Good one, Jim

Brother David, I have been slowly reading over the information on the TBS web site. They are a quite interesting group to me. I have also discovered from a link on their site that there is an American branch of the Society in Michigan. I have been looking at their site also. It appears it is a group worth supporting.

In Christ,
George

Hi, I'm new here and I'm really enjoying reading the various threads.

I have been a member and supporter of the Trinitarian Bible Society for many years. They are the most sound, trustworthy oganization that I know of and they stand strongly in defense of the AV/KJV. The articles they publish regarding the KJV, new translations and the subject of Biblical texts are among the best available and most of them can be accessed on the TBS website. They publish a quarterly magazine (The QR) which is excellent. If you are in the U.S., click on 'Branches' on the website. You can contact Marnie in the Grand Rapids office if you are interested in more information or in joining the Society.

They also offer a beautiful line of AV Bibles. My personal preference for many years has been the Concord Reference edition.

I have been discussing doctrine with a good friend of mine and I have noticed something.

We started relatively agreeing about things, then we started to discuss deep doctrine, then I found out how diametrically we were opposed to each other in our views.

After discussing a great amount of different things, it finally came out that although he uses it, he feels that the KJV "can be misleading".

I realized that just about every single time I talk to anyone and end up finding out that we differ in doctrine, as far as I can recall, 100% of the time they were not oppsed to using a modern translation of a bible not based on the TR.

If this is not an alarming thing, then it ought to be. I guess the first question I either ask, or try and find out before discussing doctrine, is what verison of bible a person uses.

If it is any of the modern versions, then you can restfully conclude that your doctrinal differences will differ greatly, and it is best just agree to disagree, and not discuss it.

This post was last modified: Sat Nov 10, 2007 02:53 PM by Jim.

Jim, You are not imagining things. I have noticed the same thing thru the years but I seldom discuss it with others because it can create such animosity.

Something else I've noticed but seldom discuss with anyone for fear of being considerd a nut: When a long time believer decides to jump ship and change from using the AV to using & defending the new translations, personal calamity strikes (marriage problems, divorce, or worse) and/or they become lackadaisical or even apostate in their Christian walk. I have seen it time and time again.

Hey Jim, no fair. In the vote you loaded the question. What if you don't use the KJV at all?

I was reading through this thread and could only get so far. There are some long posts.

Then you're doomed to be wrong about doctrine along the way.

Which doctrines might I ask?

RJP, the KJB translators did NOT "think they could change God's Word like that".

“GOD FORBID!”
Doug Kutilek is a virulent critic of the King James Bible. He has written this short article criticizing the rendering of “God forbid” as is found in the Holy Bible. Here is his opinion and then I will post the refutation.

Doug Kutilek writes: The phrase “God forbid” occurs some 24 times in the King James Version of the Bible. Nine of these occurrences are in the OT (and thrice the similar “the LORD forbid”), while fifteen are found in the NT. Of the NT occurrences, all but one are found in the writings of Paul.

As has been pointed out countless times with regard to the use of the phrase “God forbid” to render the words of the original Hebrew and Greek, it is a close English equivalent except for two facts: 1. the word “God” is not found in the original text; and 2. neither is the word “forbid.” Other than that, it is a fine representation of the original!

It is obvious, of course, that here at least, the KJV is not a literal translation of the original, but is at best a paraphrase, a “dynamic equivalent.” (Do I hear some rigid KJV adherent mutter under his breath, “God forbid!”?)

The NT passages, gleaned from Strong’s concordance, are Luke 20:16;Romans 3:4; 3:6; 3:31; 6:2; 6:15; 7:7; 7:13; 9:14; 11:1; 11:11; I Corinthians 6:15; Galatians 2:17; 3:21; 6:14. In every case but the last, the phrase is a self-standing grammatical unit, expressing strong opposition or rejection of a just mentioned opinion, point of view, or implied answer to a question. In Galatians 6:14, it is incorporated into a sentence.

