Sunday, October 22, 2017

A new Look at an Old Word: translational issues


1 Corinthians 14:33  For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints."

The KJV reputation is seen in the prefaces of modern translations.

1917 Jewish Publication Society TA'ANACH preface: "We are, it is hardly needful to say, deeply grateful for the works of our non-Jewish predecessors, such as the Authorised Version with its admirable diction, which can never be surpassed"

New King James Version:

"For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English-speaking peoples of the world. The precision of translation of which it is historically renowned, and its majesty of style, have enabled that monumental version of the Word of God to become the mainspring of the religion, language, and legal foundations of our civilization.

Although the Elizabethan period and our own era share in zeal for technical advance, the former period was more aggressively devoted to classical learning. Along with this awakened concern for the classics came a flourishing companion in interest in the Scriptures, an interest that was enlivened by the conviction that the manuscripts were providentially handed down and were a trustworthy record of the inspired Word of God. The King James translators were committed to producing an English Bible that would be a precise translation, and by no means a paraphrase or a broadly approximate rendering. On the one hand, the scholars were almost as familiar with the original languages of the Bible as with their native English. On the other hand, their reverence for the divine Author and His Word assured a translation of the Scriptures in which only a principle of utmost accuracy could be accepted.

In 1786 Catholic scholar Alexander Geddes said of the King James Bible, "If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent." George Bernard Shaw became a literary legend in our century because of his severe and often humorous criticisms of our most cherished values. Surprisingly, however, Shaw pays the following tribute to the scholars commissioned by King James: "The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the Word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result." History agrees with these estimates. Therefore, while seeking to unveil the excellent form of the traditional English Bible, special care has also been taken in the present edition to preserve the work of precision which is the legacy of the 1611 translators."

21st century King James version of the holy bible:

The KJ21® is unique among modern Bibles in that it is closer in language to the original King James Version than any other Bible copyrighted in the twentieth century. Unlike all other modern Bibles, it alone retains the power, beauty, and poetic language of the glorious King James Version, while at the same time it is presented in a state-of-the-art format. Readers of recently published versions of the Holy Bible tend to be unaware of the unsurpassed, indeed unequaled, power, beauty, and majesty of King James Bible language. Read what literary critics and authorities have said about the King James Version: Prof. Charles A. Dinsmore, for many years professor of literature at Yale Divinity School, in his great work The English Bible as Literature, spoke of "the unique and sovereign greatness of our Standard English Version," saying:

"It is unlike any other book in our language, and in charm and power is above them all."

Prof. William Lyon Phelps, educator, essayist, and longtime professor of English literature, said in reference to the King James Version:

"Priests, atheists, skeptics, devotees, agnostics, and evangelists, are generally agreed that the Authorized Version of the English Bible is the best example of English literature that the world has ever seen."

Social and literary critic H.L. Mencken, rarely extravagant in his praise, said:

"It is the most beautiful of all translations of the Bible; indeed it is probably the most beautiful piece of writing in all the literature of the world."

Dr. Walter Russell Bowie, a member of the 1946 Revision Committee of the Revised Standard Version, wrote:

"The venerable English version, The King James Bible, which is now more than 300 years old, has still continued to hold its place upon the lecterns of the majority of the churches. What is the determining reason for that? . . . The cause for that can be put into a single sentence. They have loved it because it has seemed to them incomparably beautiful. It is right that men and women should desire and instinctively expect that the form in which the Bible is presented to them should be beautiful. They have come to church to hear the word of Him who made the morning stars to sing together, and therefore no version can be acceptable unless it has a form and cadence which make it speak home to their souls. The glory of the King James Version has always been that it falls rightly on the ear. In it the meaning of the words seems set to music."

New American Standard Bible:

In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version.
Until 1885, when the Revised Version was published in England, the King James Version reigned supreme.

The Complete Jewish Bible) "The King James Version is unmatched in the Beauty of it's language; moreover, English would not be what it is without it."

The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV).

Contemporary English Version"The most important document in the history of the English language is the King James Version of the Bible.  To measure it's spiritual impact on the English speaking world would be more impossible than counting the grains of sand along the ocean shores.  Historically many Bible Translators have attempted in some measure to retain the form of the King James Version.  But the translators of the Contemporary English Version have dilligently sought to  the capture the spirit of the King James Version by following certain principles set forth by it's translators in the document "The Translators to the Reader" which was printed in the earliest editions."
"This is the Word of God which we translate."

"Accuracy, beauty, clarity, and dignity- All of these can and must be acheived in the translation of the Bible.  After all as these translators of the King James Version stated.

"This is the Word of God which we translate.""

Word for Word vs.Dynamic

     A Word for word translation, officially known as formal equivalence, is generally the philosophy of the Authorized Version, as well as several others in search of literal accuracy as to what the Hebrew and Greek are saying.

       In the majority of modern Bible Translations their has been a popular trend to use Dynamic ot "thought for thought" translation methods. "Word for Word" or formal equivalence is where individually each word is found a linguistic equivalent.  In Dynamic or "thought for thought" each sentence is paraphrased to give a summarized thought of the text.  So it is in search of the intentions of the authors.

