<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>King James Version &#8211; La Vista Church of Christ</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/tag/king-james-version/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Jun 2024 00:18:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.4</generator>

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">157465916</site>	<item>
		<title>The King James Translators&#8217; Thoughts on Bible Translations</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-king-james-translators-thoughts-on-bible-translations/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jun 2024 00:18:13 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=68231</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[by Doy Moyer I recommend reading the translators' preface to the King James Version of 1611. It’s easily found online, and some older King James Bibles may contain it. It helps provide some context when trying to see the value in various translations. People today make claims about KJV that the translators did not make.&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-68231 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="68231"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-gqzpo0wft5x8 fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="gqzpo0wft5x8">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-7a6c5tminzpu" data-node="7a6c5tminzpu">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-37ckh9owe08s fl-col-bg-color" data-node="37ckh9owe08s">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-nmksw3iehfvu" data-node="nmksw3iehfvu">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<p style="text-align: right;">by Doy Moyer</p>
<p>I recommend reading <a href="https://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm">the translators' preface to the King James Version of 1611</a>. It’s easily found online, and some older King James Bibles may contain it. It helps provide some context when trying to see the value in various translations.</p>
<p>People today make claims about KJV that the translators did not make. The translators seemed to be reasonable in their explanation and in answering detractors. What they accomplished was great for their time and for what they had to work with. There is just so much more to work with now than what they had, and this makes their work at the time impressive.</p>
<p>When the King James Bible was being assembled, it was criticized greatly. Even after it was initially done, many changes were made, and it took decades before it was more generally accepted and surpassed the Geneva Bible. The panning of new translations is nothing new, and the KJV was no exception to facing harsh criticism either then or now.</p>
<p>In answering critics, the translators of the King James Bible defended the making of translations in general. They said, “Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.” They were not claiming that the KJV was the only proper translation, but were wanting to improve upon what was already available (e.g., the Bishop’s Bible, as the KJV was not the first Bible in English).</p>
<p>They further state: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?”</p>
<p>They defended the idea that translations were necessary and they should not be forbidden “to be current,” even if there are some imperfections. They saw value in updating where needed, and this is one reason why newer translations today should have a seat at the table.</p>
<p>They defended the changes they were making: “Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?”</p>
<p>Later, they write, “But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us…”</p>
<p>In stating their purpose, they say this: “But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.”</p>
<p>They say, “We desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”</p>
<p>They were not claiming perfection, and they were not claiming this to be the one and only final translation, never to be touched again. They saw value in translations for reaching the common people.</p>
<p>It’s fascinating to me. I recommend reading the KJV. It’s beautiful. But also read other translations, for in them all there is much to learn and appreciate.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">68231</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is it &#8220;end of the world&#8221; or &#8220;end of the age&#8221;?</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/is-it-end-of-the-world-or-end-of-the-age/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Oct 2022 20:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greek Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matthew]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=55090</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Question: Hello, My son has fallen into the web of denominational teachings, including some off-the-wall organizations with the typical anything-goes philosophies, premillennialism, rapture, etc. He and I have finally begun to discuss the truth with the myths he believes. I have sent him several of your articles on the "End of Times, Rapture, etc" he&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-55090 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="55090"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-1wsr0q6zlf2m fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="1wsr0q6zlf2m">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-v5u9nxk8j17m" data-node="v5u9nxk8j17m">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-jiu25hkn8pgz fl-col-bg-color" data-node="jiu25hkn8pgz">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-rya3zocn9xvl" data-node="rya3zocn9xvl">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>Hello,</p>
<p>My son has fallen into the web of denominational teachings, including some off-the-wall organizations with the typical anything-goes philosophies, premillennialism, rapture, etc. He and I have finally begun to discuss the truth with the myths he believes. I have sent him several of your articles on the "End of Times, Rapture, etc" he has begun to read. But he claims that he will only discuss the King James Version of the Bible as his reference.</p>
<p>His first reply was, the KJV lists the accounts of Matthew 24:3 as the prediction of the end of the world. Personally, I understand that the end in this KJV predicts the end of the Jewish world via the Roman destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. My problem is how to best explain to him the meaning of "end of the world" vs. "end of the age" so that he will understand and grasp the truth. I sent him the extensive scriptures that without question explain the reality and difference between the end of the world and the end of the Jewish age, but this one point he brings up at the onset, in my opinion, is very critical to start the conversation.</p>
<p>I would appreciate your input or advice on how to best explain this matter in terms he would understand.</p>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
<div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-n72zws4ajvm1" data-node="n72zws4ajvm1">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<p>If someone is determined to cling to an idea, no amount of evidence is going to persuade the person to change. Thus, this explanation will likely only lead to denial or finding something else to support his cause.</p>
<p>The phrase in Matthew 24:3 is a part of the <em>disciples'</em> questions concerning Jesus' statement that all the beautiful buildings they were admiring would be torn down (Matthew 24:2). They ask Jesus about three things:</p>
<ul>
<li>When will this destruction happen?</li>
<li>What advance signs will be given of Jesus coming in judgment on Jerusalem?</li>
<li>What are the signs that this age will end?</li>
</ul>
<p>In the disciples' mind, the three questions are all in regard to the same thing. To a Jew, the destruction of Jerusalem would be the end of the age. Thus, even if you insist that the phrase is "end of the world," it doesn't support any premillennial doctrine. When Jesus answers their questions, he splits them into two questions. Matthew 24:4-35 discusses the warning signs of Jerusalem's destruction and the certainty that Jesus' prophecy would take place. Matthew 24:36-25:46 is Jesus' answer to the question about the end of the age. Unlike the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus repeatedly states that when the end of the world happens is unknown (Matthew 24:36) and will have no advance warnings. For details see:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/bible-studies/the-gospel-accounts-a-chronological-harmony/the-fall-of-jerusalem/">The Fall of Jerusalem</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/bible-studies/the-gospel-accounts-a-chronological-harmony/the-second-coming-of-the-lord/">The Second Coming of the Lord</a></li>
</ul>
<p>In regards to the question as to how the end of Matthew 24:3 should be translated into English, the Greek word <em>aionos</em> means an indefinitely long period of time, including eternity. Thus, it can be translated as "age" or "era." The word can also designate the world in terms of the course of time on the world (as opposed to another Greek word, <em>kosmos</em>, which designates the world in terms of space). Thus, it can refer to the direction this world has gone or is heading over time.</p>
<blockquote><p>"<em>In which you formerly walked according to the course of this <strong>world</strong>, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience</em>" (Ephesians 2:2).</p>
<p>"<em>so that in the <strong>ages</strong> to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus</em>" (Ephesians 2:7).</p></blockquote>
<p>In the two passages above, both are in the same context, and both have the same word <em>aion</em> but they are translated differently. (By the way, all the major English translations chose the same words in these two verses.) It just depends on how the translators saw the emphasis -- whether eternal time or worldly time. Since Peter makes it clear that when Jesus returns, it will be the end of the physical world (II Peter 3:10-12) that also means it will be the end of the age.</p>
<p>The disciples thought that the destruction of Jerusalem marked the end of the world. They could not imagine the world continuing with the great city remaining. Jesus' answers point out that the disciples really asked about two separate events. The end of Jerusalem had warning signs that needed to be heeded, but the world would continue to go on. The end of the world will have no warning signs.</p>
<p>The reason the newer translations use "age" instead of "world" in Matthew 24:3 is because Jesus talks about fleeing to the mountains (Matthew 24:16) and praying that the time to flee is not on a Sabbath day (Matthew 24:19-20). Neither of these is possible if Jesus was discussing the end of the physical world, so to avoid confusion, they chose "age" for the disciples' question.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">55090</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Baptism, the Godhead, and the King James Bible</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/baptism-the-godhead-and-the-king-james-bible/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2022 17:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[baptism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Godhead]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trinity]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=43742</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Question: Hey, are you the person that is behind the answer on the La Vista Church of Christ website? Surprisingly, it looks like you have very sound doctrine, which, of course, is very rare to find considering how many false prophets and teachers there are that exist. Answer: [Note: "Then the Pharisees went and plotted&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-43742 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="43742"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-kd2hltcx3q6r fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="kd2hltcx3q6r">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-0aghbp3s2eqy" data-node="0aghbp3s2eqy">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-uyslx6khoiat fl-col-bg-color" data-node="uyslx6khoiat">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-oet15jxc4zid" data-node="oet15jxc4zid">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>Hey, are you the person that is behind the answer on the La Vista Church of Christ website? Surprisingly, it looks like you have very <b>sound </b>doctrine, which, of course, is very rare to find considering how many false prophets and teachers there are that exist.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-dgm3yi9sj1zo" data-node="dgm3yi9sj1zo">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-fl8z2iheytdb fl-col-bg-color" data-node="fl8z2iheytdb">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-b7n9kvlf02qd" data-node="b7n9kvlf02qd">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<blockquote><p>[Note: "<em>Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said. And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any"</em> " (Matthew 22:15-16). I didn't send this in my reply, but I figured I was being "buttered up."]</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, Jeff Hamilton is the preacher and elder who maintains La Vista's website, answers most of the questions, and writes many of the studies and sermons on the site.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-53saqmr1kef8" data-node="53saqmr1kef8">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-209cw1q5bx8s fl-col-bg-color" data-node="209cw1q5bx8s">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-s8nzh219eq43" data-node="s8nzh219eq43">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>OK, awesome. Let me ask you this because I am on the website right now. When you guys say baptism is in the authority of Jesus, do you call on the name of Jesus Christ during baptism? It's not clarified on the website. If you have a video of a baptism, I'd love to see it. Of course, I am referring to water baptism here.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-t4iq61nbaxdc" data-node="t4iq61nbaxdc">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-d7kb3esn9086 fl-col-bg-color" data-node="d7kb3esn9086">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-a1hbo8w0f4zs" data-node="a1hbo8w0f4zs">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<p>When baptizing someone, I usually say "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as per Matthew 28:18-20. I had one person who insisted on being baptized in the name of Jesus only, which makes no difference since the Godhead is in agreement. See <a href="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/calling-on-the-name-of-the-lord/">Calling on the Name of the Lord</a>.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-nbrhaw938jx7" data-node="nbrhaw938jx7">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-fcp50xdmakqs fl-col-bg-color" data-node="fcp50xdmakqs">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-by4ihpxw8cf6" data-node="by4ihpxw8cf6">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>Do you believe there are three in the Godhead? I see you said the Godhead is in agreement.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-ro8lh1kj2x5c" data-node="ro8lh1kj2x5c">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-23xfus8dwhtv fl-col-bg-color" data-node="23xfus8dwhtv">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-l41htrjvde2b" data-node="l41htrjvde2b">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<p>Doesn't Matthew 28:18-20 prove that? But see <a href="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-trinity-god-is-three-in-one/">The Trinity: God Is Three in One</a>  for further proof.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-7unxhz9prfol" data-node="7unxhz9prfol">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-f7x9p1654rhd fl-col-bg-color" data-node="f7x9p1654rhd">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-kzxtgwsd1vy4" data-node="kzxtgwsd1vy4">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>Let me ask you this, are there three persons inside of the Son of God? Colossians 2:9 in the King James Version says "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." The Scriptures say all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in him, bodily. It's very clear from the Scripture that Jesus Christ is not a part of the Godhead, but it's reversed. The Godhead dwells in him.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-3e2mgp05qnc9" data-node="3e2mgp05qnc9">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-09rfp2mnsc8w fl-col-bg-color" data-node="09rfp2mnsc8w">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-yt210ek3l4jo" data-node="yt210ek3l4jo">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<blockquote><p>[Note: It is more than clear that the person was looking for an argument. He was not reading any of the supplemental material links I sent. Now he is asking questions about what the material clearly states. He isn't interested in learning.]</p></blockquote>
<p>You are misreading Colossians 2:9. Paul is saying that the Godhead is fully represented in a bodily form through Jesus. See <a href="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/indwelling/">Indwelling</a>. Dwelling means where you live, who you closely associate with, or where you take your stand.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-7lihq09n6yt8" data-node="7lihq09n6yt8">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-8rnt7melpd6x fl-col-bg-color" data-node="8rnt7melpd6x">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-q8fu0stkn165" data-node="q8fu0stkn165">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>I can see you don't believe the scriptures as they are written. No scripture is to private interpretation, you are to believe it only according to as it is written. In II Corinthians 4:13, King James Version, "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak." If you have the same spirit of faith as the apostles, then according as it is written, you will believe. And it's very clear that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells inside of Jesus Christ. And, yes, dwelling is where you live. The Godhead dwells inside of Jesus Christ, meaning it lives inside of him. The Godhead is the Spirit of the Father, which is the Holy Ghost.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-tpkcyufsz2n8" data-node="tpkcyufsz2n8">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-wxan3v2yczbo fl-col-bg-color" data-node="wxan3v2yczbo">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-aok2but413z6" data-node="aok2but413z6">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<p>"<em>For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form</em>" (Colossians 2:9 NAS95). The word 'inside' does not appear in the passage. You added it to make it fit your belief.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-enmrva1h2id5" data-node="enmrva1h2id5">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-xdsw1y5gvfm0 fl-col-bg-color" data-node="xdsw1y5gvfm0">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-f0m62ipwdslv" data-node="f0m62ipwdslv">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>You know that's not the word of God. Anything other than the KJV, is not the word of God. And it's quite funny you say I'm adding things when you're referring to a Devil-inspired version to make your beliefs fit.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-1iqf5amjsp6t" data-node="1iqf5amjsp6t">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-k8zi1rqycl9u fl-col-bg-color" data-node="k8zi1rqycl9u">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-ec3j1g9iv2ky" data-node="ec3j1g9iv2ky">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<blockquote><p>[Note: The questioner has now proven that he is dishonest. He started out complementing the sound answers on La Vista's website. Yet, I quote from the New King James and the New American Standard mostly. If he was on the website, as he claimed, he would have known this before contacting me.]</p></blockquote>
<p>So what Bible did the early church use prior to 1611?</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-4r91dapewjl0" data-node="4r91dapewjl0">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-i6vyguoprw9d fl-col-bg-color" data-node="i6vyguoprw9d">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-2fepzvjqbcxt" data-node="2fepzvjqbcxt">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>Tyndale, Geneva Bible, and others that are accurately translated. What you are posting is not accurately translated at all, and has many errors. I don't think you believe the KJV is the Word of God so there's no point really in continuing this discussion.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-420ye9gwhnod" data-node="420ye9gwhnod">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-3cjuaitb0g42 fl-col-bg-color" data-node="3cjuaitb0g42">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-aquspgkr8lwv" data-node="aquspgkr8lwv">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<blockquote><p>[Note: He's contradicted himself again. Earlier he claimed that anything other than the King James Version is not the word of God.]</p></blockquote>
<p>While the questioner doesn't want an answer, let's look at Colossians 2:9.</p>
<blockquote><p>"<em>See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority</em>" (Colossians 2:8-10 NASB'95).</p>
<p>"<em>See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority</em>" (Colossians 2:8-10 NKJV).</p>
<p>"<em>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power</em>" (Colossians 2:8-10 KJV).</p></blockquote>
<p>What dwells in Christ? Paul said, "the fullness of the Godhead" or "the fullness of Deity." Thus, it is not God Himself, but the fullness of the Godhead. The Greek word <em>pleroma</em> refers to something that fills, complements, makes something complete. For example:</p>
<blockquote><p>"<em>For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the <strong>fullness</strong> of God</em>" (Ephesians 3:14-19).</p></blockquote>
<p>Paul's desire is that we become like God, being filled with all the strength, faith, love, and knowledge that is found in God. For Christians, it is a worthy goal that will never be fully obtained. "<em>And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the <strong>fullness</strong> of Christ</em>" (Ephesians 4:11-13). But for Jesus, it wasn't a goal. He had already embodied the fullness of the Godhead, even while in human form.</p>
<p>The use of the Greek adverb <em>somatikos</em>, which means bodily or in bodily form, is believed to have been used by Paul to counter the rising Gnostic belief that Jesus wasn't physically present in this world. Gnositics had the idea that anything physical was corrupt so Jesus, who was perfect, could not have physically been here. John also mentions this false belief: "<em>Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world</em>" (I John 4:1-3).</p>
<p>This dwelling of God in Jesus is not one-sided. "<em>Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves</em>" (John 14:9-11). If you see Christ, you see the Father. If you see the Father, you see Christ. Though they are not the same divine person, they are totally united in agreement.</p>
<p>Since Jesus fully represents the Godhead, we become partakers through Him. "<em>For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace</em>" (John 1:16). "<em>For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust</em>" (II Peter 1:4).</p>
<p>Notice, then, that the KJV, the NASB, and the NKJV are in complete agreement in regards to the translation of Colossians 2:9, and their translations are in agreement with the rest of the New Testament. The only person who is at odds is our questioner who tried to claim that Jesus is not deity. See <a href="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/jesus-is-god/">Jesus Is God</a>.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">43742</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Wording of the King James Bible</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-wording-of-the-king-james-bible/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2021 23:38:07 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=41039</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[by Tom Edwards via The Gospel Observer It was back around 1973 when I first read through all of the King James Version of the Bible.  Having been originally written in 1611, its different wording also had an interesting appeal to me – the “thee’s” and the “thou’s” and the words with the “eth” endings,&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-41039 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="41039"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-dcknosia38y5 fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="dcknosia38y5">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-dvat762l0jy9" data-node="dvat762l0jy9">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-1dv4egp5haq9 fl-col-bg-color" data-node="1dv4egp5haq9">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-p5qte0m76f8b" data-node="p5qte0m76f8b">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<p style="text-align: right;">by Tom Edwards<br />
via <a href="https://thomastedwards.com/wordpress/index.php/2017/07/30/the-gospel-observer-142/">The Gospel Observer</a></p>
<p>It was back around 1973 when I first read through all of the King James Version of the Bible.  Having been originally written in 1611, its different wording also had an interesting appeal to me – the “thee’s” and the “thou’s” and the words with the “eth” endings, such as “heareth,” “findeth,” “bringeth,” etc.  But, of course, even more important than the mere sound was the message of those old English words that can instill faith and show the way of salvation that leads to eternal life.  Since the KJV was written during the time that Shakespeare had been writing his plays, which he did from 1590 to 1612, and his sonnets in 1609, we find many similarities in his wording and that of the Bible.</p>
<p>Some folks, however, have viewed some of these words in the King James Version as if they are sacred or a way of expressing more reverence to God — though probably more so a few decades ago. Bob Crawley, for instance, who had preached for about 24 years for the University Heights church of Christ in Lexington, Kentucky, was once asked, “Is it disrespectful to use ‘You’ in our prayers?  Some of our members think we should always say ‘Thou’ when we are talking to God.”</p>
<p>What is one reason some people might have thought that way?  Would it not be because it was the version that was often being heard from the pulpit back then, which would seem to make those words more special?  For rather than being used in day-to-day conversation, they were words being heard in places where people worshiped God and heard His word proclaimed, and in their own study of God’s message.</p>
<p>But folks need to realize that the KJV language was just simply the common language of that day back in 1611.  As Bob Crawley writes, “the ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ style of speech was as much the language of the street as of the church, of the gutter as well as the pulpit, and of cursing as well as of praying. Such words do not, then, of themselves, signify respect.  To insist upon a particularly old-fashioned style of speech and attribute to it an exclusively religious superiority is to make the same mistake which is made by the Amish people, and others, in requiring a dress code that is not particularly spiritual but merely out of date.”  Bob makes a good point.</p>
<p id="in-addition-if-the-kjv-style-of-language-is-what-is-necessary-to-address-god-reverently-then-what-about-all-the-years-prior-to-that-kind-of-language"><strong>In addition, if the KJV style of language is what is necessary to address God reverently, then what about all the years prior to that kind of language?</strong></p>
<p>But notice this also.  Even in the Bible, the “thee’s” and the “thou’s” are not used exclusively for God – or, in other words, used to show a special reverence or respect only to Deity.  For consider the Lord’s model prayer in the KJV: Matthew 6:9-13.  In it, the Lord uses the terms “thy” and “thine” (in Matthew 6:9,13) in speaking of God; but if you look back several verses (Matthew 6:3-4), the “thy” and “thine” are also used in addressing ordinary people, as Bob points out.   In Ezra 9:15 in the KJV, Ezra declares, “<em>O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous…</em>”; and that same “thou” is also used throughout the Bible to refer to just people – and even evil people (cf. Acts 13:10)!  Obviously, the word “thou” in itself does not indicate deep reverence or respect toward that one.</p>
<p>Bob also points out that “the language of the original New Testament writing (the Greek of the first century A.D.) likewise makes no distinction between the form of the pronouns used for prayer and those used for other occasions.”  So the KJV type of speech was not a special language reserved for only sacred texts. It was simply part of the everyday vocabulary that was being used at that time.</p>
<p>But even though all of this is so, what about the one who still feels that using the King James language in addressing God is more respectful? Then, would that not be a personal conviction of that individual and better for that person to then pray that way?  It certainly would not be a wrong thing to do – though he should not try to bind his personal conviction or conscience on everyone else as well.  We can compare that to what Paul teaches in Romans 14:1-6, 13.</p>
<p>Bob makes another good point when saying, “Respect or disrespect are matters of the attitude of the heart and are not determined by whether one uses modern or old-fashioned styles of speech. The truly respectful person will use those words which most naturally express the respect which he has when praying to God.  The younger among us will need to be patient with those of us who find it natural to use the old style, which has become so traditional with us. And we, who for so many years have been used to hearing the prayers prayed in the style of the era of Kings James I, of England, will need to realize that those who address God in a dignified, but more up-to-date style are no less respectful than we.”</p>
<p>As mentioned, I had liked the sound of the KJV, but I was finding some of the terms that the apostle Paul used as being unfamiliar to me.  So I went with the New American Standard Bible, which I probably bought soon after it had come out in the early ’70s.  It was first published in 1971; and I have read through all of that version, too, a number of times.</p>
<p>When going to a Greek Lexicon to look up the meanings of some of the Greek words in the KJV New Testament, I would often find that one of the words in its definition (by Thayer or Strong or some other Lexicon scholar) would be how it was already translated in the NASB.  So that also had me liking that version even more.</p>
<p>If one is going to use the KJV, it will be helpful to better understand some of the terms that now no longer mean what they originally did.  For word-meanings can change over a period of time – and especially over 406 years!  One example of this, would be the word “<strong>conversation</strong>.” In I Peter 2:12, for instance, “<em>Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles…</em>” sounds like only one’s speech, doesn’t it? For we know we are to speak the truth and not lie.  But the Greek for “conversation” (<em>anastrophe</em>) is defined by Thayer as “manner of life, conduct, behavior, deportment.”  So it means much more than mere speech alone.  And how does the NASB render it? It translates it as “behavior,” which is one of the definitions that we just saw Thayer give for the Greek word it stems from.</p>
<p>And how about the word “<strong>banqueting</strong>” in I Peter 4:3?  What do you think of when you think of a banquet? Probably a lot of food for many people!  Webster defines the English word as “1. a lavish meal; feast. 2. a ceremonious public dinner, as to honor a person or benefit a charity.”  But is that what it meant back in 1611?  What does the Greek word it comes from in I Peter 4:3 actually mean?  James Strong defines it as “a drinking bout or carousal.”  Thayer shows it to mean, “drinking, carousing.” And in Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, it is “a drinking, a drinking together, drinking bout.”  After hearing these three similar definitions, one might be prone to blurt out, “Where’s the beef?!,” like in that old 1984 Wendy’s commercial.  Or where is it mentioned in the definition of any vegetables, fruits, or any other food? None of that is mentioned because the Greek word does not pertain to it.  So how does the NASB translate it?  It says “drinking parties” in I Peter 4:3 – with no mention of food.</p>
<p>What are some other terms that do not mean what folks might think? How about the word “<strong>answer</strong>” in I Peter 3:21 of the KJV?  “<em>The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.</em>”  Would you not think of an “answer” as being the exact opposite of a question, a query, or an inquiry?  According to the Thesaurus, it is.  But what does the Greek word (“<em>eperotema</em>”), from which “answer” is translated in the KJV, actually mean?  James Strong defines it as “an inquiry.”  Thayer gives the definition of  “1) an enquiry, a question  2) a demand 3) earnestly seeking 3a) craving, an intense desire.”  And how is it translated in the NASB?  It renders it as an “appeal,” which Webster defines as “an earnest plea; entreaty: an appeal for help.”  So through baptism, that appeal was being made.  Look how clearly that is seen in the “God’s Word” version of the Bible: “…baptism is a request to God for a clear conscience.”  This doesn’t mean, of course, that the request takes the place of baptism; but, rather, that the request is actually being made in a non-verbal way by being baptized after it had been preceded by faith in Christ (John 8:24), repentance (Luke 13:5), and a confession of one’s faith in the Lord (Romans 10:9-10; Acts 8:36-38).  For baptism is the last step to put one into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27), where there is no condemnation (Romans 8:1), and from which one rises up to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3-4).</p>
<p>In I Thessalonians 4:15 (KJV), Paul says, “<em>For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.</em>”  Notice the word “<strong>prevent</strong>” in this passage.  What does it mean? We, of course, know that the definition of the English term “prevent” means simply “1. to keep from occurring; stop … 2. to stop from doing something…” Webster then also shows its archaic meaning of “to precede.”  And “precede” is also part of the meaning of the Greek word that “prevent” is translated from in I Thessalonians 4:15.  Thayer defines it as “1) to come before, precede…”  And how does the NASB translate it?  It uses the word “precede.”</p>
<p>Another word that might give some folks a wrong idea is seen in Acts 17:22 – the word “<strong>superstitious</strong>.”  In thinking of how we use that term today, what comes to your mind?  James Strong shows the Greek word to mean “more religious than others.”  And Thayer’s primary definition for it is “reverencing god or the gods, pious, religious.”  So how does the NASB translate it?  It speaks of those people as being “very religious.”</p>
<p>Something else that should be pointed out to folks who use the KJV Bible is the use of the word “<strong>Easter</strong>” in Acts 12:4.  Out of at least 24 different Bible versions, I looked this up in, the KJV was the only one that uses the word “Easter” in this verse.  The Greek word for it is “<em>pascha</em>,” which is used in 27 verses of the Bible; and in all of those verses, except there in Acts 12:4, the KJV renders it as “Passover.”  Since it is the same Greek word, why does not the KJV render it as “Easter” in all those other verses, too?  According to Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, “The word in our King James Version is an ecclesiastical term of later date, and ought not to  have been employed here.”  Albert Barnes gives the following explanation for its use: He says, “In the translation by Wycliffe, the word ‘<em>paske</em>,’ that is, ‘Passover,’ is used. But Tyndale and Coverdale used the word ‘Easter,’ and hence, it has very improperly crept into our King James Version.”</p>
<h2 id="what-is-the-difference-between-a-translation-and-a-transliteration">What is the difference between a translation and a transliteration?</h2>
<p>A translation is simply converting text from one language to another language.  In doing so, the word meaning from that one language will be translated into a word of the other language that means the same.  For example, Paul shows in Galatians 5:22 that “patience” is a fruit of the Spirit.  The word patience is a “translation” from Greek into English, which is much more helpful for us who speak English.  In Thayer’s Greek Definitions, the Greek word for patience is defined as “1) patience, endurance, constancy, steadfastness, perseverance…”  So we see that the first word in this definition is being used to translate that Greek word to an English word in the KJV and various other versions of the Bible as well – and making it easy for us to understand.</p>
<p>But if that Greek word were transliterated instead of translated, then it would be seen as “<em>makrothumia</em>” (or something similar) in the KJV and other English versions, which is simply taking the Greek letters of that word and replacing them with the corresponding letters of whatever language it is being converted to — and in our case, English.  This is what has been done with the word “baptize” and its various forms.  In Greek, the word for “baptize” is “<em>baptizo</em>.”  Those letters that make up that Greek word are beta, alpha, pi, tau, iota, zeta, and omicron.  Some of the letters in Greek look very similar to our English letters.  This is true of the letters for alpha, beta, delta, epsilon, iota, kappa, omicron, sigma, tau, upsilon, and zeta.  So, again, just changing Greek letters to their corresponding letters in another language’s alphabet is a transliteration and does not involve the meaning of the word, but just its letters.  Thayer defines the Greek word for baptism (<em>baptisma</em>) as “1) immersion, submersion…”  So it does not include sprinkling (<em>rhantizo</em>) or pouring (<em>epicheo</em>).  Of course, even if one didn’t know the meaning of baptism,  it can be inferred from the verses that speak of it as being a burial, such as Romans 6:4, “<em>we have been buried with Him through baptism.</em>”  But what if the Greek word for “buried” was transliterated instead of translated?  It would then be in our English Bibles as some form of “<em>sunthapto</em>,” which we might not find too helpful in understanding the passage.  If “<em>baptizo</em>” had been translated instead of transliterated, then we would be reading passages with the following or similar renditions: “He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved…” (Mark 16:16).   “<em>Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins</em>” (Acts 2:38).  And for the Greek word “<em>baptisma</em>,” “<em>corresponding to that, immersion now saves you</em>” (I Peter 3:21), etc.</p>
<p>As mentioned, there are many KJV words that are archaic and unfamiliar.  Consider the following, which gives a comparison between words from the KJV and how those same words are translated in the NASB, to determine which is easier for you to understand.  As you can see, the listing below is in an alphabetized order based on the KJV words:</p>
<h2 id="the-following-sources-have-been-used-for-the-greek-and-hebrew-definitions">The following sources have been used for the Greek and Hebrew Definitions:</h2>
<p><strong>BDB</strong> = Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions<br />
<strong>Strong</strong> = Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries<br />
<strong>Mounce</strong> = Mounce Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament<br />
<strong>Thayer</strong> = Thayer’s Greek Definitions<br />
<strong>Moulton and Milligan</strong> = JH Moulton and G Milligan: The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament</p>
<ul>
<li>Matthew 5:39: “<strong>ado</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“commotion”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “to make a noise or uproar, be turbulent … to wail tumultuously”</li>
<li>Luke 14:32: <strong>“ambassage”</strong> (KJV) or “<strong>delegation</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “an embassy”</li>
<li>Deuteronomy 22:19: “<strong>amerce</strong>” (KJV) or “<strong>fine</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “to fine”</li>
<li>I Corinthians 16:22: “<strong>anathema</strong>” (KJV) or “<strong>accursed</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes”</li>
<li>Exodus 30:25: “<strong>apothecary</strong>” (KJV) or “<strong>perfumer</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “perfumer”</li>
<li>Genesis 4:22: “<strong>artificer</strong>” (KJV) or “<strong>forger</strong>" (NASB).<br />
BDB: “metal craftsman”</li>
<li>Isaiah 14:23: <strong>“besom”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“broom”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong &amp; BDB: ”broom”</li>
<li>Isaiah 8:21: <strong>“bestead”</strong> (KJV) – See <strong>“hardly bestead</strong>.”</li>
<li>Isaiah 16:3: <strong>“bewray”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“betray”</strong> (NASB)</li>
<li>Exodus 9:9: <strong>“blains”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“sores”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “blisters, boils”</li>
<li>Exodus 9:31: <strong>“bolled”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“bud”</strong> (NASB)</li>
<li>I Samuel 26:7: <strong>“bolster”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“head”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “place at the head…”</li>
<li>Deuteronomy 28:27: <strong>“botch”</strong> (KJV) or  <strong>“boils”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “boil, inflamed spot”</li>
<li>Philemon 1:7: <strong>“bowels”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“hearts”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer shows that though the Greek word for “bowels” is sometimes used literally for the “bowels, intestines, (the heart, lungs, liver, etc.),” it was also used to refer to “the seat of the more violent passions, such as anger and love; but by the Hebrews as the seat of the tenderer affections, especially kindness, benevolence, compassion; hence our heart (tender mercies, affections, etc.).”</li>
<li>Jeremiah 51:3: <strong>“brigandine”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“scale-armor”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a coat of mail”; BDB: “armor”</li>
<li>Jeremiah 10:22: <strong>“bruit”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“report”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “report, news, rumor”</li>
<li>II Samuel 22:31: <strong>“buckler”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“shield”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “shield”</li>
<li>Leviticus 26:16: <strong>“burning ague</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“fever”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “fever”</li>
<li>Luke 10:41: <strong>“careful”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“worried”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Though we normally think of the word “careful” to mean “cautious in one’s actions,” yet Webster also gives a fifth definition, which is archaic, but shows it had meant “troubled” and “anxious” long ago.)  Thayer: “1) to be anxious  1a) to be troubled with cares”</li>
<li>Isaiah 3:18: <strong>“cauls”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“headbands”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) front band 1a) for a woman’s head”</li>
<li>Numbers 7:13: <strong>“charger”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“dish”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “dish, platter”</li>
<li>Colossians 3:5: <strong>“evil concupiscence</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“evil desire</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust”</li>
<li>Exodus 30:35: <strong>“confection”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“perfume”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “spice-mixture, perfume, ointment.”</li>
<li>II Chronicles 4:12: <strong>“chapiters”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“capitals”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) capital crown, capital of a pillar”</li>
<li>Isaiah 32:5: <strong>“churl”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“rogue</strong>" (NASB).<br />
BDB: ”scoundrel, knave”</li>
<li>Isaiah 3:22: <strong>“crisping pins</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“money purses</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “bag, purse”</li>
<li>Galatians 2:13: <strong>“dissembled”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“joined him in hypocrisy</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “to act hypocritically with”</li>
<li>Genesis 45:6: <strong>“earing”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“plowing”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “plowing, plowing time”</li>
<li>John 2:6: <strong>“firkins”</strong> (KJV) – See <strong>“two or three firkins</strong>.”</li>
<li>Isaiah 28:25: <strong>“fitches”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“dill”</strong> (NASB).</li>
<li>II Samuel 6:19: <strong>“flagon”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“raisins”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “raisin-cake”; Strong: “something closely pressed together, that is, a cake of raisins or other comfits”</li>
<li>Deuteronomy 32:20: <strong>“froward”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“perverse”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “perversity, perverse thing”</li>
<li>Matthew 3:12: <strong>“garner”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“barn”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “1) a place in which anything is laid by or up. 2) a storehouse, granary”</li>
<li>Job 18:9: <strong>“gin”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“snare”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) bird trap, trap, snare”</li>
<li>Zechariah 6:3: <strong>“grisled”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“dappled”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “spotted, marked”</li>
<li>Exodus 28:32: <strong>“habergeon”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“coat of mail</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “corselet”; Webster defines corselet as “2. a. a suit of light armor covering the entire trunk”</li>
<li>Judges 3:22: <strong>“haft”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“handle”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a handle”</li>
<li>Luke 12:58: <strong>“hale”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“drag”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “1) to draw down, pull down 2) to draw along, drag forcibly”</li>
<li>Mark 9:45: <strong>“halt”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“lame”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “lame … deprived of a foot, maimed”</li>
<li>Acts 17:27: <strong>“haply”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“perhaps”</strong> (NASB)</li>
<li>Isaiah 8:21: <strong>“hardly bestead</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“hard-pressed”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “to be hard-pressed”</li>
<li>Deuteronomy 12:15: <strong>“hart”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“deer”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a stag or male deer”</li>
<li>Luke 1:54: <strong>“holpen”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“given help</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “to help”</li>
<li>Joshua 11:6: <strong>“hough”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“hamstring”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “2) to cut, hamstring”</li>
<li>Acts 19:38: <strong>“implead”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“bring charges</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “to come forward as an accuser against, bring charges against”</li>
<li>II Timothy 3:3: <strong>“incontinent”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“without self-control</strong>” (NASB)<br />
Thayer: “without self-control, intemperate”</li>
<li>Matthew 5:18: <strong>“jot”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“smallest letter</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “1) the Hebrew letter, the smallest of them all  1a) hence equivalent to the minutest part”</li>
<li>Genesis 32:15: <strong>“kine”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“cows”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “cow, heifer”</li>
<li>Exodus 25:33: <strong>“knop”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“bulb”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “bulb, knob, capital, capital of a pillar”</li>
<li>Psalm 5:6: <strong>“leasing”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“falsehood”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “a lie, untruth, falsehood, deceptive thing”</li>
<li>Zephaniah 1:12: <strong>“lees”</strong> (KJV) – See <strong>“settle on their lees</strong>.”</li>
<li>John 3:8: <strong>“listeth”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“wishes”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “to will … to desire, to wish …”</li>
<li>I Samuel 8:3: <strong>“lucre”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“dishonest gain</strong>” (NASB)</li>
<li>Matthew 6:24: <strong>“mammon”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“wealth”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Mounce: “wealth, riches”; Thayer: “1) mammon, 2) treasure 3) riches (where it is personified and opposed to God)”</li>
<li>Judges 4:18: <strong>“mantle”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“rug”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a rug”</li>
<li>Proverbs 25:18: <strong>“maul”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“club”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “scattering club”</li>
<li>Genesis 43:34: <strong>“messes”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“portions”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) …portion… 1d) portion, present, largess, gift, contribution, offering, tribute”</li>
<li>Luke 12:59: <strong>“mite”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“cent”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Moulton &amp; Milligan: “the smallest piece of money in circulation”; Thayer: “a small brass coin…worth about 1/5 of a cent”</li>
<li>Exodus 29:6: <strong>“mitre”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“turban”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “turban (of the high priest)”</li>
<li>Matthew 7:3: <strong>“mote”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“speck”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Mounce: “any small dry thing, as chaff, stubble, splinter”</li>
<li>Isaiah 3:19: <strong>“mufflers”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“veils”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a long veil (as fluttering)</li>
<li>Exodus 9:3: <strong>“murrain”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“pestilence”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a pestilence”</li>
<li>Jeremiah 2:22: <strong>“nitre”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“lye”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “mineral potash (so-called from effervescing with acid)”</li>
<li>Genesis 37:7: <strong>“obeisance”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“bowed down</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “to bow down”</li>
<li>II Samuel 16:23: <strong>“oracle”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“word”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a word”</li>
<li>Exodus 28:11: <strong>“ouches”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“filigree settings</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “plaited or filigree or chequered work (of settings for gems)”</li>
<li>Matthew 4:24: <strong>“palsy”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“paralytics”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “paralytic”</li>
<li>Acts 1:3: <strong>“passion”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“suffering”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “to experience a sensation or impression (usually painful)”</li>
<li>I Peter 2:9: <strong>“peculiar”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“a people for God's own possession</strong>” (NASB)</li>
<li>Matthew 20:2: <strong>“penny”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“denarius”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a denarius.” A denarius was the equivalent of about our 16 cents, and it was what a common laborer made for a full day’s work when Jesus walked this earth.</li>
<li>II Chronicles 4:12: <strong>“pommels”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“bowls”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) bowl…1b2) of the bowl-shaped portion of capitals of pillars of the temple”</li>
<li>Luke 19:16: <strong>“pound”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“mina”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “mina”</li>
<li>Jeremiah 51:31: <strong>“post”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“courier”</strong> (NASB).</li>
<li>I Samuel 10:5: <strong>“psaltery”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“harp”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “2) harp…”</li>
<li>Matthew 10:3: <strong>“publican”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“tax collector</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “2) a tax-gatherer, collector of taxes or tolls”</li>
<li>Daniel 1:12: <strong>“pulse”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“vegetables”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a vegetable”</li>
<li>I Corinthians 5:11: <strong>“railer”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“reviler”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “a railer, reviler”</li>
<li>Proverbs 23:16: <strong>”reins”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“inmost being</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1b) of the seat of emotion and affection (figuratively)”; Strong: “figuratively the mind (as the interior self)”</li>
<li>Romans 1:28: <strong>“reprobate”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“depraved”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “unapproved, that is, rejected; by implication worthless (literally or morally)”</li>
<li>Isaiah 58:8: <strong>“rereward”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“rear guard</strong>” (NASB)</li>
<li>Acts 12:4: <strong>“quaternions”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“four squads</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a quaternion or squad (picket) of four Roman soldiers”</li>
<li>I Samuel 27:10: <strong>“road”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“raid”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) to strip, invade, strip off, make a dash, raid, spread out”; Strong: “to spread out (that is, deploy in hostile array)”</li>
<li>Isaiah 3:18: <strong>“round tires</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“crescent ornaments</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) moon, crescent 1a) as an ornament; Strong: “a round pendant for the neck”</li>
<li>Isaiah 13:21: <strong>“satyrs”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“shaggy  goats</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) hairy (adjective) 2) he-goat, buck (noun masculine)…”</li>
<li>Matthew 10:10: <strong>“scrip”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“bag”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a wallet or leather pouch for food”</li>
<li>Exodus 23:19: <strong>“seethe”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“boil”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) to boil, cook, bake, roast …”</li>
<li>II Kings 4:42: <strong>“servitor”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“attendant”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “to attend as a menial or worshipper; figuratively to contribute to”; BDB: “to minister, serve, minister to”</li>
<li>Zephaniah 1:12: <strong>“settled on their lees</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“stagnant in spirit</strong>” (NASB).</li>
<li>Isaiah 17:4: “<strong>shall wax lean</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“will become lean</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Strong: “to emaciate, that is, make (become) thin (literally or figuratively)”; BDB: “1) to be or become or grow lean…”</li>
<li>Daniel 3:2: <strong>“sheriffs”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“magistrates”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “magistrate”; Strong: “judicial, that is, a lawyer”</li>
<li>Genesis 38:18: <strong>“signet”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“seal”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “seal, signet, signet-ring”</li>
<li>John 13:26: <strong>“sop”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“morsel”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a crumb or morsel (as if rubbed off), that is, a mouthful”; Thayer: “a fragment, bit, morsel”</li>
<li>Isaiah 3:24: <strong>“stomacher”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“fine clothes</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “rich or expensive robe”</li>
<li>Matthew 7:13: <strong>“strait”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“narrow”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “narrow”</li>
<li>Matthew 19:14: <strong>“suffer”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“let”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “to permit, allow, not to hinder”</li>
<li>Exodus 35:22: <strong>“tablets”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“bracelets”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) ornaments, golden ornament 1a) maybe – armlets of gold”; Strong: “a jewel (probably gold beads)”</li>
<li>Exodus 26:6: <strong>“taches”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“clasps”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “hook”</li>
<li>Exodus 5:18: <strong>“tale”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“quota”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a fixed quantity”; BDB: “1) measurement, a measured amount”</li>
<li>I Samuel 17:6: <strong>“target”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“javelin”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) javelin, short sword, dart”</li>
<li>II Chronicles 9:15: <strong>“target”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“large shield</strong>” (NASB).<br />
BDB: “3) shield, large shield, buckler”</li>
<li>Ezekiel 24:17: <strong>“tire of thine head</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“turban”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “head-dress, ornament, turban”</li>
<li>Isaiah 3:18: <strong>“tires”</strong> (KJV) — see <strong>“round tires</strong>.”</li>
<li>Matthew 5:18: <strong>“tittle”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“stroke”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “of the little lines or projections, by which the Hebrew letters, in other respects similar, differ from one another; the meaning is, ‘not even the minutest part of the law shall perish.’”</li>
<li>Isaiah 43:17: <strong>“tow”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“wick”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Strong: “flax; by implication a wick”</li>
<li>John 2:6: <strong>“two or three firkins</strong>” (KJV) or <strong>“twenty or thirty gallons</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer defines the Greek word for “firkin” as “containing somewhat less than nine English gallons or about [40 l].” Since an English gallon is the equivalent of  1.2 U.S. Gallons, then 9 English gallons is about 10.8 gallons. And 40 liters is about 10.56 gallons. But the “somewhat less” than that could easily be thought of as “10” gallons.</li>
<li>I John 2:20: <strong>“unction”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“anointing”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Mounce: “anything which is applied by smearing; ointment; in NT an anointing, in the reception of spiritual privileges”</li>
<li>Acts 2:40: <strong>“untoward”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“perverse”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “perverse, wicked.”</li>
<li>Matthew 25:27: <strong>“usury”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“interest”</strong> (NASB).<br />
We use the word “usury” today in referring to an exorbitant amount of interest rate, but Strong and Thayer show that the Greek word for it simply meant “interest.” Webster also includes the definition of “interest paid for the use of money,” as his third definition, but shows that meaning of “usury” to be obsolete for our time.</li>
<li>Matthew 5:18: <strong>“verily”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“truly”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Mounce: “in truth, most certainly, so be it … amen; truly”</li>
<li>Acts 12:10: <strong>“ward”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“guard”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) guard, watch”</li>
<li>Isaiah 17:4: <strong>“wax”</strong> (KJV) – See <strong>“shall wax lean</strong>.”</li>
<li>Isaiah 3:22: <strong>“wimples”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“cloaks”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “cloak”; Strong: “a wide cloak (for a woman)”</li>
<li>Isaiah 63:2: <strong>“winefat”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“wine press</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Strong: “a wine press”</li>
<li>Acts 3:17: <strong>“wot”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“know”</strong> (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “to see” and “to know.”</li>
<li>Mark 10:1: <strong>“wont”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“according to ... custom</strong>” (NASB).<br />
Thayer: “to be accustomed”</li>
<li>Exodus 28:14: <strong>“wreathen”</strong> (KJV) or <strong>“corded”</strong> (NASB).<br />
BDB: “1) cord…”; Strong: “something intwined.”</li>
</ul>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">41039</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is meant by &#8220;Thou shalt not revile the gods&#8221;?</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/what-is-meant-by-thou-shalt-not-revile-the-gods/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:12:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=24911</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Question: Exodus 22:28 in the King James Version states we are not to revile the gods. Some explain it meaning governors while some translations state "do not revile God." What is the true history of this verse? Thank you. Answer: The word in question is elohim in the Hebrew. This word is typically translated "God," but&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-24911 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="24911"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-5f3e9c345b49e fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="5f3e9c345b49e">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-5f3e9c345e175" data-node="5f3e9c345e175">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-5f3e9c345e26e fl-col-bg-color" data-node="5f3e9c345e26e">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-5f3e9c345b34d" data-node="5f3e9c345b34d">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>Exodus 22:28 in the King James Version states we are not to revile the gods. Some explain it meaning governors while some translations state "do not revile God." What is the true history of this verse?</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-5f3e9cb2c523b" data-node="5f3e9cb2c523b">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-5f3e9cb2c52c8 fl-col-bg-color" data-node="5f3e9cb2c52c8">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-5f3e9cb2c51e2" data-node="5f3e9cb2c51e2">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<p>The word in question is <em>elohim</em> in the Hebrew. This word is typically translated "God," but depending on the context it can also be translated "gods" (Genesis 31:30) and sometimes "rulers or judges" (Psalms 82:1). It is the context that determines which is intended.</p>
<p>The translators of the King James Version apparently were swayed by the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament to see Exodus 22:28 as a reference similar to Psalms 82:1. Their idea was that you do not curse those who represent God (rulers or judges ) nor the more ordinary government officials. The problem is that there is nothing in the context to support this.</p>
<p>The more common way to look at Exodus 22:28 is that you don't curse God, who is the source of all authority, nor do you curse rulers because they derive their authority from God (Romans 13:1-2). I believe this view is more accurate.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">24911</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is the &#8220;holy thing&#8221; in Luke 1:35?</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/what-is-the-holy-thing-in-luke-135/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 21:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jesus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=18882</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Question: Minister, could you explain as clearly as you can what is meant by saying that holy thing which shall be born of thee in Luke 1:35? I think it has something to do with combining the three persons of God together into one. Also, might it be as Paul describes us as the new&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-18882 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="18882"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-5e2a097207625 fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="5e2a097207625">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-5e2a09720af8b" data-node="5e2a09720af8b">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-5e2a09720b077 fl-col-bg-color" data-node="5e2a09720b077">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-5e2a0972074a1" data-node="5e2a0972074a1">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>Minister, could you explain as clearly as you can what is meant by saying that holy thing which shall be born of thee in Luke 1:35? I think it has something to do with combining the three persons of God together into one. Also, might it be as Paul describes us as the new creation in Jesus Christ ( the church which is the body of Christ).</p>
<p>Looking forward to hearing from you.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-5e2a0cd7c623d" data-node="5e2a0cd7c623d">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-5e2a0cd7c630f fl-col-bg-color" data-node="5e2a0cd7c630f">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-5e2a0cd7c61bb" data-node="5e2a0cd7c61bb">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<p>The King James Version renders Luke 1:35 as, "<em>And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.</em>" It is an unfortunate translation that can be easily misunderstood by modern readers. The "holy thing" being referred to is the child who would soon be conceived. Modern translations use "holy one" instead of "holy thing." "<em>And the angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.'</em>" (Luke 1:35 NKJV).</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-5e349322ef812" data-node="5e349322ef812">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-5e349322ef8a3 fl-col-bg-color" data-node="5e349322ef8a3">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-5e349322ef7bc" data-node="5e349322ef7bc">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Response:</h2>
<p>Got it. Thanks!</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">18882</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the KJV the Only True Bible Version?</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/is-the-kjv-the-only-true-bible-version/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 May 2017 01:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=50437</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[by Ethan R. Longhenry via De Vibro Vitae There has been some discussion in the world today, even in the church, that there is one Bible version which is the only true version, the Authorized or King James Version. Is this so? How can we determine which Bible version is better, if any? Let us explore&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-50437 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="50437"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-nvc94fy0hw5i fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="nvc94fy0hw5i">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-nb0814ezuhjs" data-node="nb0814ezuhjs">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-cd740tfvquek fl-col-bg-color" data-node="cd740tfvquek">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-glrhx6vkyz9m" data-node="glrhx6vkyz9m">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<p class="author" style="text-align: right;">by Ethan R. Longhenry<br />
via <a href="http://www.deverbovitae.com/matters/miscellany/kjv/">De Vibro Vitae</a></p>
<p>There has been some discussion in the world today, even in the church, that there is one Bible version which is the only true version, the Authorized or King James Version. Is this so? How can we determine which Bible version is better, if any? Let us explore this issue.</p>
<h2 id="history">History</h2>
<p>The King James Version is a translation authorized by King James I of England at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Before this point, many different translations of the Bible had come out in England, and many of these translations were not very reliable. Therefore, the King commissioned Hebrew and Greek scholars to translate the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible for a new, authorized translation. This corpus was designated the Authorized Version in 1611.</p>
<p>The Greek text used to translate the New Testament in the King James Version was the <em>Textus Receptus</em> (from now on, TR), or the "Received Text." The name TR comes from a later advertisement for the text. It was composed by Desiderius Erasmus, a Catholic humanist of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in his attempt to make a new, reliable Greek text. He consulted five or six Greek texts that he could find, none of which dated any earlier than the twelfth century. 1 John 5:7 (discussed later) and most of Revelation he translated from the Latin Vulgate for his Greek text, due to conflict with the former and the lack of a manuscript for the latter. There is no hint of divine inspiration from either the author of the TR or the translators of the KJV.</p>
<p>The KJV was the sole English translation of the Bible for over 250 years. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, however, scholars were able to locate (thanks to the growing fields of archaeology and a revived interest in ancient history) older texts of the New Testament from that which Erasmus used for the TR. The most famous, but not the only, such discoveries were made by Tischendorf and Wescott and Hort, who found the Codex Sinaiticus [aleph], Codex Vaticanus [B], and some other older manuscripts; later archaeological discoveries would feature even older papyri fragments of the New Testament. These older manuscripts, while mostly consistent with the text of the TR, did feature many differences (called "variants") from what was seen in the TR and other later manuscripts. The work of analyzing such differences is known as textual criticism; most text-critical scholars affirm that the consensus readings from older manuscripts generally more faithfully represent the original New Testament reading than those from later manuscripts. Most new translations are made on the basis of two Greek texts: the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (NA27) and the United Bible Societies' 4th edition (UBS4), which are "eclectic" texts following the best readings as ascertained from the compilation of all manuscripts. The legitimacy of this textual critical approach and the fruit of that labor is what is under question by those who affirm KJV only-ism.</p>
<h2 id="premise">The Premise of KJV Only-ism</h2>
<p>The belief that the King James Version is the only version of the Bible that should be used is known as KJV only-ism. There are about four varieties of this belief:</p>
<ol>
<li>"I prefer the KJV:" The KJV is the version that some prefer over the others, because of the language it uses or its universality. There is no real problem with this belief since it does not mean that other versions are not as good, but that they have a personal preference for the KJV. People should, by all means, use whatever Bible they find is best for their purposes.</li>
<li>"Superior Text:" Some believe that the texts used to create the KJV, the TR, and Hebrew texts, are closer to the Apostolic texts than the ones found later. This argument does not really hold water when the evidence is examined, since it is generally clear that corruptions, albeit few, did enter the text over time.</li>
<li>"The Inspired TR:" These individuals believe that Erasmus' TR is an inspired text, and by that reasoning, is the best and only text to translate from. This belief cannot be tested with textual criticism since it is based on a subjective, unprovable claim.</li>
<li>"The Inspired KJV:" This group, true KJV only-ism, believes that the translators of the KJV were inspired and that it IS the Word of God.</li>
</ol>
<p>The foundational attitude and approach of KJV only-ism are that the King James Version, be it due to the texts from which it was translated or because of the text itself, is the standard by which the other translations and versions should be judged. I hope that we will see that this approach is fallacious due to its circular logic: the King James Version is the standard, and since other versions show variations, hence, the KJV is the only correct version. To refute this, we will hopefully, see that:</p>
<ol>
<li>The TR and the KJV are part of a line of translations made in the spirit of textual criticism, with their authors attempting to make the most reliable text possible;</li>
<li>The translators of the TR and KJV did not believe themselves to be inspired, did not set out to write inspired writings, but just tried to make the best texts that they could with the materials they had;</li>
<li>That the translators of the TR and KJV would heartily endorse the progress made in the past 150 years in the field of New Testament textual criticism and would use the texts we use today.</li>
</ol>
<h2>KJV Onlyism is Not New</h2>
<p>The theory of KJV only-ism is not something peculiar to this day and age. Ever since the philosophy of textual criticism was applied to the Bible, there have been opponents of such changes.</p>
<p>From the time of Christ until the beginning of the fifth century CE, the Septuagint, or LXX, was the translation of the Old Testament. After all, Christ and the Apostles used it, so why should change be necessary?</p>
<p>In the beginning of the fifth century, however, Jerome made a new translation of the Old Testament into Latin. He based his translation not on the LXX but on the Hebrew texts of the Old Testament that he was able to find in Bethlehem. This action of his caused a stir; Augustine, the bishop of Hippo Regius in Carthage, noted for his <em>Confessions</em>, wrote to Jerome thus:</p>
<blockquote><p>My only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accustomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves. Letter LXXXII</p></blockquote>
<p>Hence, the main argument against using the Hebrew texts, which were actually the words of God and His prophets, was that it went against the authority of the Greek Septuagint, used by Christ and His Apostles.</p>
<p>Now we go to the world of the Renaissance, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries CE. Jerome's Latin Vulgate is now THE Bible, the only version endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church. Our friend, the German Desiderius Erasmus, is developing his Greek text which would later be known as the Textus Receptus, or the TR. When he publishes it, he receives a firestorm of opposition. Why? Because he dared to make a text of the Bible in the language of the heretical church, the Greek of the Eastern Orthodox, and he dared to challenge the Latin of Jerome's Vulgate! Many theologians of the time, Johann Eck, Edward Lee, and others, greatly challenged Erasmus for "altering" the Word of God!</p>
<p>Therefore, today we have a group of individuals condemning modern Bible translations for "altering" the Word of God, which they believe is the KJV, which comes from the TR, which was condemned in the sixteenth century for "altering" the Word of God, which was believed to be the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, which was condemned in the fifth century because it "altered" the Word of God, the Septuagint, the Greek text which Christ and the Apostles used. Hence, the KJV Onlyism group is deep in hypocrisy. Either they need to use the Septuagint, since it is the only version whose authority was not challenged, or they can accept the fact that textual criticism allows us to constantly develop a more accurate translation of the Bible.</p>
<h2 id="erasmus">Erasmus and His Purpose with the TR</h2>
<p>As we have seen, the KJV-only camp wishes to make the KJV the standard, disregarding any Greek or Hebrew text other than the TR or even dismissing them all outright. Was this the attitude taken by the compiler of the Greek text used to translate the KJV, the TR?</p>
<p>Not at all. Desiderius Erasmus was one in a line of many textual critics of the Bible, stretching back to Jerome and onwards to our scholars today. He did not consider his work to be anything more than the closest text to the original Greek that he had at his disposal.</p>
<p>Many KJV-only advocates say that we should not have to know Greek to be able to understand the Bible. This same kind of attitude was seen in Erasmus' day, when he was challenged by an individual named Jacobus Latomus, who wondered why a theologian would need to know three languages [at that time, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin] in order to be a<br />
scholar. To this Erasmus replied,</p>
<blockquote><p>With the help of Greek…many passages in the Vulgate have been restored that before were corrupt; many passages have been clarified that before were misinterpreted by commentators of great renown; much light has been shed on passages that before were covered by a cloud of ambiguity. LB IX 85E</p></blockquote>
<p>This along with other quotes by Erasmus demonstrate his confidence in the Greek texts. He would have said this same quote above about his own TR had he the texts that we have today.</p>
<p>Other arguments that come from KJV only-ism were also brought to Erasmus. One opposed to Erasmus, Dorp, contended that it was not reasonable for the Church to be in error for over 1,100 years because of some errors in the Latin Vulgate; so too the KJV only camp says that it is unreasonable to say that the KJV 1611 could have errors for 250 years.<br />
Erasmus' response is the same as what we say today: what will you do with the errors of the copyists?</p>
<p>More from Erasmus:</p>
<blockquote><p>Granted that the Greek books are just as corrupt as the Latin ones, yet by collating manuscripts that are equally corrupt one can often discover the true reading, for it frequently happens that what has been corrupted by<br />
chance in one is found intact in another. Capita Contra morosos 69</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Now granted that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are as corrupt as ours, does it follow that we are deprived of any hope of ever emending what is found to be corrupted in our manuscripts? Does it not happen frequently that from several faulty manuscripts– though not faulty in the same way– the true and genuine reading is found? LB IX 88C-D</p></blockquote>
<p>These quotes from Erasmus should demonstrate sufficiently that the same arguments presented against Erasmus are now used against modern translations, and both Erasmus and modern translators refute these arguments with similar approaches. Yet the KJV-only camp accepts the translation of the text made by Erasmus, yet would reject those translations of better Greek texts today. The hypocrisy continues.</p>
<h2 id="KJV">The Purpose of the KJV</h2>
<p>The KJV only advocates claim that the KJV is the best translation, the first translation in English, and in some extremes, inerrant. Was this the intent of the original translators of the text?</p>
<p>Not at all. The translators were mere men and realized their shortcomings. Upon examination of the individuals and their work, many of the myths perpetuated by the KJV only-ism camp are refuted.</p>
<p>The translators of the text were learned scholars from the best universities in England. They were all Anglicans, the same as Wescott and Hort [hence, if Westcott and Hort are heretics, so too must be those who translated the KJV]. They were given guidelines by which to work, of which are notable:</p>
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>The ordinary Bible read in church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.</li>
<li>The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, vix. the word "church" not to be translated "congregation."</li>
<li>When a word hath divers [has diverse] significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by most of the ancient fathers.</li>
<li>No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution be so briefly and fitly expressed in the text.</li>
<li>When any place of special obscurity be doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for judgment of such a place.</li>
<li>These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible – Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. Paine, [<a href="https://www.thekingsbible.com/Library/InstructionsToTranslators">King James Instruction to the Translators</a>].</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>As we can see, the KJV was not by any means the first translation of the Bible in English, nor was it translated directly from the TR: the translators relied heavily on previously existing English Bibles. We also see that the translators realized the pitfalls of certain obscure parts of the Bible, and Anglican tradition was to be upheld. These points are in direct contradiction with fundamentalist KJV only-ism positions.</p>
<p>The greatest detractions to the claim of the KJV-only-ism camp come from the translators' introduction to the KJV, entitled <em>The Translators to the Reader</em>. On the issue of the need for translation and the version known as the KJV, we read:</p>
<blockquote><p>Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment: Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime?</p>
<p>That is, "do we condemn the ancient"? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God." As if he said, Being provoked by the example of the learned men that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty, to assay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may be<br />
profitable in any measure to God's Church, lest I should seem to laboured in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men, (although ancient,) above that which was in them. Thus S[aint] Jerome may be thought to speak.</p></blockquote>
<p>Is this not the same kind of argument presented to Erasmus and by the KJV-only crowd? Is not the response similar to that of Erasmus and the modern translators? The hypocrisy goes on.</p>
<blockquote><p>Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor preadventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.</p></blockquote>
<p>The translators of the KJV say that the Word of God can be translated! And yet those who hold fast to it deny this premise.</p>
<blockquote><p>Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using these great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to pass that you see.</p></blockquote>
<p>The translators were quick to use other sources from all over the world and history to facilitate their efforts. So much for just God and the TR.</p>
<p>Finally, in response to the fact that many things in Scripture are unfamiliar to us, the translator writes:</p>
<blockquote><p>For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S[aint] Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures [S. Aug 2. De docr. Christian, cap. 14.].</p></blockquote>
<p>The doctrine of KJV only-ism is thus alone in its beliefs. Those who wrote the Greek text and who translated it for the KJV clearly used the arguments and methodologies of textual criticism and would support modern efforts to make the most accurate and reliable text of the New Testament that is possible. The KJV-only advocates give the KJV [and, in some cases, the TR] not only preeminence that its own authors never intended but also a spirit completely contrary to that which produced the TR and the KJV. The utter illogic, inconsistency, and hypocrisy of the KJV-only movement should now be all but apparent.</p>
<h2 id="arguments">Arguments Made by the KJV Only Camp</h2>
<h3>The modern translations remove the name of Jesus hundreds of times, hence, the modern translations try to deny His divinity.</h3>
<p>Answer: You can never omit what was never there, but what was added later.</p>
<p>The field of textual criticism has determined that scribes who were copying the text of the New Testament tended to embellish the name of Jesus. If they saw "Jesus," they would have maybe added "Christ" to it, which would supposedly add to the message of the work. This is called "expansion of piety," and examples of it are below:</p>
<p>Expansions of Piety</p>
<table border="1" width="60%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Reference</th>
<th>KJV</th>
<th>NASB</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%204.18" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-reference="Matthew 4.18" data-version="esv" data-purpose="bible-reference">Matthew 4:18</a></th>
<th>Jesus</th>
<th>He</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2019.10" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-reference="Acts 19.10" data-version="esv" data-purpose="bible-reference">Acts 19:10</a></th>
<th>the Lord Jesus</th>
<th>the Lord</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2019.4" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-reference="Acts 19.4" data-version="esv" data-purpose="bible-reference">Acts 19:4</a></th>
<th>Christ Jesus</th>
<th>Jesus</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20John%201.7" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-reference="1 John 1.7" data-version="esv" data-purpose="bible-reference">1 John 1:7</a></th>
<th>Jesus Christ</th>
<th>Jesus</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Thessalonians%203.11" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-reference="1 Thessalonians 3.11" data-version="esv" data-purpose="bible-reference">1 Thessalonians 3:11</a></th>
<th>our Lord Jesus Christ</th>
<th>Jesus our Lord</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%2016.31" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-reference="Acts 16.31" data-version="esv" data-purpose="bible-reference">Acts 16:31</a></th>
<th>Lord Jesus Christ</th>
<th>Lord Jesus</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th><a href="http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20John%201.3" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-reference="2 John 1.3" data-version="esv" data-purpose="bible-reference">2 John 1:3</a></th>
<th>the Lord Jesus Christ</th>
<th>Jesus Christ</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The textual evidence for the shorter titles is great; most of the older texts always follow the shorter rendering. It is clear throughout the Bible that the Lord Jesus Christ is exactly that, and that Jesus is the Christ and Lord. If the modern translations were truly trying to deny the divinity of Jesus by removing His titles, why were they not consistent about it? We see the same titles applied to Jesus in the KJV and NASB: Lord, Christ, Savior, Advocate, etc. Therefore, it is clear that the translators were trying to remove the expansions of piety in order to have a text closer to that which the Apostles wrote.</p>
<h3>Many times, whole phrases will be removed from the text!</h3>
<p>Answer: Again, you cannot omit what was never there.</p>
<p>Along with the expansion of piety, we also see another scribal process of error. Sometimes scribes would memorize certain verses, be it through reading or hearing a lesson, and would remember them. When they would copy the text of the New Testament, they would see the beginning of one of the verses they memorized, and would finish it off as they knew it. Now, this is okay for certain verses, but in some parts of the New Testament, similar statements are made although the actual wording differs. This process is known as "harmonization," when passages that have similar beginnings or parts are made the same due to a scribe's memory. A few examples:</p>
<p>Luke 11:2-5</p>
<table border="1" width="100%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>KJV</th>
<th>NASB</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>When ye pray, say, <em>Our</em> Father <em>which art in Heaven</em>, hallowed by thy name. Thy Kingdom come. <em>Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth</em>. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation, <em>but deliver us from evil</em>.</th>
<th>When you pray, say Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us of our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>This is the Lord's Prayer, and no doubt a scribe would remember the Matthew rendering of it and would transcribe that without examining the text in Luke. Are the modern translators attempting to deny that our Father is in Heaven, or that He will deliver us from evil? Not so.</p>
<blockquote><p>Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil <em>[Matthew 6:9-12 (NASB)]</em>.</p></blockquote>
<p>The similarities between the Matthew version and the KJV Luke version are only too clear. This is the harmonization work of scribes.</p>
<p>Colossians 1:14</p>
<table border="1" width="100%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>KJV</th>
<th>NASB</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>in whom we have redemption <em>through His blood</em>, even the forgiveness of sins.</th>
<th>in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>This is one often used by the KJV Onlyism camp. They say that the translators of the modern versions are denying that redemption comes through the blood of Jesus. This is not so.</p>
<blockquote><p>In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasse, according to the riches of His grace <em>[Ephesians 1:7 (NASB)]</em>.</p></blockquote>
<p>Examine two things here:</p>
<ol>
<li>The NASB clearly states in Ephesians here that we have redemption through His blood. Therefore, it is fallacious to say that its translators deny this fact.</li>
<li>Look at the similarity of the language of these two verses. They both begin the same in the Greek text; hence, a scribe saw the beginning of Colossians 1:14, remembered what he had copied in Ephesians 1:7, and copied the text the same way.</li>
</ol>
<h2 id="problems">Problems with the KJV</h2>
<h3>The Comma Johannem</h3>
<p>The Comma Johannem (Addition of John) is I John 5:7.</p>
<p>I John 5:7</p>
<table border="1" width="100%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="4">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>KJV</th>
<th>NASB</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.</th>
<th>And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.</th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The story, believed to be apocryphal, goes like this: when Erasmus was editing his Greek texts to compose his text, he noticed that none of his copies contained the Latin Vulgate rendering of I John 5:7 (now the version used in the KJV). The Greek text reads completely differently (as we read it in the NASB), and he saw that it was an obvious attempt by Jerome to refute Arianism, a heresy of the fourth century. He thus used the Greek form in the first two editions of his TR. The Catholic authorities, however, wanted to keep the rendering found in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus would only do so if a Greek text could be found with the Latin reading in it. From Ireland, such a text came about; this text's authenticity is now disputed, and with good reason, since it is the only Greek text before the TR which contains the KJV rendering. Since he was shown a copy that had the Comma, Erasmus faithfully translated it from the Latin Vulgate into Greek for his TR. Whether or not this actually happened or not, it is clear that some kind of pressure was brought to bear upon Erasmus to orient the TR toward the Latin as opposed to the Greek in I John 5:7.</p>
<p>Since then, it has been proven without a doubt that the Comma Johannem is a later insertion since there is no valid Greek text before 1450 which contains it. Nevertheless, the KJV (and the NKJV!) still hold to the Comma Johannem despite its proven history. Such deception and manipulation are not good for the Bible and its study; even though the Comma may be true, the cause of Christ is not advanced by using such dubious methods of displaying it. If the Trinity cannot be affirmed by the Bible as it is, we have no right to believe in it; we deny the validity of the text when we have to use our own insertion to justify our belief.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>I hope we have seen that there is no reason to doubt the validity and the use of the modern translations of the Bible. Now, my intent is not to belittle or deny the KJV for the NASB or any other Bible: if I did so, I would be no better than those who claim the KJV alone to be inspired. In fact, there are many times where the KJV has a more literal rendering of the text than the NASB or others do. We should all be able to profit from all of the different versions, to see different flavors of the text and the different ways to translate Greek. There is no one translation that is completely and exactly always correct; the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, ASV, ESV, and others are all decent translations that will allow you to find God and to be able to do His commandments. The Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God, and close studies of the Greek text will always allow an individual to reach the truth in any matter.</p>
<p>That is the refutation of KJV only-ism: the KJV/TR is <strong>not </strong>the standard by which we should judge translations: the works which the Apostles wrote are the standard. We do not have that standard proper today, but we are always finding older and older copies, bringing us closer and closer to the originals (within 75 years for one copy). The closer we get to the originals, the closer we are to indisputable truth. And the better and better our Greek text is able to become, the better and better our translations of them will be, and Truth will be made better known. This was the fervent hope of Jerome, Erasmus, the translators of the KJV, and the textual critics of the Bible today. Let us help carry this tradition on for tomorrow, and not be bogged down in the past of Augustine, the Church, and KJV only-ism.</p>
<h2 id="info">For More Information</h2>
<p>A good reference work to learn more about the truth behind the modern Bible versions and KJV Onlyism (used in the creation of this page) is James White's <em>The King James Only Controversy: Can you Trust the Modern Translations?</em>.</p>
<p>Below are listed other resources that speak about the KJV and other Bible versions.</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/originkingjamesversion">Article: The Origin of the King James Version</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/translations1">Article: Bible Translations, I: History of Translations</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/translations2">Article: Bible Translations, II: King James Version and the New King James Version</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/translations3">Article: Bible Translations, III: The American Standard Version and its Offshoots</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/translations4">Article: Bible Translations, IV: Interpretive Versions</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/translations5">Article: Bible Translations, V: Conclusion: Which is Best for You?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/historybible1">Article: History of the Bible, I: Toward Canonization</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.deverbovitae.com/articles/historybible2">Article: History of the Bible, II: Transmission of the Text</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.astudyofdenominations.com/movements/fundamentalism/#kjv">A Study of Denominations: Fundamentalism: KJV Onlyism</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">50437</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Origin of the King James Version</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-origin-of-the-king-james-version/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2015 17:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geneva Bible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=15377</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[by Ethan R. Longhenry In my personal reading, I have just completed two books that discuss the origins of the King James Version: In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, by Alister McGrath, and God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible,&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-15377 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="15377"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-5dcd92ea1af4b fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="5dcd92ea1af4b">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-5dcd92ea1cb26" data-node="5dcd92ea1cb26">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-5dcd92ea1cbe8 fl-col-bg-color" data-node="5dcd92ea1cbe8">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-5dcd92ea1ae73" data-node="5dcd92ea1ae73">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<p align="right">by <a href="mailto:disciple_of_iesus@hotmail.com">Ethan R. Longhenry</a></p>
<p>In my personal reading, I have just completed two books that discuss the origins of the King James Version: <i>In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture</i>, by Alister McGrath, and <i>God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible</i>, by Adam Nicholson. These two books each provided a different perspective on the King James Version (heretofore, KJV): the former looked at it in terms of its role in and impact on the English language as a whole, and the latter was more dedicated to the story of the translation, its translators, and its timeframe. To that end, the former book appreciates the KJV's impact on the English language yet does not apologize for its translators or its time period; the latter book is perhaps a bit too apologetic for the KJV's translators and its time period. What is significant from both works, however, and the reason for this article, is the understanding that we can gain about the origins of the KJV and how that impacts us today.</p>
<p>There is a movement within so-called "fundamental" Christianity, seen especially in some conservative Evangelical groups but also in many ways in churches of Christ, that elevates the KJV to an inspired status: it <i>is</i> the Word of God, and any other version or translation is merely a device of Satan. This movement, sometimes called KJV Onlyism, has gained momentum and uses many arguments that may seem persuasive. The problem with this type of belief, however, is that it does not concord at all with the idea of the KJV nor its intended purpose. By examining the historical material in these two works, we can gain a better understanding of the origin of the KJV to see that while it contains the inspired Word of God, it is not in and of itself inspired. Let us now examine some issues regarding which we can clear up confusion or ignorance about the origins of the KJV.</p>
<h2>The KJV was not the first English Bible, nor was it really a translation</h2>
<p>We will speak later about the immediate circumstances that led to the creation of the KJV, but for now, we will say that the KJV was by no means the first English Bible; far from it! The first endeavors at translating the Bible into English were made by John Wycliffe in about 1382; these endeavors compelled Oxford to ban any attempts to translate the Word of God into English. During the Reformation, William Tyndale made the first real English translation of the Bible in 1525 with the New Testament; he was martyred before he could complete the task fully, but John Rogers, under the pseudonym Thomas Matthew, completed the work in what would be known as Matthew's Bible in 1537, although by this time Miles Coverdale in England had already completed a full translation of the Bible, known as Coverdale's Bible. In 1538, Henry VIII, as one of the first actions in the newly established Church of England, called for a Bible in English to be placed in every church in the land; the Bible made for this purpose, a revision of Matthew's Bible, was known as the Great Bible, or Whitchurch's Bible. Next, the Calvinist English Protestants exiled in Geneva, Switzerland, under Mary Tudor, published the Geneva Bible in 1560, and, as a response in 1568, the Anglican authorities commissioned the Bishops' Bible. Finally, in 1582, some exiled English Catholics produced the Douay-Rheims Bible in English <cite>(Nicolson, 247-250)</cite>. We can see, therefore, that there were no fewer than five English versions of the Bible circulating within England when the KJV was produced, and in fact, the official instructions to the KJV translators bid them to base their revisions on the Bishops' Bible and to consult Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's (the Great Bible) and Geneva Bibles also! In the end, the KJV looked extremely similar to Tyndale's version, and it is evident that there was less translating going on than revision of all that had come before the KJV.</p>
<p>It should be stated at this point, however, that "modern" versions themselves have not really created "new" translations either but ultimately go back themselves to the KJV, save in circumstances of inferior texts and new discoveries. While nuances and styles have changed, the Bible of the English-speaking world has essentially been the same since the 1530s.</p>
<h2>The KJV was commissioned for more political than spiritual reasons</h2>
<p>The KJV owes its birth to the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, the meeting of the newly crowned James I of England with the authorities of the Church of England and the Puritan dissidents. James desired to have a unified church in England and was distressed at the polarity he entered. The Geneva Bible was by far the most popular Bible in England in 1604, and while the translation was excellent, the notes in it were fiercely Calvinist and anti-monarchical. The Bibles sanctioned by the Anglican authorities left much to be desired, but they at least did not contain seditious notes. One of the Puritans suggested to the King that he should establish one Bible for use throughout the land; James took this idea, and from it came the decision to make a new translation <cite>(McGrath, 161-162)</cite>. We can see, therefore, that there was no burning spiritual desire to have a new translation but only the need for a political compromise between the seditious Geneva Bible and the inadequate Anglican versions.</p>
<p><div id="attachment_15379-2" style="width: 1762px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-15379-2" class="size-full wp-image-15379" src="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Genesis_Chapter_One_from_a_1620-21_King_James_Bible.jpg" alt="" width="1752" height="1980" srcset="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Genesis_Chapter_One_from_a_1620-21_King_James_Bible.jpg 1752w, https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Genesis_Chapter_One_from_a_1620-21_King_James_Bible-265x300.jpg 265w, https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Genesis_Chapter_One_from_a_1620-21_King_James_Bible-906x1024.jpg 906w, https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Genesis_Chapter_One_from_a_1620-21_King_James_Bible-768x868.jpg 768w, https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Genesis_Chapter_One_from_a_1620-21_King_James_Bible-1359x1536.jpg 1359w" sizes="(max-width: 1752px) 100vw, 1752px" /><p id="caption-attachment-15379-2" class="wp-caption-text">Genesis 1 from a 1620-1621 printing of the King James Bible</p></div></p>
<h2>The texts as the basis of the translations were not the most accurate, even for the early seventeenth century, and the knowledge of the translators of those languages was not always the best</h2>
<p>To quote Nicholson:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Hebrew and particularly the Greek texts they were working from were not the most accurate, even by the standards of their own time. Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor as the head of the church in Geneva, had prepared an edition of the New Testament some forty years earlier based on a more ancient and a less corrupt manuscript. The English scholars were still a little adrift on tenses in Hebrew, while <i>koine</i>, the form of rubbed down and difficult Greek in which the New Testament is written, so unlike the Greek of Plato and Aristotle, still held mysteries for them, which only later translations would correct,<cite>(224)</cite>.</p></blockquote>
<h2>The printing procedures involved many errors in and of itself.</h2>
<p>Again, to quote Nicholson:</p>
<blockquote><p>And it was littered with misprints, 'hoopes' for 'hookes,' 'she' for 'he,' three whole lines simply repeated in Exodus, and alarmingly 'Judas' for 'Jesus' in one of the Gospels. None of these was quite so catastrophic as a misprint that would appear in a 1631 edition, the so-called Wicked Bible, which failed to put the word 'not' in Exodus 20:14, giving the reading, 'Thou shalt commit adultery,' but the degree of muddle is scarcely what a modern scholarly text would tolerate. When, finally, in the nineteenth century, Dr. F. Scrivener, a scholar working to modern standards, attempted to collate all the editions of the King James Bible then in circulation, he found more than 24,000 variations between them. The curious fact is that no one such thing as 'The King James Bible' -- agreed, consistent, and whole-- has ever existed, <cite>(226)</cite>.</p></blockquote>
<p>We can see from this, then, that those who would consider "the 1611 Authorized Version" as THE Bible have much explaining to do as to which version of the 1611 "Authorized Version" they refer to!</p>
<h2>The translators themselves continued to use other Bibles.</h2>
<p>If the intent of the translators were to make <b>the </b>Bible for all time, one would expect them to use it. After 1611, however, we find that the major translators are still quoting from the Geneva Bible - even the most anti-Puritan among them!</p>
<h2>The KJV was not popular when first produced.</h2>
<p>The English world did not immediately embrace the KJV; the Geneva Bible was still far more popular, even after it was no longer allowed to be printed in England; only after 1660, in the attempt to return to the status quo from before the social upheaval of the Protectorate, did the KJV begin to become popular.</p>
<h2><b>The KJV was instrumental in the development of the English language and learning the English language.</b></h2>
<p>In our attempt to understand the influence of the KJV, especially in America, we have to realize that English as a written, intelligent language only really began with Shakespeare and the KJV. For hundreds of years before this period, English was the vulgar language of the people, Latin was the language of the intelligentsia, and French was the language of the court. Only in the Tudor period in the sixteenth century do we see a desire to cultivate the English language, and its vocabulary was so limited that Shakespeare and the KJV have combined to essentially make the language for us!</p>
<p>After this period, we find that the English language revolved partly around Shakespeare but mostly around the KJV. Throughout the English-speaking world, and especially in less-sophisticated America, both men and women learned to read with the KJV. The words of the KJV shaped their religion, their beliefs, and their language; the overall religious unity of the English world of the pre-colonial era allowed for the English language to change little from 1611 to 1880. Throughout the period of 1660 to 1880, the KJV was one of the few, if not only, books that English-speaking people read and meditated upon.</p>
<h2>The KJV became the Bible</h2>
<p>This statement may seem odd on the surface, but it explains the ideology of KJV only-ism well. There was not felt a need to adapt or revise the Bible after the KJV until the discovery of more ancient and superior texts in the 1880s and then with the major changes in the English language that occurred in the colonial and post-colonial periods in the twentieth century. The KJV was the Bible to so many people that many soon forgot that the KJV was only a translation of original Hebrew and Greek texts. The KJV took on a form of inspiration in and of itself, and many, many people could not disassociate in their minds the original Hebrew and Greek texts that represent the inspired Word of God and the KJV that was the translation of those works. We may joke today that "the KJV was good enough for Paul, so it should be good enough for me," but behind this statement is the belief of many.</p>
<p>The follies and the politics in Jacobean England that produced the King James Version were, of course, all but forgotten in later periods, and the only thing that remained was the KJV. The KJV was a monumental work for its time, and its language is exceptional; it is extremely literal and yet is written in a form of polished English not found in modern versions and translations. Despite its age and its inaccuracies, it most certainly deserves a place on the Christian's bookshelf and is certainly appropriate for study. Unfortunately, however, there are many myths and misconceptions about the KJV that have caused some to believe incredulous claims about its inspiration and the idea that it alone is the true Bible and the rest are the works of Satan. We can see how these ideas developed: the success of the KJV in the English-speaking world caused people to consider the KJV the standard by which all other texts were to be compared and not, as seen originally by the translators, as the endeavor to produce in English the best rendering of the Hebrew and Greek texts which they considered to be the standard.</p>
<p>The KJV stands as an important witness in the development of the Word of God in English, but it is best seen, in the eye of the translators, as one landmark in the progression of the translation of the Word of God into English. The KJV translators took advantage of the work done before them and made an impressive edition; they would not want their translation to be enshrined as something it was not -- the only approved and God-certified Bible -- but as an important step in the understanding of God's Word for mankind. Today we have the advantage of better texts and a better understanding of both Hebrew and Greek, and we, in turn, can have Bibles more accurate to the original authors. Let us continue to carry the torch lit so long ago and held by a long time by the KJV.</p>
<hr />
<p>The original of this article, along with articles on related topics, can be found at: <a href="https://www.deverbovitae.com/">https://www.deverbovitae.com/</a></p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">15377</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>You helped me understand that the KJV is a translation and not the inspired word of God itself</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/you-helped-me-understand-that-the-kjv-is-a-translation-and-not-the-inspired-word-of-god-itself/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2014 02:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[about this site]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=42768</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Question: Dear Minister, A conversation with my father-in-law drove me to do some research concerning the King James Version of the Bible and other translations of God's inspired word. I was guided to your web site. Your article on the subject was very informative and enlightening, and I really appreciate it. It caused me to&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-42768 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="42768"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-8h0g59rjf7y3 fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="8h0g59rjf7y3">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-69fovty1glnb" data-node="69fovty1glnb">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-9bd0kzvyjew5 fl-col-bg-color" data-node="9bd0kzvyjew5">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-dmp1c0kr6vny" data-node="dmp1c0kr6vny">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p>Dear Minister,</p>
<p>A conversation with my father-in-law drove me to do some research concerning the King James Version of the Bible and other translations of God's inspired word. I was guided to your web site. <a href="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-origin-of-the-king-james-version/">Your article</a> on the subject was very informative and enlightening, and I really appreciate it. It caused me to change some of my thinking and beliefs about this issue, especially about the KJV merely containing the inspired word of God and not being written by men that were inspired by God to write it. I understand now totally that the KJV of what we call the Bible and others are just merely translations of the inspired words of God. Thanks so much for helping me to understand.</p>
<p>After reading that article, I went to your home page that tells who you are and as I began to read the page my eyes began to water. I try to refrain from saying that the church has turned to apostasy because that is simply not what I want to believe. I wish that you were located in my area. The church that you described on the page is the church that I truly miss.</p>
<p>I was thinking this morning about how I had lost my influence and thus the reason why the church is not as influential as it once was. That message was very refreshing, timely, thought-provoking and brought my heart back to fond memories of what it is like to be fishers of men and adhered totally to the patterns of the teaching of the New Testament church.</p>
<p>Thank you for the encouragement received through your website. It has helped me this day to further keep my mind stayed on the study of God's, prayer, and taking back my joy in Christ from Satan.</p>
<p>Keep the truth in love.</p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-ten0cs7yxlw5" data-node="ten0cs7yxlw5">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-ygm25kisr6ob fl-col-bg-color" data-node="ygm25kisr6ob">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-l8rg5ejvuzwo" data-node="l8rg5ejvuzwo">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<p>I'm glad this site proved useful to your studies. There are congregations like this one all around the world. See: <a href="https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/resources/congregations-of-the-churches-of-christ/">Congregations of the Churches of Christ</a></p>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">42768</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Doesn&#8217;t Acts 12:4 mention Easter?</title>
		<link>https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/doesnt-acts-124-mention-easter/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeffrey Hamilton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Acts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Easter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[King James Version]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[translation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/?p=42611</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Question: A question I have is in Acts 12:4. What's was the Scripture pertaining to when it mentioned Easter? "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). Answer:&#8230;]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="fl-builder-content fl-builder-content-42611 fl-builder-content-primary fl-builder-global-templates-locked" data-post-id="42611"><div class="fl-row fl-row-fixed-width fl-row-bg-none fl-node-uso5glzwbiep fl-row-default-height fl-row-align-center" data-node="uso5glzwbiep">
	<div class="fl-row-content-wrap">
						<div class="fl-row-content fl-row-fixed-width fl-node-content">
		
<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-qa72vm8klybo" data-node="qa72vm8klybo">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-2e0wdjal1bps fl-col-bg-color" data-node="2e0wdjal1bps">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-dpig5mw17oh3" data-node="dpig5mw17oh3">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Question:</h2>
<p dir="ltr">A question I have is in Acts 12:4. What's was the Scripture pertaining to when it mentioned Easter?</p>
<blockquote>
<p dir="ltr">"<em>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</em>" (Acts 12:4 KJV).</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>

<div class="fl-col-group fl-node-1wal7s3edno4" data-node="1wal7s3edno4">
			<div class="fl-col fl-node-zf8ykqr4h7ga fl-col-bg-color" data-node="zf8ykqr4h7ga">
	<div class="fl-col-content fl-node-content"><div class="fl-module fl-module-rich-text fl-node-x9rd08gszwih" data-node="x9rd08gszwih">
	<div class="fl-module-content fl-node-content">
		<div class="fl-rich-text">
	<h2>Answer:</h2>
<p>The King James Version has several flaws. One is that the translators used "Easter" to translate the Greek word <em>pascha </em>for "Passover" in Acts 12:4. In the other 28 times that this word appears, they correctly translated it as "Passover."</p>
<p>The typical argument is that Peter was arrested during the days of Feast of the Unleavened Bread. Since the Passover occurs during this week, the argument is that <em>pascha </em>must refer to another festival day and since the word is derived from the Chaldean language, it must refer to Easter which is a corruption of the Chaldean celebration of their goddess Ishtar.</p>
<p>The argument is flawed because there is zero evidence that Ishtar was worshiped and celebrated in Judea. Given the Jewish hostility to the Gentiles and idolatry at this time, the proposal is far-fetched at best. Second, the argument glosses over the fact that Passover is a single day that falls within the week of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread. Peter could easily have been arrested near the start of the week and Passover that year could have fallen near the end of the week and nothing would be contradictory in the passage translating <em>pascha </em>as Passover.</p>
<p>My suspicion is that whoever translated Acts 12 used Easter to give a boost to their current celebration of that day. Historically Christians did not start celebrating Easter as the anniversary of the resurrection until well into the second or third century.</p>
<p>All other translations of Acts 12:4 consistently translate <em>pascha</em> as Passover.</p>
<blockquote><p>"<em>So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover</em>" (Acts 12:4 NKJV).</p></blockquote>
</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
	</div>
		</div>
	</div>
</div>
</div>]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">42611</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
