Tyndale, the TR or the King James Bible?

[brandplucked]

Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible?

Revelation 18:13 ?SLAVES and souls of men.?

I recently got a letter from a Christian man who claims the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible is his final authority and not the King James Bible itself. He was telling me that this is also the position of the Trinitarian Bible Society, who takes offence at being labeled a ?King James Bible only? organization. They say they are not KJB only, but Textus Receptus only.

The Trinitarian Bible Society has publicly stated:?The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language?.

?Indeed, unlike those in the King James Only movement, it is the firm belief of the Society that ?The supernatural power involved in the process of inspiration, and in the result of inspiration, was exerted only in the original production of the sixty-six Canonical books of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16). Translations from the original languages are likewise to be considered the written Word of God in so far as these translations are accurate as to the form and content of the Original.?

?Translations made since New Testament times must use words chosen by uninspired men to translate God?s words. For this reason no translation of the Word of God can have an absolute or definitive status. The final appeal must always be to the original languages, in the Traditional Hebrew and Greek texts?.? (End of statement by TBS)

The TBS confession sounds nice but is ultimately meaningless. How could they possibly know for sure that ?Translations from the original languages are likewise to be considered the written Word of God in so far as these translations are accurate as to the form and content of the Original.?? They don?t have any ?the Original? to compare anything to, and they know it.

They then defend what they call the ?traditional text? and what they mean by this is the particular variety of Textus Receptus that CAME FROM the King James Bible. Their 1894 Scrivener edition of the TR was a back-translation from the KJB into a Greek N.T. text. Their TR did not give rise to the KJB but it was the KJB that gave rise to their printed copies of their Textus Receptus!

I believe the position of the Trinitarian Bible Society and of this man is much closer to the truth than the Bible of the Month Club multi-versionists of today who have no settled text and who usually reject or call into question some 40 entire verses from the New Testament text, plus another 1500 - 2000 words from the traditional N.T. text. But I believe their textual position of ?TR only? is inconsistent and illogical.

Their position still leaves each of them as their own Final Authority for determining HOW the Bible should be translated and read. Each one is free to translate the meaning of each word and verb tense as he sees fit, and his own translation will differ from that of everybody else.

I believe the TR position is inconsistent in that the particular TR they choose to accept as their ?final authority? is actually derived FROM the King James Bible, and not the King James Bible from their particular variety of Textus Receptus. If God led the King James Bible translators to the exact and precise underlying Greek texts to use in making up the greatest masterpiece the world has ever seen, then it is only logically consistent to believe that He also led them to the precise MEANING of these same words in the resultant English translation.

Why would God do the one and leave the other undone? It makes no sense.

The particular ?error? this Christian brother brought to my attention is found in Revelation 18:13. Here we read concerning Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, that she had merchandise of: ?...sheep, and horses, and chariots, and SLAVES, and souls of men.?

This brother writes telling me that the word translated as ?slaves? should actually read ?bodies? , and he points out that Tyndale did it this way. His exact words are - ?In Rev. 18:13 the Greek word ?soma? was translated correctly by Tyndale as ?body? whereas the KJV mistranslated it as ?slave?. Would you say that the KJV corrects the original Greek in these two instances or is the KJV in error and therefore not perfect??

However, does this man accept Tyndale?s translation as his Final Written Authority over the King James Bible? Of course not. Tyndale did not always follow the same variety of Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible and he certainly did not always translate the Greek texts accurately.

For instance, Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Luke 17:36 - ?Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left.?. Tyndale also followed the wrong text in Luke 2:22 where it speaks of ?the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses.? Tyndale wrongly followed the texts that say ?THEIR purification?, which would include the baby Jesus.

Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Mark 11:26 - ?But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. ? He also omitted the phrase in Mark 15:3 ?but he answered nothing.? Tyndale omitted the words ?being convicted by their own conscience? and ?even unto the last? in John 8:9. In John 19:38 Tyndale omitted the words: ?He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus? from his text.

Amazingly, Tyndale?s N.T. also omits all these words from James 4:6 - ?Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.? In 1 John 2:23 Tyndale omits the words: - ?but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.? Tyndale also followed different Greek textual readings in places like Revelation 16:5 (and shalt be vs and holy); 17:8 (and yet is vs. omit); 1 Peter 5:10 (us vs. you), 1 John 1:4 (your vs. our), and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 (he vs. ye). In Romans 12:11 instead of ?fervent in spirit, SERVING THE LORD?, Tyndale followed different Greek texts which read: ?fervent in the spirit. APPLY YOUSELVES TO THE TIME.?

