Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Were The King James Translators KJV Only?
Community Baptist Church Website ^ | Unknown | Dr. Robert A Joyner D.B.S., Th.D., Ph.D.

Posted on 03/24/2008 7:29:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC

WERE THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS KJV ONLY?

By: Dr. Robert A Joyner D.B.S., Th.D., Ph.D.

There is a group today that is called the King James Only.  This is because they insist that the King James Version is the preserved Word of God and the only Bible for the English speaking people.  They usually attack all other versions and delight in pointing out the errors in them.

I want to raise and answer the question, is this the position of the King James translators?  If I can prove that the King James translators disagreed with the King James Only group in every point, then the KJV Only group does not have a leg to stand on.  They base everything on the King James translators.  The KJV advocates revere and lift them to the high heavens.  They were superior translators, they say.  You can see how inconsistent it is to be KJV Only and believe the opposite of what the KJV translators themselves believed.

In the original 1611 KJV there are eleven pages in the front called, THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. (See appendix A) In this introduction, the translators explained their philosophy and beliefs about Bible translations. I want to use their introduction, taking the translators’ own words and show you that they disagreed with the KJV Only group in every point. In the remainder of this chapter, when a page number is given, it refers to the place where the quote can be found in THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER, included in the back of this book. (Note: The old English has been updated for readability.)

THEY BELIEVED THE AUTHORITY WAS IN THE ORIGINALS

On page 3 of THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER, the King James translators said, “The original there being from heaven, not from the earth, the author’s being God, not man, the editor, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the apostles.” (See Appendix A, quote 1) Also on the bottom of page 9 and on the top of page 10 they said that all truth must be tried by the original tongues, the Hebrew and Greek. So the King James translators said the authority was in the originals. This is what Christians have believed throughout Church history.

On the other hand, the KJV Only group says, “No one has the originals. Have you ever seen the originals? No. You must trust the King James translation as the final authority.” This assertion contradicts the KJV translators.

I do not have the original ten dollar bill but I will take all the copies you will give me. I have never seen the original constitution of the United States but thank God I have all the benefits of it. So we do not have the original copy the apostles wrote but we have around 5,000 copies of it and every word of God has been preserved in them. We do not have the original manuscripts but we do have the original words. We do not need the original copy, the first copy. If we had it some people would make an idol of it, I’m sure. By the way, no one has the original copy (the first manuscript) of the 1611 KJV, though many copies of the first printing exist.

The point is, the KJV translators believed the final authority was in the original Hebrew and Greek, not in any translation, including their own. “The original being from Heaven…The author being God, not men.”

THEY BELIEVED TRANSLATORS WERE NOT INSPIRED

On page 4 the KJV translators said the Septuagint translators were interpreters. (See Appendix A, quote 2)  They were not prophets.  They did many things as learned men but yet as men they
stumbled and fell.  So the King James translators believed that translation was a purely human work.  They made mistakes.

THEY DID NOT BELIEVE IN CONDEMNING OTHER VERSIONS

On page 6 the King James Translators refer to all the other English versions they had in that day. They say, “Do we condemn the ancient?… We are so far from condemning any of their labors, that translated before us, either in this land or beyond the sea. We acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of His church.”(See Appendix A, quote 3) So the King James translators did not believe in condemning other translations. We dare not condemn any translation, they say, unlike many people today. The Wycliff English Bible came out in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1525, the Coverdale in 1535, the Rogers Bible in 1537, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva in 1560 and the Bishops in 1568. So when the King James Bible came out in 1611 there were many English translations just as there are today. But the King James translators did not condemn any. They did not consider other versions to be a curse but said “they had been raised up by God for the furnishing of His church.” They did not believe in pointing out errors and belittling other versions of the Bible. This applied to English Translations and “those beyond the sea.” They would be totally against attacking other translations like many people are doing today.

