- Old Talkshoe Programs
Examining the claim made by many modern sects, that the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (the A.V.) is in itself the “inspired word of God”, we must ourselves ask this: Is God the author of error? Did Yahweh reveal His Word directly to man in the English language in the year 1611? If it can be shown that the King James Version of the New Testament contains at least some errors, then it should be reasoned that this version – no matter how venerated – was also translated by fallible men. Certainly the language of the New Testament – Koine Greek – is still quite well known to us, there having been a tremendous body of written literature which used it, in addition to what we see in the New Testament. We have much more classical Greek literature available to us than even classical Latin. Here we shall see just how well it was known by the translators of this venerated edition of those writings which we commonly call the Bible. The first part of this examination shall commence with a walk through some of the translations found in the epistles of the apostle Paul.
In my own New Testament translations (the Christogenea New Testament, or CNT here) I have many hundreds of differences with the King James Version, yet not all of them are due to differences in translation alone. Many are due to the differences in the texts of the various manuscripts employed. Many others are rather a difference of interpretation within the wider context of Scripture. With a few exceptions, here I will neglect those and attempt to focus upon plain errors which can be shown from Greek grammar and the meanings of words as they are known from literature both Biblical and otherwise, and errors of interpretation which can be shown from the immediate context of particular verses within the passages wherein they appear.
Romans 1:4: “And declared to be the Son of God….” Paul is often criticized for this phrase, yet the verb ὁρίζω does not ever mean to declare, and it is evident from Scripture that not only were there other sons of God, i.e. Deut. 14:1 and Luke 3:38, but that Yahshua Christ was a son of God long before His passion and resurrection. Aside from the Hebrew Bible, the Greek poets also claimed a status for men as sons of God - or of a god - for which see Paul’s own words at Acts 17:28. Here Paul uses a rhetorical device in order to tell us that Christ proved His own sonship. The verb ὁρίζω, according to Liddell & Scott (hereinafter L&S), is basically to divide or separate from, as a boundary, and thus it is evident that Christ was “distinguished as a Son of Yahweh” (CNT), which is what Paul is telling us.
Romans 1:18: “who hold the truth in unrighteousness”: This may sound trivial, but κατέχω has a much stronger meaning than simply to hold, where ἔχω alone would be appropriate. The word is to hold back, withhold (L&S), and thus the phrase is better read “who withhold the truth with injustice (or unrighteousness)”.
Romans 2:9 and 2:10: “and also of the Gentile … and also to the Gentile” in these verses, and also at Romans 3:9, I Corinthians 10:32 and 12:13, and twice in John 7:35, the A.V. translated Ἕλλην (1672), which is the Greek word for Greek, as gentile instead. This is quite dishonest, since Paul consistently used the Greek word ἔθνος to refer to the nations, and the A.V. consistently renders ἔθνος as gentile – or sometimes heathen or nation – everywhere else it appears. Ἕλλην is a specific word meaning Greek, and nothing else.
Romans 4:1: Here is one small example out of many that may be illustrated, which calls into question the authority of those manuscripts from which the King James Version was translated, and here those much more recent manuscripts depart from nearly all of the early codices known as the Great Uncials. At Romans 4:1 the CNT reads “our forefather Abraham”, where the KJV has only “Abraham our father”. Out of all the Greek manuscripts, only a small number which are dated no earlier than the 9th century support the KJV reading. All of the earliest manuscripts contain the word “forefather”, except the Codex Bezae, which is known to have had a lot of influence over the manuscripts upon which the KJV was based. Paul, using the word, was telling the Romans – and correctly I may add – that Abraham was indeed their natural forefather.
Romans 8:15: “the Spirit of adoption”. The word υἱοθεσία does not, by itself, ever mean adoption in Greek writings. The word means a placement or a position of a son. There were other words in Greek literature which were consistently used to describe the act of adoption, namely εἰσποίησις (a noun, a making into), εἰσποίέω (a verb), and εἰσποιητός (an adjective). While a son can be placed for adoption, where υἱοθεσία may be used to describe the act of the placing, it does not describe the actual adoption, and υἱοθεσία can be used also to describe other things, such as the placing of a son into a household or as an heir, which also happens to correctly describe the Christian promise as it is outlined in the Old Testament as well. Therefore, and especially since there is no other indication in the text that the idea of adoption is ever the context, υἱοθεσία should be rendered here “spirit of the position of sons (or of a son)”. At Romans 8:23, the phrase “waiting for the adoption” would better be rendered “awaiting the placement of sons”. At Romans 9:4 the phrase “ὧν ἡ υἱοθεσία” should be “whose is the position of sons”. It is absolutely dishonest that υἱοθεσία be translated as adoption, because the word has a much more general meaning, and the translators can only have presumed that the word was used by Paul to mean adoption, yet the overall context of Paul’s letters and of the New Testament refute such a presumption.
Romans 13:10: “Love worketh no ill to his neighbour”. The Greek of this phrase is ἡ ἀγάπη τῶ πλησίον κακὸν οὐκ ἐργάζεται and it is not disputed here by any of the manuscripts. This phrase must be rendered “Love for him near to you who does not practice evil”, or even “Love to an evil neighbor does not work”, depending upon whether the verb is considered a part of the subject predicate, or a modifier for the object of the statement (which is in this case, love). I must reject the A.V. rendering since it separates πλησίον and κακὸν, and since both words are in the Accusative case they must be understood as a unit, κακὸν (evil) clearly being a modifier for πλησίον (in the A.V., neighbour). Paul’s intent, especially considering the balance of the statement: “therefore fulfilling of the law is love”, is obviously to narrow the scope of neighbor as it is understood in the commandment at 13:9 “You shall love him near to you as yourself” or “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (A.V.). Surely we are not obligated to love the wicked that just happen to live in our vicinity!
