HOME CHAT ROOM #1 CHAT ROOM #2 Forum Topics Within The Last 7 Days REGISTER ENTER FORUMS BIBLE SCHOOL CONTACT US

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine Christian Family Fellowship Forums
(formerly Maritime SDA OnLine)
Consisting mainly of both members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Welcomes and invites other members and friends of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to join us!

Click Here To Read Legal Notice & Disclaimer
Suggested a One Time Yearly $20 or Higher Donation Accepted Here to Help Cover the Yearly Expenses of Operating & Upgrading
Donations accepted: Here
ShoutChat Box
Newest Members
MrAbdullaQodiriy, ByronS, TruthinTypes, LoveGodsWord, Freth
1316 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums118
Topics9,030
Posts192,884
Members1,316
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
Seventh-day Adventist Church In Canada Links
Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada

Newfoundland & Labrador Mission

Maritime Conference

Quebec Conference

Ontario Conference

Manitoba-Saskatchewan Conference

Alberta Conference

British Columbia Conference

7 Top Posters(30 Days)
Daryl 9
kland 6
Rick H 2
July
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Member Spotlight
Rick H
Rick H
Florida, USA
Posts: 2,783
Joined: January 2008
Show All Member Profiles 
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Live Space Station Tracking
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
Last 7 Pictures From Photo Gallery Forums
He hath set an harvest for thee
Rivers Of Living Water
He Leads Us To Green Pastures
Remember What God Has Done
Remember The Sabbath
"...whiter than snow..."
A Beautiful Spring Day
Who's Online
3 registered members (Daryl, Karen Y, Kevin H), 376 guests, and 8 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: kland] #194224
07/12/21 10:55 PM
07/12/21 10:55 PM
Green Cochoa  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

5500+ Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
By way of follow up:

I asked one of my Hebrew professors about that verse and whether or not it should refer to three days or three years, and the professor opined that perhaps it should be three days--but that it could be understood either way. The problem is that the word can mean either one, and the context allows, in this case, for either meaning, so it is unclear which way it should be read/understood.

A similar ambiguity comes up in the story of Hannah. After hearing the blessing from Eli (1 Samuel 1:17), she went away rejoicing that she had received answer from God. But how long was it before she conceived (vs. 20)? The Hebrew word for day/time/year (yowm) is again plural, and this time it is definite (preceded by "the"). Should we understand that it took years before Samuel was conceived, even after Eli's blessing? According to the Hebrew, this is a possible interpretation. When I asked my Jewish Hebrew professor about this text he understood the plural to refer to "seasons," and thought it should be considered to be about one natural year, according to the normal cycle of conception and pregnancy. But he agreed that it could mean multiple years had passed before Samuel was born.

Hebrew does not really have a verb tense system. Scholars prefer to speak of Hebrew verbs using terms like "aspect." The Hebrew verbs' "aspect" includes things like whether or not the action is repeated (cyclic, continuous) or whether it occurred just once (imperfect vs. perfect aspect). Hebrew participles can be active, passive, etc., and can be used as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and perhaps even more (it's complex and I'm still learning). Commands in Hebrew can never be given by a passive verb--so nifal/nufal, hofal, etc. verb forms cannot be commands. But the yiqtol verbs, usually translated in future tense, can be commands. In Hebrew, there is only one word which starts a relative clause [אֲשֶׁ֛ר "asher" (full form) / שֶׁ "she" (abbreviated)--Jonah 4:10 uses both forms]: because English has many such words, translation can be tricky (e.g. who, that, which, whose, where, when, etc.). Translation changes the grammar between languages. For example, in Genesis 45:4, Hebrew says "I am Joseph your brother (asher) you sold me." In English, that relative clause cannot be "whom you sold me" so we change it to "whom you sold." But in Hebrew, that pronoun "me" is there (embedded in the direct object marker) which is not translated to English. In my interlinear, the "me" is not even rendered in the English gloss for that phrase because it makes no sense in English to include it, and it is not necessary when the relative clause is in effect. As with English, sometimes Hebrew omits the relative pronoun; for example "I thought you would" and "I thought that you would" are equivalent in meaning--the relative pronoun "that" is optional.

All of this was to say that translation from Hebrew to English is not always clear and straightforward. Anytime one translates between languages, some of the original is lost. While some English idioms started from the King James translation of the Bible, there are other Hebrew idioms that did not survive translation. For example, throughout the Old Testament when one sees the term "longsuffering" or perhaps "slow to anger" in English (e.g. Jonah 4:2), it is usually from a Hebrew idiom "nose was/is slow." Now, why would God have a slow nose (אַפַּ֙יִם)? If you get very angry, perhaps your nose will get red. But God's nose is slow. It's the opposite of having a quick temper. Looking at only the English, you would have no idea that the Hebrew uses the word "nose" because they have translated the idiom to something that makes more sense in English.

I think it's a crime that Adventist students, especially in high school and above, are not taught the Biblical languages in our Adventist schools. Literally. It's a sin. Ellen White has told us that the Bible should be our textbook. Unfortunately, it is only our "textbook" (hardly that, even) for "Bible class." We are not in compliance with the word of the Lord on this matter.

I wish I had been taught the Biblical languages early, when my mind was more able to learn and retain them. Nevertheless, I am very happy to be learning them now. The courses are all online, and I have been taking them for several years now. Hebrew is a fascinating language.

Regarding Bible versions, I highly value and appreciate the KJV. It is, overall, the best we have in English. But there are no perfect translations. Theologically speaking, there are some very egregious errors that have come in through the modern translations. They correct some of the KJV's errors, only to insert real bloomers in critical places. It's as if the devil's intention was to give those introduced heresies credibility by having superior translation in some other places. Reader beware!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Green Cochoa] #194225
07/13/21 07:19 PM
07/13/21 07:19 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
... I think it's a crime that Adventist students, especially in high school and above, are not taught the Biblical languages in our Adventist schools.
I could quote what the SoP/ToJ says about that, but I won't. You may look them up for yourself. Just type "education" "languages" for a start.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Regarding Bible versions, I highly value and appreciate the KJV. It is, overall, the best we have in English. But there are no perfect translations.
Regarding translations.

Have you considered Exodus 20:1-17? What language did God speak to all the congregation of Israel (and mixed multitude present also, including Moses' wife, Zipporah, a Midianite)? Is it God's original tongue of Heaven (such as Paul heard)? What language were the Ten Commandments written in?

Have you considered Genesis 42, with Joseph in Egypt speaking to his brethren? What language is it written in? What language was Joseph speaking to his brethren by? (see Genesis 42:7,23)

Have you considered Ezra 4:7-16? What language is it written in? What language was the letter to Artaxerxes I Longimanus/Machrocheir written by "Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions" in the following verses (vss 11-16)?

Have you considered Acts 26:14? What language is it written in? What language was the latter part spoken in?

Did God preserve the words we need (Psalms 12:6-7, etc) or simply the ideas or both?

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Theologically speaking, there are some very egregious errors that have come in through the modern translations. They correct some of the KJV's errors ...
"KJV errors". Please provide 3 examples from the OT and 3 examples from the NT, thank you.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
... by having superior translation in some other places ...
"superior translation" is subjective, and moreso since you gave no standard or foundation by which to test that which is supposed to be superior to that which is supposed to be inferior.

Please produce 3 "superior translations" in the OT, and 3 "superior translations" in the NT, and give the founational ruler, or standard by which you measured against to determine the 'superiority' and 'inferiority'. Thank you.

(PS, How many Bibles (and in what languages) do I need, so that I can have all of God's words, and finally have no errors when combined, and how do I determine what is and is not errors in these that I am to have, so that I can take out all of the errors and have a pure Bible without error, or do you suggest that there will always be error no matter what, or do you suggest that the original autograph's are alone without error,or do you suggest the original speech before being written are without error (like God/Moses, Jeremiah/Baruch, Paul/Tertias, etc)?

Last edited by Matthew 10vs8; 07/13/21 07:37 PM.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194226
07/14/21 12:50 AM
07/14/21 12:50 AM
Green Cochoa  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

5500+ Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
Matthew,

Take a deep breath. I am not your enemy. We wrestle not against flesh and blood...remember?

Have you seen what Mrs. White wrote about Bible versions/perversions? If not, please click HERE to see some of those statements. They are important.

Having said that, Mrs. White herself used some of the "new" versions that had come out in her day, and most people wrongly use that as evidence that any version is okay.

As to there being poor translations in the Bible, this is a fact supported by Mrs. White. But she herself would tell us not to make too big a deal out of it, lest scoffers have reason to scoff and to discredit the Word of God. Just the same, a Christian with breadth of mind will acknowledge the truth, and since you have insisted that you wish to see some of the errors, I will oblige you. Let's start by remembering that there are errors even in the original underlying text, before it was translated.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it, and, furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation. In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's Word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen. {GC88 245.1}


Notice that Ellen White does not say "all" of the errors were corrected by Erasmus in the Greek text he compiled. She doesn't even say that "most" of the errors were corrected. She says "many". It is clear, therefore, that errors remained. Notice also that Erasmus was correcting the text which Wycliffe's Bible translation had used. Wycliffe had translated the Bible to English for the first time.

Quote
The Wycliffe Bible laid the groundwork for further translations of the Bible into English, as we shall see. In fact, the King James Version retains much of the same wording as the Wycliffe Bible, and continues its legacy.


So, the KJV was heavily influenced by the text whose source had had many errors. This is historical fact.

Keep in mind that I am far, far from being anti-KJV. I am much closer to being a KJV-onlyer, as you will learn if you read many of my posts in this forum. I use KJV almost strictly when doing any serious Bible study, especially in terms of doctrines. But I am able to recognize that there are errors. I have stated in places that for every error in the KJV I could find ten errors, and more egregious ones, in the NIV. I like to call the latter the "Not Inspired Version" because its errors are so malignant. So please understand that I am not against the KJV when I point out some of its errors.

You have asked for three each in the OT and the NT.

OLD TESTAMENT

Let's start with the Ten Commandments.

OT-1:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13, KJV; Deuteronomy 5:17, KJV)


The word "kill" is a mistranslation. The NIV is superior in this text, saying "You shall not murder." The Hebrew word is "ratsach" which is translated almost everywhere else in the KJV as murder, manslaughter, etc. For some reason, specifically in the Ten Commandment, and in BOTH places (Exodus and Deuteronomy), they translated this as "kill." Hebrew has many words for kill and destroy, and this unfortunate translation puts the Bible at odds with itself--creating a contradiction within God's Word.

Originally Posted by The Bible
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:16)


According to the KJV mistranslation of this important commandment, God later asks the people to break it. And if one were to broaden the "kill" to animals, in addition to people, then the commandment to kill for each of the sacrificial offers also breaks the Ten Commandments.

Obviously, this is a significant error, and very important to doctrinal truth. This is not merely a misplaced comma, nor a misspelling of someone's name (there are many of those, of course).



OT-2:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down. (Daniel 8:11, KJV)

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. (Daniel 8:12, KJV)

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? (Daniel 8:13, KJV)

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (Daniel 11:31, KJV)

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12:11, KJV)


I don't need to say much about this error, because Mrs. White, under inspiration, tells us about it.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Daniel 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily"; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test. {EW 74.2}


The fact is, the definite article "the" precedes the adverb "daily" in the original Hebrew without a noun being present. The translators felt it necessary, grammatically, to add a noun, which they did with "sacrifice." But, while this is indeed unusual grammar for Hebrew, it is not unheard of. Even in English we sometimes break the usual rules for articles preceding nouns by having the article before an adjective or an adverb instead.

For example: "The less the better." Why do we have "the" in this phrase? To emphasize something...and it turns that something into a noun which ordinarily would not have been a noun. The same should be true in these texts in Daniel. By the way, scholars largely agree that the book of Daniel presents the most difficult level of Hebrew of any in the Old Testament.

So this KJV error regarding "the daily" is attested by Ellen White. This error of the Wycliffe and KJV was propagated to virtually all English Bibles today. YLT and Darby each put the word "sacrifice" in square brackets, indicating it was an addition to the text--but still leave it there, just the same. Many modern translations have taken it a step farther in substituting "burnt offering" for the word "sacrifice." The MSG translation says "daily worship"--an interesting variation. But the entire text seems to have been translated poorly if one looks at in Hebrew. There are at least two other points in it where variations could make a big difference.

OT-3:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (Genesis 22:13, KJV)


The English "behind" here was mistranslated from the Hebrew, which should say, instead "white." The word "him" in English was entirely supplied--it is not in the Hebrew text. In other words, "a white ram" is what the text says. Something about the similarity of the word root with another Hebrew word causes most translators to see it as a preposition or a conjunction instead of as an adjective "white" here, and virtually all translations have gone the wrong direction, KJV included. This particular detail, which some might consider unimportant, was highlighted in my Hebrew class one day as Yahuda Cohen, the Jewish professor, made a special point of explaining it. He is a traditional Jew who does not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but he still recognized the truth that the "white" color represents the purity and sinlessness of our Substitute.

While I was unable to find an English translation using the word "white" in translating this phrase, many omit "behind" and some add "single," as in "a single ram." There must be some ambiguity to the word to allow for these variations. So perhaps our KJV translators can be excused here, as they are in good company. On the other hand, it might be that the KJV is what influenced all later translations away from a more accurate representation.

Well, as you might not accept this particular error, as it is not attested by other versions, nor by Ellen White, I will add another one.

OT-4:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? (1 Samuel 19:24, KJV)


Originally Posted by Ellen White
"When he came to Naioth in Ramah, he laid aside his outer garments that betokened his station, and all day, and all night, he lay before Samuel and his pupils, under the influence of the divine Spirit." {ST, August 24, 1888 par. 8}


In other words, Saul removed his kingly outer clothing--not his inner clothing. He was not entirely nude. The Hebrew word here, בְּגָדָ֗יו (bə?ḡā?ḏāw), could be translated as either "clothing" or as "garment." Obviously, the latter would not imply such a complete disrobing as the former, and it is this latter which is the correct translation. The AMPC gets it right. So do the ICB and NCV.