THEY BELIEVED ALL TRANSLATIONS WERE THE WORD OF GOD

On page 7, the King James translators say, “Nay, we affirm and avow that the meanest translation of the Bible in English is the word of God.” (See Appendix A, quote 4) When they say “meanest” they mean the poorest, the worst. So they believed that every translation was the word of God, no matter how many mistakes it had. This is the exact opposite of those who believe the King James is the only Bible for the English speaking people. Those who revere the King James translators so much believe just the opposite of what the translators themselves believed.

The translators gave several illustrations to make their point. They said the king’s speech translated into another language is still the king’s speech. A person can be a good person and yet have some imperfections. Someone can be a nice looking person and yet have warts or freckles, they said. And so, likewise, a translation of the Bible may have mistakes but it is still the word of God. They never said that God had promised us a perfect translation in English.

This is a very serious point. Because if the poorest translation is the word of God, then if we attack it we are attacking God’s Word. Many people are doing this today. They are blaspheming God’s Word. The King James translators would not belittle and attack the NIV or the NASB as many people do. They had more sense.

Dear reader, be careful how you attack other versions. The King James translators believed you are attacking the Word of God. Do not blaspheme God’s Word or support those who do.

JESUS AND THE APOSTLES DID NOT ATTACK BAD TRANSLATIONS

On page 7 the King James translators said that the Septuagint, or the Seventy, “was faulty in many places. It descended from the original and did not come near it in grandeur or majesty.” In other words, the Greek translation which Jesus and the apostles used was not a good translation but they did not try to tear down people’s confidence in it. “Yet which of the apostles did condemn it? Condemn it! Nay! They used it.” (page 7 & 8)(See Appendix A, quote 5)

The point is that Jesus and the apostles had a faulty translation but they never put it down.  They used it and quoted from it.  They did not go around tearing down bad translations as some people do today.
Do not blaspheme and attack God’s Word just because the translators made some mistakes. Jesus and the apostles did not believe in attacking other translations. The King James translators did not believe in doing that either.

THEY BELIEVED IN MAKING NEW TRANSLATIONS OFTEN

On page 8 the King James translators talk about making new translations. They ask, “Who would have ever thought that was a fault? To amend it where he saw cause?” Then they say, “That is our business. The difference that appears between our translation and our often correcting of them is the thing that we are especially charged with.” (See Appendix A, quote 6) It is the translator’s business to continually update the language, not because God’s Word is outdated, but because English changes. The English language has changed some in my lifetime. Young people do not use the same expressions as when I was a teenager. In the book, THE KING JAMES BIBLE WORD BOOK, by Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle, the authors list 827 words that are obsolete or archaic.

Translators are not supposed to make one translation and go into retirement.  It is their business to make new translations and keep them updated.  That is the reason the King James translators immediately started to revise the 1611 edition and came out with another in 1613 and another in 1629 (when  they left out the Apocrypha).

After reading what the KJV translators have said, I feel sure they would favor the New King James Version over the 1769 version that we use today.  They said the Bible should be in the common vernacular of the people.  (Page 11)

By the way, the King James Version is a British translation, not an American translation.  There are a few English words that have a different meaning from ours.  For  example, if you go into a restaurant in England and ask for a napkin, they will give you a baby diaper.

THEY WERE NOT INSPIRED THEY SIMPLY REVISED

The KJV translators said on page 9, “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or yet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one.” (See Appendix A, quote 7) In other words, they said that the translations that England already had by William Tyndale, Coverdale and others were good translations. Their purpose was never to make a new translation, they said. Their purpose was to build on the labors and works of others and try to improve them. The KJV translators said the others were good translations and they tried to make them better so England could have a common Bible. They certainly succeeded in that. Thank God for the way the King James Bible has been used in so many wonderful ways. But remember, the translators did not set out to make a new inspired version. All they did was revise and update. They took the Tyndale, Cloverdale, Geneva Bible, the Pilgrim Bible and the Bishops Bible, and updated them to make a composite Bible called the 1611 King James version. That was their purpose all along. Some people think they were inspired to make a perfect translation which would be “God’s preserved word for the English speaking people.” This belief contradicts the King James translators. Their purpose was “to make good ones better or to make one principal good one.”