        One of the greatest problems of dynamic translation is that it does not respect the view of inspiration of conservative bible believers.  Conservatives take the Bible literally when it is stated that the words of the Bible are the inspired Word of God.  Leland Rykin is a Bible translator for the English Standard Version.
          "The author's own words matter.  Publishers and editers are not ordinarily allowed to change the words of literary texts.  Readers expect to recieve the actual words of an actual author.  As changes in language mark texts from bygone ages difficult archaic, and even obsolete, readers are educated into the meaning of words.  Should we not treat the words and the text of the Bible with the same respect that we show towards Shakespeare and Milton?  Do not the very words of biblical authors deserve the same protection from alteration that author's normally receive?  Should we not expect reader's to muster the same level of rigor for the Bible that they are supposed to summon in high school and college literature courses? ... My answer is that it cannot.  Translation should not be occasion for license.  The ordinary rules for textual accuracy, integrity, and reliability still prevail. In fact, I would have thought that Bible would be the last book which would take liberties." Leland Rykin, The Word of God in English pg. 30-31.

Many publishers focus on the issue of readability vs. accuracy. What is more important?  The modern bible translator explains:
An English Bible translation should strive for maximum readability only within the parameters of accurately expressing what the original actually says, including the difficulty inherent in the original text. The crucial question that should govern translation is what the original authors actually wrote, not our speculations over how they would express themselves today or how we would express the content of the Bible. The fact that the New Testament was written in koine Greek should not lead translators to translate the Bible in a uniformly colloquial style. Finally, a good translation does not attempt to make the Bible simpler than it was for the original audience(Leland Ryken, The Word of God in English, pp. 100, 101).
Isaiah 28:
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;
line upon line, line upon line;
here a little, and there a little:

The brilliance of Italicized words 

              One tradition in the AV, which is rarely carried over into the Modern translation is italicized words.  Whenever a word is added for literary purposes, it is italicized.  This an incredible way to solve the readability verses accuracy debate.  Whenever there is weakness in the readability of a wooden literally translated text one can add italicized words, which the reader will be able to discern as not in the text but helpful for reading.
              Yet the majority of modern versions do not italicize their added words.  Why? Well, for one thing, it helps them to sell choppy versions  like the NASB and the loose versions like NIV.  Ultimately these translation committees were never focused solving the translation debate and if they appear to be concerned, remember that they are crying their way to the bank!

The use of tradition in translations

       One problem I have encountered with translation philosophy, is that there is the fantasy that we are translating the Bible in a vacuum, as if we are the first people to introduce the Bible to a new generation.    The fact is, even the authorized version had this issue.  There were several versions before and everyone recognized the predecessor: even Wycliff New Testament recognized the Latin Vulgate prior to it.  A translation has to first reflect the original Greek and Hebrew.  Yet there is the secondary concern of the understanding of the text in the native tongue in our case English. Most western society is familiar with the Bible, when a society has a recognized version and the new translation argues alternative words has a recognized version and the new translation argues alternative words there is the immediate implication of the former translation being false.
Now as previously stated, I do not argue for the Ruckmanite view by which the older translation is flawless.  But I do take the old motto "if it ain't broke don't fix it".  If the translation was sufficient then.  If a verse from the AV is still understandable today, and the word is accurate to the Hebrew and Greek, translators then, have no obligation to add or change the rendering or come up with an alternative.  To do so causes confusion.

1 corinthians 14:And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?"
     This is why the first English translations always built upon one another, I wish we could do this today but clarity is apparently not as lucrative. 

The case for literary beauty in translation

  The Bible is not just a book for scholars, critics or theologians.  The Bible is the Word from God to common men and women.  It reaches and helps us to deal with aspects of everyday life and helps us  by approaching things the way we would approach it as well as the way we would not approach it. Poetry putting a rhythm on life lessons to embed them upon the souls of the faithful readers.  The KJV is colored by literary beauty because the Hebrew and Greek scriptures are also covered in this literary beauty, It hooks into every corner of our heart, so indeed that overtime it can change our heart.   As noted by the translation prefaces the KJV is well attested with this quality.

Free From the bias of modern man.

     As a whole, academia became dominated by naturalistic evolutionary philosophy, which invaded textual criticism early on, thus many modern translations  portray that bias.
However, since the theory of old earth evolution at the time did not exist, none of the AV translators could possibly be effected by it, therefore we have an unbiased translation. (in terms of evolution)
 An obvious example of this is "tenniym" which is translated "dragons" in the KJV.  The modern translators believed in evolution and assumed that dinosaurs died 70million years ago. Therefore, these dragons were purely mythological.  Yet even the serious historians recorded accounts of dragons while the ancients did not have a word for dinosaur. but even the ancient paintings had these creatures sometimes identical with modern descriptions.
Here are examples:

their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps."

Deuteronomy 32:33NIV
Their wine is the venom of serpents,
the deadly poison of cobras."

Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters."

Psalm 74:13(NIV)13 It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters."

Isaiah 13:22 (KJV)
22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses,
and dragons in their pleasant palaces:
and her time is near to come,
and her days shall not be prolonged."
Isaiah 13:22 (NIV)
22 Hyenas will inhabit her strongholds,
    jackals her luxurious palaces.
Her time is at hand,
    and her days will not be prolonged."