Romans 14:6: The four occurrences of the word κύριος in this verse (which includes a clause found in the A.V. that exists in none of the early Greek manuscripts) are not accompanied with the Greek article, and so rather than being translated “Lord” they should instead be translated literally, as they appear in the Dative case, as “with authority”. While κύριος is often used as a substantive with the article and is therefore a noun in those cases, i.e. “the Lord”, the word is basically an adjective and means “of persons, having power or authority over, lord or master of … absolute authority, authoritative, supreme” (L&S). Therefore this verse is properly read: “He who is observing the day, observes it with authority, and he who eats, eats with authority; for he gives thanks to Yahweh. And he who does not eat, with authority eats not, and he gives thanks to Yahweh.” (CNT).
Romans 14:14: “... but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” Here the Greek word rendered “unclean” is κοινός, and the rendering is absolutely dishonest. The Greek word κοινός is profane, or common, and certainly does not ever mean unclean, which is most frequently ἀκάθαρτος, a word which the A.V. often translates properly elsewhere as unclean. In fact, κοινός and ἀκάθαρτος appear together at Acts 10:14 where the A.V. properly reads “But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.” This phrase at Romans 14:14 can honestly only be read: “…except to he who considers anything to be profane (or common), to him it is profane (or common).” The difference is crucial, because things that were “unclean” were those things forbidden to be eaten by the laws of Moses found in the Pentateuch. However things which were considered common were merely foods that were not treated properly according to the laws, or according to the “traditions of the elders”. When this verse is properly translated, it is seen that Paul is not advocating the eating of things which are deemed unclean by the law, as so many ignorant men claim. Rather, in context, he is talking about things which are indeed foods, but which had been profaned upon the altars of pagan deities. In a first century Greco-Roman city, it was impossible to buy meat which was not sacrificed in such a manner, and that alone is what Paul’s advice addresses.
Romans 15:9 to 11: Let me first quote the A.V. rendering of this pericope: “9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. 10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. 11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.” Verse 9 paraphrases II Samuel 22:50 and Psalm 18:49. In the places where the A.V. has “Gentiles” here, the word is “heathen” in the A.V. in those corresponding Old Testament verses. Verses 10 and 11 quote Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 117:1 respectively. In those places in the A.V. it reads “nations” where the A.V. has “Gentiles” here in Romans. The words gentile (which is truly not even an English word), heathen and nation in the New Testament in most cases are used to represent the Greek word ἔθνος, which is primarily a nation in the sense of ethnicity. Here and elsewhere it is evident that by translating ἔθνος into these various words indiscriminately, it is rather easy to create false doctrines and to pervert the interpretation of the promises to Abraham and the other patriarchs. While there are a couple of places where we could legitimately translate the word ἔθνος as heathen, it must be done with great reservation, and also with the knowledge that the word does not ever bear the meaning non-Adamite by itself, and that it can also properly and literally be rendered people in these places.
Romans 15:16: ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος is the Greek phrase which the A.V. renders “that the offering up of the nations might be acceptable”, which agrees not at all with the context of Paul’s statements. Paul is discussing his mission, in 15:15, “performing the service of the good message”, and it is clear here and throughout Paul’s writing that his mission is to bring that message to the Nations. A προσφορά is literally “a bringing to” (L&S). Paul clearly means his own “bringing to” of the gospel. While εὐπρόσδεκτος being of the same case and number modifies προσφορά, “an acceptable presentation”, it is the acceptance – not the offering - that is “of” or “from” or even “by” the Nations (τῶν ἐθνῶν, Genitive plural form of 1484, with the Article). I ascertain that this is why, where an adjective usually accompanies the noun it modifies, here it follows τῶν ἐθνῶν, so “that it be a presentation acceptable of [or “by”] the Nations.” If the case and number matched that of ἔθνος, one would read “an offering of the acceptable nations”! Yet what do the nations have to offer, when indeed Christ Himself was an offering on our behalf? An exactly similar grammatical construction appears at Luke 4:19, where the Greek phrase κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν is properly translated in the A.V. “To preach the acceptable year of the Lord”. If the A.V. followed the pattern in Luke 4:19 that they used here, then that verse would read “to preach that the year of the Lord is acceptable”! That alone demonstrates the error that the A.V. makes here in Romans 15.
1 Corinthians 1:28: “And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are”. Yet Paul is certainly not, as the A.V. has him doing, referencing “things” here, but rather the various conditions of some of the children of Israel. The A.V.’s “the base things”, from τὰ ἀγενῆ, is rather “those of ignoble birth” or simply “the low born”: see L&S at ἀγεννής, “of no family, low born....” Likewise τὰ ἐξουθενημένα should be read “the despised”, or “those being despised”, regardless of the neuter gender. The context being people, as is evident from that which precedes and that which follows, this verse should therefore have been translated: “and the low born of the society, and the despised, Yahweh has chosen: those that are not in order that He may annul those that are” (τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ἵνα τὰ ὄντα καταργήσῃ). The words of Christ in His ministry, and the fact that He indeed chose His followers from among those of low estate, the humble people of the land, perfectly fits the context of Paul’s message here.
1 Corinthians 2:8: The phrase “the princes of this world” is in the CNT “the governors of this age”. The word αἰών, from which the English word eon is derived, is only temporal in meaning, and never spatial. Yet on several occasions the A.V. has rendered the word as world, as the translators also always rendered both κόσμος and οἰκουμένη as world, thus obfuscating the differences in meaning among those three different words. Respectively the three words should be taken to mean an age, a society, and a living space for that society.
