[Will Kinney]

Luke 17:9 I trow not

In Luke 17:9-10 of the King James Bible we read the words of the Lord Jesus Christ saying: "Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I TROW NOT. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: for we have done that which is our duty to do."

There are a multitude of anti-King James Bible sites that love to bring up the rendering of this verse - "I trow not". They mock at this expression; tell us it is impossible to understand; and then try to get you to switch to a version like the NIV, NASB, Holman Standard or the ESV.

Do any of these people actually believe that ANY Bible or any single Hebrew or Greek text is the inspired, inerrant, complete words of God? Of course not. All they have to recommend to you is a confusing variety of multiple-choice, contradictory, Probably Close Enough, "reliable versions" (whatever that means) which each of them considers to be imperfect translations that they feel free to "correct" at any time according to their own understanding.

Let's examine the words "I trow not" and the surrounding texts in Luke 17. I think you will begin to see some of the serious problems these Bible critics fail to mention.

First of all, the English expression "I trow not" is simply an archaic way of saying "I think not".

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Trow

Intransitive verb: Inflected forms: trowed, trow·ing, trows

1. Archaic To think. 2. Obsolete To suppose. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English trowen, from Old English trowian, to trust.

My Webster's 1999 Dictionary defines trow as an archaic or old word meaning "to think, to believe, or to suppose"; akin to "true" and "trust."

Not only does the King James Bible say "I trow not" in Luke 17:9 but so do Tyndale's Bible 1525, the Coverdale Bible 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible of 1599.

God forbid that we should have to look up and learn an unfamiliar word in English! Do any of these modern version proponents suppose there are no English words in their own recommended versions that most high schoolers wouldn't know how to define?

Of far greater significance than having to learn what an old English word means is the textual issue of most modern versions. Do we have the infallible words of God today or not? Without exception, I have not found one modern version promoter who believes that any single Bible out there is the complete, inerrant word of God.

Let's look at just a few of the more significant textual and translational changes in this same chapter of Luke 17.

Most modern versions are based on a very different Greek text than the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible. These modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman omit or substitute some 5,000 words from the New Testament Greek text that underlies the King James Bible, and they often do not even agree with each other.

In Luke 17:9 the Greek words translated as "I trow not" are ou dokw. These two little words are found in the vast majority of all Greek texts as well as in Alexandrinus, D, and the Old Latin versions of b, d, f, i, l, q and r. The Old Latin text preceeds anything we have in Greek by about 150 years. These words are also found in the Syriac Peshitta version that predates the two main manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are used to produce most of today's conflicting modern versions.

The very words "I trow not" or "I think not" (NKJV) are entirely omitted by such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Standard. Why? Mainly because of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. But the interesting thing here is that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not even agree with each other. Vaticanus omits the words for "I trow not", but Sinaiticus not only omits these two words but the next nine words as well!

We need to ask ourselves: Did the Lord Jesus Christ originally speak these words or not? Remember, He said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Did He mean this or was He just kidding?

In Luke 17:3 we read the Lord Jesus saying: "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."

These two little words "against thee" affect the entire application of the verse. Versions like the Holman, NASB, NIV, RSV all omit these two words and say: "If your brother sins, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him."

The words "if thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE" are found in the majority of all Greek texts, as well as D, plus at least 24 uncials and the Old Latin copies c, d, e, q and r.

The reading of "If thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE" is found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops', Geneva Bible, Webster's, Youngs, Darby, the Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, NKJV, Green's MKJV, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these two words and so do the NASB, NIV, RSV and Holman Standard. But wait! Now the brand new TNIV has come out and they put these words back in their latest version.

In Luke 17:36 we read again the Lord Jesus saying: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

This entire verse is omitted by such versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, and the TNIV. The NASB is of interest in that from 1960 through 1972 the NASB omitted this verse from the text and placed it in the margin. Then in 1977 and again in 1995 they have now put it back in the text but in brackets indicating that it is not "in the originals". The Holman Standard has also placed this verse in brackets.

Why do these modern versions omit Luke 17:36? Mainly because it is not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But guess what. Sinaiticus also omits all of Luke 17:35 as well!!! "Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left." However Vaticanus does contain 17:35 and so the versions include it. These two "oldest and best" manuscripts disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone, and yet most modern versions are based on these two corrupt texts, and as a result they omit thousands of inspired words from the New Testament text.

The whole verse of Luke 17:36 is found in many Greek manuscripts and ancient Bible versions. It is in D, the Old Latin a, aur, b, e, f, ff2, i, l, q, and the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Curetonian, and Harclean. It is also in the ancient Georgian and Armenian versions and quoted by several church fathers.

The whole verse is in the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 and 1960, the Italian Diodati, NKJV, Green's MKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible. It is either inspired Scripture or it isn't. Your Bible is either the complete word of God or it is missing many whole verses and thousands of words.

One last example of a translational error found in many modern versions.

