Religions > Bible > Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
01 Jan 2008 12:28:09 AM |
| Object: |
Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible? |
KJV-Onlyism is somewhat of a goofy group with errors so outrageous that most
all rational individuals see their error, but they are so self-deceived, the
prime proponents like Ruckman, Marrs, Riplinger, Cloud, Waite, Chick, Hyles,
Chambers, Beebe, Gipp, Bynum and other individuals holding to this erroneous
dogma of King James Onlyism. David Reagan wrote the following some time back
in response to Riplinger's nonsense that she has never been able to defend
publicly and in open, structured debate.
Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?
by Dr. David R. Reagan
A controversy of immense silliness has recently broken out among
Evangelicals regarding the validity of modern, conservative translations of
the Bible like the New American Standard, the New International, and the New
King James. The controversy was ignited by a book written by Gail Riplinger
entitled New Age Bible Versions.
The only thing sillier than the controversy is the book that sparked it.
Remember the old joke? - "If the King James Version was good enough for the
Apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me!" Well, Riplinger tries to
convert the joke into gospel.
A Ridiculous Thesis
Her thesis is that the King James Version is the one and only pure
translation (in any language!) and that all the new translations that have
flooded the market in recent years (including the most conservative) are
part of a Satanic, New Age conspiracy to undermine the deity of Jesus and
the credibility of God's Word.
The book is mean-spirited and vicious in its attacks upon the godly
evangelical scholars who labored so hard to produce the modern versions, not
to undermine the Word, but to make it more understandable to the average
reader.
Unfortunately the book has spawned an army of Riplinger disciples who feel
it is their god-ordained duty to go forth and purify the Church by demanding
the exclusive use of the King James Version. Picking up on their mentor's
divisive spirit, they are labeling as heretics all fellow Christians and
Christian leaders who prefer to use some version other than the King James.
To illustrate how insane this silliness has become, consider a recent
article that appeared in the newsletter of one of Riplinger's most
enthusiastic supporters, a prophecy teacher by the name of Texe Marrs.
Calling the new conservative translations "unholy" and "grotesque," he
proceeded to condemn four leading prophecy teachers because they refused to
endorse Riplinger's book and join with him in certifying the King James
Version as the only reliable translation. The four he condemned as
"misguided leaders" and "false witnesses" were Dave Hunt, Peter LaLonde,
Arno Froese, and John Ankerberg. Two of these, Hunt and Ankerberg, happen to
be among the leading defenders of the Christian faith today!
Even more incredible is the fact that all four men use the King James
Version in their preaching and teaching - and Marrs knows that they do!
Still, they must be condemned as heretics because they refuse to denounce
the "Satanic, New Age" versions.
An Exercise in Foolishness
Another thing that makes all this so tragic is that it would be very
difficult to find a book that is more foolish than the one Riplinger has
written.
To begin with, she has no credentials for writing the book. On the back
cover, the book declares that she has the B.A., M.A., and M.F.A. degrees and
has done additional post-graduate work at Harvard and Cornell. What the book
does not tell you is that all these degrees are in the field of interior
design! Throughout the book, she pontificates on the meaning of various
Greek and Hebrew words and texts, when the truth is that she cannot read
either language!
The result, again, is silliness gone to seed. For example, she claims the
new translations try to identify Jesus with Satan, and she bases this absurd
claim on the fact that the new translations remove the name "Lucifer" from
Isaiah 14:12, replacing it with a term that refers to Jesus.
Let's consider this argument for a moment. The King James and New American
Standard versions read as follows:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou
cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! - KJV
How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You
have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! - NASB
As you can see, the NASB, like all modern translations, deletes any
reference to Lucifer. Instead, the modern translations refer to "the shining
one" or "the morning star." Since Jesus refers to Himself in Revelation
22:16 as "the bright morning star," Riplinger jumps to the conclusion that
the modern translations have substituted Jesus for Satan!
What she seems to be totally unaware of is that the word, Lucifer, is not in
the Hebrew text. It comes, instead, from the Latin Vulgate translation where
it was used by Jerome because it is the Latin word for morning star or
Venus.
Nonsense "Mathematics"
The height of Riplinger's foolishness comes when she presents a bizarre
invention of her imagination called "acrostic algebra." You have to see it
to believe it (http://www.lamblion.com/images/1999/0913-1.gif).
In step one she "subtracts" NIV from NASV and comes up with ASI. Then she
adds back the two letters that were cancelled - N and V, producing ASI + NV.
Then she subtracts AV (American Versions) and is left with the letters SIN.
Is that profound? What makes this especially ludicrous is the fact that she
uses NASV as her abbreviation for the New American Standard Bible only in
the equation. Throughout the rest of her book she refers to it as the NASB!
An Irresponsible Book
Enough said? Not exactly, for you see, Riplinger's book is more than
foolish. It is also irresponsible. It is full of misquotes, and it traffics
in character assassination.
James White, a leading Christian apologist, sums up the book by saying, ". .
.. New Age Bible Versions is not a nice book. It plainly and obviously
identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern Bible
versions . . . as not just non-Christians, but anti-Christians who . . .
want everyone to worship Lucifer." He goes on to point out that he has only
once or twice ever encountered a work that contained more misrepresentations
of facts and documentation.
Dave Hunt, another defender of the faith, states that Riplinger's writing is
"driven by a misleading style and loaded with contrived 'evidence.' She
starts off misrepresenting people and continues to do so throughout the
entire book . . ." Hunt further observes that "perhaps the most
reprehensible aspect of the book is its penchant for guilt by association,
and quite often that 'association' is contrived by the author."
The bottom line is that this book which is causing so much trouble in the
Church today is full of misrepresentations, distortions, and slander. It is
a mean-spirited, unscholarly, and petty attempt to defend the King James
Version as the only acceptable translation of the Bible. The King James
Version deserves a better defense.
Why the New Versions?
