Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .2
In Matthew chapter 15 we find the record of the Lord Jesus Christ’s journey into the region of Tyre and Sidon. This was a mainly gentile area and while there a local gentile woman approached the Saviour seeking help for her daughter who was vexed by a demon. Verses 22 – 25 record:-
22 ’And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.’
It is clear that although a pagan woman, she understood that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah for she refers to Him as Lord and as Son of David. In verse 25 we see that she in fact ‘worshipped’ the Lord Jesus as she besought His help for her daughter. The Greek word translated worship in this passage is:-
προσκυνέω = proskyneō = worship
This particular Greek word is consistently translated as ‘Worship’ in the text of the Authorised Version of the Bible, however, the same cannot be said for the modern versions of the Bible. The very same word is translated as ‘bowed before Him’ in the New Century Version (NCV) and as ‘knelt before Him’ in both the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New International Version (NIV).
The question we need to ask ourselves is this, do these renderings convey the idea of worship as strongly as using the word worship? Personally I feel that they do not. In the unlikely event that I am ever invited to Buckingham Palace to be Knighted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, I would have to knell before my earthly monarch. Would that mean I am worshipping her? Certainly not! Part of the act of worship may be to knell, but knelling may not always reflect worship. The AV uses the correct word in this case and I fear the modern versions undermine the Deity of Christ by robbing Him of worship.
Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. In the story of the Demoniac of Gadara in Mark Chapter 5 v 6, the AV renders the Greek as worshipped. The NCV & ESV both render it as ‘fell down before’, the NIV says ‘fell on his knees’ and the New Living Translation (NLT) uses the phrase ‘bowed low before him’. All of these are doubtless descriptions of what was physically happening, but let us not forget that the Bible is a spiritual book and this man was worshipping before God the Son.
So have the translators of the New Bibles misunderstood the Greek word? Apparently not, for when they translate Revelation 7 v11 they render the very same word worshipped as does the AV.
‘And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,’ AV
Even more worrying is their combined willingness to translate the word correctly in Acts 10. In this portion of Scripture the Apostle Peter is meet by a man called Cornelius, on meeting Peter Cornelius begins to worship him. Peter quickly puts Cornelius right explaining that he is a man just like him.
’And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.’ V 25-26 When it comes to this portion the ESV, NCV and NLT all use the word worship and the NIV uses the phrase ‘fell at his feet in reverence’. It is strange to me how these New Translations are not prepared to render the Greek as worship when Jesus is being worshipped but they are prepared to do it when Peter is being worshipped.
There seems to be a pattern of undermining the Deity of Christ in the New Bibles, perhaps there are Unitarians involved in the process. This trend worries me greatly, that is why I’m sticking with the AV.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think it undermines Christ's deity. You would never argue that Jesus was God because a Canaanite woman worshipped him. There are much more positive passages to form the argument. Anyway, the meaning of the word differs depending on the lexicon you use (see the respected Strong's or Thayer's for instance) and also importantly context.
ReplyDelete"Perhaps there are Unitarians involved in the process."
ReplyDeleteMaurice, it would shock most unsuspecting people to the core to find out just who was/is involved in many of these so-called "modern" versions... lesbians and ecumenicals to mention but a few!
Another problem passage is the great Christological reading in Philippians 2:7. The KJV states, “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant…” The New International Version renders this, “but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant…” Many have sought through reinterpretation of this passage to support the heresy that Jesus was not fully God. They do this by translating kenoo to read ‘emptied’ – Jesus emptied Himself of His deity and thus was not fully God. The New International Version translates kenoo ‘made himself nothing’. This phrase is even worse than ‘emptied’. The obvious meaning would be that Jesus, either as God or as man, ceased to exist, because ‘nothing’ indicates a lack of existence. Thus the New International Version simply translates the Saviour out of existence!
Another well-known problem in the New International Version that finds it’s origin in the United Bible Society’s text is 1st Timothy 3:16. The KJV tells us that “without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.” The New International Version, on the other hand, says, “…He appeared in a body.” For almost four hundred years English readers have used this brief creed as a statement of belief in the deity of Christ: God was manifest in the flesh. In the New International Version, however, this phrase is useless. “He appeared in a body;” who appeared, Jesus? Of course He did, because He was a man. But was He God? Not from this verse in the New International Version; here Jesus is just another person, or some sort of spirit that appeared in a body. The New International Version supporters argue that there are plenty of other verses in Scripture that deal with Christ’s deity. (Such an argument actually misses the point that is being made!) Furthermore, there are no other verses in Scripture that affirm the Godhood of Jesus as clearly and boldly as this does. It should be noted that texts which are actually portions of Scripture that were used by the early church and include “God” in this verse have been disregarded by the New International Version! On the basis of the United Bible Society’s omission, the New International Version changes this passage from a creed to a statement of the obvious.
ReplyDeleteThe New International Version, again on the basis of the Alexandrian texts, weakens another passage which teaches the deity of Christ. In the KJV, Romans 14:10b, 12 reads “for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ…so then everyone of us shall give an
account of himself to God.” The New International Version changes this to “For we will all stand before God’s judgement seat…so then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.” In the Traditional Text, all men are to stand before Christ, giving account to God; thus, Christ is being called God. The New International Version changes “Christ” in verse 10 to “God”; thus verse 12 becomes merely a restatement of verse 10, without the affirmation that the Person of the Godhead who has the right of judgement is Christ. To compound the matter, the New International Version gives no footnote to indicate the change. Thus someone referring to these verses in the KJV would find a New International Version reader totally uncomprehending. Here a wonderful verse which plainly declares our Saviour’s deity is done away with without the average Christian even
knowing it. The deity of Christ is attested in this passage in some Alexandrian manuscripts, the majority of other manuscripts, many ancient versions, and at least ten church fathers. It is missing from
only a handful of manuscripts (seven), which unfortunately for the Church includes the two considered to be the ‘best’ by modern scholars: the Vatican manuscript and the ‘original hand’ (as opposed to the corrected) copy of the Sinai manuscript! The New International Version, by this omission, does more than delete a few words; it reflects the high-handed approach to textual criticism threatening the Church today.
'It is missing from
ReplyDeleteonly a handful of manuscripts (seven), which unfortunately for the Church includes the two considered to be the ‘best’ by modern scholars: the Vatican manuscript and the ‘original hand’ (as opposed to the corrected) copy of the Sinai manuscript! The New International Version, by this omission, does more than delete a few words; it reflects the high-handed approach to textual criticism threatening the Church today.'
But was it not then 'high-handed' of the AV committee to include texts that are missing from all Greek texts and the majority of all other sources? Is it OK to add to Scripture? Is that not a treat to the Church? Is that not the essence of Romanism?
“'It is missing from
ReplyDeleteonly a handful of manuscripts (seven), which unfortunately for the Church includes the two considered to be the ‘best’ by modern scholars: the Vatican manuscript and the ‘original hand’ (as opposed to the corrected) copy of the Sinai manuscript! The New International Version, by this omission, does more than delete a few words; it reflects the high-handed approach to textual criticism threatening the Church today.'
But was it not then 'high-handed' of the AV committee to include texts that are missing from all Greek texts and the majority of all other sources? Is it OK to add to Scripture? Is that not a treat to the Church? Is that not the essence of Romanism?”
You present two hugely different issues as if they are the same. The AV translators only added words which were necessary to give clarity in the English, where otherwise the vocabulary of the English language was incapable of doing so. The translators italicized such changes so that the reader was aware that the words were additions. This was only done where absolutely necessary. The NIV translators take this to a whole new level, not only adding a lot more, but they did so unnecessarily, and in keeping with their corrupt translation philosophy. The two are not the same, and your constant effort to try and present them as the same is deceitful.
'The AV translators only added words which were necessary to give clarity in the English, where otherwise the vocabulary of the English language was incapable of doing so. The translators italicized such changes so that the reader was aware that the words were additions. This was only done where absolutely necessary.'
ReplyDeleteNo, 'Stephen', I'm not talking about the necessary English additions all versions make to make a proper sentence/convey the meaning.
I'm talking about actual Greek text added/omitted/altered in the Textus Receptus/AV.
Text like Acts 8:37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Not found in the Majority/Byzantine text, but imported from the Western and Latin texts.
So is adding/omitting/ altering the words of God OK for the AV, but not for any other version?
Or are you really with the Ruckmanites, despite your protestations, and hold the AV to be as inspired as the originals?
I have already addressed this point previously, Wolfsbane... you evidently didn't read what I said carefully enough, or too dishonest to deal with what others are ACTUALLY saying.
ReplyDeleteYou must be either a liar or suffering the early stages of dementia!
'I have already addressed this point previously, Wolfsbane... you evidently didn't read what I said carefully enough, or too dishonest to deal with what others are ACTUALLY saying.'
ReplyDeletePlease point out where you answered this.
On numerous occasions throughout the comment threads. Take the time to read them carefully.
ReplyDeleteSpecifics, please, not vague allegations.
ReplyDelete