Hi Vendetta Ride,

Sorry for getting your name wrong earlier. I hope you realize no offense was intended, it was a simple mistake.

I did not suggest that the English "purifications" were the direct fulfillment of Psalm 12:6, 7.

Then where does it come from? Why seven stages (again, Waite lists the KJV as the 17th complete English Bible)? If it's not a fulfillment of prophecy, then is it not based simply on fallible understanding and assumptions about history?

I do not believe that the King James Bible is the only written word of God on earth.

What, if I may ask, are some of the others?

But I do believe, with all my heart and soul and mind, that it is the only word of God in English.

If I were to purify some silver 7 times in a furnace of earth, what would be the practical difference between the 6th purification and the 7th? Is not the 6th purification "pure silver"? What if I did an 8th - does it somehow become less pure than the 7th?

(It is mischievous to say that "we still have the Geneva and other translations." Yes, a few copies may be extant, but they are not in use; any more than the Royal Shakespeare Company uses the original First Folio for rehearsal. I'm talking about Bibles that are being produced, marketed, and read.)

I don't think it is mischievous at all to talk about the Geneva and other old translations. I often use my Geneva and Tyndale for reading, study, and even bring them to church on occasion instead of something more recent. They're great for group passage comparison, and great for increasing fellowship/conversation. Anyone can buy these and other translations on any half-decent online bookstore, for just as cheap as any other more recent version.

The word "silver" throws me: why didn't He say "gold" or "brass?" I'm not finding fault; I simply try to analyze things word for word. The "furnace of earth" seems clear enough.

As a simile, the whole verse is clear enough. It is not worded like other prophecies, it is not explained in other scripture, it is not seen as a prophecy by anyone (that I can find) until a 7th Day Adventist preacher in the 1930s.

But I believe that any passage can have multiple fulfillments, so long as they do not contradict.

But how can you identify which are real, and which aren't? Without a real authority identifying them, it's all just near-worthless speculation at best, and just more causes for schisms and divisions and fights at worst.

Quote:
Brian's position is that God's words are out there somewhere in a multitude of conflicting manuscripts and sometimes very different bible versions, and never really defined except in some nebulous and vague "ballpark" manner. In other words, they are still in a very unpurified state. He has no inerrant Bible and doesn't even believe there should be one. Pretty sad, really.
Without addressing Brian's beliefs directly, I will simply note, with continuing sadness, that 95% of the world's professing Christians don't believe they hold God's perfect word in their hands.

If you mean "perfect" in the KJV-only sense, why is this sad? Haven't you guys been saying this is how it was for the first 80% of church history? Was it sad then? Why did God make it all so sad?

I believe I hold God's word in my hands when I hold the KJV. And when I hold any of several other versions. I do not believe mistakes in the ink-on-paper mean there must be mistakes in the intended meaning. As the KJV translators said, all existing translations are "the word of God" despite imperfections in them and despite variances in quality between them (and before someone reminds me that they would not say that about the "modern" versions, I would remind them that they even called the LXX "the word of God"
and the LXX is much more dissimilar from the KJV than "modern" versions are).

Consider: two people can both read the KJV exclusively, and yet (as demonstrated even on this forum) disagree on doctrine, yet two people can read differing versions and end up agreeing on doctrine. If one KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is true, and another KJV-only supporter concludes Trinitarianism is false, do they both really have "the word of God"? If a KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is not true, but a "modern" version reader concludes it is true, is it not the modern version reader that has God's word hidden in his heart? Is not the correct understanding more important than the correct text?

God bless,
Brian

Hi Brandplucked,

About Psalm 12:6-7 you said:

I believe that this verse, like many other Scriptures, has a double fulfillment. I can only be seen in the second way after it has happened, not before. How many prophecies of Christ Himself were not understood until after they had happened? Many if not most of them.

As I've told you before, "double meaning"/"double fulfillment" is a slippery slope. Yes, many prophecies of Christ himself were not understood until after they happened, but all had their secondary fulfillment clearly and authoritatively identified and explained by other scripture. That is vitally important, and is the distinction between what is orthodox and doctrinal, and what is pure speculation and based on bias and assumption. If scripture doesn't clearly identify the secondary fulfillment, any passage can be claimed to have a secondary meaning to support anyone's pet theories. In fact, this practice is almost single-handedly the reason behind most cultic movements and organizations - they see secondary fulfillment in whatever passages they want, and can claim it's "scriptural" because they can list Bible references after their claims, and nobody can technically disprove them.

This is not to say there are still unrevealed secondary fulfillments, but they must be revealed by authority. Once Christ returns, I'm sure he'll reveal (authoritatively) all sorts of secondary meanings we do not see at this time. But until then, we cannot claim secondary fulfillments that scripture doesn't clearly identify. We can guess and speculate and opine, but it's all fallible, unauthoritative and unverifiable. It can be fun and interesting to think about and discuss the possibilities, but at the end of the day the best we can do is shrug and say "maybe". We certainly cannot claim them authoritatively, let alone oppose others for not doing so.

About me calling Tyndale's translation "the word of God", you said:

It is statements like this that make me wonder what kind of strange logic you are using to try to sound 'orthodox' or even insightful. I have a lot more I could post about Tyndale's version, but here are just a couple examples.
...
How do you reason your way through this kind of logic?

I am simply in agreement with the KJV translators on this issue. If you consider them unorthodox, illogical, and having a few screws loose in the ol' brain pan, that's your business.

God bless,
Brian

Originally Posted by BrianT

Sorry for getting your name wrong earlier. I hope you realize no offense was intended, it was a simple mistake.

That's easy enough to say, now that the damage is done. It broke my heart, quite frankly. But my heart's been broken before. I'm not bitter: oh no, not me....

Then where does it come from? Why seven stages (again, Waite lists the KJV as the 17th complete English Bible)? If it's not a fulfillment of prophecy, then is it not based simply on fallible understanding and assumptions about history?

Where does what come from? The King James Bible, or the seven-stage thing? The seven stages form a happy and convenient matrix for my understanding of the issues. They are not the integration point of my theology, as Francis Schaeffer used to say: the resurrection of Christ is that integration point. But the seven stages, or the several sets of seven stages, add to my appreciation and enjoyment of the Bible. As for a "fallible understanding ... of history," I certainly plead guilty; that's one reason why I depend so completely an a final and infallible authority: God's propositional revelation, the Authorized Version.

Why, man, my own understanding of myself is fallible! How could I be expected to get history right? Some of the brightest minds at my university tried to teach me history, and on occasion they succeeded; but I did not join this forum because of my prowess as a historian.

(By the way, Donald Waite's schematizations are as utterly irrelevant to me as Paris Hilton's tastes in evening attire. The Dean Burgon Society is like today's Republican Party: neither fish nor fowl, fundamental or neo-orthodox, hot or cold: just a confused, inarticulate dinosaur. Let Donald Waite and John McCain go commiserate over the mysteries of the cosmos: I'm sure they'd have a happy time of it.)

What, if I may ask, are some of the others?

The Valera edition in Spanish comes to mind, as does Luther's German translation. Neither achieves the perfection of the Authorized Version, but they are accurate and dependable, and are understood by a much larger percentage of the world's population than Greek or Hebrew.

If I were to purify some silver 7 times in a furnace of earth, what would be the practical difference between the 6th purification and the 7th? Is not the 6th purification "pure silver"? What if I did an 8th - does it somehow become less pure than the 7th?

Go to, brother! You're jabbering like a Jesuit. I mean no offense; but it should be obvious that if something so base as silver needs seven refinings, so does something as sublime as the word of God. Actually, it matters very little to me (as I have mentioned a few times already) whether God's word was refined seven times, or seventy times seven; the point of the discussion is that the final purification came with the Authorized Version. Do you, Brother T, actually believe that the NASV or the NIV are improvements over the AV? I certainly won't throw rocks at you if you say "yes;" you'll only be speaking for the majority of American Christians. But is that really your position?

And, if those versions (or the other 225+ versions) are not improvements, then what's the point?

As a simile, the whole verse is clear enough. It is not worded like other prophecies, it is not explained in other scripture, it is not seen as a prophecy by anyone (that I can find) until a 7th Day Adventist preacher in the 1930s.

Let me say, in as friendly a manner as possible, that I do not give a hoot in Hell (Is. 34:11) when a truth is discovered, or by whom it is discovered, as long as it is true. As for the wording of prophecies, it varies widely and, one might say, wildly. Some of the most personally meaningful prophecy in the entire Bible, to me, is found in the Song of Solomon: but it isn't prefaced by "thus saith the Lord."

But how can you identify which [multiple fulfillments of prophecy] are real, and which aren't? Without a real authority identifying them, it's all just near-worthless speculation at best, and just more causes for schisms and divisions and fights at worst.

What on earth are you talking about? A prophecy says, "Jerusalem will fall." It falls in 70 AD. If it falls again later, after having been rebuilt, is that second fall less "real" than the first? The facts of history are not subjectively discerned; they happen, or they don't.

If you mean "perfect" in the KJV-only sense, why is this sad? Haven't you guys been saying this is how it was for the first 80% of church history? Was it sad then? Why did God make it all so sad?

You have never heard me say that the Christian church was without scripture for the first 80% of its history. As for sadness in general, God allows a lot of it, for many reasons. Usually, it is intended as a didactic or disciplinary tool.

Consider: two people can both read the KJV exclusively, and yet (as demonstrated even on this forum) disagree on doctrine, yet two people can read differing versions and end up agreeing on doctrine. If one KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is true, and another KJV-only supporter concludes Trinitarianism is false, do they both really have "the word of God"? If a KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is not true, but a "modern" version reader concludes it is true, is it not the modern version reader that has God's word hidden in his heart? Is not the correct understanding more important than the correct text?

I believe that an illiterate aborigine can receive revelation about the Trinity and the Second Advent from the revelation of nature; and he can derive a pretty good sense of morality from the revelation of conscience. Does that mean that no propositional revelation is needed?

No kidding: does it? And, if a propositional revelation is needed, why shouldn't I, using your reasoning, choose the Koran over the Bible? How do you know that the Muslims don't have that all-important "correct understanding?"

I'm being serious, by the way. I await your response.

[Brother Tim]

BrianT proposed:

Consider: two people can both read the KJV exclusively, and yet ... disagree on doctrine, yet two people can read differing versions and end up agreeing on doctrine. If one KJV-only supporter concludes that Trinitarianism is true, and another KJV-only supporter concludes Trinitarianism is false, do they both really have "the word of God"? ...
Is not the correct understanding more important than the correct text?

Your illustration is not sensible in the least. One day when I was in front of an abortion mill, I was joined by a group of Catholics and several Krishnas (an eastern religion) who were pro-life as well. Does this mean that we agreed on much else? Of course not. Agreeing or disagreeing on a specific doctrine does not indicate unity or disunity on the whole.

Your last statement is particularly erroneous. How can one have correct understanding of the whole of Scripture when reading a false or confused text? How can one draw truth from error? Most modern versions have enough basic truth to provide the foundation for the fundamental doctrines, (and even that is fading with each new generation of versions) so, yes, there will be agreement in a general sense. The deeper truths are the first to be lost when the text is altered. Example: John 1:3 - the KJB: "All things were made by him" versus the NKJV "All things were made through Him". The NKJV moves the LORD Jesus from being the active agent of creation to being the passive agent. The NIV, NASB, and ESV all do the same. What is interesting is to examine Colossians 1:16 as a parallel. The MVs alternate between "by" and "through", even contradicting themselves within the verse.

Hi Vendetta Ride,

The Valera edition in Spanish comes to mind, as does Luther's German translation. Neither achieves the perfection of the Authorized Version, but they are accurate and dependable, and are understood by a much larger percentage of the world's population than Greek or Hebrew.

Then we are not so far apart, for I also do not require total absence of textual imperfections to call a Bible "the word of God". I just see no authoritative reason, as already explained to attribute a quality of "textually inerrant" to the KJV. So perhaps we are running out of things to talk about.

I mean no offense; but it should be obvious that if something so base as silver needs seven refinings, so does something as sublime as the word of God.

Huh? If something base needs refining, so does something pure? No comprendo. The words were already, and always, pure. No refinement needed.

the point of the discussion is that the final purification came with the Authorized Version

Actually, the point of the discussion is the question of authority behind such a claim. If you personally don't even see it as a prophecy, and admit it's just your personal belief and not authoritative or binding on anyone else, I have absolutely no quarrel with you - I just think you're wrong.

Do you, Brother T, actually believe that the NASV or the NIV are improvements over the AV? I certainly won't throw rocks at you if you say "yes;" you'll only be speaking for the majority of American Christians. But is that really your position?

In some aspects, yes, in some aspects no. That is why I don't limit myself to a single translation, but use a variety of translations for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.

Let me say, in as friendly a manner as possible, that I do not give a hoot in Hell (Is. 34:11) when a truth is discovered, or by whom it is discovered, as long as it is true. As for the wording of prophecies, it varies widely and, one might say, wildly. Some of the most personally meaningful prophecy in the entire Bible, to me, is found in the Song of Solomon: but it isn't prefaced by "thus saith the Lord."

My point is simply that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. There cannot be new doctrines for the church that could not be doctrines for the entire church, unless they are given with true authority.

What on earth are you talking about? A prophecy says, "Jerusalem will fall." It falls in 70 AD. If it falls again later, after having been rebuilt, is that second fall less "real" than the first? The facts of history are not subjectively discerned; they happen, or they don't.

I am talking about authority. If scripture says Jerusalem will fall, the authority is scripture. When it happens, because scripture was clear about it, we can be sure of the fulfillment, but we ourselves do not have the authority to say what the fulfillment is even if we are correct about the fulfillment. I can stand on the side of the highway and identify speeders, but I have no authority to write and hand out legally binding speeding tickets. When things are less clear, such as when there's no reason to believe something has a secondary prophecy meaning in the first place (let alone what the fulfillment would look like even if it was a prophecy), the lack of authority is even more evident. It's theoretically possible that someone making the claim is actually correct (just as I might correctly identify a speeder even when I have no idea what the speed limit is or what speed the person is doing), but it's all just non-binding guesswork and fallible opinion by someone with no authority. And if I were to stand out on the highway and try to pass out speeding tickets, it would not be wrong (in fact it would be right) for someone to challenge my authority.

I believe that an illiterate aborigine can receive revelation about the Trinity and the Second Advent from the revelation of nature

And what's the success rate on that? How many illiterate, aboriginal, never-heard-the-gospel Trinitarians are there?

if a propositional revelation is needed, why shouldn't I, using your reasoning, choose the Koran over the Bible?

When I want to know how to program a computer, I read a computer manual, not a cookbook. When I want to know what the King's message is, I read a translation of the King's speech, not a translation of the memoirs and philosophies of a violent pedophile. But just because I read the King's speech does not mean I'm going to understand it all correctly, even with the Holy Spirit's help - it still goes through the filters of our bias and limited, fallible comprehension. But I stand a much better shot of getting the King's intended message by reading the King's speech and not something else.

Hi Brother Tim,

Your illustration is not sensible in the least. One day when I was in front of an abortion mill, I was joined by a group of Catholics and several Krishnas (an eastern religion) who were pro-life as well. Does this mean that we agreed on much else? Of course not. Agreeing or disagreeing on a specific doctrine does not indicate unity or disunity on the whole.

I never said it did. My point is simply if you hold the word of God in your hands, but it doesn't make it any further than that, how has it benefited you?

Your last statement is particularly erroneous. How can one have correct understanding of the whole of Scripture when reading a false or confused text?

Simple. Suppose I have three different texts, each claiming to be a translation of the same source: "I lick cookies", "I like corkies" and "I like cookees". I can read any of the three, in isolation or comparatively, and get the correct understanding. I can read "only begotten God" and/or "only begotten Son", and conclude that Jesus is God the Son, begotten.

The deeper truths are the first to be lost when the text is altered. Example: John 1:3 - the KJB: "All things were made by him" versus the NKJV "All things were made through Him". The NKJV moves the LORD Jesus from being the active agent of creation to being the passive agent.

Good example. Yes, you could understand it that way, but must you? If I say we are saved "through" him instead of "by" him, does that move him from being an active agent of salvation to being a passive agent - or is the correct understanding still possible?

God bless,
Brian

[Here Am I]

Originally Posted by BrianT

If I say we are saved "through" him instead of "by" him, does that move him from being an active agent of salvation to being a passive agent - or is the correct understanding still possible?

The correct understanding might be possible, but an incorrect understanding (misunderstanding?) is also possible.

I'd rather not make my study of God's word any more difficult by choosing less clear readings of the Bible.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by BrianT

If you mean "perfect" in the KJV-only sense, why is this sad? Haven't you guys been saying this is how it was for the first 80% of church history?

No Brian. My point was that God's book for the O.T. was the Hebrew Scriptures and most likely the Old Latin and Waldensian bibles for the N.T.



[QUOTE]I believe I hold God's word in my hands when I hold the KJV. And when I hold any of several other versions. I do not believe mistakes in the ink-on-paper mean there must be mistakes in the intended meaning. As the KJV translators said, all existing translations are "the word of God" despite imperfections in them and despite variances in quality between them (and before someone reminds me that they would not say that about the "modern" versions, I would remind them that they even called the LXX "the word of God"and the LXX is much more dissimilar from the KJV than "modern" versions are).[/QUOTER]

It seems you accept the Preface to the Reader and the KJV translators as final authority when it suits you even though they were wrong, and reject the text God produced through them as wrong when it is right.

To try to get around my post to you about Tyndale being "in the same way the word of God" as the King James Bible by telling us this was the view of the KJV translators is not addressing the issues. I want to know what YOU think and How YOU can justify your claims.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianT
Yes, I believe the KJV is "the word of God", but in the same way that the Geneva Bible was "the word of God", Tyndale's translation was "the word of God" Brian


Hi Brian. It is statements like this that make me wonder what kind of strange logic you are using to try to sound 'orthodox' or even insightful. I have a lot more I could post about Tyndale's version, but here are just a couple examples.

Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Luke 17:36 - “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left.”.

Tyndale omitted the entire verse of Mark 11:26 - “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. “

Amazingly, Tyndale’s N.T. also omits all these words from James 4:6 - “Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.”

In the book of Revelation Tyndale omits the words: “And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee” from Revelation 18:23 and the entire verse in Revelation 21:26 which reads: “And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.”!!

Now, how in the name of sound reasoning can Tyndale's version be called "in the same way" the "the word of God" and the King James Bible also be called "in the same way the word of God"?

Do you mean that Tyndale contained some or even most of God's words, but not all of them? Or did the King James Bible add these parts to the word of God? How is this "in the same way"?

How do you reason your way through this kind of logic?

Don't cop out on us by taking a quote from the Preface OUT OF CONTEXT and not addressing the issues. How do YOU explain how both these Bible versions ARE IN THE SAME WAY THE WORDS OF GOD.


Will K

[Will Kinney]

Brian

I don't limit myself to a single translation, but use a variety of translations for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.

Sounds really spiritual, Brian. Try putting this pious sounding theory into practice and let us know what the sense of the Scriptures is from this variety of translations. By the way, I have hundreds more examples of the same type of nonsense.


Daniel 9:26 "Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

Christ, who obviously is the Messiah, was cut off out of the land of the living and He died, not for Himself, but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood. By His death the Lord Jesus Christ made reconciliation for iniquity and brought in everlasting righteousness, as the immediate context of Daniel 9:24 tells us.

There is no verb in the Hebrew text of Daniel 9:26; it reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí) but they changed the 1995 Reina Valera and it now reads like the NIV. Also agreeing with the King James reading of "but not for Himself" are Webster's 1833 translation, The Modern Greek Translation (pleen ouxi di heauton), the Third Millenium Bible, Green's 1998 Modern KJV, and the KJV 21st Century Version. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

The NIV is not always translated in the same way into foreign languages. The NIV in Spanish simply omits this last phrase altogether. The 1984 Nueva Versión Internacional says: "After the 72 weeks, the life of the elect prince will be taken away."

Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, is writing his own bible version on the internet. It is called the NET bible and it often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and frequently comes up with meanings not found in any other bible out there in print. His NET version with commentary says: "Now after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Then he footnotes: "The expression "HAVE NOTHING" is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting A VICARIOUS DEATH, CANNOT BE DEFENDED."

This "renowned scholar" admits his own rendering "is difficult", and "a presumption", but then he adamantly tells that the idea of a substitutionary death as found in the King James Bible "cannot be defended". He is uncertain about his own reading, but certain that the King James Bible got it wrong! Aren't Bible correctors a kick in the head? Well, as we shall soon see, a great many Bible teachers and translators are not at all in agreement with Dr. Wallace's opinions.

Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isa. 53:8. He must be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF —not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, HE MUST DIE FOR THE PEOPLE, IN OUR STEAD and for our good, it was TO ATONE FOR OUR SINS, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - BUT FOR OUR SAKES, and for our salvation."

John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, BUT FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, to make satisfaction for them, and TO OBTAIN THEIR REDEMPTION and salvation."

David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, NOT FOR HIMSELF."

C.H. Spurgeon comments: "The Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself." - Daniel 9:26 "Blessed be his name, there was no cause of death in him. Neither original nor actual sin had defiled him, and therefore death had no claim upon him. No man could have taken his life from him justly, for he had done no man wrong, and no man could even have lain him by force unless he had been pleased to yield himself to die. But lo, one sins and another suffers. Justice was offended by us, but found its satisfaction in him. Rivers of tears, mountains of offerings, seas of the blood of bullocks, and hills of frankincense, could not have availed for the removal of sin; BUT JESUS WAS CUT OFF FOR US, and the cause of wrath was cut off at once, for sin was put away for ever. Herein is wisdom, whereby SUBSTITUTION, the sure and speedy WAY OF ATONEMENT, was devised! Herein is condescension, which brought Messiah, the Prince, to wear a crown of thorns, and die upon the cross! Herein is love, which led the Redeemer to LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS ENEMIES!

Bible Babel in Action

Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statements made by many today that "There are no conflicting bibles", or "By reading a multitude of different versions we get a better idea of what the text says".

Wycliffe 1395 - "Christ shall be slain, and IT SHALL NOT BE HIS PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM."

Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

The New English bible 1970 says: "one who is anointed is removed WITHOUT ANYONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

Young's 'literal' translation has: "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

The alleged Greek Septuagint (LXX) reads: "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

The Message of 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM." (Not quite true, is it?)

1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (Again not true)

The Good News Translation - Second edition says: "And at the end of that time God's chosen leader will be killed UNJUSTLY." Then it footnotes: "One ancient translation unjustly; Hebrew unclear."

The Easy To Read Version 2001 - "After the 62 weeks, the chosen person will be killed. HE WILL BE GONE."

The Catholic versions are all in disagreement with each other too.

The Douay Version of 1950 says: - "And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: AND THE PEOPLE THAT SHALL DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

Then the Jerusalem Bible of 1968 has: "an anointed one will be cut off - AND....WILL NOT BE FOR HIM." (This is actually how it reads)

The St. Joseph New American Bible of 1970 has: "an anointed shall be cut down WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSES THE CITY"

And finally the New Jerusalem Bible of 1985 says: "an Anointed One put to death WITHOUT HIS...city and sanctuary ruined by a prince who is to come." (Again, this is actually how it reads)

May I suggest you take a few moments to review this list of conflicting bible readings, and then ask God to open your eyes to see which one presents the truth about why Messiah was cut off, and what His death accomplished? The King James Bible always comes out on top when the Truth of God is revealed to the believing heart.

Will K

[Will Kinney]

Brian

I don't limit myself to a single translation, but use a variety of translations for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.

Try these for us, Brian, and let us know what the sense of the Scriptures is, OK?

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 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); 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, 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), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

Will K