Actually, the King James Version does not need to be defended. It served the
English speaking peoples of the world very well for 300 years. But with the
advent of the 20th Century, it became increasingly clear that a new English
translation was needed. This was due to several factors, none of which were
related to any New Age conspiracy.
For one thing, many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament had been
discovered that were much older than the ones the King James Version was
based on. Also, thousands of other Greek language manuscripts dating from
the First Century had also been discovered, and these manuscripts gave
scholars a much better understanding of the meaning and nuances of Greek
words at the time the New Testament was written.
Perhaps most important was the fact that the English language had changed
drastically during the 300 years since 1611 when the King James Version was
produced. Reading "King James English" was becoming increasingly difficult
for English speaking people. Many words had changed in their meaning, and
some had come to mean exactly the opposite of their original meaning.
The Modern Translations
To overcome these and other difficulties, many efforts have been launched in
this century to provide a more accurate and readable English translation.
The two most significant conservative translations thus far produced are the
New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. Both are
excellent. By "conservative" I mean they were produced by scholars who
believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
The NASB is more literal than the NIV and thus does not read as smoothly.
The NIV is a "dynamic" translation that attempts to communicate the meaning
of the text without necessarily using its precise language. To portray these
wonderful new translations as a devilish plot is a travesty, and Riplinger
needs to repent for having done so.
Even those who dearly love the King James Version have come to recognize its
inadequacies and its growing limitation to communicate clearly to modern
English speaking peoples. That's the reason a revision has been recently
produced that is called The New King James Version. It is also an excellent
modern translation.
Recommendations
I love the King James Version, and I thank God for it, but I use the New
American Standard Version in my teaching and preaching because I consider it
to be the most accurate.
In my study of the Word, I use all the versions I have discussed above
because I have found that the more versions I consult, the better I will
understand what I am reading. In addition, I often consult The Living Bible
Paraphrase. It is not a translation. Rather, it is what the title says - a
paraphrase, which means that it is like a commentary. I have found it
especially valuable in studying the Old Testament.
Two New Testament translations that I have found particularly helpful are
the ones by J.B. Phillips and David Stern. Phillip's translation, The New
Testament in Modern English, really brings the text alive and makes it
exciting reading. It came out in 1958. My parents gave me a copy as a high
school graduation present, and it revolutionized my attitude toward the
Bible. It made the Scriptures easy to read and understand, and I began
reading the Bible regularly for the first time in my life.
Stern's translation, called The Jewish New Testament, returns the book to
its Jewish roots, reviving the Jewish names and phrases. Consider this
familiar passage from Luke 1:26-31:
In the sixth month, the angel Gavri'el was sent by God to a city in the
Galil called Natzeret, to a virgin engaged to a man named Yosef, of the
house of David; the virgin's name was Miryam. Approaching her, the angel
said, "Shalom, favored lady! Adonai is with you! . . . Don't be afraid,
Miryam, for you have found favor with God. Look! You will become pregnant,
you will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua. He will be
great, he will be called Son of HaElyon . . .
Are all the modern translations okay? Of course not. There are some that are
an abomination because they were translated by non-evangelicals who do not
believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. But Riplinger's book does not
focus on these. Strangely enough, she focuses her attack on the two most
outstanding conservative translations, probably because they are the ones
that are challenging the use of the King James among Evangelicals.
Conclusions
Please keep in mind that the Bible was originally written in three
languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The King James Version is a
translation, and like all other translations, it has its strengths and
weaknesses. It is not perfect. No translation is. The original "autographs"
(as scholars call the original manuscripts) were inerrant, but all the
subsequent translations contain errors. The King James translators admit
this themselves in their introduction.
Modern Evangelical scholars are not Satanic ghouls who are trying to
"undermine" God's Word, They are sincerely trying to produce the most
faithful translation possible. If someone doesn't like what they produce,
then they should simply say so, but they have no right to attack their
motives or their character.
Interesting Bible Facts
.. The first translation of the Bible based on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
was done by Jerome between 382 and 405 A.D. It became known as the Latin
Vulgate, and it served as the basic translation for all of Western
Civilization for over a thousand years, until the mid-1500's.
.. Chapter divisions were developed in the 1200's by Stephen Langton,
Archbishop of Canterbery.
.. Verse divisions were created in the 1500's by Robert Estienne, printer to
the King of France.
.
|
|
| User: "Sugien" |
|
| Title: Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible? |
02 Jan 2008 11:51:35 AM |
|
|
"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:flcmhp$tp$1@news.utelfla.com...
KJV-Onlyism is somewhat of a goofy group with errors so outrageous that
most all rational individuals see their error, but they are so
self-deceived, the prime proponents like Ruckman, Marrs, Riplinger, Cloud,
Waite, Chick, Hyles, Chambers, Beebe, Gipp, Bynum and other individuals
holding to this erroneous dogma of King James Onlyism. David Reagan wrote
the following some time back in response to Riplinger's nonsense that she
has never been able to defend publicly and in open, structured debate.
Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?
by Dr. David R. Reagan
A controversy of immense silliness has recently broken out among
Evangelicals regarding the validity of modern, conservative translations
of the Bible like the New American Standard, the New International, and
the New King James. The controversy was ignited by a book written by Gail
Riplinger entitled New Age Bible Versions.
The only thing sillier than the controversy is the book that sparked it.
Remember the old joke? - "If the King James Version was good enough for
the Apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me!" Well, Riplinger tries to
convert the joke into gospel.
A Ridiculous Thesis
Her thesis is that the King James Version is the one and only pure
translation (in any language!) and that all the new translations that have
flooded the market in recent years (including the most conservative) are
part of a Satanic, New Age conspiracy to undermine the deity of Jesus and
the credibility of God's Word.
The book is mean-spirited and vicious in its attacks upon the godly
evangelical scholars who labored so hard to produce the modern versions,
not to undermine the Word, but to make it more understandable to the
average reader.