Yet to take this a step further, it may simply be that the way that the A.V. translators understood the word world is different than how we understand it today, and if this is so, then they must be pardoned, but only in this respect. If we investigate the word world in the American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd Edition, we find that it derives from an Old and Middle English word, weorold, and we are referred to an entry for a supposed proto-Indo-European word (wi-ro) in their appendix of so-called “Indo-European Roots”. When we check this entry, we find that the word world comes from the Germanic wer, akin to the Latin vir, for man, and the Germanic ald, which is a life or an age (from which we get our word old), and that put together the word “world” means only age of man. Therefore, originally, “world” is a temporal term and not a spatial one! It means our Adamic age, and it does not mean everyone on the planet or the planet itself! Our confusion over the meaning of this word has led us into total confusion when attempting to understand our own literature, especially our Bibles! Why do we let satan publish dictionaries? The “world” is the age of Adamic man, and it should be nothing else!
1 Corinthians 4:14: While it does not seem to make a big difference, the A.V.’s mistreatment of ἐντρέπω certainly does have an impact where it appears in several verses. ἐντρέπω is even defined by L&S as “to feel shame or fear”, where they cite only the N.T. for this use, at ἐντρέπω part II. section 4 of their definition. Yet this is not the general sense of the word, which basically means “to turn about...linger, hesitate...to turn towards, give heed to, pay regard to, to respect or reverence...” (L&S). Therefore I must ask, how could it mean anything differently only where it appears in the N.T.? I cannot agree that ἐντρέπω should ever mean to shame. The A.V. also has “to be ashamed” for this word at II Thess. 3:14 and Titus 2:8, but it has “to revere” (or “reverence”) at Matt. 21:37, Mark 12:6, Luke 20:13, and Heb. 12:9, and “to regard” at Luke 18:2 and 4. 1 Corinthians 4:14 in the CNT reads: “I do not write these things regarding you, but as I would advise my beloved children.” Now the real difference is whether we perceive an authoritarian Paul who seeks to shame his audience, as the A.V. would have it, or whether we have an adjuring Paul, exhorting his audience as a brother. In my opinion it is surely the later, and that agrees with the use of the word in all secular Greek writings.
1 Corinthians 6:4 in the A.V. may lead one to believe that judges should be selected from among those whom we abhor. The A.V. has this verse: “If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.” Yet the Medium Voice when used with verbs, as ἐξουθενημένους is here, indicates that the recipient of the action is also the receiver, and therefore Paul is advising us to appoint as judges not those from among us whom we have no esteem for, but those who are the most humble. The CNT translates this verse: “So then if you should have trial of things pertaining to this life, those who esteem themselves least in the assembly, those will be set to judge.” The Medium Voice use of verbs by the Greeks was almost always overlooked by the A.V. translators.
1 Corinthians 6:5 begins in the A.V. “I speak to your shame.” The word rendered shame here is ἐντροπή, and it is a noun form of the verb ἐντρέπω which we just discussed above, at I Corinthians 4:14. L&S define the word as “a turning towards … respect or reverence for one, Soph.: shame, reproach, N.T.” where again L&S cite only the N.T. for this alleged negative meaning of the word. Now it must be noted that throughout L&S there is no version but the A.V. which is understood to refer to the New Testament. Now ἐντροπή only appears twice in the A.V., and on both occasions, here and at 1 Corinthians 15:34, the word may clearly mean respect. It is obvious to this writer that L&S merely followed the A.V. in this error, and ἐντροπή in the N.T. means just what it does in secular Greek writing: a turning towards … respect or reverence for one. The CNT translates this sentence “I speak from respect to you.” The A.V. and its followers make this word out to mean the exact opposite that it meant to the Greek people!
1 Corinthians 6:12 in the A.V. reads “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” While this reading is possible, since the Greek word ἔξεστιv may mean lawful, however this reading leads one to believe that Paul would simply dismiss the Old Testament laws of Yahweh God, contrary even to Paul’s own statements elsewhere, for instance at Romans 3:31. Yet where the word which Paul uses everywhere to refer to the law is νομός (and where he mentions the “works of the law” it can be demonstrated from the Septuagint that he means the rituals of the law – those Levitical rites done away with in Christ). To say “lawful” in the sense of the νομός (law) Paul could have explicitly used the term νόμιμος, which is its adjective directly related to νομός; conformable to custom, usage, or law, customary, prescriptive, established, lawful, rightful (L&S). Here with the word being ἔξεστιv, which means “it is allowed, it is in one’s power, it is lawful” (L&S), I find it a necessity to distinguish ἔξεστιv from νόμιμος, and therefore the CNT renders this verse “To me all is possible, but all does not profit; to me all is possible, but I will not yield authority to be brought under any”, and that way there is no confusion over Paul’s regard for the law. This same circumstance appears at I Corinthians 10:23, which in the CNT reads “All is possible, but all does not profit. All is possible, but all does not build.”
1 Corinthians 7:26 is in the A.V. in part “for the present distress”. Many wrongly use Paul’s comments here to purport that he was somehow promoting abstinence from marriage, which is a misconception (see I Tim. 3:1-13, 4:1-3, 5:14; Titus 1:6, 2:5; and Heb. 13:4 where Paul said that “marriage is valuable in every way, likewise the undefiled bed”). Rather Paul is speaking about the conditions during the persecution of Christians under Claudius I (41-54 A.D.) and Nero (54-68 A.D.), and the danger of starting a family in such conditions; which is certainly the reason for his advice here, and for the sorrow he expresses at 7:28. ἀνάγκη, which is the word that the A.V. translates “distress” here, is “force, constraint, necessity...actual force, violence, torture...” (L&S) The word is used in the sense of “necessity”, by Paul at Rom. 13:5; I Cor. 7:37, 9:16; II Cor. 9:7; Phm. 14; and Heb. 7:12, 7:27, 9:16, and 9:23. It appears in this stronger sense, i.e. “violence”, at II Cor. 6:4, 12:10, and I Thess. 3:7 (note I Corinthians 15:30). The CNT translates this phrase “because of the present violence”, which makes both Paul’s statement and his reasons for making it much clearer.
1 Corinthians 9:17-18 read in the CNT: “17 For if I do this readily, I have a reward; but if voluntarily I had been entrusted with the management of a family, 18 what then is my reward? Announcing the good message, that I would set forth the good message without expense, with respect not to abuse my authority in the good message.” οἰκονομία is primarily “the management of a household or family” (L&S), the most literal meaning here being the most sensible (cf. Amos 3:2; Matt. 10:6, 15:24; Rev. 19:6-9 and 21:12 et al.). As the A.V. has “dispensation”, and then adds words to try to have it make sense, there are several other words Paul may have chosen to clearly convey such a meaning. L&S lists “husbandry” and “thrift” as alternate meanings of the word, and among others Thayer adds “stewardship”, none of which fit the context here, although at times they do where Paul uses the word elsewhere. This word appears also at Luke 16:2, 3, 4; Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25; and I Tim. 1:4. It also appears in the LXX twice at Isa. 22:19 and 21, both in the same sense that Paul uses it here, as the management of a family. Oddly, the A.V. never translates this word in its primary sense in the New Testament, even though it is very clear in the Old Testament prophets that it should be understood in this manner.
In 1 Corinthians 10:11 the KJV has “upon whom the ends of the world are come”, the CNT reads “to those whom have attained to the fulfillments of the ages”. καταντάω is “to come to, arrive at...to attain to...” (Thayer). Paul is not speaking in a spatial sense here, but in a temporal. τέλος is “the fulfillment or completion of anything...i.e. its consummation, issue, result, end...” (L&S) so in the plural here, it is “the fulfillments”. The A.V. translates αἰών 39 times, and αἰώνιος 3 times, words which mean “a period of existence...an age” and “lasting for an age...eternal” respectively, as “world”. This is one of those occurrences, of which 25 of the 42 are in Paul (see Strong’s). As it has already been explained, the word world originally meant the age of man, yet it is clear that we do not use the term in that manner today, and for this reason alone we cannot deem the A.V. as an unquestionable authority.
At 1 Corinthians 16:22 where the KJV, leaving certain words untranslated, reads “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” the CNT has “If anyone does not love the Prince, he must be accursed, a rebel to be destroyed.” The veracity of this translation can be demonstrated using a tool as simple as Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. The Greek word anathema means accursed, and maranatha is a Hebrew phrase made up of two words, mara (see Strong’s #’s 4751 and 4785), a rebel, and natha (see Strong’s #’s 5421 and 5422), in the passive to be destroyed. Now this may seem subjective, but it surely does elucidate not only Paul’s great love for Yahshua Christ, but also Paul’s understanding of the nature of the enemies of Yahshua. The A.V., leaving these words untranslated, hides the truth and neglects its duty. What is a translation for, if it is to leave select words untranslated?
The KJV reads II Corinthians 2:17: “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God…”, yet the Greek verb καπηλεύω is a very specific verb which by no means should be rendered merely as to corrupt. L&S define the word “to be a retail-dealer...to sell by retail...”, and the noun κάπηλος is “a retail-dealer, huckster, hawker, peddlar”. Therefore the beginning of this verse must be read: “For we are not as the many, selling the word of Yahweh in trade…” (CNT).
At 2 Corinthians 6:14, the King James translators rendered an adjective as a noun, which was apparently necessary for them to do because they did not render the verb as fully as they could have, while also ignoring the meaning of the verb where a different form of the same word was used in the Septuagint. Admittedly, the opening sentence of this verse is very difficult to translate in few words, although it only contains four Greek words. The Greek, μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις, is in the CNT “Do not become yoked together with untrustworthy aliens”. The A.V. has here “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers”, and so many interpret this to be a “religious” admonition: which would have Paul conflict with his own statements, such as those at I Cor. 7:12-14 where he advises people already married to non-believers to make a go of it, and so they make him out to be a liar. This is not a religious statement, as will be evident upon examination of the terms ἑτεροζυγέω and ἄπιστος.
ἑτεροζυγέω is a verb which appears nowhere else in the N.T., nor in the LXX. However the adjective, ἑτερόζυγος, does appear in the LXX, at Lev. 19:19, where the A.V. itself has “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind”. The LXX Greek is: τὰ κτήνη σου (your cattle) οὐ κατοχεύσεις (do not let “gender”, and the verb implies the act of sexual intercourse) ἑτεροζύγῳ (with a diverse kind, the idea of being “yoked” already being implicit, the English translators did not repeat it). Brenton’s English as it was translated from the Greek varies little from the A.V. English, which was translated from Hebrew. And so while the L&S definition for the verb ἑτεροζυγέω that appears here in the New Testament follows the A.V.: “to be yoked in unequal partnership” the L&S definition for the adjective ἑτερόζυγος as it appears in the Septuagint is “coupled with an animal of diverse kind” which with people can only mean “to be coupled with one of another race”, and therefore it is evident that both the A.V. and L&S are attempting to convince us that the verb form of the word somehow has a totally different meaning than the adjective! Here I have in the CNT “yoked together with aliens”, preferring the idea that the verb as it was used by Paul surely bears the same meaning that the adjective did in the Greek scriptures which Paul so often quoted verbatim. This word must also be contrasted with σύζυγος, used in the N.T. only once, by Paul at Phil. 4:3 and which L&S define “yoked together, paired, σύζυγος ὁμαυλίαι wedded union, Aeschylus...as a feminine Substantive, a wife, Euripides; masculine a yoke-fellow, comrade, Iliad, Aristotle.” It is of marriage that Christ used the corresponding verb συζεύγνυμι (4801) at Matt. 19:6 (Mark 10:9). While συ- (see συν, 4862) means “with” or “together”, ἕτερος (2087) means “other” or “other than” or “different”. ζυγός (2218) is “anything which joins two bodies” (L&S) and is commonly a “yoke” (Matt. 11:29, 30; Acts 15:10; Gal. 5:1; I Tim. 6:1). If Paul wanted to tell us not to be yoked together with the unfaithful, σύζυγος was the word to use. Rather, he was clearly using ἑτερόζυγος as it was in the Septuagint, and telling us not to be yoked together with untrustworthy aliens.