In the book of Revelation Tyndale omits the words: ?And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee? from Revelation 18:23 and the entire verse in Revelation 21:26 which reads: ?And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.?!!

Most of Tyndale?s translations were very good but some were absolutely horrible. For instance instead of ?lest he fall into reproach and the snare OF THE DEVIL?, he has ?and snare of THE EVIL SPEAKER.? In Hebrews 6:1 instead of ?leaving the principles of the doctrine OF CHRIST?, Tyndale has ?the doctrine pertaining to the beginning OF A CHRISTIAN MAN.? In Hebrews 9:10 the ?carnal ordinances? becomes ?justifyings of the flesh? in Tyndale. In James 3:4 ?whithersoever the governor listeth? was rendered in Tyndale as ?whithersoever THE VIOLENCE of the governor will.? And in James 5:17 Elias is described as a ?man SUBJECT TO LIKE PASSIONS as we are?, but Tyndale rendered this as ?Elias was a man MORTAL even as we are.? In Romans 3:19 we read concerning the condemnation of the law - ?that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may BECOME GUILTY BEFORE God?, but in Tyndale this is rendered this as: ?all mouths may be stopped and all the world BE SUBDUED TO God.? Not quite the same thing, is it?

There are numerous examples of very poor translational work in Tyndale?s New Testament; these are just a small sampling.

As the King James Bible translators said: ??Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES, ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, THAT OUR MARK.? Well, praise God, He used them to accomplish just that and we can be thankful for it.

Now, back to word ?slaves? in Revelation 18:13. Admittedly, the word ?soma? is normally translated as ?body? in the KJB and in most other versions too, but it is a well know fact that a single word can have various and sometimes very different meanings in different contexts.

For example, the Hebrew word neh-phesh #5315 is variously translated as ?soul, life, body, person, creature, the dead, the mind, heart, beast, yourselves, herself, breath, fish, the will, ghost, and pleasure.?

Greek Lexicons - What do they say?

Though I obviously do not accept Greek lexicons as my final authority, they do often reveal things about the nature and use of both Greek and Hebrew words.

Liddell and Scott, Oxford Press 1968 tells us on page 1749 that the Greek word ?soma? can mean various things in different contexts, including ?body, dead body, a living body, an animal body, a person, a human being, and ?it is used abstractly for SLAVES in Revelation 18:13.?

Thayers Greek lexicon, 1978 on page 611 tells us: ?Since according to ancient law in the case of slaves the body was the chief thing taken into account, it is a usage of later Greek to call slaves simply somata (bodies); once so in the N.T. in Rev. 18:13.?

Thayer then goes on to show an example from the Greek text of the LXX where Genesis 36:6 tells us of Esau taking his whole family plus his household servants and cattle and moving to a different place. Here the text says: ?And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all THE PERSONS of his house, and his cattle...?. The Greek renders this phrase as ?panta TA SOMATA tou oikou autou?.

Likewise the lexicon of Baer, Arndt and Gingrich 1952 tells us on page 807 that the Greek word can legitimately be translated as ?slaves? and again lists the example of Gen. 36:6 from the LXX and Josephus from Antiquities 14,321 and Revelation 18:13.

Let?s take a look at how other Bible translators have rendered the word ?somaton? in this context here in Revelation 18:13.

Some few go along with the old Tyndale rendering of ?BODIES, and souls of men.? Among these are the NKJV, NIV and the Holman Standard which reads ?human bodies and souls?.

However, agreeing with the King James Bible?s ?SLAVES? are the following bible versions: Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, the RSV 1954, NRSV 1989, the 2001 ESV, the NASB 1963-1995, the Douay 1950, Bible in Basic English 1960, Weymouth, the New Life Version, World English Version, Hebrew Names Bible, the Message, New Century Version, Contemporary English Version, the New International Readers Version, the 1970 New English Bible, the 2005 International Standard Version and Daniel Wallace?s NET version.

Among foreign language versions I know about that read ?slaves? (esclavos) are the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, 1909, 1960, 1995, the Italian Diodati, the NIV Spanish edition (Nueva Versi

[Guest Guest]

Excellent post brother Kinney!


Wil

[brandplucked]

Thank you saint. Praise God for His Book of Truth. What a wonderful Saviour we have!

Will K

[brandplucked]

Funny when someone talks about things like they have authority' date=' when it's obvious they've never learned anything about the topic.[/quote']


Hi Avraham. I'm not sure what your point is. Care to elaborate?

Thanks,

Will K

[brandplucked]

Hi Avraham. Simple question for you. Do you believe the Scriptures are the inerrant word of God? If Yes, then where can we get a copy of them so we can compare it to what we are using now. If No, then please tell us that you do not believe The Bible or any Bible is the complete and inerrant word of God.

Thanks,

Will K

[tired]

:dead: , hey I am beating a dead horse :lol

[tired]

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

[John the Baptist]

brandplucked

[i believe the TR position is inconsistent in that the particular TR they choose to accept as their ?final authority? is actually derived FROM the King James Bible, and not the King James Bible from their particular variety of Textus Receptus. If God led the King James Bible translators to the exact and precise underlying Greek texts to use in making up the greatest masterpiece the world has ever seen, then it is only logically consistent to believe that He also led them to the precise MEANING of these same words in the resultant English translation.

So in essense you are saying that the Greek text came from the English text? The KJV text was based on Erasmus text which was modified by Stephanus and Beza. The KJV translaters did not modify the Greek text based on the KJV. It was the other way around.

God Bless
John

[brandplucked]

brandplucked



John baptist

The KJB translators did not just use Erasmus. In fact, they primarily went with Beza's text, and only occasionally followed Stephanus and Erasmus. All three Greek texts are essentially 99.9% the same. It is my belief and that of thousands of other Christians that God in His sovereignty guided the KJB translators to use the correct textual readings and He has given us His perfect and pure words in the King James Bible.

Do you think it impossible that God could do such a thing?

Don't the guys who put together the ever-changing, non inspired, and perverted "bible" versions today hope God might do the same thing and guide them in selecting the "closest to the original" readings? (This is of course assigning to them the best of motives)

Simple fact, John. You do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. You have no inerrant Book to give anyone, and this is clear to anyone who has two fingers of forehead that still function properly.

Will K

[kevinmiller]

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (KJV)

[brandplucked]

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you' date=' That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (KJV)[/quote']


Would Jesus love someone who perverts His word and denies the inerrancy of Scripture to the point that He would just let is go by without saying something about it? Is this the "as I have loved you" type of tolerant "love" the Lord was talking about?

Was God unloving when He through Jeremiah rebuked the false prophets for "perverting the words of the living God"?

If someone denies the inerrancy of Scripture and promotes bogus and perverted bible versions, am I just supposed to smile benignly, pat the brother on the back, and commend him for his edifying the body of Christ in this manner. Is this the type of milque-toast, sloppy agape "love" being pushed these days?

I have not called John any foul names, nor have I ever questioned his salvation nor called him a child of the devil, a tool of Satan or a foolish dupe, have I? Yet I have often been called all these things by others like you on Christian boards who do not believe any bible is the inerrant word of God. So, who is "loving as I have loved you"?

Kevin, we all know you don't believe The Book in the inerrant word of God. So, all the while you deny the inerrancy of Scripture, and you can't refute our arguments, the only recourse left for you to seem religious is to accuse the Bible believer of being "unloving" when he takes an uncompromising stand on The Book.


Will K

[kevinmiller]

Would Jesus love someone who perverts His word and denies the inerrancy of Scripture to the point that He would just let is go by without saying something about it? Is this the "as I have loved you" type of tolerant "love" the Lord was talking about?

Was God unloving when He through Jeremiah rebuked the false prophets for "perverting the words of the living God"?

If someone denies the inerrancy of Scripture and promotes bogus and perverted bible versions, am I just supposed to smile benignly, pat the brother on the back, and commend him for his edifying the body of Christ in this manner. Is this the type of milque-toast, sloppy agape "love" being pushed these days?

I have not called John any foul names, nor have I ever questioned his salvation nor called him a child of the devil, a tool of Satan or a foolish dupe, have I? Yet I have often been called all these things by others like you on Christian boards who do not believe any bible is the inerrant word of God. So, who is "loving as I have loved you"?

Kevin, we all know you don't believe The Book in the inerrant word of God. So, all the while you deny the inerrancy of Scripture, and you can't refute our arguments, the only recourse left for you to seem religious is to accuse the Bible believer of being "unloving" when he takes an uncompromising stand on The Book.

In answer to your first question, yes, God would still love the person who perverted His Word. He may bring punishment on them, but He still loves them. It's not a tolerant love, it's a brotherly love that we owe to each of our brethren, including John. Yes, he has more liberal beliefs than most here concerning the KJV, but I don't believe his motive is to pervert God's Word. I sincerely disagree with him, but I don't believe you defend the KJV in a manner that God would. To make comments like "anyone who has two fingers of forehead that still function properly" is very degrading. God condemned the sin, he never used abusive language. He called the pharisees sinners and hypocrites. He never insinuated, as His creation, that they were stupid.

Addressing your third paragraph, you don't have to encourage someone in something you believe is wrong. But what you cannot do is attempt to teach someone who is unteachable, especially with a condemning attitude. Christ has a right to judge sinners, we are told to judge not. And the fact of the matter is, none of this belongs on this board. Both you and John come here, not for fellowship, but to debate the KJV and MV's between yourselves.

What you are called on other boards does not concern me. And it is a very poor attempt to turn the blame onto me by lumping me in with those that do call you offensive names. I haven't called you these things, so at this point, your attempt at making me look hypocritical is not holding water. I won't argue again where I stand on the KJV. Those who are faithful members here who come for fellowship with other believers know where I stand, I'm not worried about your trying to paint me as someone who accepts modern versions and rejects the KJV.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this,thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself~Galations 5:14

[Madeline]

In answer to your first question, yes, God would still love the person who perverted His Word. He may bring punishment on them, but He still loves them. It's not a tolerant love, it's a brotherly love that we owe to each of our brethren, including John. Yes, he has more liberal beliefs than most here concerning the KJV, but I don't believe his motive is to pervert God's Word. I sincerely disagree with him, but I don't believe you defend the KJV in a manner that God would. To make comments like "anyone who has two fingers of forehead that still function properly" is very degrading. God condemned the sin, he never used abusive language. He called the pharisees sinners and hypocrites. He never insinuated, as His creation, that they were stupid.

Addressing your third paragraph, you don't have to encourage someone in something you believe is wrong. But what you cannot do is attempt to teach someone who is unteachable, especially with a condemning attitude. Christ has a right to judge sinners, we are told to judge not. And the fact of the matter is, none of this belongs on this board. Both you and John come here, not for fellowship, but to debate the KJV and MV's between yourselves.

What you are called on other boards does not concern me. And it is a very poor attempt to turn the blame onto me by lumping me in with those that do call you offensive names. I haven't called you these things, so at this point, your attempt at making me look hypocritical is not holding water. I won't argue again where I stand on the KJV. Those who are faithful members here who come for fellowship with other believers know where I stand, I'm not worried about your trying to paint me as someone who accepts modern versions and rejects the KJV.

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this,thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself~Galations 5:14

:thumb :goodpost: :thumb

[brandplucked]

I sincerely disagree with him' date=' but I don't believe you defend the KJV in a manner that God would. To make comments like "anyone who has two fingers of forehead that still function properly" is very degrading. [/quote']

Kevin, maybe John could answer for himself. He is the one who posted this "explanation", and it is simply stupid. It directly contradicts Galatians 3:16-17. If he actually thinks it makes sense and "clearly explains the variation", then let him defend it.

Will K


Quote:
(Gen_15:13.): ?Know of a surety, that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them (the lords of the strange land), and they (the foreigners) shall oppress them 400 years.? That these words had reference to the sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt, is placed beyond all doubt by the fulfilment. The 400 years were, according to prophetic language, a round number for the 430 years that Israel spent in Egypt (Exo_12:40)." )Old Testament Commentary by Keil and Delitsch)


I thank this clearly explains the variation.

God Bless
John

[loyaldefender]

Would Jesus love someone who perverts His word and denies the inerrancy of Scripture to the point that He would just let is go by without saying something about it? Is this the "as I have loved you" type of tolerant "love" the Lord was talking about?

In this statement Will wasn't saying God wouldn't love the person. He is saying would Jesus be blinded by the love he has for us and not rebuke us? The answer: No, He will rebuke us because He loves us.


I think someone needs to show some support for Will.
Will has been here at this board for a good bit and I believe he is a blessing to us here. He doesn't post here just to hear himself talk. He has done his homework and knows what he is talking about. Until recently I thought that continually defending our position of KJV Only(which is the position of this board) was beating a dead horse. As I spoken to others about the Bible, I've found that folks are getting a watered down and corrupt version of the Gospel. I do start off with the basics of the Gospel, but I've found that I must explain why I use the KJV. The reason is simple, corrupt versions with weak doctrine leads to weak Christians, weak Christians then passing on what they learn from weak on doctrine/corrupt versions lead to more weak Christians. You can disagree if you wish, but it happens around us everday. Sometimes we need reminders of why we take this stand and Will does an outstanding job of doing that.

Thanks Will, keep up the good work. I'll probably get chastised or rebuked for supporting you, but it will be worth it. :smile

LD