Tag: King James Bible

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 18.4

What was the response to the KJV? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So as we continue, now we get to the rave reviews of the KJV. It’s strange to point to what would normally be considered the approval of men. Also, I can point to high praise of modern translations, but I suspect that will not count. At any rate, the source material is here.

What do you get when you start with the true Word of God and then add: the anointing of the Holy Spirit, godly men in excellent health, an optimum work environment, an organized work approach, and a system of quality control though comprehensive peer reviews?

Gotta love the stacking of the deck. It’s noteworthy that nothing is said about the preface of the KJV which we have talked about in earlier posts.

You get the following:

“The KJV reverberates with eternal familiarity” [S6Pvi].

Of course, Johnson doesn’t tell us who said this. No. I’m not going back and checking all his sources to find justification for one quote.

Of the Bible: Queen Victoria said: “… That book accounts for the supremacy of England”, George Washington said: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible”, Patrick Henry boasted: “The bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed” [S9P3].

While Washington did use the KJV, it doesn’t follow that he means only the KJV here. I couldn’t find what Bible Henry used, but a user of modern translations could easily agree with these statements. The same applies to Queen Victoria.

“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 …” [S2P260].

Someone point me to these atheists and skeptics and others please.

Ivy league scholars have selected the King James Bible as: “one of the FINEST samples of writing styles IN EXISTENCE” [S3P212].

And someone who agrees with modern translations can affirm this as well.

“… 250 different versions of the Bible were tried in England between 1611 and now, but they ALL FELL FLAT before the majesty of the King James” [S2P253].

No references are given for this. It would be interesting to explore what other factors could be in place, but unfortunately, Johnson doesn’t bother with that.

“[The King James Bible] was accepted in common use by the people, without coercion, and has been blessed of God as no other book of any language …” [S9P1].

The KJV: “… has proven itself for almost 400 years, it is the most beautiful, it bears the most fruit, it produces spiritual revival, it is easiest to memorize, its readers are the most zealous to read it often” [S9P2].

It would be interesting to see how anyone could demonstrate any of these claims.

“But upon the whole the version of 1611 … is probably the best version ever made for public use. It is not simply a translation, but a living reproduction of the original scriptures in idiomatic English, by men as reverent and devout as they were learned. It reads like an original work, such as the prophets and apostles might have written in the seventeenth century for English readers. It reveals an easy mastery of the rich resources of the English language, the most cosmopolitan of all modern languages, and blends with singular felicity Saxon force and Latin melody. Even its prose reads like poetry, and sounds like music. It is the first of English classics, and the greatest modern authors have drawn inspiration from this pure well of English undefiled. Its best recommendation is its universal adoption and use … Next to Christianity itself, the version of 1611 is the greatest boon which a kind Providence has bestowed upon the English race. It carries with it to the ends of the globe all that is trulyvaluable in our civilization, and gives strength, beauty, and happiness to our domestic, social, and national life” [S6P96].

This is all well and good, but it doesn’t make the case for Johnson. You can believe this and still not be a KJV-onlyist. Of course, primary sources are never used.

“The Majority text, it must be remembered, is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives. NO ONE HAS YET EXPLAINED how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier forms of text … an unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes IMPOSSIBLE strains on the imagination” [S2P34]

This is similar also to claims made about the Koran and about the Book of Mormon and the account of the seventy in making the Septuagint.

“Herein lies the greatest weakness of contemporary textual criticism. Denying to the Majority text any claim to represent the actual form of the original text, it is nevertheless unable to explain its rise, its comparative uniformity, and its dominance in any satisfactory manner. All of these factors CAN be rationally accounted for, however, IF THE MAJORITY TEXT REPRESENTS SIMPLY THE CONTINUOUS TRANSMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT FROM THE VERY FIRST” [S2P34].

And isn’t the last one the question to be asked? Also, go talk to any of these scholars. They easily can explain what happened.

We will continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 17.1

What continued in history with the Jesuits and the Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re getting closer and closer to the time of the KJV. What’s going to happen? It’s time to look into the history here and see what happens. The link can be found here.

