Over time I have enjoyed your posts -- but not this one.
Dear Jim.
Grace, peace, and love to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am wishing you nothing but good things to you in Christ Jesus.
I do hope that while I did offer some posts that you found enjoyable, that you will not hold it against me for my own conviction of what I believe is true. This is not a topic that I believe we should divide over as brothers in Christ. I do have one brother I know personally who does not believe the King James Bible is inerrant or perfect, but we love each other as brothers in Christ greatly.
We actually disagree on other things, but we hug it as Christians.
I pray that you will not think less of me for my stand on what I believe is true. After all, I see it as a part of my faith. But we can agree to disagree in love (of course) and stand upon those other great things that glorify the Lord Jesus and His good ways.
Every English translation has "problems", including both the KJV and the NKJV.
From my perspective and experience, I do not see it that way.
When I first started out in the faith back in 1992, I could quickly see the changes for the worse, and not for the better in Modern Translations compared to the King James Bible. Sure, the KJB is extremely difficult to read. I also believe we should read Modern Translations, as well. So I disagree with my KJB Only brethren. I prefer to call myself “Core KJB” because while the King James Bible is my core foundation or base, I do agree that the King James Bible is very difficult to understand at times, and therefore we should read Modern English bibles to help update our understanding on 1600’s English (Without having to create another translation). I know. You disagree even with my position and that’s okay. Again, we as believers are not going to agree on everything in this life.
I see it as… if there is no perfect Bible, then how can I trust what God said?
If there is no perfect Bible then how can I determine what is true or false in His Word?
Many times what we may think is an error is not really an error at all but it is based on our limited human reasoning.
But most importantly I believe the way I do because it fits best in what we see in the Bible.
The prophets and apostles did not look to some ancient language. The Jews did not ask Jesus, “Master, what translation of the Hebrew Scriptures are you referring to?” What we see in the Bible is God preserving His word with copies. We see this in Jeremiah and Deuteronomy.
As you know, the earliest Bible manuscripts are written in ancient languages that have many differences between them and English (including early 17th Century English). Even if we had perfect sources (which we don't), there are still many differences between ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. There are even differences between the Hebrew OT and the Septuagint, the OT in use in the era of Jesus, His disciples, and Paul.
I understand this is the story told by scholars or the religious elite class, but I prefer to believe the Bible to build my faith and not the words of men. Yes, there is a degree I believe in history, but I look at it as secondary and it is not on the same level as Scripture to me. I realize that history written by men could be wrong.
In other words, if history recorded by men aligns with my faith in God’s Word, then I do give it some credence or weight but I do realize that even this could potentially be wrong by a small percentage.
What I know is true 100% is God’s Word (The Bible).
As for the LXX:
Well, we have to understand that Jesus spoke about jots and tittles. Jots and tittles are marks in Hebrew and not Greek. Jots and tittles are kind of like the crossing of our “t’s” or the dotting of our “i’s”; But they are Hebrew marks that make up Hebrew letters (that form words in the Hebrew).
Jesus also did not go out first to the Gentiles (Greeks) but he went first to Israel or the Jews. Jesus even almost ignored a Canaanite lady because he was first sent to the Jews and not the Gentiles. So the idea that some like to spin that there was an LXX (or Septuagint) existing before Christ’s birth seems highly unlikely.
Jesus said salvation was of the Jews. The Jews were supposed to be a light to the Gentiles. But seeing they failed in that mission, Jesus succeeded where they failed.
Here is the NET translator's note for Zecheriah 13:6: "
tn Heb “wounds between your hands.” Cf. NIV “wounds on your body”; KJV makes this more specific: “wounds in thine hands.”
sn These wounds on your chest. Pagan prophets were often self-lacerated (
Lev 19:28;
Deut 14:1;
1 Kgs 18:28) for reasons not entirely clear, so this false prophet betrays himself as such by these graphic and ineradicable marks." If the Hebrew says "wounds between your hands", where exactly is that? The air? "Wounds
in thine hands" is therefore an inaccurate but reasonable
interpretation.
Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW's) falsely teach that the cross is pagan. JW's erroneously believe that Jesus was on a stake and not a cross. In one JW picture from JW.org they show Jesus with one nail going through his hands of which you can check out in their website page
here.
Yet, in John 20:25 of their own New World Translation (on their own website) states, “Unless I see in his
hands the print of
the nails...”; In the photo of Jesus they have on their official website with him being on a stake they show only ONE NAIL in his hands. Yet, their own translation on their website says NAILS in his hands. So they are contradicting themselves. The Bible they used before the New World Translation that they used was the King James Bible (KJB). The KJB mentions the word “cross” and not a “stake” that their new updated catered Bible falsely says. This is evil to say that the cross is pagan when the word cross was in the earliest English bibles even before the King James Bible. Even the cross can be seen in the Israelite camp arrangement in the Old Testament.
Anyways, why do I bring up the JW's misinterpretation on not believing how Christ was nailed to a cross? Well, because it relates to John 20 telling us also about the truth of how Jesus was wounded in his hands. It also illustrates that a religion can be false for teaching false truths, as well. But my point here is that Jesus wounds were in his hands and not between his arms (According to Scripture). You cannot say there are wounds (plural) between his arms when it was only one wound (a spear in his side puncturing Him to make sure He was dead - John 19:24). Yet, I can say wounds in my hands to refer to one wound each in both of my hands and it would not be a contradiction of grammar to say that.
John 19:24 says,
"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."
But again, it comes back to John 19:34, and John 20.
The only wound Jesus had on his side was one and that was with a spear.
It was not multiple wounds in between his arms. There was just one wound there.
But Thomas clearly said that unless he seen his HANDS the print of the nails, he would not believe.
When Jesus encountered Thomas, he said to him, “Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust
it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” This means that the nail print marks in his hands could be felt and seen.
Plus, the NKJV earlier editions had the words “in your hands,” but they later took that out and changed it. No doubt this was of course influenced so as to retain the copyright (So that they could make money).
If you look at Psalms 10:5, the translations are "all over the place" For example, the NRSVue has it as "Their ways prosper at all times; your judgments are on high, out of their sight; as for their foes, they scoff at them." Clearly, this verse is difficult to translate into English.
Psalms 10:5 is merely showing a pattern of inaccuracy. If we were talking about just one or two verses here and there, then that would be one thing, but the overwhelming number of verses that are changed for the worse, and not for the better is the idea here.
The comment on Genesis 13:15 and Galatians 3:16 isn't even worth commenting on.
Not sure why you skipped this one. This one really proves that the NKJV made a huge mistake and shows that is not as accurate as the King James Bible. Galatians 3:16 makes a point about seed (singular) and not seeds (plural) in both the NKJV and the KJB. Yet, in the NKJV it removes the OT reference on mentioning the seed (singular) in Genesis 13:15. So if the NKJV is all you knew, then you have no clue as to what Galatians 3:16 was talking about.
I will try and address the rest of what you wrote soon (Lord willing).
May His grace, and peace always be upon you.
