So I missed service yesterday morning, by the Grace of God

[Will]

I'll start a thread. I have an article I've already written on the subject, give me two minutes.

[Will]

Here's the link. viewtopic.php?f=48&p=279709

[pneu-engine]

Yes, I missed service yesterday morning, and lucky for me, it appears the pastor started railing on King James and who he was and what he did, and how mean he was, and how he had the Bible written with changes he approved. I was told he mentioned a scripture in Corinthians in which the translators purposely mistranslated a verse because they feared King James, BUT the NIV and other modern versions had it correct.
The message was on what love is and what love isn't.
I wish I had the exact scripture passage he was refering to, but I dont.

I think I'd tell that pastor in a very kindly way that I'll just take my family elsewhere and listen to the Pure Word of the LORD preached in Truth.
:clap:

[IM4given]

I think I'd tell that pastor in a very kindly way that I'll just take my family elsewhere and listen to the Pure Word of the LORD preached in Truth.

:amen:

[BrotherJon]

Ok. So I got a copy of a late morning service.
The scripture in question is:

1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

The addition to this passage, according to the pastor, was the word "easily". This, according to the pastor, was added by the KJB translators, because they feared King James.
According to the pastor it should read, ..."is not provoked,"

[IM4given]

Ok. So I got a copy of a late morning service.
The scripture in question is:

1Co 13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

The addition to this passage, according to the pastor, was the word "easily". This, according to the pastor, was added by the KJB translators, because they feared King James.
According to the pastor it should read, ..."is not provoked,"

The pastor does not believe in the doctrine of Final Authority? Is he daring to correct the Holy Bible? He does not believe that God's Word has been preserved for the English speaking people? If one word is changed, then that negates every other word in the Bible. Like I said, any attempt to discredit King James is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to discredit the Bible that he commissioned.

[HappyChristian]

I have a question...how on earth would anyone know that the translators added one word for fear of anything or anyone? Sounds to me like he's reading stuff he shouldn't be! The Holy Spirit guided those men as they translated - regardless of King James' desires.

[Calvary]

He read Vincent's Word Studies.
Or maybe he was reading Adam Clarke.

Calvary

[HappyChristian]

He read Vincent's Word Studies.
Or maybe he was reading Adam Clarke.

Calvary

So these men think they knew the motivations for the translators to put in an extra word? Were they contemporaries or just more of the same ol' detractors?

[Calvary]

Easily provoked (????????????)
Easily is superfluous, and gives a wrong coloring to the statement, which is absolute: is not provoked or exasperated. The verb occurs only here and Act_17:16. The kindred noun ???????????, in Act_15:39, describes the irritation which arose between Paul and Barnabas. In Heb_10:24, stimulating to good works. It is used of provoking God, Deu_9:8; Psa_105:29; Isa_65:3.

That's Vincent's Word Studies. No he was not contemporary tot he translators.

Is not easily provoked - ?? ???????????? Is not provoked, is not irritated, is not made sour or bitter. How the word easily got into our translation it is hard to say; but, however it got in, it is utterly improper, and has nothing in the original to countenance it. By the transcript from my old MS., which certainly contains the first translation ever made in English, we find that the word did not exist there, the conscientious translator rendering it thus: - It is not stirid to wrath.
The New Testament, printed in 1547, 4to., the first year of Edward VI., in English and Latin, has simply, is not provokeed to angre. The edition published in English in the following year, 1548, has the same rendering, but the orthography better: is not provoked to anger. The Bible in folio, with notes, published the next year, 1549, by Edmund Becke, preserves nearly the same reading, is not provoketh to anger. The large folio printed by Richard Cardmarden, at Rouen, 1566, has the same reading. The translation made and printed by the command of King James I., fol., 1611, etc. departs from all these, and improperly inserts the word easily, which might have been his majesty?s own; and yet this translation was not followed by some subsequent editions; for the 4to. Bible printed at London four years after, 1615, not only retains this original and correct reading, it is not provoked to anger, but has the word love every where in this chapter instead of charity, in which all the preceding versions and editions agree. In short, this is the reading of Coverdale, Matthews, Cranmer, the Geneva, and others; and our own authorized version is the only one which I have seen where this false reading appears.
As to the ancient versions, they all, Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Coptic, and Itala, strictly follow the Greek text; and supply no word that tends to abate the signification of the apostle?s ?? ???????????, is not provoked; nor is there a various reading here in all the numerous MSS. It is of importance to make these observations, because the common version of this place destroys the meaning of the apostle, and makes him speak very improperly. If love is provoked at all; it then ceases to be love; and if it be not easily provoked, this grants, as almost all the commentators say, that in special cases it may be provoked; and this they instance in the case of Paul and Barnabas, Act_15:39; but I have sufficiently vindicated this passage in my note on that place, and given at large the meaning of the word ????????; and to that place I beg leave to refer the reader. The apostle?s own words in 1Co_13:7, are a sufficient proof that the love of which he speaks can never be provoked. When the man who possesses this love gives way to provocation, he loses the balance of his soul, and grieves the Spirit of God. In that instant he ceases from loving God with all his soul, mind, and strength; and surely if he get embittered against his neighbor, he does not love him as himself. It is generally said that, though a man may feel himself highly irritated against the sin, he may feel tender concern for the sinner. Irritation of any kind is inconsistent with self-government, and consequently with internal peace and communion with God. However favourably we may think of our own state, and however industrious we may be to find out excuses for sallies of passion, etc., still the testimony of God is, Love is not provoked; and if I have not such a love, whatever else I may possess, it profiteth me nothing.

That's Adam Clarke's comments from his Commentary on the Bible.

The point is, the word "easily" does not seem to sit well with the "detractors", yet Strong allows for the rendering as a alternative.

God bless,

Calvary

[Jerry]

James was just a man. God uses men. He was not a just man' date=' nor was he perfect. Like the rest of us.[/quote']

Just means saved - by what I have read from him and about him by those who knew him, he was saved.