Non KJV version fallacies
–
–
It has been said, “he who controls the language can shape thinking.” This is true. Arranged words within a language define, forming our perceptions toward a particular idea or understanding. Every idea or understanding is revealed through the choosing particular words to convey that idea. However, if any of those words are changed a whole different meaning toward the idea can be construed, which generally can distort, pollute, contradict, misdirect, and/or confuse the original genuine idea or understanding. This changing/replacement of words has vividly been the case and is still happening today regarding the Bible with a number of modern revisions/translations.
–
I am confident when I say that the Holy Spirit, who inspired CHOSEN MEN (not just any man) to pen words with distinct meaning in Scripture, never intended other men to rewrite them with words that do not define His original genuine truth, which He intended to be conveyed. Only Satan would desire that to be the case.
–
Therefore, if you care at all about receiving the true inspired genuine message of God, then you need to pay attention and make sure that the words you are reading in a book claiming to be the Bible and genuine are truly genuine and not counterfeit, even though you may like the way it sounds. If you are careless regarding this, you will be susceptible to believing a false notion or doctrine that can bring damnation. “God is no respecter of persons.” It is your responsibility to seek the truth. God will always provide the truth for those who want it, just as He will send a “strong delusion” to those who desire it not. What do you desire?
–
If you are one who have read my writings, you are aware how I have pointed out clearly, in several of them, invalid and incongruous renderings found in certain revisions in various verses of Scripture regarding Biblical marriage. I distinctly note, in every instance, the main culprit for their boldness to literally write distortions of the original text (adding or arranging wording to create a meaning not found in the original text) was their inability to fully understand what the original text meant, because of their ignorance of meaning or failed and secular concepts (theology) of Biblical marriage. Then, they irreverently rewrite the text inserting those wrong apprehensions and proclaim that they are original.
–
Heretofore, I want to expose a couple other egregious irreverent revisionary rewritings, where the Bible provides instruction to readers concerning marriage, its violation, and effects. The first text is found in Romans 7:3 and the version I want to use particularly as an example, but not exclusively, to illustrate my point is the very popular English Standard Version (ESV).
Before I continue to show you what I am alluding to, let me quote a little of what is said about the ESV on BibleGateway.com: “Each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity… or overlooking any nuance of the original text… The ESV is an ‘essentially literal’ translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text…”
–
Now, allow me to delineate my point and let’s see whether this description, which I believe is presented to us by its authors is true or not. Does this version truly “ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity,” “avoid under-translating,” and “has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek,” in the verse in question? Does it accurately convey truth, or does it cause the Scripture to contradict itself and impart confusion? You be the judge.
–
Note: I will explain my marital theology while addressing my grievance against the noted revision, but if my theology appears unclear, then it would be best to familiarize yourself with it by reading more of my writings.
–
In making reference to Romans 7:3, I will write it as it is in the KJV and the ESV so we can see the differences:
–
KJV: a) “So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: b) but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”
–
ESV: a) “Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. b) But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress.”
–
The disparity I am alluding to in the ESV, as opposed to the KJV should be pretty easy to identify. If one looks at the words in the first part of the verse I emboldened, one can immediately discover a notable variance.
–
In the original language, it is very clear that the message being conveyed is that a woman married to one living man (the law of being joined (sexual intimacy)) is lawful. However, if she be married (sexual intimacy) to two living men, she loses her status as a lawful wife and becomes classified as an unlawful adulteress (what she shall be called concerning her sexually moral status). She violates the created law of oneness with her living husband and creates another oneness with another husband, living now under two laws – two obligations, two conjunctions. This is against the law of God’s creation of marriage and its sacredness, where “they two (not three) shall be one flesh.”
–
The law of sexual intimacy, which makes a marriage of two into one, both legitimately (wife) and illegitimately (adulteress), is being clearly defined here – no secular prescriptions implied. It is a law of the living on earth in the flesh.
