Which Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rdbseekingafterhim
  • Start date 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.
"And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker."
(Acts 14:12 KJV)

- this misleading transliteration can be traced back to Jerome’s Latin Vulgate which used the Roman names of the Greek gods


"Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker."
(NIV)

- these are the correct names, you can verify it in the underlaying text: Acts 14:12 Interlinear
 
Last edited:
You say the KJV has errors and then call it the word of God. I believe God's words are without error. If it is indeed God's word, then it contains no errors. God's word would be perfect and without error. I would never say that God's word has errors.

It either is God's word or it's not. Same for all the rest of the translations. They are or they are not.

I didn't say there were errors in God's word. I said that there are "errors" in translations. ALL translations.
Not game-changing errors, but errors, nonetheless.

I see no indication that God ever said "I will preserve every word, punctuation mark, and smudge exactly the way they were written down by Moses, Matthew, Paul, etc..."

What God told us he would preserve are His words.... their meanings and intent. Translations will inevitably have small errors in spelling, nuance, etc.... but nothing that changes the essence of God's words to us.

EXCEPT the obvious, well known, purposeful MIS-TRANSLATIONS such as the ones for the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons.
 
I didn't say there were errors in God's word. I said that there are "errors" in translations. ALL translations.
Not game-changing errors, but errors, nonetheless.

"and, even though it's a "mis-translation" in the KJV, I STILL would have no problem trusting the KJV to be the word of God. Just as I do several other translations."

If you believe the KJV has errors in it, then don't consider it to be the word of God. The word of God contains no errors. That's my whole point. If one believes that all translations have errors, then none of them can be consider the word of God.
 
"and, even though it's a "mis-translation" in the KJV, I STILL would have no problem trusting the KJV to be the word of God. Just as I do several other translations."

If you believe the KJV has errors in it, then don't consider it to be the word of God. The word of God contains no errors. That's my whole point. If one believes that all translations have errors, then none of them can be consider the word of God.
What was the perfect version before 1611? What is the perfect version in German, French and Portuguese? What is the perfect version in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin?
 
John146: Can you explain to me, why does KJV used Vulgate Latin names for greek gods and why it is not a translation error?
 
What was the perfect version before 1611? What is the perfect version in German, French and Portuguese? What is the perfect version in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin?

I'm not sure if there is a perfect version in other languages that would be considered the Holy word of God. There may be close translations, but not perfect. God never promised to preserve His words in every language. He promised to preserve His words and I believe His has preserved them in the English language in the KJV. The gospel, however, can be easily understood in any language.
 
John146: Can you explain to me, why does KJV used Vulgate Latin names for greek gods and why it is not a translation error?

The immediate context tells us very clearly that they were in the region of Lycaonia and Lycaonia was a Roman province and not Greek. And it was in the speech of Lycaonia that the people began to call Barnabas Jupiter and Paul Mercurius. The language of the Lycaonians would have been the Latin and not the Greek. The inspired Greek text merely translates and records what was said in Latin.

Jupiter - The principal deity of the ancient Greeks and Romans. He was worshipped by them under various epithets. Barnabas was identified with this god by the Lycaonians (Acts 14:12), because he was of stately and commanding presence, as they supposed Jupiter to be. There was a temple dedicated to this god outside the gates of Lystra (14:13).

Mercury - A god of the ancient heathen, the messenger of the celestials, and the deity that presided over learning, eloquence, and traffic. The Greeks named him Hermes, interpreter, because they considered him as the interpreter of the will of the gods. Probably it was for this reason that the people of Lystra, having heard Paul preach, and having seen him heal a lame man, would have offered sacrifice to him as to their god Mercury; and to Barnabas as Jupiter, because of his venerable aspect, Acts 14:11-12.
 
When studying, I use a Parallel Bible. This allows me to read the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and the NLT, all side by side. The four different Bible versions allow for a good variance in source material used for the translations. You’re easily able to compare translations from both the Majority and Minority texts. When I notice a discrepancy between verses, I can study it further online or through BibleWorks.