There is no hint the translators thought they were inspired or anything but human translators trying to do their best. They said, “Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators…neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered?” (page 10)

THEY BELIEVED IN PUTTING VARYING READINGS IN THE MARGIN

On page 10 we read, “Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scripture for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.” (See Appendix A, quote 8)
   
Critics object to the marginal readings in modern versions. The KJV translators included them in the 1611 version and in the TO THE READER section that we are considering now. They said a person’s judgment was not sound on this point if they disagreed.

THEY DID NOT BELIEVE VARYING TRANSLATIONS AFFECTED DOCTRINE

The KJV translators said on page 10, “It hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment.” (See Appendix A, quote 9)

Because every Bible doctrine is mentioned over and over, it is not possible for a mistranslation in one place to change the teaching of Scripture.  No Bible doctrine is dependent on one passage.  For example, the Second Coming of Christ is mentioned in over 300 places.  If a passage or two were incorrectly translated or left out, still the Bible is clear, Jesus is coming again.

The KJV translators understood this truth and said the various readings did not affect “doctrinal points but in matters of less moment.”

THEY SAID A VARIETY OF TRANSLATIONS WERE NECESSARY

Many People today are “King James Only.” The KJV translators certainly were not. They said on page 10 that a “Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.” (See Appendix A, quote 10)

There you have it from the KJV translators themselves. They believed in using other translations. They “do good.” They are “necessary.”

Certainly other translations have helped me to understand many passages in God’s word. Using other versions is one of the best study helps there is. KJV advocates would deprive God’s people of this help.

THEY BELIEVED SCRIPTURE SHOULD BE IN COMMON LANGUAGE

Many people today think the Bible should be in old, out dated English.  They object to a Bible that reads like a newspaper, in modern English.

I hate to burst your bubble but the KJV translators believed the Bible should be in modern English.  The 1611 KJV was in the most up to date English when it came out.

The KJV translators said on page 11, “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.” (See Appendix A, quote 11) They had just said how they avoided language that “darken the sense.” The translators were clear, they wanted to put the scripture in the vernacular of the person on the street. They wanted the language to be so simple and up to date it could be understood by “even the very vulgar” (common, simple or uneducated). They would certainly be supportive of the modern English versions today.

CONCLUSION

What a shame today that so many exalt the KJV translators to lofty heights and yet contradict everything they stood for when it comes to Bible translations.  What inconsistency!

Review what these wise men said.  It is the same thing Christians have believed down through the centuries.  You would be wise to stand with them and not with the modern fanatics who go contrary to the very translators they depend upon so much.


TOPICS: General Discusssion; History; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: bible; james; king; kjv; translators
Translators and Christ affirmed other sources as valid!
1 posted on 03/24/2008 7:29:33 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here, but here is some more evidence...


2 posted on 03/24/2008 7:30:28 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

KJV Onlyism- Another Christian hate cult which has been exposed which needs to repent:

http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/unlearnd.htm


3 posted on 03/24/2008 7:33:09 AM PDT by DarthVader (Liberal Democrats are the party of EVIL whose time of judgement has come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

Read what you want I like KJV for the way the poetry reads in ( Psalms, Proverbs et. al. ) the Old Testaments. I use both KJV and NIV.


4 posted on 03/24/2008 7:39:59 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
Read what you want I like KJV for the way the poetry reads in ( Psalms, Proverbs et. al. ) the Old Testaments. I use both KJV and NIV

I love the King James version also. This article is part of an ongoing discussion about whether the King James version is the ONLY valid translation of scripture. That all other translations are flawed including the oldest greek and hebrew manuscripts.

