide which translations were most inerrant, since the English, French and German translations do not agree at all points.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW (Jun 20, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> WCF 1.8 distinguishes carefully between the original Hebrew and Greek texts, which are the ultimate authority in all controversies in religion, and translations of these originals into various languages which by their nature can only have a derived inerrancy. That is, they are inerrant insofar as they are an accurate rendition of the original Greek and Hebrew. Otherwise, there would be no need to retain the right to appeal to the Greek or Hebrew, and we would have to decide which translations were most inerrant, since the English, French and German translations do not agree at all points.



The same section also speaks to the necessity and authority of translations for those who do not know the original languages, "that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."

Larger Catechism, answer 157, says that these holy Scriptures are to be read, "with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God."


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 20, 2017)

MW said:


> The same section also speaks to the necessity and authority of translations for those who do not know the original languages, "that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."
> 
> Larger Catechism, answer 157, says that these holy Scriptures are to be read, "with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God."


Of course I am firmly persuaded that the various English translations are the Word of God. And, inasmuch as they are excellent translations of the original Greek and Hebrew, they are fully inspired and inerrant. But sometimes recourse to the original languages may be required, which suggests that our translations are not always perfect. Indeed they cannot be, since what the confession is talking about is not merely translation into English but into multiple different local languages and no two languages work in exactly the same way. Where those translations disagree, we are not to have recourse to the KJV and correct other language translations to match it, we are to go back to the Greek and Hebrew and see what the original says.


----------



## MW (Jun 20, 2017)

iainduguid said:


> Where those translations disagree, we are not to have recourse to the KJV and correct other language translations to match it, we are to go back to the Greek and Hebrew and see what the original says.



On that we agree. The point of my previous post was to show that WCF 1.8 also speaks to the heritage of all God's people, and this heritage is not to be denied by the few who know the original languages. Making up a new article of faith and binding the people to believe in an errant word of God is not reformed.


----------



## iainduguid (Jun 20, 2017)

MW said:


> On that we agree. The point of my previous post was to show that WCF 1.8 also speaks to the heritage of all God's people, and this heritage is not to be denied by the few who know the original languages. Making up a new article of faith and binding the people to believe in an errant word of God is not reformed.


As is insisting that a particular translation into English is completely without error. Were that the case, we would never need recourse to the original languages; we could simply refer to the English translation (which one? why that one, given that it was not the first translation into English). As has been noted above, the 1611 edition of the KJV had numerous mistakes that needed to be fixed. In addition, there are places where it differs from translations into other languages. Is English the only language with a completely inerrant translation?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Jun 20, 2017)

That was John Goodwin's contention. It was well answered by Samuel Rutherford in Pretended Liberty of Conscience: "Mr. John Goodwin will allow us no foundation of faith, but such as is made of grammars and Characters, and if the Scripture be wrong pointed, or the Printer drunk, or if the translation slip, then our faith is gone: Whereas the means of conveying the things believed may be fallible, as writing, printing, translating, speaking, are all fallible means of conveying the truth of old and new Testament to us, and yet the Word of GOD in that which is delivered to us is infallible."


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> While that is technically true for the Koine Greek used, there is still no valid reason to ever have the Spirit Himself called an it...



Apart from it being technically true in the Koine Greek of course. ;-) I think if you read the 'that's in the KJV as 'who's then it reads much better. It was obviously the way that English was used to say 'the man that...' or 'a woman that...' rather than 'the man who...' and 'a woman who...' Once you have 'the Spirit who...' then I personally don't lose much sleep over the Spirit being referred to as 'it'. We need to be careful not to make God in our own image and presume that because the Father and the Son are both referred to as 'He' that the Spirit should be too. Do we know from Scripture that the Spirit has a gender?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

TheOldCourse said:


> The Holy Spirit inerrantly referred to himself in the neuter when inspiring the pertinent texts. Are we to correct him in our translation?