In all 15 references, the Greek phrase is identical: ME GENOITO. ME is a negative particle usually used with verbs in the subjunctive, optative or imperative moods. GENOITO is a rare NT occurrence of a verb in the optative mood (just 56 cases in all). It is from the verb GINOMAI, “to be, become, happen,” etc. Taken together, the phrase may be literally rendered, “may it not be,” a phrase weaker in force in English than the Greek original.

Modern English equivalents would be “not at all!” or “absolutely not!” or “certainly not!” or “by no means” or “under no circumstances” or “perish the thought!” or even the colloquial, “no way, Jose!” (see the New King James Bible, New American Standard Bible, and New International Version in the passages involved).

While all of these modern renderings are other than strictly literal renderings of ME GENOITO, they at least have the advantage over the KJV rendering of not introducing the name of God where it is not found in the original.

Frankly, I am at a loss to explain how it came to pass that “God forbid,” came to be considered by Wycliffe and other early English translators from Tyndale to the KJV as a suitable and correct translation of the Greek ME GENOITO. It was strictly a phenomenon that arose in the then-very small English-speaking world, as far as I can tell. It cannot be defended as “the closest possible English equivalent.” The renderings of the NKJB, NASB, and NIV are very much to be preferred to it.

---Doug Kutilek "AS I SEE IT" Volume 4, Number 4, April, 2001

And now for my rebuttal.

All previous English versions use this same expression, God forbid, including Wycliffe 1395; Tyndale 1525; Coverdale 1535; Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, John Wesley's translation 1755.

So also does the Douay version of 1950 in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians, as do the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901(in all the same New Testament verses as the KJB), The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14, the Revised Standard Version in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, and the New Living Translation 1996 in Luke 20:16, and Galatians 6:14.

The New RSV has "heaven forbid" in Luke 20:16 (likewise no heaven nor forbid-according to Kutilek). By the way the NRSV also has "God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where likewise it is not "in the Greek" as the scholars like to say.

The modern Hebrew Names Version contains "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17, Wesleys Bible Translation has it in Mat. 16:22; Luke 20:16, and Gal. 6:14; Todays English Version has it in Mt.16:22, as well as the Good News Translation.

The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJB has "God forbid"; The Living Bible has God forbid in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, the Jerusalem Bible has it in Luke 20:16.

Mr Kutilek apparently is totally unaware that the NASB has 'God forbid" in Mat. 16:22 where his own scholarly standards would condemn this version he recommends. It is a different Greek construction, but again neither the words “God” nor “forbid” are found there. Both the NASB and the NIV frequently add the words God or Lord when they are not “in the original text”.

Surpise! Even the New KJV, which he told us to consult, has rendered the exact same “me genoito” as God forbid in Galatians 6:14 !

In fact this is the definition that the Oxford Greek Dictionary gives. Also Constantine Tsirpanlis, former Instructor in Modern Greek Language and Literature at New York University, Former Consultant for the Program in Modern Greek Studies at Hunter College, Professor of Church History and Greek Studies at Unification Theological Seminary, gives the definition of "me genoito" on page 72 of his book, "Modern Greek Idiom And Phrase Book," Barron's Educational Services, Inc., 1978, ISBN 0-8120-0476-0. The ONLY definition Tsirpanlis (a native Greek) gives for "me genoito" is "God forbid!" There is NO reference to "may it never be", "by no means" or "certainly not"!

The proper force of this Greek phrase 'me genoito' is to express a negative in the strongest of possible terms. The English equivalent of "God forbid" perfectly and accurately expresses this thought, whereas such phases as "may it not be" come across as anemic if not effeminate.

Mr. Kutilek chides our AV because "God" is not literally found in the text. In spite of all his learning he has little understanding of how languages work and exalts his opinion above any bible version out there today.

Another example using the verb kreematizo and the noun kreematismos is found in Romans 11:4 “But what saith the answer of God unto him?”. The NIV reads, “And what was God's answer to him?” It is interesting to note that there is no word in ANY Greek text for the word “God”. Despite this fact the NIV reads "God's answer". Now I wonder what Mr. Kutilek would say to that?

Literally the Greek of Rom. 11:4 reads, “alla ti legei autoo ho kreematismos”. The last word in the previous phrase is ‘kreematismos’ and it carries the idea of 1) an answer from God or 2) a divine response or revelation. So, in order to accurately preserve the Greek in this sentence the word “God” or “Divine” must be "added" (even though NOTHING has been added) to the English text. In fact if "God" were not 'added' then the sense of the verse would be lost.

The verb form is found in Matthew 2:12, 22: Acts 10:22; and Hebrews 8:5 and 11:7. In Matthew 2:12 and 22 the KJB reads, “And being warned of God”. The NASB likewise reads in both, “And having been warned by God”, and so does the NKJV in 2:22. The NASB also renders this verb as "warned by God" twice in Hebrews 8:5 and 11:7. The NKJV reads "divinely instructed", though strictly speaking the words God or Divinely are not "literally" there. Once again we see that the NASB, NKJV and NIV have commited the unpardonable sin, according to Mr. Kutilek, of saying "by God" when God is not in the Greek text.

The brand new 2001 English Standard Version also "adds" the word God in the expressions "warned of God", "God's reply", and "instructed by God" in Romans 11:4; Hebrews 8:5 and Hebrews 11:7. It also adds the word God to other passages when not literally found in the Greek.

Another example of “God not being in the text” is found in the NASB three times in Acts 13:43; and Acts 17:4 and 17. In Acts 13:43 the KJB, as well as the NKJV, RV, ASV, and even the NIV read: “many of the Jews and RELIGIOUS (or devout) proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas”. The word is sebomai and there is nothing literally found about God in the word at all. Even the NASB in this same chapter verse 50 the word is simply translated as “devout” However in Acts 13:43, 17:4 and 17 the NASB reads “GOD-fearing”, with no literal “God” in any Greek text. The NIV too switches gears and in both Acts 17:4 and 17 likewise “adds” the word God just like the NASB, but not so the KJB, NKJV, RV or ASV.

The NASB often adds the words Jesus, God and Lord to their translation, when these words are not found in the Hebrew and Greek texts. The NASB adds the word "Jesus" in Mark 1:45; Luke 22:63, and Acts 3:16; Acts 9:22. It also adds the word "God" in 1 Samuel 16:7, adds "God" in Job 20:23 and 21:17 (as well as the NIV, NKJV, RV, ASV and ESV), "God" in Isaiah 37:20 (from Dead Sea Scrolls, but not from Hebrew Masoretic text), Nehemiah 6:9 (along with the RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV,etc.), Matthew 15:5, 16:22, Acts 3:19, Acts 7:4, Acts 13:43, Acts 19:26, Romans 11:28, 1 Peter 2:9; and "Lord" in Exodus 33:9, Exodus 34:10, 2 Kings 23:19, Job 21:19, 2 Chronicles 32:24, Hosea 1:6, 9, and 10:2.

Acts 7:4 is a bit interesting in that all Greek texts read as the King James Bible has it with: "...when his father was dead, HE removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell." The 1963 and 1972 NASBs put GOD in the text with no italics, but in 1977 and again in 1995 they placed it in italics. The online NASB still has it not in italics. Likewise the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, Holman and NET versions place the word GOD in the text (with no italics), when in fact it is not there. The point being, it is highly hypocritical of the modern versionists to criticize the King James Bible for doing something that they themselves do as much or more than that great old Book.

Likewise in Mark 7:11 we read in all texts: "But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, A GIFT (dooron), by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free."

However instead of the simple word "gift", the NASB, NIV, ESV all add the word GOD to the text by saying: "given TO GOD", while the NKJV paraphrases and adds these words: "dedicated TO THE TEMPLE", none of which are found in any Greek text.