Originally Posted by The Bible
He took off his royal robes and prophesied before Samuel and lay down stripped thus all that day and night. So they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? (1 Samuel 19:24, AMPC)

He took off his robes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He lay that way all day and all night. That is why people ask, ?Is even Saul one of the prophets?? (1 Samuel 19:24, ICB)

He took off his robes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He lay that way all day and all night. That is why people ask, ?Is even Saul one of the prophets?? (1 Samuel 19:24, NCV)


Well, you asked for three--I have just given you three times that many verses from the OT. So, let's move to the NT.

NEW TESTAMENT

NT-1:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39, KJV)


This error is significant. Should we not resist evil? Thankfully, once again, Mrs. White helps us understand this one, because it IS important. This time she does not highlight the error directly, but quotes the verse from a different version. Twice in the same context.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
"Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever
smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn
to him the other also." Matthew 5:39, R.V.


Occasions of irritation to the Jews were constantly arising from their contact with the Roman soldiery. Detachments of troops were stationed at different points throughout Judea and Galilee, and their presence reminded the people of their own degradation as a nation. With bitterness of soul they heard the loud blast of the trumpet and saw the troops forming around the standard of Rome and bowing in homage to this symbol of her power. Collisions between the people and the soldiers were frequent, and these inflamed the popular hatred. Often as some Roman official with his guard of soldiers hastened from point to point, he would seize upon the Jewish peasants who were laboring in the field and compel them to carry burdens up the mountainside or render any other service that might be needed. This was in accordance with the Roman law and custom, and resistance to such demands only called forth taunts and cruelty. Every day deepened in the hearts of the people the longing to cast off the Roman yoke. Especially among the bold, rough-handed Galileans the spirit of insurrection was rife. Capernaum, being a border town, was the seat of a Roman garrison, and even while Jesus was teaching, the sight of a company of soldiers recalled to His hearers the bitter thought of Israel's humiliation. The people looked eagerly to Christ, hoping that He was the One who was to humble the pride of Rome. {MB 69.2}

With sadness Jesus looks into the upturned faces before Him. He notes the spirit of revenge that has stamped its evil imprint upon them, and knows how bitterly the people long for power to crush their oppressors. Mournfully He bids them, "Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." {MB 70.1}


In Greek, the definite article uncharacteristically precedes the adjective "evil," which should make it either a noun or reference an antecedent noun. The adjective being singular, the referent should also be singular, making "one" a correct translation. In Greek, sentences are not ordered as they are in English, with subject -> verb -> object (SVO). Words are "inflected" to indicate their part of speech so that, regardless of where they appear in the sentence, the grammar is clear. In this case, the antecedent actually appears after the word, in the part translated as "whoever" or "whosoever."

Jesus is not telling us not to resist evil! He is telling us not to resist the evil person who seeks to harm us.


NT-2:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Matthew 6:13, KJV)


Same song, second verse. Ellen White again confirms this--and, again, by quoting from a different translation.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
"Bring us not into temptation, but
deliver us from the evil one."
Matthew 6:13, R.V.

Temptation is enticement to sin, and this does not proceed from God, but from Satan and from the evil of our own hearts. "God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempteth no man." James 1:13, R.V. {MB 116.2}


In this case, perhaps, we would like to be delivered from both evil and the Evil One--but, living in the world as we are, the former waits until the coming of Christ to be fulfilled. Our prayers should more specially focus on deliverance from Satan in our present lives.


NT-3:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And 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. (Acts 12:4, KJV)


The Greek word here is πάσχα (pascha). That means Passover, not Easter! This error is so blatant and straightforward as to be widely attested by scholars and more correctly translated (as Passover) by many other Bible versions, including: ASV, AMP, AMPC, CSB, CEB, Darby, DLNT, ERV, EHV, ESV, GNT, Phillips, Mounce, NASB, NCV, NIV, etc.

There was really no excuse for this one. None. It's an embarrassment.

There are actually many more errors one could find, but I will stop here as I have other burdens on my time. Let me wrap up with a summary of what you asked and my overall response to it.

Originally Posted by Matthew 10vs8
"superior translation" is subjective, and moreso since you gave no standard or foundation by which to test that which is supposed to be superior to that which is supposed to be inferior.

Please produce 3 "superior translations" in the OT, and 3 "superior translations" in the NT, and give the founational ruler, or standard by which you measured against to determine the 'superiority' and 'inferiority'. Thank you.

(PS, How many Bibles (and in what languages) do I need, so that I can have all of God's words, and finally have no errors when combined, and how do I determine what is and is not errors in these that I am to have, so that I can take out all of the errors and have a pure Bible without error, or do you suggest that there will always be error no matter what, or do you suggest that the original autograph's are alone without error,or do you suggest the original speech before being written are without error (like God/Moses, Jeremiah/Baruch, Paul/Tertias, etc)?


As you can see, I have been easily able to find superior translations. These are frequently supportable by Ellen White herself. But anyone who can read the Bible in its original languages can give testimony to these truths. I am thankful to have been privileged to take courses in Hebrew, Aramaic (Syriac), and Greek. I am still learning, and there is much more to learn. But Mrs. White helps us understand that there are errors in our Bibles, and she never once indicates that it is word-perfect in its translation. We are cautioned, however, not to teach that some parts are inspired and other parts not--it is not up to us to set our judgment above the Word of God. That said, anyone can easily see that some of these errors should be fixed. If Ellen White, who was inspired by God, tells us of a mistake--doesn't that mean that there is?

It is my understanding that there will always be some mistakes. No translation can ever be perfect. You may not know, but I have been involved in Bible translation work for a number of years now. We are nearing completion, and hope to finish it this year. The language to which I am translating has no verb conjugations, no plurals, no articles, a much-reduced set of prepositions and conjunctions (no words for: lest, of, etc.), no way to distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive dependent clauses, no way to say words like "brother" or "sister" without imposing age/status (older/younger) on them, and no way to use common pronouns for royalty or deity. The language itself forces decisions no translator would like to make. We must, because of the grammar, both add and subtract some words or information. For example, was Goliath's brother older or younger? It might not be important, but after translation, it has a 50% chance of being right--it's just guesswork. There is no way to omit this within the language.

Now, given the language I have just described, do you think a perfect translation to it can exist? Don't you think it would be better if people read the original language--or maybe, even, just read the Bible in English? But they don't know those languages. They don't have those options. Neither is the English translation without error.

Jesus commissioned his disciples to carry the Gospel to every nation, tongue, and people. That means we must translate it into every language. Mrs. White's books, as least in part, are translated into at least 135 languages. And I wish we had more translations of her writings.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.


We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Green Cochoa] #194229
07/17/21 12:00 PM
07/17/21 12:00 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Matthew,

Take a deep breath. I am not your enemy. We wrestle not against flesh and blood...remember?
Green Cochoa,

I combat the error of false ideologies and spiritual errors that are in the modern English translations and in modern schooling, which are not flesh and blood, but spiritual (of the carnal mind, the deceitful heart, of that subtil serpent). Utilizing faulty logic and borrowed reasoning (to be explained below), means you are simply in the way of the fire (Revelation 11:5; Jeremiah 20:9). If you cease from defending those, you will not be so injured, neither take offense. Since you are not my enemy, as you say, why take offense as if I were attempting to be so? An opponent is not always an enemy (Genesis 32:24). I am simply trying to draw your attention to something higher in standards.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Have you seen what Mrs. White wrote about Bible versions/perversions? If not, please click HERE to see some of those statements. They are important.
Thank you for the citations. They further add to the validity of what I have stated and asked of you. I shall address what you 'think' are errors momentarily.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Having said that, Mrs. White herself used some of the "new" versions that had come out in her day, and most people wrongly use that as evidence that any version is okay.
Yes, sister White utilized some of the other English translations in some of her writings. I have such an list, and comparison. Pretty much all of those translations (Leeser (1853), Noyes (1868), RV (1881-85), ASV (1901) and etc., are no longer in common (one might find a rare individual here or there) use or even sales today (though some of the descendants of the RV and ASV are, though changed even worse). The only one primarily in use in comparison to those is the "common" Bible, the King James Bible (KJB), over 400 years strong.

The percentage of her usage of those, alongside of the "common" Bible (KJB) is around Less than 1%-5% (other translations) to 95%-99% (KJB) in nearly (there are some exceptions) any work.

As for instance in the Great Controversy 1888 edition:

GC 1888, 7 texts of revised, and 8 marginal readings, of more than 850 texts (statistics provided by the White Estate (see below)).

7/850 = .008%
8/850 = .009%
15/850 = .017%

This means that in the Great Controversy 1888 edition (the book that was to travel the world over and explain the deep mystery of godliness and mystery of iniquity, the original of evil and the redemption plan), it is:

KJB (the "common" Bible) = 99.983%

The White Estate, though misusing (probably misunderstanding) some of her statements (in the same work - to be demonstrated as needful; having read it multiple times, studied it and hand typed out every single word to make sure I read each one in context), even shows some of these in example:

"... As noted earlier, Mrs. White occasionally used the Revised Version renderings, also the marginal reading of texts, in nearly all of her books published after 1885, the year of the appearance of the complete English Revised Version.

In The Great Controversy, published in 1888, seven texts from the newly issued revision were employed, and she also used the marginal rendering of eight other texts. The proportion of Revised Version and marginal rendering of texts is very small when we consider that there are more than 850 scriptures quoted in The Great Controversy, or an average of a little more than one scripture text to a page, whereas there is approximately one Revised Version rendering and one marginal rendering for each one hundred pages.

In 1901 The American Revised Version came from the press, and from that time forward we find that Mrs. White occasionally employed both the English Revised and the American Revised versions.

In 1911, when The Great Controversy was reset, Mrs. White retained six of the seven texts previously quoted from the English Revised Version. For the other text she substituted the American Revised rendering. The eight marginal renderings were used as in the earlier edition.

In the publications of The Ministry of Healing (1905) Mrs. White employed eight texts from the English Revised Version, 55 from the American Revised Version, two from Leeser, and four from the Noyes, in addition to seven marginal renderings.

Other volumes in which Revised Version texts frequently appear are Patriarchs and Prophets (1890); Steps to Christ (1892); Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing (1896); The Desire of Ages (1898); Education (1903); and Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8 (1904).

The E. G. White books using a few Revised Version or marginal renderings are Christ's Object Lessons (1900); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 7 (1902); Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9 (1909); The Acts of the Apostles (1911); Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students (1913); Gospel Workers (1915); and Prophets and Kings (1917).

Patriarchs and Prophets (1890) also contains two renderings from the Bernard translation, and at least one from the Boothroyd Version. Education (1903) contains at least one rendering from the Rotherham translation. ..." - https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/710.60

The reason for those uses, in those places where she utilized them (other English translations), are generally obvious when studied in comparison to the KJB translation. She was not attempting to make a Bible, where words are needed to be explained line upon line (Isaiah 28:10,13), but was simply attempting to convey the meaning of the thought in whatever she was writing, such as the Desire of Ages, the Great Controversy, etc. Sometimes the King James Bible translation would not 'fit' in with those areas of thought so readily, and it was more preferable to utilize another translation in those places. Sister White, even changed some of those translations out for others, when a reprinting was done (such as the GC 1911 ed. as noted above).

Finally, that sister White utilized individual texts, as well sometimes passages of texts (especially in the Psalms, at the request and advice of her family members, such as W.C. White, "... When Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, was printed and it seemed desirable to make some lengthy quotations from the Psalms, it was pointed out to Sister White that the Revised Version of these Psalms was preferable, and that by using the form of blank verse the passages were more readable..." - https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/710.60 ), never equated to her in condoning all that they were as translations (such as is misused today by most all of the Seventh-day Adventist publications and editors, wherein, even using Sister White). She did not accept all that they were as translations, but attempted to have it as readable (as suggested by her son W.C. White) as possible ("prose" ("form of blank verse"), though I find "prose" unreadable (it looks like a jumbled mess to my eyesight, though I am sure it works well for others) compared to the KJB line upon line, which is also why those who translated the KJB did not place it in prose either, though they considered the idea as well, some being intimately acquainted with music, lyric, meter, etc). I am sure you are more than aware of this aspect (referring to the link you provided).

Sister White made sure that when things doctrinal came into play, the doctrines would not be affected, and carefully chose out the translations when comparing the "common" Bible with the others, as for instance:

"... When the first revision was published, I purchased a good copy and gave it to Mother. She referred to it occasionally, but never used it in her preaching. Later on, as manuscripts were prepared for her new books and for revised editions of books already in print, Sister White's attention was called from time to time by myself and Sister Marian Davis, to the fact that she was using texts which were much more clearly translated in the Revised Version. Sister White studied each one carefully, and in some cases she instructed us to use the Revised Version. In other cases she instructed us to adhere to the Authorized Version. ..." - https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/710.60

Please notice, that in certain instances sister White's attention is being drawn to another translation, by others, such as W.C. White, Marian Davis, etal. The same goes for the reason, of why the RV is found in the Testimonies, especially in the Psalms references (though there are others also).

What we know about the RV today, is shocking! It has occult connections to spiritualists (Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, among others, as released in their diaries/journals published by their children/grandchildren), and Rome herself, in both the Sinaiticus (Aleph; which also contains 'Shepherd of Hermes' and 'Barnabas'), Alexandrinus (A.) ("desert") and Vaticanus (B.) Codices ("secret chambers") (Matthew 24:26).