The previous chapter explored some of the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. We concluded the two doctrines are 180 degrees apart. And we learned that Catholic doctrine is trying to infiltrate God’s Bible.

We learned nothing of the sort. It was asserted they would want to do this.

At this point in our study of the Bible, God is using: The Greek text of Erasmus (1522 A.D.), the Tyndale English Bible (1525 A.D.), and Luther’s German Bible (1525 A.D.).

Satan is using the Roman Catholics and the Jesuits.

I personally think God is using all of them and even if you include villains, well, God uses them too. As C.S. Lewis said, Judas served the purposes of God as did John.

In this chapter there will be ANOTHER attack on God’s true Word.

 

T H E S T R U G G L E

 

“Sixty years elapsed from the close of the Council of Trent (1563) to the landing of Pilgrims in America. During those sixty years, England had been changing from a Catholic nation to a Bible-loving people. Since 1525, when Tyndale’s Bible appeared, the Scriptures had obtained a wide circulation. As Tyndale foresaw, the influence of the Divine Word had weaned the people away from pomp and ceremony in religion. But this result had not been obtained without years of struggle. Spain at that time was not only the greatest nation in the world, but was also fanatically Catholic. All the new world belonged to Spain, she ruled the seas and dominated Europe. The Spanish sovereign and the Papacy united in their efforts to send into England bands of highly trained Jesuits. By these, plot after plot was hatched to place a Catholic ruler on England’s throne” [S2P237-8].

Gotta love the start implying Catholics aren’t Bible-loving. Still, I’m not wanting to argue against the historical claims. I’m willing to accept them for the sake ofa rgument.

“At the same time, the Jesuits were acting to turn the English people from the Bible, back to Romanism. As a means to this end, they brought forth in English a Bible of their own … If England could be retained in the Catholic column, Spain and England together would see to it that all America, north and south, would be Catholic. In fact, wherever the English-speaking race extended, Catholicism would reign. If this result were to be thwarted, it was necessary to meet the danger brought about by the Jesuit Version” [S2P238].

“So powerful was the swing toward Protestantism during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and so strong the love for Tyndale’s Version, that there was neither place nor Catholic scholarship enough in England to bring forth a Catholic Bible in strength. Priests were in prison for their plotting, and many fled to the Continent. There they founded schools to train English youth and send them back to England as priests. Two of these colleges alone sent over, in a few years, not less than three hundred priests” [S2P238-9].

“The most prominent of these colleges, called seminaries, was at Rheims, France. Here the Jesuits assembled a company of learned scholars. From here they kept the Pope informed of the changes of the situation in England, and from here they directed the movements of Philip II of Spain as he prepared a great fleet to crush England and bring it back to the feet of the Pope” [S2P239].

“The burning desire to give the common people the Holy Word of God was the reason why Tyndale had translated it into English. No such reason impelled the Jesuits at Rheims” [S2P239]. The purpose of the Jesuit New Testament was: “… to do on the inside of England what the great navy of Philip II was to do on the outside. One was to be used as a moral attack, the other as a physical attack – both to reclaim England” [S2P237-9].

Earlier, I had said that I had used the RCC Bible being talked about here when Johnson claimed some verses had been taken out and I saw that was nonsense. I am pleased to see it looks like I have been right about where he was going.

We pick up the history of the Bible in 1582:

And we will pick up next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.2

How did we get the Old Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We saw yesterday a statement that I could not describe as anything less than blasphemous. Today, Johnson is going to tell us some about textual transmission. (Perhaps if you wanted to write about Bible translation this would have been a better place to start.) The link can be found here.

“The Bible was written from 1650 BC to 90 AD” [S4P96]. (These dates include both the Old and New Testaments). As to the Old Testament:

“The Hebrew Scriptures were written by Moses and the prophets and other inspired men to whom God had given prophetic gifts” [S8P7].

The Old Testament text (Hebrew scriptures) were passed down both orally and in the written form. As to the oral tradition, we know the following:

“The original Hebrew manuscripts were not ‘pointed’, that is, the written text was made up of consonants, without the vowel sounds that make words pronounceable. The spoken text was passed down through the centuries by the Hebrew priests, who by their public reading of the Scriptures gave full understanding to the consonantal text” [S15P7].

