|
From: "DH" Sent: January-13-10 2:03 AM
To: Mike Subject: Re: King James Evidence that Demands a Verdict
"Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before"
So true!!
"The translators of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places... yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it"
The apostles didn't condemn the Septuagint which they apparently viewed as imperfect according to KJV translators, yet you have no reservations against condemning good, though imperfect, translations of the Bible.
"Variety of Translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures"
Doesn't this settle the whole matter? Seriously.
-Selections from the 1611 KJV Introduction
Mike,
It is my opinion that the KJV is a good translation of God's Word. It is one that I love very much, but I would have to forsake honesty and lie to call it an inerrant or infallible translation. And God says in His Word that "no lie is of the truth". There are errors in the KJV and I believe that one cannot uphold truth and argue that fact at the same time.
I have only 2 questions for this letter that I would appreciate your answer to.
1.) IF the KJV is a perfect translation then you have to either believe that there is a contradiction in God's Word or that Paul was a liar and 1/3 of the New Testament cannot be trusted for the following reason. According to the King James Version in Acts 9:7 the men with Paul heard a voice, "hearing a voice", but in Acts 22:9 it says that the men with Paul "heard not the voice". The modern translations such as the NASB, NIV and NLT have accurately (in my opinion) translated the second verse as "did not understand the voice" which is not in contradiction with Acts 9:7. They heard the voice but they did not understand what was said.
The NKJV, which is the only version which is merely a revision of the KJV does have the same errant reading but the other translations do not. Modern translations are not just revisions of or alterations to the KJV as you inferred. From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th ed.: Translation 1: an act, process, or instance of translating: as a. a rendering from one language into another; also the product of such a rendering.
If someone thought that the KJV translation was the perfect Word of God (and none else), they would see this apparent contradiction (that the Mormons like to use) and probably then assume that there are other contradictions in the Bible. However to the person that acknowledges that it is only a translation by fallible men of God's infallible Word, there is no problem. That person just asks "hey why does this say...?" And if they're not asking a KJV Onlyist and the person knows, they'll tell them the truth why. But if they ask the average KJV Onlyist, they'll give them some confusing answer and then rebuke them sharply for questioning God's Word.
So my first question is: Do you defend the KJV reading of Acts 22:9? Why? How?
2.) How do you explain the word "Easter", which comes from Eostre - a pagan Anglo-Saxon goddess, being in the KJV 28 times when every single available manuscript has to pasca in the text which absolutely can only be translated "the Passover"? I sure hope you're not going to answer with a J.W. kind of "New Light" answer like most KJV Onlyists do.
My second question is: How do you defend the use of the name of a pagan goddess for the Jewish Passover in the KJV?
The following is just food for thought (no commentary necessary):
What should excite and encourage you is the way GOD REALLY HAS PRESERVED HIS WORD! The over five thousand manuscripts available today do have many variations, most are spelling or wording. Scholars today, by studying and comparing them, can be certain of what the original reading was in over 99.5% of the variations! And even better than that is knowing that all of the questionable .5% are extremely insignificant and do not effect any doctrines of the Bible! Modern translations have utilized this information which was unavailable to the KJV translators to render more accurate readings than previously possible. If you compare the manuscript variations of any other work of antiquity (e.g. Homer's Illiad) you find that there are multiplied times more variations. Praise God that He is able to preserve His Word! And that He has!
"Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene." II Timothy 2:16-17a NIV
"DH"
May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!
From: Mike Sent: January-13-10 12:26 PM
To: "DH"
Subject: RE: King James Evidence that Demands a Verdict
"DH",
1. I have no problem answering your questions, because I have long ago studied these things and have spent all of my life reading and believing God's word rather than approaching it with an attitude of "Sure, God….prove it to me".
2. It hasn't escaped my notice that in both of my emails to you (all of them now) I have presented documented facts, rules of grammar, reams of applicable scriptures, cogent reasoning, and irrefutable examples of omissions and errors in the new versions. On both occasions you have responded with silence on those issues, but then continued the barrage of doubt-filled questions and regurgitated liberal propaganda. You are steeped in the attitudes and practices of the "yea, hath God said" society. "DH", you need to examine your heart and approach God in faith; not in defiance.
3. You wrote:
"Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before"
So true!!
"The translators of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places... yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it"
The apostles didn't condemn the Septuagint which they apparently viewed as imperfect according to KJV translators, yet you have no reservations against condemning good, though imperfect, translations of the Bible.
"Variety of Translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures"
Doesn't this settle the whole matter? Seriously.
-Selections from the 1611 KJV Introduction
a. This was one of the topics to which I made allusion and that will take a lot of time – at some point. If you don't already know, publishers have printed phoney King James bibles to deceive people into thinking they have the real thing. Several publishers care about money; not about truth. That is why Harper-Collins has no problem publishing the Satanic bible alongside the NIV (through their Zondervan division) – which you claim is one of the true word's of God. That fact should raise an alarm and a conflict in your mind. It doesn't in mine; because, besides understanding that this publisher only cares about making money (I Tim 6:10), I understand the theological issues in their materials and realize that there is no underlying difference between the Satanic bible and the NIV – both are designed to undermine the truth of God's word.
b. Most of the new version debate pivots on the existence of a pre-Christian Septuagint. It is amazing to me how ignorant (or willingly blind) so-called scholars are (including James White). That's not a slam; it's an observation, and a fact. There was no pre-Christian Septuagint.
c. Once again, those who doubt God's word will undoubtedly dispute this fact and will demand proof (of the non-existence of something that doesn't exist). But, once again, this is not opinion, it is fact. I refer you to our article on "What About the Septuagint", regarding the "pre-Christian Septuagint", along with all of its linked supporting documentation. Liberal scholars simply need a pre-Christian Septuagint to exist in order to pretend that Jesus and the Apostles used it; which thereby supposedly justifies the publishing of their new versions – which are derivatives of the real "Septuagint". Among other places, you can find documentation on our website about the Mythological_Septuagint.
OKAY – ANSWERING "DH'S" LATEST TWO QUESTIONS:
4. You wrote:
I have only 2 questions for this letter that I would appreciate your answer to.
1.) IF the KJV is a perfect translation then you have to either believe that there is a contradiction in God's Word or that Paul was a liar and 1/3 of the New Testament cannot be trusted for the following reason. According to the King James Version in Acts 9:7 the men with Paul heard a voice, "hearing a voice", but in Acts 22:9 it says that the men with Paul "heard not the voice". The modern translations such as the NASB, NIV and NLT have accurately (in my opinion) translated the second verse as "did not understand the voice" which is not in contradiction with Acts 9:7. They heard the voice but they did not understand what was said.
The NKJV, which is the only version which is merely a revision of the KJV does have the same errant reading but the other translations do not. Modern translations are not just revisions of or alterations to the KJV as you inferred. From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th ed.: Translation 1: an act, process, or instance of translating: as a. a rendering from one language into another; also the product of such a rendering.
If someone thought that the KJV translation was the perfect Word of God (and none else), they would see this apparent contradiction (that the Mormons like to use) and probably then assume that there are other contradictions in the Bible. However to the person that acknowledges that it is only a translation by fallible men of God's infallible Word, there is no problem. That person just asks "hey why does this say...?" And if they're not asking a KJV Onlyist and the person knows, they'll tell them the truth why. But if they ask the average KJV Onlyist, they'll give them some confusing answer and then rebuke them sharply for questioning God's Word.
So my first question is: Do you defend the KJV reading of Acts 22:9? Why? How?
a. No, "DH". I don't have to believe any of those things. No, there is NO contradiction in God's word. No, Paul is NOT a liar. No, NONE of the New Testament is untrustworthy; ALL of the New Testament can be trusted.
b. Yes, "DH", I defend ALL of the reading of the King James Bible, including Acts 22:9. Why? Because it is God's word, the FINAL authority, MY FINAL authority and YOUR FINAL authority (whether you agree and submit yourself to that yet or not)
1) Further, the modern translators have LIED to you in their translation, and – if you care so much about the Greek – all you need to do is go to the (real) Greek and see that the modern translators changed what the words were to avoid what THEY THOUGHT was a problem (and that's beside the fact that they changed the Greek as well – I'm referring to Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, et al).
2) This is a typical and rampant problem with critical 'scholars'. They think they know how to say things better than God did, so they change the text from what wasn't a problem to what becomes a problem and then proudly proclaim that they "fixed" God's word for him – how pompous!
c. How do I defend this reading in God's word? Let's look at the passages, in context:
Acts 9
1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
Acts 22
4And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
5As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
10And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
11And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus
d. The first problem here is that critics do not read the text. The second problem is that they do not believe what they have read.
e. Look at the word "voice" in Acts 22:9. It is a noun. It is modified by a prepositional phrase that serves as an adjective - "of him that spake to me".
1) "of" is a preposition introducing the prepositional phrase, "of him" – which serves as an adjective, modifying the noun "voice"
2) "him" is a third-person, personal pronoun, singular; object of the preposition "of"
3) "that" is a relative pronoun introducing the clause "that spake to me", is subject of that clause, is subject of the verb "spake", and relates (hence "relative" pronoun) the words in that clause to the pronoun "him".
4) "spake" is a verb, the heart of the clause, "that spake to me"
5) "to" is a preposition, introducing the prepositional phrase "to me" – which serves as an adverb, modifying the verb "spake"
6) "me" is a first-person, personal pronoun, singular, representing the noun "Paul" and is the object of the preposition "to".
f. That covers all of the key words. As you can see, the men travelling with Paul heard a voice (Acts 9:7), but didn't hear the voice of him that spake to Paul (Acts 22:9). Obviously, while Jesus was speaking to Paul (which the men couldn't hear), someone else talked to the men (presumably an angel or one of the two witnesses that often accompanied Jesus – why would that be surprising?) or talked to Paul or to Jesus in such a way that the men only heard his (the angel's or witness') side of the conversation. No doubt this would make you 'stand speechless and afraid' too - seeing a light, hearing a voice, but seeing no man, and not hearing the voice that spoke to Paul.
g. So, am I an "average KJV Onlyist", "DH"? (I reject the label in its entirety.) Have I presented a "confusing answer" to your question? No; this is the only answer that makes sense. It is the only answer that is PERFECTLY consistent with all of the text. It is the only answer that doesn't change the words or the meaning of the words that were in the Greek. And, it is the only answer that is true. The new versions LIE to you in saying that the men "did not understand" the voice – a concept and words that are not in the Greek text; they are fabricated, made up - LIES.
5. You wrote:
2.) How do you explain the word "Easter", which comes from Eostre - a pagan Anglo-Saxon goddess, being in the KJV 28 times when every single available manuscript has to pasca in the text which absolutely can only be translated "the Passover"? I sure hope you're not going to answer with a J.W. kind of "New Light" answer like most KJV Onlyists do.
My second question is: How do you defend the use of the name of a pagan goddess for the Jewish Passover in the KJV?
a. It continues to be difficult knowing where to start, because there are so many errors in the assumptions and in the background propaganda that you have been taught and upon which you rely. And (again), the attitude with which you are approaching God's word is one of confrontation, disbelief and defiance; not one of humble request to understand the truth. Unless you change that heart, it will continue to be that you remain among the critics of God's word - because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
1) Let me re-iterate that I am not a Greek scholar, nor a Hebrew scholar, and I don't need to be. God has given me his pure and perfect word in English. I understand English very well and I have no problem believing what I understand. I recommend the same attitude and approach to you. However, if it means anything to you, I am capable and willing to address the misconceptions you have adopted from the critics.
2) First of all, you might do well to know that it was William Tyndale who coined BOTH of the words "Easter" and "Passover" during the formation of the English language. (There is a misconception among some that the English word "Passover" has existed since the original Exodus, and that "Easter" is a relative new-comer that has come to supplant the purity and meaning of Passover with Pagan traditions and by Satanic design. As with most lies, this has some truth to it. Easter is indeed Pagan and it is clearly Satan's design to replace the truth with counterfeit 'versions' of the truth. You should think about that a little.
3) When interpreting scripture, the context of a passage is perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in determining the definition/meaning of a word. One word can have several meanings. For example, the word "day" can mean:
a) the period that is not night,
b) 24 hours of time, and
c) a general period of time in which a person or people lived
4) I hope this doesn't open another can of worms with you, but as another example, the word "wine" can mean fermented wine (as it was when Noah became drunk on it) or the 'first fruits - sweetest syrup' coming from grapes before they are fully pressed (as Jesus produced at the wedding feast). Liberals like to teach that Jesus made alcoholic wine, because they want to stamp the Lord's endorsement on their drunkenness, and ultimately blame him for the consequences - destruction and death. But, true disciples of the Lord (John 8:31), true Christians, study (II Tim 2:15), search (Acts 17:11) and compare scriptures (Acts 17:2; I Cor 2:13) to know the meaning of the truth. So, true disciples will compare verses like (Prov 31:4) where it's not for Kings to drink wine, nor princes to drink strong drink, with (Rev 19:16 and Is 9:6) that teach Jesus is the King of Kings and Prince of Peace, and add in verses like (Prov 20:1) where Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise – to understand that we are commanded not to drink alcoholic wine, and that we are free to drink new wine (unfermented juice, fruit of the vine) like Jesus made at the wedding. Many other passages add to this issue including the concept that the wine represented the pure and atoning blood of Jesus which he wouldn't therefore have symbolized by a decaying mass of fermented juice/alcohol in the communion cup.
5) I say all of this to highlight the concept that ONE word (day or wine or Pesach/Pascha) can have multiple meanings, and that proper hermeneutics requires comparison of scriptures and understanding of the context ("Context is King" some say) when determining the meaning of words and interpreting the passages of scripture.
b. So, given the multiple meanings of any ONE word in various contexts (Day, wine, Pesach/Pascha, etc), and given that the Latin and Greek word for Easter is pascha, which is simply a form of the Hebrew word for Passover–Pesach, it is quite proper, when translating into a newly forming language (English), to express this as "Passover", Ester or Easter, Ester-Lambe, Esterfest, and Paschall Lambe to carry-over the clarifying distinction of the meaning in the various contexts into the new language. This is particularly proper given that English speaking people would probably be unfamiliar with the meaning of certain words in the context of the Jewish culture and would therefore not appreciate all of the nuances of the word in the original tongue without such a distinction being made in the various contexts of the new language.
c. Regardless of all that, God gave me his pure and perfect word in English, and I can prove from the ENGLISH alone that the King James Bible is CORRECT in Acts 12:4 and that the New Versions are WRONG.
Acts 12
1Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
2And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
3And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
5Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
6And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains: and the keepers before the door kept the prison.
1) God uses Jewish feasts to mark calendar events. The Passover is a one day event. The Jews celebrated Passover on the 14th day of the first month. In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover. (Lev 23:5) (Num 28:16,17)
2) The next day, the 15th day of the month, was called the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which continued a seven day period, until the 21st, in which they were to eat unleavened bread. These were called THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD. (Ex 12:18) (Num 28:16,17)
3) In Acts 12:2,3 Herod killed James, and because he saw that it pleased the Jews he proceeded further to take Peter also (THEN WERE THE DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD).
4) In Acts 12:4, Herod put Peter in prison, under guard, intending after EASTER to bring him forth to the people. In Acts 12:6, when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night he was sleeping between two soldiers ...
5) Look at the sequence: Passover, DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD, Easter.
6) Peter was captured DURING the DAYS OF UNLEAVENED BREAD. Passover was over. Peter was in prison and Herod was waiting for EASTER, just a few days later; not for Passover.
7) It makes no sense that Herod was planning to wait for a whole year in order to bring Peter out after the next "Passover" (as new versions say), especially when it mentions in verse 6 that he was ready to bring Peter out just a few nights later. However, it DOES make sense that he planned to bring him out at the end of, and perhaps as the highlight of, his Pagan celebration and festivities of EASTER (the Queen of Heaven and goddess of Spring) (remember John the Baptist's contribution to Herod's birthday party?).
8) So, you wrote: "My second question is: How do you defend the use of the name of a pagan goddess for the Jewish Passover in the KJV?" Herod was a Pagan. The scriptural and historical evidence for that are both clear. Herod was waiting to kill Peter at the end of, or after, Easter celebrations – what a finale!
d. By saying "Easter", the King James Bible has this verse RIGHT. By saying "Passover", the New Versions are not only WRONG, they are also NOT REASONABLE.
6. I reject the concept of "New Light" as much as you do, "DH" (probably more). But as much as you reject the Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT and "New Light", you certainly have adopted their distain for the absolute and FINAL authority of scripture; and you have adopted their attitude that you can make the text say whatever you want it to say – all you have to do is look for the wording that YOU PREFER in another version, or publish your own version and call it the truth.
7. Stop listening to the critics of God's word, "DH". Instead of challenging and criticizing God's word in scholarly pride and defiance, approach it in FAITH and HUMILITY. HUMBLY ask God for understanding. That is the ONLY way that you will get God to answer your prayer.
8. I have no problem continuing these discussions with you (providing that you don't ignore my evidence and simply respond with propaganda), but I have been wondering how it is you have so much time for this, being that you are in seminary classes. Don't you have some assignments to write or some exams to study for? Or, is this your assignment?
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thess 5:21)
Mike.
GO TO NEXT/PREVIOUS:
LOST 00 (intro): LOST 01: LOST 02: LOST 03: LOST 04: LOST 05 (Summary): LOST 06:
|