I do not hold to the idea of the KJV only philosophy. If you think that the KJV is completely error free, then you probably haven’t looked objectively enough at the original Masoretic text from which the KJV was transcribed. Also, there are plenty of interlinear Bible databases online that use the Textus Receptus. You can compare for yourself.

Remember that the same belief of an “authoritative only translation”, was also held by the Roman Church for many centuries. The Bible was said to have been “divinely” inspired into Latin only. It would be considered heresy to translate it into any other language.

So why do some still believe that God would only choose to make an acceptable translation occur in only the English tongue…and in one version? Why don’t the Germans, the French, the Russians, the Spanish, etc., get to have an “authoritative text”? Wouldn’t God want His message to be spread to as many as possible? Do they all have to learn Old English to truly understand God?

I don’t believe that any single version of the Bible is going to be absolutely 100% infallible from a few transcription errors. There are only those versions to which you may personally view as being “most” accurate to your source text.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grace777x70
You say the KJV has errors and then call it the word of God. I believe God's words are without error. If it is indeed God's word, then it contains no errors. God's word would be perfect and without error. I would never say that God's word has errors.

It either is God's word or it's not. Same for all the rest of the translations. They are or they are not.
good points there

to me, saying this or that version is God's word is shorthand for saying this is a human translation based on human copies of God's word given to the prophets and apostles.

there are errors, they aren't significant.
 
"and, even though it's a "mis-translation" in the KJV, I STILL would have no problem trusting the KJV to be the word of God. Just as I do several other translations."

If you believe the KJV has errors in it, then don't consider it to be the word of God. The word of God contains no errors. That's my whole point. If one believes that all translations have errors, then none of them can be consider the word of God.

On what Scripture do you base this belief? It looks to me like you have made doctrine out of your own preference for certainty. It looks like another error based on the falsehood of "KJV = the word of God (exclusively, perfectly and absolutely)". That is circular reasoning.


The immediate context tells us very clearly that they were in the region of Lycaonia and Lycaonia was a Roman province and not Greek. And it was in the speech of Lycaonia that the people began to call Barnabas Jupiter and Paul Mercurius. The language of the Lycaonians would have been the Latin and not the Greek. The inspired Greek text merely translates and records what was said in Latin. ...

Your source for this alleged information is what? Lycaonia was in Southeastern Anatolia, a very long way from Rome. It is far more likely that the people of the region spoke Greek than Latin, so you need to back up your claim with actual evidence, not dodgy speculation.
 
The immediate context tells us very clearly that they were in the region of Lycaonia and Lycaonia was a Roman province and not Greek. And it was in the speech of Lycaonia that the people began to call Barnabas Jupiter and Paul Mercurius. The language of the Lycaonians would have been the Latin and not the Greek. The inspired Greek text merely translates and records what was said in Latin.

Jupiter - The principal deity of the ancient Greeks and Romans. He was worshipped by them under various epithets. Barnabas was identified with this god by the Lycaonians (Acts 14:12), because he was of stately and commanding presence, as they supposed Jupiter to be. There was a temple dedicated to this god outside the gates of Lystra (14:13).

Mercury - A god of the ancient heathen, the messenger of the celestials, and the deity that presided over learning, eloquence, and traffic. The Greeks named him Hermes, interpreter, because they considered him as the interpreter of the will of the gods. Probably it was for this reason that the people of Lystra, having heard Paul preach, and having seen him heal a lame man, would have offered sacrifice to him as to their god Mercury; and to Barnabas as Jupiter, because of his venerable aspect, Acts 14:11-12.

So the inspired original text needed a correction by KJV historians?

"It is notable though that in the Acts of the Apostles Barnabas was called Zeus, and Paul was thought to be Hermes by Lycaonians, and this makes some other researchers to believe that Lycaonian language was actually a Greek dialect, the remnant of which can still be found in the Cappadocian Greek language which is classified as a distinct Greek dialect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycaonia
 
Last edited:
On what Scripture do you base this belief? It looks to me like you have made doctrine out of your own preference for certainty. It looks like another error based on the falsehood of "KJV = the word of God (exclusively, perfectly and absolutely)". That is circular reasoning.

Are you saying that God's word would contain errors? That would make God in error. There are no errors in God's word. So, we are left with either one Bible being God's word or no Bible is God's word.
 
So the inspired original text needed a correction by KJV historians?

"It is notable though that in the Acts of the Apostles Barnabas was called Zeus, and Paul was thought to be Hermes by Lycaonians, and this makes some other researchers to believe that Lycaonian language was actually a Greek dialect, the remnant of which can still be found in the Cappadocian Greek language which is classified as a distinct Greek dialect."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycaonia

Wikipedia? Really?

What this is saying is because the new versions of the Bible have it translated Zeus and Hermes then it is believed that they spoke a Greek dialect. Talk about circular reasoning.
 
Are you saying that God's word would contain errors? That would make God in error. There are no errors in God's word. So, we are left with either one Bible being God's word or no Bible is God's word.

BTW Greek inspired original has Greek names Hermes and Zeus and you said it was not so... so who is saying God´s word contains errors? You.
 
God's word within itself contains no errors but people's translations of the scriptures do contain errors.

Just look at some Hebrew Roots people that post scripture and change the words to always say "Law" instead of the real words used. - like "commandments". God has given commandments and exhortations to people long before the Law of Moses ever came into existence.

They do this on purpose to try to get people to go back to observing the Law of Moses for life and living. This is how things in all "versions" can get changed as they give their "bias" - as has been shown in the KJV with Dan. 3:25. All translations have them.

This is why in my opinion this whole talk about KJV only being the real word of God is complete foolishness and useless.

How does this lift up what Christ has done for us? How does this magnify the Lord? It is just a diversion from the enemy to get us off Christ and unto other "things".
 
God's word within itself contains no errors but people's translations of the scriptures do contain errors.

Just look at some Hebrew Roots people that post scripture and change the words to always say "Law" instead of the real words used. - like "commandments". God has given commandments and exhortations to people long before the Law of Moses ever came into existence.

They do this on purpose to try to get people to go back to observing the Law of Moses for life and living. This is how things in all "versions" can get changed as they give their "bias" - as has been shown in the KJV with Dan. 3:25. All translations have them.

This is why in my opinion this whole talk about KJV only being the real word of God is complete foolishness and useless.

How does this lift up what Christ has done for us? How does this magnify the Lord? It is just a diversion from the enemy to get us off Christ and unto other "things".

Then, we as Christians should just tell the truth and admit we do not have God's word. No Bible should be called the word of God. Let's be truthful to the world and tell them we are studying a book that contains errors and cannot be trusted.
 

Others agreeing with the King James Bible reading of JUPITER and MERCURY are the following: Wycliffe 1395 - “And thei clepiden Barnabas Jubiter, and Poul Mercurie, for he was ledere of the word.”, Tyndale 1525 - “And they called Barnabas Iupiter and Paul Mercurius because he was the preacher.”, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible (Cranmer) of 1540 -"And they called Barnabas Iupiter, and Paul Mercurius", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims bible 1582, The Beza N.T. 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, Mace New Testament 1729, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, John Wesley’s translation 1755, the Worseley N.T. of 1770, Haweis N.T. 1795, the Newcomb N.T. 1796, The Thomson Bible 1808, The Revised Translation 1815, The Thomson N.T. 1816, the Wakefield N.T. 1820, The Kneeland N.T. 1823, Webster’s Bible 1833, the Living Oracles 1835, Longman Version 1841, the Hammond N.T. 1845, Hussey N.T. 1845, the Hewett N.T. 1850, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Revised Version 1881, the Living Oracles 1835, the Morgan N.T. 1848, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, the Sawyer N.T. 1858, Kenrick N.T. 1862, The Revised N.T. 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, The Emphatic Diaglott Bible 1865, Anderson N.T. 1865, Noyes Translation 1869, The Alford N.T. 1870, the Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, the Sharpe Bible 1883, Dillard N.T. 1885, Darby translation 1890, the ASV 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, the Godbey N.T. 1902, Worrell N.T. 1904, J.B. Phillips Translation 1962, the New Life Version 1969, the New English Bible 1970, The Living Bible 1971, the Worldwide English New Testament 1998, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, Updated Bible Version 2004, the New Simplified Bible, the Knox Bible 2012, the New Heart English Bible 2008, the English Jubilee Bible of 2010, The Hebrew Names Version 2014 - “They called Bar-Nabba "JUPITER," and Sha'ul "MERCURY," because he was the chief speaker. “

Other English Bibles that also read JUPITER and MERCURY like the King James Bible are The Word of Yah 1993, The 21st Century King James Version 1994, Revised Webster Bible 1995 (Larry Pierce), Worldwide English New Testament 1998 - " They named Barnabas, JUPITER. And they named Paul, MERCURY, because he was the one who talked.", God's First Truth 1999, The Sacred Scriptures Family of Yah 2001, The Worldwide English Bible 2000, The Tomson N.T. 2002, The Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), The Context Group Version 2007, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The New European Version 2010, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the World English Bible 2012.

Adam Clarke comments on Acts 14:12 - “They called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius - The heathens supposed that Jupiter and Mercury were the gods who most frequently assumed the human form; and Jupiter was accustomed to take Mercury with him on such expeditions. Jupiter was the supreme god of the heathens; and Mercury was by them considered the god of eloquence. And the ancient fable, from which I have quoted so largely above, represents Jupiter and Mercury coming to this very region, where they were entertained by Lycaon, from whom the Lycaonians derived their name. “

Barnes Notes on the New Testament tells us: “And they called Barnabas, Jupiter. Jupiter was represented as the most powerful of all the gods of the ancients. ... There is the most abundant proof that he was worshipped in the region of Lycaonia, and throughout Asia Minor. There was, besides, a fable among the inhabitants of Lycaonia that Jupiter and Mercury had once visited that place, and had been received by Philemon. The whole fable is related by Ovid, (Metam. 8, 611)

John Gill comments on Acts 14:12 - “And they called Barnabas Jupiter…The supreme God; it may be because that Barnabas was the oldest man, of the tallest stature, and largest bulk, and made the best figure; whereas Paul was younger, of a low stature, and mean appearance: and Paul Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker; Mercury was the god of eloquence, and the messenger of the gods, and the interpreter of their will F18; Paul being chiefly concerned in preaching and speaking to the people, they called him by the name of this God.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comment: “they called Barnabas, Jupiter--the father of the gods, from his commanding mien and Paul, Mercurius--the god of eloquence and the messenger and attendant of Jupiter, in the heathen mythology.”

Matthew Henry comments: “And Paul they called Mercury, who was the messenger of the gods, that was sent on their errands; for Paul, though he had not the appearance that Barnabas had, was the chief speaker, and had a greater command of language, and perhaps appeared to have something mercurial in his temper and genius. Jupiter used to take Mercury along with him, they said, and, if he make a visit to their city, they will suppose he does so now. “

J. W. McGarvey's Original Commentary on Acts - “But when two gods appeared together, the one who acts as chief speaker could be no other than Mercury, the god of Eloquence, and the constant attendant of Jupiter in his terrestrial visits. The remark of Luke that Paul was called Mercury "because he was the chief speaker," shows that he was familiar with Greek mythology.”

The People’s New Testament - “"The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." In the speech of Lycaonia. Paul had preached in Greek, which was understood over all the East, but the native dialect of the Lycaonians was different, and in that they confer together. Called Barnabas, Jupiter. The chief of the gods in the Greek and Roman Pantheon. Barnabas was no doubt a more stately man than Paul, who says that his own "bodily presence was weak and speech contemptible," and there was also a reason why they thought Paul, Mercurius. Mercury was the "interpreter of the gods." His Greek name, Hermes, is the origin of our word Hermeneutics. Paul, eloquent, persuasive, active, was thought to represent the part of Mercury. Then the priest of Jupiter. There was a temple of Jupiter before the gates of the city, with the usual priest, and carried away by their idea, they prepared to offer sacrifices to the gods whom they supposed to have visited them.”
 
It does not matter, John... Greek texts are the authority, not the mistake of many translations or many commentators.

Are you saying there is an error in the original texts and therefore KJV had to correct it?