A Plea for Zeal WITH Knowledge from AISI

S. M. writes:

”I always thought that the main point regarding the vast contrast between The KJB and other so-called Bible versions was the fact that the other so-called versions dangerously miss-translated [sic] important words like "virgin", as in virgin birth, referring to Jesus’ mother as a "young woman" instead of a virgin.

Is this not dangerous?

I get the feeling that this site [i.e, www.kjvonly.org] and the writers herein are minimizing the KJBers effort to maintain the basic tenets of the faith like the virgin birth which separates Christianity from other religions.”
---
“Dear Mr. M----
I will grant that many in the KJVOnly movement are zealous for what they perceive to be "the truth" but very often (indeed, almost always) this is a blind zeal, even fanatical zeal driven by emotion and not by knowledge. Almost every major precept or conventional "proof" of KJVOism is based on erroneous assumptions or false information. It would be easy to make a list of 20 to 30 major "givens" of KJVOism that have no basis in fact (examples: the KJV is superior because it is not copyrighted; the KJV always follows the TR Greek and MT Hebrew texts; the TR is the same as the majority text; Psalm 12:6-7 is a promise of preservation of written Scripture; ditto for Matthew 5:17-18; ditto for Matthew 24:35; the KJV translators were the greatest Bible scholars ever; the KJV is the Bible of real fundamentalists; Baptists have historically held to the KJV as the best translation, or as a perfect translation; Westcott and Hort were spiritists; the Vaticanus manuscript is inaccessible to Protestant scholars; the Old Latin follows the TR; Luther's version contains I John 5:7; Spurgeon vowed to break fellowship with anyone who didn't use the KJV; etc. etc. EVERY ONE OF THESE CLAIMS--and many more--IS PROVABLY FALSE, indeed has been documented as false in published articles and books, most accessible on the www.kjvonly.org web-site).
That some translations do play fast and loose with the original language text I readily acknowledge. Probably the most famous case is the Revised Standard Version at Isaiah 7:14 (and recently the NET Bible issued by Dallas Theological Seminary professors!). Indeed, the modern KJVO movement in large measure at its beginning fed off the criticism of the RSV in the 1950s. But just because that version abused that particular text in translation is no basis for condemning all other modern Bible translations. Among versions which do NOT mistranslate Isaiah 7:14 are the NIV, NASB, HCSB, NKJB and ESV. To condemn all because of the fault of one is equivalent to condemning all Baptist preachers because some are adulterers. We should condemn the guilty, not the innocent. And before we do either, we need to investigate and discover which is which! This, KJVO adherents have not done, or not done adequately.

And then there are glaring theological issues with the KJV itself--4 times it refers to the Holy Spirit as "it"; in this blasphemy, only the Jehovah's Witness Bible, the New World Translation, exceeds it with five such references (and strangely, the KJV doesn't hesitate to refer inversely to demons with the pronoun "he). And the KJV obscures the clear declarations in the Greek of the Deity of Christ in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. As the Deity of Christ and the Personhood of the Holy Spirit are FUNDAMENTAL doctrines, is it not dangerous to encourage people to continue to use such a translation as the KJV which falsely and inaccurately translates these passages? Would not the NKJB be far better in this regard, or the NIV or NASB?

And is it not counterproductive to urge people to continue to read a version that is filled with obscure, archaic and obsolete vocabulary and syntax, which they cannot understand and which cannot assist them in seeking a fuller knowledge of God, when other translations at least the KJV's equal in accuracy (its superiors, I would affirm) are readily available? How does this differ in kind from the Roman Catholic Church's long insistence on the "Latin Vulgate Only" in its liturgy?

KJVOism is an edifice of cards built on a foundation of sand. Until KJVOers begin to get their facts straight and apply to the KJV the same kinds of criticisms they so readily apply to other versions, they are guaranteed to remain blind leaders of the blind.

What is dangerous is having fanatical zeal to defend a view which is neither orthodox nor Biblical. That was the essence of Phariseeism, and Saul's persecution of Christians. And it is the essence of KJVOism as well.

Doug Kutilek

A “Mansion” over the Hilltop? by Doug Kutilek

“In my Father’s house are many mansions.” So reads the first clause of John 14:2 in the archaic KJV (italics added). In modern American English, “mansions” means only one thing: large stately houses on substantial acreages, reminiscent of “Tara” and “Twelve Oaks” in Gone with the Wind. And that is exactly how multitudes (including the author of the Gospel song “Mansion over the Hilltop”) misunderstand the obsolete language of the KJV here. (“Mansion” occurs nowhere else in the KJV).

At the very least, anyone who assumes “mansions” here has its modern sense should logically be moved to ask--“How can there be Tara-esque mansions in the Father’s house?” And raising such a rational question should instruct the thinking reader that somehow something is awry here. And indeed something is.

Why is “mansions” used here? What does it mean, or did it mean, in the early 17th century when the KJV was made? Was that different than its present meaning? And what of the original Greek that it ostensibly represents? What does it mean? First the Greek.

The Greek word here (without variation in printed Greek texts) is monai, the plural of mone. This word is found elsewhere in the NT (in the singular) only in v. 23 of John 14, where the KJV inconsistently translates it “abode.” Outside the NT, the word is not rare, occurring commonly in classical Greek authors, the apocrypha, Philo, Josephus and elsewhere. It is related to the very common verbal root meno, which means “to stay, remain, last, persist, continue.” It comes as no surprise then that Greek dictionaries give “staying, abiding” and “dwelling-place, room, abode” as definitions of mone in its various uses. Nothing here to conjure up images of opulent houses in plantation settings.

Tracing how this word was translated in ancient and Reformation era Bible versions while enable use to discover how “mansions” found its way here in the KJV.

The earliest Latin version--or versions, since they are multiple and diverse--of the NT is today designated as the Old Latin. These were made in the very late 2nd through the 4th centuries A. D. Of extant manuscripts of the Old Latin version(s), I have access to two in John 14. Both read mansiones in v. 2 (at v. 23, one is defective; the other reads habitaculum =”habitation, room”). Mansiones is the plural of mansio, meaning “a remaining, stay, sojourn; station, halting place.” I suspect that the other Old Latin manuscripts read the same.

In the late 4th century (ca. 385 A.D.) the diversity of Old Latin versions led to Jerome’s attempt to standardize the Latin text in what is today called the Latin Vulgate (the Vulgate is unquestionably the most influential translation of the NT ever made, dominating the Middle Ages in Europe and strongly influencing every Reformation-era translation there. See “The Latin Vulgate Bible Translation in Historical Perspective” part I, As I See It, 5:4, April 2002; and part II, As I See It, 5:5, May 2002). In the Gospels, the Vulgate is a cursory revision and standardization by Jerome of the Old Latin versions. Not surprisingly, it reads here the same as the Old Latin, namely: mansiones.

It doesn’t take a Ph. D. in Greek or Latin to recognize that the KJV’s use of “mansions” at John 14:2 is a direct transfer into English of the word employed by the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate versions. That the KJV was heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate in its text and translation may come as a surprise to some, but it is acknowledged by all who are familiar with the facts of the case. In truth, every page of the KJV NT has vocabulary borrowed directly from the Latin Vulgate; “mansions” in John 14:2 is but one example among thousands (see “Is the King James Version a ‘Roman Catholic Bible’?” in As I See It 6:2, February 2003).

Among English translations, the Anglo-Saxon version (made from the Vulgate before 1000 A.D.) translates (rather than borrows) the Latin mansiones by eardung-stowa (=”tabernacle, habitation”) both times. My Anglo-Saxon dictionary does not list mansio at all, so it apparently did not pass from Latin into Anglo-Saxon as a loanword.

Wycliffe’s version of circa 1385, also made from the Vulgate, reads “dwellings” (v. 23, “dwell”). Tyndale’s version, based on the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek text, in consultation with the Vulgate, Erasmus’ own Latin version, and Luther’s German version, has “mansions” (v. 23, “dwell”) in all editions (1526, 1534, 1535, 1536). “Mansion” is also found in Tyndale’s version at 2 Corinthians 5:1, to describe the human body--the Greek literally is “house”--as the dwelling-place of the spirit (the Vulgate has domus, “house” cf. “domicile”). Cranmer’s (1539), also known as the Great Bible, reproduces Tyndale in both places in John 14, and alone of 16th century English versions, at 2 Corinthians 5:1 as well.

The Geneva NT (1557, 1560, 1602 editions), similar to Wycliffe (but not directly influenced by him), has “dwelling places” (v. 23, “dwell”). The Bishops’ Bible (1568), the base text for the KJV revision, reads “dwelling places” (v. 23, “dwelling”).

The Roman Catholic Rheims NT (1582), made from the Latin Vulgate rather than the Greek text, not surprisingly borrows the Vulgate word “mansions” (but in v. 23 has “abode,” a translation not found in any previous English version).

Then there is the KJV of 1611. It abandons the reading “dwelling places” found in the Bishops’ Bible (of which the KJV was an official revision) and in the Geneva Bible (the English Bible most influential in the making of the KJV). Instead, it reads precisely as the Roman Catholic Rheims: “mansions” (“abode,” in v. 23). That the KJV follows the lead of the Rheims in v. 23 is certain, in as much as no other English version before 1611 so translated the word there. This makes highly likely that the KJV was also imitating the Rheims (rather than reverting to Tyndale / Cranmer) in v. 2.

Other Reformation era versions are not germane to our present discussion. Luther’s German version (1534, 1545) has “Wohnungen”=”dwelling places, habitations, rooms, abodes” (v. 23, “Wohnung,” the singular of the same word), and so this did not influence directly Tyndale and Cranmer, though it may have influenced the Geneva and Bishops’ versions.

The Reina Spanish version of 1569 (and also the Valera revision of 1602) has “moradas” (v. 23, “morada,” singular), which means “stayings, remainings; habitations, abodes.” It is somewhat surprising to me that mansiones was not borrowed from the Vulgate since a related word, “mansion” exists in Spanish, and the Reina-Valera commonly borrows Vulgate vocabulary in its translation.

I do not possess Reformation-era versions in other Romance languages (French, Italian) so am not able to investigate how they rendered the word, though post-Reformation versions in French, Italian, Portuguese, and of course Romanian, do not use any word cognate with “mansions” here. Nor do I have access to Calvin’s Latin or French versions here (Calvin’s versions and commentaries did often influence the Geneva English version, and sometimes the KJV). Beza’s influential Latin version reads habitationes (“dwelling-places” / “habitations”).

Thus far the translations. We must now briefly consider the history of the use of the word “mansion” in English, and for this we turn inevitably to the Oxford English Dictionary, almost always the “last word” in such matters.

The OED gives seven separate uses of this word over time, as follows (with the date of the earliest attested usage; I summarize, paraphrase and occasionally supplement rather than quote directly):
1. the act of remaining (1340);
2. a place where one stops or dwells; place of abode (1386). This includes a separate dwelling place, such as an apartment in a large house (1400). Tyndale’s usage in John 14:2 and an earlier one in a religious document (1340) are placed here. “Mansions” is also used of abodes in hell (by Milton; 1629. Perhaps we need a song for the unconverted “I’ve got a mansion, far beneath the hilltop”!);
3. a structure serving as a dwelling place (1340), including the chief residence of a landed aristocrat (synonym of “manor”), specifically, a stately residence (1512). The word also has been used to describe a large building divided up into separate apartments (1860);
4. a halting place on a journey; the distance between two rest stops (1382);
5. an astrological term for the 28 monthly stages of the moon (1386); “house” is now commonly used for this (think “Age of Aquarius” by the Fifth Dimension--“When the moon is in the seventh house . . .”)
6. a parcel of land (1450)
7. as an adjective (1618)

Most of these usages are labeled as “obsolete.” The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, an abridgment and up-dating of the original OED, lists only two current usages, that of a large stately house, and of an apartment building.

The words “manor” (as in “manor-house” and “lord of the manor”) and “manse” (in British English a synonym of “parsonage”) are etymologically related to “mansion” though not derived from it, and are obviously similar in usage.

So then, sorting through the historic usages of “mansion” as reported in OED, it is clear that the OED correctly classifies Tyndale’s (and subsequently the KJV’s) use of “mansion” in John 14:2 under the meaning an apartment in a large house. We might say a guest chamber for an honored visitor. I think of the special room prepared by the Shunamite woman and her husband for the prophet Elisha, 2 Kings 4:10; and Samuel Johnson’s visit to the Thrales’ estate, where he more or less remained continuously for 20 years! In the Father’s house, we are honored guests, with our own well-furnished apartment, and we never have to leave, because we are home.

While “mansions” adequately and accurately represented in English the meaning of the Greek word monai in 1611, it certainly does not do so today, because of four centuries of extensive change in the English language. As a consequence, the KJV is at this point now obsolete, archaic, and misleading, and therefore inadequate (and this is but one of many hundreds of such places where the KJV does not conform to modern English usage, and therefore fails to communicate accurately to the modern reader. This is why I do not recommend the KJV to anyone, if they are seriously interested in knowing what the Bible teaches; indeed, I recommend that people not read it because of its frequently archaic language, recommending instead a modern English version or two).

How do modern conservative English versions treat John 14:2? The NIV has “rooms” (v. 23, “home”); the NASB “dwelling places” (v. 23, “abode”); the NKJB “mansions” (with footnote, “literally, dwellings”; v. 23 “home”); the ESV “rooms” (v. 23, “home”); HCSB “dwelling places” (v. 23, “home”). All of these are suitable (if you ignore the NKJB’s text, and follow its footnote) and adequately convey the sense and meaning of the original to the modern reader, in a way that “mansions” certainly does not. Not only will these modern translations be understood, they will not be misunderstood. With so many better options for English readers, not only here but throughout the Old and New Testaments, how can anyone justify continuing to use--and imposing on church members--a translation which they are guaranteed to misunderstand repeatedly? Exactly what is the point of that?
---Doug Kutilek

I appreciate this brother so much.
J. Wendell

My Comments on 1 Corinthians 1:4-9©

4I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; 5That in everything ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; 6Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you: 7So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 8Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

God’s Word is so rich, and powerful. Thanking God has become very natural to me as breathing, bathing, and banking. OK those last two weren’t always so natural for me, but neither was praise and thankfulness. I thank God for you my brother and sister, in Christ; we have a connection that is deeper than the name on the door of our church, or the sign in front, or names we are called by others or to my shame, names I have called some of you. We are brothers and sisters in Christ (did I ever mention that those are my two favorite words in the Bible?) We are enriched by Him! The Greek word for enrich is pronounced ploo-tid'-zo, it means to make wealthy (figuratively): - en- (make) rich.
____________________________________________

Side Bar: I am not a Greek Scholar; I do use a wonderful program called eSword, why not give it a try yourself?
____________________________________________

Now I hope this doesn't shock any of you, but I think it's OK to be rich. I mean wealthy! God, right, here has given us a clue how to get even richer. I may be going out on a limb on this one; tell me what you think.

That is the first stream of conciousness (rambling).
The second one that came to mind is belonging. It is so wonderful to belong, to be accepted! Jesus Christ has accepted me into His family called the church, and His church that meets in Toledo, has accepted me too. If you are "in Christ" why not give thanks to God for His acceptance of you?

Have you been accepted into Jesus' heart?

In His riches,
John 10:10

My Introduction to 1 Corinthians ©

My personal comments on this New Testament book are my own independent comments unless otherwise stated; any similarities with someone else’s work or expressed ideas are strictly coincidental and unintentional as far as I know. Feel free to ask questions or express opinions in the comments section of each post, remember these are public and can be accessed by anyone (IOW be polite.) If you have questions or concerns or something personal you wish to express I encourage you to use my email link. My confident and eager expectation is that these posts will be a blessing and/or a challenge to all who read.

Abundantly yours,
Brother John

1 Corinthians 1
1Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's: 3Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Are you called of Jesus Christ through the will of God?


This is to the local church that met at a place called Corinth. It is written to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus - that is what being a saint is - all that in every place who call on the name of the Lord. I wonder why Paul said both their's and ours? At any rate, he is wishing us God's best, "Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."

What are your thoughts?

In His abundance,
brother John

Love?

Last Saturday, I experienced a paradigm shift of colossal proportions. God opened my understanding like nothing I have ever experienced in my Christian walk. I won’t take my time or yours to try to explain it to you just now because I’m not sure I could articulate it in any comprehensible manner, but my understanding was truly expanded and extended further than I ever thought possible. This resulted in some deep thought, prayer, and meditation on the Word of God and just to give you a hint: it was a result of contemplating a word or two from 1st John: ag-ap-ah'-o or ag-ap-ah'-o.

At the risk of causing any confusion, let me just say that from my former perspective, I do think most people get it. This unconditional love must extend outside the scope of our diminutive comprehension, beyond our own circles of influence, past the protected borders of our local church, further than our experience, and applied to everyone. This may seem like a lot, and it is. I encourage you to think about this; I did and it did wonders for me. Because this is such an immense concept to weigh up, start small. Even less is more than I have mastered so far.

For example: if you possess unconditional love for your life mate, you may still desire growth and change in them for their greater good, but would you demand change in them? What if he/she never changed? Do you get angry? Why? Is that how we express unconditional love? If you demand change in them is that love truly “unconditional” for them or is it your idea of how they should be in order for you to love them? Be honest, it is CONDITIONAL isn’t it? Do you really have unconditional love for who they are?

Think for a moment about the many ways to think? It is vast and varied. Why not learn from other peoples' perspectives, add it to your own, expand your thinking and enjoy it when others grow because of your affection and love for them?

Abundantly,
John

My next posts -if God permits- will be on 1Corinthians