What is wrong with this passage?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
Mattfivefour

I was posting my last post, just as I noticed your very long and very detailed post. I have now read through it all. I plan to pray and read through it again before really commenting.

I would like to say, my brother, Thank you! I know how long it takes to research and pull together information. You have seriously written a very intelligent and thoughtful response to each and every one of my proposed verses. Your integrity for God's Word just shines through. And for the first time in over 5 months I feel that I may soon have peace on this subject. However, and I say this not to be contentious, but because I want as many of those heart issues settled, that I still have questions on some of these verses and will address them individually in following posts.

In General, though, I do have questions about your resources, as to identity, not veracity. I assume they came from multiple locations. Some I can assume, like a Strong's concordance, but on the history of words, is there just a few sources or do they come from many? The reason I ask is that I have a limited library and a small budget for expansion, but if many of my questions could at least be researched further on my own, then I would consider purchasing them.

Another general question, where can I find truthful information about the parameters that King James and his translators set as guidelines for the Original 1611 and the later authorized 1769. For the original, didn't the King request that they keep the names of the prophets and writers to be retained to what they are "vulgarly" used. To me, this meaning includes consistency, but perhaps that is not the meaning. Is there a known list of the changes at least in kind if not specifically from the 1611 to the 1769? Or at least from the 1769 to what shows online as 1900?

Gratefully yours
 
Last edited:

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
BTW - I am aware of the Oxford English Dictionary and wish I could use it. Is this available for free at libraries - I live in a rural community and our libraries are small? Larger libraries require traveling 30-75 miles. I don't want just a little paperback, but something with teeth. The online Oxford costs $90 a year. I wish they would offer that more like a set (or software) where you pay a fee just once and then smaller fees for updates (or upgrades).
 

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
As I was re-reading past posts from Mattfivefour and others I came to (edited to say - it led me to search the website got questions) these two articles from gotquestions.org which help to prove your point and not mine. I will post both here. I am looking for answers and I just want to share that I did indeed get some from this source. Not all....but some :) It did give me some additional resources at the end of each article.

What is the King James Version (KJV)?
https://www.gotquestions.org/King-James-Version-KJV.html

Question: "What is the King James Version (KJV)?"

King James Version - History
In 1604, King James I of England authorized a new translation of the Bible into English to be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). In the preface to the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, or King James Version, state that is was not their purpose “to make a new translation . . . but to make a good one better.” The King James Version quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants. Its flowing language and prose rhythms have had a profound influence on the literature of the past 400 years.

King James Version - Translation method
The King James translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.

King James Version - Pro’s and Con’s
For nearly 400 years, and through several revisions of the original, the King James Version has been deeply revered by English-speaking peoples worldwide, not only for the precision of the translation from the original languages, but for the beauty and majesty of the style, which has greatly influenced literature for centuries.

Unfortunately, much avoidable dissension among Christians occurs about the use of the King James Version. While many people claim that the KJV is the only “true” translation, rarely are they actually in possession of the 1611 Authorized Version of the KJV. Rather, they have the more readable 1769 version. The difference between the two becomes clear when comparing passages from the two versions. For example, 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 in the 1611 version is as follows:

“Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.”

The 1769 version, on the other hand, is much more readable and understandable:

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

Furthermore, in addition to the more readable character of the 1769 edition, further translations into modern English have proved invaluable for millions. Modern translations such as the New King James Version, the Modern King James Version, and the 21st Century King James Version have removed the confusing “thee’s” and “thou’s” and “-eth” verb endings, while still remaining true to the texts and retaining the beauty of the language.

King James Version - Sample Verses
John 1:1,14 – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

John 8:58 – “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

Ephesians 2:8-9 – “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Titus 2:13 – “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”




What are some English words that have changed in meaning since the translation of the KJV?
https://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-words.html


Question: "What are some English words that have changed in meaning since the translation of the KJV?"

Answer: The King James Version of the Bible has been a great blessing to millions of people. Its publication in 1611 was a landmark event, giving English speakers everywhere the ability to read Scripture for themselves and to understand what they were reading. Today, some churches assert that the Authorized, or King James Version (KJV), is the only authentic English Bible. While we respect their decision to use the KJV, we do not agree that it is the only—or even the best—translation to use. The vocabulary used in the KJV is a seventeenth-century vocabulary, and some KJV words can perplex modern readers.

The King James Version is an elegant piece of literature, but one of its difficulties is that the meanings of many words have changed in the four hundred years since it was first published. This, of course, is no fault of the translation; it is just a fact that languages change over time. Some KJV words no longer mean what they used to; other KJV words have fallen out of usage altogether.

The language of the KJV is Early Modern English—the language of Shakespeare’s plays. It is still readable today, but it does differ from today’s English. Many of the KJV’s distinctives are endearing to some, such as the use of thee and thou (thee and thou are simply singular forms of ye and you, which were always plural in Early Modern English). Other KJV words and expressions are simply quaint—does Numbers 23:22 really refer to a “unicorn”? There are some KJV words, however, that can cause believers more serious problems when they read the text. Here are some clarifications of a few KJV words:

Replenish. In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam and Eve to “replenish” the earth. Many readers are confused by this KJV word, thinking it means the earth was formerly inhabited and that Adam and Eve’s descendants would replace an original, extinct race of humans. The Hebrew word male' actually meant “to fill completely,” not “to refill.”

In 1611, the English meaning (now archaic) of replenish was “to supply fully.” The re- does not mean “again,” as we might think. In this case, it is an intensive prefix; that is, it adds a sense of urgency to the verb. So the KJV word replenish could be defined as “to fill with urgency and enthusiasm.”

Closet. Matthew 6:6 contains another KJV word that needs some explanation. Jesus speaks of entering one’s “closet” to pray, and it’s not uncommon these days to hear someone speak of a “prayer closet.” This does not mean we have to pray in a clothes closet or a linen cupboard. The Greek tameion meant “an inner chamber, a secret room, or a storage room.” It is not wrong to say the original Greek could have referred to a bedroom.

Our word closet is derived from the French clos, which merely meant “a private room”—a room that is “closed off.” So there’s no need to kneel among the extra shoes with hanging trousers draped over your shoulders in order to pray. Any private space will do.

Compel. In Acts 26:11, Paul admits that, before he was converted, he “compelled” believers to blaspheme Jesus Christ. To us, this KJV word sounds like he convinced them and they gave in. However, the Greek anagkazo is not so strong. Compelled means only he “threatened, begged, and pushed” them to blaspheme, but it does not mean that he succeeded. Early Christians were tougher than that.

The 1611 definition of compelled was based on the original Latin and French: to “compel” was to “drive together.” So Paul put pressure on the early Christians, attempting to “drive” them toward his goal. Associating compel with an “irresistible force” was not common until the early 1900s—fully 300 years after the KJV words were chosen by the translators commissioned by King James.

Conversation. The KJV word conversation is almost immediately associated today with “talking,” but neither the Hebrew derek in Psalm 37:14 nor the Greek anastrophe in Ephesians 4:22 refers to verbal communication. The Hebrew word actually means “a road,” and both the Hebrew and Greek make reference to one’s manner of life or the character one displays through life. It’s not that our speech shouldn’t be godly, but these verses specifically address our manner of interacting with people.

The obsolete definition of conversation is “conduct or behavior,” and this is the sense the KJV translators had in mind. The French conversation and the Latin conversationem have always referred to the way in which someone lives with others.

Cousin. In Luke 1:36 the KJV wording refers to Elizabeth as Mary’s “cousin.” It’s been a puzzle for years—how closely related were Elizabeth and Mary? The Greek suggenes means “kin” or, possibly, “someone from the same area or country.”

The KJV word cousin, as interpreted by most modern readers, seems to mean that Mary and Elizabeth were daughters of siblings. But that’s not what the word cousin used to mean. In Early Modern English, cousin commonly had a much broader meaning than just “child of one’s aunt or uncle.” In fact, a “cousin” could be anyone outside of one’s immediate family. In Shakespeare’s As You Like It, Duke Frederick calls Rosalind “cousin,” even though she is actually his niece. So what was the exact family relation between Mary and Elizabeth? We don’t know.

There are many other examples of KJV words that have changed meaning through the years. When Jesus was surrounded by “doctors” in Luke 2:46, we are to understand He was sitting in the midst of “teachers.” The “bewitchment” of Galatians 3:1 is a “leading astray.” The “carriages” of Acts 21:15 we would call “luggage.” When the mob was “instant” in Luke 23:23, they were being “urgent” or “insistent.” Those who speak “leasing” in Psalm 5:6 are actually speaking “deceit” or “falsehood.” When Jesus spoke of what was “meet” in Mark 7:27, He referred to what was “fitting” or “proper.”

Using the King James Version of the Bible is fine as long as readers are careful to know the vocabulary used. It takes further study to learn the archaic, obsolete, and defunct meanings of many KJV words. Inductive study and a good dictionary will help prevent misunderstandings from creeping into our interpretation of Scripture.
 
Last edited:

Kenny64

Well-Known Member
BTW - I am aware of the Oxford English Dictionary and wish I could use it. Is this available for free at libraries - I live in a rural community and our libraries are small? Larger libraries require traveling 30-75 miles. I don't want just a little paperback, but something with teeth. The online Oxford costs $90 a year. I wish they would offer that more like a set (or software) where you pay a fee just once and then smaller fees for updates (or upgrades).

online is free. https://www.oed.com/ I'd think most anything you really need is online today.
 

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
I am going to take the rest of the day just to pray on this and not comment. Every time I think of the many who are praying for me, it makes me weep. The Lord is doing something for me here. Keep praying. I just told my husband that I think I have been wrong about all of this. I still have some doubts, but they are far fewer than before.

I will be busy tomorrow and because of my fibro I may not feel up to much of any exertion on Tuesday. So don't think that I'm just abandoning this discussion.
 

Andy C

Well-Known Member
Lora, my sister, I agree with those who have said your passion for the Word of God is admirable. That is why I have taken the time to address every one of your concerns. Here they are compiled into a list, with my responses after each point you raise. I pray the Holy Spirit speaks to you as you read. I do not want to see you in such agony of mind over the security of the written Word of God any longer.

You write:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In every version but the KJV it is plural. Yet, I remember even the KJV originally saying "heavens". Am I alone here? I have a KJV that is over 100 years old and it says "heaven
".


I dealt with this in my first response. Whether a person says I look up to “heaven” or up to “the heavens” is immaterial: they are simply saying they are looking upward. The use of the word הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם haš-šā-ma-yim in Genesis 1:1 clearly refers to the universe (as separate from the earth) and therefore it does not matter whether it is translated as a singular or plural noun. The fact is that the use of the singular noun “heaven” is used in ALL the oldest Jewish translations of the Bible into English, despite the Hebrew actually being in the plural form. But since both singular and plural refer to the entire universe and not to God’s dwelling place, there is no problem or change here. Both singular and plural have been used for centuries.

------------

Matt 9:17 (KJV)
Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

First of all, bottles does not make sense as they don't break no matter if it is old or new wine.

Second, I distinctly remember this as "wineskins."


The word bottle first appeared in English in the mid-14th century. It referred to a hollow container with a narrow neck, used for holding liquids, especially wine. The first “bottles” were made of leather. Hence, the original bottles were in fact “wineskins” but were called “bottles”. The translation of the Greek ἀσκός therefore was originally “bottle” (hence the use of that word in the KJV.) Since today a “bottle” refers to a glass container, modern translations use the descriptive word “wineskins” which accurately conveys the original meaning and so allows that saying of Jesus to make sense to us..

------------

Unicorn occurs 6 times in the KJV and unicorns occurs 3. I believe it should say wild ox.
Numbers 23:22 God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.


Andy has already answered this. Never did the translators of the KJV refer to a mythical creature. Rather, relying heavily on Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation, they simply saw that he had translated the Hebrew רְאֵם as “unicornus” and not knowing to what it referred (they lacked our knowledge of ancient species) simply transliterated it into English as “unicorn.” Now we can’t fault poor old Jerome because his unicornus was an accurate translation of the Greek μονόκερος (monokeros) which literally means "one horned." Jerome, lacking the knowledge of ancient species that we now have, simply mistranslated the word as “unicorn“. We now know that the Hebrew word רְאֵם actually refers to an extinct wild ox called an auroch.

------------

Corn
instead of wheat or grains of wheat. Corn occurs in the KJV 102 times. Corn wasn't even discovered until early American history.


I am afraid you are wrong here in thinking the word corn refers to Indian corn. The English word corn comes from the old Saxon word korn and the Gothic kaurn which simply meant “grain”. It could refer to wheat, oats or rye. In the past couple hundred years we have come to specify what type of grain we are referring to. As a result maize which was originally called “Indian corn” lost its adjective and became known simply as corn.

------------

Check out Revelation 7 in the KJV.

Tribe Names
Rev 7:6
Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

Should be Asher, Nephtali and Manasseh.

Rev 7:8
Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

Should be Zebulon.


The KJV often mangled Hebrew words. But there is no doubt as to whom the various names referred. And your “should be” phrases are rather presumptuous since the vowels are far from certain in the original Hebrew. And, in the Greek, the words are written with the vowels exactly as the KJV has them, not as you or the modern translations have them. So, respectfully, you are wrong in saying there have been unwarranted changes.

------------

There are two potential changes that I believe have happened or are going to happen in the NASB.

The first one I believe has happened in Hebrews 9:4. Although everywhere else in the NASB, the word "tablets" is used to describe the 10 commandments written on stone. However, in this one verse, it (now) says "tables". I have a commentary on Hebrews written by Steven Ger, in which in the commentary it says "tablets". It should be noted that his work primarily uses the NASB. I have also sent an inquiry to him as well.

Heb 9:4 (NASB)

having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;



Sorry, again you are mistaken. The word “table” as used in the KJV simply refers to a flat slab on which there is writing, from the late Old English tabele which refers to a writing board. You think of table as being a piece of furniture with a flat top and legs. Back in the 1600’s, however, that was still commonly referred to as a “board” not a “table” (although the use of table for an eating surface was beginning to take over from the Old English bord.) So “table” and “tablet” both accuratelay refer to exactly the same thing.

------------

The second subject seems about to take place and is found in Genesis 40. In the KJV, all references to "cupbearer" now say "butler". In my NASB Ryrie Study Bible (copyrighted 1976, 1978) the passages still say "cupbearer", however, the heading now says "Joseph Interprets the Dreams of the Butler and the Baker"

Respectfully, another piece of misinformation. The original KJV used the word “butler” and not “cupbearer”. The fact is that back then the word butler did not refer to the head of a household staff but rather simpl;y to the chief servant in charge of the wine. It appeared in English first in the mid-1200’s, coming from the Anglo-Norman French butillier which itself came from the Old French boteillier. “Cupbearer” is a more a modern translation of the word and certainly more accurate since it does not create the mistaken image of someone in a tux and white gloves supervising a household.

------------

Words were “changed” – corn, unicorn, bottles.

I have already shown this to be incorrect.

------------

Words were missing – Sanhedrin, animals.

Sorry, but I am not sure where or to what you are referring here. But in my knowledge of Scripture, the use of a word that explains the Sanhedrin was the ruling Jewish council rather than using the word "Sanhedrin" does not constitute some underhanded change. It simply helps the reader understand what was going on during whateveer events were being discussed in the text. The changing of animal names simply reflects the fact that, through modeern scientific knowledge that was not available to people hundreds of years ago, we have a much better understanding of the meaning of the original Hebrew names for animals.

------------

Modern words were used – tires (invented in 1839 AD), passengers (1915 AD), college (1636 AD).

Not true. The word “tires” (originally spelled “tyres”) first appeared in the late 1400’s and referred to the iron surface of a carriage wheel. The word “passenger” (originally spelled “passager”) appeared in the early 1300’s and referred to passers-by. The “n” was added in the early 1400’s (when it was also added to many other words such as “messenger” and “scavenger”) and first appears as referring to a person travelling in a vehicle or vessel in 1510. The word “college” first gain common use in the late 1300’s where it originally referred to an organized association of people who had certain powers and rights or were engaged in some common duty or pursuit.”

------------

Names were “changing” – Aser (Asher), Juda (Judah), Nebuchadrezzer (Nebachadnezzar), Booz (Boaz)
Names were not consistent from the OT to the NT (although not incorrect) – Noah (Noe), Elijah (Elias), Hosea (Osee), Melchizedek (Melchisedec).
Names in the NT were “different” – Timetheous (Timothy), John Baptist (John the Baptist), Joses (John).


I have dealt with this issue earlier. Names have NOT been changed. There is only either a 17th century misunderstanding of Hebrew vowels, or normal differences in translating from one language and system of writing to another quite different alphabet and language.

------------

Men can nurse children – Isa 49:23 (your foster fathers),

That is not what the original Hebrew says, but it is what the original KJV says. The Hebrew says that kings will “support” or “nourish” the children and their princesses (or “noble ladies”) will “suckle” them. Unfortunately, Jerome in his Latin Vulgate (and I repeat, the KJV often took the Vulgate word for word rather than working from the original Hebrew and Greek) chose to translate both the Hebrew rod for “supporting” or “nourishing” and the word for “suckling” with the Latin nutricius which means both “nourish” and “suckle”. The dear old KJV translators decided that since the same adjective was used for both kings and princesses (actually they used the word “queens” because, of course, that is the Latin word that Jerome used) then they would translate both occurrences in the verse with the same English word: “nurse”. And thus an error was brought into the original KJV that has since been corrected by almost every other translation. But again, there has been no negative change to the text.

------------

Job 21:24 (body is well nourished)

Well, that is the NIV, NET, NHEB translation/paraphrase of that verse. The actual Hebrew reads: עֲ֭טִינָיו מָלְא֣וּ חָלָ֑ב וּמֹ֖חַ עַצְמֹותָ֣יו יְשֻׁקֶּֽה׃ — literally “His pails are full of milk and the marrow of his bones is moist.” The KJV tried to make sense of that by saying “His breasts are full of milk…” while others have said “His sides”, “his buckets”, “his pails”, “his sides” are full of milk. It is a Hebraic idiom that I think is best rendered by the HCSB “His body is well fed” or the NET “His body is well nourished”. Those accurately convey the meaning of the verse. The NLT puts it this way: “The picture of good health, vigorous and fit.” I couldn’t disagree with that rendering, either. It’s not the same words, but it is the same meaning. Just as a translator in another language would not help his or her readers by translating literally some English idiomatic expressions, such as "Up in the air," "Piece of cake," "Hollow leg," "Get a leg up," etc.

------------

God and His character was changed –

Respectfully, no. He and His character have not been changed. See my responses below:

God was created – Rev 3:14.

That’s not what that says. The Greek says Jesus was the ἀρχή (arché) of God’s Creation. The word in Greek means beginning, but especially in the sense of "origin". Jesus was the origin, the originator, of God’s Creation. And that is a fact, attested to in verses such as John 1:1-4; Colossians 1:15-16; and Hebrews 1:1-2. (And for the record, the original 1611 KJV used the word “beginning” just as the modern KJV does. So nothing has been changed to corrupt the eternal nature of God. I am glad that most modern translations correctly render arché as “origin”, for it eliminates the misunderstanding that you and many seem to suffer from.)

God has a father of His own – Rev 1:6 (his God and Father), Eph 5:20 (God and the Father), Col 1:3 (God and the Father), Col 3:17(God and the Father), Jam 1:27 (God and the Father).

The Greek καί does not always function as a connective but sometimes as an intensifier. In such cases, you can translate it as “even” rather than “and”. Try changing the “and” in the above verses to “even” and you get a rich new meaning that accords with the true nature of God and Jesus Christ. Incidentally, over the centuries there has been much debate among translators as to the correct rendering of that phrase in Revelation 1:6. The Greek reads τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ αὐτοῦ —literally “to the God and the Father of him”. Some argue that the “of him” (or the possessive form “his”) should apply to both “God” and “Father”. I (and many translators) dispute this. John’s typical form would have repeated both the definite article τῷ before Father as well as God if it had been his intention to have the pronoun αὐτοῦ apply to both “God” and “Father”. Rather, it seems more logical that the αὐτοῦ applies solely to the “Father”. Hence the better (and, I suggest, more accurate) translation is “to the God and Father of him (ie: Jesus Christ). And if you choose the intensifier function of kai rather than the connective function, then the resulting translation is “to God, even the Father of him (Jesus Christ)”. But in no way is the KJV wording some “change” to suggest that God and the Father of Jesus are different in nature, or that Jesus and the Father are not part of the Godhead. There are far too many verses in the Bible confirming that they ARE part of the one Godhead.

God was going to do evil, but He repented – Exo 32:14 (relented).

The Hebrew word does not primarily connote “evil” but “bad” in the sense of “harm”. That what God was going to do would have harmed Israel (justly so, I might add, and not without much warnings to repent which Israel ignored) is a fact. That God relented is a testimony to His character—His love, grace, and mercy. There has been no change because the original KJV reads the same: “And the Lord repented of the euill which he thought to doe vnto his people.”

God doesn't respect anyone who is wise of heart – Job 37:24 (should be “does not God have regard for” – a question confirming that He does).

Respectfully, no. The meaning is as it is written. It is a Hebraism that means “those who are wise in their own minds”, in other words, “those who are proud or conceited.” And the words you use are exactly how the original KJV also reads: “Men doe therefore feare him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart.” So there is no change there, either.

God is terrible – Jer 20:11 (mighty warrior)

Yes He is. But in the original meaning of the word "terrible", not in its modern meaning. The original KJV reads: “But the Lord is with me as a mighty terrible one: therefore my persecutours shall stumble, and they shall not preuaile, they shall be greatly ashamed, for they shall not prosper, their euerlasting confusion shall neuer be forgotten.” Your problem arises out of your idea of the word "terrible." The modern meaning is “extremely bad”, “horrible”, distressing”. But that is not the meaning of the word as used by the original translators. Back then the word meant “causing fear, awe, or dread.” It comes from a VERY ancient Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to make afraid”. And when natural man faces God, he IS filled with fear. Moses was afraid to look at God. The children of Israel were filled with fear at Mount Sinai in the audible Presence of God. Isaiah was filled with terror in the Presence of God. So was Daniel. The beloved disciple John fell at Christ’s feet as dead in fear. Our God IS a terrible God—ie: a terror and awe-inspiring God. But, glory to His name, He has made Himself a comfort to all who believe in His Salvation through His Son, through whom we may boldly approach Him.

God has horns coming out of His hands – Hab 3:4 (rays flashing)

This is again a Hebraism (Hebrew idiom). Horns represent power in the Bible. Saying “horns” come out of His hands, meant simply that power issued from His hands. And again there has been no change. The original KJV reads: “And his brightnesse was as the light: he had hornes comming out of his hand, and there was the hiding of his power:” Since I understand the meaning of “horns” as representing His power, I much prefer this faithful rendering of the Hebrew to the modern “rays of light coming from His hands” which some modern translations have opted for, basing it on the introductory clause of that verse which reads: “His brightness was as the light.”

The list goes on but certainly includes grammar errors, misspelled words, new words that don't make sense, modern words, “changed words”, words that used to be one word divided into two (forever now for ever), words that used to be two words combined into one, nonsensical sentences or phrases and capitalization errors.

Seriously? None of that has any bearing at all on the accuracy of God’s Word.

------------

Meat or grain, fryingpan or pan
Lev 2:7 KJV
And if thy oblation be a meat offering baken in the fryingpan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.

Lev 2:7 NASB
‘Now if your offering is a grain offering made in a pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.

Lev 2:7 NKJV
‘If your offering is a grain offering baked in a covered pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.


First, let’s see the original KJV text of 1611: “And if thy oblation be a meate offering baken in the frying pan, it shalbe made of fine flowre with oyle.” Now let's examine your issues.

Oblation is a possible substituted (changed) synonym for offering.

No, it is not a “changed” word. It is just another accurate translation of the original Hebrew. An oblation and an offering are exactly the same thing.

Note that “meat” replaces grain.

No it has not. The original was “meate.” It would probably help you to know that the word “meate” from the Old English mete simply meant “nourishment,” “food,” or “sustenance.” The use of “meat” to refer to animal flesh began in the 1400’s and was always refered to as “flesh meat” as opposed to “grene meat” (vegetables) and “white meat” (dairy products). Since common folk rarely had flesh meat to eat, their meals were largely grain. Therefore the word “meat,” while referring to all food in general, tended to mean “grain” to the average person.

The KJV now only uses the word “grain” 8 times in 7 verses as opposed to “meat” 290 times in 272 verses.
For comparison, the NASB uses “grain” 248 in 227 verses and “meat” 47 times in 39 verses.


This makes sense as the NASB is a modern translation and for us the words "grain" and "meat" have very specific meanings that are accurately reflected by the NASB and NKJV but not in the 1611 KJV where they had different meanings.

Note the word “baken” in the KJV. Strange.

Not at all strange. "Baken" is the original past participle of the verb “to bake”. Four hundred years ago you would have spoken using those old past participles that ended in “-en” as well as the adjectives that were formed by adding “-en” to the root word in order to indicate something “made of” or “of the nature of” something (such as wooden, and woolen). Nothing strange there at all.

Note the word fryingpan, a modern word.

Where on earth did you get this idea? In 1532, Thomas More used the expression “go out of the frying-pan into the fire.” So it is hardly a modern word. In fact, it first appeared somewhere in the mid 1300’s.

------------

Ark of bulrushes or basket, slime or tar, flags or reeds
Exo 2:3 KJV
And when she could not longer hide him, she took for him an ark of bulrushes, and daubed it with slime and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the flags by the river's brink.

Others remember the KJV as:
And when she could no longer hide him, she took for him a basket of papyrus, and daubed it with tar and with pitch, and put the child therein; and she laid it in the reeds by the river's edge.


Well, they remember wrong. The original KJV reads: “And when shee could not longer hide him, she tooke for him an arke of bul-rushes, and daubed it with slime, and with pitch, and put the childe therein, and shee layd it in the flags by the riuers brinke.” There is clearly no change there.


Exo 2:3 NASB
But when she could hide him no longer, she got him a wicker basket and covered it over with tar and pitch. Then she put the child into it and set it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile.

Exo 2:3 NKJV
But when she could no longer hide him, she took an ark of bulrushes for him, daubed it with asphalt and pitch, put the child in it, and laid it in the reeds by the river’s bank.


All different translations of the same Hebrew words, meaning exactly the same things. Nothing underhanded here.

Notice grammar error, “could not longer hide him”.

There is no grammar error there in the original KJV. Now, according to our modern grammar it is incorrect; but according to the grammar of 400+ years ago it is absolutely correct and our use of “no” for “not” was completely incorrect. You have to understand that you are almost speaking of another language when you look at 400 year-old English. They would think us uneducated idiots if they could hear the way we speak English today.

------------

Give you an expected end or a future and a hope
Jer 29:11 KJV
For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

Jer 29:11 NASB
‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.

Expected tiqvah: The KJV translates Strong's H8615 in the following manner: hope (23x), expectation (7x), line (2x), the thing that I long for (1x), expected (1x).

The one time it is translated “expected” is in Jer 29:11. That with the translation of “end” it seems to change the meaning.

End 'achariyth : The KJV translates Strong's H319 in the following manner: end (31x), latter (12x), last (7x), posterity (3x), reward (2x), hindermost (1x), miscellaneous (5x).



Again, let’s begin with the original KJV that you think has been somehow nefariously changed. It reads: “For I knowe the thoughts that I thinke towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of euill, to giue you an expected end.”

The Hebrew translated “expected end” literally means an outcome (ie: a future) hoped for. The KJV is a wooden translation of the Hebrew words; the future and a hope captures the sense of the Hebrew words. Nothing nefarious there. Just part of the everyday business of translating from one language into another. And it IS there in the original KJV, as I have shown.

------------

Addicted or devoted
1Co 16:15 KJV
I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

1 Co 16:15 NASB
Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that [fn]they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints),


Lora, “devoted” is simply a more modern word that means exactly the same thing as “addicted” once did.

------------

More Questionable Words in the KJV

Spake occurs 588 times in 581 verses in the KJV;
621 times in 612 verses in the ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Gen 8:15 KJV
And God spake unto Noah, saying,

Sware occurs 78 times in 77 verses in the KJV;
occurs 92 times in 90 verses in the ASV; and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB.

Gen 21:31 KJV
Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them.


Buildest occurs 1 times in Deut 6:10 of the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, ASV.

Deu 6:10 KJV
And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,


Filledst occurs 2 times in 2 verses in the KJV and ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Deu 6:11
And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;

Digged, diggedst, plantedst just seem an attempt to use Old English at least in style.
Digged occurs 37 times in 35 verses in the KJV;
32 times in 31 verses in the ASV;
2 times in 2 verses in the RSV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB.

Diggedst occurs 1 times in Deut 6:11 in the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, ASV.

Plantedst occurs 2 times in 2 verses in the KJV, ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Builded occurs 50 times in 47 verses in the KJV;
51 times in 48 verses in the ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Gen 8:20 KJV
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Askest occurs 3 times in 3 verses in the KJV;
4 times in 4 verses in the ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV.

Stomacher occurs 1 time in Isaiah 3:24 in the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, ASV.

Isa 3:24 KJV
And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.

Isa 3:24 NASB
Now it will come about that instead of sweet perfume there will be putrefaction;
Instead of a belt, a rope;
Instead of well-set hair, a plucked-out scalp;
Instead of fine clothes, a donning of sackcloth;
And branding instead of beauty.

Shamefacedness occurs 1 time in 1 Tim 2:9 in the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, ASV.

Notice also “broided” hair which is only in the following verse in the KJV.

1Ti 2:9 KJV
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1 Ti 2:9 NASB
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,

1 Ti 2:9 ASV
In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment;

Shamefastness only used 1 time in ASV.

Holpen occurs 5 times in 5 verses in the KJV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, RSV, ASV.

Luke 1:54 KJV
He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;

Luke 1:54 NASB
“He has given help to Israel His servant,
In remembrance of His mercy,


Forgat occurs 8 times in 8 verses in the KJV;
9 times in 9 verses in the ASV and
0 times in the NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, RSV.

Gen 40:23 KJV
Yet did not the chief butler remember Joseph, but forgat him.

Gen 40:23 NASB
Yet the chief cupbearer did not remember Joseph, but forgot him.


Of course these words appear in the KJV and not in the modern translations because every one of those words is an archaic English form that was used every day 400 years ago but have disappeared since. They were modern when the KJV was translated, but we do not use them any more. Instead we use modern forms of those words. That isn’t a change of meaning. That is simply a recognition that the English language has changed significantly over the past four centuries. In fact, as I said earlier, if you could go back in time and speak modern English, you would be regarded as an ignorant fool who could not speak English properly.

------------
Notice also fowl, this is replacing birds.

I don’t mean to sound snarky, but honestly? Lora, “birds” and “fowl” are EXACTLY the same thing. Even today.

------------

Impotent folk or man being embedded in the scripture in a nonsenical way.
Impotent occurs 4 times in 4 verses in the KJV;
2 times in 2 verses in the ASV; and
1 time in the NASB.

Jhn 5:3 KJV
In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

Jhn 5:3 NASB
In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, waiting for the moving of the waters;

Isa 16:14 NASB (only verse in NASB with impotent)
But now the LORD speaks, saying, “Within three years, as a hired man would count them, the glory of Moab will be degraded along with all his great population, and his remnant will be very small and impotent.”

Isa 16:14 ESV
But now the LORD has spoken, saying, “In three years, like the years of a hired worker, the glory of Moab will be brought into contempt, in spite of all his great multitude, and those who remain will be very few and feeble.”


Nothing nonsensical about “impotent”. That is simply a word that has changed in meaning over time. At one time (back in the original KJV days) it meant “sick” or “feeble”. Now it means something quite different. Again you have failed to realize that words change meaning and modern translations have to use words that mean the same thing as the original. For example to “prevent” today means to stop someone from doing something. Four hundred years ago it meant to “come into the presence of”. “Suffer” to us means to undergo pain or discomfort; back then it meant “to permit”. These dramatic changes in the meanings of words over the centuries is why so many people stagger in comprehending the KJV.

------------
My sister, I am afraid that you have been caught up in the fear of a conspiracy that actually does not exist. No wonder you are grieving, for if what you feared were true, then Satan has greater control than we imagine. But I have tried to show you that in not one single, solitary instance of your many examples is there even a shred, a smidgen, a glimmer of truth. Everything you point out is the result of either a misunderstanding, wrong information, or demonstrable changes over the centuries in what is this living language that we call "English."

I pray this sets your mind at ease. I would not want you fearing something that does not exist. There are actually real Satanic conspiracies in the world. This is not one of them. God HAS kept His Word intact. And He always will.
In my time on this forum, I have read many excellent posts, and this is by far the best response to any post that I have read. Well thought out, biblically solid as usual with Adrian. Once again, I have learned from you.

Well done brother.
 

Len

Well-Known Member
confusing “thee’s” and “thou’s” and “-eth”
I have used most versions/translations of the bible over the years and settled on the NKJV a decade ago for most of my readings, but last year started to doubt some of the things I was reading comparing them to what I was reading along with my wife and her bible, I just seem to notice how versions seem to say the same thing but mean something else (if that makes sense) ...... anyway I started to use the kJV and find that the "thee, thy and thine" etc seem to make reading about people easier now, I think those third persons etc are really important to some verses..... and I just now did a search on them which I have never done before and found some interesting affirmative pages on what I have experienced with the thee's and thou's ...... but to each their own as my ol mum used to say! ...... thy word is truth Lord, but I bet the devil would like to pervert that truth and what better place to do it than in a "better" translation!!
 
Last edited:

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
MattFiveFour

My sister, I am afraid that you have been caught up in the fear of a conspiracy that actually does not exist. No wonder you are grieving, for if what you feared were true, then Satan has greater control than we imagine. But I have tried to show you that in not one single, solitary instance of your many examples is there even a shred, a smidgen, a glimmer of truth. Everything you point out is the result of either a misunderstanding, wrong information, or demonstrable changes over the centuries in what is this living language that we call "English."

I pray this sets your mind at ease. I would not want you fearing something that does not exist. There are actually real Satanic conspiracies in the world. This is not one of them. God HAS kept His Word intact. And He always will.

I believe you are correct, MattFiveFour. Although it must have taken you quite a while to respond to each scripture, I'm so glad you did it, I needed each and every response. Thank you for your correction. Thanks also to Sowen, GoldenEagle, and AndyC for their contributions as well. AndyC I believe it was you that brought up the site gotquestions.com. This helped me a great deal. EDITED TO ADD: Also thank you to all those that prayed for me and encouraged me. Prayer works. Agape love works.

