Brother Vinny
Active member
Thanks for a reply that was as respectful as it was informative.
Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Thanks for a reply that was as respectful as it was informative.
brandplucked
New member
God's Book - the King James Bible
God's Book - the King James Bible
Hi Will D. OK. Let's see what you have. Thanks
God's Book - the King James Bible
Hi Will D. OK. Let's see what you have. Thanks
brandplucked
New member
Philippians 3:20
Philippians 3:20
Philippians 3:20 "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."
The word "conversation" in this verse if often criticized by those who do not believe the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God. In fact, the people I have heard criticize this verse do not believe any Bible or any text is the inerrant, complete and preserved words of God.
Lately I have run into two people at the Baptist Board who criticized this verse as it stands in the King James Bible. One of them writes: "Archaic words may not be wrong. The word "conversation" for example is an archaic word that although today means "speech," then it meant "behaviour," or "manner of life." But we come to a problem in Philippians 3:20. For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Is our speech in Heaven? No. Is our behaviour, our way of life in Heaven? No. Then what is in Heaven? What is meant by "conversation" that the KJV so poorly translated here, and for all intent and purposes were in error."
Aside from the bad grammar of this Bible critic who assumes to know more than the 54 or more learned men whom God used to put together the undisputed masterpiece of the English language, this same man thinks the word ekklesia should never be translated as "church", even though the NKJV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NIV, Holman CSB all do so, just like the King James Bible.
He also thinks the word baptizo should be translated as immerse and not as baptize. "Immersion" is being submerged into water, - glug, glug, glug; whereas baptism is going under the water and coming back up again - a picture of our identification with the crucified and risen Christ. Almost every Bible version I know of translates the word as "baptize" and not "immerse". This guy needs to write his own bible version. That is the only one he will ever be happy with.
The other man who criticises the word "conversation" had this to say when I asked him these simple questions.
Question #1 Do you personally believe there is any Bible or any single Hebrew and/or Greek text that is now the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God? Or do you believe there is any text in any language that is now the inerrant, complete words of God. If so, what is it called?
Answer - "No, I do not. I believe that each manuscript or fragment is reliant upon others for support, but we will never have anything conclusive until we see God in Glory (1Corinthians 13:12). To believe that any human or group of humans could perfectly preserve the original text, as well as the true intention of the text, is to elevate these men to the status of God. (Job 42:3)
Question #2 Do you believe that all Hebrew texts have been corrupted or miscopied in some places, as in Judges 14:15 for example? I have many other examples I could site, but this one will suffice for my present purposes.
Answer #2 "I believe that they all contain errors of various sorts, but they do not neccessarily occur in the same places. We are left with examining "majorities" of "agreements."
It is obvious that neither one of these Bible critics has any inspired, inerrant, tangible Holy Bible he believes is the pure words of God, but they are quite eager to point out what they think are errors in the King James Bible.
Now to address the issue of the word "conversation" as used by the King James translators.
First of all, the King James Bible is not the only one to translate this word as "conversation" in Philippians 3:20. So do Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay Rheims Version 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza New Testament 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation, the Worsley Version 1770, the Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Webster's 1833 translation, the Hussey N.T. 1845, the Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Evidence Bible 2003, the Bond Slave Version 2009, and The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - "our CONVERSATION is in heaven."
The Great Bible 1540 - "But oure conuersacyon is in heauen, from whence we loke for the saueoure, euen þe Lorde Iesus Chryst"
The Geneva Bible 1587 - "But our conuersation is in heauen, from whence also we looke for the Sauiour, euen the Lord Iesus Christ"
Webster's 1833 - "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"
Other versions have translated this word in a variety of ways.
Wycliffe 1395 - "our LIVING is in heaven"
Third Millennium Bible - "For our ABIDING is in Heaven..."
Moffatt N.T. 1913 - "we are A COLONY of heaven"
NKJV, Holman, NRSV, NASB, NIV - "For our CITIZENSHIP is in heaven..."
Revised Standard Version 1952 "But our COMMONWEALTH is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"
Bible in Basic English 1960 - "But our COUNTRY is in heaven..."
Darby - "But our COMMONWEALTH HAS ITS EXISTENCE in the heavens..."
Weymouth - "We, however, ARE FREE CITIZENS of Heaven..."
Sawyer N.T. - "but our KINGDOM is in heaven"
New Century Version - "But our HOMELAND is in heaven..."
Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "But our LABOURS are in heavenly things.."
James Murdock's 1852 translation of the Syriac - "But our CONCERN is in heaven..."
Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the 1999 Las Sagradas Escrituras - "Mas nuestra VIVIENDA es en los cielos". The word "vivienda" means "living quarters".
Bible Commentaries:
John Wesley comments: "Our conversation - The Greek word is of a very extenslve meaning: our citizenship, our thoughts, our affections, are already in heaven."
Matthew Henry notes: " For our conversation is in heaven. Observe, Good Christians, even while they are here on earth, have their CONVERSATION in heaven. Their citizenship is there, politeuma. As if he had said, We stand related to that world, and are citizens of the New Jerusalem. This world is not our home, but that is. There our greatest privileges and concerns lie. And, because our citizenship is there, our CONVERSATION is there; being related to that world, we keep up a correspondence with it. THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN IS IN HEAVEN, where his head is, and his home is, and where he hopes to be shortly; he sets his affections upon things above; and where his heart is there will his CONVERSATION be."
I have capitalized certain words above to show that Matthew Henry still uses the word "conversation" to bring out both senses of this word. One meaning is "citizenship" and the other is "manner of life". The Christian's very life and home are in heaven.
Other modern commentators also bring out the two meanings of this word. I will again capitalize several words to highlight the meaning as found in the King James Bible.
Mr. Cook refers to both meanings of the word, one being our citizenship and the other being our lifestyle or manner of living.
Ron Cook, in The Christian Lifestyle, says of this passage: "A verse that sheds more light on this is Philippians 3:20: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" It is not as it was, where our CONVERSATION in times past were in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others (Eph. 2:3). As Christians there has been a radical change in position for we now function as citizens of heaven and OUR PERFORMANCE AND MANNER OF LIFE is from a heavenly perspective and not an worldly one... This is emphatic; we are to have such a LIFESTYLE that allows us to patiently await the return of Christ. Our affections have been changed; our corrupt nature has been change to a glorious nature; we have been translated from this world to reside in heavenly places. The union that we have in Christ has placed us in a new position, a legal position. This new position requires A NEW LIFESTYLE. If we are to reside in "heavenly places" we must be a stranger to the old lifestyle and a pilgrim in this world. We must reject that which rendered pleasure in this world and seek after the high calling of God. Our dreams, aspirations, and goals are now defined from a spiritual standpoint and not a self-seeking, self-gratifying, self-fulfilling worldly view."
John Gill aptly wrote, "the city whereof we are freemen is heaven, and WE BEHAVE OURSELVES here below, as citizens of the city above;" Although we have not yet obtained to that heavenly city, our mind, heart, desire, is be on that which we most long for. And what is it that the Christian is longing for? We seek, we desire, we await, to be with Christ. Contrast the difference of the desires of the world’s LIFESTYLE with the desires of the Christian. One is a selfish pleasure seeking carnality while the other is a desire to be complete in Christ. Such completeness can only be realized in its fullness when we reside with Christ upon our departure from this world. Yet, we are TO CONDUCT OURSELVES in such a manner and we are TO LIVE AS THOUGH WE ARE ALREADY THERE.. Our desires are not worldly but heavenly."
The meaning of the word in both English and Greek.
Conversation
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
1. General course of manners; behavior; deportment; especially as it respects morals.
Let your conversation be as becometh the gospel. Philippians 1:27.
Be ye holy in all manner of conversation. 1 Peter 1:15.
2. A keeping company; familiar intercourse; intimate fellowship or association; commerce in social life. Knowledge of men and manners is best acquired by conversation with the best company.
3. Intimate and familiar acquaintance; as a conversation with books, or other object.
4. Familiar discourse; general intercourse of sentiments; chat; unrestrained talk; opposed to a formal conference.
Websters modern dictionary con·ver·sa·tion
Etymology: Middle English conversacioun, from Middle French conversation, from Latin conversation-, conversatio, from conversari to associate with, frequentative of convertere to turn around
1 obsolete: conduct, behavior
2 oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas : an instance of such exchange: talk.
The Greek word
As John Wesley noted, the Greek word has a variety of meanings. According to Wigram's Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, the word used in Philippians 3:20 is politeuma. It is found only one time and it comes from the verb politeuomai which is used twice in the New Testament. The verb is used in Acts 23:1 "I HAVE LIVED in all good conscience before God until this day."
The second instance is in Philippians 1:27 where we see the same English word as found in the King James Bible. "Only LET YOUR CONVERSATION BE as it becometh the gospel of Christ.". Here most modern versions translate this as "live your life" - Holman; "conduct yourselves" - NASB, NIV; "let your conduct be" - NKJV; "let your manner of life be" - ESV.
The purely secular Diury's Modern Greek Dictionary shows that the verb, from which this noun is taken, still means today "to act" or "to conduct onself".
Many older Bible versions read the same as the King James Bible with "Let your conversation be...". These include Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the Geneva Bibles.
There are differing opinions among scholars as to what this Greek word, both the verb and the noun, means. According to Kittel's nine volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume VI page 526, the verb as used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament means "to walk" rather than "to be a citizen", and the author says the noun politeia does not mean civil rights, constitution or state, but rather it is "the pious order of life".
On page 534 he discusses the use of the verb politeuomai in the New Testament as found in Acts 23:1 and Philippians 1:27. He says: "In both cases it is used with no political implications" but it describes "a walk which is shaped by religion." These definitions would agree more with the sense of the King James Bible reading.
Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon lists several meanings for the Greek words used. Among them are: 1. to be a citizen or a freeman; 2. to take part in government, 3. to deal with others in private affairs, and 4. to behave - then it references Philippians 1:27 as an example of this use. The last two meanings would be the sense found in the KJB.
Thayer's Greek-English lexicon also lists several meanings, including: 1. to be a citizen, 2. to behave as a citizen, 3. to conduct oneself as pledged to some law of life. The last two definitions also fit the KJB meaning.
Finally Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich also list the same various meanings of the verb and noun, one of which is "to live", to "conduct oneself", "to live one's life".
If we follow the context of Philippians 3 we see that the apostle Paul is exhorting the Christians regarding their practical, everday walk with the Lord. "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample...."For our conversation (our manner of life, our walk, our behaviour) is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body..."
Actually it is the King James Bible that brings out the better of the two meanings rather than the newer versions that limit the context merely to the place of our "citizenship". We can be citizens of heaven but live like the world in which we find ourselves. Most of us do this too much now. The King James rendering follows the context of the passage; reminds us that our true life, behaviour and affections are in heaven, and exhorts us to live accordingly.
We find the same positional truth expressed in such verses as Colossians 3:1-4 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."
Ephesians 1:4-6 also tell us that we are now seated in heaven with Christ - "But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us...hath quickened us together with Christ...And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
Our life is hid with God in Christ. We are seated in the heavenly places, and our life or "conversation" - to use an older and now archaic word - is in heaven. The apostle exhorts us to live now as we will be living then. This is the truth presented in the King James Holy Bible.
Will Kinney
Philippians 3:20
Philippians 3:20 "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ."
The word "conversation" in this verse if often criticized by those who do not believe the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God. In fact, the people I have heard criticize this verse do not believe any Bible or any text is the inerrant, complete and preserved words of God.
Lately I have run into two people at the Baptist Board who criticized this verse as it stands in the King James Bible. One of them writes: "Archaic words may not be wrong. The word "conversation" for example is an archaic word that although today means "speech," then it meant "behaviour," or "manner of life." But we come to a problem in Philippians 3:20. For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Is our speech in Heaven? No. Is our behaviour, our way of life in Heaven? No. Then what is in Heaven? What is meant by "conversation" that the KJV so poorly translated here, and for all intent and purposes were in error."
Aside from the bad grammar of this Bible critic who assumes to know more than the 54 or more learned men whom God used to put together the undisputed masterpiece of the English language, this same man thinks the word ekklesia should never be translated as "church", even though the NKJV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NIV, Holman CSB all do so, just like the King James Bible.
He also thinks the word baptizo should be translated as immerse and not as baptize. "Immersion" is being submerged into water, - glug, glug, glug; whereas baptism is going under the water and coming back up again - a picture of our identification with the crucified and risen Christ. Almost every Bible version I know of translates the word as "baptize" and not "immerse". This guy needs to write his own bible version. That is the only one he will ever be happy with.
The other man who criticises the word "conversation" had this to say when I asked him these simple questions.
Question #1 Do you personally believe there is any Bible or any single Hebrew and/or Greek text that is now the complete, inerrant, inspired words of God? Or do you believe there is any text in any language that is now the inerrant, complete words of God. If so, what is it called?
Answer - "No, I do not. I believe that each manuscript or fragment is reliant upon others for support, but we will never have anything conclusive until we see God in Glory (1Corinthians 13:12). To believe that any human or group of humans could perfectly preserve the original text, as well as the true intention of the text, is to elevate these men to the status of God. (Job 42:3)
Question #2 Do you believe that all Hebrew texts have been corrupted or miscopied in some places, as in Judges 14:15 for example? I have many other examples I could site, but this one will suffice for my present purposes.
Answer #2 "I believe that they all contain errors of various sorts, but they do not neccessarily occur in the same places. We are left with examining "majorities" of "agreements."
It is obvious that neither one of these Bible critics has any inspired, inerrant, tangible Holy Bible he believes is the pure words of God, but they are quite eager to point out what they think are errors in the King James Bible.
Now to address the issue of the word "conversation" as used by the King James translators.
First of all, the King James Bible is not the only one to translate this word as "conversation" in Philippians 3:20. So do Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, Douay Rheims Version 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza New Testament 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation, the Worsley Version 1770, the Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, Webster's 1833 translation, the Hussey N.T. 1845, the Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Evidence Bible 2003, the Bond Slave Version 2009, and The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011 - "our CONVERSATION is in heaven."