The NIV likewise mistranslates the word hagios, which means saints, as "God's people" a total of ten times in the New Testament. Neither the words God nor people are there in any text

The NIV continually adds to and takes away from the true words of God in both the Old and New testaments. There are certain expressions where the word God or Lord are implied, as in 'God forbid' or 'God save the king', and in these cases the KJB as well as many other translations express this. However in the NIV what we often find is the word "God" or "Lord" being left out of these expressions and instead, the NIV adds the words God, Lord, Jesus or Christ when it is not in any text, be it Hebrew or Greek.

You might want to take a look at the NIV complete concordance for yourself. In it you will find by their own documentation that the NIV has added the name of Jesus to the New Testament a total of 336 times when it is not found in the Greek texts they themselves are using. That's three hundred and thirty six times!.

The NIV has omitted the name of God or JEHOVAH # 3378 thirty eight times (38 not translated) and 52 times they have added LORD, or GOD when it is not in the Hebrew text.

The word Elohim, or God found on page 454 of the NIV concordance, has not been translated 13 times when found in the Hebrew text and it was placed in the NIV text another 52 times when not in the Hebrew for a total of the word "God" being added 104 times and not translated when it is in the text 51 times, and all this just in the Old Testament.

The NIV has also ADDED the word God 117 times in the New Testament when it does not occur in any Greek text nor when it expresses the idea of "God forbid" and they have not translated it three times when it is in their Greek texts.

Likewise the NIV has added the word Christ 15 times when not in any Greek text See for example Colossians 1:22; 2:9, 10 and 13. The NIV has also added the word Lord to the New Testament 6 times when it is not found in any Greek text - for example: 1 Cor. 1:2; and 7:34. All this factual information is found by merely looking at their own NIV complete concordance.

Apparently the scholarly views of Mr. Kutilek are not shared by others members of the Bible of the Month Club. Perhaps Mr. Kutilek should write his own bible version to give us the true light we benighted souls have pined for, yea, these many years now

Mr. Kutilek, and fellow Bible critics are like those described in I Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers...understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

By the rigid standard he sets up, he himself condemns all bible versions in print. He criticizes the KJB for translating me genoito as God forbid, yet the lexicons, including Thayer, Liddel & Scott, and Baer, Arndt & Gingrich all tell us this is a perfectly acceptable way of rendering this expression. There are a whole host of Bible versions both before and after the King James Bible that do the very same thing, including some that Mr. Kutilek himself recommends!

Words of advice from Proverbs for those who think Mr. Kutilek has a handle on the truth. “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.” Proverbs 14:7

Will Kinney

RJP. Here are some FACTS you apparently are unaware of in your attempts to cast doubt on The Book of God - the King James Bible.

Acts 19:37 Robbers of churches

KJB: "For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither ROBBERS OF CHURCHES, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess."

Some Bible correctors criticize the King James Bible for translating the word hierosulos as "robbers of churches", and insist the word should properly be translated as "robbers of temples" instead of "robbers of churches". With all the very serious errors found in the multitude of conflicting modern versions that depart from the Hebrew texts in scores of places and employ very different Greek texts than those of the King James Bible, this seems to me and many others as a case of "straining at gnats" in a vain effort to find just one little "error" in the KJB.

The NKJV, NIV, NRSV and NASB all unite in saying "robbers of temples", rather than "robbers of churches".

Actually, the word can have a wide variety of meanings, as is shown by the different ways various bible versions have translated this word. It comes from two different words, one meaning to rob or plunder, and the other word - hieros- can signify anything holy, consecrated, or hallowed. According to Kittle's massive lexicon the word can refer to a pagan shrine, a temple or a synagogue, or anywhere people meet for religious rites or services. Likewise Liddell and Scott's lexicon says the word can refer to any holy place, a temple, anything hallowed, consecrated, or holy and it can describe sacred objects or rites.

The Baer, Arndt and Gingrich lexicon tells us the word hierosulos can also have the general sense of "one who commits irreverant acts against a holy place; a sacrilegious person."

There are also several versions that translate this word as neither "robbers of churches" nor as "robbers of temples" but as "sacrilegious". Among these are the RSV, ESV 2001, Douay 1950, Geneva Bible, and the New English Bible 1970.