Okay. Nothing really objectionable so far.

This oral tradition continued until:

“… a Jewish sect known as the Massoretes, concerned that the demise of this oral tradition would make the Hebrew Scriptures incomprehensible, set out to produce a standardized copy of the Hebrew Old Testament complete with vowel sounds” [S15P7].

Thus, the Massoretes standardized the Hebrew Text, giving us the ‘written tradition’.

The Masoretes did a valuable service, but we should not ignore the Dead Sea Scrolls either. Those were people trying to be faithful to the text as well.

In Alfred Levell’s book “The Old Is Better”; we are told how the Old Testament was copied and passed down in written form:

“For the Old Testament, the copying was done with extreme care by the Jewish priesthood in the centuries before Christ … After the time of Christ, copies were made by Jewish scribes, and especially by those from the 6th century onward called the Massoretes, who took extraordinary pains to ensure the correctness of their copies” [S13P17].

I tried to find the scholarly credentials of Levell. I found none. We have a KJV-onlyist quoting another KJV-onlyist.

The extraordinary pains that the Massoretes used included:

“… many complicated safeguards … such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book” [S8P13].

David Fuller expands on the care which went into copying the Hebrew manuscripts. He says:

“The Jews cherished the highest awe and veneration for their sacred writings which they regarded as the ‘Oracles of God’. They maintained that God had more care of the letters and syllables of the Law than of the stars of heaven, and that upon each tittle of it, mountains of doctrine hung … In the transcription of an authorized synagogue manuscript, rules were enforced of the minutest character. The copyist must write with a particular ink, on a particular parchment. He must write in so many columns, of such a size, and containing just so many lines and words. No word to be written without previously looking at the original. The copy, when completed, must be examined and compared within thirty days; if four errors were found on one parchment; the examination went no farther – the whole was rejected” [S2P112-113]

Fuller is at least a scholar, but he wrote this book back in 1970 and we have learned more sense then. He is also another KJV-onlyist. Still, there is really nothing wrong with this statement.

In his book “God Wrote Only One Bible”, Jasper James Ray also speaks about the carefulness of the scribes:

“In making copies of the original manuscripts, the Jewish scribes exercised the greatest possible care. When they wrote the name of God in any form they were to reverently wipe their pen, and wash their whole body before writing ‘Jehovah’ lest that holy name should be tainted even in writing. The new copy was examined and carefully checked with the original almost immediately, and it is said that if only one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected. Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon skins made from a ‘clean’ animal. The writer had to pronounce aloud each word before writing it. In no case was the word to be written from memory. They counted, not only the words, but every letter, and how many times each letter occurred, and compared it to the original” [S4P94-95].

I can find nothing on Ray, but once again, Johnson is only echoing his own side. He has thus far not studied anyone on something as simple as textual transmission except those who agree with him.

Notice: These 2 previous historical accounts differ slightly in a couple of places: namely did 1 or 4 errors cause the rejection of the whole copy; and did the copy get examined almost immediately or within 30 days. Suffice it to say that, even though these 2 quotes differ somewhat, the copies were made with extreme care. And, that is the point.

Therefore, we can have confidence in the Massoretic Old Testament text, because of what we have just learned, as well as:

“… the extreme reverence with which the Jews regarded their Scriptures affords a powerful guarantee against any deliberate corruption of the text” [S2P118].

And the Massoretic Old Testament has also been confirmed through other means, namely the:

“… many secondary witnesses … including translations into other languages, quotations used by friends and enemies of biblical religion, and evidence from early printed texts” [S18P153].

Again, still no problem.

Additionally, David Fuller points out (about the Massoretic Old Testament text):

“The Old Testament, precisely as we have it, was endorsed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God … The Old Testament was our Lord’s only study book …. Five hundred and four times is the Old Testament quoted in the New” [S2P113-114].

In the booklet “God’s Inspired Preserved Bible” the author says (of the Massoretic Text):

“As a summary we may say that 10% of Christ’s words were taken directly from the Old Testament” [S7P7].

Thus, the Massoretic Old Testament Text has been carefully reproduced and has been attested to by Jesus Christ. It is this Massoretic Text, which forms the Old Testament, of our King James Bible.

I have no problem with using the Masoretic text, but I have no desire to throw out the Dead Sea Scrolls.

We shall continue next time with the New Testament.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 4.1

How bad can it get? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So yesterday, I started looking ahead at what was coming today in our look at this work. I had heard Johnson use the term blasphemy, but apparently, he was blind to the idea that he would commit it himself. I have tried to be as charitable as I can, but there is no other way I can describe it as that. At any rate, the source material can be found here and we’ll be looking at the first part of chapter 4.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

Okay. Hard to argue with Scripture. This is a great introduction to creation anyway. Let’s see where he goes.

When the Word was written down, the Word was then called ‘Scripture’.

……………..

Oh my…..

I keep wanting to think he did not say this. I mean, I have seen other people say this, but for someone to say this and publish it on a website? Someone who is accusing others of blasphemy and heresy at every point? At this point, no one should take seriously anything Johnson says about interpreting Scripture.

Johnson has taken a passage of Scripture about Jesus Christ and made it about the King James Bible instead. I want to be charitable in my reading, but I can’t see any way around this. If someone can, I am open to it, but this just shows the idolatry of the movement.

Put in the Bible for the word “Word” in the prologue of John and it doesn’t make sense. This is more akin to a Muslim view of Scripture than a Christian view. This is treating Scripture as if it was involved in the creation account and is a person.

And Robert Breaker shares this as an excellent work? Says a lot about him too.

The original recordings of Scripture are called ‘autographs’. Animal skins and papyrus (paper) were used for these first autographs. Unfortunately, because of decay, these original autographs no longer exist. What does remain are copies, made by scribes, of these original autographs. These scribal copies are called ‘manuscripts’.

Okay. Nothing objectionable here at least.

The manuscripts of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew and the manuscripts of the New Testament were written in Greek. We do not have many Old Testament manuscripts. But, we have more than 5,000 New Testament manuscripts.

The number could be a bit outdated depending on when this was written. Unfortunately, I cannot find such a date.

From these manuscripts variant readings are analyzed and an agreed upon master ‘text’ is derived. From the agreed upon ‘master text’ a Bible can then be translated into the desired language.

The text is constantly updated based on new manuscripts being found, but we’ll accept this for now.

Thus our Bible was first the Word of God, then an original ‘autograph’, then a scribal copy ‘manuscript’, then an agreed upon ‘master text’, then an English Bible.

It seems a bit more complicated than that and geez, why favor the English language? The Bible is only the Bible if written in English? Something else I found myself pondering is there are dead languages now that we read, but no one really speaks. What happens if in the future English becomes one of those? Do we suddenly lose the Bible?

If any KJV-onlyists want to answer, I welcome it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2.3.1

What are the “problems” with the Amplified Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So it’s back once again to this train wreck of a work. Still, I’ve got into it and I plan to see it through to the end and it has been educational to some extent to look up some of these verses and see further evidence of how wrong KJV-onlyists get it. At any rate, the original link can be found here. For now, it’s the KJV vs the Amplified Bible.

The first will be two together.

Gen 1:21

KJV: “And God created great WHALES …”

AMP: “God created the great sea monsters …”

Matt. 12:40

KJV: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES’s belly …”

AMP: “For even as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster …”

COMMENT: God creates monsters?

I don’t think monsters is the best term to use, but at the same time, just saying monsters doesn’t show it’s wrong. After all, God created more than just whales and the term does refer to more still. Actually, when you look it up, the first definitions are dragons, serpents, and sea monsters.

Gen. 2:7

KJV: “… and man became a living SOUL.”

AMP: “… and man became a living being.”

Comment: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that man is the ONLY creature with a SOUL.

Except this is a matter of interpretation and not translation. There are some people who think some of the higher animals do have souls. There are some who do not. The term is used to describe living creatures besides men even just within Genesis.

Gen. 3:4-5

KJV: “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil.”

AMP: “But the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be as God, knowing the difference between good and evil.”

COMMENT: This is major blasphemy! God (with a big G) is not evil! Think about the difference between “as gods” and “as God”.

Yes. It’s obviously major blasphemy to have the serpent speaking falsely about God in the Bible. The devil should only speak in ways that honor God! Rank blasphemy right there to have anything else!

Besides, does Johnson think unfallen man would have concepts of other gods?

Lev. 3:13b

KJV: “… and the sons of Aaron shall SPRINKLE the blood thereof upon the altar round about.”

AMP: “… and the sons of Aaron shall throw its blood against the altar round about.”

The Hebrew word can mean both sprinkle and throw. I leave it to the scholars of Hebrew to determine which they think best fits the context.

Judges 7:20b

KJV: “… and they cried, the sword OF the LORD, and OF Gideon.”

AMP: “… and they cried, The sword for the LORD and Gideon.”

Comment: Notice: “OF” was changed to “FOR”

Yes.

And?

2 Sam. 21:19

KJV: “… Elhanan … slew THE BROTHER OFGoliath …”

AMP: “… Elhanan … slew Goliath …”

Comment: The scholars missed this one! Most Sunday school children know that DAVID slew Goliath.

This one has already been dealt with here.

Daniel 3:25

KJV: “… and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD.”

AMP: “… And the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”

COMMENT: It was Jesus Christ, THE SON OF GOD, who was with Shadrach, Messach and Abednego. It was Jesus Christ who saved them from the fiery furnace. And, it is Jesus Christ who saves you and me from the fiery furnace (i.e. Hell). There is a big difference between “THE SON OF GOD” and ‘a son’ of ‘plural’ gods! Think about it.

Already dealt with here.

Zech. 11:17

KJV: “Woe to the IDOL shepherd that leaveth the flock!”

AMP: “Woe to the worthless and foolish shepherd who deserts the flock!”

Comment: Idol and worthless/foolish are very different.

Again…

Zech. 13:6

KJV: “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.”

AMP: “And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds on your breast – between your hands? Then he will answer, Those with which I was wounded [when disciplined] in the house of my (loving) friends.”

COMMENT: Folks: This is a verse prophesying Jesus Christ. Jesus was wounded IN HIS HANDS (and also on His back), BUT NOT ON HIS BREAST! Also, Jesus WAS NOT BEING DISCIPLINED when He went to the cross! Jesus did nothing wrong! And, lastly, Jesus WAS in the house of “His” friends, but they WERE NOT BEING “loving” back to him!

Again, I dealt with this here. Johnson thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the passage is describing Jesus as a prophecy, but the problem is he doesn’t argue for it. He takes it for granted and then if anyone else agrees and translates it a way that disagrees with his interpretation, then they are obviously wrong.

And that’s it for the Amplified and the Old Testament!

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2.2.3

What are the final problems with the Living Bible? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re in the New Testament now in the Living Bible and today, we will wrap things up and then move on to the Amplified. As always, the original source is here. Let’s commence.

John 2:4

KJV: “WOMAN, WHAT HAVE I TO DO WITH THEE? MINE HOUR IS NOT YET COME.”

LB: “I can’t help you now, He said, It isn’t yet my time for miracles.”

COMMENT: His hour would come at Calvary. His HOUR and His MIRACLES are not the same.

The problem here is that both sides are doing the same thing. Johnson is arguing the hour is Calvary. The Living Bible is saying it’s the time for miracles. Both are doing interpretation more than translation. There is a rule that every translation is also an interpretation. Which one is correct? I’m not going to take a side, but leave it to you to decide. Either way, it’s a flimsy argument to say “This is a bad translation because it disagrees with my interpretation.”

John 3:13

KJV: “AND NO MAN HATH ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN, BUT HE THAT CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, EVEN THE SON OF MAN WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.”

LB: “For only I, the Messiah, have come to earth and will return to heaven again.”

Comment: Not true, LB! Remember the angels on Jacob’s ladder?

Even if we went with the KJV, there are a number of atheists who would say that Elijah ascended to Heaven. A correct understanding has to answer both of them. When done, both translations will work.

John 6:69

KJV: “AND WE BELIEVE AND ARE SURE THAT THOU ART THAT CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD.”