The Great Bible 1540 - "But oure conuersacyon is in heauen, from whence we loke for the saueoure, euen þe Lorde Iesus Chryst"
The Geneva Bible 1587 - "But our conuersation is in heauen, from whence also we looke for the Sauiour, euen the Lord Iesus Christ"
Webster's 1833 - "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"
Other versions have translated this word in a variety of ways.
Wycliffe 1395 - "our LIVING is in heaven"
Third Millennium Bible - "For our ABIDING is in Heaven..."
Moffatt N.T. 1913 - "we are A COLONY of heaven"
NKJV, Holman, NRSV, NASB, NIV - "For our CITIZENSHIP is in heaven..."
Revised Standard Version 1952 "But our COMMONWEALTH is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ"
Bible in Basic English 1960 - "But our COUNTRY is in heaven..."
Darby - "But our COMMONWEALTH HAS ITS EXISTENCE in the heavens..."
Weymouth - "We, however, ARE FREE CITIZENS of Heaven..."
Sawyer N.T. - "but our KINGDOM is in heaven"
New Century Version - "But our HOMELAND is in heaven..."
Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "But our LABOURS are in heavenly things.."
James Murdock's 1852 translation of the Syriac - "But our CONCERN is in heaven..."
Spanish Reina Valera 1909, and the 1999 Las Sagradas Escrituras - "Mas nuestra VIVIENDA es en los cielos". The word "vivienda" means "living quarters".
Bible Commentaries:
John Wesley comments: "Our conversation - The Greek word is of a very extenslve meaning: our citizenship, our thoughts, our affections, are already in heaven."
Matthew Henry notes: " For our conversation is in heaven. Observe, Good Christians, even while they are here on earth, have their CONVERSATION in heaven. Their citizenship is there, politeuma. As if he had said, We stand related to that world, and are citizens of the New Jerusalem. This world is not our home, but that is. There our greatest privileges and concerns lie. And, because our citizenship is there, our CONVERSATION is there; being related to that world, we keep up a correspondence with it. THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN IS IN HEAVEN, where his head is, and his home is, and where he hopes to be shortly; he sets his affections upon things above; and where his heart is there will his CONVERSATION be."
I have capitalized certain words above to show that Matthew Henry still uses the word "conversation" to bring out both senses of this word. One meaning is "citizenship" and the other is "manner of life". The Christian's very life and home are in heaven.
Other modern commentators also bring out the two meanings of this word. I will again capitalize several words to highlight the meaning as found in the King James Bible.
Mr. Cook refers to both meanings of the word, one being our citizenship and the other being our lifestyle or manner of living.
Ron Cook, in The Christian Lifestyle, says of this passage: "A verse that sheds more light on this is Philippians 3:20: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:" It is not as it was, where our CONVERSATION in times past were in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others (Eph. 2:3). As Christians there has been a radical change in position for we now function as citizens of heaven and OUR PERFORMANCE AND MANNER OF LIFE is from a heavenly perspective and not an worldly one... This is emphatic; we are to have such a LIFESTYLE that allows us to patiently await the return of Christ. Our affections have been changed; our corrupt nature has been change to a glorious nature; we have been translated from this world to reside in heavenly places. The union that we have in Christ has placed us in a new position, a legal position. This new position requires A NEW LIFESTYLE. If we are to reside in "heavenly places" we must be a stranger to the old lifestyle and a pilgrim in this world. We must reject that which rendered pleasure in this world and seek after the high calling of God. Our dreams, aspirations, and goals are now defined from a spiritual standpoint and not a self-seeking, self-gratifying, self-fulfilling worldly view."
John Gill aptly wrote, "the city whereof we are freemen is heaven, and WE BEHAVE OURSELVES here below, as citizens of the city above;" Although we have not yet obtained to that heavenly city, our mind, heart, desire, is be on that which we most long for. And what is it that the Christian is longing for? We seek, we desire, we await, to be with Christ. Contrast the difference of the desires of the world’s LIFESTYLE with the desires of the Christian. One is a selfish pleasure seeking carnality while the other is a desire to be complete in Christ. Such completeness can only be realized in its fullness when we reside with Christ upon our departure from this world. Yet, we are TO CONDUCT OURSELVES in such a manner and we are TO LIVE AS THOUGH WE ARE ALREADY THERE.. Our desires are not worldly but heavenly."
The meaning of the word in both English and Greek.
Conversation
Webster's 1828 Dictionary
1. General course of manners; behavior; deportment; especially as it respects morals.
Let your conversation be as becometh the gospel. Philippians 1:27.
Be ye holy in all manner of conversation. 1 Peter 1:15.
2. A keeping company; familiar intercourse; intimate fellowship or association; commerce in social life. Knowledge of men and manners is best acquired by conversation with the best company.
3. Intimate and familiar acquaintance; as a conversation with books, or other object.
4. Familiar discourse; general intercourse of sentiments; chat; unrestrained talk; opposed to a formal conference.
Websters modern dictionary con·ver·sa·tion
Etymology: Middle English conversacioun, from Middle French conversation, from Latin conversation-, conversatio, from conversari to associate with, frequentative of convertere to turn around
1 obsolete: conduct, behavior
2 oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas : an instance of such exchange: talk.
The Greek word
As John Wesley noted, the Greek word has a variety of meanings. According to Wigram's Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, the word used in Philippians 3:20 is politeuma. It is found only one time and it comes from the verb politeuomai which is used twice in the New Testament. The verb is used in Acts 23:1 "I HAVE LIVED in all good conscience before God until this day."
The second instance is in Philippians 1:27 where we see the same English word as found in the King James Bible. "Only LET YOUR CONVERSATION BE as it becometh the gospel of Christ.". Here most modern versions translate this as "live your life" - Holman; "conduct yourselves" - NASB, NIV; "let your conduct be" - NKJV; "let your manner of life be" - ESV.
The purely secular Diury's Modern Greek Dictionary shows that the verb, from which this noun is taken, still means today "to act" or "to conduct onself".
Many older Bible versions read the same as the King James Bible with "Let your conversation be...". These include Tyndale, Coverdale, the Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the Geneva Bibles.
There are differing opinions among scholars as to what this Greek word, both the verb and the noun, means. According to Kittel's nine volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume VI page 526, the verb as used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament means "to walk" rather than "to be a citizen", and the author says the noun politeia does not mean civil rights, constitution or state, but rather it is "the pious order of life".
On page 534 he discusses the use of the verb politeuomai in the New Testament as found in Acts 23:1 and Philippians 1:27. He says: "In both cases it is used with no political implications" but it describes "a walk which is shaped by religion." These definitions would agree more with the sense of the King James Bible reading.
Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon lists several meanings for the Greek words used. Among them are: 1. to be a citizen or a freeman; 2. to take part in government, 3. to deal with others in private affairs, and 4. to behave - then it references Philippians 1:27 as an example of this use. The last two meanings would be the sense found in the KJB.
Thayer's Greek-English lexicon also lists several meanings, including: 1. to be a citizen, 2. to behave as a citizen, 3. to conduct oneself as pledged to some law of life. The last two definitions also fit the KJB meaning.
Finally Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich also list the same various meanings of the verb and noun, one of which is "to live", to "conduct oneself", "to live one's life".