Unfortunately the book has spawned an army of Riplinger disciples who feel
it is their god-ordained duty to go forth and purify the Church by
demanding the exclusive use of the King James Version. Picking up on their
mentor's divisive spirit, they are labeling as heretics all fellow
Christians and Christian leaders who prefer to use some version other than
the King James.
To illustrate how insane this silliness has become, consider a recent
article that appeared in the newsletter of one of Riplinger's most
enthusiastic supporters, a prophecy teacher by the name of Texe Marrs.
Calling the new conservative translations "unholy" and "grotesque," he
proceeded to condemn four leading prophecy teachers because they refused
to endorse Riplinger's book and join with him in certifying the King James
Version as the only reliable translation. The four he condemned as
"misguided leaders" and "false witnesses" were Dave Hunt, Peter LaLonde,
Arno Froese, and John Ankerberg. Two of these, Hunt and Ankerberg, happen
to be among the leading defenders of the Christian faith today!
Even more incredible is the fact that all four men use the King James
Version in their preaching and teaching - and Marrs knows that they do!
Still, they must be condemned as heretics because they refuse to denounce
the "Satanic, New Age" versions.
An Exercise in Foolishness
Another thing that makes all this so tragic is that it would be very
difficult to find a book that is more foolish than the one Riplinger has
written.
To begin with, she has no credentials for writing the book. On the back
cover, the book declares that she has the B.A., M.A., and M.F.A. degrees
and has done additional post-graduate work at Harvard and Cornell. What
the book does not tell you is that all these degrees are in the field of
interior design! Throughout the book, she pontificates on the meaning of
various Greek and Hebrew words and texts, when the truth is that she
cannot read either language!
The result, again, is silliness gone to seed. For example, she claims the
new translations try to identify Jesus with Satan, and she bases this
absurd claim on the fact that the new translations remove the name
"Lucifer" from Isaiah 14:12, replacing it with a term that refers to
Jesus.
Let's consider this argument for a moment. The King James and New American
Standard versions read as follows:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art
thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! - KJV
How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! -
NASB
As you can see, the NASB, like all modern translations, deletes any
reference to Lucifer. Instead, the modern translations refer to "the
shining one" or "the morning star." Since Jesus refers to Himself in
Revelation 22:16 as "the bright morning star," Riplinger jumps to the
conclusion that the modern translations have substituted Jesus for Satan!
What she seems to be totally unaware of is that the word, Lucifer, is not
in the Hebrew text. It comes, instead, from the Latin Vulgate translation
where it was used by Jerome because it is the Latin word for morning star
or Venus.
Nonsense "Mathematics"
The height of Riplinger's foolishness comes when she presents a bizarre
invention of her imagination called "acrostic algebra." You have to see it
to believe it (http://www.lamblion.com/images/1999/0913-1.gif).
In step one she "subtracts" NIV from NASV and comes up with ASI. Then she
adds back the two letters that were cancelled - N and V, producing ASI +
NV.
Then she subtracts AV (American Versions) and is left with the letters
SIN.
Is that profound? What makes this especially ludicrous is the fact that
she uses NASV as her abbreviation for the New American Standard Bible only
in the equation. Throughout the rest of her book she refers to it as the
NASB!
An Irresponsible Book
Enough said? Not exactly, for you see, Riplinger's book is more than
foolish. It is also irresponsible. It is full of misquotes, and it
traffics in character assassination.
James White, a leading Christian apologist, sums up the book by saying, ".
. . New Age Bible Versions is not a nice book. It plainly and obviously
identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern Bible
versions . . . as not just non-Christians, but anti-Christians who . . .
want everyone to worship Lucifer." He goes on to point out that he has
only once or twice ever encountered a work that contained more
misrepresentations of facts and documentation.
Dave Hunt, another defender of the faith, states that Riplinger's writing
is "driven by a misleading style and loaded with contrived 'evidence.' She
starts off misrepresenting people and continues to do so throughout the
entire book . . ." Hunt further observes that "perhaps the most
reprehensible aspect of the book is its penchant for guilt by association,
and quite often that 'association' is contrived by the author."
The bottom line is that this book which is causing so much trouble in the
Church today is full of misrepresentations, distortions, and slander. It
is a mean-spirited, unscholarly, and petty attempt to defend the King
James Version as the only acceptable translation of the Bible. The King
James Version deserves a better defense.
Why the New Versions?
Actually, the King James Version does not need to be defended. It served
the English speaking peoples of the world very well for 300 years. But
with the advent of the 20th Century, it became increasingly clear that a
new English translation was needed. This was due to several factors, none
of which were related to any New Age conspiracy.
For one thing, many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament had been
discovered that were much older than the ones the King James Version was
based on. Also, thousands of other Greek language manuscripts dating from
the First Century had also been discovered, and these manuscripts gave
scholars a much better understanding of the meaning and nuances of Greek
words at the time the New Testament was written.
Perhaps most important was the fact that the English language had changed
drastically during the 300 years since 1611 when the King James Version
was produced. Reading "King James English" was becoming increasingly
difficult for English speaking people. Many words had changed in their
meaning, and some had come to mean exactly the opposite of their original
meaning.
The Modern Translations
To overcome these and other difficulties, many efforts have been launched
in this century to provide a more accurate and readable English
translation. The two most significant conservative translations thus far
produced are the New American Standard Bible and the New International
Version. Both are excellent. By "conservative" I mean they were produced
by scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
The NASB is more literal than the NIV and thus does not read as smoothly.
The NIV is a "dynamic" translation that attempts to communicate the
meaning of the text without necessarily using its precise language. To
portray these wonderful new translations as a devilish plot is a travesty,
and Riplinger needs to repent for having done so.
Even those who dearly love the King James Version have come to recognize
its inadequacies and its growing limitation to communicate clearly to
modern English speaking peoples. That's the reason a revision has been
recently produced that is called The New King James Version. It is also an
excellent modern translation.
Recommendations
I love the King James Version, and I thank God for it, but I use the New
American Standard Version in my teaching and preaching because I consider
it to be the most accurate.
In my study of the Word, I use all the versions I have discussed above
because I have found that the more versions I consult, the better I will
understand what I am reading. In addition, I often consult The Living
Bible Paraphrase. It is not a translation. Rather, it is what the title
says - a paraphrase, which means that it is like a commentary. I have
found it especially valuable in studying the Old Testament.
Two New Testament translations that I have found particularly helpful are
the ones by J.B. Phillips and David Stern. Phillip's translation, The New
Testament in Modern English, really brings the text alive and makes it
exciting reading. It came out in 1958. My parents gave me a copy as a high
school graduation present, and it revolutionized my attitude toward the
Bible. It made the Scriptures easy to read and understand, and I began
reading the Bible regularly for the first time in my life.
Stern's translation, called The Jewish New Testament, returns the book to
its Jewish roots, reviving the Jewish names and phrases. Consider this
familiar passage from Luke 1:26-31:
In the sixth month, the angel Gavri'el was sent by God to a city in the
Galil called Natzeret, to a virgin engaged to a man named Yosef, of the
house of David; the virgin's name was Miryam. Approaching her, the angel
said, "Shalom, favored lady! Adonai is with you! . . . Don't be afraid,
Miryam, for you have found favor with God. Look! You will become pregnant,
you will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua. He will be
great, he will be called Son of HaElyon . . .
Are all the modern translations okay? Of course not. There are some that
are an abomination because they were translated by non-evangelicals who do
not believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. But Riplinger's book does
not focus on these. Strangely enough, she focuses her attack on the two
most outstanding conservative translations, probably because they are the
ones that are challenging the use of the King James among Evangelicals.
Conclusions
Please keep in mind that the Bible was originally written in three
languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The King James Version is a
translation, and like all other translations, it has its strengths and
weaknesses. It is not perfect. No translation is. The original
"autographs" (as scholars call the original manuscripts) were inerrant,
but all the subsequent translations contain errors. The King James
translators admit this themselves in their introduction.
Modern Evangelical scholars are not Satanic ghouls who are trying to
"undermine" God's Word, They are sincerely trying to produce the most
faithful translation possible. If someone doesn't like what they produce,
then they should simply say so, but they have no right to attack their
motives or their character.
Interesting Bible Facts
. The first translation of the Bible based on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
was done by Jerome between 382 and 405 A.D. It became known as the Latin
Vulgate, and it served as the basic translation for all of Western
Civilization for over a thousand years, until the mid-1500's.
. Chapter divisions were developed in the 1200's by Stephen Langton,
Archbishop of Canterbery.
. Verse divisions were created in the 1500's by Robert Estienne, printer
to the King of France.
When the council of Nycia was formed for the purpose of taking all the
as you say "The original "autographs"(as scholars call the original
manuscripts) were called they were indeed inerrant, but also as you have
said "all the subsequent translations contain errors". The problem with
Koine Greek (most-often called New Testament Greek or Bible Greek), that
those "autographs" were translated into is that often translators did not
look very hard at the definitions for words before choosing out a "synonym"
to use. Worse, often the definitions for words were later redefined. This
problem is legion. I have tried to fleece these out through my studies and
have made references to them in my study notes, but I am sure a great many
have slyly stayed in, yet to be discovered. For example, I just recently
noticed that there is still a note by some single-minded theologian under
the term Christ, which implies that this royal title was "owned" exclusively
by Jesus, which is untrue, as this title had been passed on from regal
father to first-born regal son since the time of King David. Indeed,
Joseph, Jesus' father, was also a Davidic King; hence also a Christ.
Of course, there are also a lot of words that leave you scratching your
head. For example, in Luke 18:38, some poor man, filled with misery, is
bewailing, crying "Jesus, Offspring of David, mercy to me." He was quickly
rebuked by the multitude and told to keep the peace. The word used to
rebuke him is "epetimwn". This is translated in the King James Version (and
all others), variously as "rebuke", "charge", and "straightly charge".
However, the reason I am scratching my head is the definition for the word:
eprtimwn (epitimaw) Epitimao (ep-ee-tee-mah'-o) Strong's
Reference # 2008
Verb
1. To show honour to, to honour.
2. To raise the price of.
3. To adjudge, award, in the sense of merited penalty.
4. To tax with fault, rate, chide, rebuke, reprove, censure severely.
A. To admonish or charge sharply.
Notice the first word on the top row is how it is used within the actual
verse. Next, in parentheses, is its root word. Next to that is the
"Latinized" version of the Greek text, followed by a pronunciation guide.
The Strong's Number reference, for those who are not Bible students, is a
number assigned to each different word in the New and Old Covenant. Because
they are sequential, I use them as a handy study tool to index into a table
containing a further list of synonyms for my future reference while
studying. Below that is the word usage, such as Verb, Noun, Adjective, etc.
(sometimes this is blank). Last is the definition and how it is, or can be
used. I have yet to search out all the centuries-later-added redefinitions
of words.
Of 4 definitions given, it regards elevations, raising, and honoring, and
indeed to show honor (be careful with the third citation, because a penalty
was not just bad news). But somehow it acquired a fourth, very much darker
definition; of lowering, rebuking, and admonishing, and rather severely. If
it were left to me, I would simply drop definition 4 entirely. The ancient
mind in Judea was much more civil than it might be depicted in the cinema.
Beggars and the infirm were treated with utmost respect. This being the
case, it is likely that that this poor man was not rebuked, but rather
treated with respect and honor, and simply asked to keep the peace (be calm;
which the word "oiwpaw", translated to "keep the peace", also means). This
is actually one of those verses that, in reading the Greek on your own (or
as I do because of not reading Greek, I instead read using a Greek to
English study bible and for the OT I use a Hebrew to English), you begin to
see that they do not quite say what you read in your Bibles (the New
Testament is loaded with these; Acts and Romans will quite literally lift
you out of your chair).
