[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

_______________________

You want to drive a wedge between the concept of God's Holy Word and all the texts that are actually available to us.

Nothing of the kind - we do have the original languages - just because you don't know how to utilize the tools available to us doesn't mean some of us can't access the texts.

And why are you all judging my motives - which incidentally is a sin - instead of directing your energy to the post wherein I showed the errors in the KJV?

I mean, c'mon enter into a scholarly discussion and leave off this childish ad hominem approach. Show us your seminary education.

____________

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

And why are you all judging my motives - which incidentally is a sin - instead of directing your energy to the post wherein I showed the errors in the KJV?

Kindly post the Scripture that backs up your contention. I hope you aren't going to try and tell us that God forbids us from judging/rebuking others.

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

__________________________

You are not agnostic, however. As pointed out by my elders in this thread, you are truly atheist. You merely play at being agnostic so as to beguile the unwary with your pretty words. Barton

I know what your ulterior motive here is, of course. Your thesis then becomes that of fence-sitting agnostic scum, stating that while you're sure that God might exist, no one can possibly know what He wants us to do because His Word, the Bible, Barton

Unless you can leave off with the judging of my motives and calling into question my faith and belief in Yahweh, I'm going to use the Ignore function and put you in time out for your immaturity.

____

[barton]

Re: Two errors in the KJV

_______________________________

Romans 1:18: “who hold the truth in unrighteousness”: This may sound trivial, but κατέχω has a much stronger meaning than simply to hold, where ἔχω alone would be appropriate. The word is to hold back, withhold (L&S), and thus the phrase is better read “who withhold the truth with injustice (or unrighteousness)”.

No, it doesn't have the meaning you ascribe. It simple means "bear, be in the possession of, control, have, have at one's disposal, have at one's disposition, have in one's possession, have in possession, hold, keep back, keep in one's possession, master, own, possess, retain possession of, withhold"
The meaning of the verse is clear... it speaks of the unrighteous that know the truth (that hold it), yet do not practice what that truth demands they practice.

And, I've only just begun.

Best ban me now.

Maybe a ban for being a bore. You've brought up nothing new yet. You just rely on out-of-context criticisms and cut'n'paste jobs from other sources.

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

_______________________

"leaders" here, even ones that signed up last month, can call into question my faith - call me an atheist and when I warn him I'm going to put him on Ignore, I get an infraction?

LMHO

____

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

LMHO

One needs a head to do that.

[Melvin K. Dobbs]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Pointless arguing is going to get you nowhere. You are wasting your time here is you do not leave.

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

__________________________
Romans 4:1: Here is one small example out of many that may be illustrated, which calls into question the authority of those manuscripts from which the King James Version was translated, and here those much more recent manuscripts depart from nearly all of the early codices known as the Great Uncials. At Romans 4:1 the CNT reads “our forefather Abraham”, where the KJV has only “Abraham our father”. Out of all the Greek manuscripts, only a small number which are dated no earlier than the 9th century support the KJV reading. All of the earliest manuscripts contain the word “forefather”, except the Codex Bezae, which is known to have had a lot of influence over the manuscripts upon which the KJV was based. Paul, using the word, was telling the Romans – and correctly I may add – that Abraham was indeed their natural forefather.


Romans 8:15: “the Spirit of adoption”. The word υἱοθεσία does not, by itself, ever mean adoption in Greek writings. The word means a placement or a position of a son. There were other words in Greek literature which were consistently used to describe the act of adoption, namely εἰσποίησις (a noun, a making into), εἰσποίέω (a verb), and εἰσποιητός (an adjective). While a son can be placed for adoption, where υἱοθεσία may be used to describe the act of the placing, it does not describe the actual adoption, and υἱοθεσία can be used also to describe other things, such as the placing of a son into a household or as an heir, which also happens to correctly describe the Christian promise as it is outlined in the Old Testament as well. Therefore, and especially since there is no other indication in the text that the idea of adoption is ever the context, υἱοθεσία should be rendered here “spirit of the position of sons (or of a son)”. At Romans 8:23, the phrase “waiting for the adoption” would better be rendered “awaiting the placement of sons”. At Romans 9:4 the phrase “ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία” should be “whose is the position of sons”. It is absolutely dishonest that υἱοθεσία be translated as adoption, because the word has a much more general meaning, and the translators can only have presumed that the word was used by Paul to mean adoption, yet the overall context of Paul’s letters and of the New Testament refute such a presumption.


Romans 13:10: “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour”. The Greek of this phrase is ἡ ἀγάπη τῶ πλησίον κακὸν οὐκ ἐργάζεται and it is not disputed here by any of the manuscripts. This phrase must be rendered “Love for him near to you who does not practice evil”, or even “Love to an evil neighbor does not work”, depending upon whether the verb is considered a part of the subject predicate, or a modifier for the object of the statement (which is in this case, love). I must reject the A.V. rendering since it separates πλησίον and κακὸν, and since both words are in the Accusative case they must be understood as a unit, κακὸν (evil) clearly being a modifier for πλησίον (in the A.V., neighbour). Paul’s intent, especially considering the balance of the statement: “therefore fulfilling of the law is love”, is obviously to narrow the scope of neighbor as it is understood in the commandment at 13:9 “You shall love him near to you as yourself” or “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (A.V.). Surely we are not obligated to love the wicked that just happen to live in our vicinity!


Romans 14:6: The four occurrences of the word κύριος in this verse (which includes a clause found in the A.V. that exists in none of the early Greek manuscripts) are not accompanied with the Greek article, and so rather than being translated “Lord” they should instead be translated literally, as they appear in the Dative case, as “with authority”. While κύριος is often used as a substantive with the article and is therefore a noun in those cases, i.e. “the Lord”, the word is basically an adjective and means “of persons, having power or authority over, lord or master of … absolute authority, authoritative, supreme” (L&S). Therefore this verse is properly read: “He who is observing the day, observes it with authority, and he who eats, eats with authority; for he gives thanks to Yahweh. And he who does not eat, with authority eats not, and he gives thanks to Yahweh.” (CNT).


Romans 14:14: “... but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” Here the Greek word rendered “unclean” is κοινός, and the rendering is absolutely dishonest. The Greek word κοινός is profane, or common, and certainly does not ever mean unclean, which is most frequently ἀκάθαρτος, a word which the A.V. often translates properly elsewhere as unclean. In fact, κοινός and ἀκάθαρτος appear together at Acts 10:14 where the A.V. properly reads “But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” This phrase at Romans 14:14 can honestly only be read: “…except to he who considers anything to be profane (or common), to him it is profane (or common).” The difference is crucial, because things that were “unclean” were those things forbidden to be eaten by the laws of Moses found in the Pentateuch. However things which were considered common were merely foods that were not treated properly according to the laws, or according to the “traditions of the elders”. When this verse is properly translated, it is seen that Paul is not advocating the eating of things which are deemed unclean by the law, as so many ignorant men claim. Rather, in context, he is talking about things which are indeed foods, but which had been profaned upon the altars of pagan deities. In a first century Greco-Roman city, it was impossible to buy meat which was not sacrificed in such a manner, and that alone is what Paul’s advice addresses.

Romans 15:9 to 11: Let me first quote the A.V. rendering of this pericope: “9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.” Verse 9 paraphrases II Samuel 22:50 and Psalm 18:49. In the places where the A.V. has “Gentiles” here, the word is “heathen” in the A.V. in those corresponding Old Testament verses. Verses 10 and 11 quote Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 117:1 respectively. In those places in the A.V. it reads “nations” where the A.V. has “Gentiles” here in Romans. The words gentile (which is truly not even an English word), heathen and nation in the New Testament in most cases are used to represent the Greek word ἔθνος, which is primarily a nation in the sense of ethnicity. Here and elsewhere it is evident that by translating ἔθνος into these various words indiscriminately, it is rather easy to create false doctrines and to pervert the interpretation of the promises to Abraham and the other patriarchs. While there are a couple of places where we could legitimately translate the word ἔθνος as heathen, it must be done with great reservation, and also with the knowledge that the word does not ever bear the meaning non-Adamite by itself, and that it can also properly and literally be rendered people in these places.


Romans 15:16: ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος is the Greek phrase which the A.V. renders “that the offering up of the nations might be acceptable”, which agrees not at all with the context of Paul’s statements. Paul is discussing his mission, in 15:15, “performing the service of the good message”, and it is clear here and throughout Paul’s writing that his mission is to bring that message to the Nations. A προσφορά is literally “a bringing to” (L&S). Paul clearly means his own “bringing to” of the gospel. While εὐπρόσδεκτος being of the same case and number modifies προσφορά, “an acceptable presentation”, it is the acceptance – not the offering - that is “of” or “from” or even “by” the Nations (τῶν ἐθνῶν, Genitive plural form of 1484, with the Article). I ascertain that this is why, where an adjective usually accompanies the noun it modifies, here it follows τῶν ἐθνῶν, so “that it be a presentation acceptable of [or “by”] the Nations.” If the case and number matched that of ἔθνος, one would read “an offering of the acceptable nations”! Yet what do the nations have to offer, when indeed Christ Himself was an offering on our behalf? An exactly similar grammatical construction appears at Luke 4:19, where the Greek phrase κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν is properly translated in the A.V. “To preach the acceptable year of the Lord”. If the A.V. followed the pattern in Luke 4:19 that they used here, then that verse would read “to preach that the year of the Lord is acceptable”! That alone demonstrates the error that the A.V. makes here in Romans 15.


___

That is only Romans.


___

[KeruxR]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

_____________________________

You seminary graduates have been asking for "evidence" and yet you don't know what to do with it once it's provided:

___

1 Corinthians 1:28: “And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are”. Yet Paul is certainly not, as the A.V. has him doing, referencing “things” here, but rather the various conditions of some of the children of Israel. The A.V.’s “the base things”, from τὰ ἀγενῆ, is rather “those of ignoble birth” or simply “the low born”: see L&S at ἀγεννής, “of no family, low born....” Likewise τὰ ἐξουθενημένα should be read “the despised”, or “those being despised”, regardless of the neuter gender. The context being people, as is evident from that which precedes and that which follows, this verse should therefore have been translated: “and the low born of the society, and the despised, Yahweh has chosen: those that are not in order that He may annul those that are” (τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ). The words of Christ in His ministry, and the fact that He indeed chose His followers from among those of low estate, the humble people of the land, perfectly fits the context of Paul’s message here.


1 Corinthians 2:8: The phrase “the princes of this world” is in the CNT “the governors of this age”. The word αἰών, from which the English word eon is derived, is only temporal in meaning, and never spatial. Yet on several occasions the A.V. has rendered the word as world, as the translators also always rendered both κόσμος and οἰκουμένη as world, thus obfuscating the differences in meaning among those three different words. Respectively the three words should be taken to mean an age, a society, and a living space for that society.
Yet to take this a step further, it may simply be that the way that the A.V. translators understood the word world is different than how we understand it today, and if this is so, then they must be pardoned, but only in this respect. If we investigate the word world in the American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Edition, we find that it derives from an Old and Middle English word, weorold, and we are referred to an entry for a supposed proto-Indo-European word (wi-ro) in their appendix of so-called “Indo-European Roots”. When we check this entry, we find that the word world comes from the Germanic wer, akin to the Latin vir, for man, and the Germanic ald, which is a life or an age (from which we get our word old), and that put together the word “world” means only age of man. Therefore, originally, “world” is a temporal term and not a spatial one! It means our Adamic age, and it does not mean everyone on the planet or the planet itself! Our confusion over the meaning of this word has led us into total confusion when attempting to understand our own literature, especially our Bibles! Why do we let satan publish dictionaries? The “world” is the age of Adamic man, and it should be nothing else!


1 Corinthians 4:14: While it does not seem to make a big difference, the A.V.’s mistreatment of ἐντρέπω certainly does have an impact where it appears in several verses. ἐντρέπω is even defined by L&S as “to feel shame or fear”, where they cite only the N.T. for this use, at ἐντρέπω part II. section 4 of their definition. Yet this is not the general sense of the word, which basically means “to turn about...linger, hesitate...to turn towards, give heed to, pay regard to, to respect or reverence...” (L&S). Therefore I must ask, how could it mean anything differently only where it appears in the N.T.? I cannot agree that ἐντρέπω should ever mean to shame. The A.V. also has “to be ashamed” for this word at II Thess. 3:14 and Titus 2:8, but it has “to revere” (or “reverence”) at Matt. 21:37, Mark 12:6, Luke 20:13, and Heb. 12:9, and “to regard” at Luke 18:2 and 4. 1 Corinthians 4:14 in the CNT reads: “I do not write these things regardingyou, but as I would advise my beloved children.” Now the real difference is whether we perceive an authoritarian Paul who seeks to shame his audience, as the A.V. would have it, or whether we have an adjuring Paul, exhorting his audience as a brother. In my opinion it is surely the later, and that agrees with the use of the word in all secular Greek writings.


1 Corinthians 6:4 in the A.V. may lead one to believe that judges should be selected from among those whom we abhor. The A.V. has this verse: “If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.” Yet the Medium Voice when used with verbs, as ἐξουθενημένους is here, indicates that the recipient of the action is also the receiver, and therefore Paul is advising us to appoint as judges not those from among us whom we have no esteem for, but those who are the most humble. The CNT translates this verse: “So then if you should have trial of things pertaining to this life, those who esteem themselves least in the assembly, those will be set to judge.” The Medium Voice use of verbs by the Greeks was almost always overlooked by the A.V. translators.


1 Corinthians 6:5 begins in the A.V. “I speak to your shame.” The word rendered shame here is ἐντροπή, and it is a noun form of the verb ἐντρέπω which we just discussed above, at I Corinthians 4:14. L&S define the word as “a turning towards … respect or reverence for one, Soph.: shame, reproach, N.T.” where again L&S cite only the N.T. for this alleged negative meaning of the word. Now it must be noted that throughout L&S there is no version but the A.V. which is understood to refer to the New Testament. Now ἐντροπή only appears twice in the A.V., and on both occasions, here and at 1 Corinthians 15:34, the word may clearly mean respect. It is obvious to this writer that L&S merely followed the A.V. in this error, and ἐντροπή in the N.T. means just what it does in secular Greek writing: a turning towards … respect or reverence for one. The CNT translates this sentence “I speak from respectto you.” The A.V. and its followers make this word out to mean the exact opposite that it meant to the Greek people!


1 Corinthians 6:12 in the A.V. reads “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” While this reading is possible, since the Greek word ἔξεστιv may mean lawful, however this reading leads one to believe that Paul would simply dismiss the Old Testament laws of Yahweh God, contrary even to Paul’s own statements elsewhere, for instance at Romans 3:31. Yet where the word which Paul uses everywhere to refer to the law is νομός (and where he mentions the “works of the law” it can be demonstrated from the Septuagint that he means the rituals of the law – those Levitical rites done away with in Christ). To say “lawful” in the sense of the νομός (law) Paul could have explicitly used the term νόμιμος, which is its adjective directly related to νομός; conformable to custom, usage, or law, customary, prescriptive, established, lawful, rightful (L&S). Here with the word being ἔξεστιv, which means “it is allowed, it is in one’s power, it is lawful” (L&S), I find it a necessity to distinguish ἔξεστιv from νόμιμος, and therefore the CNT renders this verse “To me all is possible, but all does not profit; to me all is possible,but I will not yield authority to be brought under any”, and that way there is no confusion over Paul’s regard for the law. This same circumstance appears at I Corinthians 10:23, which in the CNT reads “All is possible, but all does not profit. All is possible, but all does not build.”


1 Corinthians 7:26 is in the A.V. in part “for the present distress”. Many wrongly use Paul’s comments here to purport that he was somehow promoting abstinence from marriage, which is a misconception (see I Tim. 3:1-13, 4:1-3, 5:14; Titus 1:6, 2:5; and Heb. 13:4 where Paul said that “marriage is valuable in every way, likewise the undefiled bed”). Rather Paul is speaking about the conditions during the persecution of Christians under Claudius I (41-54 A.D.) and Nero (54-68 A.D.), and the danger of starting a family in such conditions; which is certainly the reason for his advice here, and for the sorrow he expresses at 7:28.ἀνάγκη, which is the word that the A.V. translates “distress” here, is “force, constraint, necessity...actual force, violence, torture...” (L&S) The word is used in the sense of “necessity”, by Paul at Rom. 13:5; I Cor. 7:37, 9:16; II Cor. 9:7; Phm. 14; and Heb. 7:12, 7:27, 9:16, and 9:23. It appears in this stronger sense, i.e. “violence”, at II Cor. 6:4, 12:10, and I Thess. 3:7 (note I Corinthians 15:30). The CNT translates this phrase “because of the present violence”, which makes both Paul’s statement and his reasons for making it much clearer.
1 Corinthians 9:17-18 read in the CNT: “17For if I do this readily, I have a reward; but if voluntarily I had been entrusted with the management of a family, 18 what then is my reward? Announcing the good message,that I would set forth the good message without expense, with respect not to abuse my authority in the good message.” οἰκονομία is primarily “the management of a household or family” (L&S), the most literal meaning here being the most sensible (cf. Amos 3:2; Matt. 10:6, 15:24; Rev. 19:6-9 and 21:12 et al.). As the A.V. has “dispensation”, and then adds words to try to have it make sense, there are several other words Paul may have chosen to clearly convey such a meaning. L&S lists “husbandry” and “thrift” as alternate meanings of the word, and among others Thayer adds “stewardship”, none of which fit the context here, although at times they do where Paul uses the word elsewhere. This word appears also at Luke 16:2, 3, 4; Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25; and I Tim. 1:4. It also appears in the LXX twice at Isa. 22:19 and 21, both in the same sense that Paul uses it here, as the management of a family. Oddly, the A.V. never translates this word in its primary sense in the New Testament, even though it is very clear in the Old Testament prophets that it should be understood in this manner.


In 1 Corinthians 10:11the KJV has “upon whom the ends of the world are come”, the CNT reads “to those whom have attainedto the fulfillmentsof the ages”. καταντάω is “to come to, arrive at...to attain to...” (Thayer). Paul is not speaking in a spatial sense here, but in a temporal. τέλος is “the fulfillment or completion of anything...i.e. its consummation, issue, result, end...” (L&S) so in the plural here, it is “the fulfillments”. The A.V. translates αἰών 39 times, and αἰώνιος 3 times, words which mean “a period of existence...an age” and “lasting for an age...eternal” respectively, as “world”. This is one of those occurrences, of which 25 of the 42 are in Paul (see Strong’s). As it has already been explained, the word world originally meant the age of man, yet it is clear that we do not use the term in that manner today, and for this reason alone we cannot deem the A.V. as an unquestionable authority.


At 1 Corinthians 16:22 where the KJV, leaving certain words untranslated, reads “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” the CNT has “If anyone does not love the Prince, he must be accursed, a rebel to be destroyed.” The veracity of this translation can be demonstrated using a tool as simple as Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. The Greek word anathema means accursed, and maranatha is a Hebrew phrase made up of two words, mara (see Strong’s #’s 4751 and 4785), a rebel, and natha (see Strong’s #’s 5421 and 5422), in the passive to be destroyed. Now this may seem subjective, but it surely does elucidate not only Paul’s great love for Yahshua Christ, but also Paul’s understanding of the nature of the enemies of Yahshua. The A.V., leaving these words untranslated, hides the truth and neglects its duty. What is a translation for, if it is to leave select words untranslated?


The KJV reads II Corinthians 2:17: “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God…”, yet the Greek verb καπηλεύω is a very specific verb which by no means should be rendered merely as to corrupt. L&S define the word “to be a retail-dealer...to sell by retail...”, and the noun κάπηλος is “a retail-dealer, huckster, hawker, peddlar”. Therefore the beginning of this verse must be read: “For we are not as the many,selling the word of Yahweh in trade…” (CNT).


At 2 Corinthians 6:14, the King James translators rendered an adjective as a noun, which was apparently necessary for them to do because they did not render the verb as fully as they could have, while also ignoring the meaning of the verb where a different form of the same word was used in the Septuagint. Admittedly, the opening sentence of this verse is very difficult to translate in few words, although it only contains four Greek words. The Greek, μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις, is in the CNT “Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens”. The A.V. has here “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”, and so many interpret this to be a “religious” admonition: which would have Paul conflict with his own statements, such as those at I Cor. 7:12-14 where he advises people already married to non-believers to make a go of it, and so they make him out to be a liar. This is not a religious statement, as will be evident upon examination of the terms ἑτεροζυγέω and ἄπιστος.
ἑτεροζυγέω is a verb which appears nowhere else in the N.T., nor in the LXX. However the adjective, ἑτερόζυγος, does appear in the LXX, at Lev. 19:19, where the A.V. itself has “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind”. The LXX Greek is: τὰ κτήνη σου (your cattle) οὐ κατοχεύσεις (do not let “gender”, and the verb implies the act of sexual intercourse) ἑτεροζύγῳ (with a diverse kind, the idea of being “yoked” already being implicit, the English translators did not repeat it). Brenton’s English as it was translated from the Greek varies little from the A.V. English, which was translated from Hebrew. And so while the L&S definition for the verb ἑτεροζυγέω that appears here in the New Testament follows the A.V.: “to be yoked in unequal partnership” the L&S definition for the adjective ἑτερόζυγος as it appears in the Septuagint is “coupled with an animal of diverse kind” which with people can only mean “to be coupled with one of another race”, and therefore it is evident that both the A.V. and L&S are attempting to convince us that the verb form of the word somehow has a totally different meaning than the adjective! Here I have in the CNT “yoked together with aliens”, preferring the idea that the verb as it was used by Paul surely bears the same meaning that the adjective did in the Greek scriptures which Paul so often quoted verbatim. This word must also be contrasted with σύζυγος, used in the N.T. only once, by Paul at Phil. 4:3 and which L&S define “yoked together, paired, σύζυγος ὁμαυλίαι wedded union, Aeschylus...as a feminine Substantive, a wife, Euripides; masculine a yoke-fellow, comrade, Iliad, Aristotle.” It is of marriage that Christ used the corresponding verb συζεύγνυμι (4801) at Matt. 19:6 (Mark 10:9). While συ- (see συν, 4862) means “with” or “together”, ἕτερος (2087) means “other” or “other than” or “different”. ζυγός (2218) is “anything which joins two bodies” (L&S) and is commonly a “yoke” (Matt. 11:29, 30; Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1; I Tim. 6:1). If Paul wanted to tell us not to be yoked together with the unfaithful, σύζυγος was the word to use. Rather, he was clearly using ἑτερόζυγος as it was in the Septuagint, and telling us not to be yoked together with untrustworthy aliens.
Compounding the errors in the A.V. translation of this verse, ἄπιστος is an adjective, which L&S define “not to be trusted...not trusty, distrusted, faithless...” yet it is treated in the A.V. as a substantive in this verse, as a noun. The CNT has the word as an adjective, which is what it is. If Paul wanted to use this word as a substantive, a simple article would have cleared up any ambiguity.


With all of this, one may agree that another way to translate this clause from Greek is: “Do not become yoked together with those of other races who are not to be trusted”, which is also a literal translation, and is a message that is consistent with all Scripture.


At 2 Corinthians 6:17, the KJV adds the word thing to the text. The CNT reads this passage thus: “’Come out from the midst of them and be separated,’ says the Prince, and ‘do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you’.” It is asserted here that “the impure” directly refers to the subject “them” earlier in the passage, and therefore no added words are necessary in order to understand this verse. The KJV translators have added hundreds of words to the New Testament, where in contrast the CNT adds only a handful. With an honest translation, it is rarely necessary to add words to the text in order to capture the meaning of the original Greek.


II Corinthians 8:2: By no means does the word ἁπλότης mean liberality, as in connection with giving that the professional churchmen who translated the A.V. have it here. The word is “singleness: simplicity, frankness” (L&S), and is derived from a root word ἁπλόος which means “single...simple, natural, plain, sincere, frank...” (L&S). It was also used at Matt. 6:22 and Luke 11:34.


This word ἁπλότης appears in Rom. 12:8 (KJV: “simplicity”), Eph. 6:5 and Col. 3:22 (KJV: “singleness”), and is “simplicity” in the CNT on those three occasions. At II Cor. 11:3 it is “sincerity” in the CNT (A.V.: “simplicity”). Yet at II Cor. 8:2, 9:11, and 9:13, where the subject of discussion is economic, the A.V. translates the word “liberality”, “bountifully”, and “liberal” respectively, where in the CNT on each occasion the word is rendered “sincerity”. I must maintain a distinction between giving with sincerity, and giving liberally, or bountifully, as the professional churchmen would have it, although the meaning of the word does not. This is a blatantly dishonest device on the part of the King James translators, who were obviously seeking to enrich the churchmen at the expense of the flock.


At II Corinthians 9:4: ὑπόστασις is a noun, and it would better be rendered “matter”, where the KJV somehow treats it as an adjective and gives it a tenuous definition: “confident”. The word “boasting” appears in the late manuscripts from which the KJV was translated, but it is not in any of the more reliable early Greek manuscripts.



II Corinthians 9:11, 13: As it was noted above in discussing II Corinthians 8:2, here in 9:11 and 13 the A.V. translates ἁπλότης, which means “singleness: simplicity, frankness” first as “bountifulness” and then as an adjective, “liberal”, where the word is a noun. Furthermore at verse 13, the KJV translated κοινωνία, which is “communion, association, partnership, fellowship”, as “distribution”, a meaning which the word simply does not have. It appears to this writer as if the professional churchmen translating the KJV treated these words in a manner which perpetuates the wealth of their own priesthood. The A.V. translations here are blatantly dishonest and even criminal perversions of scripture.
Here I will read the passage at 2 Corinthians 9:10-15 from the CNT: “10 Now He who is supplying besides seed to he who is sowing also wheat-bread for food, He will supply and He will multiply your sowing, and He will increase the produce of your justice; 11 in every way being enriched in all sincerity,which through us accomplishes gratitude to Yahweh. 12 Because the service of this ministry is not only its replenishing of the deficiencies of the saints, but also its having abundance through many thanksgivings to Yahweh, 13 through the proof of this service honoring Yahweh, upon the submission of your agreement to the good message of the Anointed, and sincerityof the partnership for them and for all, 14 and in their entreaty for you, yearning for you for the sake of the favor of Yahweh overflowing upon you. 15 Now gratitude to Yahweh for His indescribable gift.”


2 Corinthians 10:2 from the KJV reads in part “But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence...”. The Greek phrase is δέομαι δὲ τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι τῇ πεποιθήσει. The A.V. rendering of 10:2 strips the word παρὼν of the negative particle μὴ which belongs to it, (μὴ παρὼν meaning “not being present”), and it applies the negative instead to the verb which follows, θαρρῆσαι: this is a peculiar reading which was apparently necessitated by their also having misread the verb. In any event, it is blatantly wrong.


θαρρῆσαι, from θαρσέω (2293, “to be bold” here) is read in the KJV in the 1st person. Another verb in this verse, τολμῆσαι, from τολμάω (5111, “to dare” here) is read by the KJV as an Infinitive. The -σαι suffix that both of these verbs carry is found in the 2nd person Medium or Passive voices, or in the Infinitive, but never in the 1st person. This form is found again at 13:7, ποιῆσαι, which is correctly rendered in the A.V. in the 2nd person, “you should do”, being in the Subjunctive mood. Here in the CNT I have read both τολμῆσαι and ποιῆσαι in the 2nd person, as they should be, and the context shall speak for itself. I will quote: “but I want, not being present,that you would be bold with the confidence with which I reckon you should be daringtowards certain others who are reckoning us as walking in accordance with the flesh.” (2 Cor. 10:2, CNT). So the A.V. here bears two significant grammatical errors.


In 2 Corinthians 11:17 the KJV has a particular phrase “I speak it not after the Lord”. The Greek word κύριος, as explained earlier regarding Romans 14:6, is primarily an adjective, as it is here, and the phrase κατὰ κύριον commonly means “with authority”. The CNT renders this clause “I do not speak with authority”.
2 Corinthians 13:5: ἀδόκιμος is an adjective, translated as a noun here in the KJV where the word is rendered “reprobates”. It should rather have been rendered “spurious”.

___

And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen

Yes, indeed.

___

[Melvin K. Dobbs]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

You typed all that?

[Wide-Open]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Romans didn't do copy/paste from other sites.

Can I ask you: what is your point? Take your time, as you have told us that you don't have much time. And no, no other thread is needed.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

Plagiarism is not only a serious federal offense, it is a serious sin as well.

[Wide-Open]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

You typed all that?

He would have typed more if it were not for his time constraints.

Hey, some people are just fast typers/thinkers.

I guess.

[Levi Jones]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

That is only Romans.

___

And the Codex Vaticanus contains approximately 1500 errors, omissions or sloppy translations.

The Sinaiticus was considered garbage by the monks in the convent where it was discovered ready for the flames.

Are you going into those next or are you just going to continue attacking the majority text?

[Wide-Open]

Re: "Men of Landover Baptist Church!"

A few days from now we'll arrive at the Carmina Burana.