If we follow the context of Philippians 3 we see that the apostle Paul is exhorting the Christians regarding their practical, everday walk with the Lord. "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample...."For our conversation (our manner of life, our walk, our behaviour) is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body..."
Actually it is the King James Bible that brings out the better of the two meanings rather than the newer versions that limit the context merely to the place of our "citizenship". We can be citizens of heaven but live like the world in which we find ourselves. Most of us do this too much now. The King James rendering follows the context of the passage; reminds us that our true life, behaviour and affections are in heaven, and exhorts us to live accordingly.
We find the same positional truth expressed in such verses as Colossians 3:1-4 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."
Ephesians 1:4-6 also tell us that we are now seated in heaven with Christ - "But God who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us...hath quickened us together with Christ...And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus."
Our life is hid with God in Christ. We are seated in the heavenly places, and our life or "conversation" - to use an older and now archaic word - is in heaven. The apostle exhorts us to live now as we will be living then. This is the truth presented in the King James Holy Bible.
Will Kinney
Didn't you claim that people wrote them wrong? Yes. And you claim only one got the correction right, which is the KJB? So they are correcting God's words using your standard. You are a buffoon and your presentation could have been better written by my 3rd grader.
Last edited:
brandplucked
New member
Psalms 138:2 magnified thy word ABOVE all thy name
Psalms 138:2 magnified thy word ABOVE all thy name
Hi BV. You kept asking "How do you know?" the KJB got it right.
If you had actually read the article, I explained why the KJB is right.
Psalm 138:2 “above all your name” is also the reading found in The Word of Yah 1993, Green’s Literal 2005, Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Conservative Bible 2011, and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - “for You have exalted Your WORD ABOVE ALL YOUR NAME."
Foreign language Bibles that read like the KJB are the French Martin 1744 “car tu as magnifié ta parole au-dessus de toute ta renommée”, the Italian Diodati 1649 “tu hai magnificata la tua parola, sopra ogni tua fama.” the Portuguese Almeida Corriigida E Fiel and the A Biblia Sagrada em Portugues - "pois engrandeceste a tua palavra acima de todo o teu nome.", the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 - "porque has magnificado tu palabra SOBRE TODO TU NOMBRE." and the 2004-2010 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez translation - "porque has magnificado tu palabra por sobre todo tu nombre." This is literally what it says.
The NASB however says: "For Thou hast magnified Thy word ACCORDING TO all Thy name".
The word is # 5921 - (al) - and it means "above" as in Gen. 1:7 "the waters were ABOVE the firmament", Gen.27:39 "the dew from heaven ABOVE.", Psalm 8:1 "hast set thy glory ABOVE the heavens", Psalm 95:3 "a great king ABOVE all gods", Psalm 97:9 "thou Lord, art high ABOVE all the earth", Psalm 99:2 "he is high ABOVE all the people", Psalm 137:6 "prefer not Jerusalem ABOVE my chief joy" etc.
The NIV 1984 edition, Holman, and the 2001 ESV read: "You have exalted above all things your name and your word."
Just by switching a few words around they have changed the meaning of the whole sentence. But at least they correctly translated "above" whereas the NASB did not.
However the new NIV of 2011 has utterly changed even what the old NIV said. The NIV 1984 edition said: "for you have exalted ABOVE ALL THINGS YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORD."
But the new NIV 2011 now reads: "for your unfailing love and your faithfulness, for you have so exalted YOUR SOLEMN DECREE THAT IT SURPASSES YOUR FAME." They changed "word" to "solemn decree" and "your name" to "your fame". This is a completely different meaning than the "old" NIV.
The RSV is interesting in that it reads: "Thou hast exalted above everything thing Thy name and Thy word." It reads basically like the NIV, ESV, but the RSV tells us in their footnotes: - 'Hebrew "exalted Thy word ABOVE all thy name."
The NRSV reads like the RSV, and its footnote tells us that the Hebrew literally says what is found in the KJB. A similar footnote is found in the ESV.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/psalm1382.htm
And since you do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, that makes you just another bible agnostic. If you don't like being called what you are, then ask God to show you where His 100% true Book is and the faith to believe it.
Psalms 138:2 magnified thy word ABOVE all thy name
Hi BV. You kept asking "How do you know?" the KJB got it right.
If you had actually read the article, I explained why the KJB is right.
Psalm 138:2 “above all your name” is also the reading found in The Word of Yah 1993, Green’s Literal 2005, Context Group Version 2007, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol), Conservative Bible 2011, and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - “for You have exalted Your WORD ABOVE ALL YOUR NAME."
Foreign language Bibles that read like the KJB are the French Martin 1744 “car tu as magnifié ta parole au-dessus de toute ta renommée”, the Italian Diodati 1649 “tu hai magnificata la tua parola, sopra ogni tua fama.” the Portuguese Almeida Corriigida E Fiel and the A Biblia Sagrada em Portugues - "pois engrandeceste a tua palavra acima de todo o teu nome.", the Spanish Cipriano de Valera 1602 - "porque has magnificado tu palabra SOBRE TODO TU NOMBRE." and the 2004-2010 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez translation - "porque has magnificado tu palabra por sobre todo tu nombre." This is literally what it says.
The NASB however says: "For Thou hast magnified Thy word ACCORDING TO all Thy name".
The word is # 5921 - (al) - and it means "above" as in Gen. 1:7 "the waters were ABOVE the firmament", Gen.27:39 "the dew from heaven ABOVE.", Psalm 8:1 "hast set thy glory ABOVE the heavens", Psalm 95:3 "a great king ABOVE all gods", Psalm 97:9 "thou Lord, art high ABOVE all the earth", Psalm 99:2 "he is high ABOVE all the people", Psalm 137:6 "prefer not Jerusalem ABOVE my chief joy" etc.
The NIV 1984 edition, Holman, and the 2001 ESV read: "You have exalted above all things your name and your word."
Just by switching a few words around they have changed the meaning of the whole sentence. But at least they correctly translated "above" whereas the NASB did not.
However the new NIV of 2011 has utterly changed even what the old NIV said. The NIV 1984 edition said: "for you have exalted ABOVE ALL THINGS YOUR NAME AND YOUR WORD."
But the new NIV 2011 now reads: "for your unfailing love and your faithfulness, for you have so exalted YOUR SOLEMN DECREE THAT IT SURPASSES YOUR FAME." They changed "word" to "solemn decree" and "your name" to "your fame". This is a completely different meaning than the "old" NIV.
The RSV is interesting in that it reads: "Thou hast exalted above everything thing Thy name and Thy word." It reads basically like the NIV, ESV, but the RSV tells us in their footnotes: - 'Hebrew "exalted Thy word ABOVE all thy name."
The NRSV reads like the RSV, and its footnote tells us that the Hebrew literally says what is found in the KJB. A similar footnote is found in the ESV.
http://brandplucked.webs.com/psalm1382.htm
And since you do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, that makes you just another bible agnostic. If you don't like being called what you are, then ask God to show you where His 100% true Book is and the faith to believe it.
It is an improvement for the times we live in.
And another instance where other versions have a clearer translation than the KJV.