LB: “And we believe them and know you are the holy Son of God.”

COMMENT: The word Christ means “anointed”. Why does the LB strip him of his anointing?

There are plenty of verses that speak of Jesus as the Christ. What Johnson is doing is taking one spot where this is changed. That’s hardly the way to go about a conspiracy to eliminate the Messiahship of Jesus from the text.

John 13:26

KJV: “JESUS ANSWERED, HE IT IS, TO WHOM I SHALL GIVE A SOP, WHEN I HAVE DIPPED IT.”

LB: “He told me it is the one I honor by giving the bread dipped in th sauce.”

COMMENT: Was Jesus Christ really HONORING Judas?

Actually, yes. He was. Jesus dipped the bread and gave it to Judas. Judas was actually in a place of honor. Had he not been the one to betray Jesus, we could be hearing more about how Judas was put in a position of trust. This is part of the grace of Jesus. Even His enemies were treated with love.

Acts 9:5

KJV: “AND 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.”

LB: “Who is speaking sir, Paul asked. And the voice replied, I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and await my further instructions.”

COMMENT: Jesus title “LORD” is changed to `SIR‘. And Saul’s name is changed to Paul.

See above at John 6:69 for the first part. Also, the Living Bible is a paraphrase trying to keep matters simple so the name of Paul being used isn’t a major deal then.

I Cor. 16:22

KJV: “IF ANY MAN LOVE NOT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA MARANATHA.”

LB: “If anyone does not love the Lord, that person is cursed, Lord Jesus, come.”

COMMENT: Once again; Jesus Christ is separated from title ‘Lord’

Once again, in the end, Jesus is still referred to as the Lord. This simply boils down to “The LB disagrees with the KJV.”

II Cor. 8:9

KJV: “FOR YE KNOW THE GRACE OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.”

LB: “You know how full of love and kindness our Lord Jesus was.”

COMMENT: Lord Jesus Christ is stripped down to: Lord Jesus.

More of the same….

I Tim. 2:5-6

KJV: “FOR THERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN THE MAN CHRIST JESUS, WHO GAVE HIMSELF A RANSOM FOR ALL, TO BE TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME.”

LB: “That God is on one side and all the people on the other side, and Christ Jesus Himself, man, is between them to bring them together by giving His life for all mankind.”

I am not sure what Johnson is upset about. He doesn’t say.

I Tim. 3:16

KJV: “AND WITHOUT CONTROVERSY GREAT IS THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH.”

LB: “It is quite true that the matter to live a godly life is not an easy matter, but the answer lies in Christ who came to earth as a man.”

COMMENT: Remember the test for the anti-christ. The anti-christ cannot say: “JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH“. Notice how the LB dances around this verse! Apparently the LB cannot say “GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH!

Or it’s just a paraphrase….

I John 1:7

KJV: “AND THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST HIS SON CLEANSETH US FROM ALL SIN.”

LB: “The blood of Jesus, His Son, cleanses us from every sin.”

COMMENT: Jesus Christ is stripped down to Jesus.

It gets so tiring to see the same thing again and again.

Revelation 6:17

Rev. 6:17

KJV: “FOR THE GREAT DAY OF HIS WRATH IS COME …”

LB: “Because the great day of THEIR anger is come and who can survive it?”

Comment: What do “HIS” wrath and “THEIR” anger have in common?

Well, let’s see. The KJV sees the one on the throne and the lamb likely as one and the same. The Living Bible translators think it means the Father and the Son. Both are pointing to the same source essentially.

Next time, we will look at the comparison to the Amplified Bible.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

 

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 2.2-1

How does the Living Bible measure up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As we go through Jeff Johnson’s *cough* work *cough* we need to get something clear about translation. All translations to some extent are interpretations. If this blog was translated into another language, the person would have to think of the right language to use to translate it and that will likely entail certain meanings.

Some translations go with a word for word where you try to find the word in the corresponding language that matches the word in the manuscript. This can be hard as sometimes words really don’t have an equivalent in another language. (The Greeks have four words for love and we use one for all of them.) Some words are hapax legomena meaning they show up one time in the text and sometimes these words are extremely hard to find anywhere else if they can be found at all.

Some translations go with more of what is called a dynamic equivalence and the idea is to get the meaning out even if it isn’t word-for-word. Paraphrases are extremely like this. Paraphrases are meant more for devotional reading of a text. They are not meant for serious academic study.

But I suspect none of this matters to Johnson. He might not even know about it. At any rate, here’s the source material again.

Lev. 3:13b

KJV: “AND THE SONS OF AARON SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD THEREOF UPON THE ALTAR ROUND ABOUT.”

LB: “The priest shall throw its blood against the sides of the altar.”

One can say the paraphrase doesn’t get to the main emphasis of how this was done, but that is not the point of a paraphrase. I don’t think throw is the best term, but again, the Living Bible is not meant for academic study.

Numbers 25:11

KJV: “PHINEHAS … HATH TURNED MY WRATH AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.”

LB: “Phinehas has turned away my anger for he was as angry as I.”

COMMENT: How can someone be as angry as God?

Brace yourself, Mr. Johnson. In the time that this was written, the translators, (rightly or wrongly) would have believed in impassibility which means they would not believe God could literally be angry. However, even if I did not hold to that position, I would still be able to recognize hyperbolic language, which is common to Jews.

Judges 7:20b

KJV: “AND THEY CRIED, THE SWORD OF THE LORD AND OF GIDEON.”

LB: “All yelling for the Lord and for Gideon.”

Comment: The two verses are not even close!

But if you look at what’s going on in the context, then they are close.

Judges 19:2

KJV: “AND HIS CONCUBINE PLAYED THE WHORE AGAINST HIM.”

LB: “But she became angry with him and ran away.”

Comment: Are PLAYING THE WHORE and running away the same?

In this case, I do think that the KJV has it better. That’s called being fair in translation and interpretation.

I Sam. 20:30

KJV: “THOU SON OF A PERVERSE REBELLIOUS WOMAN.”

LB: “You son of a bitch.”

Comment: Some ‘modern’ versions, like the LB, actually contain vulgarity. Notice this verse. Also, take a look in an NIV ‘bible’ in Ezekiel 23:20.

So let’s put up what Ezekiel 23:20 says in the NIV.

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Profanity is honestly more of a social sin than anything else. Nowhere in Scripture is something said like “You shall not say these words.” I don’t say them, but I don’t fault Christians who sometimes do. If you look at these verses and your biggest problem is they use words that you don’t like in some translations, you have a bigger problem.

II Sam. 16:4b

KJV: “AND ZIBA SAID, I HUMBLY BESEECH THEE THAT I MAY FIND GRACE IN THY SIGHT, MY LORD, O KING.”

LB: “Thank you, thank you, sir, Ziba replied.”

Comment: There is NO similarity between these two verses.

Unless you, I don’t know, actually read the story.

I Kings 18:27

KJV: “CRY ALOUD: FOR HE IS A GOD: EITHER HE IS TALKING, OR HE IS PURSUING.”

LB: “Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet.”

Comment: Sitting on a toilet ???

This is the only time the word translated “pursuing” is used in Scripture, but again, what’s the big deal? Oh my gosh! He said a pagan god could be sitting on a toilet and thus not answering! I suppose Elijah should realize he can mock Baal all he wants as long as he doesn’t say words that might be deemed offensive.

II Kings 21:6b

KJV: “HE WROUGHT MUCH WICKEDNESS IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD, TO PROVOKE HIM TO ANGER.”

LB: “So the Lord was very angry, for Manasseh was an evil man in God’s opinion.”

COMMENT: In God’s opinion?

This is another case where I do think the KJV is better.

II Chr. 26:4

KJV: “AND HE DID THAT WHICH WAS RIGHT IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD ACCORDING TO ALL THAT HIS FATHER AMAZIAH DID.”

LB: “He followed in the footsteps of his father Amaziah and was in general a good king as far as the Lord’s opinion of him was concerned.”

COMMENT: Again, God does NOT have opinions. Men have opinions.

And again, the same.

Okay. No need to overwhelm the reader. We will continue another time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)