5 posted on 03/24/2008 7:47:00 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

I have six translations of the Bible. I have NRSV and NIV study bibles which I use for Sunday school lesson and bible study prep. I use TEV and TNIV bibles for devotional reading. I have the KJV and NKJV for completeness, but I rarely use them when doing personal study.


6 posted on 03/24/2008 8:05:59 AM PDT by nhoward14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here, but here is some more evidence...

Well, you certanily not bringing up anything new, that is for sure.

The King James translators used the right Hebrew and Greek texts.

Modern versions do not.

There are no errors in the King James, and you haven't proven one yet.

But as I said, the King James translators knew that their work would be attacked.

So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home and abroad, who therefore malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; of if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give the liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their own anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and intergity, as before the Lord, and subtained without by the powerful protection of Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.-Epistle Dedicatory

But I am still waiting for you to explain Heb.8:11 in the light of the fact that you say that the New Covenant refers to the believer today.

If we are in the New Covenant today, everyone must know the Lord!

This attack on the King James is simply a red herring to avoid dealing with the issue that this began with, sabbath observance for the Christian.

But don't let scripture get in the way of doing what you want to do!

I am sure there must be some translation somewhere that will twist the verse to make it fit your theology-just keep looking!

And ofcourse, you can always do what alot of your friends do, go to the interlinears and Strongs and just deny what the verse actually says in every translation!

7 posted on 03/24/2008 8:08:10 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

I personally feel the KJV is a more accurate translation, but when I read it in contrast to a more modern translation I have had moments where I better understand the verse I was reading in KJV.

I like the KJV exactness better. An example is the Lord’s prayer. I like the KJV version better but a lot of churches ( at least the Methodist one I used to attend did ) recite/teach the NIV version.


8 posted on 03/24/2008 8:35:02 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC; All
I know this isn't exactly my thread, there's something I'd like to get off my chest.

Protestantism began by attacking the Catholic Church for using only the Latin Vulgate instead of making new translations in the vernacular languages (indeed, the Latin Vulgate was treated as almost "more inspired than the originals!"). And now what has happened? English Protestants have adopted the original Catholic outlook with their own "Vulagate" which is "more holy than the originals!" Does this mean translations into non-English languages must be made from the KJV and not from the originals?

"Holy translations" are nothing new. Every religion has them. The Septuagint was (according to the story) the work of seventy (or 72) translators who each went into a separate room and yet they all emerged with the exact same translation. Later the Aramaic Targums were held to have a measure of sanctity (which as a Noachide I acknowledge). The Syrians have the Peshitta, the Greek Orthodox use the Septuagint, and the Latins (until some four decades ago) used the Vulgate. What has happened now is that the KJV has joined this club of "holy translations." And I have heard preachers stumble reading the unfamiliar language of the KJV just as (surely) Irish and Polish peasants once occasionally stumbled over the Latin.

Admittedly I am unique here in that a)I am a Noachide rather than a chr*sitan, and b)I believe the most authentic Word of G-d exists in the scrolls that are written in the original and hand-written according to the Halakhah handed down from Sinai. In other words, if you want to read the Bible and not a translation of the Bible, learn Hebrew and read the original! And it isn't that hard to do (it's certainly easier than Greek).

I find myself often defending American Fundamentalist Protestants from their detractors and am happy to do so. But I must confess that the idea that the Word of G-d did not exist until the 5371st year of creation (1611) and that the original Hebrew was "written by Satan" (as some KJV-only people maintain) really burns my biscuits.

Translations of the Bible are not the Bible. Learn Hebrew (and Aramaic)!

9 posted on 03/24/2008 8:37:11 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . veyiqchu 'eleykha farah 'adummah temimah, 'asher 'ein-bah mum, 'asher lo'-`alah `aleyha `ol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Shakespeare!


10 posted on 03/24/2008 9:20:42 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
But I am still waiting for you to explain Heb.8:11 in the light of the fact that you say that the New Covenant refers to the believer today. If we are in the New Covenant today, everyone must know the Lord! This attack on the King James is simply a red herring to avoid dealing with the issue that this began with, sabbath observance for the Christian. But don't let scripture get in the way of doing what you want to do!

I don't mind discussing that issue at all. But it's fruitless because your basic assumption is the only acceptable source text is the English wording of the King James. I can (and have) pulled out various texts that contradict your position. I've also used the King James to contradict your position, but because you insist on assigning your word definitions to the King James english (in essence reading the minds of the translators) you can't see the errors of your thought process.

But I am still waiting for you to explain Heb.8:11 in the light of the fact that you say that the New Covenant refers to the believer today. If we are in the New Covenant today, everyone must know the Lord!

Scripture affirms time after time that Christians are under the new covenant:

Heb 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Luk 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

2Co 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,
2Co 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Now I acknowledge, as Paul does, that not everyone is NOW under the new covenant. Only Christians are.

Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

So no, not everyone knows the Lord now, just as they didn't in Paul's time. But all Christians DO know the Lord.

11 posted on 03/24/2008 10:10:09 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Translations of the Bible are not the Bible. Learn Hebrew (and Aramaic)!

I would agree that's the best way to truly get a flavor of what was written. I do think that the role of the holy spirit in Christians is to guide us into the truth...which may consist of using multiple translations and multiple sources of information.

12 posted on 03/24/2008 12:49:45 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

“And it isn’t that hard to do (it’s certainly easier than Greek).”

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!


13 posted on 03/24/2008 1:16:13 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Hebrew really is easier than Greek, you know. No kidding.


14 posted on 03/24/2008 1:47:08 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . veyiqchu 'eleykha farah 'adummah temimah, 'asher 'ein-bah mum, 'asher lo'-`alah `aleyha `ol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
[But I am still waiting for you to explain Heb.8:11 in the light of the fact that you say that the New Covenant refers to the believer today. If we are in the New Covenant today, everyone must know the Lord! This attack on the King James is simply a red herring to avoid dealing with the issue that this began with, sabbath observance for the Christian. But don't let scripture get in the way of doing what you want to do! ]

I don't mind discussing that issue at all. But it's fruitless because your basic assumption is the only acceptable source text is the English wording of the King James. I can (and have) pulled out various texts that contradict your position. I've also used the King James to contradict your position, but because you insist on assigning your word definitions to the King James english (in essence reading the minds of the translators) you can't see the errors of your thought process.

You have shown nothing of the kind!

The word 'Easter' was used as late as 1916 in Luther's 1916 edition and recently in KJ21 (1994).

What you have to prove is that Easter cannot be used in Acts.12:4, that would make it an error.

Since Easter was used in all of the versions before 1611, it can be used for that verse as well.

That it was kept in the AV1611 for a purpose is evident by the parenthesis around vs 3.

But the word 'Easter' for any usage of the Greek word 'pascha' is not an error since they can be used interchangeably as well.

So, once again, you have to actually show that Easter cannot be in that passage, it is not an error just because you cannot figure out why it is in that passage.

[ But I am still waiting for you to explain Heb.8:11 in the light of the fact that you say that the New Covenant refers to the believer today. If we are in the New Covenant today, everyone must know the Lord! ]

Scripture affirms time after time that Christians are under the new covenant: Heb 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

You had better read that passage in the King James, it says New Testament.

You know why?

Because in Heb.9:16 it states that no Testament can be made without the shedding of blood and the death of the testator.

Covenants do not require the deaths of anyone.

So, the NASB goes right off the cliff saying 'covenant' instead of 'testament' for Heb.9:16, which even the NIV doesn't (they put in will).

That is why the Bible is the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.

The New Covenant has nothing to do with the Church, it is for Israel in the Millennium.

Hence, Heb.8:11, which you still haven't answered or explained.

