Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

brandplucked · Post by **brandplucked** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:03 am

Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the King James Bible wrong or outdated?

There are many out there today on the internet and in the pulpits and seminaries (in fact, most Christians today fall into this category) who do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible. Instead, each one becomes his own final authority as he rummages through five or six different and contradictory versions picking out a phrase here or a verse there that he happens to “prefer” and then pieces together for himself his own peculiar version of his “Bible”.

It's not that he believes that ANY of these conflicting “bibles” are the complete and infallible words of God. He doesn't. But he has made his own mind and understanding his final authority and he feels free to “correct, change, alter, add to, omit from and retranslate” any Bible at any time, and they especially love to “correct” the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

In Isaiah 45:7 we read the LORD God of Israel saying: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.”

The Bible critic then goes on to tell us that the King James Bible is either wrong or misleading when it says that God creates “evil”. They then refer us to any number of modern versions (none of which they believe is the complete and 100% true words of God), which say something like “I bring prosperity and create DISASTER” (NIV), or “causing well-being and creating CALAMITY” (NASB) or “I make peace and create CALAMITY” (NKJV).

Along with the verse in Isaiah 45:7 they also criticize a couple other verses in the King James Bible that directly tie into this topic. In Lamentations 3:38 we read: “Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not EVIL and good?” and in Amos 3:6 we read: “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be EVIL in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?”

Instead of assuming that the King James Bible translation is wrong, this man would be much better served by merely looking up the word “evil” in any good English dictionary to learn more about his own native language. I have often found that simply learning a bit more about our own language goes a long way in clearing up many an alleged “error” in the King James Bible.

The various meanings of the word EVIL.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language defines evil in this way.

e·vil

ADJECTIVE:
e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. CAUSING RUIN, INJURY, OR PAIN; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future MISFORTUNE; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
NOUN:
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. THAT WHICH CAUSES HARM, MISFORTUNE, OR DESTRUCTION: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. SOMETHING THAT IS A CAUSE OR SOURCE OF SUFFERING, INJURY, OR DESTRUCTION: the social evils of poverty and injustice.

The King James Bible itself has variously translated the underlying Hebrew word as “evil, wickedness, affliction, mischief, troubles, harm, adversity, sorrow, bad, ill and distress.

The NASB has translated this same word as “evil (136 times), bad, deadly, great, harm, miserable, misfortune, sore, trouble, ugly, wild, disaster and wretched”.

Likewise the NIV translates it as: “evil (190 times), wicked (24 times) bad, wrong, trouble, disaster, malice, wild, ugly, deadly, painful, ruin, ferocious, grievous, terrible, harm, great, sorrows, severe, unjust, vile, worse and wretched.”

You should take note of the significant fact that none of these Bible versions translates this Hebrew word as SIN.

God does in fact create and bring EVIL upon this world, either for punishment, judgement or correction. In the book of Job we read: “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive EVIL? (Job 2:10). And in Job 42:11 we read: “Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over ALL THE EVIL THAT THE LORD HAD BROUGHT UPON HIM...” (So too read the NASBs of 1971, 1973 and 1977.)

God brings judgment upon His disobedient people in the book of Ezekiel saying: “And they shall know that I am the LORD, and that I have not said in vain that I would do this EVIL unto them.” (Ezekiel 6:10).

Again, in Jeremiah 15:7-9 we read: “Thou hast forsaken me, saith the LORD, thou art gone backward; therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary with repenting...I will bereave them of children, I will destroy my people, since they return not from their ways, Their widows are increased to me...I have brought against them..a spoiler at noonday: I have caused him to fall upon it suddenly, and terrors upon the city...and the residue of them will I deliver to the sword before their enemies, saith the LORD.”

And once more in 2 Samuel 12:11 we read God pronouncing evil upon David for his sins of murder and adultery: “Thus saith the LORD, Behold I will raise up EVIL against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.” (So too reads the NASB)

The verses in Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38 and Amos 3:6 are correct and theologically sound. God does in fact create and bring evil upon this world or an individual whether for judgment, discipline or correction.

As Bible commentator John Gill remarks on Isaiah 45:7 - "evil" is also from him; not the evil of sin; this is of men, though suffered by the Lord, and overruled by him for good: but the evil of punishment for sin, God's sore judgments, famine, pestilence, evil beasts, and the sword, or war, which latter may more especially be intended, as it is opposed to peace; this usually is the effect of sin... all afflictions, adversities, and calamities, come under this name, and are of God.”