The text should reflect that He is a He.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

MW said:


> The AV translates the Paraclete sayings in John 14-16 with masculine pronouns.
> 
> Again, the translation should reflect the diversity of the original. The Spirit is not merely a person but also fulfils an office. One should not so emphasise His personality as to obscure His office, nor vice versa. Both should be made apparent in the translation. To give an example, your president is referred to as "he," but his presidency is referred to as "it."
> 
> It is particularly appropriate to refer to the Spirit officially in those places where His work in believers is described. Besides, there is an age-old debate as to whether the Holy Spirit can be said to "personally" dwell in believers.


I understand what you are saying, but why is the KJV the only translation that seemed to call Him as an it then?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

MW said:


> The same section also speaks to the necessity and authority of translations for those who do not know the original languages, "that the word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."
> 
> Larger Catechism, answer 157, says that these holy Scriptures are to be read, "with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion that they are the very word of God."


I agree that the translations are the very word of God to us today, as they are infallible, but the truth still remains that the only inerrant and inspired texts were the originals, to hold to that including the translations gets us to the KJVO position.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

MW said:


> That was John Goodwin's contention. It was well answered by Samuel Rutherford in Pretended Liberty of Conscience: "Mr. John Goodwin will allow us no foundation of faith, but such as is made of grammars and Characters, and if the Scripture be wrong pointed, or the Printer drunk, or if the translation slip, then our faith is gone: Whereas the means of conveying the things believed may be fallible, as writing, printing, translating, speaking, are all fallible means of conveying the truth of old and new Testament to us, and yet the Word of GOD in that which is delivered to us is infallible."


Inerrancy extend only to the Originals, and not to any Translations.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> Apart from it being technically true in the Koine Greek of course. ;-) I think if you read the 'that's in the KJV as 'who's then it reads much better. It was obviously the way that English was used to say 'the man that...' or 'a woman that...' rather than 'the man who...' and 'a woman who...' Once you have 'the Spirit who...' then I personally don't lose much sleep over the Spirit being referred to as 'it'. We need to be careful not to make God in our own image and presume that because the Father and the Son are both referred to as 'He' that the Spirit should be too. Do we know from Scripture that the Spirit has a gender?


Jesus claimed that He has one.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

MW said:


> In taking this fatal step you have committed yourself to a belief in an "errant" word of God. This is something that the holy Scripture NEVER teaches. It is a doctrine devised by human imagination.


I agree that the scriptures as in the Originals were fully inerrant, without any mistakes/errors, and true in all they described, and the translations are infallible witness, but none of them were inspired, and have some minor know mistakes/errors from copying process, and from some parts of the originals not fully brought over to us in Greek/Hebrew texts fully.


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Jesus claimed that He has one.



You mean when referring to the Comforter? Not wanting to get into a debate on this but the Greek word for Comforter dictates a masculine pronoun so I wouldn't say it's that clear cut. Either way, I'm comfortable with he or it. The personality of the Spirit is the all important point I believe.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> You mean when referring to the Comforter? Not wanting to get into a debate on this but the Greek word for Comforter dictates a masculine pronoun so I wouldn't say it's that clear cut. Either way, I'm comfortable with he or it. The personality of the Spirit is the all important point I believe.


I am not saying that it is "wrong" to have had the KJV translate Him as it in that context, but why was it the only translation that called the Spirit an It at all?


----------



## tdh86 (Jun 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am not saying that it is "wrong" to have had the KJV translate Him as it in that context, but why was it the only translation that called the Spirit an It at all?



The only answer that I can give is that they tried to be as literal as possible. Which, in my book, should be applauded. Even if it can make things tricky sometimes.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 21, 2017)

tdh86 said:


> The only answer that I can give is that they tried to be as literal as possible. Which, in my book, should be applauded. Even if it can make things tricky sometimes.


Their desire to be as literal as possible is a good thing, but not at the expense of labeling the Third person of the trinity as an it, as that would be more as what JW see the Spirit as being.


----------



## MW (Jun 21, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Inerrancy extend only to the Originals, and not to any Translations.



Holy Scripture does not teach this. Uninspired, errant men teach this.

Our Lord and His apostles referred to copies and translations of holy Scripture when they quoted the Old Testament. They relied on the words of these copies and translations as being inspired and infallible.

The doctrine of an inspired and infallible word can only be received by anyone today through copies, and only by those who do not know the original languages through translations. Their faith in holy Scripture presupposes what they have is the inspired and infallible word of God.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 21, 2017)

MW said:


> Holy Scripture does not teach this. Uninspired, errant men teach this.
> 
> Our Lord and His apostles referred to copies and translations of holy Scripture when they quoted the Old Testament. They relied on the words of these copies and translations as being inspired and infallible.
> 
> The doctrine of an inspired and infallible word can only be received by anyone today through copies, and only by those who do not know the original languages through translations. Their faith in holy Scripture presupposes what they have is the inspired and infallible word of God.



Paul wrote πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος. Are you saying that when Paul writes πᾶσα γραφὴ that Paul is claiming translations are θεόπνευστος? Are translations properly identified as γραφὴ?


----------



## MW (Jun 21, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> Paul wrote πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος. Are you saying that when Paul writes πᾶσα γραφὴ that Paul is claiming translations are θεόπνευστος? Are translations properly identified as γραφὴ?



How do you know Paul wrote those words? You do not have the originals. Did you believe this truth before or after you read them in Greek? Certainly many believers in holy Scripture have not so much as read the "characters" you have written and yet they hold to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Graphe in the New Testament is a Greek word used to describe the Old Testament Scriptures. Translation is inherent in the very use of the word.

(Dear brother, Would you please consider changing your screen name so that it does not include an expletive. The name of Jesus is sweet to a believer's ear, but the way it sounds in your screen name is grating.)

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## bookslover (Jun 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The times where it calls the Holy Spirit 'It"...



Here's J. I. Packer on "it" - 

_John underlines the note by repeatedly using a masculine pronoun ("ekeinos," "he") to render Jesus' references to the Spirit, when Greek grammar called for a neuter one ("ekeino," "it") to agree with the neuter noun, "Spirit" ("pneuma"): John wants his readers to be in no doubt that the Spirit is "he," not "it." This masculine pronoun, which appears in 14.26, 15.26, 16.8, 13-14 is the more striking because, in 14.17, where the Spirit is first introduced, John had used the grammatically correct neuter pronouns ("ho" and "autos"), thus ensuring that his subsequent shift to the masculine would be perceived not as incompetent Greek, but as magisterial theology._ 

From: _Keep in Step With the Spirit_ (2nd edition, 2005), p. 54.


----------



## Fool for Christ (Jun 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> While that is technically true for the Koine Greek used, there is still no valid reason to ever have the Spirit Himself called an it...


Is the Spirit of God an “it”?



Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:



Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

The Spirit is an “it.”

The Spirit is also an “He.”



Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, _even_ the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:



Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, _that_ shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Spirit inspired the text, in the original languages, the way the KJV translators rendered it. The Spirit is both a “He” and an “it.” That is the information God gave us about Himself. He is not like us. His ways are not our ways. He tells us that he is also a “what”.



Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.



Is this ridiculous to the human mind? Yes. But God the Son, in a very real way, is also an “it” and a “He”. So why would His Spirit be any different?



The Word of God is the name of the Son of God. (Rev 19:13) It is also the name of a Book. The Son created all things by His Word. He is the spoken Word. (Heb 1:2) Is God represented by a book? Should we worship a book? King David did.



Psa 119:48 My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.



Isn’t this idolatry? No. Jesus spoke the words of the Word. It was His voice, on the first day of creation, that went out and was heard to the end of the universe and created everything that exists. (Ps 19:1-4, Col 1:16)



Again, David said, “In God will I praise his word; in the Lord will I praise his word.” (Ps 56:10) The word is Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:14) The spoken word that created all things in the beginning, became flesh. We cannot separate His voice or His written word from His name. It would be idolatry to lift our hands to the law of God or praise the scriptures if God did not dwell in His word. (Jn 14:17-21) But the word is also an “it.”



1Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received _it_ not _as_ the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.



Jesus Christ, the Word of God, effectively works through His spoken word in every believer. We cannot live without Him. We cannot live spiritually without it.



Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God



Don’t settle for bibles that have been trifled with. The above verse is missing in many versions. You need every word of God if you will be spiritually healthy. King Solomon told us that. Every word of God is pure. They should not be taken out! These words are spiritual food needed to build strong spiritual bodies, even if our minds struggle to understand.



Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind _is_ enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.



There are more verses that declare the Holy Ghost to be an “it” than there are verses where He is referred to as “he”.



1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.



God reveals Himself through the scriptures in the way He chooses. Who are we to deny Him the right to His own choice of words? It is the devil, who from the beginning, has questioned the word. Let’s not align ourselves with his work. There are no errors in the KJV. It is a grave thing to trifle with the truth for the sake of our own pride, preference and prejudice.



The KJV is the most accurate version of the bible. I know from more than forty years of owning and studying from it and many others. It is to many, not the easiest to read, and it may not even be the best selling bible, but it is the most read bible translation in the world. Men who love their old bibles are not always looking for something “better” and “more accurate”. They believe they already have the best, why waste time looking to Johnny-come-lately’s. The old ways are tried and true and better. The older, more worn, and more tear-stained my old bible becomes, the more I love it and the more I defer to it. Why would I buy something new when it is so familiar and comforting to my soul?



Wise men will not meddle with it’s inspiration. The world’s wisest man said this: “Every word of God is pure...Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” You may not like the pronouns; the “Thee’s” and “Thou’s”. But they are there in the Greek, even though the NIV editors deny it. If they are there in the original, how dare we address God in any other way than the way He has inspired, especially when reading His word? There is pure religion in the pronouns.



The way the word of God is read impacts the mind and the thoughts. If words are changed or removed, spiritual nutrition is omitted. Even if they are pronouns: By changing the way men speak of God in the text of scripture, He is changed in our thoughts. God becomes just like everyone else. Average; ordinary. If we discard the respectful addresses of the old pronouns for God (the KJV never addresses God as “you”) our vision of the Holy One has changed, and we begin to speak of Him in a less reverent manner. This even affects our prayers!



I am old enough that, when I was a child, all the old saints addressed God by the respectful pronouns; “Thee, Thy, Thou.” I rarely ever hear anyone speak the old way anymore except when we sing the old hymns in church.



God has not changed, but man’s image of God has changed because we speak of Him in a less reverent manner. And we begin to treat our brothers in a less holy manner too, because they are made in His image. And His image has become a step more common with the changing, regular, unholy language. It’s all very subtle, very, very subtle. The holy scriptures has and are a restraining power upon the evil of society, as long as they remain pure. But if they are changed, the power is weakened until eventually, the holy words descend to just unimportant words in an old outdated, misunderstood book. The bible is the conscience of society. If the conscience is defiled, it has no power to convict of sin.



The Holy Book is mysterious for a reason. It reflects the glory of the God who hides Himself, who speaks in parables, who calls that which is not as if it were, and who demands that we walk by faith and not by sight. Therefore, we should not be surprised at all if God reveals Himself in mysterious ways, and with mysterious words like “it”, or “what.”



In “The Translators to the Reader” in the original 1611 King James bible, they tell us that God intentionally does not make everything in his word simple and easily understood. “...That partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s Spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference ...it hath pleased God in His Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness...that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence...”



I think they are right. I may not know Hebrew. But I know the God who speaks it and INSPIRED it, and He tells me He is able to grant me wisdom to understand it if I will ask for it. (James 1)


Dachaser said:


> While that is technically true for the Koine Greek used, there is still no valid reason to ever have the Spirit Himself called an it...


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 22, 2017)

MW said:


> How do you know Paul wrote those words? You do not have the originals. Did you believe this truth before or after you read them in Greek? Certainly many believers in holy Scripture have not so much as read the "characters" you have written and yet they hold to the inspiration of the Scriptures.
> 
> Graphe in the New Testament is a Greek word used to describe the Old Testament Scriptures. Translation is inherent in the very use of the word.
> 
> (Dear brother, Would you please consider changing your screen name so that it does not include an expletive. The name of Jesus is sweet to a believer's ear, but the way it sounds in your screen name is grating.)



Matthew, thank you for your comments. I'm content to disagree and not go to the mat or die on a battle hill. 

In regard to my screen name, you're the first person in 15 years of using it in multiple Christian forums that I've been a part of that claims it includes an expletive. Maybe you have words in your land that we don't have in mine. 

Background...when I created my first email in 1997, I wanted "TrustJesus" in my email address. The company would net let me have "Jesus" in my email address. So I created a work-around. 

"Jesus" is not likely what he was named as I understand things. It's English. He was a Hebrew. His Hebrew name got squeezed through Greek, then Latin and into English. I don't think like a Jehovah's Witness, so I don't think God requires we get the pronounciation exact and thus also the spelling. When we sing songs like "There's Something About That Name", I doubt he's offended by us saying his name as "Jesus". Since that's probably not correct itself, I doubt he's concerned that I spelled it Gzus in my email which has given me many opportunities to talk to people about trusting in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and not trusting in the filthy rags of their own deeds. I get these opportunities because people ask me what my email name means. It's turned out to be a blessing that the email company originally did let me use "Jesus" in my email address. If I had simply "TrustJesus", probably few would ask me to explain or expound and I'd have had many less conversations. 

I'm a compliant personality type. I'm not the type that likes ruffling feathers for the sake of it. If leadership of this board, or any board, asked me to change my screen name, I would. Until such occurs, I am sorry that my screen name offends you. I will avoid responding to your posts so as not to draw your attention to my screen name unnecessarily. 

Grace and peace to you, Matthew. 

Joe

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Jun 22, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> I will avoid responding to your posts so as not to draw your attention to my screen name unnecessarily.



There is no need to do that. I included my comment in brackets so as to show it was not front and centre. Besides, I will see it anyway. Perhaps you will think otherwise over time.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 22, 2017)

bookslover said:


> It was worse than that. For about 28 seconds earlier this year, the ESV people said that they were now calling it the "Permanent Text," in which changes would be minor and rare. Well, they got thoroughly laughed at and derided for that decision (and rightly so), after which they dropped the idea entirely. And I report this as a big fan of the translation.



By "Permanent Text" they meant that there would be no further changes, however slight. This coupled with the controversial and apparently agenda driven new renderings in Genesis that also contradicted their stated translation philosophy caused the outcry.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 23, 2017)

MW said:


> Holy Scripture does not teach this. Uninspired, errant men teach this.
> 
> Our Lord and His apostles referred to copies and translations of holy Scripture when they quoted the Old Testament. They relied on the words of these copies and translations as being inspired and infallible.
> 
> The doctrine of an inspired and infallible word can only be received by anyone today through copies, and only by those who do not know the original languages through translations. Their faith in holy Scripture presupposes what they have is the inspired and infallible word of God.


NO translation has been inspired though by the Holy Spirit, as that was just extended towards the authors of the canon.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 23, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> Paul wrote πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος. Are you saying that when Paul writes πᾶσα γραφὴ that Paul is claiming translations are θεόπνευστος? Are translations properly identified as γραφὴ?


The inspiration only applies towards the originals.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 23, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> By "Permanent Text" they meant that there would be no further changes, however slight. This coupled with the controversial and apparently agenda driven new renderings in Genesis that also contradicted their stated translation philosophy caused the outcry.


Interesting that they would try to have a fixed version, as they are based upon a changing textual source itself, the critical Greek text.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> NO translation has been inspired though by the Holy Spirit, as that was just extended towards the authors of the canon.



It does not require inspiration to translate the inspired word of God into another language.

"Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God" is the inspired word of God. The fact it is rendered in English does nothing to its inspiration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 24, 2017)

MW said:


> It does not require inspiration to translate the inspired word of God into another language.
> 
> "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God" is the inspired word of God. The fact it is rendered in English does nothing to its inspiration.


True, but there is no translation that would be error/mistake free.


----------



## KMK (Jun 24, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> True, but there is no translation that would be error/mistake free.



Interesting. Can you prove that no translation is or ever will be 'error/mistake free'?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

KMK said:


> Interesting. Can you prove that no translation is or ever will be 'error/mistake free'?


There are no Original texts/books preserved by God unto us now, but there are very close to that in the various Greek texts used to translate off from for our versions, but even those have know errors/mistakes in copying, scribal comments getting added into the text etc...

God has indeed preserved the gist of the originals to us, but none of our translations can claim to be 100% accurate to the originals, but the doctrine of infallibility and trustworthy of the scriptures does not require the translation to be as the KJVO see them being.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> There are no Original texts/books preserved by God unto us now, but there are very close to that in the various Greek texts used to translate off from for our versions, but even those have know errors/mistakes in copying, scribal comments getting added into the text etc...
> 
> God has indeed preserved the gist of the originals to us, but none of our translations can claim to be 100% accurate to the originals, but the doctrine of infallibility and trustworthy of the scriptures does not require the translation to be as the KJVO see them being.


You are missing the point of the question asked. Are we to assume that there is no such thing as _error free_ in the works of man? When you write down your name, is it not without error? If I translate the number "ten" to _decem_ have I not done so without error?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

We are not perfect, and are not inspired by God in the translation process, so would we not assume to have some errors in the process?


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> We are not perfect, and are not inspired by God in the translation process, so would we not assume to have some errors in the process?



On that basis we would have to assume that there is some error in what you have claimed about assuming there must be some error. When you make the claim you are not assuming you are in error. It is a self-refuting position.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

MW, I wasn't under the impression that David was claiming that we are always in error. Your argument only works if he is assuming that we are always in error. He is saying that over the course of a long time the process of translation involves errors here and there. Unless you are wanting to claim that a translation of the Bible has no errors and that the translators were directly inspired by God. Is this what you claim?


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> MW, I wasn't under the impression that David was claiming that we are always in error. Your argument only works if he is assuming that we are always in error. He is saying that over the course of a long time the process of translation involves errors here and there. Unless you are wanting to claim that a translation of the Bible has no errors and that the translators were directly inspired by God. Is this what you claim?



His argument only makes sense if he assumes man is always in error. If it were possible that man might not be in error he would have no reason to assume the translation must contain errors. This might be one of those occasions when the men have not erred.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

MW, that would depend on whether he is talking probabilities or absolute proof. Since he used the phrase "should assume," that does not necessarily imply that he is thinking of absolute proof. It rather leans the other way. But since he has not clarified either way, you cannot assume his position to say one way or the other.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

Why "should" we assume it? The word "should" expresses obligation. If there is the possibility they have not erred in this instance there is no obligation to assume it.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

You are ignoring the semantic range of "should." If I say "$10 should be enough to buy something," I am expressing probability, not obligation. You have illegitimately narrowed the semantic range of the word, and are imposing a definition of the word on him which he may not own.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> You are ignoring the semantic range of "should." If I say "$10 should be enough to buy something," I am expressing probability, not obligation. You have illegitimately narrowed the semantic range of the word, and are imposing a definition of the word on him which he may not own.



The word "enough" is sufficiency language, and that has broadened the context in which "should" is being used. David used no such word. In fact, if he used sufficiency language he "should" have lessened the assumption of error.

As it stands, though, he used the word "would," not "should."


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

In which case, he is not even making a statement, now, is he? He is only asking the question. Of course, it might be rhetorical. But without clarification on his actual view, you do not have the right to draw such a conclusion. 

You are incorrect about a word like "enough" being necessary to broaden the context. Another example will prove my point. A young man says to a young lady he is interested in dating, "Hey, we should go out together sometime." The young lady says, "Yeah, we totally should." No words are there to indicate a broadening context, and yet it would be illegitimate to conclude that obligation has been expressed. They are indicating a desire and a probability, nothing more.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

I replied to David, "On that basis we would have to assume..." The answer is stated in the same conditional phrase as the question.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

Au contraire, Matthew, you add the word "have" which he did not. "We would have to assume" means something different than "we would assume" with a question mark.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Au contraire, Matthew, you add the word "have" which he did not. "We would have to assume" means something different than "we would assume" with a question mark.



"If we assume A we would have to assume B." That is typical for a conditional sentence.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

Except that David did not make it into a conditional sentence, but left it as an interrogative. So you are forcing his sentence into a form that he did not choose, but you are choosing for him. I think we will have to wait for David to decide who has read him better.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> We are not perfect, and are not inspired by God in the translation process, so would we not assume to have some errors in the process?





MW said:


> On that basis we would have to assume that there is some error in what you have claimed about assuming there must be some error. When you make the claim you are not assuming you are in error. It is a self-refuting position.





greenbaggins said:


> MW, I wasn't under the impression that David was claiming that we are always in error. Your argument only works if he is assuming that we are always in error. He is saying that over the course of a long time the process of translation involves errors here and there. Unless you are wanting to claim that a translation of the Bible has no errors and that the translators were directly inspired by God. Is this what you claim?



David,

Which describes what you are asserting?

Error is to be expected in all translation endeavors.

or

Error is to be expected in all translation endeavors requiring a lengthy process of time.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jun 26, 2017)

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.​This quotation is from the Preface to the Reader of the King James Version. It was talking about translations done at the time, not more modern translations, obviously, but the thrust of it is clear: we have the word of God even with an imperfectly translated version of it. Presumably they would have said the same thing about more modern translations had they been available, though, of course, that is somewhat speculative. But the tenor of the Preface is generous to other translations, not parsimonious. One could wish that modern advocates of any translation, be it KJV or otherwise, who think that other translations are rot, would take these words to heart.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2017)

The modal "would" is clearly subjunctive in the context. Instead of raising numerous contexts to see what can be meant by a word it is common sense to look at the word in context to see what it does mean. I am happy for David to clarify what he means, but if he means something different to what he wrote he will have to write something differently.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 27, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> MW, I wasn't under the impression that David was claiming that we are always in error. Your argument only works if he is assuming that we are always in error. He is saying that over the course of a long time the process of translation involves errors here and there. Unless you are wanting to claim that a translation of the Bible has no errors and that the translators were directly inspired by God. Is this what you claim?


You gave what my understanding of the scriptures being translated exactly.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 27, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Which describes what you are asserting?
> 
> ...


The process of translation involves working from a source text that is not perfect copy of the Originals, so when we translate off them, there would be by necessity a small amount of time when some copying mistakes/scribal additions were carried over in the translation process.
Just was saying there we have no perfect, no mistakes/errors at all, translations.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 27, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.​This quotation is from the Preface to the Reader of the King James Version. It was talking about translations done at the time, not more modern translations, obviously, but the thrust of it is clear: we have the word of God even with an imperfectly translated version of it. Presumably they would have said the same thing about more modern translations had they been available, though, of course, that is somewhat speculative. But the tenor of the Preface is generous to other translations, not parsimonious. One could wish that modern advocates of any translation, be it KJV or otherwise, who think that other translations are rot, would take these words to heart.


I am just suggesting that there cannot be the KJVO position, or applied towards any other translation, as none of them were inspired by God, as the Originals were from Him.


----------



## KMK (Jun 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I am just suggesting that there cannot be the KJVO position, or applied towards any other translation, as none of them were inspired by God, as the Originals were from Him.



It sounds like you are saying that, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them."

This is something that all of us wholeheartedly affirm.

I think it is time to put the brakes on this merry go round.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