1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Not covenant, Testament

Luk 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 2Co 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 2Co 3:6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now I acknowledge, as Paul does, that not everyone is NOW under the new covenant. Only Christians are.

all of those verses should be translated Testament not Covenant, as they are correctly translated as such in the King James.

Heb 8:13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. So no, not everyone knows the Lord now, just as they didn't in Paul's time. But all Christians DO know the Lord.

Well, that is not what Heb.8:11 says now is it?

Moreover it says that no one is to teach others to know the Lord, so I guess you don't tell unbelievers how to get saved.

Clearly, as I suspected, you pick those verses you want to and simply ignore what is inconvenient to your theology.

15 posted on 03/25/2008 4:43:57 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You had better read that passage in the King James, it says New Testament. You know why?

Because covenant and testament meant the same thing?

Testament: From Merriam -Webster:

1 archaic : a covenant between God and the human race bcapitalized

Is Merriam-Webster in on this conspiracy?

From The Free Dictionary

5. Archaic A covenant between humans and God.

From dictionary.net

2. One of the two distinct revelations of God's purposes toward man; a covenant; also, one of the two general divisions of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures, in which the covenants are respectively revealed; as, the Old Testament; the New Testament; -- often limited, in colloquial language, to the latter.

From The Bible Glossary:

Covenant between man and God or Jesus. The word means testimony. Because covenants are a central issue in the Jewish Bible, they were at one point being referred to as testamentum. These covenants are made through Noah (after the deluge) and Moses (during his journey to the promised land) and are repeated several times in the Old Testament. The covenant in the New Testament is not so much entered upon by equal partners - it is closer to a disposition of God's grace.

From Eastons 1897 Bible Dictionary:

Testament occurs twelve times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15, etc.) as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided. (See BIBLE.)

I could go on and on and on, but expert wordsmiths all agree that their the same. I quote evidence, you quote your opinion.

Covenants do not require the deaths of anyone.
So, the NASB goes right off the cliff saying 'covenant' instead of 'testament' for Heb.9:16, which even the NIV doesn't (they put in will).

Okay, let's say you're right, that Christ meant it as a "last will and testament".

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1. Why does he call it "new". Did he have an "old" testament? If so what was it?

2. What did he "leave" to his disciples if this is a "will"? Some wine that wasn't his? His blood which nobody actually received? If you want to say it's the same as a "will" then you have to treat it as a "will" and show me that he left some physical things for the people left behind. That's what a "will" is after all.

3. If it is a "will", then it's no longer effective because Christ isn't dead. He's alive and alive eternally. If someone is supposed dead and then is discovered to be alive then I would suspect his last "testament" is null and void.

That is why the Bible is the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Again, what is the "first" testament? The word "testament" is found nowhere in the in the "old testament" books.

A testament IS a covenant. The books of the "old" testament are called that because the central focus in on the "old" covenant. The books of the "new testament" are called that because it focuses on the new covenant ushered in under Christ.

You have no evidence on your side, other than to keep stating your opinion. Even your definition of testament doesn't jibe with reality.

16 posted on 03/25/2008 5:43:58 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

There are those who think KJV is actually the original scriptures! That just amazes me. (Not a translation in other words)


17 posted on 03/25/2008 5:49:12 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
There are those who think KJV is actually the original scriptures! That just amazes me. (Not a translation in other words)

To be fair I don't think they believe they're original scriptures. But they do believe it's the one and only perfect translation of scripture. If an error is found or pointed out, they must deny it's an error despite all evidence to the contrary.

18 posted on 03/25/2008 6:04:28 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
[You had better read that passage in the King James, it says New Testament. You know why?]

Because covenant and testament meant the same thing? Testament: From Merriam -Webster: 1 archaic : a covenant between God and the human race bcapitalized Is Merriam-Webster in on this conspiracy? From The Free Dictionary 5. Archaic A covenant between humans and God. From dictionary.net 2. One of the two distinct revelations of God's purposes toward man; a covenant; also, one of the two general divisions of the canonical books of the sacred Scriptures, in which the covenants are respectively revealed; as, the Old Testament; the New Testament; -- often limited, in colloquial language, to the latter. From The Bible Glossary: Covenant between man and God or Jesus. The word means testimony. Because covenants are a central issue in the Jewish Bible, they were at one point being referred to as testamentum. These covenants are made through Noah (after the deluge) and Moses (during his journey to the promised land) and are repeated several times in the Old Testament. The covenant in the New Testament is not so much entered upon by equal partners - it is closer to a disposition of God's grace. From Eastons 1897 Bible Dictionary: Testament occurs twelve times in the New Testament (Heb. 9:15, etc.) as the rendering of the Gr. diatheke, which is twenty times rendered "covenant" in the Authorized Version, and always so in the Revised Version. The Vulgate translates incorrectly by testamentum, whence the names "Old" and "New Testament," by which we now designate the two sections into which the Bible is divided. (See BIBLE.) I could go on and on and on, but expert wordsmiths all agree that their the same. I quote evidence, you quote your opinion.

No need to go on because a Testament is different from a Covenant, a Covenant doesn't require the death of anyone, a testament does.

That is why wills are called, 'the last will and testament and not last will and covenant.

That is why God put Heb.9:16-17 in the Bible and that is why the Bible is called the Old and New Testament, it is based on blood, not just a promise.

[ Covenants do not require the deaths of anyone. So, the NASB goes right off the cliff saying 'covenant' instead of 'testament' for Heb.9:16, which even the NIV doesn't (they put in will). ]

Okay, let's say you're right, that Christ meant it as a "last will and testament".

No, lets say the scripture is right and that is what Heb.9:16-17 actually says.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 1. Why does he call it "new". Did he have an "old" testament? If so what was it?

Christ was bringing in something new, which made everything that preceded it, old.

He was ending the need for the Old Testament sacrifices, which couldn't pay for sins, only cover them.

[ 2. What did he "leave" to his disciples if this is a "will"? Some wine that wasn't his? His blood which nobody actually received? If you want to say it's the same as a "will" then you have to treat it as a "will" and show me that he left some physical things for the people left behind. That's what a "will" is after all. ]

He left us His Holy Spirit (Jn.14-16) and gave us a New Testament to live by.

Neither of which you seem to know anything about.

3. If it is a "will", then it's no longer effective because Christ isn't dead. He's alive and alive eternally. If someone is supposed dead and then is discovered to be alive then I would suspect his last "testament" is null and void.

No, He died, and because He did die, the Testament went into effect.

His coming back to life doesn't negate His death and burial which paid the price of mankind sins, making all of the Old Testament sacrifices unnecessary (Heb.10)

[ That is why the Bible is the Old and New Testaments, not the Old and New Covenants.]

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Again, what is the "first" testament? The word "testament" is found nowhere in the in the "old testament" books.

Because in the Old Testament, they weren't the 'old' Testament until the new came which made the 'old' old.

A testament IS a covenant. The books of the "old" testament are called that because the central focus in on the "old" covenant. The books of the "new testament" are called that because it focuses on the new covenant ushered in under Christ.

No, you had better read Heb.9:16-17 again, a covenent doesn't demand the death of anyone to be active but a testament does.

It is just that simple.

You have no evidence on your side, other than to keep stating your opinion. Even your definition of testament doesn't jibe with reality.

It most certainly does since covenants were made all the time and went into force without anyone dying.

Heb.9:16 states very clearly,

for where a testament is, there must also be of necessity the death of the testator.

Clear enough?

A covenant doesn't require the death of the one making the covenant as the NASB states.

That is made evident in the Old Testament time and time again.

Thus, even the NIV saw that they couldn't use covenant for that verse since one can make a covenant that goes into effect without anyone dying.

That is shown clearly in the Old Testament many times!

A testament however requires the death of the testator before it goes into force.

Thus, Christ had to die to pay for the sins of the world.

So, you have to ignore two clear verses, Heb.8:11 and Heb.9:16 to maintain your false theology.

'Men loved darkness rather than light'

19 posted on 03/26/2008 4:01:00 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
No need to go on because a Testament is different from a Covenant, a Covenant doesn't require the death of anyone, a testament does.

Of course there's no need to go on. I post proof after proof from dictionary after dictionary and you still insist your opinion is the correct one. There's no accounting for stubbornness.

I've more than made my point so I'm not going to argue with you anymore since you just keep repeating the same things.

20 posted on 03/26/2008 2:14:41 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
[No need to go on because a Testament is different from a Covenant, a Covenant doesn't require the death of anyone, a testament does.]

Of course there's no need to go on. I post proof after proof from dictionary after dictionary and you still insist your opinion is the correct one. There's no accounting for stubbornness. I've more than made my point so I'm not going to argue with you anymore since you just keep repeating the same things.

Really?

Can you show one definition that states that a covenant requires the death of the one making of the covenant?

You can't, because no convenant requires that.

But, as Heb.9:16 states, a Testament does.

So, stop blowing smoke and admit that you are wrong.

Heb.9:16-17 makes it very clear that the word cannot be covenant, (which is why even the NIV put in will and not covenant), it has to be Testament, since a covenant doesn't require the death of anyone to go into force- now does it or not!

What you keep posting has nothing to do with what the verse is saying.

No more than your lame attempt to wiggle out of Heb.8:11 which speaks of what will occur in the New Covenant, not as it develops.

Now, if you can find a dictionary that states a covenant doesn't go into effect unless the one making the covenant dies, produce it or admit that the Bible is speaking of two different things.

If not, just go back to the false theology.

21 posted on 03/26/2008 2:43:37 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Can you show one definition that states that a covenant requires the death of the one making of the covenant? You can't, because no convenant requires that.

I've told you, you win. All the experts and all the dictionaries are wrong. Only your opinion is correct.

22 posted on 03/26/2008 6:21:15 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
[Can you show one definition that states that a covenant requires the death of the one making of the covenant? You can't, because no convenant requires that.]

I've told you, you win. All the experts and all the dictionaries are wrong. Only your opinion is correct.

You didn't produce any dictionary or expert that stated that a covenant required the death of the one making the conveant, because it doesn't.

That is made very clear by the Bible itself.

So, the passage in Heb.9:16-17 cannot be translated with the word covenant, since there is no necessity for the death of the one making the covenant in order for it to go into effect.

So, the correct word is Testament, and not covenant.

And you produced nothing to contradict that fact because it is a fact, and facts are stubborn things.

Gen.21: 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned. 24 And Abraham said, I will swear. 25 And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of a well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away. 26 And Abimelech said, I wot not who hath done this thing; neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to day. 27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and both of them made a covenant

A covenant is made and no one had to die for it to into effect.

9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Clear enough?

a Testament requires death, a covenant doesn't.

But go back to the Law, with its 'weak and beggerly elements' that do nothing but put you into bondage (Gal.4:9), just don't claim that it has anything to do with New Testament Christianity-it doesn't.

23 posted on 03/27/2008 3:42:48 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
I've told you, you win. All the experts and all the dictionaries are wrong. Only your opinion is correct. You didn't produce any dictionary or expert that stated that a covenant required the death of the one making the conveant, because it doesn't.

You win. All the dictionaries are wrong and you're right. Bask in your victory.

24 posted on 03/27/2008 4:01:56 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Great post, ZC. I’m sorry I did not read it earlier.


25 posted on 09/24/2008 3:56:53 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Hey, your post is the only one on my entire "pings" page!

Well, there goes years of my wisdom down the cyberdrain!

26 posted on 09/24/2008 4:22:59 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Hanistarot LeHaShem 'Eloqeynu; vehaniglot lanu ulevaneynu `ad-`olam . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson