I know but I didn't want to offend anybody lol.The correct English is Saviour and favour.
I know but I didn't want to offend anybody lol.The correct English is Saviour and favour.
So, this is a MAJOR theological error in the KJV. While the translators were faithful to the Greek manuscripts they had, they didn't think wisely, in terms of not just the individual words, but the theological implications. And the fact that universalism is not in the rest of Scripture. That alone should have sent off warning bells for those translators.
Corrupted manuscripts caused this issue. And earlier manuscripts contained the sigma, ς which was dropped at the end of a word. So, here is some first year, beginning of the text book, by Bill Mounce, "The Basics of Biblical Greek" which is the standard first year text.
Chapter 7, pg 42, third edition, "The Basics of Biblical Greek" by William D Mounce
Exegetical Insight
"Peace on Earth, good will towards men" (Luke 2:14, KJV)
You have probably all received Christmas cards containing this part of the angels' song to the shepherds on the fields of Bethlehem. But most modern translations read differently:
"on earth peace to men on whom his [God's] favour rests." NIV
"on earth peace among those he [God] favours." NRSV
(My addition - "and on earth peace among people with whom he [God] is pleased." NET)
The difference between the KJV and the others is the difference between the nominative and the genitive.
The Greek manuscripts used to translate the KJV contain εὐδοκία(nominative or the subject) whereas the older or earliest manuscripts used to translate modern versions contain εὐδοκίας (genitive - sometimes called "possessive") - literally translated of good will" or "characterized by [God's] good pleasure." In other words, the peace that the angels sang that belonged to the earth as a result of the birth of Christ, is not a generic, worldwide peace for all humankind, but a peace limited to those who obtain favour with God by believing in his son, Jesus (See Romans 5:1).
What a difference a single letter can make in the meaning of the text!
Verlyn Verbrugge"
Τhis is why you do not use KJV as the standard, nor late corrupted manuscripts, which is all that Erasmus had. Instead, you use earlier manuscripts, which do not have vital letters dropped, which do not turn the birth of Christ into universal salvation for all.
So much for inspiration and "perfect."
Joseppi
You didn’t notice the modern bible quotes are corrupt.
God is not a respecter of persons.
That God has good will toward men is true, concerning the gospel of reconciliation.
That God favors certain men is a lie.
KJV1611
You assume a lot lol. I don't use the KJV as the bar to guage any translations. I know God well enough to understand his character and personality and that's the bar I use to guage a translation.
The KJV is the only bible I have ever seen that measures up to that bar - shear perfection and the perfect image of Christ.
The 666 is false and is used to hide the truth.
The ‘six hundred, three score and six’ leads toward deeper understanding.
Note how ‘666’ is become a faddish satanist thing, occult quackery.
You didn’t notice the modern bible quotes are corrupt.
God is not a respecter of persons.
That God has good will toward men is true, concerning the gospel of reconciliation.
That God favors certain men is a lie.
Are you suggesting that the God who so loved the world (unsaved people included) that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son only directs his good will on those whom he favors?
Canadians spell that way, too, but for the purpose of this forum, I have given up correcting spell check every time it wants me to spell the America way, and just spell the America way LOLI know but I didn't want to offend anybody lol.
Playing chess with pigeons.
No matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon will knock all the pieces over,
crap on the board and strut about as if it's victorious.
So, what do you make of what I said at the top of this post? That the KJV manuscripts, BECAUSE THEY WERE CORRUPT, was missing a sigma - one letter, in Luke 2:14, and it turned a statement of God giving peace to believers into universalism.
Really, you don't need to know anything. Despite Joseppi's claim that this is not about universalism, there is no other way you can take it, if you use the KJV. God gives peace to all men, as the KJV wrongly states, or God gives peace to those whom he favours, as every other translation states.
Or, perhaps you are both universalists, and you believe everyone is saved, because of Jesus birth, rather than those who believe? My mom is a universalist. She wants everyone to be saved, even if they don't believe, or hate Jesus. I asked her, "So you want to be in heaven with unrepentant murderers or rapists?" She walked away stunned at the implications of this.
Of course, the Bible, and certainly the KJV doesn't teach that all men will be saved. Only those who believe will be saved! God's favour certainly does not rest on every evil and vile sinner who ever lived.
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10 KJV
Instead of looking at this error objectively, you both fall back on "The KJV is perfect, and that settles it." When people show you many errors, even between KJV's over the years, you still fall back to using the KJV as the bar, instead of the original languages.
Well, there is no sense going around the block with people who hold onto their delusions so strongly. I will leave it in God's hands, as I decided to leave the Word Faith people, after pleading with them to properly read the Bible, in God's hands.
The fact is - The KJV is a good, if obsolete and archaic, translation of the Bible, but with mistakes and errors. Other translations have their issues. God will use any version, in any language to save us, to teach us, to transform us and to communicate his Word.
The KJV is only one of many, and one that too many people simply do not understand. How much better to read a modern version, and be able to understand not only what is written, but to have all those mistakes and errors in the KJV corrected. Nothing worse than corrupted texts. I bet if you took that translation committee and showed them the earlier manuscripts, they would have a revision committee going to correct all the mistakes they had, because they did not have access to the better manuscripts.
As for me, I will worship Jesus, who is God, not a translation of the Bible in any language or version. And yet, I love and respect the Bible, for revealing Jesus and his plan for humanity!
As for you Joseppi, you have contributed absolutely nothing, but strong and incorrect language about a Bible translation. If you feel a modern version is corrupted, feel free to compare it to the Greek, and we will see what we come up with.
The Bible avers it. Romans 8:28-30 & Ephesians 1:1-11 for starters. Throw in John 6:37-44, too.
That's an argument for another thread lol.![]()
So, what do you make of what I said at the top of this post? That the KJV manuscripts, BECAUSE THEY WERE CORRUPT, was missing a sigma - one letter, in Luke 2:14, and it turned a statement of God giving peace to believers into universalism.
Really, you don't need to know anything. Despite Joseppi's claim that this is not about universalism, there is no other way you can take it, if you use the KJV. God gives peace to all men, as the KJV wrongly states, or God gives peace to those whom he favours, as every other translation states.
Or, perhaps you are both universalists, and you believe everyone is saved, because of Jesus birth, rather than those who believe? My mom is a universalist. She wants everyone to be saved, even if they don't believe, or hate Jesus. I asked her, "So you want to be in heaven with unrepentant murderers or rapists?" She walked away stunned at the implications of this.
Of course, the Bible, and certainly the KJV doesn't teach that all men will be saved. Only those who believe will be saved! God's favour certainly does not rest on every evil and vile sinner who ever lived.
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10 KJV
Instead of looking at this error objectively, you both fall back on "The KJV is perfect, and that settles it." When people show you many errors, even between KJV's over the years, you still fall back to using the KJV as the bar, instead of the original languages.
Well, there is no sense going around the block with people who hold onto their delusions so strongly. I will leave it in God's hands, as I decided to leave the Word Faith people, after pleading with them to properly read the Bible, in God's hands.
The fact is - The KJV is a good, if obsolete and archaic, translation of the Bible, but with mistakes and errors. Other translations have their issues. God will use any version, in any language to save us, to teach us, to transform us and to communicate his Word.
The KJV is only one of many, and one that too many people simply do not understand. How much better to read a modern version, and be able to understand not only what is written, but to have all those mistakes and errors in the KJV corrected. Nothing worse than corrupted texts. I bet if you took that translation committee and showed them the earlier manuscripts, they would have a revision committee going to correct all the mistakes they had, because they did not have access to the better manuscripts.
As for me, I will worship Jesus, who is God, not a translation of the Bible in any language or version. And yet, I love and respect the Bible, for revealing Jesus and his plan for humanity!
As for you Joseppi, you have contributed absolutely nothing, but strong and incorrect language about a Bible translation. If you feel a modern version is corrupted, feel free to compare it to the Greek, and we will see what we come up with.
KJV1611
I'm a Christian, I'm not any ism.
Luke 2:14 is a restatement of verse 10. Good tidings, which in the KJV is the same thing as good news which means gospel. Those good tidings are being pronounced on ALL people.
Is verse 10 is a mistranslation too? The "good tidings" is the "good will", the gospel mesage that Christ brought to the world. So no I don't think it's an error.
Luke 2:10 King James Version (KJV)
[FONT="]10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.[/FONT]
It could be a restatement of verse 10, if it was in the nominative. However, the better manuscripts put it in the Genitive! Ooops! I forgot, you don’t know what that means.
And all the world (as in those who know Jesus) did rejoice, when the Messiah came. But, you cannot have God’s peace, unless you are saved. That means believing. So no, the KJV is wrong, exegetically and theologically, and therefore not a perfect version.
Which reminds me, how many times have I talked about bad theology coming out of the KJV? Of course, I was thinking more about Word Faith and other cults like the JW’s, the Mormans which use the KJV. I wasn’t thinking of universalism, which is not generally accepted by most people except the most apostate groups, including the Unitarian Universalists.
Or, do you think that all people will be saved, without believing? This is not an "ism" debate. It is about are all people saved, as the KJV claims in Luke 2:14, or do we have to believe, however we come to that faith and belief.
You are refreshing as well my friend. But I think you are wrong about the KJV being in error in Luke 1 and you're using that error (which does not exist) to cast doubt on the reliablity of the KJV... all of this is in good faith on your part, I believe you are going with what you believe.
I think that this one single issue is so important that I would like to reason with you on how the KJV is right in this instance. Are you willing to discuss it with me?
Most certainly.
I'm getting ready to retire for the night, I will continue with you tomorrow if you're available.
...Which reminds me, how many times have I talked about bad theology coming out of the KJV? Of course, I was thinking more about Word Faith and other cults like the JW’s, the Mormans which use the KJV...
Wait, what??
Mormons get their theology from the Bible??
![]()
Here's what I believe. I believe the peace on earth and good will to all IS the gospel. Whether people chose that free gift or not is up to the individual. I don't believe all people will accept or have accepted the free gift and I believe some have and will die in their sin. But regardless of the decision, the good will offering was to ALL people and that is good news to all.
Here's the kicker... you believe exactly the same thing lol. And you know the good will offering and peace on earth was offered to ALL people, not just the "chosen ones" or whatever the NIV called them.
But if you insist on believing the copies of copies of copies of extinct manuscripts instead of the truth that you know the KJV presents in the verse, then that's your right. But don't say the KJV is wrong because it doesn't match the copies of copies of copies that MAY or MAY not say what the originals said.
That's what I believe.
Here's what I believe. I believe the peace on earth and good will to all IS the gospel. Whether people chose that free gift or not is up to the individual. I don't believe all people will accept or have accepted the free gift and I believe some have and will die in their sin. But regardless of the decision, the good will offering was to ALL people and that is good news to all.
Here's the kicker... you believe exactly the same thing lol. And you know the good will offering and peace on earth was offered to ALL people, not just the "chosen ones" or whatever the NIV called them.
But if you insist on believing the copies of copies of copies of extinct manuscripts instead of the truth that you know the KJV presents in the verse, then that's your right. But don't say the KJV is wrong because it doesn't match the copies of copies of copies that MAY or MAY not say what the originals said.
That's what I believe.