Other bible versions render this word in yet a different way.

New Life Version 1997 "do not rob houses of worship"

Bible in Basic English 1961 "not doing damage to the holy place"

Other Bible versions that read exactly like the King James Bible saying "neither robbers of churches" are Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible 1568, Green's Modern KJV, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible. Luther's German Bible reads: "Kirchenrauber"- Church robbers, as does the Dutch Staten Vertaling bible - 'kerkrovers'.

Bible commentators in the past have had no problem with the wording of the King James Bible. Matthew Henry notes in his commentary: (v. 37): "You have brought hither these men, and are ready to pull them to pieces; but have you considered what is their transgression and what is their offence? What can you prove upon them? They are not ROBBERS OF CHURCHES (caps mine), you cannot charge them with sacrilege, or the taking away of any dedicated thing."

John Calvin's translation and commentary reads Acts 19:37 as: "For ye have brought men which are neither church-robbers, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess." Then Calvin remarks: "He doth both truly and well deny that they be church-robbers."

Another reason why this phrase is correctly translated as "robbers of churches" is the simple context of the whole passage. The Greek word includes anywhere people met for religious purposes, whether pagan or Christian. The city was Ephesus. Were there Christian assemblies in the city of Ephesus at this time? Yes, very definitely.

At the beginning of Acts 19 we see the apostle Paul coming to Ephesus where he finds twelve disciples whom he baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Paul continues there in Ephesus and preaches for three months in the synagogue. Then he separates the believers and continues another two years of preaching "so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks". Acts 19:18-20 tells us of "many that believed" and "so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed".

Part of the complaint made by Demetrius against Paul was that "not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away MUCH PEOPLE, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands." There were at this time in Ephesus a great many Christians who were meeting daily in Christian home churches.

So, when the townclerk of Ephesus arises to quell the uproar in the city, he appeals to the known character of Paul by saying he was "neither a robber of churches, nor yet blasphemers of YOUR goddess." This would include both the Christian churches and also their pagan religion.

The apostle Paul was not a robber of churches. He wasn't taking financial advantage of the many Christian believers who lived in Ephesus and everyone knew this. In fact, in the very next chapter of Acts 20 it is recorded that Paul later sent for the elders of Ephesus to come to him so he could give them one last charge. There already were established churches in Ephesus and the surrounding regions with elders feeding the flock.

Paul reminds them that he had been preaching among them for three years. He says: "Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons...I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me...It is more blessed to give than to receive."

It was well known that Paul was no robber of churches. The King James Bible is correct.

It is more than just a bit hypocritical for the modern versionist to insist the word hieron must be translated only as "temple". All the modern versions frequently translate the same word in a wide variety of ways. The word hieron itself in the NASB is variously translated as "temple, sanctuary, and shrine". The NIV has both "temple" and "shrine".

A couple more examples of how the modern versions give a variety of meanings to a single word is shown in the following. In Hebrew, the word binar # 1002, is used 17 times and always translated as "palace" in the KJB. The NASB complete concordance defines the word as "a castle or palace", and then translated this word as "capital" 10 times, "capitol" 1 time, "citadel" 1 time, "fortress" twice and "temple" 2 times. The word ekklesia is usually translated as "church" yet both the NASB, NIV have also rendered this word as "assembly" and "congregation". Likewise the word vaos is usually translated as "temple", yet the NASB has also rendered this word as "sanctuary" and "shrine".

There is nothing wrong with the way the KJB and several other Bible versions have translated this word as "robbers of churches". It fits the context of the whole chapter since there were many Christians meeting in this city and the character of Paul was well known by everyone. Those who insist that it is wrong, are straining at gnats and swallowing a camel.

Will Kinney

Sorry, RJP, but you are wrong again. Charity means charity, and charity has a specific meaning of "Christian love among the brethren".


Is the word "Charity" an error in the King James Bible?