Likewise John Calvin translates the passage into Latin with the same meaning found in the King James Bible - “faciens pacem, et creans malum” and then comments: “Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.”

Not only does the King James Bible correctly read “I make peace, and CREATE EVIL, I the LORD do all these things.” in Isaiah 45:7 but so also do the following Bible translations:the Wycliffe bible of 1395, the Geneva Bible 1587, 1599, Brenton's Translation 1851, the Calvin Bible 1855, the Lesser Bible 1853, the 1881 Revised Version, the 1902 American Standard Version, Websters 1833 translation, the Amplified Bible, the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 translation, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Hebrew Names Version, the Judaic Press Tanach translation, Green's 2000 literal translation, Darby, Youngs, the Douay-Rheims, the World English Bible, the 2004 Updated Bible Version, the 1994 KJV 21st Century version and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible.

Among foreign language translations that also have the LORD saying “I make peace and create EVIL” are the Latin Vulgate of 425 A.D. the Greek Septuagint (LXX ), Luther's German translation of 1545, the modern Portuguese Almeida - “eu faço a paz, e crio o mal”, the Modern Greek translation - ho poioon eureenen kai ktizoon KAKON - the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 - “que hago la paz y crío el mal” and the Italian Diodati of 1649 - “che fo la pace, e creo il male”.

The King James Bible is absolutely correct and theologically accurate AS ALWAYS for translating this passage in Isaiah 45:7 as “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”

Will Kinney

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:13 am

For those interested in some articles with regard to King James Only on the main site, this link below ties to several that might be of interest.

Is the King James Version the Only Bible that a Christian Should Read?
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/k ... 0tTpNUTyUb

Welcome to the site Will and thanks for pasting this article. I hope you'll stick around and participate in the conversations.

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:14 pm

Yes, and here are some links to other threads that discuss the topic in general (not the KJV).

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=33316
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=33882
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 22&t=33294

brandplucked · Post by **brandplucked** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:28 pm

Canuckster1127 wrote:For those interested in some articles with regard to King James Only on the main site, this link below ties to several that might be of interest.

Is the King James Version the Only Bible that a Christian Should Read?
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/k ... 0tTpNUTyUb

Welcome to the site Will and thanks for pasting this article. I hope you'll stick around and participate in the conversations.

Hi brother. Thank you for the welcome. By the way, I am definitely a King James Bible onlyist (the only pure and 100% true Bible in any language and the Standard by which all others are to be measured). So, please don't feel too upset if I start defending the Book and showing how all other positions are necessarily that of a Bible Agnostic, much like Bart Ehrman.

Blessings,

Will K

B. W. · Post by **B. W.** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:48 pm

brandplucked wrote:
Canuckster1127 wrote:For those interested in some articles with regard to King James Only on the main site, this link below ties to several that might be of interest.

Is the King James Version the Only Bible that a Christian Should Read?
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/k ... 0tTpNUTyUb

Welcome to the site Will and thanks for pasting this article. I hope you'll stick around and participate in the conversations.
Hi brother. Thank you for the welcome. By the way, I am definitely a King James Bible onlyist (the only pure and 100% true Bible in any language and the Standard by which all others are to be measured). So, please don't feel too upset if I start defending the Book and showing how all other positions are necessarily that of a Bible Agnostic, much like Bart Ehrman.

Blessings,

Will K

Hi Will K

Have you tried taking some basic Hebrew Language classes or at least know how to do word original language word studies?

What was fine for 1611 English back in 1611 is not so fine for today's English as word meanings and forms change — meknoweth for truffe...
-
-
-

brandplucked · Post by **brandplucked** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:21 pm

Hi Will K

Have you tried taking some basic Hebrew Language classes or at least know how to do word original language word studies?

What was fine for 1611 English back in 1611 is not so fine for today's English as word meanings and forms change

Hi BW. I always find it more than a little amusing to see a person like yourself who does not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God, complain about the "archaic" language of the King James Bible and then turn around and refer us instead to the ancient Hebrew texts which are understood by far fewer people today and is more archaic than anything you will find in English of the King James Bible.

All of your modern English bibles like the NIV, RSV, ESV, NASB, Holman Standard etc. OFTEN reject these same Hebrew readings and not even in the same places. All modern versionists believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted or even lost in many places. The King James Bible is the only popular Bible out there today that is based 100% of the time on the inspired Hebrew texts. Want proof? I have tons of it I can post if you wish.

Has your studying the ancient Hebrew language given you an infallible Old Testament? I trow not. And we haven't even mentioned the far more complicated New Testament issues.