Mat_24:26? Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

Context? False prophets (Matthew 24:24), which are simply false messengers bearing a false word. Just like the two false witnesses of the corrupted mss. Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) is a forgery by Constantine Simonides:

Playlist 37 videos proving Sinaiticus (Codex Aleph) is a fraud, being created by Simonides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjOhDJ5HKo&list=PLhmAbEGx-AnT8VmEOfkIc4U8Zx7cozYEv

Playlist 15 videos, Sinaiticus Fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O557156hxg&list=PLhmAbEGx-AnQH6d4TDYj71vvew8QGgUpn

Playlist 6 Videos, LXX (so called Septuagint is a fake)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9dztt0evpQ&list=PLhmAbEGx-AnRh2YgrQvayYlEItaAoISWA

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
As to there being poor translations in the Bible, this is a fact supported by Mrs. White.
Assertion, without documented evidence and definitely not "fact". Sister White, never ever stated, or intimated that any portion of the King James Bible was "poor", or "poorly" translated (you will not find one such statement, - prove me wrong (and I will retract my statement) or retract this statement being that you are in error and overstated your position). You made up that assertion by what you think she stated. This assertion by incorrect apriori may be safely ignored.

In the pulpit the "common" Bible was always used by sister White. Do those who utilize sister White as an example of using alternate English translations (in her writings) follow the counsel on that in matters preaching? No. They pick and choose (or ignoring the "common" bible altogether, and using a Jesuit NIV, etc), being hypocrites or ignorant of the matter.

"... Sister White's reasons for not using the A.R.V. In the pulpit are as follows:

?There are many persons in the congregation who remember the words of the texts we might use as they are presented in the Authorized Version, and to read from the Revised Version would introduce perplexing questions in their minds as to why the wording of the text had been changed by the revisers and as to why it was being used by the speaker.' ..." - https://m.egwwritings.org/en/book/710.60

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But she herself would tell us not to make too big a deal out of it, lest scoffers have reason to scoff and to discredit the Word of God.
Mere assertion again. There is no such statement from sister White - anywhere, to that effect.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Just the same, a Christian with breadth of mind will acknowledge the truth
Do you suggest me something or something not here?

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
and since you have insisted that you wish to see some of the errors, I will oblige you.
I will demonstrate that what you have presented are not "errors" at all, neither faulty "translations". I also make the assertion that sister White never said that what you presented were "error", or faulty in translation.

Of course I insisted, since you boldly asserted such a claim. It is your burden of proof, not mine in this matter. If I make the assertion, then the burden is upon myself.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Let's start by remembering that there are errors even in the original underlying text, before it was translated.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors.

Just wow. That is a misuse of sister White's statement!

She said that the Latin text (Jerome's corruption) had errors! She never said that the "original underlying text" (of the King James Bible, or even the preserved stream of God's word) had errors. She was only referring to what Wycliffe was working with, a known corruption of the true preserved stream!

The Jerome's Latin text of course had errors, since he corrupted it, even utilizing the corrupted Hexapla of Origen (the so called lxx), even as Jerome admits in his own material!. The new Latin Vulgate was requested by the 'pope' of Rome (Damasus, in 382 A.D.) and approved by the Council of Carthage, as, "the infallible and authentic Bible". It was to support Roman dogmas (like perpetual virginity, etc). Helvidius opposed it! (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Christian Lit. Ed.), Vol. VI, p. 338) He also fought (wars of words) against Ambrosiaster. Others (even Catholic scholars, Saint Mary's Press) have noted:

"... A familiar text like the Lord?s Prayer illustrates Jerome?s problems. The Greek word that is rendered as daily in the phrase ?Give us this day our daily bread? is not the usual Greek word for daily. In fact, outside the two occurrences in the Matthean and Lucan versions of the Lord?s Prayer, that word occurs only once in all of classical Greek literature. The older Latin versions translated the Greek word as quotidianum (?daily?) in Latin.

Jerome believed this to be inaccurate so he attempted another rendering, which he may have coined himself: supersubstantialem (Matthew 6:11). ..." - https://www.smp.org/resourcecenter/resource/2637/

That change had nothing to do with difficulty in language translation, it was in actuality to substantiate the Mass (Eucharist) of Rome.

Jerome's Latin was never the Italic (Vetus Latina, original Latin Vulgate), but a perversion of it, just as God's word stated would be happening:

2Co_2:17? For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Wycliffe simply utilized what he had in His English translation, and though it contained many Roman errors, it served its purpose to bring light to those who could not read 'Vulgate' Latin. It is also why the later translators like Tyndale, Luther, etc did not use it in their work of translation, though they compared it occasionally to better preserved mss and the preserved line of text to ferret out its errors.

That the Vulgate of Jerome contains errors does not prove that God's word in the true stream of preservation had errors.

That individual mss, as coming down to us today, found in museums, personal collections, etc, and containing variants, and some errors, does not prove that God's word in the true stream of preservation had errors.

I can have a Bible on my shelf, and change one word on one page in it, to an error (God forbid!), and 300 years from now, if found in a museum, would not prove that a change in the preserved stream of God's word (Psalms 12:6-7) had errors.

In fact we have an example like that, called the "Wicked Bible", "Adulterous Bible" (1631 AD by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas) in which the phrase "Thou shalt NOT commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14) was accidentally printed as "Thou SHALT commit adultery." [caps supplied for emphasis] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

A second reported error therein is even more egregious (at least I think):

"... The second error appears in Deuteronomy 5, where the word "greatness" was reportedly misprinted as "great-asse", leading to a sentence reading: "Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse".[2][3] ..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible

Yet, simply because of the existence of this text and its retainment to this day, does it prove that the preserved stream of God's word contains errors? Hardly.

It wouldn't even matter if ten thousand copies of that text existed. It still would not demonstrate that the preserved stream of God's word was corrupted. It would simply show a corrupted stream along side a preserved stream. In fact, the preserved stream must exist to know the corrupted stream to compare to, otherwise how will errors (in general; some can be identified contextually or linguistically internally) be known?

You over extend your position and place into sister White's mouth that which she never said.

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194230
07/17/21 12:01 PM
07/17/21 12:01 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


Originally Posted by Ellen White
While Luther was opening a closed Bible to the people of Germany, Tyndale was impelled by the Spirit of God to do the same for England. Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors. It had never been printed, and the cost of manuscript copies was so great that few but wealthy men or nobles could procure it, and, furthermore, being strictly proscribed by the church, it had had a comparatively narrow circulation. In 1516, a year before the appearance of Luther's theses, Erasmus had published his Greek and Latin version of the New Testament. Now for the first time the Word of God was printed in the original tongue. In this work many errors of former versions were corrected, and the sense was more clearly rendered. It led many among the educated classes to a better knowledge of the truth, and gave a new impetus to the work of reform. But the common people were still, to a great extent, debarred from God's Word. Tyndale was to complete the work of Wycliffe in giving the Bible to his countrymen. {GC88 245.1}


Again, the Latin (of Jerome) had errors. Wycliffe was utilizing those for his translation, but those are definitely not the Masoretic Hebrew and koine Greek texts. So if you simply assert that Wycliffe in utilizing the (admittedly) corrupt Jerome's Latin for his English translation was using an "original underlying text", that is a play on words which does injustice to what sister White's point was, and cannot equate to there being corruptions in the "original underlying text" of the Masoretic Hebrew and koine Greek that was first penned (aka, 'autographs').

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Notice that Ellen White does not say "all" of the errors were corrected by Erasmus in the Greek text he compiled. She doesn't even say that "most" of the errors were corrected. She says "many". It is clear, therefore, that errors remained.
Generally agreed, and more importantly non-sequitur to the point under discussion.

"Many" can mean "most" in proper context (Matthew 7:13, etc), and that sister White does not use the word "most" is not really evidence against that it doesn't mean that ("many"). I do not say it is for it either in her context (though I lean, not pontificate, that it does knowing somewhat of Erasmus' work having studied). I am saying, you are over extending again. Never the less, the entire point by sister White, is that in the Roman stream of mss, there were many errors that needed to be corrected. This in no way demonstrates that the actual preserved stream of God's word needed such, or contained "errors". Those are two (at least) differing streams of texts.

Erasmus, a humanist (not defined as in today's jargon), was a Roman Catholic outwardly, though very much a Protestant theologically (or inwardly). He was attempting to reform Roman Catholcism from the inside. He had access to some great materials, such as the Greek texts referred to. Yet, he was still within the system of Romanism, and could not effect all the changes he desired. He could not simply print what he wanted (he needed the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, etc to get his work published and respected by other Romanists).

Of course errors remained (in a Roman Catholic work) in such a condition. Again, that does not prove that the preserved stream of God's word contained errors. What it proves, yet again, is that the corrupted Roman Stream, though attempted by Erasmus (with koine Greek texts), Wycliffe (using Jerome's Latin, etc) and others, to purify it by removing the errors, would not come entirely clean, and would remain with errors even to this day. See the Douay Rheims (Jesuit), Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic), NIV etc. Those errors are still in existence, but those errors are not errors of originality with the true autographs of the Bible writers and the preserved stream of God's word, but exist as errors through 'Catholicism', 'gnostics (Origen)', 'scholars' (Jerome, Augustine, etc) etc.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Notice also that Erasmus was correcting the text which Wycliffe's Bible translation had used. Wycliffe had translated the Bible to English for the first time.
Actually Wycliffe is not really the first in English translation (see the Middle English Bibles). But I digress, and do not intend to get into that. See "IN AWE OF THY [GOD'S] WORD" Chapter 21 -"English Bibles Before Wycliffe"; by Gail Riplinger - https://archive.org/download/book-b...Of%20Thy%20Word%20-%20AVPublications.pdf . Even the Gothic (of which the English also derives, besides Latin, etc) of Ufilias existed before and it was purer than that of Jerome's translation.

Such statements as Wycliffe being the first are found in:

The book The Great Controversy 1888 and 1911 editions, as a general summary of events as generally known in historical matters:

"... Wycliffe's ... At last the work was completed,?the first English translation of the Bible ever made. ...", pages 88.2-88.2 - https://text.egwwritings.org/public...tion=2&section=all&pagenumber=88

The reason for the statement therein, is because Wycliffe's Bible was widely printed, whereas the others were not so widely printed. So Wycliffe is attributed as being the "first" in such matters, though other English translations already existed.

The book "Love under Fire", page 40, "... Finally the work was completed?the first English translation of the Bible. Wycliffe ..." - https://text.egwwritings.org/public...amp;QUERY=Wycliffe+first&resultId=11

A compilation work, merely utilizing an historical summation section of the Great Controversy.

"... The great events which have marked the progress of reform in past ages, are matters of history, well known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world; they are facts which none can gainsay. This history I have presented briefly, in accordance with the scope of the book, and the brevity which must necessarily be observed, the facts having been condensed into as little space as seemed consistent with a proper understanding of their application. In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but except in a few instances no specific credit has been given, since they are not quoted for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has occasionally been made of their published works. {GC88 h.1} ..." - https://text.egwwritings.org/public...ction=2&section=all&pagenumber=h

In other words, the history referred to in the Great Controversy is not always exact or technical in their historical details. They are a general summary to get the main point across, just in case anyone wants to argue that, 'NO!, sister White said Wycliffe was the "FIRST" (foaming at the mouth) English Translation.', even irrespective of facts, evidence, history and technicality.

Even sister White thought to change the GC1888 edition when more accurate light on historical events came, and a new printing came in 1911 ed./rev. I can cite those changes.

For instance see The Changes in The Great Controversy Editions/Revisions by Vance Ferrell (Harvest Time Books) - https://archive.org/download/editions-gc-all/EditionsGC-all.pdf

The White Estate also acknowledges these changes as approved by sister White - https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-greatcontroversy1911-html/

In other words, you overstepped the bounds again in the use of sister White's material (like Great Controversy).

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


Quote
The Wycliffe Bible laid the groundwork for further translations of the Bible into English, as we shall see. In fact, the King James Version retains much of the same wording as the Wycliffe Bible, and continues its legacy.


So, the KJV was heavily influenced by the text whose source had had many errors. This is historical fact.
Yes, the Wycliffe Bible (a monumental work, even guided by God's inspiration) was used in many other works (Bishops Bible, Tyndale?s, Matthew?s, Coverdale?s, Whitchurch?s, Geneva, etc), including some of the wording in the King James Bible. The King James Bible does not use "much of the same wording" as Wycliffe. To make such an statement is ignorance of the facts and comparison.

Anyone may compare the Wycliffe Bible (1394) - http://oldebible.com/wycliffe-bible/

to the King James Bible (1611) and (1769 edition, Gothic to Roman type font, certain standardization of spelling, printing (punctuational) errors, etc) -

http://oldebible.com/1611-king-james-bible/

http://oldebible.com/1769-king-james-bible/

Even right from the get "go" (Genesis) notable differnces are easily seen:

Genesis 1:1 (Wycliffe) - In the bigynnyng God made of nouyt heuene and erthe.

Genesis 1:1 KJB (1769) - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The word "nouyt" (nought, or nothing) is not found in the Hebrew Masoretic, neither in the so called LXX. It is not found in the KJB either at Genesis 1:1.

The word "made" was used by Wycliffe and the word "created" by the KJB translators. They mean the same thing, yes, but the same "word" ("much of the same words") was not used as claimed. As for there being similarities just in this verse, there is only so many ways to properly translate from one language to another. Wycliffe can no more take credit for that than can the KJB translators.

Does the KJB continue the Wycliffe (Bible) "legacy"? Sure. Not it's errors however.

One will never honestly come to the conclusion that "much of the same wording" was used from Wycliffe to KJB. In certain sections, words and phrases limitedly, certainly, but not "much". The KJB translators had access to much more than Wycliffe, such as the Waldnesian Bibles and Erasmian texts, etc.

The King James Bible was also influenced by the Latin (which also had errors), as others, but that doesn't mean it contains those same errors. See Isaiah 14:12

Isa_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!

Lucifer comes from the Latin, Lux Feros. Which is perfectly translating the Hebrew. That we receive it as a transliteration of the Latin is not an issue, since all translations carry transliterations.

That does not prove that it's (or theirs) errors came through that process. You over extend your position, yet again. You make implications which are vacuous and non existent.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Keep in mind that I am far, far from being anti-KJV. I am much closer to being a KJV-onlyer, as you will learn if you read many of my posts in this forum.
Non-sequitur. I didn't mention anything about being an KJVO. By the way most people misdefine that anyway. I presented facts of the matter. I never said to ONLY use the KJB. What I stated was, that it is the inspired and presered word of God in English as the final authorty in all matters of faith and practice.

I didn't say (and never have said) that other translations (of English) could not be properly utilized, neither did I say that other than English translations could not be properly utilized.

What I have stated, is that the modern English translations contain some of the Bible, they are not the preserved word of God (Bible). They contain deep errors of Romanism and of the devil who sought to counterfeit the miracle of God in multiplying bread with his leaven (of sin) in it.

I even on occasion find it necessary to utilize the so called lxx of Origen, etal. to prove a point to those who accept that work. I do not accept that work as valid, but use it against them who do.

I even on occasion refer to Luther's German, Diodati's Italian, Olivetan's French, Valera's Spanish, Ufilias Gothic, Jerome's latin (and Vetus Latina) and more when necessary. I have even on occasion, when necessary, gone to individual codices (like even Aleph, A and B, etc) and papyri (P66, P75, etc), mss, lectionaries and so callef ECF (Easily Confused Fellows) to prove a point.

All of that does not mean I sanction all those works in their whole.

So to utilize the term "KJV-onlyer" is non-sequitur, and moreso it is used as a derogatory term. It is irrelevant to the discussion, and more importantly misunderstood by yourself, which may be demosntrated in asking you to define it, then I can respond to that definition.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I use KJV almost strictly when doing any serious Bible study, especially in terms of doctrines.
Good, but irrelevant to our discussion. What you "use" is strictly your prerogative based upon your knowledge.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But I am able to recognize that there are errors.
Wow, it must be something to be able to "recognize that there are errors" in God's inspired and preserved word. Since there are "errors", where can I find God's word without word errors? (Psalms 12:6-7, etc) I am not asking for corrupted versions, I want that which God spoke about.

If it is not in the King James Bible, where is it? Does it exist?

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I have stated in places that for every error in the KJV I could find ten errors, and more egregious ones, in the NIV.
That would then say you believe there is not any preserved word of God on earth that does not contain word errors. This is the real disagreement between us.

What you think you "could find" in the "KJV" (sic) as errors (listed in your reply) are not actually errors. I will demonstrate this in a bit.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
I like to call the latter the "Not Inspired Version" because its errors are so malignant.
Again, the personal saying is an over extension. All things are inspired, either of God or the devil. So to say that the NIV is the "Not Inspired Version", you really mean to say, the "Not Inspired (Of God) Version", which automatically makes it the Inspired of the Devil version (you said "malignant", meaning evil), proving my point earlier about differing streams (Jordan, and Euphrates) of Bibles.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
So please understand that I am not against the KJV when I point out some of its errors.
Yet, what you claim are "errors" are no such thing. You haven't even given me a standard by which to test yet. Where is the perfect measurement you are measuring against? Is it found in any one place? Can I hold a single copy in my hands?

This may help you:

What about the KJV by brother Sam Gipp:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgmwAH4RaKE&list=PLL4itf8rGtj6-ct31MIft40btbdlI8lZQ

Last edited by Matthew 10vs8; 07/17/21 12:32 PM.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194231
07/17/21 12:04 PM
07/17/21 12:04 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
You have asked for three each in the OT and the NT.
Indeed. I thought three a minimal requirement, since in the mouth of two or three witnesses let everything be "established".

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
OLD TESTAMENT

Let's start with the Ten Commandments.

OT-1:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
Thou shalt not kill. (Exodus 20:13, KJV; Deuteronomy 5:17, KJV)


The word "kill" is a mistranslation.
You assert it (the word "kill") is a "mistranslation" (of the Masoretic Hebrew) by those who knew more languages than you do, and wrote dictionaries for languages and lexicons? Have you really studied the Translators of the King James Bible at all?

"... A. The first Westminster Company: Genesis - 2nd Kings

1. Lancelot Andrews, 1555 - 1626: Dr. Lancelot Andrews was Master of Pembroke, 1589; prebendary at St. Paul?s; Dean of Westminster, 1601; Bishop of Chichester, 1605; Bishop of Ely, 1609; member of the Privy Council, 1609 and Bishop of Winchester,1618. Dr. Andrews was also the first person named in the ?Order agreed upon for this Translation.?

a. ?Once a year, at Easter, he used to pass a month with his parents. During this vacation, he would find a master, from whom he learned some language to which he was a stranger. In this way after a few years, he acquired most of the modern languages of Europe.?29

b. ?He was not a man of ?head knowledge? only. He was a man of great practical preaching ability and an ardent opponent of Rome. His conspicuous talents soon gained him powerful patrons. Henry, Earl of Huntington, took him into the north of England, where he was the means of converting many Papists by his preaching and disputations.?30

c. ?As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day. He was called the ?star of preachers.??31

d. ?Many hours he spent each day in private and family devotions; and there were some who used to desire that ?they might end their days in Bishop Andrews? chapel.? He was one in whom was proved the truth of Luther?s saying, that ?to have prayed well, is to have studied well.??32

e. ?This worthy diocesan was much ?given to hospitality,? and especially to literary strangers. So bountiful was his cheer, that it used to be said, ?My Lord of Winchester keeps Christmas all year ?round.??33

f. ?But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his qualifications as a translator of the Bible. He ever bore the character of a ?right godly man,? and a ?prodigious student.? One competent judge speaks of him as ?that great gulf of learning?! It was also said, that ?the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was.? A brave, old chronicler remarks, that such was his skill in all languages, especially the Oriental, that had he been present at the confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as the Interpreter-General! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckridge, Bishop of Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen languages.?34

2. John Overall, 1559 - 1619: Dr. Overall was; Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, 1596; Master of Cathrine Hall, 1598; Dean of St. Paul?s, 1601; Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, 1614; Bishop of Norwich, 1618 and a member of the Court of High Commission.

a. Dr. Overall was present at the hanging of the Jesuit Henry Garnet, mastermind of ?the Gunpowder Plot? and tried to lead him to Christ.35 Garnet died unrepentant.

b. Dr. Overall was vital to the translation because of his knowledge of quotations of the early church fathers which helped with the authentication of 1 John 5:7. This verse has a multitude of evidence among church fathers, though its manuscript evidence suffers from the attacks of Alexandria?s philosophers.

3. Hadrian Saravia, 1531 - 1613: Dr. Saravia was; professor of Divinity at Leyden, 1582; prebendary of Glouchester, 1595 and prebendary of Westminster in 1601. Dr. Hadrian Saravia was as evangelistic as he was scholarly.

a. McClure reports: ?He was sent by Queen Elizabeth?s council as a sort of missionary to the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, where he was one of the first Protestant ministers; knowing, as he says of himself, in a letter, ?which were the beginnings, and by what means and occasions the preaching of God?s Word was planted there.? He labored there in a two-fold capacity, doing the work of an evangelist, and conducting a newly established school, called Elizabeth College.?36

b. In 1611 he published a treatise on Papal primacy against the Jesuit Gretser.

c. He was ?educated in all kinds of literature in his younger days, especially several languages.?37

4. Richard Clarke, 15?? - 1634: Dr. Clarke had been fellow of Christ College, Cambridge; and was Vicar of Minster and Monkton, in the Isle of Thanet, at the time of the translation. He was one of the Six Preachers in the Cathedral of Canterbury. A volume of his sermons was published in folio, after his death, in 1637.

5. John Laifield, 15?? - 1617: Dr. John Laifield was; fellow of Trinity. He was the chaplain to the Earl of Cumberland during his voyage to Puerto Rico in 1598 and finally rector of St. Clement Danes?s, London in 1601.

a. Of him it was said: ?That being skilled in architecture, his judgment was much relied on for the fabric of the tabernacle and temple.?38

6. Robert Tighe, 15?? - 1620: Dr. Robert Tighe, Archdeacon of Middlesex, and Vicar of All Hallows Barking, was known as ?an excellent textuary and profound linguist; and therefore employed in the Translation of the Bible.?39

7. Francis Burleigh, 15?? - 16??: Vicar of Bishop?s Stortford.

8. Geoffry King, 15?? - 16??: Dr. King was fellow of King?s College, Cambridge, and succeeded Mr. Spalding as Regius Professor of Hebrew in that University. Dr. King was an ardent anti-papist.

9. Richard Thompson, 15?? - 1613: He was of Clare Hall, Cambridge.

10. William Bedwell, 1561 - 1632: Dr. William Bedwell was rector of St. Ethelburgh?s, Bishopsgate and later vicar of Tottenham High Cross, near London. Dr. Bedwell was one of the most remarkable scholars on the committee. He was famous as ?an eminent Oriental scholar.? His epitaph mentions that he was ?for the Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times.? He was considered the principal Arabic scholar of his time. His intellectual feats were monumental.

a. ?He published in quarto an edition of the epistles of St. John in Arabic, with a Latin version, printed at the press of Raphelengius, at Antwerp, in 1612. He also left many Arabic manuscripts to the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes upon them, and a font of types of printing them. His fame for Arabic learning was so great, that when Erpenius, a most renowned Orientalist, resided in England in 1606, he was much indebted to Bedwell for direction in his studies.

To Bedwell, rather than to Erpenius, who commonly enjoys it, belongs the honor of being the first who considerably promoted and revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe. He was also tutor to another Orientalist of renown, Dr. Pococke.?40

b. ?Some modern scholars have fancied, that we have an advantage in our times over the translators of King James? day, by reason of the greater attention which is supposed to be paid at present to what are called the ?cognate? and ?Shemitic? languages, and especially the Arabic by which much light is thought to be reflected upon Hebrew words and phrases. It is evident, however, that Mr. Bedwell and others, among his fellow-laborers, were thoroughly conversant in this part of the broad field of sacred criticism.?41

c. ?Dr. Bedwell also commenced a Persian dictionary, which is among Archbishop Laid?s manuscripts, still preserved in the Bodelian Library at Oxford. In 1615 he published his book, A Discovery of the Impostures of Mahomet and of the Koran. To this was annexed his Arabian Trudgeman.

d. ?Dr. Bedwell had a fondness for mathematical studies. He invented a ruler for geometrical purposes, like that we call Gunther?s Scale, which went by the name ?Bedwell?s Ruler?.

e. ?After Bedwell?s death, the voluminous manuscripts of his lexicon were loaned to the University of Cambridge to aid the compilation of Dr. Castell?s colossal work, the Lexicon Heptaglotton.?42 ..." - Sam Gipp's 24 Houyr Syllabus, page2 59-62 - https://archive.org/download/24-hour-syllabus/24%20Hour%20SYLLABUS.pdf

You think you are a better judge than they? What are your qualifications in comparision? Place your academics on the table for all to see with documentation please.

I personally think you are out of their league in such.

As for matters of translation, and others who thought they knew better in their own day, listen to this advice of the The first Oxford Company: Isaiah - Malachi, Dr. Richard Kilby :

"4. Richard Kilby, 1560 - 1620: Dr. Richard Kilby became the Rector of Lincoln College in 1590. He was Regius Professor of Divinity, 1610.

a. Dr. Kilby published commentaries on Exodus, chiefly formed from the monuments of the rabbis and Hebrew interpreters.

b. This incident, which occurred shortly after the Authorized Version had been published shows the dangers of changing even one word of God?s Book.

1) ?I must here stop my reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilby was a man so great in learning and wisdom, and so excellent a critic in the Hebrew tongue, that he was made professor of it in this University; and as also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of the translators of the Bible, and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr. Sanderson to bear him company; and they resting on a Sunday with the Doctor?s friend, and going together to that parish church where they were, found the young preacher to have no more discretion than to waste a great part of the hour allotted for his sermon in exceptions against the late translation of several words, (not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilby) and showed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When evening prayer was ended, the preacher was invited to the Doctor?s friend?s house, where after some other confidence, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more useful doctrine, and not filled his auditor?s ears with needless exceptions against the translation; and for that word for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he and others had considered all of them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed.?54
..." - Sam Gipp's 24 Houyr Syllabus, page 66 - https://archive.org/download/24-hour-syllabus/24%20Hour%20SYLLABUS.pdf

I think you also might benefit in the same area, going with useful doctrine, than trying to subjectively identify what you think is an "error" in translation.

"Kill" is perfectly valid. Why? Becuase God's Ten Commandments are eternal principles, they also exist in Heaven, and as such, even to take the life of one of God's lesser creatures (cat, dog, cow, etc) is to break the commandment, since He was the one who gave them all life.

The commandment is not simply against "murder" (which deals in only, or exclusively, things of mankind, or angel-kind). I could never say, not to "murder" a dog, a cat, a cow, etc. I could only say not to "kill" them.

Your finite human judgment is in error. What you "think" is an "error" in translation, is far superior in the context of scripture and of the Heavenly matters.

Did you even consult the KJB translators to understand why they did what they did, or did you just assume?

I think you might better serve your time "hav[ing] preached more useful doctrine, and not filled [your] auditor?s ears with needless exceptions against the translation; and for that word for which [you] offered to [me] [several] reasons why it ought to have been translated as [you] and others had considered all of them, and found [many] more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed [in the KJB]"

You admitted that the NIV was "malignant". Do you think it might affect doctrine in the Ten Commandments, which would affect the doctrines of Heaven (3rd) also, especially in the New Heaven and New Earth (here) to merely address "murder" rather than "kill". Some persons I know of, teach that in the New Heavens and New Earth animal death continues, but not human death (since they are evolutionary minded and start in Genesis that way).

Yes, the NT does also give "thou shalt do no murder" (Matthew 19:18), but that was because Jesus was dealing with human beings, not addressing the killing of animals (for which at that time was still required for sacrifices). Murder is a form of killing. Yet not all killing is murder.

Do you think that the KJB translators were in confusion between the OT Ten Commandments and here or amongst themselves between companies, even with a final revision team? Do you know how many times they went over every single text in scripture? Do you know and understand the rules by which they worked, that translation was even given out to the whole church body?

Points 9-13 of their regulations:

"9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point."

"10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work."

"11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place."

"12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford."

"13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King?s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University."

Never had such a work ever (and never has been since) been carried out.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
The NIV is superior in this text, saying "You shall not murder."
Entirely subjective, and proven, by scripture (above) to be erroneous. There is not merely to be no "murder" In Heaven (3rd), and in the New Heaven and New Earth, but no killing, of anything. Not a single creature is to die there, or then.

You over extended again. You made leaps in logic.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
The Hebrew word is "ratsach" which is translated almost everywhere else in the KJV as murder, manslaughter, etc.
Context always dictates how a word (like H7523) is translated. Not every context demands it to be the same way. This is the general pattern found throughout scripture and translation works.

Strong's Exhaustive even states that the primary definition is to "put to death", and "dash to pieces", which in certain contexts can mean murder, but not always.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
For some reason, specifically in the Ten Commandment, and in BOTH places (Exodus and Deuteronomy), they translated this as "kill."
That you do not know the reason, or understand that reason by those marvellous translators, does not mean they made an "error" where you knowledge ends and theirs continues.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Hebrew has many words for kill and destroy
Yes, and this is one of them. God always uses multiple words to describe the same things, see Isaiah 43:7 to begin with:

Isa_43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

created - H1254 - Bara
formed - H335 - Yatsar
made - H6213 - Asah

Three differing Hebrews words. All the meaning same thing. Just like our DNA, there are redundancies, or thesaurus like definitions in scripture.

That there are many words for the same thing, like "kill", does not negate that the word used in Exodus 20:13 does not also mean "kill".

Again, you have an over extension of argument.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
, and this unfortunate translation puts the Bible at odds with itself--creating a contradiction within God's Word.
No it doesn't at all. What you have is simple misunderstanding of individual contexts, and uses. That is your error, not the Bible translators error. It is also the argument that the Atheists use - https://atheistpapers.com/2014/06/23/bible-contradictions-39-is-it-ok-to-kill/

Most atheists have faulty logic to begin, denying the LORD God that created them to have intelligence in the first place.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


Originally Posted by The Bible
And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:16)
First, a differing Hebrew word is used here, but even that word can mean murder also (Hosea 9:13; Jeremiah 4:31, etc), besides kill, so that is not the point. The point is that the context is known that it does not violate a commandment of God (Exodus 20:13) by another commandment of God through Moses (Leviticus 20:16). God does not contradict Himself even when the same words are used in differing places at differing times and differing circumstances.

It doesn't matter what other people "think" is, or even looks like, a contradiction. In scripture, there are no actual contradictions (John 10:35; 1 Corinthians 14:33, etc).

This book, though not perfect by any means (as it carries the authors personal (and incorrect) theology in some places), is very useful in that matter:

The "errors" of the King James Bible, by Peter S. Ruckman - https://archive.org/download/peter-...27%20in%20the%20King%20James%20Bible.pdf

Leviticus 20 deals with the matter under a fallen world condition, in which executive judgment is required.

Exodus 20, God's Ten Commandments deal with Eternal Principles, in Heaven (3rd) where even creatures are not to be killed (at all), and in the New Heaven and New Earth in which also there will be no killing of creatures either.

Rev_21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

In other words you confused the eternal with the temporary. The Bible has no such confusion as exists in your mind, to think that there is an "error" in one, or a 'contradiction'.

I expect atheists to make this mistake, but not those filled with the Holy Spirit and have faith in God in that there are no contradictions in the inspired and preserved word of God. I personally think you simply borrowed this "error" from a "scholar" in a classroom, where faith has long been abandoned:

Mal_2:12 The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.

In other words, your misunderstanding, is not an actual "error".

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
According to the KJV mistranslation of this important commandment, God later asks the people to break it.
Not at all. That is a misuse and misreading of the text itself in proper context and history. It does not consider the eternal nature of the Ten Commandments.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
And if one were to broaden the "kill" to animals, in addition to people, then the commandment to kill for each of the sacrificial offers also breaks the Ten Commandments.
Again, not at all. The same rules apply as the previous. Eternal and temporary requirements, both of which are commanded by God.

As for instance, God in the beginning gave the commandment to man and beast:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Then later also gave as a temporary measure:

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Contradiction? No. It is the same as the examples you provided. Even now we are not to kill animals for food.

See the sermon "DIE at the T" by this palagi:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vp7tDnBv88HI/

also here, with powerpoint:

https://archive.org/details/die-at-the-t_202006

https://archive.org/download/die-at-the-t/DIE%20at%20the%20T.pptx

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
Obviously, this is a significant error,
No it isn't and you did not prove any such point. What you did, was prove you do not understand the greater context of eternal and temporary things.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
and very important to doctrinal truth.
The truth is still there, plain for any who compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 213), and line upon line (Isaiah 28:10,13).

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
This is not merely a misplaced comma
I assume you refer to at least Luke 23:43 KJB?

Luk_23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I have an entire study on this text an the comma is most definitely not misplaced. It is missing a comma. I can prove what I say from scripture (KJB) itself.

I never said that there were not punctuational issues, left over from editional correction (like from 1611 to 1769) that still exist. I claimed that God's "words" were preserved (Psalms 12:6-7).

Like I said, I do not think you understand my actual position, and have an imaginary KJVO'er definition in mind. Yet, that remains to be demonstrated yet, you will need to define what you mean when you say it.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
nor a misspelling of someone's name (there are many of those, of course).
Oh man (sigh). Really? I hope you are way more careful this time around in demonstrating three examples from the OT and three examples from the NT. I am definitely going to prove you in error at this point, having heard this before. Yet, go ahead and give your examples, I will consider them diligently and separately from anything I have heard before, then make judgment.

Even if a misspelling were to occur and be demonstrated in evidence, that is not a demonstration of error in the "words of God" themselves. For instance, "sonne" is still "son" though they are spelled differently.

I do not think you understood my argument at all. You are making non equative errors. In other words the fallacy of apples to oranges.

Last edited by Matthew 10vs8; 07/17/21 12:34 PM.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194232
07/17/21 12:06 PM
07/17/21 12:06 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
OT-2:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down. (Daniel 8:11, KJV)

And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. (Daniel 8:12, KJV)

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? (Daniel 8:13, KJV)

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. (Daniel 11:31, KJV)

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12:11, KJV)


I don't need to say much about this error, because Mrs. White, under inspiration, tells us about it.
You should, because you misuse (ignorantly) sister White here. She never says that in those places it is in "error". What she (as all the pioneers) states is, that the word "sacrifice" is (catch this) "supplied" by the translators ("men's wisdom"). She does not say "erroneously supplied" by the translators. It was in fact, meant as an help by the translators to identify the "daily" under consideration.

I have an entire study on this here:

The Daily Daily (with Pictures):

https://archive.org/download/the-daily-daily/The%20Daily%20Daily.pdf

The King James Translators even included such things in (catch this) "italics", and in some editions, smaller Roman type font (AV1611), or brackets. It means that they understood that the word was not original to the text itself, and were simply helping the readers understand the context to which it does indeed belong. It is just that "sacrifice" is only a part of the daily, not it's whole.

This is not an error. It's a supplied word, and knowingly so. That people took that help, and misused it (which was the problem dealing with the "daily" texts of Daniel) is their error, not the error of the King James Translators in their helpful suggestion (which is what most italics are).

"... In fact, the words in italics in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader. ...

... Clearly, the words in italics were not miraculously given to the translators by God as additional inspiration the same way He did as recorded in 2 Peter 1:21, ?holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.? Neither are the italics there to add emphasis. The words in italics in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader better understand the intent of the passage translated from the original languages." - The King James Bible Research Council - https://kjbrc.org/the-use-of-italics-in-the-king-james-bible/

Did you know that even in the NT where nearly half of a verse is in italics, was later found to be original to the koine Greek?

1Jn 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

"... πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει.

01. 02. 03. 04. 025. 044. 5. 33. 61. 94. 104. 206. 218. 252. 254. 307. 321. 323. 326. 378C. 398. 429. 436. 442. 453. 459. 467C. 468. 522. 614. 621. 623. 630. 720. 808. 918. 996. 1067. 1127. 1243. 1292. 1359. 1409. 1448. 1490. 1505. 1523. 1524. 1563. 1611. 1661. 1678. 1718. 1735. 1739. 1751. 1799. 1831. 18372. 18382. 1842. 1844f. 1852. 1881. 2138. 2147. 2200. 2298. 2344. 2374. 2412. 2464. 2541. 2544. 2652. 2805. 2818. L596. L1281. Ath. Cyr. CyrH. Or. K:S>BV>. S:P>H. A. G:A1. Sl.Si. ?..." - https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/04/two-important-shorter-byzantine.html

Beware of saying that Italics are ever "error", for it is mostly subjective opinion at work, and again sister White never said that the word "sacrifice" was "error", but instead she rightly noted that it was "supplied" and does not belong in the text (meaning it is not original in the Masoretic Hebrew).

For more on italics, see:

https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/italics.html

https://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/italics.html

https://archive.org/download/sam-gi...%20Helpful%20Book%20for%20Christians.pdf

Some OT and NT texts utilize Italics and are definitely not error, for instance in Exodus 8:21,22,24,29,31 the word "flies" is always supplied by the KJB translators. Why not swarms of "bees" or "mosquitoes", or something else, why "flies"? It is always found in italics. Though the word is not found in the original Masoretic Hebrew, is it "error"? Absolutely not. It is properly supplied, in the light of Psalms 78:45. What did the writer of Psalms 78:45 know that was not in the original texts of Exodus 8?

Numerous examples could be provided.

The word "sacrifice" was indeed in connection to the word "daily" in the OT texts (Numbers 28:24, 29:6; Hebrews 7:27, etc as shown in the Daily Daily study). That the KJB translators supplied the word (not part of the text, Masoretic Hebrew), was merely meant as an help to the reader to identify those places and connection to the sanctuary work, as the context of Daniel 8-11 require.

That does not make it an error of the KJB translators. It makes it the error of thoe who misuse their help. One can simply ignore their help if they so choose.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


Originally Posted by Ellen White
Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Daniel 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily"; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test. {EW 74.2}



Again, see my previous point. Ellen White said, "supplied by man's wisdom", which all acknowledge that it was, including the KJB translators themselves, which is why they honestly placed in italics. Ellen White said, "does not belong to the text". Notice, "text", not "translation" of the text. Ellen White made no comment about it being in error in translation. She was simply stating the obvious to those who were confused. Again see the Daily Daily study itself which demonstrates this beyond and doubt.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
The fact is, the definite article "the" precedes the adverb "daily" in the original Hebrew without a noun being present.
Yes, the Masoretic Hebrew has a defintie article before ~ "ha". That is not in argument, nor contention. It is also non-sequitur to my response to you. Going throughout any given translation work, things like that occur where definite (and also indefiniteness) articles appear and disappear. This happens in the translation of the Masoretic Hebrew into English (in any translation) and it happens going from the koine Greek to the English also (see John 1:1b) for intsance, "ton theon" (the God). Sometimes definite articles are added (rather than removed) in going from one previous language to another (see Johhn 1:2a), "The same". This is because sometimes in English it would sound funny to the readers or hearers to say, as in John 1:1b, 'and the word was with the God', or 'same was in beginning' (John 1:2).

Those aren't "error" either. They are translation choices to make the reading more simple, obvious, apparent or straitforward. "Man's wisdom" in this case, for certain. That it "Does not belong to the text", a given. Never does it say "error" in the SoP/TOJ in regards to it. Just as "man's wisdom" intended it as a help, it was "man's wisdom" that was messing it up.

The word "daily" is used as a noun in Daniel 8,11-12 and so it is "present". Even sister White capitalizes the word "Daily" in her materials in two locations, ExV 61.2 (x2) & RH, November 1, 1850 par. 11. You can see this in the Daily Daily study, or look for it yourself in the materials.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
The translators felt it necessary, grammatically, to add a noun, which they did with "sacrifice."


The translators did not supply the word "sacrifice" to take care of the definite article. They can clearly see the definite article in the Masoretic Hebrew is connected to "daily", being used as a noun, "haTamiyd". They can easily read the verses I provided already. Also this is widely known, for even the TSK (Treasury of Scripture Knowledge; 1830) has verses which link to Daniel 8:11,12,13, 11:31, 12:11, such as "the daily: Dan_8:12, Dan_11:31, Dan_12:11; Exo_29:38-42; Num_28:3; Eze_46:14" (TSK, E-Sword edition). Those other than Daniel verses, all point to the ministry of the sanctuary, which included "sacrifice".

Where did you get your information from? Which translator of the First Oxford Company (translating Isaiah to Malachi; being John Harding, John Reynolds (Rainolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Richard Fairclough (Fareclowe) ** see below) provided the information you gave? I want a direct source and citation.

**
"... The first Oxford Company: Isaiah - Malachi

1. John Harding, 15?? - 16??: John Harding was the Regius Professor of Hebrew in 1591 and President of Magdalen College; and also Rector of Halsey in Oxfordshire. It was said of him, ?At the time of his appointment to aid in the translation of the Bible, he had been Royal Professor of Hebrew in the University for thirteen years. His occupancy of that chair, at a time when the study of sacred literature was pursued by thousands with a zeal amounting to a possession, is a fair intimation that Dr. Harding was the man for the post he occupied.?50

2. John Reynolds (Rainolds), 1549 - 1607: Dr. John Reynolds was fellow of Corpus Christi College, 1566 and later became President of Corpus Christi in 1598; Dean of Lincoln, 1593. He was primarily responsible, in the Conference at Hampton Court, for moving the King for a new Translation. He died May 21, 1607 before the work was completed.

a. Dr. Reynolds had been raised a Roman Catholic. As Chaderton, he too trusted Christ and became a Puritan.

b. ?Determined to explore the whole field and make himself master of the subject, he devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures in the original tongues, and read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and all the ancient records of the Church.?51

c. ?About the year 1578, John Hart, a popish zealot, challenged all the learned men in the nation to a public debate. At the solicitation of one of Queen Elizabeth?s privy counselors, Mr. Reynolds encountered him. After several combats, the Romish champion owned himself driven from the field.?

d. ?At that time, the celebrated Cardinal Bellarmine, the Goliath of the Philistines at Rome, was professor of theology in the English Seminary at that city. As fast as he delivered his popish doctrine, it was taken down in writing, and regularly sent to Dr. Reynolds; who from time to time, publicly confuted it at Oxford. Thus Bellarmine?s books were answered, even before they were printed.?52

e. ?The papists started a report, that their famous opposer had recanted his Protestant sentiments. He was much grieved at hearing of the rumor; but too feeble to speak, set his name to the following declaration: ?These are to testify to all the world, that I die in the possession of that faith which I have taught all my life, both in my preachings and in my writings, with an assured hope of my salvation, only by the merits of Christ my Savior.??53

3. Thomas Holland, 1539 - 1612: Dr. Holland was then fellow of Balliol College, Oxford; chaplain to the Earl of Leichester in the Netherlands in 1585; Regius Professor of Divinity in Oxford, 1589 and afterwards Rector of Exeter College, 1592. It was said of him that he was, ?another Apollos, mighty in the Scriptures.?

Dr. Holland was a fiery Puritan and dedicated anti-Catholic who ended his sermons with the words, ?I commend you to the love of God and to the hatred of all popery and superstition.?

4. Richard Kilby, 1560 - 1620: Dr. Richard Kilby became the Rector of Lincoln College in 1590. He was Regius Professor of Divinity, 1610.

a. Dr. Kilby published commentaries on Exodus, chiefly formed from the monuments of the rabbis and Hebrew interpreters.

b. This incident, which occurred shortly after the Authorized Version had been published shows the dangers of changing even one word of God?s Book.

1) ?I must here stop my reader, and tell him that this Dr. Kilby was a man so great in learning and wisdom, and so excellent a critic in the Hebrew tongue, that he was made professor of it in this University; and as also so perfect a Grecian, that he was by King James appointed to be one of the translators of the Bible, and that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved as father and son. The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr. Sanderson to bear him company; and they resting on a Sunday with the Doctor?s friend, and going together to that parish church where they were, found the young preacher to have no more discretion than to waste a great part of the hour allotted for his sermon in exceptions against the late translation of several words, (not expecting such a hearer as Dr. Kilby) and showed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When evening prayer was ended, the preacher was invited to the Doctor?s friend?s house, where after some other confidence, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more useful doctrine, and not filled his auditor?s ears with needless exceptions against the translation; and for that word for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he and others had considered all of them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed.?54

5. Miles Smith, 1554 - 1624: At the time of the translation Dr. Smith was a Canon of Hereford, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester in 1612. Dr. Smith had a great wealth of knowledge concerning the Greek and Latin fathers. He was also expert in Chaldean, Syriac, and Arabic that he could carry on conversations in these difficult languages. It was also said, ?Hebrew he had at his finger?s end.?55 He read every book in his own library. Dr. Miles Smith wrote the preface to the King James Bible.

6. Richard Brett, 1567 - 1645: Dr. Brett was fellow of Lincoln College and Rector of Quainton, in Buckinghamshire in 1595. He was a noted scholar of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Chaldean, Arabic and Ethiopian.

7. Richard Fairclough (Fareclowe), 1578 - 1645: Mr. Fairclough, was of New College; fellow of Corpus Christi, 1602; vicar of Lambeth, All Hallows, Bread Street and Acton. ..." 24 Hour King James Bible Syllabus by Dr. Sam Gipp, pages 64-67 - https://archive.org/download/24-hour-syllabus/24%20Hour%20SYLLABUS.pdf

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
But, while this is indeed unusual grammar for Hebrew, it is not unheard of. Even in English we sometimes break the usual rules for articles preceding nouns by having the article before an adjective or an adverb instead.
All speculation based upon your unproven assumption and undocumented assertion that the translators (KJB; first Oxford Company specifically) added it because of "ha" (definite article). It is non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa

For example: "The less the better." Why do we have "the" in this phrase? To emphasize something...and it turns that something into a noun which ordinarily would not have been a noun. The same should be true in these texts in Daniel.


Non-sequitur. Hebrew is also way different than English, and not merely in directional reading, or script.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
By the way, scholars largely agree that the book of Daniel presents the most difficult level of Hebrew of any in the Old Testament.
Assuming their modern day level of skill in translation is any near the level of the men of the KJB translators (I generally do not accept that as true, based upon several Biblical reasons, never - the - less), that the statement is truly representative of facts, and not mere opinion (because of the prophecy that is contained therein and what it would mean to properly translate it as the KJB had, for the modern day "Jews" (Sephardic and Ashkenazic) understand it just fine, and have a curse on Daniel, see - https://amazingdiscoveries.org/AD-Header-Downloads-References-RabbinicCurse ), then what does it have to do with "error"? Merely being difficult to translate, does not mean impossible to translate to breed error or merely academic guessing/hypotheses. It would mean, taking that logic to conclusion, is that all modern translations of Daniel, in any laguage from the Hebrew would be in error at some point following that logic. It's silly and self-contradictory. God did not give the Hebrew in the OT (or even koine Greek of the NT) times so that we could not know it today. God gave languages (like Hebrew, 'Syriack' and koine Greek), and the "interpretation of tongues (languages)" (1 Corinthians 12:10) as gifts to His church. The men of the KJB translation committees were first rank Christians of a holier sort than generally exist today, and had such "gifts" from God, as seen in their historical bios, and personal diaries, histories that still exist.

Difficulty does not equal to automatic error. It doesn't even imply error. It simply implies challenge, a greater student of God and the Holy Ghost needful. The Holy Ghost, who gives the gifts (like interpretation) would lead such into "all truth". God's people were never without light, especially when they were in harmony with His will, and praying unto Him for guidance.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
So this KJV error regarding "the daily" is attested by Ellen White.
No. You added to her words. She never said "error", nor implied it. I already went over what she said.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
This error of the Wycliffe and KJV was propagated to virtually all English Bibles today.
Do you realize it existed as an idea long before Wycliffe, and or the KJB translators?

It is possible (though not yet provable - http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/ ) that Ulfilias (Wulfilia, &c) Gothic Bible contained something similar, though at present only a small fragment of the OT survives, that of Nehemiah. However, it is not improbable considering the connection the Ulfilias Bible had with other similar translations. Yet, that is neither here nor there, just an interesting thought, that one day might be helpful to consider, since quite a bit of it still exists in the language of the King James English.

It does exist in the Latin Vulgate, "sacrificium":

Dan 8:11 et usque ad principem fortitudinis magnificatus est et ab eo tulit iuge sacrificium et deiecit locum sanctificationis eius

Dan 8:12 robur autem datum est contra iuge sacrificium propter peccata et prosternetur veritas in terra et faciet et prosperabitur

Dan 8:13 et audivi unum de sanctis loquentem et dixit unus sanctus alteri nescio cui loquenti usquequo visio et iuge sacrificium et peccatum desolationis quae facta est et sanctuarium et fortitudo conculcabitur

Dan 11:31 et brachia ex eo stabunt et polluent sanctuarium fortitudinis et auferent iuge sacrificium et dabunt abominationem in desolationem

Dan 12:11 et a tempore cum ablatum fuerit iuge sacrificium et posita fuerit abominatio in desolatione dies mille ducenti nonaginta

It even exists in what some call the LXX (Septuagint, though no such thing actually exists (but is really Origen's Hexapla, circa 180's - 250's AD), but they say it does, and even existing before the NT times!!! (nonsense, but that's what they say based upon the discredited Letter of Aristeas!!!), (vs 11) "thusia" (G2378; sacrifice), (vs 12) "thusian", (vs 13) "thusia":

Dan 8:11 καὶ ἕως οὗ ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος ῥύσηται τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν, καὶ δι᾿ αὐτὸν θυσία ἐρράχθη, καὶ ἐγενήθη καὶ κατευοδώθη αὐτῷ, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον ἐρημωθήσεται·

Dan 8:12 καὶ ἐδόθη ἐπὶ τὴν θυσίαν ἁμαρτία, καὶ ἐρρίφη χαμαὶ ἡ δικαιοσύνη, καὶ ἐποίησεν καὶ εὐοδώθη.

Dan 8:13 καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἁγίου λαλοῦντος, καὶ εἶπεν εἷς ἅγιος τῷ φελμουνι τῷ λαλοῦντι Ἕως πότε ἡ ὅρασις στήσεται, ἡ θυσία ἡ ἀρθεῖσα καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐρημώσεως ἡ δοθεῖσα, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ἡ δύναμις συμπατηθήσεται;

It even exists in non-English translations, like Luther's German (1545), "das t?gliche Opfer". Opfer is "sacrifice", and he didn't even place it into Italics.

It exists in the French Ostervald (1744), "le sacrifice continuel" (Daniel 8:11, etc).

It exists in the Spanish Reina Valera (1569), in italics, "el continuo sacrificio" (Daniel 8:11, etc).

It exists in the Genevan (1587), "the dayly sacrifice" (Daniel 8:11, etc).

It exists in the Bishop's (1658) in brackets, "the dayly [sacrifice]" (Daniel 8:11, etc).

Was it supplied by "man's wisdom". Yep. No doubt. The word "sacrifice" is not present as a word in any Masoretic Hebrew text:

Dan 8:11 ועד שׂר־הצבא הגדיל וממנו הרים התמיד והשׁלך מכון מקדשׁו׃

Dan 8:12 וצבא תנתן על־התמיד בפשׁע ותשׁלך אמת ארצה ועשׂתה והצליחה׃

Dan 8:13 ואשׁמעה אחד־קדושׁ מדבר ויאמר אחד קדושׁ לפלמוני המדבר עד־מתי החזון התמיד והפשׁע שׁמם תת וקדשׁ וצבא מרמס׃

Dan 11:31 וזרעים ממנו יעמדו וחללו המקדשׁ המעוז והסירו התמיד ונתנו השׁקוץ משׁומם׃

Dan 12:11 ומעת הוסר התמיד ולתת שׁקוץ שׁמם ימים אלף מאתים ותשׁעים׃

Transliterated:

8:11 w'ad sar-haTZ?v? hig'Diyl ?miMeN? *h?riym [h?ram] haT?miyd w'hush'lakh' m'kh?n miq'D?sh?

8:12 w'tz?v? TiN?t?n al-haT?miyd B'f?sha w'tash'l?kh' ?met ar'tz?h w'?s't?h w'hitz'liych?h

8:13 w?esh'm'?h ech?d-q?d?sh m'daB?r waYomer ech?d q?d?sh laPal'm?niy ham'daB?r ad-m?tay hech?z?n haT?miyd w'haPesha shom?m T?t w'qodesh w'tz?v? mir'm??

11:31 ?z'roiym miMeN? ya?mod? w'chiL'l? haMiq'D?sh haM??z w'h??iyr? haT?miyd w'n?t'n? haSHiQ?tz m'sh?m?m

12:11 ?m??t h??ar haT?miyd w'l?t?t shiQ?tz shom?m y?miym elef m?tayim w'tish'iym

They all just say "haTamiyd". No disagreement there whatsoever. That the word "sacrifice" "Does not belong to the text" is obvious since it is nowhere present in Hebrew.

Does that make the word in the English of the KJB an "error"? No. The KJB never said they were translating the word "sacrifice" from the Masoretic Hebrew. How could it be an error in translation? (You might say, you never said it was an error in translation. Fine. You still say it is an error in general? Based upon what, sister White's statement who never used that word ("error" in this context) or implied it?) It was simply a supplied word, as admitted by all (even the KJB who placed it into differing font (later Italics) meant as an help that was being misunderstood and misused.

You are going to sit there an say that the KJB, in Daniel 8:11,12,13, 11:31, and 12:11 has an "error" based on that reasoning? Then as you have said, nearly all English translations have the same "error" (as you call it) and nearly ever other language "translation" as well as far back as one looks nearly as can be seen. Are all translators (even beyond the KJB to modern day ones) so ignorant of the facts?, to retain it (even as you admit) as an "error"? - https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Daniel%208:11

Then all Bibles are erroneous from the so called LXX, to the Latin to Wycliffe to KJB, to RV, ASV, NIV, TNIV, etc, the German, French, Spanish, and so on. Do you really think that what was sister White intended by her statements? I hope not. I think you over extneded sister White's statement, like you over extend several other things.

Originally Posted by Green Cochoa
YLT and Darby each put the word "sacrifice" in square brackets, indicating it was an addition to the text--but still leave it there, just the same. Many modern translations have taken it a step farther in substituting "burnt offering" for the word "sacrifice." The MSG translation says "daily worship"--an interesting variation. But the entire text seems to have been translated poorly if one looks at in Hebrew. There are at least two other points in it where variations could make a big difference.
They were not translating the word from any Hebrew text. They were all "supplying" the word, as they all nearly (some exceptions) admit in print, by brackets, italics, change of font, etc. The translation isn't poor. They all do a pretty good job. The "poor", is where the help meant by each ("man's wisdom"), is over extended.

The second example that you gave doesn't shown an "error" in translation, or "error" in general, either.

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194233
07/17/21 12:06 PM
07/17/21 12:06 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


OT-3:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (Genesis 22:13, KJV)


The English "behind" here was mistranslated from the Hebrew, which should say, instead "white." The word "him" in English was entirely supplied--it is not in the Hebrew text. In other words, "a white ram" is what the text says. Something about the similarity of the word root with another Hebrew word causes most translators to see it as a preposition or a conjunction instead of as an adjective "white" here, and virtually all translations have gone the wrong direction, KJV included. This particular detail, which some might consider unimportant, was highlighted in my Hebrew class one day as Yahuda Cohen, the Jewish professor, made a special point of explaining it. He is a traditional Jew who does not accept Jesus as the Messiah, but he still recognized the truth that the "white" color represents the purity and sinlessness of our Substitute.

While I was unable to find an English translation using the word "white" in translating this phrase, many omit "behind" and some add "single," as in "a single ram." There must be some ambiguity to the word to allow for these variations. So perhaps our KJV translators can be excused here, as they are in good company. On the other hand, it might be that the KJV is what influenced all later translations away from a more accurate representation.

Well, as you might not accept this particular error, as it is not attested by other versions, nor by Ellen White, I will add another one.
Why did you even bother with this one, when it shoots your own argument in the foot? You cannot even provide evidence of "white" as a translation. Where did you get your translation ("white") from?

Gen 22:13 (8th word from left, "אחר") וישׂא אברהם את־עיניו וירא והנה־איל אחר נאחז בסבך בקרניו וילך אברהם ויקח את־האיל ויעלהו לעלה תחת בנו׃

Gen 22:13 Transliterated (8th word from right, "achar") - waYiS? av'r?h?m et-?yn?yw waYar' w'hiN?h-ayil achar ne?chaz Ba?'vakh' B'qar'n?yw waY?lekh' av'r?h?m waYiQach et-h?ayil waYa?l?h? l'ol?h Tachat B'n?

The Masoretic Hebrew, H310, 'achar occurs:

Total KJV Occurrences: 691
after, 485
Gen_5:4 (2), Gen_5:7, Gen_5:10, Gen_5:13, Gen_5:16, Gen_5:19, Gen_5:22, Gen_5:26, Gen_5:30, Gen_6:4, Gen_9:9, Gen_9:28, Gen_10:1, Gen_10:32, Gen_11:10-11 (2), Gen_11:13, Gen_11:15, Gen_11:17, Gen_11:19, Gen_11:21, Gen_11:23, Gen_11:25, Gen_13:14, Gen_14:17, Gen_15:1, Gen_16:13, Gen_17:7-10 (5), Gen_17:19, Gen_18:5, Gen_18:12, Gen_18:19, Gen_19:6, Gen_22:1, Gen_22:20, Gen_23:19, Gen_24:55, Gen_24:67, Gen_25:11, Gen_25:26, Gen_26:18, Gen_31:23, Gen_31:36, Gen_33:7, Gen_35:5, Gen_35:12, Gen_37:17, Gen_39:7, Gen_40:1, Gen_41:3, Gen_41:6, Gen_41:19, Gen_41:23, Gen_41:27, Gen_41:30, Gen_44:4, Gen_45:15, Gen_48:1, Gen_48:4, Gen_48:6, Gen_50:14, Exo_3:20, Exo_7:25, Exo_10:14, Exo_11:8, Exo_14:4, Exo_14:8-10 (3), Exo_14:23, Exo_14:28, Exo_15:20, Exo_23:2 (2), Exo_28:43, Exo_29:29, Exo_33:8, Exo_34:15-16 (3), Lev_13:7, Lev_13:35, Lev_13:55-56 (2), Lev_14:8, Lev_14:43 (3), Lev_14:48, Lev_15:28, Lev_16:1, Lev_17:7, Lev_20:5-6 (3), Lev_25:15, Lev_25:46, Lev_25:48, Lev_26:33, Lev_27:3, Lev_27:18, Num_4:15, Num_6:19-20 (2), Num_7:88, Num_8:15, Num_8:22, Num_9:17, Num_12:14, Num_15:39 (2), Num_25:8, Num_25:13, Num_26:1, Num_32:15 (2), Num_35:28, Deu_1:4, Deu_1:8, Deu_4:37, Deu_4:40, Deu_6:14, Deu_8:19, Deu_10:15, Deu_11:4, Deu_11:28, Deu_12:25, Deu_12:28, Deu_12:30, Deu_13:2, Deu_13:4, Deu_21:13, Deu_24:4, Deu_28:14, Deu_29:22, Deu_31:16, Deu_31:27, Deu_31:29, Jos_1:1, Jos_2:5, Jos_2:7 (2), Jos_3:3, Jos_6:9, Jos_6:13, Jos_8:6, Jos_8:16-17 (3), Jos_9:16, Jos_10:14, Jos_10:19, Jos_20:5, Jos_22:27, Jos_23:1, Jos_24:6, Jos_24:20, Jos_24:29, Jdg_1:1, Jdg_1:6, Jdg_2:10, Jdg_2:17, Jdg_3:22, Jdg_3:28 (2), Jdg_3:31, Jdg_4:14, Jdg_4:16 (2), Jdg_5:14, Jdg_6:34-35 (2), Jdg_7:23, Jdg_8:5, Jdg_8:12, Jdg_8:27, Jdg_8:33, Jdg_10:1, Jdg_10:3, Jdg_12:8, Jdg_12:11, Jdg_12:13, Jdg_13:11, Jdg_15:7, Jdg_19:3, Jdg_20:45, Rth_1:15-16 (2), Rth_2:2-3 (2), Rth_2:7, Rth_2:9, Rth_4:4, 1Sa_5:9 (3), 1Sa_6:12, 1Sa_8:2-3 (2), 1Sa_11:5 (2), 1Sa_11:7 (2), 1Sa_12:21, 1Sa_13:4, 1Sa_14:12-13 (3), 1Sa_14:22, 1Sa_14:36-37 (2), 1Sa_15:31, 1Sa_17:35, 1Sa_17:53, 1Sa_22:20, 1Sa_23:25, 1Sa_23:28, 1Sa_24:8, 1Sa_24:14 (4), 1Sa_24:21, 1Sa_25:13, 1Sa_25:19, 1Sa_25:42, 1Sa_26:3, 1Sa_26:18, 1Sa_30:8, 2Sa_1:1, 2Sa_1:10, 2Sa_2:1, 2Sa_2:19, 2Sa_2:24-25 (2), 2Sa_2:28, 2Sa_3:26, 2Sa_5:13, 2Sa_7:12, 2Sa_13:1 (3), 2Sa_13:17-18 (2), 2Sa_15:1, 2Sa_15:13, 2Sa_17:1, 2Sa_17:21, 2Sa_18:16, 2Sa_18:22, 2Sa_20:2, 2Sa_20:6-7 (3), 2Sa_20:10-11 (2), 2Sa_20:13-14 (3), 2Sa_21:1, 2Sa_21:14, 2Sa_21:18, 2Sa_23:9-11 (3), 2Sa_24:10, 1Ki_1:6, 1Ki_1:13-14 (2), 1Ki_1:17, 1Ki_1:20, 1Ki_1:24, 1Ki_1:27, 1Ki_1:30, 1Ki_1:35, 1Ki_1:40, 1Ki_2:28 (2), 1Ki_3:12, 1Ki_9:21, 1Ki_11:2, 1Ki_11:4-6 (4), 1Ki_11:10, 1Ki_13:14, 1Ki_13:23 (2), 1Ki_13:31, 1Ki_13:33, 1Ki_15:4, 1Ki_17:17, 1Ki_19:11-12 (3), 1Ki_19:20-21 (2), 1Ki_20:15, 1Ki_21:1, 2Ki_1:1, 2Ki_5:20-21 (3), 2Ki_6:24, 2Ki_7:14-15 (2), 2Ki_9:25, 2Ki_9:27, 2Ki_10:29, 2Ki_14:17, 2Ki_14:19, 2Ki_14:22, 2Ki_17:15, 2Ki_18:5, 2Ki_23:3, 2Ki_23:25, 2Ki_25:5, 1Ch_5:24-25 (2), 1Ch_10:2 (2), 1Ch_11:12, 1Ch_14:14, 1Ch_17:11, 1Ch_19:1 (2), 1Ch_20:4, 1Ch_27:7, 1Ch_27:34, 1Ch_28:8, 2Ch_1:12, 2Ch_2:17, 2Ch_8:8, 2Ch_11:16, 2Ch_11:20, 2Ch_13:19, 2Ch_20:1, 2Ch_20:35, 2Ch_21:18, 2Ch_24:4 (2), 2Ch_24:17, 2Ch_25:14, 2Ch_25:25, 2Ch_25:27, 2Ch_26:2, 2Ch_26:17, 2Ch_32:1, 2Ch_32:9, 2Ch_33:14, 2Ch_34:31, 2Ch_35:20, Ezr_7:1, Ezr_9:10, Ezr_9:13, Neh 3 (16), Neh_11:8, Neh_12:32, Neh_12:38, Neh_13:19, Job_3:1 (3), Job_19:26, Job_21:3, Job_21:21, Job_21:33, Job_29:22, Job_31:7, Job_37:4, Job_39:8, Job_39:10, Job_41:32, Job_42:7, Psa_49:16-17 (2), Psa_63:8, Psa_68:25, Pro_7:22, Pro_20:7, Pro_20:25, Ecc_2:12, Ecc_2:18, Ecc_3:22, Ecc_6:12, Ecc_7:14, Ecc_9:3, Ecc_10:14, Ecc_12:2, Son_1:4, Isa_43:10, Isa_45:14, Jer_2:2 (2), Jer_2:5, Jer_2:8, Jer_2:23, Jer_2:25, Jer_3:7, Jer_3:17, Jer_7:6, Jer_7:9, Jer_8:2, Jer_9:14 (2), Jer_9:16, Jer_9:22, Jer_11:10, Jer_12:6, Jer_12:15, Jer_16:10-12 (3), Jer_16:16, Jer_18:12, Jer_24:1, Jer_25:6, Jer_25:26, Jer_28:12, Jer_29:2, Jer_31:19 (2), Jer_31:33, Jer_32:18, Jer_32:39, Jer_34:8, Jer_35:15, Jer_36:27, Jer_39:5, Jer_40:1, Jer_42:16 (2), Jer_49:37, Jer_50:21, Jer_51:46, Jer_52:8, Eze_5:2, Eze_5:12, Eze_6:9, Eze_9:5, Eze_12:14, Eze_16:23, Eze_20:16, Eze_20:24, Eze_23:30 (2), Eze_29:16, Eze_33:31, Eze_40:1, Eze_44:10, Eze_44:26, Eze_46:12, Dan_8:1, Dan_9:26, Hos_2:5, Hos_2:13, Hos_5:8, Hos_5:11, Hos_11:10, Joe_2:2, Amo_2:4, Amo_7:1, Zec_2:8, Zec_6:6, Zec_7:14
behind, 49
Gen_18:10, Gen_19:17, Gen_19:26, Gen_22:13, Gen_32:18, Gen_32:20, Exo_11:5, Exo_14:19 (2), Num_3:23, Deu_25:18, Jos_8:2, Jos_8:4, Jos_8:14, Jos_8:20, Jdg_18:12, Jdg_20:40, 1Sa_21:9, 1Sa_24:8, 2Sa_1:7, 2Sa_2:20, 2Sa_2:23, 2Sa_3:16, 2Sa_5:23, 2Sa_13:34, 1Ki_10:19, 1Ki_14:9, 2Ki_6:32, 2Ki_9:18-19 (2), 2Ki_11:6, 2Ch_13:13 (2), Neh_4:13, Neh_4:16, Neh_9:26, Psa_50:17, Son_2:9, Isa_30:21, Isa_38:17, Isa_57:8, Isa_66:17, Eze_3:12, Eze_23:35, Eze_41:15, Joe_2:3 (2), Joe_2:14, Zec_1:8
afterward, 40
Gen_10:18, Gen_15:14, Gen_32:20, Gen_38:30, Exo_5:1, Exo_34:32, Lev_14:19, Lev_14:36, Lev_16:26, Lev_16:28, Lev_22:7, Num_5:26, Num_12:16, Num_19:7, Num_31:2, Num_31:24, Num_32:22, Deu_24:21, Jos_2:16, Jos_8:34, Jos_10:26, Jos_24:5, Jdg_1:9, Jdg_7:11, Jdg_19:4-5 (2), 1Sa_24:5, 1Sa_24:8, 2Sa_3:28, 1Ch_2:21, 2Ch_35:14, Ezr_3:5, Psa_73:24, Isa_1:26, Jer_21:7, Jer_34:11, Jer_46:26, Jer_49:6, Hos_3:5, Joe_2:28
followed, 36
Gen_24:61, Gen_32:19, Num_16:24-25 (2), Num_32:11-12 (2), Deu_1:36, Deu_4:3, Jos_14:8-9 (3), Jos_14:14, Jdg_2:12, Jdg_9:4, Jdg_9:49, 1Sa_13:7, 1Sa_17:13-14 (2), 2Sa_2:10, 2Sa_3:31, 2Sa_11:8, 2Sa_20:2, 1Ki_12:20, 1Ki_14:8, 1Ki_16:21-22 (4), 1Ki_20:18-19 (2), 2Ki_4:30, 2Ki_13:2, 2Ki_17:15, Neh_4:23, Eze_10:11, Amo_7:15
following, 29
Gen_41:31, Deu_7:4, Deu_12:30, Jos_22:16, Jos_22:18, Jos_22:23, Jos_22:29, Jdg_2:19, 1Sa_12:14, 1Sa_12:20, 1Sa_14:46, 1Sa_15:11, 1Sa_24:1, 2Sa_2:19, 2Sa_2:21-22 (2), 2Sa_2:26-27 (2), 2Sa_2:30, 2Sa_7:8, 1Ki_1:7, 1Ki_9:6, 1Ki_21:26, 2Ki_17:21, 2Ki_18:6, 1Ch_17:7, 2Ch_25:27, 2Ch_34:33, Psa_78:71
follow, 16
Gen_24:5, Gen_24:8, Gen_24:39, Exo_14:17, Jdg_9:2-3 (2), 1Sa_30:21, 2Sa_17:9, 1Ki_18:21 (2), 1Ki_19:20, 2Ki_6:19, Jer_17:14-16 (3), Eze_13:3
afterwards, 7
Gen_30:21, Exo_11:1, 1Sa_9:13, Job_18:2, Pro_20:17, Pro_24:27, Pro_28:23
posterity, 4
1Ki_16:3 (2), 1Ki_21:21, Psa_49:13
followeth, 3
2Ki_11:15, 2Ch_23:14, Eze_16:34
forasmuch, 3
Gen_41:39, Jdg_11:36, 2Sa_19:30
pursuing, 2
1Ki_22:33, 2Ch_18:32
since, 2
Gen_46:30, Rth_2:11
again, 1
Deu_24:20
away, 1
Num_14:43
back, 1
2Ki_2:24
backside, 1
Exo_3:1
beside, 1
Neh_5:15
followedst, 1
Rth_3:10
hereafter, 1
Eze_20:39
hinder, 1
2Sa_2:23
outlived, 1
Jdg_2:7
overlived, 1
Jos_24:31
persecute, 1
Jer_29:18
remnant, 1
1Ki_14:10
seeing, 1
Jdg_19:23
thenceforth, 1
2Ch_32:23
when, 1
Gen_24:36

It is never once translated as "white". It doesn't mean "white" at all in any concordance, lexicon or dictionary considered. It even stems from H309, meaning to come in behind, late, etc. Even according to Strong's:

"From H309; properly the hind part; generally used as an adverb or conjugation, after (in various senses): - after (that, -ward), again, at, away from, back (from, -side), behind, beside, by, follow (after, -ing), forasmuch, from, hereafter, hinder end, + out (over) live, + persecute, posterity, pursuing, remnant, seeing, since, thence [-forth], when, with."

Where did you get that it should be translated "white"?

Sister White even directly quotes the KJB text without alteration:

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son." {1SP 101.1}

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son." {3SG 108.1}

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." {ST, April 1, 1875 par. 16} "

"And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of the place, Jehovah-jireh; as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of Heaven the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." {ST, April 3, 1879 par. 8} "

It is never once translated "white" (not by Wycliffe, Latin Vulgate, German Luther, French Ostervald, etc, etc). Not even in any non-English translations.

Where on earth did you get your information from? Even if I were to look in Rabbinical materials (Midrashes, Talmuds, etc), I do not think I would even find it there either.

This seems to be an "error" of your own making, or borrowed from someone misinformed at least.

It is thus a non-sequitur, and irrelevant, to the discussion.

Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194234
07/17/21 12:08 PM
07/17/21 12:08 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


OT-4:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? (1 Samuel 19:24, KJV)


Originally Posted by Ellen White
"When he came to Naioth in Ramah, he laid aside his outer garments that betokened his station, and all day, and all night, he lay before Samuel and his pupils, under the influence of the divine Spirit." {ST, August 24, 1888 par. 8}


In other words, Saul removed his kingly outer clothing--not his inner clothing. He was not entirely nude. The Hebrew word here, בְּגָדָ֗יו (bə?ḡā?ḏāw), could be translated as either "clothing" or as "garment." Obviously, the latter would not imply such a complete disrobing as the former, and it is this latter which is the correct translation. The AMPC gets it right. So do the ICB and NCV.

Originally Posted by The Bible
He took off his royal robes and prophesied before Samuel and lay down stripped thus all that day and night. So they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? (1 Samuel 19:24, AMPC)

He took off his robes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He lay that way all day and all night. That is why people ask, ?Is even Saul one of the prophets?? (1 Samuel 19:24, ICB)

He took off his robes and prophesied in front of Samuel. He lay that way all day and all night. That is why people ask, ?Is even Saul one of the prophets?? (1 Samuel 19:24, NCV)


Well, you asked for three--I have just given you three times that many verses from the OT. So, let's move to the NT.
You are utilizing sister White in an entirely wrong way.

Here is the Hebrew:

1Sa 19:24 ויפשׁט גם־הוא בגדיו ויתנבא גם־הוא לפני שׁמואל ויפל ערם כל־היום ההוא וכל־הלילה על־כן יאמרו הגם שׁאול בנביאם׃

1 Sa 19:24 Trasliterated - waYif'sha? Gam-h? B'g?d?yw waYit'naB? gam-h? lif'n?y sh'm??l waYiPol ?rom K?l-haY?m hah? w'kh?l-haL?y'l?h al-K?n yom'r? h?gam sh??l BaN'viyim f

Do you see the words "B'gadayw", and "arom"?

The first means, clothing, whether inner clothing, outer clothing, or both. It just means what one is wearing.

The second means, naked (without clothing), whether, partially or fully.

There is no error here. The error, is in people's misunderstanding of how the Bible interprets itself. This is why sister White used a differing rendition, not having to spend three paragraphs to explain the text in it's own context. It's the same reason she utilized mother translations occasionally. By using other translations in English she is not saying, neither endorsing that the KJB is in error at those points. She is simply utilizing a translation which best fits the section of her writing, and for ease of reading for a general English speaking audience, who do not have all the exact context of the words which surround that text. Think about it for just a minute. Sister White is not translating a bible text (she never claimed to be able to do so). She is giving to readers a general history of events, using various translations, that people accepted at the time to get the point across. That you think because she does not utilize the exact wording of the KJB here, is to take that to mean the KJB translation is in error is ludicrous and an egregious error in utilizing sister White's material. I find your whole response so far, appalling (definitely not appealing to join you in it).

Do you think Moses stripped Aaron to bare skin?

Num_20:28 And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount: and Moses and Eleazar came down from the mount.

Johnathan (Saul's son) already had stripped himself of his robe and gave it to David:

1Sa_18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

You see reading line upon line, we can look in Job and see what the phrase means:

Job 22:6 For thou hast taken a pledge from thy brother for nought, and stripped the naked of their clothing.

It means to take an outer garment, a "pledge". And "naked" means their outer garment was removed. Same words, as in 1 Samuel 19:24, and same usage.

In Ezekiel 19, we read:

Eze 16:39 And I will also give thee into their hand, and they shall throw down thine eminent place, and shall break down thy high places: they shall strip thee also of thy clothes, and shall take thy fair jewels, and leave thee naked and bare.

So, that which is "naked" is to be bereft not of all garments down to the flesh, but of Jewelry, which made them "naked and bare". In other words without ornament or outward display.

A comparable text to this event in King Saul's life is found in 1 Samuel 10, and to prophesy like the prophets is be be dressed like they are (like John the Baptist, simple clothing), out of King's clothes.

King David did the same when leaping before the Ark of God.

2Sa 6:14 And David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.

He had removed any apparel (clothing) which would distinguish himself from others. King Saul, being changed into another man (1 Samuel 10, etc) had done no less.

Sister White is not trying to show all of that in as many paragraphs as I just took. She is simply trying to give a general understanding of events to us by her 'midrash' (as it were), or paraphrase of events. I do not find sister White utilizing any known translation into the English here. She does not even cite another English translation at all, neither do the editors, or EGW estate imply she had.

She nowhere says that the KJB translation of 1 Samuel 19:24 was in error. She doesn't even imply it. You are egregiously misusing sister White, in a way I have never seen done before. You are quite dangerous with this, and I mean this in all serious candor. If you teach these things to others, I advise you to stop immediately and check yourself.

Last edited by Matthew 10vs8; 07/17/21 12:43 PM.
Re: Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions [Re: Rick H] #194235
07/17/21 12:08 PM
07/17/21 12:08 PM
Matthew 10vs8  Offline
SDA
Active Member 2021

Regular Member
Joined: Jun 2021
Posts: 85
Ili Ili, AS
Originally Posted by Green Cochoa


NEW TESTAMENT

NT-1:

Originally Posted by The Holy Bible
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39, KJV)


This error is significant. Should we not resist evil? Thankfully, once again, Mrs. White helps us understand this one, because it IS important. This time she does not highlight the error directly, but quotes the verse from a different version. Twice in the same context.

Originally Posted by Ellen White
"Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever
smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn
to him the other also." Matthew 5:39, R.V.


Occasions of irritation to the Jews were constantly arising from their contact with the Roman soldiery. Detachments of troops were stationed at different points throughout Judea and Galilee, and their presence reminded the people of their own degradation as a nation. With bitterness of soul they heard the loud blast of the trumpet and saw the troops forming around the standard of Rome and bowing in homage to this symbol of her power. Collisions between the people and the soldiers were frequent, and these inflamed the popular hatred. Often as some Roman official with his guard of soldiers hastened from point to point, he would seize upon the Jewish peasants who were laboring in the field and compel them to carry burdens up the mountainside or render any other service that might be needed. This was in accordance with the Roman law and custom, and resistance to such demands only called forth taunts and cruelty. Every day deepened in the hearts of the people the longing to cast off the Roman yoke. Especially among the bold, rough-handed Galileans the spirit of insurrection was rife. Capernaum, being a border town, was the seat of a Roman garrison, and even while Jesus was teaching, the sight of a company of soldiers recalled to His hearers the bitter thought of Israel's humiliation. The people looked eagerly to Christ, hoping that He was the One who was to humble the pride of Rome. {MB 69.2}

With sadness Jesus looks into the upturned faces before Him. He notes the spirit of revenge that has stamped its evil imprint upon them, and knows how bitterly the people long for power to crush their oppressors. Mournfully He bids them, "Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." {MB 70.1}


In Greek, the definite article uncharacteristically precedes the adjective "evil," which should make it either a noun or reference an antecedent noun. The adjective being singular, the referent should also be singular, making "one" a correct translation. In Greek, sentences are not ordered as they are in English, with subject -> verb -> object (SVO). Words are "inflected" to indicate their part of speech so that, regardless of where they appear in the sentence, the grammar is clear. In this case, the antecedent actually appears after the word, in the part translated as "whoever" or "whosoever."

Jesus is not telling us not to resist evil! He is telling us not to resist the evil person who seeks to harm us.


Do you realize that sister White quoted the KJB exactly as translated on several occasions and not once called them "error", or even implied it was?

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." {2SP 223.1}

"That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.' {RH, April 13, 1911 par. 3}
"The principles that you present to others, you should first know are faultless because sustained by a 'Thus saith the Lord.' How careful we should be in giving advice, lest our counsel result in great evil and suffering. How much better for the families to go out into some other cities or some other country, but never encourage the spirit of defiance and resistance, even if they are placed in the chain-gang. The bigotry that exists, the prejudice against truth to sustain religious error, is firm; for the human agent is stirred with hellish power from beneath. The Lord sees, the Lord knows, all about the sufferings of his people for the truth's sake. Pray, our Saviour says, for those who entreat you evil, and resist not evil. {RH, April 13, 1911 par. 4} "

" "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." {4Red 75.1}"

Also, your translation skills seem subpar, along with your analyzing skills. How many years did you take those languages in?

Quoting the RV, does not prove that the KJB in Matthew 5:39 is an error in translation. The very context of Matthew 5:39 in the KJB reads just fine. You are stuck on single words, when the surrounding context defines those words and uses.

I asked you for the best examples. If this is all you have, you have demonstrated not a single point of your claims.

Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderator  dedication, Rick H, Will 

Sabbath School Lesson Study Material Link
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
Most Recent Posts From Selected Public Forums
Seven Trumpets reconsidered
by Karen Y. 07/04/22 11:26 AM
Meaning of Lazarus and the Rich Man
by kland. 06/28/22 01:09 PM
Most Recent Posts From Selected Private Forums of MSDAOL
LLU Endorses Gay Pride Month!
by Rick H. 07/01/22 04:23 PM
Seventh Day Sabbath Apologetics
by kland. 06/28/22 12:09 PM
Cancelled Delegate to GC Session
by ProdigalOne. 06/25/22 12:10 AM
Link To 2022 June General Conference Session
by Daryl. 06/07/22 04:54 PM
General Conference Session 2022 Threads
by Daryl. 06/07/22 08:13 AM
Forum Announcements
Visitors by Country Since February 11, 2013
Flag Counter
Google Maritime SDA OnLine Public Forums Site Search & Google Translation Service
Google
 
Web www.maritime-sda-online.com

Copyright 2000-Present
Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine).

LEGAL NOTICE:
The views expressed in this forum are those of individuals
and do not necessarily represent those of Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine,
as well as the Seventh-day Adventist Church
from the local church level to the General Conference level.

Maritime 2nd Advent Believers OnLine (formerly Maritime SDA OnLine) is also a self-supporting ministry
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland
or any of its subsidiaries.

"And He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men." Matt. 4:19
MARITIME 2ND ADVENT BELIEVERS ONLINE (FORMERLY MARITIME SDA ONLINE) CONSISTING MAINLY OF BOTH MEMBERS & FRIENDS
OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH,
INVITES OTHER MEMBERS & FRIENDS OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WHO WISHES TO JOIN US!
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1