–
And her being “called an adulteress” is not “by the consent and judgment of all men,” as the Geneva Study Bible commentary states. This title is given to her by the Holy Ghost. It is what God labels her. How do we know this? Well, if she had done this in secret, men or her husband would not know. However, God would. And it is to Him we will answer “that which we have done in our body…” When it is known by the husband, I write about what should be done in my other writings and why.
–
So, why does the ESV insert such a non-compatible description vs. the KJV in the first part by saying “lives with another man,” instead of “married to another man?” Yet in the second part, they use the description “marries another man?” Is not the topic of the whole verse describing the law of marriage and the different consequences of a woman’s second marriage, based upon the life status of her first husband?
–
The ESV translators basically concede this topical fact with their second part description yet contradict and confuse this fact in their first description. Why? How do the words “lives with another man” represent “the law of marriage” and its violation?
–
Let’s examine, with a few plausible questions, their reasoning for inserting this obvious incompatible rendering and Scriptural contradiction closely for either: a) obvious evidence of ignorance to Biblical marriage (sexual intimacy) or b) they see the obvious conclusion clearly described in the verse that marriage is sexual intimacy, because that is what they are referencing in their statement, but are hell-bent on not admitting it, because it doesn’t fit into their unbiblical secular marital concepts and theology. Therefore, they deceive by inserting unoriginal, falsely translated statements.
–
I ask: a) Does adultery only occur by a married woman living with another man, exclusively? Obviously, they are insinuating sexual intimacy between them, since adultery is the outcome. Biblically, there is a way to define sexual intimacy with no doubt to your meaning, as the Scripture in every place in the KJV does – that way is by using the word “marry or married”. So, why just “living with another man”? Can adultery not be committed by a one-time sexual encounter in an office, back seat of a car, a vacant church, etc.? Can a woman live with a man, and it not be sexual? What they actually show in their ignorance, Biblically, adultery is “marriage.” It is an illegitimate marriage, but a marriage (fleshly joining) nonetheless.
–
b) Are they insinuating through their secular philosophy that if she had a state approved marriage license, while her first husband was still alive, instead of just shacking up with the guy, she wouldn’t be called an adulteress? I believe, this is what they are insinuating. This is how the Christian church world believes – do they not? A very big discrepancy here! However, her being “married to another” while her husband is alive wouldn’t fit their secular theology, because the state won’t allow two licenses at once and no civil divorce was mentioned. So, they change the word of God.
–
2. They say they “carefully weighed the original Greek.” Well, here is the Greek wording for those highlighted words in the first part of the verse, “γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ” (she be to man another) and the Greek wording in the second part, “γενομένην ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ” (she having become to man another). Does not the woman “become another man’s” equally in both the first with a living husband and the second with a deceased one? Since the Greek is saying the same thing in both places, it either means they are married or just living together in both places. They can’t be the opposite of each other. And no woman is bound to a man by just living with him, unless she be married to him. In both places, she is a man’s wife (possession). Therein their false claims of accuracy, contradiction, and confusion are exposed.
–
3. How can such a disparity and contradiction be so haphazardly rendered by men who are supposed to be top scholars and have carefully taken from the original? Well, they are trying to hide from you the fact that they can’t fully explain the difference, because of their failed theology of Biblical marriage. So, finding as good of a description as possible to fit their secular theology, they change the original, while claiming it to be the original, because their theology (secular) does not coincide with that of the original (Biblical). They with all abandonment of respect and fear defile God’s word and deceive the reader, regardless of how nonsensical or impractical the statement is.
–
For those who have embraced the ESV, as their Bible of choice or other revisions of the same caliber, you have been duped into thinking you have the original words of the Holy Spirit. Instead, you have a counterfeit and a confused teaching of the Apostle Paul and Biblical marriage. One reason they feel they can get away with changing it, as they do, is because there has been no one to counter them on this verse, seeing that the whole church subscribes to the same wrong secular marital theology. Well, not anymore. The question is, who in Christendom cares whether they have the truth or a deception? From all appearances thus far, there is a small remnant.
–
So, now check your version and see if there is a disparity between the two parts in that verse. If there is, well, you know what you have. The NIV states “sexual intimacy,” which it is, but fails to identify that intimacy as “marriage,” which it is. Because, Biblical, there is no such thing as a male and female being sexually intimate and that’s the end of it.
–
And, now quickly, let’s view another revision’s fallacy found in the Old Testament, and let’s use the NIV this time, although the NIV isn’t exclusively the only one in error. They are not the only version that has a “copyright” on being wrong.
–
The official website http://www.biblica.com/niv/, says the NIV, “is the world’s most widely read, most trusted contemporary English translation of the Bible. Why? Because it’s easy to understand and uncompromisingly faithful to the original text” – “The best of biblical scholarship.” Biblegateway.com says it is “a completely original translation of the Bible.”
–
Well, let’s see if this is true: My example is found in Hosea 3:1. Again let’s see both the KJV and NIV as written:
–
KJV: “Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.”
–
NIV: “The Lord said to me, Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.”
–
What is obviously wrong in the NIV regarding this verse is that they declare God told Hosea to go love his wife again as he did before, even though she is loved by another man. Why is this implication a problem? Well, first, because it contradicts what Hosea said in chapter 2, verse 2. I will even quote it from the NIV, “Rebuke your mother, rebuke her, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband...” Also, he would commit fornication himself with her by doing so. They arrange the wording to make this claim, because they wrongly believe that she was a whore when he married her. Ugh! The holy prophet became an unholy defiled prophet. Ugh! Ugh!
–
This holy prophet’s words and life, in their purity, were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were needed to send a message to Israel concerning God’s attitude toward them and their present relationship with Him. For Hosea (in 2:2) to declare Gomer was no longer his wife, but God (in 3:1) supposedly declares that she still was his wife presents a contradiction in Scripture, as well as denigrates Hosea’s Holy Spirit led prophetic authority, purpose, and person. It appears that Hosea divorced Gomer against God’s will, or he was a liar in saying Gomer wasn’t his wife.
–
Ah, however, neither of these is the case. It is only men counterfeiting the word of God by changing it, due to their ignorance of Biblical marriage, which conflicts with original Scripture. Their ignorance causes them to interpret and rewrite Scripture wrongly, which confounds, contradicts, and confuses the truth of the message from the Holy Spirit.
–
What God is telling Hosea in 3:1 is this: “Go to Gomer (a woman) and love her, but only with a love as a friend, no longer as a husband.” How do we know this? Because God points out next that she is an adulteress (“yet an adulteress”) and not his wife anymore, just like what is declared in Romans 7:3, and what Hosea already indicated in 2:2. It illustrates that as Hosea is no longer intimately connected to Gomer, God is no longer intimately connected to Israel, because of their spiritual fornication with another god(s). The love that God now has for them is only a friend’s love for their well-being. That is all. Israel, like Gomer, severed (defiled) the intimate connection they had with God by their fornication. They that are holy must not defile their self. Scripture reveals how Hosea went about to show his love (care) to Gomer as a friend.
–
The NIV interprets “beloved of a friend” as “loved by another man,” which is absolutely not correct. Gomer was not loved by another man. She was a prostitute. When the Scripture mentions “lovers,” it is referring to adulteress sexual intimacies, not loving affections. What they could get from her was based on a love for their self, hence the word “lovers.” They used her sinfulness, which exemplified Israel and its lovers (other nations and gods). This is another vivid non-Scriptural and non-contextual rendering in their translations. Yet, does Christendom care?
–
“… Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:9).
–
Their ignorance of Biblical marriage is one of the greatest causes in wrongly viewing Scripture and interpreting it. Hosea and the bride of Christ are two huge examples.
–
If you want to know more on my teachings on the message from the book of Hosea, see my article “God Told Hosea To Do What?” Don’t allow yourself to be sold a false bill of goods.