  So we see see here that the NIV translates tanin as cobras, monster and Heyenas.  But the kjv translates the word consistently as dragon(s).  If dragons are indeed Dinosaurs, then we know that the large variety of dinosaurs can fit all these contexts, both as sea creatures, scavengers and forest dwellers.  This book is not focused on the subject of scientific creationism, but never the less, we are at time where evidence for dinosaurs dwelling with man is growing at a rapid pace. I would recommend for instance that you search Dr. Mark Armitage.  An expert in microscopy, Mark while employed at UC Berkley unearthed the world's largest triceratops Horn.  He then showed that under microscopic investigation the bone had soft tissue which could never survive 70 million years. Shockingly Mark was fired for his discovery, but in fact sued the college and won on the basis of religious discrimination!
The two men most responsible for modem alterations in the New Testament text were B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, whose Greek New Testament text has largely replaced the traditional Textus Receptus in modern seminaries, especially as revised and updated by the Germans Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All of these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort, although they were Anglican officials and nominally orthodox in theology, both denied Biblical inerrancy, promoted racism, and even dabbled in spirit-ism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological liberals. Westcott and Hort were also the most influential members of the English revision committee that produced the English Revised Version of the Bible, published in 1881. The corresponding American revision committee which developed the American Standard Version of 1901 was headed by another liberal evolutionist, Philip Schaff. Most new versions since that time have favored the same manuscripts and assumptions as did those 19th century revisers. Schaff was twice tried for heresy by his denomination and taught at the very liberal Union Seminary. As chairman of the revision committee, Schaff not only was greatly influenced by Westcott and Hort, but also by the Unitarians Ezra Abbot and Joseph Thayer, of Harvard, as well as other liberals whom he placed on the committee."
"In any case, one of the serious problems with almost all modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible heavily influenced by liberals, rationalists, and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible."
Henry M. Morris ( the father of modern scientific creationism)  "A Creationists Defense of the King Jame Bible"

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator

What is Flesch-Kincaid readability?
"Developed by Rudolf Flesch and J. Peter Kincaid, the Flesch-Kincaid readability scores are the most widely used measures of readability. And they are used by the United States military to evaluate the readability of their manuals.
The first number, Flesch-Kincaid reading ease, is based on a ranking scale of 0-100, and the higher your score, the better. Low scores indicate text that is complicated to understand. So if your website receives a low Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score, you will likely need to simplify your text.
For most business writing, a score of 65 is a good target, and scores between 60 and 80 should generally be understood by 12 to 15 year olds.
Flesch-Kincaid reading ease formula: 206.835 - 1.015 x (words/sentences) - 84.6 x (syllables/words).
The second number, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, tells you the American school grade you would need to be in to comprehend the material on the page.
As a measure, most of your writing should be able to be understood by students in seventh grade.
For example, The Huffington Post’s website has an average grad level of about 7, meaning that it should be easily understood by 12 to 13 year olds.
Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula: 0.39 x (words/sentences) + 11.8 x (syllables/words) - 15.59.
Both Flesch-Kincaid reading ease and grade level use the same core metrics: word length and sentence length. But they correlate inversely. If you receive a high score on the reading ease test, you should receive a lower grade level score."

 Book of
 the Bible
 Gen. 1|
 Mal. 1
 Matt. 1
 Rev. 1
The best example of very easy prose (about 20 affixes per 200 words) is the King James Version of the Bible...”Dr. Rudolf Flesch
The Art of Plain Talk (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1946). Rudolph is also famous for his book "Why Johnny Can't read."

While Shakespeare used a vocabulary of roughly 21,000 English words, the vocabulary of the King James Bible is composed of only 6,000 (Albert Cook, The Authorized Version of the Bible and Its Influence, 1910). This compares favorably to the vocabulary of the Hebrew Old Testament, which is 5,642 words, and the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, which is about 4,800 words." missionary W.O. Cloud

The entire KJV averages 1.31 syllables and 3.968 letters per word. This word length puts the KJV in the same readability category as the children’s books” (D.A. Waite, Jr., The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version, Bible for Today, Collingswood, NJ, 1996).

KJV Availability

   Quite frankly, there are more KJV Bibles than any other translation in history.  Actually there are more KJV Bibles than any other books in history!  If God is in charge of all things why wold he make this the number one book in the world? Importantly there is no copywrite law restricting the Authorized Version and as a result anyone can make copies. Traditional text translatability availability

       Some time ago, I was in Cincinatti and I found a pamplet at my uncle's church who was not a kjvo guy, but had been helping a local Bible printing facility do their missions,  Their name was Bearing Precious Seed.  This little church had personally printed 45,000,000 Bibles and they specialized in foreign language bibles (First Baptist Church) in the town of Milford Ohio had done a lot "Since 1973, this local church ministry has printed millions of Bibles and scripture portions in 42 languages."

Language                Nationality                Text base

Albanian                        Albania                              TR, KJV, "Italian-diodati"
Amharic                         Ethiopia                              MS, TR
Arabic                            Africa/middle East             MS, TR
Burmese                         Myanmar/bangledesh        MS, TR
Cebuano                         Philippines                         KJV
Croatian                         Yugoslavia                         TR
Czech                             Czech Republic                MS, TR
English                           Worldwide                        MS, TR
French                            Worldwide                         MS, TR
French Creole                 Haiti                                  KJV
German                           Germany                           MS, TR
Huichol                           Mexico                             TR
Hungarian                       Hungary                            KJV

Llongo                            Philippines                        KJV
Italian                             Italy                                   MS,TR
Khmer                            Cambodia                           (?)

Korean                            Korea                                 KJV
Norwegian                      Norway                              KJV
Navajo                            USA                                   KJV  
Pidgin                             Papua New Guinea            KJV
Portuguese                      Portugal, Brazil                 MS, TR
Romanian                       Romania                            KJV, TR
Russian                           Russia                                MS, TR
Samoan                          Western Samoa                   TR
Spanish                           Worldwide                         MS, TR
Swahili                            Tanazia                               (?)
Tagalog                           Philippines                         MS, TR, KJV
Telegu                             India                                   KJV
Thadou                            India Myanmar                  KJV  
Thai                                 Thailand                             KJV
Tsonga                             South Africa                       (?)

Ukranian                          Ukrane                               TR
Waray Waray                   Philippines                         KJV

Older is better

        One thing that modern scholars simply do not understand is that the Bible was not written to us today.  Many have a philosophy of newer is better.  But that which is newer has no experience.  If you get a brand new car you have no idea if it is going to brake down instantly.  It is preferable to have a car with about 50,000 miles on it, that way you know that while it is not too old, it can survive the test of time. The King James Version has been used for about 400 years, but it is still being sold today!  If you go to your Christian bookstore there will probably still be a section for the King James Bible and it's study Bibles to be sold. I have never seen or been able to acqire the English Revised Version created by Westcott & Hort.  After looking for a few years I have found the American Standard Version. I have found it in two stores, both were selling one single copy.  The Revised Standard Version was very dominate when it was first produced and expected to replace the King James Version.  It was written in 1950.  Yet you will find it very rare today in Christian bookstores, and probably only find it as a pew bible for older mainline protestant churches as well as some Catholic Churches.   The New Revised Standard Version you'll almost only find in Catholic and the liberal mainline protestant churches.  The NIV is still extremely popular and in it's prime. Though it is universally criticized for it's accuracy.  The reading level has been criticized to be not as easy to read as once thought, though now it has become popular as a pew Bible.  It has already found it's unofficial death.  The reason being is that Zondervan has come out with an update, the TNIV.  The translation has been the most extreme and intensive version in terms of Gender equivalency to the point where many evangelicals have broken off ties with the new NIV production.  The Southern Baptist have made a competitor, The Holman Christian Standard Bible The combination of age and competition both the TNIV and Holman will devour the NIV audience in the next 10 years.  Many conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists have been lured away from the KJV with the NASB, yet the ESV will soon devour it's audience.  This is particularly embarrassing as the ESV has more and more proved to not live up to expectations as an accurate Bible translation. The Living Bible became both loved and hated for it's preference for easy reading over accuracy.  Yet there is a new champion of it in the NLT.  And a very popular and very heretical Bible competitor in "the Message".  Essentially there is a never ending series of new translations. Reproduction at such high rates helps to back track and keep the followers off the scent of errors which they have left in there Bibles. If for not this reason what is the purpose? Has the English language so deeply altered itself in a generation? I finished off bible college and they started switching from promoting the New American Standard to the English standard version and as I publish this, they have already replaced it with the Christian Standard Bible! I am a member of the bridger generation and I can read the KJV without a class teaching me how to read it.  In my humble opinion, this philosophy of continuous Bible translating is nothing more than a scheme with two aims.
            First, to make money.  These new Translations have made millions of dollars a piece, if not billions.  Special copy write laws add to this continuous flow.
            Secondly, this never-ending series of Bible Translations has permanently dislodged grassroots conservative Bible believing Christianity.  Most of the new Generation has not read the King James Bible.  Therefore, they have no point of reference.  More Christians are now Biblically illiterate than ever.  You can't blame this on the fundamentalists we have not even had control of our denominations in several decades.  Do the churches even read through entire translations anymore?  Now, if we believe that the Bible is word for word true, and there are new translations with different words each, then how can they be authoritative?  Well they can have some authority, but not complete authority.
         "The issue concerning an authoritative text has several practical aspects, Despite the abundance of modern translations. or perhaps because of them, the King James Version of the Bible is still by far the best selling book in the English speaking world.  Most English speaking Baptist Families have three or more copies of that one translation in addition to whatever copies of other versions they may have.  Most Baptist preachers still preach from the King James Version. The literary beauty and the dramatic impact of the rythm, the vocabulary and style are perhaps unsurpassed by any of the newer versions.  In some cases it is more faithful to the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew syntax than even some of the most scholarly revisions." L. Russ Bush & Tom J. Nettles Baptist and the Bible pg. 406
  I knew Tom Nettles through Bible college and as far as I know He wasn't King James Only at all.

Which KJV: 1611 or 1769?

     One of the chief arguments against a kjvo position or KJVM position is the fact that based upon the ruckman strawman the KJVO contradicts itself.  This is because the AV has been edited multiple times and there are even new KJV bible versions on top of that even if you want to be KJVO, which KJV was reinspired?  Now these are edition differences as opposed to translation differences which means that these are truly minuscule distinctions.  But for these reasons I side with the 1769 edition.

 1.  As this book has stated, inspiration of the original text has been preserved.  The correct text has been revealed in God's providence purifying the text in response to revival.  This is a continuance and not an alien miracle.
  2. God's providence has revealed the KJV as the "standard" english translation of Gods Holy Bible. different words are not illegal in translating, but the standard is the champion text by which other translations should aspire in communicating so a different translation or edition of the traditional text of scripture is good, just not recognized as the standard.
 For several reason the 1769 has been shown by God's providence as the standard over the 1611.
A. 1611 was not universally accepted (many still held to geneva and others)
b. english grammar was yet to be standardized
d.  The 1630 texus receptus elsifer was produced afterwards
e.  The translators were willing to have there work corrected.
  All of these issues are corrected and dealt with in the 1769 cambridge edition.
f. The apocrypha references were removed
G.. The 1769 Cambridge became the dominant text in time for the worldwide missions movement.
H. Apparently blayney and others had consulted the recognized elzifer textus receptus which had become universally recognized in the era as the original Greek text.  
  Frequent recourse has been had to the Hebrew and Greek Originals; and as on other occasions, so with a special regard to the words not expressed in the Original Language, but which our Translators have thought fit to insert in italics, in order to make out the sense after the English idiom, or to preserve the connection. And though Dr Paris made large corrections in this particular in an edition published at Cambridge, there still remained many necessary alterations, which escaped the Doctor’s notice; in making which the Edit or chose not to rely on his own judgment singly, but submitted them all to the previous examination of the Select Committee, and particularly of the Principal of Hertford College, and Mr Professor Wheeler."
I. We can assume that the text was finally perfected For the English speaking world as it dominated the world's languages.        

  Now I want to reiterate my position is that any word for word translation of the Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic text is in the category of "good enough". At this point the Bibles are reliable for doctrine. Can there be differences among editions the text? Yes there can be. S we can have a preference of editions. My preference is the Textus Receptus Elzifer bros. edition. As well The Masoretic  Ben Chayim edition. But what about differences of translations of those manuscripts?  There should be a standard of translating to note when it is done correctly. Thus, I argue that the 1769 Cambridge edition of the King James Bible is the standard of Bible translations. But can we find anymore differences and what is the perfect standard?
Genesis 11:
And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
    If our goal is to criticize the Bible we will always find something to mock it is and endless cycle.  Whether or not these criticisms are valid. We can look at babe Ruth and see that he had a gut and therefore was not our ideal of an athlete.  Then we could find baseball players who looked like bodybuilders and say they were better atheletes being better built and therefore claim they were better baseball players.  Yet in reality most of those pretty boys could never hope to accomplish the deeds of the "great bambino" in the ballfield. If there is a micro change or word or letter or capitalization whatever complaint that can be raised will be corrected with the context of Holy Scripture.  The point of the Bible version debate is not style but the doctrine of preservation. That Fact that God has not left his people.
Matthew 28:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
But there is an opposite extreme of sectarianism and it is not just the people within, but the liberal agenda without, is to indeed divide up God's people in a way to where they can not work together.
Matthew 23:
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess."
 Now if you are of a different opinion than me on any level that is completely fine.  But if you take a matter which does not make a practical difference and elevate it to make a schism and defeat the whole purpose then this is exactly what you are doing.  This happens when churches major on the minors and it results in losing the basics. We as Fundamental Bible believers can keep independence, but still work together with Fundamental bible believers.
Romans 16:
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
  When it comes to separation, it is against those who are causing division.  Those who want people in the body of Christ to separate from one another many evangelicals are oppressing others about the bible version issue.  In my experience I have seen KJV people bullied in new version churches.  But obviously it is wrong done to both sides.  This is done with the fallacy that reproof and correction are the same as division.
2Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
If we come to a disagreement we should have enough to work through the scriptures until we can find agreement or at least to agree to disagree.
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."
    So the goal of this book is unity, if we unify under one Word of God imagine what else God can unite us to.

Process of translation: "When we are dealing with an ancient work in the language in which it was written, we endeavour by the methods of textual criticism to arrive as nearly as possible at the text of the original document.  But in dealing with translations we have to adopt a quite different proceedure.  If the translation was an official one from the start, then we can make it our business to the original text of the official translation. But the fact is that the official translation very often lies at the end and not the beginning of the history of he translation of a document from another language." F. F. Bruce The books and the Parchments pg. 138
  Some may argue against the KJV being at the end of a line of TR translations.  But as a translation, there is a process that is not expected of original language copies.  This process has to by nature finish so long as the textual process is finished. The TR being preserved is therefore finished.
 As we have seen in chapter 4. The reason that textual criticism repeats an endless cycle is because the Bible was never inspired or perfect it was always in the endless cycle of evolution.  The text evolved from the religion, the religion evolved from society and the society evolve from man who evolved from an ape.  If you are a creationist then you know that man did not evolve. In fact, he has not progressed  but instead transgressed.  Much the same Modern Bibles have not progressed but deteriorated.

Cultic Confusion: I was doing door to door ministry sometime ago with a Spanish speaking church.  They had been doing door to door witnessing in Spanish speaking communities and used my church/their sister English speaking church as a back up when witnessing in English Speaking patrons.  I was witnessing to a Jamaican drunkard when he noticed my bible was a King James Bible.  He went in and showed me the book of Mormon.  So I rebuked Mormonism and kept witnessing, but I started to think about this.  When we change Bibles every couple years and we rebuke cultists for adding or subtracting from the word of God; how much authority do we have?  Can we effectively convict the Jehovah's Witnesses over their cultic "New World Translation",  When our "Message" or TNIV is just as inaccurate?  We evangelicals are going to have to one day be held accountable for our prideful assumptions hopefully not on Judgment day.
There have been competitors with the authorized version that have theological  presuppositions.  We see this especially with Catholicism, Christian Liberalism, Judaism and the Law Keeping cults.
   We have discussed some of these examples with Catholicism and liberalism.  So I would like to focus on the mounting issue of  the Jews and law-keeping cults.  

psalm 110 (American Standard Version)
Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
Until I make thine enemies thy footstool."
psalm 110 (complete Jewish Bible)

Adonai says to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies
your footstool.”

Here we see two apposing translations.  Typically "Lord" is the English translation of "Adonai" while "LORD" is the translation of the diagrammatic "Jehovah" The ASV is justified in using this translation consistently.  The "CJB" a messianic Jewish publication takes a bizarre route.  They follow the Jewish superstition of never saying God's name and therefore replacing it with "Adonai"  The problem here is that they are deceiving the reader into thinking that they are reading a transliteration "Adonai" when they are reading an inaccurate translation of Jehovah!  A novice will be immediately deceived seeing a jewish Word and assuming that they are getting this from the Hebrew Bible.  It is an almost deliberate deception.
This is one of the most quoted verses of the OT used in the NT. It is used to illustrate the persons of the Father and the Son.

 Jehovah or Yahweh
 “The mystic name which is called the tetragrammaton… is pronounced JEHOVAH (lejovah), which means, who is, and who shall be.” -Nicetas, Bishop of Heraclea, 2nd century, from Catena on the Pentateuch, published in Latin By Francis Zephyrus, p 146"
 Popular scholarship wants us to believe that the pronunciation of God's sacred name was a manufacturing from the thirteenth century. yet here the century after Christ the Latins are used the base pronunciation of Jehovah.

“The correct pronunciation of the name may be Yahweh. But this is not certain; Yahweh has a decidedly strange and unnatural sound” O.T. Allis The five books of Moses p.xii
It is known that for many years YHWH has been transliterated as Yahweh, however no complete certainty attaches to this pronunciation.The Lockman Foundation Preface to the New American Standard Bible  Popular scholarship has been misleading. There leaders claimed Yahweh was the certain name. however the inner circle of scholars are in doubt.

   “Thus the form Yahweh is an incorrect hybrid form with an early ‘w’ and a late ‘eh’.” The Law and the Prophets ed. By John H. Skilton, Milton C. Fischer, and Leslie W. Sloat).
The pronunciation of yahweh is fusing together accents from totally different time periods.

The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the Universal faith of the Christian Church.” Bruce Metzger on behalf of the committee for the New Revised Standard Version
   Notice the liberal theological bias of Bruce Metzger assuming that we need to be ambiguous in regards to distinguishing the God of the Bible from pagan deities. The Lord Jesus has a different perspective.
john 4: 19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. "

  “The only personal name of God that belongs to Him alone was rendered either Jehovah or in it’s shortened form, Jah. We preferred the transliteration JHWH (thus Jehovah) over YHWH (or Yahweh) because this is established English usage for Bible names beginning with this letter (e.g.Jacob and Joseph).” The Interlinear Bible Jay P. Green Sr. General Editor and Translator
  Even in the Jewish world the preference of the pronunciation of English speaking Jews is with an English speaking accent.  That is why you don't call them "yews", but "Jews"!  There is nothing biblically wrong with having a non-Hebrew tongue. (psalm 117, Isaiah 28:11)

  “It has been argued that Jehovah is “an impossible form” in Hebrew, but this is not so. It is unusual, but not unique, as the forms howeh (Ecc. 2:22) and howah (Ezek.7:26) show; in both words the waw doubles as a consanent and a vowel, as in Jehovah.” Rev. Alan Cairns Dictionary of Theological Terms. see: Yahweh
Samaritan poetry employs the Tetragramaton and then rhymes it with words having the same sound as Yah-oo-ay (three syllables).”-Journal of Biblical literature, 25. P.50 and Jewish Encyclopedia, vol.9, p.161).
    Archaeological proof that the 3 syllable name of God must be the proper name.
The Oldest archaeological testimony favors Jehovah. A short inscription dated of the time of Amenophis III (circa 1400 BCE) has been found at Soleb… “ –M. Ge`rard Gertoux; a Hebrew Scholar, specialist of the Tetragram; president of the association Biblique de recherche d’Ancient Manuscripts
Thus evidence of our Lord as Jehovah.

Jesus or Yeshua?

 "The Gospels were originally written in Greek, the common lingua franca (common or commercial language among diverse peoples) of the Roman Orient. No original Gospels have been found in Aramaic; the only known Aramaic Gospels are translations from Greek versions. The general consensus is that the Gospel according to Matthew was written particularly for Jews; the Gospel according to Mark was written particularly for Romans; the Gospel according to Luke was written particularly for Greeks; and the Gospel according to John was written for everyone." conservapedia The gospels 
"However, for nearly the last century, “it has become practically a generally accepted tradition that the mother tongue of Jesus, the language he knew best and therefore usually spoke, was Aramaic.”1This is mainly due to the conclusions of Dalman, 2“who stated that, though Jesus may have known Hebrew, and probably spoke Greek, he certainly taught in Aramaic.”3 Some New Testament scholars have even gone as far as to say that “Jesus only spoke in Aramaic.”4 Based on more recent historical research and linguistic data, the purpose of this paper is to show that Jesus spoke Greek, had the linguistic ability to teach in Greek, and at times may indeed have taught in Greek. There may, in fact, exist instances recorded in the Gospels where Jesus conversed and possibly taught in Greek. After this fact is established, this paper will call for a more serious consideration of the implications of this possibility by New Testament scholars and highlight the need for more research in this area."


"St. Augustine
observed that Romans preferred for Latin to be adopted per pacem societatis, through a social pact.[43] This policy contrasts with that of Alexander the Great, who aimed to impose Greek throughout his empire as the official language.[44] As a consequence of Alexander’s conquests, koine Greek had become the shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor.[45] The "linguistic frontier" dividing the Latin West and the Greek East passed through the Balkan peninsula, creating a bilateral monolingualism in the Roman Empire.[46] 
 Romans who received an elite education studied Greek as a literary language, and most men of the governing classes could speak Greek.[48] The Julio-Claudian emperors encouraged high standards of correct Latin (Latinitas), a linguistic movement identified in modern terms as Classical Latin, and favored Latin for conducting official business.[49] Claudius tried to limit the use of Greek, and on occasion revoked the citizenship of those who lacked Latin, but even in the Senate he drew on his own bilingualism in communicating with Greek-speaking ambassadors.[49] Suetonius quotes him as referring to "our two languages,"[50] and the employment of two imperial secretaries, one for Greek and one Latin, dates to his reign.[51] Wikipedia Roman empire: languages  

Only begotten
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. 
All retain the phrase "only begotton"
DLNT, YLT & WYC have similar readings indicating born or begotten.
The replacement with this phrase with "only", "unique" "one" etc really robs this passage of it's internal meaning.
The context declares the topic is concerning the concept of birth.
john 3: Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."
There must be a theological understanding of the saint being born from God.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" Yet Christ does have a separate identity As God's Son that the saints do no possess.
John 3:
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Being "unique" or "only" contradicts the promises of the New Testament to the saints. yet if the Greek word "monogenes" is translated as the compound "only begotton" then we correctly espouse the adoption of sons without confusing the identify of the saints.
The devil is in the details!
Isaiah 14:
12 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!"
  Most modern translations have removed the classic "lucifer". However there are many other translations that keep it. The Orthodox Jewish Bible, New King James Version, Douay-Rheims, Geneva, Wycliffe, Modern English New Testament, Darby, The Living Bible, BRG Bible,  21st century King James Bible and the Jubilee Bible 2000 all contain the translation Lucifer.Isaiah 14:Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming:
it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth;
it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
10 All they shall speak and say unto thee,
Art thou also become weak as we?
art thou become like unto us?
11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave,
and the noise of thy viols:
the worm is spread under thee,
and the worms cover thee.
12 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!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart,
I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:
I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation,
in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell,
to the sides of the pit.
"These words cannot apply to any mere mortal man.  Lucifer (the light bearer) is a created angel of the very highest order, identical with the covering cherub of Ezekiel 28. H.A. Ironside Isaiah   Moving Hell and the grave  and all the nations is not what a normal man even a king is capable of doing. So Bible scholars unlike Ironside typically just point to this as hyperbole or exaggeration. It amazes me how Bible scholars have been able to get away with labeling Bible prophecy "hyperbole" which is exaggeration.  The national news media identify the President's exaggerations as lies. Yet we assume that the prophets words from God are only exaggerations!
But one of the problems which gives inappropriate weight to the argument is that fact that hermeneutics is often assumed to approve of naturalistic philosophy as opposed to a Biblical Christian philosophy.  If I already know what other scriptures say then that by rights is allowed to affect how I translate the text. Not to copy the text, but to translate it in a form rational to the reader.
   The hebrew word for Lucifer is Helel ben Shahar.
Shahar is the god of dawn in the pantheon of Ugarit. Shahar is described as a child of El along a twin, Shalim, the god of dusk. Both are gods of the planet Venus, and were considered by some to be a twinned avatar of the god Athtar. As the markers of dawn and dusk, Shahar and Shalim also represented the temporal structure of the day."
Hinnells, John R. (2007). A Handbook of Ancient Religions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 122.

    So the reference to Lucifer is representing a supernatural figure among the Assyrians.  Isaiah preached to those in northern Israel and as a result encountered many of the Assyrian form of pagan belief.
But is this Satan?  Let's look at passages that explain.
Idols are demonically possessed.
Deut. 32:16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger.17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
Kings/rulers are often set to be idols or false gods.
psalm 82:I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes."
Satan can take other forms or possess, and is called out by God for it.

Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Revelation 12:
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Matthew 16:
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."
John 13:
27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. 28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him. 29 For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor."
Satan is able to be an angel of light.2 cor. 11:
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."
Satan did fall

Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
 A similar case can be made for Ezekiel 28.
 Another problem is the use of daystar as it is applied to christ and satan.
NIV 2Peter 1:
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."
Isaiah 14:
12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!  You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!"
   Many of the New translations have this problem.  They are confusing Jesus and lucifer!!  This is not as much a problem with the original languages since one is Greek and the other is Hebrew. However translating them in english the same way causes confusion.  Jesus and Satan shouldn't have the same name!!
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts"
KJV shows a wise distinction in order not to lead people away from the context.

Lucifer(websters 1828), noun [Latin lux, lucis, light, and fero, to bring.]1. The planet Venus, so called from its brightness.2. Satan. And when he falls, he falls like lucifer never to hope again."
  Being that this is a long established word in the English and Latin language.  This is probably why the famously readable "living Bible" goes along with the traditional reading.

"Lucifer the light-bearer!  Strange and mysterious name to give the spirit of darkness! Lucifer the Son of the morning! Is it he who bears the light with it's splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish souls?" Albert Pike Morals and Dogma pg. 321
"Lucifer was a personification of the morning star the planet Venus and it's goddess. 'he' was originally a 'she'- a divine representation of love, light and human warmth.  Indeed many ancient goddesses were known as lucifera" back cover
"Lucifer is the god of progress and intellectual enquiry, not only the divine inspiration behind the spiritual enlightenment of the gnostic and the heretic and the lover of God in all his/her forms: it was through Lucifer's spirit that humanity first climbed down from the trees and has represented the flow of progress ever since." Lynn Pickett The secret history of lucifer pg.252    The occult community has no problem with the use of lucifer or definition.  Obviously they are defensive of it as a positive statement.  Removing the translation takes away their objection. Which is another way of saying that they are compromising God's Word.
   Are the new translators occultists? I don't know. But as opposed to entertaining a conspiracy in order to play into the hands of those who want to dismiss this book. I will simply say that regardless of intent, the anti lucifer tradition co adjudicates the luciferian cause.

     "The version that they are most likely to be reading continues to be the King James Bible, despite the fact that the New International Version continues to be at the top of the Christian Bookseller Association's sales charts, as it has been for several decades.
     Out of the 1,551 people asked as part of the study 'The Bible in American Life' by the Centre for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University, 55 per cent of those who read the Bible regularly said they used the KJV, compared to only 19 per cent who use the NIV.
Similar results are seen when looking at the numbers of Google searches relating to versions of the Bible in the US, with the KJV accounting for approximately 57 percent of all Bible version related searches, while the NIV accounts for 32 percent."

Matthew 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. 19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. 20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. 22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty."
  As we look at the trends of Bible sales, I was reminded of the parable of the sower and the seeds. The Seed is the word of God being sewn.  The Bibles are seeds being sewn in our generations. The authorized KJV is a tradition that built upon itself until it's peak and then plateaued that standard all over the earth. The textual critical bibles are a tale of splintering division and even explosions of modern Bibles promising to replace and even enhance the faith but ultimately stacks upon stacks of Bibles have gone out into obscurity.  But in their wake they have not born the fruit of that "old word".  Many readers became skeptical or worldly or perhaps perused the many cults.  When the authorized version dominated We had the "Great Awakenings" and the "worldwide missions movement". In our modern bible movement we have less bible literacy and in fact less literacy.  Crime and drugs are sky rocketing and our governments are growing tyrannical.  In my experience, when I see a KJV preaching church I see high attendance and high evangelism. Modern churches with modern Bibles typically have to get crowds through parties, bands and market strategy. The preaching typically of the modern Bibles ranges from very small amounts of texts expo-sited to topical sermons. I am not saying that soul-winning and expository preaching does not exist in the modernized churches, but it is most often from ministers only one generation removed from the authorized version.
   Some changes are insignificant to a movement of the Holy Spirit. The building, if you have one, the instruments or the hymn books.  But the Word of God is not something that we can change.  If the Bible which was inspired by the Holy Spirit, is not revered then why should we expect the same Holy Spirit to Bless us?

So I agree with you. Now what?
Two important Bible producing ministries..
Trinitarian Bible Society
This Historic Bible Society started as a stand for fidelity against the march against inspiration.
This ministry supports the reproduction of the authorized Bible in all languages.  As well provide material explaining this position.
Bearing Precious Seed
As mentioned earlier, Bearing precious seed is a worthwhile ministry in milford Ohio producing Bibles in multiple translations.
Study materials
The 1828 Websters dictionary naturally carries the terminology For the KJV in it's context.
Strongs exhaustive concordance's_Concordance
One of the greatest Bible study tools ever perfect for discovering the biblical context of every word in the KJV.
A classic ministry winning souls all over the world  Chick tracts are entertaining educational and soul winning/

  While there is more to read in the appendix Our new look at an Old Word is concluding.  The goal in this book was to unpack the genius behind a simple religion and a simple faith. Many with the faith of a child never needed this book,  But as for the rest of us, we have been buried in our own intellects and strangled by a life of complication, The darkness of the knowledge of good and evil has blinded us and scattered us in search of that pearl of great price. Our generation is one that is maimed, bastardized, raped, naked and imprisoned. Our seared consciences seem permanently locked from redemption and maturity. But with God all things are possible.  













No comments: