Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From: L. Ray Smith - Lake of Fire - Part 7
ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES
Those who claim that the KJV is inerrant are not aware of the fact that one edition of the King James left out the word "not" in the seventh commandment. There were, in fact, three different corrections and revisions of the KJV in its very first year of publication.
FIRST KILL THE CHILDREN
There have been countless mistakes in all the editions of the KJV. I will give you just a few. The 1716 Edition had Jesus commanding the adulteress to, "sin on more" instead of "sin no more" In a 1795 Edition Jesus is reported to have said to the Syro-Phoenician woman, "Let the children first be killed" instead of "Let the children first be filled." They called that Edition "The Murderer’s Bible."In the 1792 Edition of the King James Bible has Phillip denying Jesus instead of Peter denying Him.
STRAINING "AT" A GNAT?
And there are still obvious errors remaining in the KJV after four hundred years of corrections, revisions, and editing. In Matt. 23:24 we read this in the KJV, "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." So what’s wrong with that? It’s incoherent! It’s "apples and oranges." Christ is speaking of "swallowing," as in "swallowing a camel." But "straining at a gnat" has nothing to do with swallowing a gnat. In four hundred years, the revisers of the KJV have not caught that slip. Most other translators have caught it and translate it properly:
"…strain out the gnat…--American Standard Version.
"Blind leaders! You filter your wine to get rid of a gnat, and you swallow a camel"—C. H. Rieu.(Although Mr. Rieu uses too many uninspired words, he nonetheless, does translate the idea properly). "…strain off a midge, yet gulp down a camel"—New English Bible "…you call yourselves leaders, and yet you can’t see an inch before your noses, for you filter out the mosquito and swallow the camel"—Phillips Translation. (Again, Mr. Phillips uses too many uninspired words, however, he too nails the meaning quite well).
JESUS OR JOSHUA?
One more: Two obvious mistakes that were made in the 1611 Edition of KJV also have not been corrected to this very day. In both Acts 7:45 and Heb. 4:8, the name "Jesus" appears where "Joshua" is actually meant. Actually Jesus and Joshua are spelled the same in Greek, but, nonetheless, the translators were inattentive or they would have caught this error.
Is the KJV the 'bible'?
Is the KJV the 'word of God'?
Is the KJV innerant?
If you are honest you must acknowledge there are errors in our modern Englishtranslations.
This does not mean we throw out the bible. It does mean we must dig deeper than beyond the literal English words we see today. 99% of the time the translation is ok. But 1% it is not. That 1% can be a killer.
In fairness to Mike his OP never said the Bible is inerrant, just that it is God's Word, which I agree with. It was TXboomerang who first mentioned the word in post #2. But like so many threads on this site we got so far off the original topic I doubt it's possible to get back. So to clarify, my position is that the Scriptures started off inerrant, but innumerable translations later the Bible has become so corrupted with errors, bad theology, deliberate jimmying in order to advance one position over another, and just plain bad scholarship that it can no longer be considered inerrant, yet the overall message of salvation through Jesus only (and not much else) has remained.
In fairness to Mike his OP never said the Bible is inerrant, just that it is God's Word, which I agree with. It was TXboomerang who first mentioned the word in post #2. But like so many threads on this site we got so far off the original topic I doubt it's possible to get back. So to clarify, my position is that the Scriptures started off inerrant, but innumerable translations later the Bible has become so corrupted with errors, bad theology, deliberate jimmying in order to advance one position over another, and just plain bad scholarship that it can no longer be considered inerrant, yet the overall message of salvation through Jesus only (and not much else) has remained.
I agree that is likely the original scriptures were innerant. But there is also the issue of interpretation/written description and cultural/translational issues.
I also think it is likely God intended there to be errors in the translations, so as to conceal things from the many, for a time.
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
I agree that is likely the original scriptures were innerant. But there is also the issue of interpretation/written description and cultural/translational issues.
I also think it is likely God intended there to be errors in the translations, so as to conceal things from the many, for a time.
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
The inconsistencies and contradictions are deliberate and designed not to cause any problems until the audience matures enough to recognize them. They are the clues to what needs to be revised in our understanding.
The inconsistencies and contradictions are deliberate and designed not to cause any problems until the audience matures enough to recognize them. They are the clues to what needs to be revised in our understanding.
That is an interesting idea Mystic, you may be right. I see it as they are only contradictions if you interpret the original message incorrectly. ie. 'destroy enemies' vs. 'turn your enemies into friends'
That is an interesting idea Mystic, you may be right. I see it as they are only contradictions if you interpret the original message incorrectly. ie. 'destroy enemies' vs. 'turn your enemies into friends'
BTW I enjoy your thor/fire hammer example...
Amen! Thanks . . . it illustrates a major problem with interpreting these ancient recordings. I enjoy so many of your posts, lego . . . even though we do differ on some issues . . . like free will by decree of God's Sovereign Will.
I agree that is likely the original scriptures were innerant. But there is also the issue of interpretation/written description and cultural/translational issues.
I also think it is likely God intended there to be errors in the translations, so as to conceal things from the many, for a time.
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Hi lego. I think it's possible God intended the errors to occur, just as He predestined man to fall into sin so that His bountiful mercy could be on display for all to see.
Quote:
For God has imprisoned everyone in disobedience so he could have mercy on everyone. Romans 11:32
Or it's possible God merely allowed the errors to occur, knowing that man is fallible and everything he touches turns to s____.
But hundreds of these inconsistencies are not anything to seek out the meaning of except to try to figure out which one is correct and which is not. For example, when the Bible says in one place Solomon brought back 420 talents of gold and in another part it says he brought back 450 that's a pure factual mistake, not open to correct interpretation. What's needed is researching which writer made the goof. Again, these goofs do not distract from the core message in the Bible that God intends to save mankind from his sin through Jesus' sacrifice.
Well - we kind of ARE talking about conflicting information, whether they are simple scribal errors or differing details from each individual Gospel writer. While the vast majority of scribal or Gospel errors/differences really have no bearing on major theological issues, there are some errors/differences that DO have a bearing on major theological issues.
One very important discrepancy that affects theological meaning is the date of Jesus' death, of which both Mark and John give explicit indications of when this death occured, but both are contradictory. Now - how does this affect theology? Well, it definately affects the theology that Jesus was the Passover Lamb. On the day before passover, the lamb is traditionally slaughtered and prepared to be consumed on the next day: Passover. Keep in mind that a jewish day begins at nightfall.
In Mark - Jesus celebrates Passover (the day after the preparation of the lamb - "The Day of Preparation") at the Last Supper (after nightfall), goes to the Garden, is arrested and is then executed on the same Jewish day (early morning for non-jews). He dies at 9 o'clock in the non-jewish morning, but on the same day as Passover. (Mark 15:25)
In John - there is a meal, but there is no indication that it is the Passover meal, Jesus is condemned to death on the day before Passover, "it was the Day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon" (John 19:14). Jesus is then executed a short time later after noon (still the Jewish "Day of Preparation" [for the Passover]).
Now, there have been various ways that people have tried to reconcile the two accounts - but an honest reading shows that Jesus is said to have died on Passover Day (Mark), or on the Day of Preparation for the Passover (John). Most people will admit that Mark was the first gospel written, and that John was probably the last Gospel written. So why would this difference by important theologically?
Because in the Gospel of John, Jesus is the Lamb to atone for our sins, and according to Jewish custom the lamb that atones for the sins of Israel in the Passover holiday is slaughtered on the Day of Preparation for the Passover- it is eaten on the next day. It serves a definite theological point for John to move the date of Jesus' execution back one day to make a correspondence with the lamb traditionally slaughtered. It makes perfect sense, given John's theology! But not Mark's - who was not interested in proposing that Jesus was the sacrifical lamb to atone for our sins.
Now - I would say that this particular difference (which is not scribal, but part of each Gospel writer's story) does have a very important bearing on theology. It DOES matter what day Jesus was executed, IF one believes that Jesus Christ served as the sacrificial lamb to atone for our sins. If that isn't important, than Mark's account is fine - and one may attempt to explain away John's account. Or vice-versa, if it IS important. Either way - this is a definate example where both differing details AND a different emphasis have a very important bearing on how we understand the Gospel message, and how the Gospel writers themselves understood the message they were writing down. Don't you agree, in this instance?
AS much as I hate reccomending Bart Ehrman's books (he has too much of a chip on his shoulder), his book Jesus Interrupted has an excellent discussion - not on the petty differences in scribal booboos that don't affect anything - but on the differences in the Gospels that DO seem to have an affect on Christian Theology. He is well-respected in his scholarly field, so he is usually a good guide -if one can get past his chip on his shoulder. His non-popular works are much more level-headed, as well as his lectures - which are very professional.
Whoppers, please be aware that there is nothing to reconcile. All four gospels state that Jesus was crucified on the preparation day, the day before the Passover. Here are the passages.
Matthew 27:57 'When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. 58] This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus....62] Now on the next day, which is the one after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate 63] and said, ''Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I am to rise again.'
Mark 15:42 'When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43] Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
Luke 23:54 'It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. 55] Now the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid. 56] Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.
John 19:31 'Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
All four gospels show that Jesus was crucified and died on the preparation day before Passover.
As for the time that Jesus died, Mark 15:25 does not say that Jesus died at 9A.M. It says that Jesus was crucified at 9 A.M. He was put on the cross at that time and didn't dismiss His spirit from His body until 3 P.M.
Matthew 27:45 'Now from the sixth hour (Noon) darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour (3 P.M).
Mark 15:33 'And when the sixth hour (Noon) had come, darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour (3 P.M.).
Luke 23:44 'And it was now about the sixth hour (Noon), and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour (3 P.M.)
John 19:14 is not Noon, but is by Roman time, 6 A.M. The synoptic gospels used the Jewish reckoning of time, while John used the Roman reckoning of time. At about 6 A.M. Jesus was led out to Golgotha to be crucified, carrying His own cross (John 19:17).
In fairness to Mike his OP never said the Bible is inerrant, just that it is God's Word, which I agree with. It was TXboomerang who first mentioned the word in post #2. But like so many threads on this site we got so far off the original topic I doubt it's possible to get back. So to clarify, my position is that the Scriptures started off inerrant, but innumerable translations later the Bible has become so corrupted with errors, bad theology, deliberate jimmying in order to advance one position over another, and just plain bad scholarship that it can no longer be considered inerrant, yet the overall message of salvation through Jesus only (and not much else) has remained.
I will make myself clear here. The Bible is inerrant. The errors, the additions, the deletions, the variations among the manuscript copies do not change any point of doctrine or any loss of the message that God communicated in His word in the original autographs.
This does not deny that there are bad translations. And that is one reason why the believer must study under a prepared pastor/teacher who knows the original lanquages and has been trained to teach the word of God in an isogogical, exegetical and categorical manner. Otherwise, you will get into doctrinal error.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