In the last verse of this chapter we read in Luke 17:37 - "And they answered him and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will THE EAGLES be gathered together."

The word used here for "eagles" is the same in all texts. It is aetoi and is always translated as "eagles" in the King James Bible and many others. The verse is even a reference to the Old Testament book of Job 39:27-30 where all versions speak of the EAGLE and where the slain are, there is she.

Among the versions that correctly translate this word as "eagles" are: Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, the RSV of 1952, the NKJV, Youngs', Darby, Italian Diodati, Spanish Reina Valera, and the Third Millenium Bible to name just a few.

However the NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman Standard have all mistranslated this word as "vultures" here instead of "eagles", even though they all have twice rendered the same word as "eagle" in Revelation 4:7 and 12:14!

There is an entirely different Greek word that means vultures - gups. It is not even close to the word for eagles - aetoi. The national bird of the United States of America is the bald eagle. I'm quite sure that if someone referred to our national symbol as a vulture instead of the eagle many Americans would be quite upset over this change. Yet modern perversions of God's holy words keep rolling off the presses and nobody bats an eyelash.

If I have to choose between that old King James Bible that occasionally uses an unfamiliar word I might have to look up, and a modern multiple choice version that omits thousands of God's inspired words, and changes the meaning of hundreds of verses, it is not a difficult decision to make at all. I will take the inspired and inerrant King James Holy Bible that God has clearly set His mark of approval on for the last 400 years.

Do I or anybody else actually think one of these new bible versions is the true words of God? I trow not.

Will Kinney

Do we have the infallible words of God today or not? Without exception, I have not found one modern version promoter who believes that any single Bible out there is the complete, inerrant word of God.

That is right. Because, as your definition of "trow" demonstrates, that many words in the KJV are now "archaic" and "obsolete." God's intentions have always been to preserve His word in the common language of His people.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

That is right. Because, as your definition of "trow" demonstrates, that many words in the KJV are now "archaic" and "obsolete." God's intentions have always been to preserve His word in the common language of His people.

Hi fssl. I'm not quite sure what your point is. I find it of interest that you are somehow privy (oops, there's another one of those 'archaic' words) to what God's intentions have always been. From what I have seen so far of some of your posts, it seems you have an extremely wide, loose, and unique way of defining "God's words".

Can you tell me where I can get a copy of what you think God's words are so I can compare it to my King James Bible to see where they differ?

To give you some 'details' to consider, could you tell us which of the following readings are the true words of God 'in the common language of the people'?


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); 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).

Any idea which of these various textual readings are part of the true words of God? Please let us know. thanks,

Will K

Can you tell me where I can get a copy of what you think God's words are so I can compare it to my King James Bible to see where they differ?

It looks like you already have them. I see you have done your homework. Now, just research each and find out why each is the way it is...

Now, why should we keep the words "I trow not" when the common man as no idea what it means? Or, do you think God intended the Bible to be kept a secret for those who have a college level of Shakespearean English?

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by freesundayschoollessons

It looks like you already have them. I see you have done your homework. Now, just research each and find out why each is the way it is...

Now, why should we keep the words "I trow not" when the common man as no idea what it means? Or, do you think God intended the Bible to be kept a secret for those who have a college level of Shakespearean English?

Hi fssl, I'm shocked....shocked....that you simply avoided my direct questions to you with this bland and meaningless mumbo jumbo.

Which of these readings is "the original"? They can't all be what God inspired, can they?

Here they are again, in case you missed them.

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); 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).

Any idea which of these various textual readings are part of the true words of God? Please let us know.

As for your comment: "Now, why should we keep the words "I trow not" when the common man as no idea what it means?", are you aware of the simple fact that your modern NIV contains well over a hundred words that most high school graduates would have no idea what they mean?

Your argument is silly. Ever try learning something new or a new word, duh?

There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.

He also shows many examples of words in the modern versions which most people would have to look up in a dictionary. Here are some of those words found in the "easy to read" NIV.

Try giving this vocabulary test to the average NIV reader and see if they get a passing score.

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: “The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."

Will K

I refuse to drink from a fountain that is fed by a firehose.

Actually, I see alot of vocabulary that is used in USAToday.com. Every word on the first two lines are there.

[Steven Avery]

Luke 17:9
Doth he thank that servant because he did the things
that were commanded him? I trow not.

Personally, I really appreciate, like and use the phrase 'trow not' in proper usage. Interestingly those who use the phrase seem to sense the proper usage even when they haven't thought it through in a study.

In our English 'trow not' has a specific meaning, and is quite distinct and different than to 'think not' although there may be places where either can be used. 'Trow not' is truly excellent and solid and economic and communicative vocabulary, many of us learn our language in more fullness through the King James Bible.

You can see this from the very differing etymologies.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=t&p=21
trow
O.E. treowian "to trust, believe," from treow "faith, belief," from P.Gmc. *truwian (see true). Cognate with Ger. trauen.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none
think
O.E. þencan "conceive in the mind, think, consider, intend" (past tense þohte, p.p. geþoht), probably originally "cause to appear to oneself," from P.Gmc. (continues)

Notice that "trow not" has a sense of belief and faith and trust, of truth. The words will be spoken with conviction, and give the sense of surety of mind and conviction.

While to "think not" can be simply mental knowledge, intellectual assent, ironic, supposition, and many other types of thinking.

================================================

Did the Cavaliers win a basketball game yesterday ?

I think not.

Will this new analysis of the Bible MSS and languages undermine my conviction
that the King James Bible is the pure and perfect word of God ?

I trow not.

================================================== ======

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Notice how the natural usage will be first-person, the declaration of faith and truth.
The Bible does use 'think not' in 2nd-person usages.

[pneuby]

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

God forbid that we should have to look up and learn an unfamiliar word in English! Do any of these modern version proponents suppose there are no English words in their own recommended versions that most high schoolers wouldn't know how to define?

That's a great point, Will. One which you expound on quite well further in your post with respect to the NIV.
I confess to understanding the meaning of the word 'trow' based on its context without having to look it up. However, I don't think it's as easy to do with some of the archaic words as it is with most any of those words you listed from the NIV

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

We need to ask ourselves: Did the Lord Jesus Christ originally speak these words or not? Remember, He said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Did He mean this or was He just kidding?

Another excellent point, one about which I am feeling convicted.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

In Luke 17:3 ..These two little words "against thee" affect the entire application of the verse. Versions like the Holman, NASB, NIV, RSV all omit these two words and say: "If your brother sins, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him."

I'm not sure this is a good example for you to be pointing out. The AV's rendering reads that as long as your brother{i.e., a believer} does not sin against ME, then I'm not enjoined to rebuke him, nor encourage him to repent. In the MV example, the rendering clearly indicates what my Christian duty truly is. Sin is sin, whether directed against me, or not.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

In the last verse of this chapter we read in Luke 17:37 - "And they answered him and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will THE EAGLES be gathered together."

And Matt.24:28 -"For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together."

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

The word used here for "eagles" is the same in all texts. It is aetoi and is always translated as "eagles"
There is an entirely different Greek word that means vultures - gups. It is not even close to the word for eagles - aetoi.

You got me there, Will. I don't own an Interlinear Greek text, and likely never will. That one does leave me wondering, for sure.

After a diet of Westerns as a young man, as well as numerous wildlife documentaries, I associate carrion with vultures, not eagles. Eagles, from what I know, prefer to eyeball and swoop down on live prey. Still, if I put my mind to it, it's certainly plausible that there may be eagles in conjunction with vultures. Afterall, rodents also come out to dine on carrion. Certainly they would attract snakes and lizards that feed on the rodents. Thus, around a carcass, there very well may be opportunities for the eagles.

For brother Avery, your post #7 is outstanding!

[Will Kinney]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
In Luke 17:3 ..These two little words "against thee" affect the entire application of the verse. Versions like the Holman, NASB, NIV, RSV all omit these two words and say: "If your brother sins, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him."

I'm not sure this is a good example for you to be pointing out. The AV's rendering reads that as long as your brother{i.e., a believer} does not sin against ME, then I'm not enjoined to rebuke him, nor encourage him to repent. In the MV example, the rendering clearly indicates what my Christian duty truly is. Sin is sin, whether directed against me, or not.

Hi pneuby. The central issue regarding the existence or not of a complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible is not whether you or I happen to 'prefer' a certain textual reading, or if it 'makes sense' to you or me, but rather Did God inspire it or not?

As I pointed out earlier - The words "if thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE" are found in the majority of all Greek texts, as well as D, plus at least 24 uncials and the Old Latin copies c, d, e, q and r.

The reading of "If thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE" is found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops', Geneva Bible, Webster's, Youngs, Darby, the Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, NKJV, Green's MKJV, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these two words and so do the NASB, NIV, RSV and Holman Standard. But wait! Now the brand new TNIV has come out and they put these words back in their latest version.

The modern versions are primarily based on two very corrupt manuscripts which differ from each other over 4000 times in the N.T. alone, and not even the MV's have got their act together because now the new TNIV has put the words "sin against you" back in their latest version again. So, I guess the NIV is now obsolete according to the late$t finding$ of $cholar$hip.

If you follow the modern version mentality, you will never end up with an inspired and infallible Bible. Instead, you become a Bible Rummager and your own final authority.

Will K

[PeterAV]

Will,
Gail has her name in the margins of the NASB now.
They eventually had to recant. Even you show so many times over and over again their erroneous readings.
For shame that they do not have your name there as well.
You have exposed consistently the errors of the modern text critic.
God sees this and so do all those that support God and his pure word.
Well done, faithful servant!!!
*******
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure: