Fine... then let's keep the commentary on differences, not right/wrong.
What's your personal take on Genesis 3:16? Matthew 17:21? Romans 8:1?
No major doctrines changed?
- Thread starter John146
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
What's your personal take on Genesis 3:16? Matthew 17:21? Romans 8:1?
Truth matters when it comes to God and his word, yes? Wouldn't you agree? Even if it is a truth that you deem "minor"?
How many were appointed by the Lord and sent out? Seventy or seventy two? You may not think it is no big deal, but when the bible claims itself to be true, then all things therein must be true. A faithful witness cannot lie. Is the bible a faithful witness?
The KJV states seventy, and most all other modern versions gives seventy two. Which is the faithful witness?
Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
ESV Luke 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.
Genesis 3:16 KJV Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Genesis 3:16 NIV To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Genesis 3:16 NASB To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall deliver children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
Genesis 3:16 ESV To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
So we have two that are consistent, the KJV is unusual, and the ESV appears to contradict. The meaning of the Hebrew phrase rendered "Thy desire shall be to thy husband" in the KJV is, at best, uncertain. The KJV's use of "to" doesn't help; we simply don't use this phraseology today. Rather, we would say that one's desire is for something/someone, not to something/someone, as in the NIV/NASB.
Frankly, the difference is moot, because whether the woman's desire is for, to, or contrary to her husband, it doesn't matter; he will rule over her. That's the essence of God's statement to Eve.
Matthew 17:21... this is not a "major doctrine" issue, period.
I have addressed Romans 8:1 in the other thread; the KJV is likely wrong. I doubt Paul would repeat the phrase less than three verses later.
This again is not a "major doctrine" (by a long shot!), which is what the thread title addresses.
However, since you chose to make the argument, please demonstrate some integrity and answer this question simply and directly: which of these KJV verses is "the faithful witness"?
2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
The Vulgate was around for centuries before the Roman Catholic Church got underway.
When the Vulgate was translated there were only bishops in charge of the churches.
The Catholic Church did not officially accept the Vulgate as scripture, until the Council of Trent in 1563 AD.
I have no affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church.
The Vulgate is as close to the original letters that the apostles wrote as you can get, it would be difficult to fault the Vulgate.
The Vulgate was not the product of the Roman Catholic Church.
There seems to be an academic void in Protestant circles.
The Catholic Church as you understand it, did not exist at the time of the translation of the Vulgate.
In my opinion, the OP presents a false premise (perhaps not intentionally)... that false premise is that any form of human communication can be "perfect", and that is simply untrue. (There's tons of literature out there that will support this idea.)
Regardless, the KJV falls into the camp of "human communication" and therefore is faulty... just like any other version of Scripture.
The important thing that I like to keep in mind is that we serve a God who is all-powerful, and is able to communicate with us regardless of the limitations of our language(s).
Regardless, the KJV falls into the camp of "human communication" and therefore is faulty... just like any other version of Scripture.
The important thing that I like to keep in mind is that we serve a God who is all-powerful, and is able to communicate with us regardless of the limitations of our language(s).
I have struggled to accurately trace the development of the formal Roman Catholic Church. Every church in the first five centuries had bishops (popes) and for some centuries after.
The confusion creeps in even with the word, "pope", which simply means father. So all the literature uses the word "pope", this complicates the investigation. There are layers of historical information, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, secular.
I do know from historical sources that the East and Western churches split in 1054 AD, over the issues shown below.
Prominent among these were the procession of the Holy Spirit (Filioque), whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist, the bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction. (wikipedia)
So we know that the bishop in Rome was claiming that universal authority, over all churches before 1054 AD.
Get an English translation of the Latin, so easy. Then you will be at the coal face of what the apostles actually said.
I'm inclined to agree; it makes sense with the following phrase, where the KJV renders them somewhat disjointed.
It also makes sense because what kind of curse is it that makes life easier.
Food for thought…
John Gill - “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, this is to be understood of her being solely at the will and pleasure of her husband; that whatever she desired should be referred to him, whether she should have her desire or not, or the thing she desired; it should be liable to be controlled by his will, which must determine it, and to which she must be subject, as follows: and he shall rule over thee.”
John Calvin on Genesis 3:16 - “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband," is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, 'Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.' … Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position.”
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “her condition would henceforth be that of humble subjection."
Adam Clarke commentary - “Thy desire shall be to thy husband - for thy desire, thy appetite, shall be to thy husband; and he shall rule over thee, though at their creation both were formed with equal rights, and the woman had probably as much right to rule as the man; but subjection to the will of her husband is one part of her curse.”
Matthew Henry - "She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, of which see an instance in that law, Num. 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”
They are speaking of her position mostly which I agree with.
BTW...all are very learned men whom I have much respect for. I wonder, how many learned men believe as I suppose that you chose not to quote.
Hello John146, one of my favorite and most useful commentaries is The KJV Bible Commentary. Here's what it has to say about Romans 8:1 KJV (the highlights in bold are theirs, not mine, while the tildes ~~ are mine, not theirs, just FYI).
8:1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. The word condemnation (Gr katakrima) means ~more~ than just the opposite of justification; it indicates that we are not servants to the penalty for our sin, but that guilt and penalty have been removed at the cross. Therefore, for those who are in Christ Jesus, ~we do not live under the constant threat of judicial punishment by God~. In many ways this chapter is the consummation of Paul’s argument concerning the depravity of man and the righteousness God provided to meet man’s need. The expression, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit is not in the original. There should be an exclamation point after the expression therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus! ~Hindson, E. E., & Kroll, W. M., eds. (1994). KJV Bible Commentary (p. 2238). Thomas Nelson.
The thing is, I wouldn't have a problem with the KJV/NKJV's additional qualifying phrase in v1 (even if it really was in the Autograph), because the context of Romans 8 tells us that "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" is a description of ~ALL~ who are true believers, ALL who are "in Christ Jesus", as The KJV Bible Commentary also helps make clear for us above (IOW, it is not describing 2 different classes of believers). NONE of us walk after the Spirit perfectly, of course (well, save the One, of course), but when the opposite is true, IOW, when an impenitent person continuously, "walks after the flesh and not the Spirit", THAT is the perfect description of an unbeliever (someone who was ~never~ saved).
If a person who claims to have become a Christian has no desire to delivered from their carnality and worldliness on this side of the grave, IOW, if their sole desire in doing so was to escape God's wrath and the fires of Hell in the age to come, then their "claim" of salvation should be regarded as nothing more than that (as they are CINO).
God bless you!!
~Deuteronomy
p.s. - just for good measure, here's what another well-known commentary (that uses the KJV text exclusively) has to say about Romans 8:1. Once again, the text in bold is theirs, not mine.
1. There is therefore now, &c.—referring to the immediately preceding context [OLSHAUSEN, PHILIPPI, MEYER, ALFORD, &c.]. The subject with which the seventh chapter concludes is still under consideration. The scope of Ro 8:1–4 is to show how “the law of sin and death” is deprived of its power to bring believers again into bondage, and how the holy law of God receives in them the homage of a living obedience [CALVIN, FRASER, PHILIPPI, MEYER, ALFORD, &c.].
no condemnation: to them which are in Christ Jesus—As Christ, who “knew no sin,” was, to all legal effects, “made sin for us,” so are we, who believe in Him, to all legal effects, “made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Co 5:21); and thus, one with Him in the divine reckoning. There is to such “NO CONDEMNATION.” (Compare Jn 3:18; 5:24; Ro 5:18, 19). But this is no mere legal arrangement: it is a union in life; believers, through the indwelling of Christ’s Spirit in them, having one life with Him, as truly as the head and the members of the same body have one life.
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit—The evidence of manuscripts seems to show that this clause formed no part of the original text of this verse, but that the first part of it was early introduced, and the second later, from Ro 8:4, probably as an explanatory comment, and to make the transition to Ro 8:2 easier. ~Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 239).
Errors and Mistranslations in the KJV
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html
Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today | Bible.org
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
Are there Errors in the King James Version (KJV)? – PeterGoeman.com
https://petergoeman.com/errors-in-king-james-version-kjv/
Errors in the King James Version (Boy, are there a lot of them) – The Superior Word
https://superiorword.org/errors-in-the-king-james-version/
King James Bible Errors
https://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/bible-errors.html
This is only a few of what I found.
https://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html
Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today | Bible.org
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
Are there Errors in the King James Version (KJV)? – PeterGoeman.com
https://petergoeman.com/errors-in-king-james-version-kjv/
Errors in the King James Version (Boy, are there a lot of them) – The Superior Word
https://superiorword.org/errors-in-the-king-james-version/
King James Bible Errors
https://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/bible-errors.html
This is only a few of what I found.