Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?
- Thread starter Bible_Highlighter
- 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.
My free PDF writeup titled, “Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary for KJV Believers?” makes an extensive case for why I believe the answer to this question is “Yes.”
Simply go to www.affectionsabove.com to check it out.
The PDF presents multiple points using graphics and artwork, Scripture, and academic sources with links for further research. You may find several points of agreement in it, even if we are in two different camps when it comes to which major Bible line and Bible tradition we believe should be followed.
….
First, sorry about my blank response in post #481; maybe the mods can remove it.
Next, thank you for such a gracious, intelligent, and thoughtful reply.
I think everything you said was very well reasoned.
However, my original post was only addressing your thesis statement, and not all of your unspoken thoughts, some of which seemed to go beyond the scope of the thesis.
In conclusion, I find NOTHING ODD about your THOUGHTS, when elaborated.
But I did find much odd about the particular wording of your thesis.
I'll have to stand by this.
: )
Hope you have a great day.
What title do you think would be better? For me, it perfectly captures the heart of the point I am trying to make.
Critical Text advocates or believers are not within the scope of my criteria when it comes to knowing the original languages because there are going to be many departures from the traditional Greek text, as well as differences in the methodology and lexicons involved in learning the biblical languages.
Also, an English-only approach with the KJV has led to numerous misunderstandings of words among my KJV-only brethren. This is why I am not KJV-only. While I see the KJV as without error, I believe certain original-language words (not all of them) can convey an additional, deeper layer of meaning that is not present in the English of the KJV. This is what my PDF writeup on my site demonstrates. Go to www.affectionsabove.com to check it out and hopefully you will be able to see where I am coming from.
In any event, whether you agree or not, may the Lord Jesus bless you.
….
The title of the thread reflects a major error in the thinking of many KJVO. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, I don't know; but nevertheless. A better title might have said "believers who use the KJV."
"KJV believers" suggests the idea that believers who use the KJV only are somehow in a class of their own; that they are just a little better than other believers. I've seen this attitude many times from KJVO. They say they have the "word of God" while everyone else is deluded by corrupt Bibles.
"KJV believers" suggests the idea that believers who use the KJV only are somehow in a class of their own; that they are just a little better than other believers. I've seen this attitude many times from KJVO. They say they have the "word of God" while everyone else is deluded by corrupt Bibles.
The problem is not KJV only. the problem is one removing themselves from Jesus as the Only truth. Which God has preserved in His word. That has been conveyed to the world in many languages. Due to the wide range of meaning of words spoken today of the lack of a word God has not been limited in his word translated to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ by which all are saved. KJV did not save anyone BUT John 3: 16 in the KJV and Romans Chapter 10:9-11 placing faith in that word did save them.
In my debate, my disclaimer did not show up for some odd reason. StreamYard also did not display my presentation in the best possible format for viewing. Ideally, in order for my presentation to work well in a debate format, I would have needed to cut back some of the content in my PowerPoint slides, but I did not have time to do so. At the same time, I believe cutting the material down too much would have weakened or even crippled the argument I was trying to present. For that reason, the presentation was simply better suited for a detailed written format than for a timed debate.
For these reasons, I am not really encouraging people to watch my debate. Instead, I would encourage them to read my PDF, which is based on my PowerPoint presentation and presents the material much more fully and clearly. I even added a few additional pages of content to improve it as well.
In the PDF writeup on my website, you will also be able to see this disclaimer, which addresses part of your concern:
You can check out my PDF writeup titled, "Is Knowledge of the Original Languages Necessary For KJV Believers?" at https://affectionsabove.com/
As for your other statement about how Jesus is the only truth:
Well, if that was the case, then we would not even know about Jesus according to the Bible. You quoted John 3:16, which is the communicated word of God. So your not being consistent here. To be consistent, you would have to reject the Bible and claim that Jesus talks to you in visions and dreams, etcetera.
.....
But the Modern Bibles are corrupt. It's really obvious if one looks into such matters.
....
I did go through your links. The Middle English dictionary does list under “silence” - "(c) in ~, without speaking, silently; also, in a calm manner”. However, the references to justify that meaning seem to be the Bible verses we are assessing. This renders the argument for hEsuchia meaning “silence" somewhat circular. I.e. hEsuchia can be translated as silence in the KJV, because the Middle English dictionary lists “in silence" as meaning “in a calm manner, and hEsuchia means “in a calm manner”. However, the ME dictionary’s proof that “silence” in ME can mean “in a calm manner” is the KJV and other ME Bibles sometimes translating “hEsuchia" as “silence", and the Greek hEsuchia means “in a calm manner".
It seems we both agree, though, that for modern readers the KJV is misleading, unless one knows koinE Greek, because "in silence” nowadays denotes “refraining from speaking”. But if the KJV reader consults the Greek, they will see that the phrases are "in quietness/calmness” and "with quietness/calmness”, which do not denote "refraining from speaking.” I don’t know if there are any extra-biblical sources that use “silence" in a context that allows for the meaning of “calm conversation”, as "talking quietly” does. Do we have any references in ME literature of people “talking silently" ?
Two questions:
1. What does "modern" mean here? Anything later than 1611?
2. Could you please list a few particularly "corrupt" passages you have found in the ESV?
It would be better if you simply avoided such blanket statements, because they are indefensible. You have concluded that modern translations are corrupt; that does not mean they are actually corrupt, but rather that the heavily slanted evidence you have encountered leads you to that conclusion. I strongly suspect that you have never examined the matter from an unbiased perspective.
Don't let it fret you. The same was done to the prophets and apostles, and Jesus Himself.
The problem is not preaching the Scriptures with the same love of God and the truth, as did His prophets, apostles, and Son. The problem is when love is demanded to agree and justify sins of the believers, and only condemn those of the world.
Gal 1:10
For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Mal 2:9
Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.
Act 7:51
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
If we minister the truth, we are only responsible for teaching the Scriptures as written. We are not accountable if any believe and obey not. Nor are we the blame if any turn and falsely attack, rather than repent.
Afterall, I was once heard hearted and angrily accused the messenger, when my own sins and trespasses were condemned the same as the world's.
Saul of Tarsus as well: And Saul was consenting unto his death.
It's not how we speak the truth, but speaking the truth at all to any not loving to do the truth...
Jhn 3:20
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Psalms{119:113}
I hate vain thoughts and abhor lying: but thy law do I love. I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.
This question has been on the rise a lot lately as if it was a gotcha type question.
However, Peter Gurry who is clearly for the Critical Text uses the term "modern" in reference to critical text English translations.
Gurry writes:
“It is one of a dozen or so verses that are completely missing … from modern English Bibles.”
Source: https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/02/matt-1811-as-test-of-internal.html
He is discussing Matthew 18:11 and explicitly contrasting the KJV reading with modern Critical Text editions and translations. So even the Critical Text side accepts this term. It makes sense that they would use this term because the Critical Greek text did not exist until 1881 when Westcott and Hort smashed Vaticanus and Sinaiticus together. It was a never before seen Greek text until 1881 because it was the combining of the readings between two manuscripts. So it is a hypothetical guess as to what they believe the originals said based on just smashing these two manuscripts together. There is no actual proof that there was ever a Bible that had the exact readings as the Westcott and Hort 1881 Greek text or any of the later Nestle and Aland editions.
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are said to be the best. However, these two manuscripts contain serious textual corruptions. For instance, both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus depict Jesus being pierced by a spear before His death on the cross (See Matthew 27:49-50), a reading that never appears in any English translation because it is an obvious contradiction. In Hebrews 1:3, Vaticanus omits the crucial phrase “by himself,” erasing the only New Testament reference to Christ personally purging our sins. On this same page, Vaticanus includes a marginal note that reads, ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει (“Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!”), revealing that even scribes recognized and objected that there was a textual corruption in progress. Moreover, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in roughly three thousand places within the Gospels alone, which is hardly a mark of trustworthy or reliable witnesses. These manuscripts are far from the best, as many scholars claim. In fact, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were virtually unknown throughout church history. Nobody copied these manuscripts. So the church did not use them throughout a large part of history.
Where the ESV Changes or Weakens Doctrine
Part 1 of 3
#1. Titus 3:10 — “Heretick” is changed to a person who “stirs up division.”
The KJV says:
“A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.”
The ESV says:
“As for a person who stirs up division...”
A person can stir up division for reasons other than doctrinal heresy. The KJV specifically identifies the doctrinal character of the offender.
#2. Ephesians 5:30 — “Of his flesh, and of his bones” is removed.
The KJV says:
“For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.”
The ESV says:
“because we are members of his body.”
The explicit flesh-and-bones language disappears.
#3. Revelation 22:14 — “Do his commandments” is changed to “wash their robes.”
The KJV says:
“Blessed are they that do his commandments.”
The ESV says:
“Blessed are those who wash their robes.”
These are completely different actions and therefore communicate different teachings within this verse.
#4. Certain ESV readings can support Calvinistic teaching.
1 Peter 2:8: The ESV says unbelievers stumble because they disobey the word:
“as they were destined to do.”
This can naturally support the Calvinistic interpretation that the wicked were destined to stumble in unbelief.
Revelation 22:17: The KJV says:
“whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
The ESV retains the concepts of desire and receiving the water “without price,” but it does not preserve the KJV’s exact and emphatic combination of “whosoever will” and taking the water of life “freely.”
#5. The specific word “fornication” is replaced with the broader expression “sexual immorality.”
“Fornication” identifies a particular category of sexual sin, whereas “sexual immorality” functions as a broader umbrella expression. The more specific terminology is therefore lost.
#6. Galatians 6:4 and James 1:9 — “Rejoicing” is changed to “boasting.”
Galatians 6:4 in the KJV says:
“then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.”
The ESV says:
“then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor.”
James 1:9 in the KJV says:
“Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted.”
The ESV says:
“Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation.”
The older lexical evidence shows an important distinction. Scapula gives the related Greek verb καυχάομαι as:
“Glorior, me iacto. Item Exulto.”
The glorying or boasting senses are given, but Exulto, “I exult/rejoice,” is separately recognized as another sense.
I am not arguing that “boast” is lexically impossible. It can be a legitimate meaning. However, boast in modern English can naturally imply bragging, self-praise, or presenting oneself as better than another person. This is especially awkward in Galatians 6:4 because verse 3 has just warned:
“For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.”
The KJV’s “rejoicing” communicates the positive sense without introducing the negative ambiguity of self-boasting.
James 1:9 is especially significant because James actually uses the verb for which Scapula gives the distinct sense Exulto, “I exult/rejoice.”
#7. 2 Corinthians 5:17 — “All things are become new” is removed.
The KJV says:
“behold, all things are become new.”
The ESV says:
“behold, the new has come.”
The ESV teaches newness, but it does not preserve the explicit statement that all things have become new.
#8. 2 Peter 2:1 — “Damnable heresies” is changed to “destructive heresies,” making the verse easier to fit within an OSAS interpretation.
The KJV explicitly calls them:
“damnable heresies.”
“Damnable” tells the reader that doctrinal heresy can carry a damning consequence.
The ESV instead says:
“destructive heresies.”
“Destructive” is certainly serious, but it can more easily be understood within an OSAS framework in which grievous sin, including doctrinal heresy, results in destruction, chastisement, loss, or other severe consequences without necessarily resulting in final damnation. The KJV’s “damnable” makes the eternal consequence much more explicit.
#9. 2 Timothy 3:3 — “Despisers of those that are good” is changed to “not loving good.”
The KJV describes people who despise good people. The ESV describes people who do not love goodness.
Hostility toward righteous people and failure to love goodness are related ideas, but they are not the same statement.
[ Continued in next part ]
....
Where the ESV Changes or Weakens Doctrine
Part 2
#10. Genesis 3:16 — The 2016 ESV makes the wife’s desire “contrary to” her husband.
The KJV says:
“thy desire shall be to thy husband.”
The 2016 ESV says:
“Your desire shall be contrary to your husband.”
This makes the desire explicitly adversarial.
#11. Proverbs 16:3 — “Thoughts” is changed to “plans.”
The KJV says:
“thy thoughts shall be established.”
The ESV says:
“your plans will be established.”
Thoughts concern the inward mind and thinking, whereas plans concern intended actions or future undertakings. The object being established is therefore different.
#12. Proverbs 18:8 and 26:22 — “Wounds” is changed to “delicious morsels.”
The KJV describes the words of a talebearer as:
“wounds.”
The ESV describes them as:
“delicious morsels.”
“Wounds” emphasizes the injury gossip causes, whereas “delicious morsels” emphasizes its attractiveness to the hearer. These are substantially different pictures.
#13. Malachi 2:16 — The direct statement that the LORD hates divorce is removed from the main text.
The KJV directly says that the LORD:
“hateth putting away.”
The ESV main text does not preserve this same direct declaration that God hates divorce.
#14. Luke 2:33 — Joseph is called Jesus’ “father,” subtly watering down the witness to the virgin birth in this verse.
The KJV says:
“Joseph and his mother.”
The ESV says:
“his father and his mother.”
The virgin birth is taught elsewhere in the ESV, so I am not claiming that the ESV as a whole denies it. However, in this particular verse, replacing “Joseph” with “his father” weakens one part of the cumulative biblical witness distinguishing Joseph from Jesus’ true Father, God.
#15. John 3:13 — “Which is in heaven” is omitted.
The KJV says that the Son of Man, while speaking on earth:
“is in heaven.”
This is an especially powerful statement concerning Christ’s divine omnipresence. That explicit testimony disappears from the ESV main text.
#16. Ephesians 3:9 — “By Jesus Christ” is removed from the statement concerning creation.
The KJV says God:
“created all things by Jesus Christ.”
The ESV says God “created all things.”
The ESV teaches Christ’s role in creation elsewhere, but this particular explicit witness to Christ’s role in creation disappears.
#17. Micah 5:2 — “From everlasting” is changed to “from ancient days,” weakening the testimony of Christ’s eternal nature.
The KJV says the Messiah’s “goings forth have been”:
“from of old, from everlasting.”
The ESV says:
“from of old, from ancient days.”
The Hebrew is:
מִימֵי עוֹלָם — mîmê ʿôlām
“from the days of everlasting/eternity.”
The traditional Masoretic text and BHS agree here, so this is a translation difference rather than a textual difference.
Buxtorf’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (1646) defines עוֹלָם (ʿôlām):
“tam infinitum & æternum, quam finitum”
English:
“whether infinite and eternal or finite.”
Buxtorf therefore establishes that the KJV’s “from everlasting” is a legitimate lexical rendering of עוֹלָם.
The eternal interpretation also has very early historical support.
Cyril of Jerusalem, c. A.D. 348, commenting on Micah 5:2, says Christ:
“began not His being when He was born in Bethlehem, but Before All Ages.”
He also describes Christ as:
ἀϊδίως ἐκ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα
English:
“eternally begotten from the Father.”
Cyril explicitly rejects assigning Christ a beginning in time.
Jerome, Commentary on Micah, c. A.D. 392, likewise writes:
“de me enim natus est ante omnia saecula, et temporum conditor in tempore non tenetur.”
English:
“For He was born of Me before all ages, and the Creator of times is not bound by time.”
Thus, both the older Hebrew lexical evidence and early Christian interpretation support the KJV’s eternal sense. “Ancient days” can naturally describe remote antiquity, whereas “from everlasting” explicitly communicates the Messiah’s eternal preexistence.
[ Continued in next part ]
Where the ESV Changes or Weakens Doctrine:
Part 3
#18. Colossians 2:9 — “Godhead” is changed to “deity,” giving a more limited lexical definition.
The KJV says:
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”
The ESV says:
“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”
The historical evidence shows that θεότης was understood in terms of the complete divine nature or essence, giving important depth to the KJV’s “Godhead.”
Hilary of Poitiers, c. A.D. 356–360, directly uses Colossians 2:9 to establish Christ as:
“true and perfect God of His Father’s nature”
and speaks of the passage as establishing the truth of the divine nature in Christ. He therefore understands “the fullness of the Godhead” in terms of Christ possessing the true divine nature.
Augustine, early fifth century, explicitly connects Greek θεότης with Latin deitas:
“Hanc divinitatem, vel, ut sic dixerim, deitatem ... ut de graeco expressius transferant id quod illi θεότητα appellant.”
English:
“This divinity, or, if I may so call it, deity [deitas] ... so that they may translate more expressly from the Greek what the Greeks call θεότης.”
Scapula, Lexicon Graeco-Latinum (1616) defines θεότης with two Latin words:
“Deitas, Divinitas.”
The important point is that Lewis & Short defines both of Scapula’s Latin glosses with the sense “divine nature.”
Deitas: “the divine nature, deity,” and the entry specifically associates it with Greek θεότης.
Divinitas: includes “divine quality, divine nature.”
Therefore, the lexical chain is:
θεότης → Scapula: Deitas, Divinitas → both Latin words are defined with the sense “divine nature.”
So “deity” is lexically possible, but “Godhead” gives the fuller historic lexical and theological sense of θεότης as the complete divine nature or essence dwelling bodily in Christ.
#19. Luke 23:42 — The thief’s confession of Jesus as “Lord” is removed.
The KJV says:
“Jesus, Lord, remember me...”
The ESV says:
“Jesus, remember me...”
The explicit confession of Jesus as Lord disappears from this verse. This is especially significant when compared with Romans 10:9 and Romans 10:13 concerning confessing and calling upon the Lord.
#20. 1 John 3:16 — “The love of God” is removed, eliminating a particularly clear testimony to Jesus being God from this verse.
The KJV says:
“Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us...”
The ESV says:
“By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us...”
The deity of Christ is taught elsewhere in the ESV. Nevertheless, in this particular verse the KJV contributes another clear part of the overall biblical witness to Christ’s deity: we perceive “the love of God” because “he laid down his life for us.”
Removing “of God” removes that direct identification from this verse.
This is a Greek manuscript difference, not simply an English translation choice. The Received Text contains τοῦ Θεοῦ, “of God,” while the Critical Text omits it.
Throughout church history, Arians, Unitarians, and others have opposed the deity of Christ. Therefore, an anti-deity motive for such an omission is historically conceivable, even at an early date if manuscripts such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are as old as commonly claimed.
#21. Several ESV readings water down explicit teaching concerning Christ’s blood and its saving significance.
Romans 3:25 — “Faith in his blood” is made less direct.
The KJV says:
“through faith in his blood.”
The ESV says:
“by his blood, to be received by faith.”
The ESV retains both Christ’s blood and faith, but the direct grammatical relationship between them is weakened. The KJV explicitly speaks of faith in His blood, whereas the ESV separates “blood” from “faith” and uses the more passive wording “to be received by faith.”
Colossians 1:14 — “Through his blood” is omitted.
The KJV says:
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”
The ESV says:
“in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
The explicit statement that our redemption is “through his blood” disappears from this verse.
Acts 20:28 — “Purchased” is changed to “obtained.”
The KJV says God:
“purchased” the church “with his own blood.”
The ESV says He “obtained” the church with His own blood.
“Purchased” directly communicates the idea of buying at a price, strongly connecting Christ’s blood with the price paid for the church. “Obtained” is broader and does not communicate the purchasing imagery as explicitly.
Taken together, these readings water down several explicit statements concerning faith in Christ’s blood, redemption through His blood, and His blood as the purchase price of the church.
#22. 1 Corinthians 5:7 — “For us” is removed from Christ’s sacrifice.
The KJV says:
“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.”
The ESV does not retain “for us.”
The substitutionary relationship is therefore less explicit in this particular statement.
[ Continued in the next part. Note: This list continues beyond Part 3. ]
Where the ESV Changes or Weakens Doctrine:
Part 4
#23. New Age, mystical, or occult terminology and associations appear in certain ESV readings and ESV Study Bible material.
Proverbs 17:8
The KJV says:
“A gift is as a precious stone...”
The ESV says:
“A bribe is like a magic stone...”
A “precious stone” and a “magic stone” communicate very different concepts. The ESV introduces explicitly magical terminology.
Ephesians 4:6
The KJV says God is:
“above all, and through all, and in you all.”
The ESV says:
“over all and through all and in all.”
The KJV explicitly identifies the believers being addressed by saying “you.” The ESV removes that explicit second-person limitation. Read by itself, “God...in all” can more easily be used to support mystical or pantheistic ideas that God indwells everyone.
Matthew 2:1 and the ESV Study Bible
This example concerns the ESV Study Bible note, not the ESV Bible text itself.
The ESV Bible text says:
“wise men from the east.”
The Greek is:
μάγοι — magoi
The ESV Study Bible explanation recognizes that the term could refer to people associated with astrology, magic, dream interpretation, or learned/wisdom traditions.
Crossway itself likewise explains that magos can refer to a practitioner of magic, but it can also have the broader sense of wise men or astrologers in Matthew 2.
#24. Matthew 5:44 — The specific instruction concerning those who “despitefully use you” is removed.
The KJV says:
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
The ESV retains the instruction to pray for those who “persecute you.” It also contains the corresponding commands to love enemies, do good to those who hate, bless those who curse, and pray for those who abuse in Luke 6:27–28.
Therefore, the particular expression that is not preserved is:
“despitefully use you.”
The KJV expressly identifies this particular form of mistreatment in addition to persecution.
#25. Hebrews 12:28 — “Godly fear” is changed to “awe.”
The KJV says:
“serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear.”
The ESV says:
“offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe.”
“Awe” can involve reverence, but it does not communicate the explicit concept of fear as directly as “godly fear.”
#26. Several ESV readings alter or weaken statements concerning evil, wickedness, and the believer’s response to it.
Psalm 101:3
KJV:
“I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes.”
ESV:
“I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless.”
“Worthless” and “wicked” are not the same moral category. Something can be worthless without being sinful, while something wicked can possess considerable worldly value.
2 Thessalonians 3:3
KJV:
“keep you from evil.”
ESV:
“guard you against the evil one.”
The KJV gives the broader statement of being kept from evil, whereas the ESV limits the immediate object to the evil one.
Ephesians 5:11
KJV:
“but rather reprove them.”
ESV:
“but instead expose them.”
To expose something is to reveal or bring it to light. To reprove involves rebuke, correction, or expressing disapproval. The concepts can overlap, but they are not the same instruction. One is more personal and the other can impersonal.
Psalm 10:5
KJV:
“His ways are always grievous.”
ESV:
“His ways prosper at all times.”
Even if “prosper” is intended descriptively rather than approvingly, these are dramatically different descriptions of the wicked man’s ways.
#27. Galatians 5:12 — “Cut off” is changed to “emasculate themselves,” turning exclusion into bodily mutilation.
The KJV says:
“I would they were even cut off which trouble you.”
The ESV says:
“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!”
The Greek word ἀποκόψονται, from ἀποκόπτω, has the broader meaning “to cut off” or “cut away.” Older Greek-Latin lexical evidence glosses ἀποκόπτω with Latin amputo.
Importantly, Lewis & Short does not define amputo as “castrate.” It gives the broader senses “to cut around, cut away or off, lop off, prune.” The older lexical evidence therefore does not require the specific meaning of self-castration.
In context, I understand Paul to be wishing that these false teachers would be cut off from the fellowship of the believers they were troubling, not that they would physically mutilate themselves.
Greek even has the more explicit verb εὐνουχίζω, meaning “to make a eunuch,” which appears in Matthew 19:12. Paul does not use that word here.
The ESV therefore takes a particular interpretation and puts the graphic idea of self-castration directly into Paul’s mouth. This also creates an unnecessary apparent conflict with Christ’s commands to love our enemies and pray for those who mistreat and persecute us. The KJV’s “cut off” preserves the actual breadth of the Greek and naturally allows the sense of being cut off from fellowship, rather than making Paul wish bodily mutilation upon his opponents.
....
Correction: The word "God" is removed in 1 John 3:16. My previous statement on this verse was a typo. it is a textual or manuscript difference. I believe this was a corruption that possibly happened early on if Vatcanus and Sinaiticus are old as they say. There may be a few more typos like that, so please be forgiving here. I basically created this on the fly.
....
NO I am you are being dishonest sir, "Well, if that was the case," what do you mean ? Jesus to you is not the only way to God as John 14:6 Jesus says he is the Only Way, the only Truth, an the only Eternal life?
The Greek says hodós , alétheia, and the zōē.
You are totally unbiblical
You are quoting a Bible verse! That right there proves salvation is not solely by Jesus if you have to use a Bible verse to prove your point. What you would need is like, "Oh, Jesus is sitting right next to me and He is tell me to say this to you." etcetera. We know about how to believe and what to believe involving salvation because of the Bible. We would not know of the gospel or salvation in Jesus without the Bible as our primary source or guide. Even if you quoted early church writers, they are quoting Scripture as their authority when it comes to salvation. Did you not read in the Scriptures when Peter said the following words to Jesus? "Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life." (John 6:68). Did Jesus rebuke Peter?
....
Jhn 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Heb 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
First we must be seeking God. Then we must recieve the truth of repentance toward God.
It's the Spirit of grace, that draws us to God by conviction of our sins.
The smooth lie, is that God only draws by love, and so reproving and judging evil doing, is rejected by the unrepentant as fault-finding and 'only seeking the worst in people".
1Ti 4:2
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Heb 10:28
He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Jhn 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Mat 23:26
Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Col 3:5
Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
The first step only the Lamb can do, by taking away lust for sin and purifying the heart. We must do away with the sinful deeds of the body.
Mat 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sinning.
Jhn 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
1Jo 3:5
And we know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
The two opposing gospels of works alone and faith alone salvation, leave sanctification unwhole: Works alone sanctifies the body only, but not the heart. Faith alone sanctifies the heart only, but not the body.
Works without faith in Jesus are dead works; And faith without works with Jesus is dead faith.
But when we repent of our deads for Jesus' sake, He sanctifies us wholly within, and as a whole new creature of God, we stanctify ourselves to Him and abstain from evil works;
2Co 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ,
1 Thess{5:22}
Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also doeth it.
2Co 1:12
For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
The simplicty of Christ get lost, when we overthink the simple gospel message:
Acts{3:19}
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
If we repent of what we can do, then God takes away what we can't repent of: The lust of the world for sinning against God.
If we repent of our own evil deeds for Jesus' sake, then He comes to take away our sin, and we go on to do His will, and not our own.