This is where I am mentally and spiritually:
  • I believe that I have been duped. I thought by only reviewing the scriptures I wouldn't be influenced by the sources and their views on the topic. And I wasn't in regard to ME, but I was in regard to their truthful portrayal of the scriptures.
  • The sources themselves were all, I believe, King James Only (I'm not bashing KJV Only in general here, but the specific group of people who are promoting the "Bible Changes"). I believed them because (1) they did not misrepresent the scriptures concerning what it says (they were as they said - I looked them up) and (2) if anyone would know of "changes" to the KJV, surely it would be that group, at least that was my reasoning. However, I now believe their own memories and knowledge was and is quite fallible and they misrepresented the oddities of the KJV as "changes." In the early days of this, I did try to reach out to one of these sources on Bible changes. When I stated that I mostly used the NASB I received silence and suspicion. I'm thankful now that they treated me that way, because I know that God was ultimately leading me to the light.
  • Personally, I have thought the view of KJV Only movement was a bit irrational, but reserved judgment on an individual basis. I have no problem with individuals that "prefer" the KJV. That said I've never studied the movement and therefore did not understand their full prejudice towards God's Word and other people that do not regard the KJV as highly as they do. EDITED TO ADD: Nobody likes a blanket statement and I fear I've not been very "gentle" here and in some of the following statements. I've been told by bible scholars that the KJV is still a "good translation", so again I have no quarrel with those that like it most. I'm just more skeptical of those that make claims about it as if it as equal to the original languages, which are divine. END EDIT.
  • What helped me greatly here was an article and video called "What is the KJV Only Movement?" on gotquestions.com. It was at this point, after reading MattFiveFour's excellent response and then followed by this article, that it became clear to me that I couldn't trust the sources. I couldn't trust the specific people who were promoting the "Bible changes". They were either ignorant like me, or they were deliberately misrepresenting things. They are certainly misguided, as I have been.
  • EDITED TO ADD: You may be wondering why I am bringing up this KJV Only movement. If the group that believes in "bible changes" came from this group, it indicates to me that they are not always rational in their thinking. They ignore things that don't help support their position. They even conceal them. That's more or less my take from the article I mentioned - again "my interpretation" and how it affected me with this issue.
  • In regards to my "original" position I take full responsibility for allowing myself to be duped and ask your forgiveness that I spread false information. In regards to my responsibility towards sharing this so publically, I accept most of the blame (I'll explain this a bit further in the following statement). I have repented with the Lord and I now ask your forgiveness as well. I feel very ashamed that I brought this to so many people's attention and I alone am responsible for that! I would never want to cause another one to stumble and I fear that I have, but pray that the Lord will correct my mistakes and also show me how to correct them. Personally, I am making sure to tell every friend or family member that I discussed this with, that I was wrong.
  • There were circumstances that led me here to raptureforums and such a public thread. First, I did try to go to the experts at a time that I was bewildered but starting to believe. In writing and in person, I told them that I really needed answers on this. I entreated them and told them I was open to other reasonable explanations. In my report I indicated several that I wasn't sure should even be on the list. So 15 minutes of time or even giving me better resources could have stopped me on this a long time ago. Second, I came to this website and unlike the old board at RRBB, I could not privately talk to an admin or, as a second choice, start a thread in a members' only area - like what used to be in the Apologetics section. That stalled me for several weeks. Finally, in my frustration and earnestness, I did start this thread. By then, I was "convinced" that what I was saying was fact. Again, please forgive me, but I was certainly fearful of what the ramifications were on the whole and personally, with my son and other family members.
  • To those that have followed this thread and feel that I have "folded" far too quickly. I can only say this, in the end, it was conviction by the Holy Spirit that finally broke down my arguments. Honesty with ourselves and with God is a very tough road. It is far easier and even thrilling to believe a lie, especially when the lie is an "amazing" lie. Controversy and conspiracy theories are a lot like gossip - they can be very heady, they cause feelings of excitement or even fear. Truth has to be your sounding board - a love for the truth. Truth sometimes is not as exciting. I believe without my love for the truth, I would have been washed out to sea. I pray that if my first position influenced you that you will pray about it.
  • I've never felt such love shown to me as I received on this board and on this thread. The prayers and gentleness meant so much to me! You will never know. There's so many ways that I could have been "handled" and many of them would not have been gentle. So thank you for that. It was far easier for me to be corrected knowing that you were "for me" and not "against me" even though you disagreed with me - vehemently.
  • I harbor no resentment to anyone here. It is never easy to be corrected but I thank God that I finally got answers and I got them so lovingly. EDITED TO ADD: Answers that have finally given my heart peace.
  • Because of this experience, I am praying that God will raise up someone to thoroughly cover this subject online - a discernment ministry or pastors in a teaching or sermon. If I can be duped, than so can others.
  • Keep praying for me. The devil is still trying to snare me with doubts. So far, I have been able to rebuke them in my mind.
Well, I guess that is all I have on my heart and mind for the moment. As so often it is with me, as soon as I post this I'll think of something to add. But for now, I think I have covered the main things.
 
Last edited:

mattfivefour

Well-Known Member
Trust&Obey:

I admire your teachable spirit!!!
Yes, indeed! All of us have been taught at various times. The thing I like about RF (and what I try to ensure is maintained here) is that bad doctrine posted here is corrected in love and with grace. Most times it is the result of some previous bad teaching, so we try to point the person to good teaching. In some cases, though, it is merely the result of someone puffed up in their own knowledge who simply wants to convince us of their erroneous interpretations or doctrines. Those rarely go well. But clearly you are not of that type at all. Please stay around and fellowship with us all. I encourage you to become an active part of our prayer & praise forum; to post any Bible questions or comments in our Bible Q&A forum; to add anything you like in any of our other forums. You are definitely part of the family and we appreciate your presence here! Glory to God for His work in your life ... as in mine and all the other members here! \o/ \o/ \o/
 

Trust&Obey

Well-Known Member
Thank you AndyC, Jan51 and MattFiveFour for making me feel so welcome even after this experience. I must admit, in my younger days I might have been a bit more bullheaded, but age and hopefully wisdom has rounded off some of my edges.

When I came to the realization that I was wrong in my thinking I did have feelings of embarassment and even self-recrimination. But, the truth is, I had to raise this subject so I could find real answers. I needed you all as a sounding board. And I have found answers here before. I am far more shy than you might believe. The only times I speak up is when I have questions that I can't answer or when I am pretty confident that I can answer someone else's questions. Mostly, on both boards (the old and the new), I have hung out in the shadows. That makes your comments and invitation even more meaningful to me right now - I was afraid I might have burned my last bridge here.

MattFiveFour - I certainly appreciate your gentle teaching style and spirit. I'm sure you can roar when it is appropriate, but in all our conversation, you took a very measured route. You gave me times to think when I needed those quiet times. Some might have overwhelmed me with "facts" or even shamed me out of here. But the Lord's Spirit was all over this interaction.

I will be hanging around and as my confidence grows again, may partake in other exchanges. Thank you for such a sweet invitation to join you. I do feel that I am with friends now.
 

Everlasting Life

Through Faith in Jesus
In regards to my "original" position I take full responsibility for allowing myself to be duped and ask your forgiveness that I spread false information. In regards to my responsibility towards sharing this so publically, I accept most of the blame (I'll explain this a bit further in the following statement). I have repented with the Lord and I now ask your forgiveness as well. I feel very ashamed that I brought this to so many people's attention and I alone am responsible for that!

Do not be overly hard on yourself here. Your heart and motivation was to sincerely seek resolution and answers to a challenge you were really wrestling with. :hug. We all have those challenges, it is wise to seek counsel as you did and as it's been said you have a teachable spirit.

I suspect, very much so, that this thread, your questions, concerns and how everyone responded will be of great help to others reading who may have the very same challenge. :nod.

So, yes, stick around and as we all are, grow in the Lord. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top