Compounding the errors in the A.V. translation of this verse, ἄπιστος is an adjective, which L&S define “not to be trusted...not trusty, distrusted, faithless...” yet it is treated in the A.V. as a substantive in this verse, as a noun. The CNT has the word as an adjective, which is what it is. If Paul wanted to use this word as a substantive, a simple article would have cleared up any ambiguity.
With all of this, one may agree that another way to translate this clause from Greek is: “Do not become yoked together with those of other races who are not to be trusted”, which is also a literal translation, and is a message that is consistent with all Scripture.
At 2 Corinthians 6:17, the KJV adds the word thing to the text. The CNT reads this passage thus: “’Come out from the midst of them and be separated,’ says the Prince, and ‘do not be joined to the impure, and I will admit you’.” It is asserted here that “the impure” directly refers to the subject “them” earlier in the passage, and therefore no added words are necessary in order to understand this verse. The KJV translators have added hundreds of words to the New Testament, where in contrast the CNT adds only a handful. With an honest translation, it is rarely necessary to add words to the text in order to capture the meaning of the original Greek.
II Corinthians 8:2: By no means does the word ἁπλότης mean liberality, as in connection with giving that the professional churchmen who translated the A.V. have it here. The word is “singleness: simplicity, frankness” (L&S), and is derived from a root word ἁπλόος which means “single...simple, natural, plain, sincere, frank...” (L&S). It was also used at Matt. 6:22 and Luke 11:34.
This word ἁπλότης appears in Rom. 12:8 (KJV: “simplicity”), Eph. 6:5 and Col. 3:22 (KJV: “singleness”), and is “simplicity” in the CNT on those three occasions. At II Cor. 11:3 it is “sincerity” in the CNT (A.V.: “simplicity”). Yet at II Cor. 8:2, 9:11, and 9:13, where the subject of discussion is economic, the A.V. translates the word “liberality”, “bountifully”, and “liberal” respectively, where in the CNT on each occasion the word is rendered “sincerity”. I must maintain a distinction between giving with sincerity, and giving liberally, or bountifully, as the professional churchmen would have it, although the meaning of the word does not. This is a blatantly dishonest device on the part of the King James translators, who were obviously seeking to enrich the churchmen at the expense of the flock.
At II Corinthians 9:4: ὑπόστασις is a noun, and it would better be rendered “matter”, where the KJV somehow treats it as an adjective and gives it a tenuous definition: “confident”. The word “boasting” appears in the late manuscripts from which the KJV was translated, but it is not in any of the more reliable early Greek manuscripts.
II Corinthians 9:11, 13: As it was noted above in discussing II Corinthians 8:2, here in 9:11 and 13 the A.V. translates ἁπλότης, which means “singleness: simplicity, frankness” first as “bountifulness” and then as an adjective, “liberal”, where the word is a noun. Furthermore at verse 13, the KJV translated κοινωνία, which is “communion, association, partnership, fellowship”, as “distribution”, a meaning which the word simply does not have. It appears to this writer as if the professional churchmen translating the KJV treated these words in a manner which perpetuates the wealth of their own priesthood. The A.V. translations here are blatantly dishonest and even criminal perversions of scripture.
Here I will read the passage at 2 Corinthians 9:10-15 from the CNT: “10 Now He who is supplying besides seed to he who is sowing also wheat-bread for food, He will supply and He will multiply your sowing, and He will increase the produce of your justice; 11 in every way being enriched in all sincerity, which through us accomplishes gratitude to Yahweh. 12 Because the service of this ministry is not only its replenishing of the deficiencies of the saints, but also its having abundance through many thanksgivings to Yahweh, 13 through the proof of this service honoring Yahweh, upon the submission of your agreement to the good message of the Anointed, and sincerity of the partnership for them and for all, 14 and in their entreaty for you, yearning for you for the sake of the favor of Yahweh overflowing upon you. 15 Now gratitude to Yahweh for His indescribable gift.”
2 Corinthians 10:2 from the KJV reads in part “But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence...”. The Greek phrase is δέομαι δὲ τὸ μὴ παρὼν θαρρῆσαι τῇ πεποιθήσει. The A.V. rendering of 10:2 strips the word παρὼν of the negative particle μὴ which belongs to it, (μὴ παρὼν meaning “not being present”), and it applies the negative instead to the verb which follows, θαρρῆσαι: this is a peculiar reading which was apparently necessitated by their also having misread the verb. In any event, it is blatantly wrong.
θαρρῆσαι, from θαρσέω (2293, “to be bold” here) is read in the KJV in the 1st person. Another verb in this verse, τολμῆσαι, from τολμάω (5111, “to dare” here) is read by the KJV as an Infinitive. The -σαι suffix that both of these verbs carry is found in the 2nd person Medium or Passive voices, or in the Infinitive, but never in the 1st person. This form is found again at 13:7, ποιῆσαι, which is correctly rendered in the A.V. in the 2nd person, “you should do”, being in the Subjunctive mood. Here in the CNT I have read both τολμῆσαι and ποιῆσαι in the 2nd person, as they should be, and the context shall speak for itself. I will quote: “but I want, not being present, that you would be bold with the confidence with which I reckon you should be daring towards certain others who are reckoning us as walking in accordance with the flesh.” (2 Cor. 10:2, CNT). So the A.V. here bears two significant grammatical errors.
In 2 Corinthians 11:17 the KJV has a particular phrase “I speak it not after the Lord”. The Greek word κύριος, as explained earlier regarding Romans 14:6, is primarily an adjective, as it is here, and the phrase κατὰ κύριον commonly means “with authority”. The CNT renders this clause “I do not speak with authority”.
2 Corinthians 13:5: ἀδόκιμος is an adjective, translated as a noun here in the KJV where the word is rendered “reprobates”. It should rather have been rendered “spurious”.
Galatians 1:18: Here the KJV renders the verb ἱστορέω as simply “to see”, yet the word means “to inquire into a thing, to learn by inquiry...to examine...II. to narrate what one has learnt” (L&S). In the CNT it is rendered “to relate an account to”. Paul is not simply telling us that he saw Peter, but rather that he went to relate an account to him of all that transpired previously.
Galatians 3:16: Here Paul contrasts σπέρματι, Dative singular of σπέρμα, with its Dative plural, σπέρμασιν. Thayer says of σπέρμα “the singular is used collectively of the grains or kernels sown”, although later Thayer claims that this is not so here, perverting Paul’s use of the word and calling it “genius”, in defense of the A.V. translation. In the context of this and other of Paul’s epistles, I must read this to be a comparison of the several races sprung from Abraham: Jacob-Israel with Ishmael (Gal. 4:21-31), with Esau-Edom (Rom. 9, 10, and 11), and even those from Keturah.
The word “seed”, as in English, also in Greek and Hebrew is a singular used collectively, of many of a single type. The Greek plural of σπέρμα appears in the N.T. only at Matt. 13:32 and Mark 4:31, where diverse types are meant. This is true in Old Testament Hebrew also, where zera‛ (2233, “seed”) only occurs in the plural at I Sam. 8:15, where it is used of crops and diverse varieties are implied.
Many may point to the verb ἐστιν here, properly the singular “is” (of εἰμί, 1510) but here “are”, and it is easily demonstrable that ἐστιν is often translated “are” when referring to a collective noun, or a collection of objects. One need not look further than Gal 4:24 and 5:19 for examples of this, and Luke 18:27 is another example.
The word χριστός is also a Greek adjective, and literally means “anointed”. Used with a definite article, it is often a Substantive (a word or group of words which formulate a noun) and is used to refer to “the Anointed One”, or more familiarly, the Christ. Yet it can be demonstrated that the phrase ὁ χριστός (“the anointed”) also refers to the children of Israel as a group. This is something else which the KJV translators missed entirely, however its veracity is demonstrated with a proper inspection of the Scriptures at Hebrews 11:24-26, 1 Timothy 5:11-12, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 and Romans 9:1-5, among others (see http://christogenea.org/Anointed).
Since σπέρμα may be translated “race” (L&S, σπέρμα, II. 2.) in all fairness, I may have done better to translate this verse: “Now to Abraham the promises have been spoken, and to his race. It does not say ‘And to races’ as of many; but as of one: ‘and to your race’, which is Anointed.”
Galatians 3:16 is an exceptional example of the method of most mainstream Bible translators, who first make up their minds what the Bible says, and then twist the meanings and grammar of the Greek words to agree with their objectives.
Galatians 4:5: Where the A.V. renders the clause “that we might receive the adoption of sons” the CNT has “that we would recover the position of sons”. The verb ἀπολαμβάνω, is “to recover” in the CNT but is merely “to receive” in the KJV. If it were the intention of the writer to say receive then λαμβάνω without the prefix would have been sufficient. For ἀπολαμβάνω L&S have “to take or receive from another, to receive what is one’s due... II. to take back, get back, regain, recover...”. λαμβάνω is simply to receive. The KJV more properly renders ἀπολαμβάνω “receive...again” at Luke 6:34. Paul uses the word in the sense “to receive what is one’s due” at Rom. 1:27 and Col. 3:24. In the CNT it is “recovered” at Luke 15:27, in context, where the A.V. also has “received”. Rendering “receive” here when the meaning of the word is obviously much stronger is, at the least, an abdication of the responsibility which Christians have, to examine the Scriptures. At the most, it is deceptive. Coupled with the mistranslation of υἱοθεσία as “adoption”, rather than as the “position of a son” (for which see the discussion above concerning Romans 8:15), it is surely deceptive, since it is tantamount to creating a new religion. Errors such as this appear in the KJV rather consistently, and so it has in essence created a new religion, which is not Christianity! Here, note Deut. 14:1 and know that Paul is addressing “lost” Israelites (and only lost Israelites, i.e. Matt. 10:6, 15:24) for which see Gal. 3:13, 15, 16, 22-26; 4:3-6, 28, 31; and 5:1. These statements, made to Galatians, would be utter nonsense unless Paul knew that he was speaking to “lost” Israelites (those of the Assyrian deportation and times earlier), and so here one can only write “recover” if one wants to write honestly. The CNT renders Galatians 4:5: “in order that He would redeem those subject to law, that we would recover the position of sons”, which indeed we are if we are Adamic peoples.