Would you mind telling us which of these readings are the inspired and infallible readings? Just pick one or two examples and tell us please. Thanks.

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV, ASV) or Merab (NIV, NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young's), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac) or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read THREE years old (Hebrew texts, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET) or THIRTY years old (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”) or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV).

These are part of the reasons most Christians today, and the vast majority of seminarians no longer believe in the infallibility of any Bible in any language. God says there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days before the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and we are now there. No one is going to stop it.

"kept by the power of God through faith" - 1 Peter 1:5

Will Kinney

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:11 pm

Hi BW. I always find it more than a little amusing to see a person like yourself who does not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God, complain about the "archaic" language of the King James Bible and then turn around and refer us instead to the ancient Hebrew texts which are understood by far fewer people today and is more archaic than anything you will find in English of the King James Bible.

Perhaps I'm taking this wrong, but maybe more humility would be in order and less amusement. For one, I have no idea how you know what BW believes about the errancy or inerrancy of the Bible, in whatever version. The rest of what you say doesn't even make sense to me, since modern translators use the original languages to come up with what they believe, while being Christ, to be understandable translations (just like what was done by the King James translators at that time). The King James Bible isn't the bible that Jesus read. In fact, Jesus is the living word.

This is the short article from our main site. For the links, please go to the actual article.

Is the King James Version the Only Bible that a Christian Should Read?
by Rich Deemhttp://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/k ... 0tTpNUTyUb

This page is not an exhaustive look at the King James only controversy. However, I have been confronted with the "error" of my ways by a few web visitors who insist that the King James English Bible is the only version a Christian should read. This page mostly consists of a series of links to other (more thorough) pages.

A few introductory comments are in order. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Therefore, English (King James or other) is not one of the original languages of the Bible. Therefore, all English translations of the Bible will suffer somewhat from differences in languages, differences in idiomatic expressions, etc. Different translations tend to aim for either word for word (more difficult to understand) or thought for thought (less "accurate") representation of the original language. Most translations (including the King James version) substitute "inaccurate" translations of certain words so that the thought will be understandable to our culture. For example, Revelation 2:231 contains the Greek word nephros, which literally means "kidneys." However, the English sounds pretty weird when Jesus says, "...I am He who searches the kidneys and hearts..." The word refers to the deepest emotions and affections of man,2 and is more understandable in our culture when translated as "thoughts" or "mind."

Why did the translators of the King James Bible translate it into the common English of the time? They said that they wanted to make a version that everyday common folks (of the time) could understand. Obviously, King James English no longer qualifies as being the common language of our time, and would probably be rejected by those very translators if they were alive today.

Well, shall we get started? Here are the links.

* How The Bible Came To Us - If you don't have an good background regarding the manuscript evidence for the Bible, you should start here (You should know the difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian text types).
* The KJV Translators Said THAT?!? - Some of the best arguments against KJV-onlyism come from the translators of the KJV!
* KJV Only? (King James Version Bible) - A letter pointing out many of the problems with the KJV.
* The NIV The Making of a Contemporary Translation - Isn't the King James Version Good Enough? (The KJV and the NIV Compared) (PDF versionThe NIV The Making of a Contemporary Translation)
* The KJV's Archaic Language - Pros and Cons - The good, the bad and the ugly of KJV English.
* John 1:18 - Why the NIV makes a stronger case for the deity of Christ than the KJV.

brandplucked · Post by **brandplucked** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:30 pm

Hi BW. I always find it more than a little amusing to see a person like yourself who does not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God, complain about the "archaic" language of the King James Bible and then turn around and refer us instead to the ancient Hebrew texts which are understood by far fewer people today and is more archaic than anything you will find in English of the King James Bible.

cslover posts

Perhaps I'm taking this wrong, but maybe more humility would be in order and less amusement. For one, I have no idea how you know what BW believes about the errancy or inerrancy of the Bible, in whatever version. The rest of what you say doesn't even make sense to me, since modern translators use the original languages to come up with what they believe, while being Christ, to be understandable translations (just like what was done by the King James translators at that time). The King James Bible isn't the bible that Jesus read. In fact, Jesus is the living word.

Hi cslover. I have never met any Christian who is not a King James Bible onlyist who actually believes that any Bible in any language (including"the" Greek and "the" Hebrew) is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. If BW does, then please let him tell us where we can get a copy.

I then posted a series of conflicting examples of where all the modern versions often reject the clear Hebrew readings, and asked BW to tell us which ones are right. So far he has not responded, and you avoided it.