And this translation is not about any sort of archaic dialect, but is just in the way that the words are phrased in English.
Titus 2:13 KJV
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Titus 2:13 NIV
13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Titus 2:13 NIV
13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
This is one of those instances where the NIV is an improvement over the KJV.
In the Greek it is clear it is speaking of one person.
Because of the English, the KJV can be (and has been) used to say that it is speaking of two, not one (because as the sentence is phrased in English makes it ambiguous, so it could go either way).
The NIV makes it clear that it is only about one person and is a clearer translation of the Greek.
brandplucked
New member
Which KJB
Which KJB
Hi tetelestai. Are you ready to admit the fact that you do not believe that any Bible in any language (including "the" Greek and Hebrew) is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God? Yes or No?
I already answered this question many times. You just don't like the answer. I have a hard copy of the inerrant words of God right here on my desk. It is the Cambridge printing of the King James Bible. Go to any bookstore and pick one up.
You are not looking for answers. You are looking for problems. And your big problem is that you do not really believe in the existence of a complete and inerrant Bible.
Now you are looking for some way to feel better about your basic unbelief.
Which KJB
Hi tetelestai. Are you ready to admit the fact that you do not believe that any Bible in any language (including "the" Greek and Hebrew) is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God? Yes or No?
I already answered this question many times. You just don't like the answer. I have a hard copy of the inerrant words of God right here on my desk. It is the Cambridge printing of the King James Bible. Go to any bookstore and pick one up.
You are not looking for answers. You are looking for problems. And your big problem is that you do not really believe in the existence of a complete and inerrant Bible.
Now you are looking for some way to feel better about your basic unbelief.
Context of Paul's gospel and logic.
brandplucked
New member
Titus 2:13 and the superiority of the King James Bible
Titus 2:13 and the superiority of the King James Bible
Wrong again. Don't believe James Wite Out.
James White and his criticism of Titus 2:13 in the King James Bible
Titus 2:13 - " Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
James White has a lot to say in his book, The King James Version Controversy, about how badly he thinks the King James Bible mangles the meaning of this verse and obscures the Deity of Christ. On page 81 he says: "the KJV is shown to be wanting in Titus 2:13." On page 201 he says, regarding Titus 2:13 in the KJB: "The simple fact is that the KJV provides an inferior translation, one that unintentionally detracts from the presentation of the full deity of Jesus Christ. The unwillingness of KJV defenders to overlook this fact is most disturbing." [End of James White's comments]
James White is entitled to his personal opinions, but there are a couple of things you should know about this man. He SAYS he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God, but if you ask him to show you a copy of this infallible Bible he professes to believe in, he will never tell you. He will immediately try to change the subject.
Secondly, I believe he and many like him have been deceived when it comes to the Bible version issue. The modern version he promotes like the ESV, NIV, NASB are all in fact the new Vatican Versions. The Vatican has made a formal agreement with the United Bible Society to create an "inter confessional" text to unite "the separated brethren" and one of the main editors of this text was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini. Nobody seriously believes any of these modern versions are the inerrant words of God; certainly not the people who put them together. Don't believe it? Then please see my article and the links found in it called James White - the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions
http://brandplucked.webs.com/jameswhiteppopevv.htm
And thirdly, James White is completely wrong in his understanding and analysis of Titus 2:13 as it stands not only in the King James Bible but in many others as well. The King James Bible is actually the most literal translation of the Greek text here and it brings out a special truth that apparently is hidden from Bible correctors like James White.
Titus 2:13 “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of THE GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ;”
Here the critics like James White and others say the KJB rendering does not fully bring out the deity of Jesus Christ. I don’t really understand what they are talking about, because when I read this passage, it clearly declares that Jesus Christ is both the great God as well as our Saviour.
Even a basic Greek grammar book like Dana and Mantey in their book A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, on page 147 when discussing the definite article with nouns connected by kai, give Titus 2:13 as one of the examples - του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου - and then state in no uncertain terms - "After the same manner, του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου, ASSERTS THAT JESUS IS THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR."
"Scholarly opinions" are constantly changing. What one affirms, another denies. I do not place my trust in them. The "scholars" and those who follow them, can always say "Oh, well scholars used to believe that way, but now we know better." It is just musical chairs. Then somebody else will come along with his new theory or "deep insight" and disagree with those who have gone before him. I have zero confidence in the so called scholars.
But when I read the passage in Titus 2:13, it clearly says to me that Jesus Christ is both the great God and our Saviour.
The verse says: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious APPEARING of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Since God the Father is a spirit and is invisible, then He cannot appear Himself. So who is this "the great God" that appears in such a way that we will actually see Him? It is the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is the great God of everybody, saved and unsaved, but He is also OUR Saviour. For me, the KJB makes perfect sense and it does follow the Greek word order. It is the fake bibles like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV etc. that change things and miss the point.
Dr. Larry Bednar, who also addresses this passage at his KJV Textual Technology site correctly asks: "One wonders if White thinks saints and faithful brethren (Col.1:2) separates saints and faithful brethren, as if they were two different types. Or does he think God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col.1:3) separates God from the Father, as if the Father were not God?"
http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/kjv-classical-language-of-emphasis.php
The NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB translate this verse in different ways. They don't even agree with each other. The NKJV is not quite as bad as the NIV, NASB, ESV in that it says: "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of OUR great God and Savior Jesus Christ".
The NKJV does not follow the literal Greek word order as does the King James Bible and it obscures the full and wonderful truths we see in the King James Bible.
But the NIV, NASB, ESV don't have us looking for THE APPEARING OF GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ" but instead looking for THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." God's glory and His actually appearance can be two different things. The heaven declare the glory of God, but it is not God Himself.
At one of the forums a Vatican Version defender and unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible, named Sam, posted: “As you can see the word for “appearing” (επιφανειαν) precedes the words “the glory” (της δοξης). So if we go by word order then the versions which read “and appearing of the glory…” are more correct. However, the reason why some versions along with the AV render the phrase “glorious appearing” is because they take the words της δοξης (“the glory”) as an adjective modifying the word επιφανειαν (“appearing”). So it isn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Therefore, you need to either revamp your article to address these points or, better yet, you need to simply drop this point altogether since such an argument only provides further documentation for your inconsistency.”
To whom I responded: Sam, is it wrong to use a Greek noun in conjunction with another noun and translated it as an adjective? Yes or No? The fact is, even in his modern Vatican versions they do the same thing with the same word "glory" (της δοξης) and make it an adjective when connected to the main noun in a phrase.
For example, the ESV does this both in Philippians 3:21 - "to be like his GLORIOUS body" (συμμορφον τω σωματι της δοξης αυτου) and in Colossians 1:11 - "according to his GLORIOUS might" (κατα το κρατος της δοξης αυτου).
The NASB does this same thing with the same word in Colossians 1:11 and in 1 Timothy 1:11 "according to the GLORIOUS gospel" (κατα το ευαγγελιον της δοξης) and the NIV does the same in 2 Corinthians 3:8 "the ministration of the Spirit be even more GLORIOUS" (διακονια του πνευματος εσται εν δοξη), in Philippians 3:21 "his glorious body" and in Colossians 1:11 "his glorious might".
While the NKJV does the same thing with the same word in Romans 8:21 - "the GLORIOUS liberty of the children of God" (την ελευθεριαν της δοξης των τεκνων του θεου), 2 Corinthians 3 verses 7, 8 and 11 (twice) - "ministry was GLORIOUS", Philippians 3:21 "his GLORIOUS body", Colossians 1:11 "His GLORIOUS power", and 1 Timothy 1:11 "the GLORIOUS gospel" for a total of 8 times.
However, the reason why some versions along with the AV render the phrase “glorious appearing” is because they take the words της δοξης (“the glory”) as an adjective modifying the word επιφανειαν (“appearing”). So it isn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Therefore, you need to either revamp your article to address these points or, better yet, you need to simply drop this point altogether since such an argument only provides further documentation for your inconsistency.” Sam, is it wrong to use a Greek noun in conjunction with another noun and translated it as an adjective? Yes or No? [End of conversation with Sam]
It is necessary to point out two very important things in this verse. Number one is that the Greek reads exactly as it stands in the KJB, and not as it is in the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB.
The Greek in all texts reads “the great God and OUR Saviour.” This is one of the few verses in the N.T. that has no textual variants; they all read the same and the King James Bible is the most literal by far. All Greek text read -προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου
This is the important part here - της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου = the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
The crucial difference in meaning is this. When Christ appears again in glory, He is the God of everybody - every man, woman and child, believer or unbeliever - but He is OUR Saviour. He is the Saviour of only those who are true Christians, but He is the God and creator of all, and He will be the judge of those who have not believed on Him. Jesus Christ is BOTH the Great God AND OUR Saviour. We are looking for Him to appear as such, and this truth is fully brought out in the King James Bible and many others that have likewise translated it this way by following the literal Greek text.
"The Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
Other Bible translations that read as does the KJB are Wycliffe’s 1380, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - " appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582 - "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.", the Geneva Bible 1599 - "that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ", the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley Translation 1770, Etheridge Translation 1849, Murdoch's translation 1851 and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933 - "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ", the Emphatic Dioglott 1865, the Living Oracles 1835, Julia Smith translation 1855, Noyles Translation 1869, The Revised English Bible 1877, the ASV of 1901 - "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ", Webster’s Bible 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 "the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus", Worrell N.T. 1904, , Alford N.T. for English Readers, James Moffatt N.T. 1913 - "the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus", Riverside N.T. 1923 - " appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ", J.B. Phillips 1962, the New American Bible 1991, The Word of Yah 1993 - "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Yahshua the Christ", the KJV 21st Century 1994, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “looking for the blessed expectation and esteemed appearance of the great Elohim and our Saviour yahushua Messiah”, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 - "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.", The Last Days N.T. 1999, Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Concordant Version 2006, Faithful N.T. 2009, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus", The New European Version 2010 - “as we look for the blessed hope: The manifesting of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ”, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bbile 2011, Conservative Bible 2011 - "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ", The Aramaic N.T. 2011 - "the revelation of the glory of The Great God and Our Lifegiver, Yeshua The Messiah", Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Yeshua the Messiah”, the Holy Bible Modern Literal Version 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 - "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ"
Many foreign language Bible translate the passage exactly as the King James Bible has it. Among these are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and 1865, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000, and Spanish La Palabra 2010 - "la manifestación gloriosa del gran Dios y Salvador nuestro Jesucristo.”, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 - “l'apparition de la gloire du grand Dieu, et notre Sauveur, Jésus-Christ”, the Italian Diodati 1649, and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “della gloria del grande Dio e Salvatore nostro, Gesú Cristo.”, the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "o aparecimento da glória do grande Deus e nosso Salvador Jesus Cristo", the Russian Zhuromsky New Testament, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930-"og åpenbarelsen av den store Guds og vår frelser Jesu Kristi herlighet,", the Finnish Bible 1776 - " ja suuren Jumalan ja meidän Lunastajamme Jesuksen Kristuksen ilmestystä", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "van den groten God en onzen Zaligmaker Jezus Christus;" = "of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
Martin Luther’s German translation of 1545 also reads just like the King James Bible as does the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 with: “großen Gottes und unsers Heilandes Jesu Christi”. = "the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Matthew Henry comments - "Jesus Christ, that great God and our Saviour, who saves not only as God, much less as Man alone; but as God-man, two natures in one person. He loved us, and gave himself for us...they are not two subjects, but one only, as appears by the single article"
John Gill comments - "and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; not two divine persons, only one, are here intended."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment - "the great God and our Saviour Jesus—There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being.
Joseph Benson's Commentary - "the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...Beza is of opinion, that one person only is spoken of, namely, Jesus Christ, to whom he thinks the title of the great God is given in this verse."
Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible - "Of the great God - There can be little doubt, if any, that by “the great God” here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus...No one, accustomed to Paul‘s views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God"
Matthew Poole comments - "And the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; and in order thereunto, looking for the coming of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the last judgment. The same person is here meant by the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
James White, who is now promoting the modern Vatican Versions and who SAYS the Bible is the infallible words of God but will NEVER tell you where to get one, is dead wrong in his criticisms of this verse, and the King James Bible is absolutely correct and infallible, as always.
All of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
Titus 2:13 and the superiority of the King James Bible
Tambora;4514965 And another instance where other versions have a clearer translation than the KJV. And this translation is not about any sort of archaic dialect said:
Wrong again. Don't believe James Wite Out.
James White and his criticism of Titus 2:13 in the King James Bible
Titus 2:13 - " Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
James White has a lot to say in his book, The King James Version Controversy, about how badly he thinks the King James Bible mangles the meaning of this verse and obscures the Deity of Christ. On page 81 he says: "the KJV is shown to be wanting in Titus 2:13." On page 201 he says, regarding Titus 2:13 in the KJB: "The simple fact is that the KJV provides an inferior translation, one that unintentionally detracts from the presentation of the full deity of Jesus Christ. The unwillingness of KJV defenders to overlook this fact is most disturbing." [End of James White's comments]
James White is entitled to his personal opinions, but there are a couple of things you should know about this man. He SAYS he believes the Bible IS the infallible words of God, but if you ask him to show you a copy of this infallible Bible he professes to believe in, he will never tell you. He will immediately try to change the subject.
Secondly, I believe he and many like him have been deceived when it comes to the Bible version issue. The modern version he promotes like the ESV, NIV, NASB are all in fact the new Vatican Versions. The Vatican has made a formal agreement with the United Bible Society to create an "inter confessional" text to unite "the separated brethren" and one of the main editors of this text was the Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Martini. Nobody seriously believes any of these modern versions are the inerrant words of God; certainly not the people who put them together. Don't believe it? Then please see my article and the links found in it called James White - the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions
http://brandplucked.webs.com/jameswhiteppopevv.htm
And thirdly, James White is completely wrong in his understanding and analysis of Titus 2:13 as it stands not only in the King James Bible but in many others as well. The King James Bible is actually the most literal translation of the Greek text here and it brings out a special truth that apparently is hidden from Bible correctors like James White.
Titus 2:13 “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of THE GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ;”
Here the critics like James White and others say the KJB rendering does not fully bring out the deity of Jesus Christ. I don’t really understand what they are talking about, because when I read this passage, it clearly declares that Jesus Christ is both the great God as well as our Saviour.
Even a basic Greek grammar book like Dana and Mantey in their book A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, on page 147 when discussing the definite article with nouns connected by kai, give Titus 2:13 as one of the examples - του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου - and then state in no uncertain terms - "After the same manner, του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου, ASSERTS THAT JESUS IS THE GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR."
"Scholarly opinions" are constantly changing. What one affirms, another denies. I do not place my trust in them. The "scholars" and those who follow them, can always say "Oh, well scholars used to believe that way, but now we know better." It is just musical chairs. Then somebody else will come along with his new theory or "deep insight" and disagree with those who have gone before him. I have zero confidence in the so called scholars.
But when I read the passage in Titus 2:13, it clearly says to me that Jesus Christ is both the great God and our Saviour.
The verse says: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious APPEARING of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Since God the Father is a spirit and is invisible, then He cannot appear Himself. So who is this "the great God" that appears in such a way that we will actually see Him? It is the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is the great God of everybody, saved and unsaved, but He is also OUR Saviour. For me, the KJB makes perfect sense and it does follow the Greek word order. It is the fake bibles like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV etc. that change things and miss the point.
Dr. Larry Bednar, who also addresses this passage at his KJV Textual Technology site correctly asks: "One wonders if White thinks saints and faithful brethren (Col.1:2) separates saints and faithful brethren, as if they were two different types. Or does he think God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Col.1:3) separates God from the Father, as if the Father were not God?"
http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/kjv-classical-language-of-emphasis.php
The NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB translate this verse in different ways. They don't even agree with each other. The NKJV is not quite as bad as the NIV, NASB, ESV in that it says: "looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of OUR great God and Savior Jesus Christ".
The NKJV does not follow the literal Greek word order as does the King James Bible and it obscures the full and wonderful truths we see in the King James Bible.
But the NIV, NASB, ESV don't have us looking for THE APPEARING OF GOD AND OUR SAVIOUR Jesus Christ" but instead looking for THE APPEARING OF THE GLORY of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." God's glory and His actually appearance can be two different things. The heaven declare the glory of God, but it is not God Himself.
At one of the forums a Vatican Version defender and unbeliever in the inerrancy of ANY Bible, named Sam, posted: “As you can see the word for “appearing” (επιφανειαν) precedes the words “the glory” (της δοξης). So if we go by word order then the versions which read “and appearing of the glory…” are more correct. However, the reason why some versions along with the AV render the phrase “glorious appearing” is because they take the words της δοξης (“the glory”) as an adjective modifying the word επιφανειαν (“appearing”). So it isn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Therefore, you need to either revamp your article to address these points or, better yet, you need to simply drop this point altogether since such an argument only provides further documentation for your inconsistency.”
To whom I responded: Sam, is it wrong to use a Greek noun in conjunction with another noun and translated it as an adjective? Yes or No? The fact is, even in his modern Vatican versions they do the same thing with the same word "glory" (της δοξης) and make it an adjective when connected to the main noun in a phrase.
For example, the ESV does this both in Philippians 3:21 - "to be like his GLORIOUS body" (συμμορφον τω σωματι της δοξης αυτου) and in Colossians 1:11 - "according to his GLORIOUS might" (κατα το κρατος της δοξης αυτου).
The NASB does this same thing with the same word in Colossians 1:11 and in 1 Timothy 1:11 "according to the GLORIOUS gospel" (κατα το ευαγγελιον της δοξης) and the NIV does the same in 2 Corinthians 3:8 "the ministration of the Spirit be even more GLORIOUS" (διακονια του πνευματος εσται εν δοξη), in Philippians 3:21 "his glorious body" and in Colossians 1:11 "his glorious might".
While the NKJV does the same thing with the same word in Romans 8:21 - "the GLORIOUS liberty of the children of God" (την ελευθεριαν της δοξης των τεκνων του θεου), 2 Corinthians 3 verses 7, 8 and 11 (twice) - "ministry was GLORIOUS", Philippians 3:21 "his GLORIOUS body", Colossians 1:11 "His GLORIOUS power", and 1 Timothy 1:11 "the GLORIOUS gospel" for a total of 8 times.
However, the reason why some versions along with the AV render the phrase “glorious appearing” is because they take the words της δοξης (“the glory”) as an adjective modifying the word επιφανειαν (“appearing”). So it isn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Therefore, you need to either revamp your article to address these points or, better yet, you need to simply drop this point altogether since such an argument only provides further documentation for your inconsistency.” Sam, is it wrong to use a Greek noun in conjunction with another noun and translated it as an adjective? Yes or No? [End of conversation with Sam]
It is necessary to point out two very important things in this verse. Number one is that the Greek reads exactly as it stands in the KJB, and not as it is in the NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB.
The Greek in all texts reads “the great God and OUR Saviour.” This is one of the few verses in the N.T. that has no textual variants; they all read the same and the King James Bible is the most literal by far. All Greek text read -προσδεχομενοι την μακαριαν ελπιδα και επιφανειαν της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου
This is the important part here - της δοξης του μεγαλου θεου και σωτηρος ημων ιησου χριστου = the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.
The crucial difference in meaning is this. When Christ appears again in glory, He is the God of everybody - every man, woman and child, believer or unbeliever - but He is OUR Saviour. He is the Saviour of only those who are true Christians, but He is the God and creator of all, and He will be the judge of those who have not believed on Him. Jesus Christ is BOTH the Great God AND OUR Saviour. We are looking for Him to appear as such, and this truth is fully brought out in the King James Bible and many others that have likewise translated it this way by following the literal Greek text.
"The Great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
Other Bible translations that read as does the KJB are Wycliffe’s 1380, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535 - " appearynge of the glory of ye greate God and of oure Sauioure Iesu Christ", the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582 - "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.", the Geneva Bible 1599 - "that mightie God, and of our Sauiour Iesus Christ", the Beza N.T. 1599, Mace's N.T. 1729, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley's translation 1755, Worsley Translation 1770, Etheridge Translation 1849, Murdoch's translation 1851 and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933 - "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ", the Emphatic Dioglott 1865, the Living Oracles 1835, Julia Smith translation 1855, Noyles Translation 1869, The Revised English Bible 1877, the ASV of 1901 - "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ", Webster’s Bible 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902 "the glory of the great God and our Saviour Christ Jesus", Worrell N.T. 1904, , Alford N.T. for English Readers, James Moffatt N.T. 1913 - "the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Christ Jesus", Riverside N.T. 1923 - " appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ", J.B. Phillips 1962, the New American Bible 1991, The Word of Yah 1993 - "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Yahshua the Christ", the KJV 21st Century 1994, Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce), Lawrie Translation 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - “looking for the blessed expectation and esteemed appearance of the great Elohim and our Saviour yahushua Messiah”, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 - "the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.", The Last Days N.T. 1999, Tomson N.T. 2002, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Concordant Version 2006, Faithful N.T. 2009, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 - "the great God and Saviour of us Christ Jesus", The New European Version 2010 - “as we look for the blessed hope: The manifesting of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ”, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bbile 2011, Conservative Bible 2011 - "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ", The Aramaic N.T. 2011 - "the revelation of the glory of The Great God and Our Lifegiver, Yeshua The Messiah", Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Yeshua the Messiah”, the Holy Bible Modern Literal Version 2014, The Modern Literal New Testament 2014 - "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ"
Many foreign language Bible translate the passage exactly as the King James Bible has it. Among these are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Cipriano de Valera 1602 and 1865, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, Spanish Jubilee Bible 2000, and Spanish La Palabra 2010 - "la manifestación gloriosa del gran Dios y Salvador nuestro Jesucristo.”, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 - “l'apparition de la gloire du grand Dieu, et notre Sauveur, Jésus-Christ”, the Italian Diodati 1649, and La Nuova Diodati 1991 - “della gloria del grande Dio e Salvatore nostro, Gesú Cristo.”, the Portuguese de Almeida 1681 and A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "o aparecimento da glória do grande Deus e nosso Salvador Jesus Cristo", the Russian Zhuromsky New Testament, the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930-"og åpenbarelsen av den store Guds og vår frelser Jesu Kristi herlighet,", the Finnish Bible 1776 - " ja suuren Jumalan ja meidän Lunastajamme Jesuksen Kristuksen ilmestystä", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - "van den groten God en onzen Zaligmaker Jezus Christus;" = "of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"
Martin Luther’s German translation of 1545 also reads just like the King James Bible as does the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 with: “großen Gottes und unsers Heilandes Jesu Christi”. = "the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Matthew Henry comments - "Jesus Christ, that great God and our Saviour, who saves not only as God, much less as Man alone; but as God-man, two natures in one person. He loved us, and gave himself for us...they are not two subjects, but one only, as appears by the single article"
John Gill comments - "and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; not two divine persons, only one, are here intended."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment - "the great God and our Saviour Jesus—There is but one Greek article to "God" and "Saviour," which shows that both are predicated of one and the same Being.
Joseph Benson's Commentary - "the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...Beza is of opinion, that one person only is spoken of, namely, Jesus Christ, to whom he thinks the title of the great God is given in this verse."
Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible - "Of the great God - There can be little doubt, if any, that by “the great God” here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus...No one, accustomed to Paul‘s views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God"
Matthew Poole comments - "And the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; and in order thereunto, looking for the coming of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the last judgment. The same person is here meant by the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."
James White, who is now promoting the modern Vatican Versions and who SAYS the Bible is the infallible words of God but will NEVER tell you where to get one, is dead wrong in his criticisms of this verse, and the King James Bible is absolutely correct and infallible, as always.
All of grace, believing the Book - the King James Holy Bible.
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
Brother Vinny
Active member
But I do believe in a complete and inerrant Word of God. While I can't show you, I can tell you where it is--see Psalm 119:89.
Yep, it's in heaven. For now, we have to look into the mirror of God's Word (see James 1:23) as through a glass darkly (1 Corinthians 13:12). In the meantime, we're to "prove all things, hold fast to what is good (1 Thess 5:21);" included in "all things" is whatever translations or doctrines we hold dear.
So I'm not a Bible agnostic. I know there's a complete and inerrant Bible. We just haven't got it. And it's not the end of my world that we don't.
Before Ronald Reagan became our president, he starred in "The Voice Of The Turtle"
see ? that proves turtles make a noise
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you for all that answered my question. I had asked if the Bishop's Bible had anything on Rom. 16:5 concerning "Achaia". The Critical text has "Asia" The Rheims 1582 has "Asia", but the King James Bible has "Achaia". I had a commentary tell me that the word "Asia" had better textual support. The Majority text by Hodges and Farstad supports "Achaia"
Thank you
Thank you for all that answered my question. I had asked if the Bishop's Bible had anything on Rom. 16:5 concerning "Achaia". The Critical text has "Asia" The Rheims 1582 has "Asia", but the King James Bible has "Achaia". I had a commentary tell me that the word "Asia" had better textual support. The Majority text by Hodges and Farstad supports "Achaia"
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
You should really learn the difference between a turtle and a tortoise.
Tortoises live on land, turtles live in the water. Turtles have webbed feet, tortoises do not.
The link you provided is about tortoises, not turtles.
BTW, the verse has nothing to do with reptiles, it's about birds. The fact that you linked a site about reptiles while attempting to defend KJVO is proof positive that KJVO is ridiculous.
brandplucked
New member
Brother Vinny's Invisible bible
Brother Vinny's Invisible bible
You guys just keep getting weirder and weirder. You have an invisible bible you have never seen, that doesn't do us who are on this earth any good because we can't see it. And yet you quote from a Book you do not believe, and then tell us you are not a bible agnostic.
Makes sense to me!:wazzup:
Brother Vinny's Invisible bible
You guys just keep getting weirder and weirder. You have an invisible bible you have never seen, that doesn't do us who are on this earth any good because we can't see it. And yet you quote from a Book you do not believe, and then tell us you are not a bible agnostic.
Makes sense to me!:wazzup:
Brother Vinny
Active member
Christianity apparently got on just fine for over 1700 years without an inerrant Bible. Pretending we have one now isn't necessary.
brandplucked
New member
Ginny's Invisible Bible
Ginny's Invisible Bible
Hi Vinny. In a very real way I agree with PART of your statement. You are admitting that you do not believe any Bible in print on this earth is the inerrant words of God, and this is what most Christians today believe as well. And, Yes, you can get along fairly well without believing the Bible is inerrant. I do not believe a person has to believe in an inerrant Bible in order to be a Christian.
If that were true, then most professing Christians today would not be saved.
But I do not agree with you that it is "pretending" that there IS an inerrant Bible here on this earth that we can hold in our hands. You think it is pretense because you don't believe it.
I think it is a reality because of what the Bible itself claims to be - the very inspired words of God who cannot lie.
So you can stick to your Invisible "bible" and I'll stay with my beloved King James Bible.
God bless.
Ginny's Invisible Bible
Hi Vinny. In a very real way I agree with PART of your statement. You are admitting that you do not believe any Bible in print on this earth is the inerrant words of God, and this is what most Christians today believe as well. And, Yes, you can get along fairly well without believing the Bible is inerrant. I do not believe a person has to believe in an inerrant Bible in order to be a Christian.
If that were true, then most professing Christians today would not be saved.
But I do not agree with you that it is "pretending" that there IS an inerrant Bible here on this earth that we can hold in our hands. You think it is pretense because you don't believe it.
I think it is a reality because of what the Bible itself claims to be - the very inspired words of God who cannot lie.
So you can stick to your Invisible "bible" and I'll stay with my beloved King James Bible.
God bless.
Brother Vinny
Active member
God bless you too. For the record, I really don't mind that there are KJV-Onlyists. It's a fairly harmless false premise that has done very little harm, if one doesn't mind the smug superiority of certain of its adherents and the pangs of condemnation engendered in those who might like to believe in an inerrant Bible but just can't make the pieces fit. The Body has endured much worse in terms of bondage and persecution, so we can let this misdemeanor slide.
genuineoriginal
New member
Maybe you should learn that all tortoises are turtles, but not vice versa.