Galatians 4:9: ἄνωθεν, “from above”, was totally ignored by the A.V. translators here. The CNT has the final clause of this verse “...to which from above you again desire to be enslaved?” It may have been rendered “...to which you who are from above again desire to be enslaved?”, the verb εἰμί often being implied in Greek.
Galatians 5:3: περιτεμνομένῳ, a Present Medium Dative Participle of περιτέμνω, in the KJV is rendered “is circumcised”. In the CNT the word is rendered “getting himself circumcised”. Verbs in the Medium Voice properly indicate that the initiator and the recipient of an action are one and the same. Surely Paul’s statement is not considering those infants who are circumcised involuntarily, which is a common practice today due to our Judaized medical profession, to be bound to be judged by the law. While he may strive to, the jew cannot possibly disrupt our relationship with Yahweh, as Paul also explains in Romans Chapter 8.
Ephesians 1:5: This verse should be read in part “having pre-ordained us into the position of sons” (CNT), for which see the remarks concerning Romans 8:15 above.
Ephesians 2:12: Here the A.V. has a phrase “being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel”, yet there is no such noun in the text. The word is a verb, it is not a substantive, and it is inexcusable to translate it as a noun, except that the A.V. translators obviously did not understand the message. So rather than translate the Greek and then figure out why it says what it does, they conclude first what it means, and then twist the meanings of the words to agree with their conclusions. This is another clear example, that we must reserve every right to examine the original scriptures and not merely accept a government-approved translation as the unerring Word of God.
Ephesians 2:19: πάροικοι is sojourners and absolutely not foreigners, as the A.V. has it here. Forms of this word appear at Luke 24:18; Acts 7:6 and 13:17; Heb. 11:9; I Peter 1:17 and 2:11. From Paul’s perspective, sojourners are emigrants, not immigrants; a people alienated (Eph. 2:12, Col. 1:21), not “aliens” (II Cor. 6:14, Heb. 11:34). Note Hos. 1:1-11.
Ephesians 3:2: The KJV translates this verse: “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward”. Yet οἰκονομία is primarily “the management of a household or family” (L&S), for which see also the discussion at 1 Corinthians 9:17-18 above. In the CNT this verse is translated “if indeed you have heard of the management of the family of the favor of Yahweh which has been given to me in regard to you”. Paul’s reference to “the family of the faith” at Galatians 6:10, along with many other remarks, shows that Paul’s message is brought to the family of the children of Israel, an idea which is clearly represented throughout Paul’s letters, but which the KJV translation attempts to obfuscate as much as possible. At Ephesians 3:6, the phrase which the KJV translates “that the Gentiles should be” is certainly better rendered “those Nations which are”, or even “which Nations are” or “those Nations that are”, the verb εἶναι being a present infinitive and not a subjunctive. All of these errors in the KJV, seemingly minor when each of them is examined independently, have been taken advantage of by the unscrupulous in order to create a new religion which is entirely alien to the scope of the promises of Jeremiah 31:31, Ezekiel 16:62, 34:25 and all of the other prophecies and promises concerning the coming of Christ and the redemption of the children of Israel, to which the apostles themselves consistently attest, for example at Luke 1:54-55 and 1:72-74.
Ephesians 3:13: The KJV opens this verse with the clause “Wherefore I desire that ye faint not...” where in the CNT it is read “On which account I beg for myself not to falter...”. The Greek clause is διὸ αἰτοῦμαι μὴ ἐγκακεῖν. First, the verb αἰτοῦμαι is the 1st person Present Medium Indicative of αἱτέω which is “II. Medium to ask for oneself, to claim...but often used just like Active...” (L&S). However it cannot properly be used as an active verb here since no object is supplied, and it especially cannot be read as the KJV has it, “I desire that you”, since there is no “you” in the text. Here it must naturally be read as Medium voice verbs are, “I ask myself” or “I beg myself”, as the Medium voice primarily indicates that the initiator and recipient of the action of the verb are one and the same. Additionally, the verb rendered “to falter” here in the CNT, ἐγκακεῖν is an Infinitive, and not a 2nd person Present Active as the KJV renders it. Paul is clearly stating that he begs for himself not to falter in his duties on behalf of the assemblies. Again, we have two clear grammatical errors in one sentence.
Ephesians 3:17: “That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith” (KJV), for which the Greek is κατοικῆσαι τὸν χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. Yet τὸν χριστὸν being the Accusative case form of ὁ χριστός, the phrase must represent the object of the verb and not, as the KJV has it, as the subject – which is yet another clear grammatical error. The word κατοικῆσαι, being an infinitive form of κατοικέω, may mean to administer, govern, or establish. Once it is realized that the phrase ὁ χριστός may refer to the children of Israel collectively as “the anointed”, as has been discussed here in the remarks for Galatians 3:16, and the Accusative case of the noun phrase τὸν χριστὸν is treated properly, it is evident that this phrase may be much better rendered “to administer the Anointed through the faith in your hearts”, where it is evident in context that Paul is talking about caring for ones Christian Israelite brethren. Christ Himself has no need for our administering to Him. Rather, He demands that we administer to our brethren on His behalf.
Ephesians 6:1: ἐν κυρίῳ is better rendered “in authority”, and not, as the KJV reads, “in the Lord”. Likewise, at Ephesians 6:8, παρὰ κυρίου is better rendered “as appropriate”. The KJV translators consistently failed to render the adjective κύριος in its primary sense, and instead they always imagined it to be a reference to God or to Christ. “1 Children, you must obey your parents in authority, for this is just.”
Philippians 1:1: “Paul, and Timotheos, bondmen of Christ Yahshua, to all the saints among the number of Christ Yahshua who are in Philippos, along with the supervisors and ministers”. ἐπίσκοπος (1985) is “supervisor” here. The word is “one who watches over, an overseer, guardian” (L&S) and it actually is the word (through the late Latin equivalent ebiscopus) from which our English word “bishop” is derived. In the CNT the word is translated literally, to avoid any endorsement of the man-made ‘church’ hierarchy which words such as “bishop” represent. Although διάκονος (1249) is often “minister” in the CNT, “minister” should be understood as a servant to the assembly, as the word is literally a servant. But bishop is simply not an English word, and only made it into our vocabulary because the King James Version was purposely translated in a manner which gave the appearance that the New Testament actually confirmed the hierarchical organization of the Anglican Church. Therefore if you worship the Anglican Church, you may insist upon using the A.V. For my own part, I prefer to worship Yahweh my God, and to examine His will even if I am too fallible a man to obey it.
Philippians 1:4: Where in the CNT we read in part “...I yearn for you all in the affections of Christ Yahshua...”, and Philippians 2:1: “... if any affections and compassions...”, the word translated affections is σπλάγχνον, which literally means bowels as it appears in the A.V., however it is clear in Greek writings that the bowels were seen by the Greeks as the seat of our passions or emotions, and therefore it must be translated in such a manner, so that we can understand the word as the Greeks themselves often used it.
Philippians 2:14-16: “14 Do all things apart from murmuring and disputing, 15 that you would be perfect and with unmixed blood, blameless children of Yahweh in the midst of a race crooked and perverted - among whom you appear as luminaries in the cosmos, 16 upholding the Word of Life for a boast with me in the day of Christ, that not in vain have I run nor in vain have I labored.”
The word “blameless” here is from ἄμωμος (299), from α- (English un-) and μῶμος (3470, in the N.T. only at II Peter 2:13), “blame, ridicule, disgrace”; “perfect” is from ἄμεμπτος (273), from α- and μέμφομαι (of which the verb , 3201, is found at Rom. 9:19 and Heb. 8:8) “to be blamed, blameworthy” (L&S), where ἄμεμπτος is defined “not to be blamed, blameless...of things, perfect in its kind...” (L&S). The phrase “with unmixed blood” is from ἀκέραιος, which primarily means “unmixed, pure in blood” and is derived from α- (un-) and the verb κεράννυμι “to mix, mingle...” (L&S). Set in contrast to the phrase γενεᾶς (γενεά, 1074, “race, stock, family” - L&S) σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης “a race crooked and perverted” it is both morally and intellectually dishonest to gloss over or ignore the message of racial purity meant by Paul in his use of ἄμεμπτος and ἀκέραιος which are also joined here with the entreaty to “do all things” (v. 14) surely referring to every “jot and tittle” of the law (without the rituals, the ordinances which are the “works of the law”), the “Word of Life” of v. 16. This is a clear racial message and it is absolutely ignored by all modern translators and professional churchmen.
Philippians 3:20: “Of us the government in the heavens exists”. The word government is from πολίτευμα, and it literally means nothing but government. There is no excuse as to why the A.V. translates the word as conversation here, except that their rendering was for political purposes, to conceal the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven from the common people – that we should rule over ourselves and not be oppressed by professional priests and kings. Yahshua Christ is our Priest and our King!
Philippians 4:18: Here the A.V. Has “But I have all, and abound”, yet the word ἀπέχω is “to keep off or away from...to keep apart, part...to hold oneself off...abstain or desist from...” ἔχω (2192) alone being sufficient to say “I have”. The CNT reads this phrase quite properly “Now I abstain from all things, yet I abound”.
Here I will end this first portion of Errors Inspired by Who? Yet I will add a disclaimer or two. I do not consider the Christogenea New Testament to be infallible. I know that I, as a fallible man, am capable of making both oversights and errors. Yet I also pray to Yahweh that the errors I have made, I am still able to discover and correct as I learn and as I become conscious of them. Or if I do not, that others may go behind me and correct them, in return learning at least something from whatever work that I may have done correctly. But the King James Version, how can any man view it as the inspired and infallible work of God, when it contains so many of the errors of men? Have I not demonstrated that it contains many errors, in only these few pages? Or are we to ignore the meanings and the parts of speech of the Greek words and accept blindly the assertions of these men, simply because they were anointed by another man who happened to be a king? And if any former king were infallible, why do we not obey all of them today, rather than just this one? Other earthly kings used different Bibles, or often wouldn't even let us have a Bible. We Christians have a commission, to examine all things and to examine the scriptures – which when those words were written, meant the Greek and Hebrew copies of the Scriptures, for English as we know it did not even exist. This I will continue to do, to examine the scriptures in their original languages, and I will not be reduced to being a respecter of persons, or a worshipper of the works of other men’s hands, as the King James Authorized Version certainly is. They were no more inspired than any of us can claim to be today.
Let it also be said, that the King James Authorized Version's translation was commissioned with strict orders from the King and from the Anglican bishop as to how it was to be conducted, and that after it was completed, it became the only lawful version printed or imported into all of England. In an original preface, the translators themselves made the claim that their edition was “the word of God in English”, which is a preposterously brazen claim. All other translations were virtually outlawed, especially after the restoration of the crown, when the competing Geneva Bible suffered along with the fate of Puritanism in England. By the end of the 17th century, due to circumstances both political and commercial, it became virtually the only English language version in print for a long time. Yet during the 18th and 19th centuries, the text of the King James Version was more in the hands of printers than of scholars, and there was much contention over the various versions which grew out of the commercial rivalry among them, as updates were made to reflect changes in the English language itself. There was also a lot of contention among the scholars, many of whom continued to prefer the Vulgate and other earlier editions. In the 18th century, however, the acceptance of the King James Version’s claim to be the inspired word of God began to take hold, and that has all of the makings of a cult.