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." 1 Corinthians 13:13

Dr. Robert Joyner has written a long article criticizing the King James Bible in an effort to convince you that it is not the infallible word of God. He wants you to switch to the NASB, NIV or one of the other modern versions. Of course Mr. Joyner does not have any Bible he considers to be the inerrant, complete, infallible word of God. His only final authority is his own opinion.

One of his alledged "errors" is the use of the word "Charity". Mr. Joyner says: "The KJV uses the word "charity" for love. This is confusing because charity today means giving to the poor or needy. In I Corinthians 13:3 the KJV says, "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity." Actually giving to the poor is charity, so the statement is a paradox. The NASB uses the word love, which makes more sense."

Dr. Joyner then says: "The KJV sometimes uses the word "charity" in the place of love. Most people probably think charity is old English for "love." That is not the case. The noun "agape" is used 114 times in the Greek. The KJV translates it "love" 87 times and "charity" 26 times. This shows they knew the Greek word means "love." Yet they purposely translated the word as "charity" in some places. "Charity" means giving and helping the needy. Love is described in I Corinthians 13. The KJV weakens this basic Christian doctrine about God and man by substituting "charity" for "love." The modern versions undergird it by rightly translating agape as love.""

First of all, using the word charity is not a "paradox" as the good Doctor says. Mr. Joyner is fudging the truth either out of ignorance of his own English language, or deliberate intent. Webster's Random House College Dictionary 1999 lists under the word Charity one of the meanings as "Christian love; agape". He should know this; afterall, he has a Ph.D.

In my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary right here on my desk, if you look up the word Charity the very first meaning listed is 1. LOVE. The second meaning listed is 2. Kindness or help for the needy or suffering.

The Wikipedia online Encyclopedia says: "Charity is also a term in Christian theology (one of the three virtues), meaning loving kindness towards others; it is held to be the ultimate perfection of the human spirit, because it is said to both glorify and reflect the nature of God. In its most extreme form charity can be self-sacrificial. Charity is one conventional English translation of the Greek term agape."

Webster's 1913 Dictionary

Charity

Charity fr. L. caritas dearness, high regard, love, from carus dear, costly, loved; akin to Sanskrit. kam to wish, love, cf. Ir. cara a friend, W. caru to love.

1. Love; universal benevolence; good will.

Now abideth faith, hope, charity, three; but the greatest of these is charity. 1. Cor. xiii. 13.

"With malice towards none, with charity for all." Abraham Lincoln.

2. Liberality in judging of men and their actions; a disposition which inclines men to put the best construction on the words and actions of others.

The highest exercise of charity is charity towards the uncharitable. Buckminster.

3. Liberality to the poor and the suffering, to benevolent institutions, or to worthy causes; generosity.

4. Whatever is bestowed gratuitously on the needy or suffering for their relief; alms; any act of kindness.

Even the word Love can have many meanings. What love might mean to a lustly teenager is not the same as it would mean to a godly Christian woman. The use of the word Love in "I love apple pie" and "I loved that movie" does not have the same meaning as when we are told to love one another.

Again the modern dictionaries tell us the word "love", just as the word "charity", has different meanings depending on the context. Notice the order of meanings as given in Webster's 1999 Random House Collegiate Dictionary.

Love

1. A profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person, especially when based on sexual attraction.

2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection.

3. a person toward whom love is felt.

4. a love affair.

5. sexual activity

6. a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid

7. affectionate concern for the well-being of others.

8. a strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking - a love of books.

9. the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.

It can also mean a score of Zero in tennis!

The word charity, as found in the King James Bible, always expresses Christian love for other Christians. The word charity is never used in the King James Bible to express the love relationship between God and man, a husband and his wife, between parents and their children, or between the believer and the nonbeliever. It is always used in reference to the love Christians should have for other Christians.

The Modern Versions are Wrong for using "love" instead of "charity"

Not only is the use of the word "charity" as found in the King James Bible and many others not wrong, but it is in fact more accurate than the use of the simple word "love". Why? Well, let's look at 1 Corinthians 13 for a moment and then compare the characteristics of "charity" to those of "love" as found in some other Scriptures. We will see that by translating the word agape as "love" instead of "charity", the modern versions in fact create several contradictions.

In 1 Corinthians 13:5-6 we read that CHARITY "doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own". Charity as well "thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth". However when the new versions tell us that "love (agape) thinks no evil, does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth" (NKJV), then this creates several direct contradictions with the rest of Scripture.

If "love seeks not her own and thinks no evil" then what do we do with the following Scriptures where "love" (agape) clearly seeks her own and does rejoice in evil?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Agapao

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God." Agapao

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them." Agapao

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." Agapao

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." Agapao

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Agapao

It should be abundantly clear that the scholar who insists the word 'agape' means an unconditional, God-type love has not compared Scripture to Scripture. Words have different meanings in different contexts, and in 1 Corinthians 13 the King James Bible's rendering of "charity" is far more accurate and consistent with the rest of Scripture. It is the modern versions that create the contradictions!

The word Charity in other English translations

Mr. Joyner says: "William Tyndale, who translated the first English version in 1525, used only the word "love." So did the other versions that followed - Coverdale, Matthew, Great Bible and Geneva Bible. Only the second edition of the Bishops Bible and the KJV use the word charity."

Mr. Joyner's information about the other English versions not using the word "charity" to mean Christian brotherly love, is totally inaccurate, and there are several modern versions that still use this word to describe Christian brotherly love.

Not only does the King James Bible use the word Charity, but so also do the following Bible versions:

The Wycliffe Bible translation of 1395. In fact Wycliffe used the word "charite" in place of "love" some 93 times throughout both Testaments.

Tyndale 1525 - "If thy brother be greved with thy meate now walkest thou not charitablye. Destroye not him with thy meate for whom Christ dyed." Romans 14:15.

Bishop's Bible 1568 - "Charitie worketh no yll to his neyghbour, therfore the fulfyllyng of the lawe is charitie." Romans 13:10

"These are spottes in your feastes of charitie, whe they feast with you, without al feare feedyng the selues: cloudes they are without water..." Jude 1:12

"But if thy brother be greeued with thy meat, nowe walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not hym with thy meat, for whom Christe dyed." Romans 14:15

Coverdale's Bible 1535 and the Geneva Bible 1599, 1602 - Romans 14:15 "walkest thou not after charite"; Jude 12 "feasts of charite"

Mace's New Testament 1729 uses the word "charity" some 15 times, as in 1 Timothy 1:5 " such a charge will produce that charity, which arises from purity, from a good conscience, and a sincere belief."

Wesley's translation 1755 - "salute ye one another with a kiss of charity" 1 Peter 5:14.

Webster's 1833 translation used the word "charity" in place of "love" 24 times in his New Testament. "And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins." 1 Peter 4:8

In addition to these earlier English Bibles that use the word "charity" to signify Christian brotherly love, we also have the Douay version of 1950, the KJV 21st Century, Green's Modern KJV 1998, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

J. P. Green's 1998 Modern King James Version often uses the word "charity" to describe Christian love for other believers. In the MKJV 1 Corinthians 13 reads:

1. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I have become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have prophecies, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so as to move mountains, and do not have charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I give out all my goods to feed the poor, and though I deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, I am profited nothing."

The use of the word charity to describe the Christian's love for his fellow believers in the body of Christ is not an error, but is in fact more accurate. The King James Bible is right and the Bible critic is wrong.

Will Kinney

Brother it is not necessary to put such long posts on the forums addressed to RJP and the things he has said here. He parted company with us a long time ago.

In Christ,
George

Hi George. Thanks for letting me know. However, it is still good for others to see things like "charity" is not only not wrong, but more correct than the word "love" in the context of 1 Cor. 13, and "God forbid" is not at all an error in The Book.

God bless,

Will K

Amen Brother, you are certainly correct in that. The thing was that the last few posts were addressed to RJP. Perhaps you could use a more generic type of intro to bring up the topics. Incidentally I am enjoying them very much.

In Christ,
George