Will K

brandplucked · Post by **brandplucked** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:37 pm

{quote]Is the King James Version the Only Bible that a Christian Should Read?
by Rich Deemhttp://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/kingjame ... 0tTpNUTyUb

This page is not an exhaustive look at the King James only controversy. However, I have been confronted with the "error" of my ways by a few web visitors who insist that the King James English Bible is the only version a Christian should read. This page mostly consists of a series of links to other (more thorough) pages.

A few introductory comments are in order. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years in three languages - Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Therefore, English (King James or other) is not one of the original languages of the Bible. Therefore, all English translations of the Bible will suffer somewhat from differences in languages, differences in idiomatic expressions, etc. Different translations tend to aim for either word for word (more difficult to understand) or thought for thought (less "accurate") representation of the original language. Most translations (including the King James version) substitute "inaccurate" translations of certain words so that the thought will be understandable to our culture. For example, Revelation 2:231 contains the Greek word nephros, which literally means "kidneys." However, the English sounds pretty weird when Jesus says, "...I am He who searches the kidneys and hearts..." The word refers to the deepest emotions and affections of man,2 and is more understandable in our culture when translated as "thoughts" or "mind."[/quote]

This is really a pretty silly example since it is not a case of the KJB or any other version reading "kidneys" but rather it says "reins". This is an accurate translation. You apparently want "something modern", but are not concerned that your modern version is not the complete and infallible words of God. Nobody defends any modern version as being the infallible words of God.

Which version do you suggest we replace the KJB with? Or do you recommend a variety of conflicting versions?

Here is more about the "reins" mentioned in Revelation and other places.

“Reins”, “Heart”, “Mind” or “Emotions”?

“the righteous God trieth the hearts and REINS.” - Psalm 7:9

“But, O Lord of hosts, that judgest righteously, that trieth THE REINS and the heart, let me see thy vengeance on them: for unto thee have I revealed my cause.” Jeremiah 11:20

Here is another of the many examples where an accurate and precise Biblical English word has simply disappeared from the “updated” (read - “dumbed down”) modern versions.

This English word is “reins”; and it has been completely eliminated and replaced in modern versions like the NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NET and Holman versions with inexact substitutes like “heart, mind, or emotions”, all of which are NOT what the Hebrew nor the Greek actually say. There are other Hebrew and Greek words for those things, but none of them is the specific word for “reins”.

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary
Reins:Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin rene1 : kidneys b : the region of the kidneys
2 : the seat of the feelings or passions

ATS (American Tract Society) Bible Dictionary - REINS - Or KIDNEYS. The Hebrews often make the reins the seat of the affections, and ascribe to them knowledge, joy, pain, pleasure; hence in Scripture it is said that God searches the heart and tries the reins.

Fausset's Bible Dictionary - Reins kelayot. The "kidneys"; the supposed seat of the desires and affections (Psalm 7:9; Psalm 26:2; Jeremiah 11:20; Jeremiah 17:10; Job 19:27). For "the loins" (halatsaim), Isaiah 11:5.

Smith's Bible Dictionary - Reins (i.e. kidneys). In the ancient system of physiology the kidneys were believed to be the seat of desire and longing, which accounts for their often being coupled with the heart. (Psalms 7:9; 26:2; Jeremiah 11:20; 17:10), etc.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - REINS - “Derived from Latin "renes" through Old French "reins", has given place in modern English to the word "kidneys". According to Hebrew psychology the reins are the seat of the deepest emotions and affections of man, which God alone can fully know.”

The Hebrew word translated in the King James Bible has only two meanings. It is found 31 times and is translated in the KJB and many others as either “kidneys” or “reins” depending on the context. When the word specifically refers to the internal organs of an animal, it is translated as “kidneys” (17 times).

“And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two KIDNEYS, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar.” Exodus 29:13

“The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness...with the fat of the KIDNEYS of rams...” Isaiah 34:6

Once it refers to “the fat of the kidneys of wheat” (Deut. 32:14), and 13 times it refers to “the seat of emotions” within man, and is often found in conjunction with the heart.

However the “updated” (dumbed down) versions have completely eliminated this perfectly good and accurate English word for a series of generic and inaccurate substitues. The first major version to remove the NOT archaic word 'reins” from their translation was the liberal RSV of 1946. Soon afterwards, versions like the NASB, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard followed suit.

The NASB translates this single word (#3629 klah-yohth) as “feelings, finest, heart, inmost being, inward parts, kidneys, mind, and within.”

The NIV translates this single Hebrew word as “kidneys, heart, mind, inmost being, kernels, and spirit.”

Likewise the NKJV translates it as “kidneys, heart (Job 16:13 footnote: Literally 'kidneys' NKJV), mind, inward parts, inmost being and loins (Lamentations 3:13 footnote: Literally 'kidneys' NKJV).

Bible translations that got it right and correctly have the accurate word “reins” when it refers to the “seat of emotions found within man” are the following: Wycliffe 1396, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1560-1602, the King James Bible 1611, Green's 'literal' 2000, the Douay-Rheims, the Revised Version 1881, Darby's translation 1890, Webster's bible 1833, the Calvin Bible 1855, the Lesser Bible 1853, Young's translation 1898, the Jewish Publication Society version 1917, the Hebrew Publication Society version 1936, the 2004 Judaica Press Tanach, the 21st Century KJV, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible.

Other Bible versions that also contain the word “reins” in many of the same passages are the American Standard Version 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, and Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta.

There are many foreign language Bibles that also have correctly translated this Hebrew word as “reins” and/or “kidneys”.

In Psalms 7:9 we can see these French, Portuguese, Italian and Spanish Bible translations have the correct and more accurate translation.

The French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 and the French Ostervald 1996- “les coeurs et les reins” - the hearts and reins.

The Portuguese Almeida - “provas o coraçí£o e os rins.” - ”you prove the heart and reins”

The Italian Diodati and the Italian Riveduta - “che provi i cuori e le reni.- you prove the heart and reins”

The Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Reina Valera 1909 - “Pues el Dios justo prueba los corazones y los riñones.”- “the hearts and kidneys”

Reina Valera Gomez 2005 in Revelation 2:23- yo soy el que escudriño los riñones y los corazones; (the kidneys and the hearts)

Reina Valera Gomes 2005 in Jeremiah 17:10 - “Yo Jehová, que escudriño el coraz ón, que pruebo los riñones, para dar a cada uno segíºn su camino, segíºn el fruto de sus obras.” (I prove the kidneys)

In the New Testament we fine the word “reins” only one time and the underlying Greek word occurs only this once too. It is found in Revelation 2:23 where we read: “...and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the REINS and the hearts.”

The Greek word used here and found only one time in the entire New Testament is nephos, which literally means kidneys. In fact, in English we have the words nephritis - a kidney disease, and Nephrology, which concerns itself with the diagnosis and treatment of kidney diseases. Even the word “reins” is related to the English word “renal” which refers to the kidneys as in “renal failure”. Renal failure or kidney failure is a situation in which the kidneys fail to function adequately.

Instead of the correct “He which searcheth the REINS and the hearts” the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, NET and Holman have “the MIND(S) and hearts”, while the NIV reverses the order and says “the HEARTS and minds.” , and Green's “literal” (which it isn't) has “INNER PARTS and hearts”.

Bible translations that have correctly translated Revelations 2:23 as “searcheth the REINS and the heart” are Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, Wesley's 1755 translation, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, Darby, Young's, the 21st Century KJV and the Third Millenium Bible.

The word 'reins” is not even an “archaic” word. Look it up in any good dictionary and you will find it refers to “the seat of emotions within man”. It is directly related to the word for “kidneys”. This is exactly what the Hebrew and the Greek texts both have and it is how God's Book - the King James Bible - has correctly translated it.

What is the difference between the "reins" and the "heart"? There appears to be some overlap, but it seems that the "reins" are more restricted to the emotional center of man, while the "heart" is more concerned with the thoughts, though our thoughts can also be accompanied with emotional overtones. Notice the first mention of heart in the Bible. It is found in Genesis 6:5 "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Other verses seem to confirm this idea. Genesis 8:21 "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth."; Genesis 27:41 "...and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob."; Psalms 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."; "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Proverbs 23:7, and Mark 7:21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders...."

Don't settle for a inferior “dumbed down” imitation.

By His grace, believing The Book,

Will Kinney

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:39 pm

brandplucked wrote:
I then posted a series of conflicting examples of where all the modern versions often reject the clear Hebrew readings, and asked BW to tell us which ones are right. So far he has not responded, and you avoided it.

Will K

I didn't "avoid" it. It was never my intent to address it in the first place. I believe there are plenty of Christians who are led by the spirit who are involved with translating, and I trust them because I trust God's Holy Spirit working in them. God will let His own know the meanings of things, and where we don't understand yet or disagree, He gives us grace enough to pass around, if only we will use it.

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:51 pm

brandplucked wrote: This is really a pretty silly example since it is not a case of the KJB or any other version reading "kidneys" but rather it says "reins". This is an accurate translation. You apparently want "something modern", but are not concerned that your modern version is not the complete and infallible words of God. Nobody defends any modern version as being the infallible words of God.

Will Kinney

I'm amazed at your last sentence, which I italicized. How can you defend it, or prove what you claim? I have heard plenty of pastors, and have read authors, who believe the bible is the infallible word of God. And they do not mean the King James Version only.

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:15 pm

For the benefit of anyone reading this thread. This is from Theology Network

An introduction to the Bible
Tim Ward [vicar of Holy Trinity, Hinckley in Leicestershire]

When we say that the Bible is 'the Word of God', what we are actually claiming about it? It is to answer this question, which is both theological and also deeply practical and vital, that the branch of theology called 'the doctrine of Scripture' has been developed.

Thinking biblically

The best place to start is with what the Bible says about itself, and about how God uses language. From the very beginning, God shows himself to be a God who speaks. More than that, it is by means of his words that he acts. Thus in Genesis ch.1 for God to say “Let there be light”, and for God to create light, are one and the same thing. This fundamental characteristic of God continues through the Bible. The primary means by which God establishes a relationship with humanity is through his covenant (see for example Gen. chs. 15 & 17). A covenant is at heart a promise, and a promise simply cannot meaningfully be made without speaking. That God has chosen to relate to us in this way leads to a significant fact: when we encounter the words which God speaks, we are encountering God-in-action. Thus when Abraham (in fact still as Abram) hears the words of God's promise and trusts them (Gen. 12.1-9), he thereby encounters God and enters into a relationship with him. Right through the Old Testament, to speak of 'the word of God' is often in effect another way of speaking of God at work in such a way that he makes himself known to his people (see for example Isa. 55.10-11).

When we come to the New Testament, we discover that Jesus Christ is 'the Word' (John 1.1; 1 John 1.1), who fulfils in himself everything which the Old Testament language of 'the word of God' had been pointing to. Anyone who saw Christ at work and heard him speak had seen God in action and had heard God, because Jesus spoke only what the Father had given him to say. Yet Christ also taught his followers two crucial things. First, he made clear that he would continue to give the apostles, beyond his ascension, words that came directly from him, coming to them through the Holy Spirit (John 16.12-15). In this key passage Jesus sets out the basis on which the writings of the apostles, which form our New Testament, would come to be regarded as 'Scripture', that is, as God's own words, in the same way as the Old Testament (note Peter's incidental reference to Paul's writings in this regard, 2 Peter 3.16). Second, Jesus made clear that the words which his apostles would speak faithfully about him would continue to be the means by which people would encounter him in action (Matt. 10.14-15, 40). Thus, when someone hears the apostolic message of Jesus, which for us has been set down in Scripture, they are encountering Jesus Christ coming to them spiritually to present himself to them as Saviour and Lord.

It is this rich biblical picture which is summed up in the well-known verse, 2 Timothy 3.16: 'All Scripture is God-breathed'. The single Greek word translated 'God-breathed' (theopneustos) here says, no more and no less, that what the Bible says (of course properly interpreted historically, and in light of the whole of Scripture) is also what God says.
Thinking theologically

This brief biblical outline makes clear that Scripture is not simply a book about God. It is instead the very means by which God chooses to come to create and sustain his covenant-relationship with us, in the power of the Holy Spirit. We can only properly describe what the Bible is, then, if we describe what God uses the Bible to do as part of his action in this world.

A helpful way to do this theologically is to think of the particular relationship which each member of the Trinity has to the Bible.

Thinking of God the Father, the Bible is his covenant-book. That is, the Bible as a whole is the form in which the Father comes to us to repeat for us the promise to be our God, and to save fully on the Last Day all who have repented and trusted in Christ. Historical research has shown that the book of Deuteronomy is structured in a pattern very similar to covenant-treaties which kings of that time drew up with nations who were subject to them. Yet the description of 'covenant-book' also fits well with the nature of the Bible as a whole. It contains laws which stipulate how the covenant-people should live, in order to remain faithful to the Lord. It contains apocalyptic writing, in which the full consequences of our response to the covenant, whether it be to trust God or to reject him, are laid bare. And it contains narrative (i.e. Gospel and history), in which God's faithfulness to his covenant, and the consequences of human obedience and disobedience, are shown in action in numerous different situations. Indeed, once we think of the Bible in these terms, it is not a surprise to find that narrative is the most common form of writing in the Bible, because it is especially narrative that can dramatically answer the questions we most often want to ask when faced with someone making a promise to us: 'Are you trustworthy? On what basis can I confidently trust you? And what will happen if I won't trust you?'. Through narrative, and through the whole of Scripture, the Father comes to us, demonstrating himself to be trustworthy.

As regards the Son, we may think of Scripture as 'the words of the Word'. Jesus is himself 'Word' and 'life', and the words that he speaks - including the words which he now speaks in Scripture - are 'words of life' (John 6:68). We who cannot yet encounter Jesus in the flesh can nevertheless meet him as he comes to us, to act in and on us, through the actions he performs by means of Scripture. One way to put it is this: the Holy Spirit is the personal presence of Christ now in the world. The actions which Christ performs by means of the Bible represent his semantic presence with us - the means by which he makes himself known to us in such a way that we really can know him.

And third, it is important to think of Scripture in relation to the Holy Spirit. There are three main aspects of that relationship. First, the Spirit is particularly the person through whom God caused Scripture to be written. He worked with and through the natural personalities of the Bible-writers, so that the Bible is both entirely a product of their personalities and also is entirely a divine word. He is also the member of the Trinity who was especially active in preserving Scripture, as it was copied over the years. The countless manuscripts of the Bible which have survived do differ from each other at points, but their similarity is so remarkable that at almost every point we are able to know the wording of the original manuscripts with great confidence. And third, the Holy Spirit is the one who illumines the meaning of Scripture to us now. He doesn't change its meaning, but ministers to our minds and hearts the meaning which he once authored. This consistency in the Spirit's work is a lovely aspect of God's faithfulness.
Thinking doctrinally

In the light of this biblical and theological thinking, we can approach coherently some of the key concepts which have regularly been used over the centuries to describe the Bible.

The Bible is inspired. This word comes mainly from older translations of 2 Timothy 3:16 (although I've noted above that 'All Scripture is God-breathed' is a better translation). The 'inspiration' of Scripture refers not to way in which God worked through the people who wrote the Bible. It refers only to the fact that the words of the Bible have their origin in God.

Two words are sometimes added to 'inspiration', when writers speak of 'plenary, verbal inspiration'. 'Plenary' refers to the fact that the whole of the Bible, from beginning to end, is God speaking. 'Verbal' means that God did not just give the Bible-writers the gist of what they should say, leaving it to them to fill in the blanks. Rather he oversaw their writing in its details.

There are two further terms that are often used in this regard. Scripture is 'infallible', in the sense that whatever it asserts (of course, again, when properly interpreted in the light of history and the whole of Scripture) can be trusted because it has been spoken by the trustworthy God. And, as a subset of its infallibility, Scripture is 'inerrant', in the sense that its assertions about history and geography can be trusted as truthful.

The Bible is necessary. Without Scripture, we could not know about Christ and the gospel, and God could not make his covenant promise to us.

The Bible is sufficient. If we want to hear what God thinks is important for us to know and trust in order to be saved and to live faithfully, then we will find all we need in Scripture.

The Bible is clear. Everything which is vital for us to know and trust for salvation is made plain somewhere in Scripture.

The Bible is the supreme authority. God has given us human reason with which we grapple to understand Scripture. He has also given us the fruits of two thousand years of earlier generations of Christians hearing God speak through Scripture (that is, church tradition in it best sense). God is at work through both of these things to make Scripture meaningful to us, and they can act authoritatively. But there can only be one supreme authority in Christian believing and living, and that is the voice of God speaking and acting through Scripture.

brandplucked · Post by **brandplucked** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:35 pm

brandplucked wrote: Nobody defends any modern version as being the infallible words of God.

Will Kinney

I'm amazed at your last sentence, which I italicized. How can you defend it, or prove what you claim? I have heard plenty of pastors, and have read authors, who believe the bible is the infallible word of God. And they do not mean the King James Version only. [/quote]

Hi. Then would you please tell us exactly which of the 150 to 200 English versions out there in bible land is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. Does it have a name, or is it those previously referenced "original autographs"? Can you tell us where we can get a copy of this "infallible word of God" these "plenty of pastors" are talking about?

Is this "infallible bible" found among these contradictory readings you have failed to address:

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV, ASV) or Merab (NIV, NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young's), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac) or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read THREE years old (Hebrew texts, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET) or THIRTY years old (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”) or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV).

Here are the facts."As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

So, please tell us the name of the infallible Bible you say you believe in so we can all get a copy of it and compare it with what we are using now to see the similarities and differences. OK?

Thanks,
Will Kinney

cslewislover · Post by **cslewislover** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:02 pm

brandplucked wrote:
cslewislover wrote:
brandplucked wrote: Nobody defends any modern version as being the infallible words of God.

Will Kinney
I'm amazed at your last sentence, which I italicized. How can you defend it, or prove what you claim? I have heard plenty of pastors, and have read authors, who believe the bible is the infallible word of God. And they do not mean the King James Version only.
Hi. Then would you please tell us exactly which of the 150 to 200 English versions out there in bible land is the complete, inspired and 100% true words of God. Does it have a name, or is it those previously referenced "original autographs"? Can you tell us where we can get a copy of this "infallible word of God" these "plenty of pastors" are talking about?

From an earlier post: "I believe there are plenty of Christians who are led by the spirit who are involved with translating, and I trust them because I trust God's Holy Spirit working in them. God will let His own know the meanings of things, and where we don't understand yet or disagree, He gives us grace enough to pass around, if only we will use it."

If God is in it, then I would say a number of them are infallible. Somehow you know "the" truth as to which "one"? I trust in God to lead me to right meanings, sooner or later. Considering technicalities, in a simply scholarly way, could take a long time, or a lot of posts.

George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.

Pastor Michael Youseff's Message on His "Leading The Way" program. The title of todays message was "The Bible, The World's Most Relevant Book - Part 2. In his message he gave statistics of a poll that was conducted. Here is what the poll revealed:

85% of students at America's largest Evangelical Seminary don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

74% of the Clergy in America no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

So, please tell us the name of the infallible Bible you say you believe in so we can all get a copy of it and compare it with what we are using now to see the similarities and differences. OK?

Thanks,
Will Kinney

You said in your quote, at top, that "nobody" defends any modern version . . . If stats lead to the conclusion that "believers" believe less of the bible than they used to, but don't explain why, then we're left with the "why" yet to be explained.

Please read the board purpose and guidelines. I am not here to "address" all that you demand.

brandplucked · Post by **brandplucked** » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:31 pm

You said in your quote, at top, that "nobody" defends any modern version . . . If stats lead to the conclusion that "believers" believe less of the bible than they used to, but don't explain why, then we're left with the "why" yet to be explained.

The reason the majority of Christians no longer believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God is because the pastors and seminarians are taught this and then pass it on to the common Christians. Another big reason is because the Bible itself tells us that there will be a falling away from the faith in the last days before the return of Christ. 2 Thes. 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first..." The Lord Himself asks a rhetorical question in Luke 18:8 "Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?", and God Himself says that He will send a famine of hearing the words of God - Amos 8:11-12 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it."

Let's for a moment take a look at what we find in the Introduction of the popular NIV. You may be surprised.

Some versions like the RSV omit some 45 entire verses from the N.T. plus another 2000-3000 words. ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard believe the Hebrew texts have been lost or corrupted in numerous places, and all of these versions omit anywhere from 17 to 45 whole verses from the N.T. Yet God can use them because the gospel is still found in them, though mixed with other errors.

NOBODY who knows the minimum about the textual differences defends any of them as being the complete and inerrant Bible. Surely not the people who put them out.

What do the NIV editors think about their own version? They tell us in the NIV Introduction -"Like all translations of the Bible, made as they are by imperfect men, this one UNDOUBTEDLY FALLS SHORT of its goals."

They got two things wrong and only one right. By their saying all translations fall short, they have effectively stripped the inerrant Bible out of the hands of the common man, and imply that no translation can be the pure words of God. They sure didn't get this unbelief from the Bible itself. The Bible clearly teaches that a translation CAN BE the inspired and pure words of God.

They also reveal their unbiblical stand and deep ignorance by their inane statement "made by imperfect men". If God cannot use "imperfect men" to give us His words, then we would never have had "the originals" to begin with!

The only thing they got right was " this one UNDOUBTEDLY FALLS SHORT."

You can get saved using versions like the NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and Holman, but your faith will be weakened and you will be more open to the fiery darts of the wicked concerning the truth of your faith in the gospel of Christ. Why? Because this gospel is only found in a Book than none of them believe is 100% true. At what point does God start to tell them the truth?

Will Kinney

Evidence for God from Science

Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Do you have an infallible Bible?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Re: Do you have an infallible Bible?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?

Re: Do you have an infallible Bible?

Re: Do you have an infallible Bible?

Re: Isaiah 45:7 Does God create evil? Is the KJB wrong?