Indeed, in considering such redefinitions, one has to also wonder how
the idea of an "Inn" was ever invented during the Gospel period and used in
the Good News of Luke (see Luke 2:7), because "Inns" did not exist in Judea.
The word for "common room" was mistranslated to "Inn", which simply meant
that there was no room in the common room of the house they were staying in
to put a feeding bin; the standard baby cradle for all of Judea, so they had
to place it elsewhere; likely in a private room. The popular "stable" did
not exist in Judea, except at Roman Garrisons, and sheep and donkeys and
goats were kept in wall-less overhead coverings or lean-tos (according to
Matthew, Jesus was born in a house, and the idea of a son of God being born
in a stable was introduced from Persian theology). Also, it was the duty of
every Jewish citizen to keep their doors open and a place at their tables
open for travelers, inviting any passing them by in as welcomed guests (it
was considered good luck to get such a wandering boarder, not to mention
feeding the needy), as is common to Jewish Charity (Love).
Another such example is the word for "Tax". In ancient times a "Tax" is not
how we view them today, but was instead a "Tithe" paid to the Temple to
support the Levite priests. Trivia: A publican was not a hated Roman tax
collector, but rather a hated Levite tithe collector, such as Mathew, who
was a Levite priest; a son of Ananias, and whose brother, Jonathan Annas,
who was maligned under this pseudonym in the New Covenant, is also known as
the Apostle Nathaniel. The people paid 10% of their income to the Temple,
which, once populations swelled, was making the priests incredibly rich.
Note also that Joseph Caiaphas was not actually the High Priest, but was
rather the "Public High Priest"; the public face of the actual High Priest
(a "Public High Priest" was an office held by the representative of the
Priestly Class); the actual High Priest was most-often too busy communing
with God to be the "face-man" for the common people.
Still another example is the many references to sheep and lambs, such as the
Greek word "erpeton". This word is actually used for any small four-legged
animal, and even for birds, but it would mean more so goats (not sheep) in
the majority of cases, and sometimes cattle (until after the Middle Ages,
cattle were no bigger than Great Danes), though again, it is never specific.
Indeed, it is my understanding that there is a version of the New Covenant
for some South Pacific islands where this word is translated to pigs,
because that is the only such small creature they specifically were familiar
with. Some people have condemned the translators for this, but the word is
actually general enough that such an interpretation is in fact valid. For
example, if eating sheep was thought to be so common, then where did the
"Sabbatical Goat" come from, and why was it not called a "Sabbatical Lamb"?
Trivia: Though many may associate the term "Sabbatical Goat" with
witchcraft; it actually comes from Judaism. A Sabbatical was the ancient,
original form of the Sabbath, taken by mystics, such as those following
Chapter 6 of the Book of Numbers, governing the Nazarite Order (note that
"Nazarite" is pronounced "Nazareth", but has nothing to do with the village
of Nazareth establish in the AD 60s to 70s; indeed, the term "Jesus of
Nazareth" more accurately translates to "Jesus the Nazarite"). While in
ascetic seclusion, they drank no wine or ate meat. When they took their
Sabbatical ("going out unto the world"), they shaved their long hair and
beard, and feasted on a goat, or some other small four-legged animal or bird
that would fall under the general "erpeton" term.
Yet another favorite example is the fact that the New Covenant seems to be
filled with references to "eat"; they sat down to meat, they ate meat, they
were fed meat, etc. Even though the people of Judea were by no means
vegetarians, the plain fact was that meat was a really expensive commodity,
and was reserved for celebrations and such. Further, as you dig through the
Greek text with this application, you are going to find that all (well,
maybe a couple might slip by, such as Jesus eating broiled fish) references
to "meat" actually simply reference food, or more specifically, to
unleavened bread, which was the main course at dining tables. In fairness,
this is not to say that they sometimes did in fact eat meat, but there is no
sure way of knowing. However, with an understanding of its great expense
and scarcity, chances are strongly in favor of it being bread. Just because
it is simply stated as food, we cannot really assume anything, though bread
with honeycomb, goat milk, and sometimes fish was the more common fare.
But a more disturbing problem is willful mistranslation, where the word is
very straightforward, but a cited example of doing this, which could have
actually been anything, is instead used as the translation.
A particularly important example of this problem is the word "Sugkomizo".
It is the first word in Acts 8:2, and regards Stephen, who had been attacked
by some bestial ruffians with Saul of Tarsus. Here is its definition as
displayed within the program's definitions panel, below:
sunekomisan (sugkomizw) Sugkomizo (soong-kom-id'-zo) Strong's
Reference # 4792
Verb
1. To carry or bring together, to collect.
A. To house crops, gather into granaries.
2. To carry with others, help in carrying out, ie., such as the dead to be
buried or burned.
I like this particular word, Sugkomizo, because it actually simply cites
that something is being collected; nothing more. One example shown is that
it can be used when describing that a corpse should be taken to be buried
and burned, though this act in using this word is not implied nor is it an
explicit indication; it simply cites it as an example, much like one might
offer an example of say, some people carrying someone to the hospital, which
can just as easily indicate that Stephen was carried off to safety, as there
is never any explicit mention of him dying (only of falling asleep; meaning
that he passed out, in Acts 7:60). The tradition of a murder incident
(inaccurately "sanitized" to "death") was only a tradition that many
centuries later grew up around the story. The assumption by Paul that the
Crowned pious man (Stephen; "the Crowned"; an epitaph given by the Hebrew
faction to the one they recognized as their Divine/Royal Highness - Greek
"Ha Rama Theo") was murdered is clearly demonstrated in the equally valid
Acts period book, The Recognitions of Clement, where we quickly learn, as
obviously Saul also later learned, that he had not in fact murdered him.
Clement reported that Saul himself had actually committed this crime, and
that "Stephen", the "Crowned", was in fact James, the brother of Jesus (and
no, he was not a half-brother; that was a later-invented Church tradition
that has absolutely no foundation in any facts). Since James did not die in
this incident in 37 AD (actually dying in 82 AD in Glastonbury, Britain,
even though he was wrongfully excommunicated (called being put to death) in
62 AD), then obviously he had, as Acts 7:60 clearly reports, passed out.
See Clement 1:70 in that book for details (one web site is
www.compassionatespirit.com/Recognitions-and-Homilies-home.htm). It was not
included in the Bible canon because Clement did not like Paul at all (let
alone Simon Zealot or Martha, who he called Simon Magus (the Wise Man) and
Helena).
Regardless of this debate, traditional translations "assume" that it means
that a corpse is to be buried, though if this were the case, such a burial
would have to have been explicitly stated in the Greek text. But it was
not. Indeed, the word that WOULD have been used if they were indeed
carrying off a corpse to bury it; would be ""ekferw", which means to carry
out or bear forth the dead to be buried. Of course, this word also means to
bring forth produce from buried plants (like potatoes and turnips).
However, in an understanding of the spiritual mind 2000 years ago - which it
seems often surpasses our present understanding - this makes perfect sense.
This is also one of my favorite verses (of hundreds) that are not translated
anything like what the ACTUAL Greek text states, and which you now have the
opportunity of finding for yourself. Also, because verses as we know them
were artificial academic inventions created in 1551, they sometimes break a
sentence up when it should not be; this would be like breaking a sentence up
in a place where punctuation would not normally be placed. I will
demonstrate this with Acts 8:1 and 8:2, below.
Here are both verses in Greek, consecutively:
sauloV de hn suneudokwn th anairesei autou egeneto de en ekeinh th hmera
diwgmoV megaV epi thn ekklhsian thn en ierosolumoiV panteV de diesparhsan
kata taV cwraV thV ioudaiaV kai samareiaV plhn twn apostolwn sunekomisan de
ton stefanon andreV eulabeiV kai epoihsan kopeton megan ep autw
Below is the King James Version translation of these two verses:
And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great
persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all
scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the
apostles. And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great
lamentation over him.
However, below is the Direct Translation of this Greek text in its actual
Greek word order:
[Saul] [moreover] [was] [pleased(s)] [with this] [murder] [of him]
[becoming] [also] [on] [that] [the] [day] [a persecution] [great(s)] [upon]
[the] [congregation] [that] [is in] [Jerusalem(s)] [all] [also] [scattered
abroad] [across(s)] [those(s)] [region(s)] [of] [Judaea] [and] [Samaria]
[nevertheless] [these(s)] [apostle(s)] [collected] [then] [that]
[Stephen(s)] [men] [pious(s)] [also] [made] [lamentation(s)] [great] [in
regard to] [him].
Now, you tell me what these verses really say (notice also the "That The"
spoken about earlier, which means "That Very"). Notice also that the plural
Jerusalem is valid. This was done because the Romans were actively hunting
down and killing members of the Jerusalem(s) Church, especially after 61 AD,
and most especially after 70 AD, and so their books hid these specifics
behind "general" references. Note also that "lamentation" does not strictly
mean mourning a death, but rather a show of emotion, as someone might do
when their friend, leader, or child had been unjustly beaten severely.
Notes on "Missing" Greek Verses.
You are going to find a number of verses that are actually missing within
Greek text. It is not that these verses are truly missing; it is simply
that they never existed, or were added from the fourth to the eighth
century, and are therefore invalid and are nothing more than corruptions of
the text. The following table lists all these verses (this list may yet
expand as copies of text closer to the originals are unearthed). Notice
that verses that are marked with a trailing asterisk indicate those verses
that had never existed at all in any Greek texts, not even the ones the King
James Version of the Bible was drawn from:
Matthew.
9:34, 12:47, 16:3, 17:21 *, 18:11 *, 21:44, and 23:14 *.
Mark.
7:16 *, 9:44 *, 9:46 *, 11:26 *, 15:28 *, and 16:9 thru 16:20.
Luke.
5:39, 12:21, 17:36 *, 22:20 (also delete all text after "this is my body"
from 22:19), 22:43, 22:44, 22:62, 23:17 *, 24:12, and 24:40.
John.
5:4 *, 7:53, 8:1 thru 8:11, and 21:25.
Acts.
8:37 *, 15:34 *, 19:41, 24:7 *, and 28:29 *.
Romans.
16:24 *, 16:25 thru 16:27.
I smile at the fact that John 7:53, and John 8:1 through 8:11 are
ecclesiastic additions to the text. This text was added to express the
Pauline concept of sin and repentance, which Jesus never actually taught,
rather teaching about illusion and enlightenment. But regardless, this
insertion tells the story of a young woman who was apparently caught in
adultery and was taken to Jesus to get his view on law and punishment. It
is an odd insertion anyway, because Jesus is talking to everyone; then
suddenly for no explained reason in 7:53 everyone just suddenly stops, packs
up and leaves. Then, 8:1 through 8:11 tells this little adultery story.
Then, beginning in 8:12, suddenly we are whisked right back to a
continuation of the same cast of characters and the same conversation that
had been carried through 7:52. The thing that burns me is that these verses
had been KNOWN to have been added for quite some time, but it was still
taught as "Gospel"; not to mention the fact that this woman was falsely
attributed to being Mary Magdalene, basing this assumption upon not even the
most meager of proof whatsoever. Trivia: "Stoning" and "Throwing Stones" is
more accurately translated to "Casting Stones". The practice of the day
(and still done in Masonic Lodges), is to vote by placing a small smooth
pebble into an urn to vote on excommunication, public ridicule, whipping, to
even death by cutting or pulling them in half (a particularly brutal
punishment my Jewish ancestors practiced; this is normally "sanitized" in
English Bible translations as being called "severely scourged" - I'd say
that was an understatement! This is not to mention that "smiting" is
actually defined as "flaying or skinning someone", though to smite someone
on the face is to strike them with a great deal of strength - maybe akin to
figuratively "knocking their face off"). This practice of casting stones
(or more accurately pebbles) is where we get our word for Ballot; from Greek
ballw ("Ballo"); to caste. Contrary to popular belief, Jews could condemn a
person to death as well as carry out this capital sentence with full
blessings from Rome; and without the need to notify them of this judgment,
except as a courtesy.
All I can say is, as you progress though this great book of ethics and
beauty, you are going to see a whole new story; richer, grander, more
moving, and more inspiring that the tweaked and edited versions of this
glorious collection of books that you have previously been stuck with
reading.
Conclusion.
This is the really fantastic thing about being able to sit down and
really read the New Covenant, because the story they *actually* tell is much
more moving, much more inspiring, and much more all-inclusive than what most
laymen could imagine. It will also make you sometimes stand up right out of
your chair. Next time someone tells you that the bible says this or that do
*NOT* take their word for it! instead look it up *FOR YOUR SELF*; because
after all are you willing to place the fate of your soul for all eternity in
the hands of someone else? Because if you don't read it for yourself how
are you to know if what they are telling you is actually in the bible or
not? After all they likewise may have been *told* what the bible says and
for generations back maybe just like the common error of thinking that there
were only 2 of each animal on the ark what you are being told the bible says
may not be correct.
--
From the Desk of Paul CKC
............ /}
@###{ ]::::::Cyber Knight for Christ::::::>
-------- \}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl" |
|
| Title: Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible? |
01 Jan 2008 09:00:42 PM |
|
|
KJV-Onlyism is somewhat of a goofy group with errors so outrageous that most
all rational individuals see their error, but they are so self-deceived, the
prime proponents like Ruckman, Marrs, Riplinger, Cloud, Waite, Chick, Hyles,
Chambers, Beebe, Gipp, Bynum and other individuals holding to this erroneous
dogma of King James Onlyism. David Reagan wrote the following some time back
in response to Riplinger's nonsense that she has never been able to defend
publicly and in open, structured debate.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?
by Dr. David R. Reagan
A controversy of immense silliness has recently broken out among
Evangelicals regarding the validity of modern, conservative translations of
the Bible like the New American Standard, the New International, and the New
King James. The controversy was ignited by a book written by Gail Riplinger
entitled New Age Bible Versions.
The only thing sillier than the controversy is the book that sparked it.
Remember the old joke? - "If the King James Version was good enough for the
Apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me!" Well, Riplinger tries to
convert the joke into gospel.
A Ridiculous Thesis
Her thesis is that the King James Version is the one and only pure
translation (in any language!) and that all the new translations that have
flooded the market in recent years (including the most conservative) are
part of a Satanic, New Age conspiracy to undermine the deity of Jesus and
the credibility of God's Word.
The book is mean-spirited and vicious in its attacks upon the godly
evangelical scholars who labored so hard to produce the modern versions, not
to undermine the Word, but to make it more understandable to the average
reader.
Unfortunately the book has spawned an army of Riplinger disciples who feel
it is their god-ordained duty to go forth and purify the Church by demanding
the exclusive use of the King James Version. Picking up on their mentor's
divisive spirit, they are labeling as heretics all fellow Christians and
Christian leaders who prefer to use some version other than the King James.
To illustrate how insane this silliness has become, consider a recent
article that appeared in the newsletter of one of Riplinger's most
enthusiastic supporters, a prophecy teacher by the name of Texe Marrs.
Calling the new conservative translations "unholy" and "grotesque," he
proceeded to condemn four leading prophecy teachers because they refused to
endorse Riplinger's book and join with him in certifying the King James
Version as the only reliable translation. The four he condemned as
"misguided leaders" and "false witnesses" were Dave Hunt, Peter LaLonde,
Arno Froese, and John Ankerberg. Two of these, Hunt and Ankerberg, happen to
be among the leading defenders of the Christian faith today!
Even more incredible is the fact that all four men use the King James
Version in their preaching and teaching - and Marrs knows that they do!
Still, they must be condemned as heretics because they refuse to denounce
the "Satanic, New Age" versions.
An Exercise in Foolishness
Another thing that makes all this so tragic is that it would be very
difficult to find a book that is more foolish than the one Riplinger has
written.
To begin with, she has no credentials for writing the book. On the back
cover, the book declares that she has the B.A., M.A., and M.F.A. degrees and
has done additional post-graduate work at Harvard and Cornell. What the book
does not tell you is that all these degrees are in the field of interior
design! Throughout the book, she pontificates on the meaning of various
Greek and Hebrew words and texts, when the truth is that she cannot read
either language!
The result, again, is silliness gone to seed. For example, she claims the
new translations try to identify Jesus with Satan, and she bases this absurd
claim on the fact that the new translations remove the name "Lucifer" from
Isaiah 14:12, replacing it with a term that refers to Jesus.
Let's consider this argument for a moment. The King James and New American
Standard versions read as follows:
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou
cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! - KJV
How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You
have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! - NASB
As you can see, the NASB, like all modern translations, deletes any
reference to Lucifer. Instead, the modern translations refer to "the shining
one" or "the morning star." Since Jesus refers to Himself in Revelation
22:16 as "the bright morning star," Riplinger jumps to the conclusion that
the modern translations have substituted Jesus for Satan!
What she seems to be totally unaware of is that the word, Lucifer, is not in
the Hebrew text. It comes, instead, from the Latin Vulgate translation where
it was used by Jerome because it is the Latin word for morning star or
Venus.
Nonsense "Mathematics"
The height of Riplinger's foolishness comes when she presents a bizarre
invention of her imagination called "acrostic algebra." You have to see it
to believe it (http://www.lamblion.com/images/1999/0913-1.gif).
In step one she "subtracts" NIV from NASV and comes up with ASI. Then she
adds back the two letters that were cancelled - N and V, producing ASI + NV.
Then she subtracts AV (American Versions) and is left with the letters SIN.
Is that profound? What makes this especially ludicrous is the fact that she
uses NASV as her abbreviation for the New American Standard Bible only in
the equation. Throughout the rest of her book she refers to it as the NASB!
An Irresponsible Book
Enough said? Not exactly, for you see, Riplinger's book is more than
foolish. It is also irresponsible. It is full of misquotes, and it traffics
in character assassination.
James White, a leading Christian apologist, sums up the book by saying, ". .
.. New Age Bible Versions is not a nice book. It plainly and obviously
identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern Bible
versions . . . as not just non-Christians, but anti-Christians who . . .
want everyone to worship Lucifer." He goes on to point out that he has only
once or twice ever encountered a work that contained more misrepresentations
of facts and documentation.
Dave Hunt, another defender of the faith, states that Riplinger's writing is
"driven by a misleading style and loaded with contrived 'evidence.' She
starts off misrepresenting people and continues to do so throughout the
entire book . . ." Hunt further observes that "perhaps the most
reprehensible aspect of the book is its penchant for guilt by association,
and quite often that 'association' is contrived by the author."
The bottom line is that this book which is causing so much trouble in the
Church today is full of misrepresentations, distortions, and slander. It is
a mean-spirited, unscholarly, and petty attempt to defend the King James
Version as the only acceptable translation of the Bible. The King James
Version deserves a better defense.
Why the New Versions?
Actually, the King James Version does not need to be defended. It served the
English speaking peoples of the world very well for 300 years. But with the
advent of the 20th Century, it became increasingly clear that a new English
translation was needed. This was due to several factors, none of which were
related to any New Age conspiracy.
For one thing, many Greek manuscripts of the New Testament had been
discovered that were much older than the ones the King James Version was
based on. Also, thousands of other Greek language manuscripts dating from
the First Century had also been discovered, and these manuscripts gave
scholars a much better understanding of the meaning and nuances of Greek
words at the time the New Testament was written.
Perhaps most important was the fact that the English language had changed
drastically during the 300 years since 1611 when the King James Version was
produced. Reading "King James English" was becoming increasingly difficult
for English speaking people. Many words had changed in their meaning, and
some had come to mean exactly the opposite of their original meaning.
The Modern Translations
To overcome these and other difficulties, many efforts have been launched in
this century to provide a more accurate and readable English translation.
The two most significant conservative translations thus far produced are the
New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. Both are
excellent. By "conservative" I mean they were produced by scholars who
believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
The NASB is more literal than the NIV and thus does not read as smoothly.
The NIV is a "dynamic" translation that attempts to communicate the meaning
of the text without necessarily using its precise language. To portray these
wonderful new translations as a devilish plot is a travesty, and Riplinger
needs to repent for having done so.
Even those who dearly love the King James Version have come to recognize its
inadequacies and its growing limitation to communicate clearly to modern
English speaking peoples. That's the reason a revision has been recently
produced that is called The New King James Version. It is also an excellent
modern translation.
Recommendations
I love the King James Version, and I thank God for it, but I use the New
American Standard Version in my teaching and preaching because I consider it
to be the most accurate.
In my study of the Word, I use all the versions I have discussed above
because I have found that the more versions I consult, the better I will
understand what I am reading. In addition, I often consult The Living Bible
Paraphrase. It is not a translation. Rather, it is what the title says - a
paraphrase, which means that it is like a commentary. I have found it
especially valuable in studying the Old Testament.
Two New Testament translations that I have found particularly helpful are
the ones by J.B. Phillips and David Stern. Phillip's translation, The New
Testament in Modern English, really brings the text alive and makes it
exciting reading. It came out in 1958. My parents gave me a copy as a high
school graduation present, and it revolutionized my attitude toward the
Bible. It made the Scriptures easy to read and understand, and I began
reading the Bible regularly for the first time in my life.
Stern's translation, called The Jewish New Testament, returns the book to
its Jewish roots, reviving the Jewish names and phrases. Consider this
familiar passage from Luke 1:26-31:
In the sixth month, the angel Gavri'el was sent by God to a city in the
Galil called Natzeret, to a virgin engaged to a man named Yosef, of the
house of David; the virgin's name was Miryam. Approaching her, the angel
said, "Shalom, favored lady! Adonai is with you! . . . Don't be afraid,
Miryam, for you have found favor with God. Look! You will become pregnant,
you will give birth to a son, and you are to name him Yeshua. He will be
great, he will be called Son of HaElyon . . .
Are all the modern translations okay? Of course not. There are some that are
an abomination because they were translated by non-evangelicals who do not
believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures. But Riplinger's book does not
focus on these. Strangely enough, she focuses her attack on the two most
outstanding conservative translations, probably because they are the ones
that are challenging the use of the King James among Evangelicals.
Conclusions
Please keep in mind that the Bible was originally written in three
languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The King James Version is a
translation, and like all other translations, it has its strengths and
weaknesses. It is not perfect. No translation is. The original "autographs"
(as scholars call the original manuscripts) were inerrant, but all the
subsequent translations contain errors. The King James translators admit
this themselves in their introduction.
Modern Evangelical scholars are not Satanic ghouls who are trying to
"undermine" God's Word, They are sincerely trying to produce the most
faithful translation possible. If someone doesn't like what they produce,
then they should simply say so, but they have no right to attack their
motives or their character.
Interesting Bible Facts
.. The first translation of the Bible based on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
was done by Jerome between 382 and 405 A.D. It became known as the Latin
Vulgate, and it served as the basic translation for all of Western
Civilization for over a thousand years, until the mid-1500's.
.. Chapter divisions were developed in the 1200's by Stephen Langton,
Archbishop of Canterbery.
.. Verse divisions were created in the 1500's by Robert Estienne, printer to
the King of France.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
|
| Title: Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect crock of crap Translation Of The Bible? |
01 Jan 2008 08:17:11 PM |
|
|
it's a PERFECT CROCK OF CRAP, I will grant you that
hey dumbass christian retard, why are there so many translations of "god's
word?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
