- Old Talkshoe Programs
Written at Westminster Abbey by the scholars of the Anglican Church at the behest of the English Parliament in 1643, The Westminster Confession of Faith was also accepted and adopted by many other denominations both in England and abroad. As we see in Chapter 1, Section 8 of the Confession, the churchmen at that time - just over thirty years after the institution of the King James Bible by the Anglicans - did not even consider the A.V. by itself to be the inspired word of God, but admit instead the authority of the original languages. The veracity of this statement as it appears in the Confession has been verified from several sources. From Chapter 1, Section 8, of The Westminster Confession of Faith:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
If in the 17th century the British Parliament and clergymen of the Anglican church formed and accepted this statement – which they did – then we see that the idea of the King James Version itself being the “inspired word of God” is nothing more than a later-day heresy, and those who cling to it are no better than the heretics of any other cult. They are worshiping the works of the hands of men.
In the first part of this series we discussed selected translation errors found in the Authorized King James Version (A.V.) of the Bible in the Epistles of Paul from Romans through Ephesians. Here we will continue with the rest of Paul's epistles, starting with the epistle to the Colossians.
Colossians 1:23 “If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister....“
The phrase “every creature” is in the Greek ἐν πάσῃ κτίσει, which I must translate “among all the creation” and which alternatively may be read “among the whole creation”. The words πᾶς (3956) and κτίσις (2937) are in the Dative Singular, where πᾶς is “when of one only, all, the whole”. Rom. 8:38-39 make it clear that Paul considered the Adamic race of man - a single family of one specific kind - to be one “creation”, as opposed to other kinds in the universe, and so the “whole creation” or “all the creation” here, meaning all of the Adamic creation. Paul states in those verses: “38 I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor messengers, nor magistrates, nor present, nor future, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creation will be able to separate us from the love of Yahweh, which is in Christ Yahshua our Prince.” Paul clearly referenced the Adamic race as a single unit, or kind, of creation. If different races, or as the A.V. has “every creature”, were meant, then the words would appear in the Dative Plural, and so it would be “among all creatures”, though that is certainly not the case. Tobit 8:5-6 and 15 in the LXX is an example of these Greek words appearing in the plural and interpreted “all creatures”.
Colossians 3:24 24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
The phrase “ye shall receive the reward” as it is rendered in the A.V. is ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν. The word rendered receive is from apolambano, where lambano by itself would suffice, no prefix being needed. The word apolambano means not merely to receive, but to get something back, or to recover. The word antapodosis is not by any means a reward. Rather, the word refers to something given back, or a giving back in turn. So it is evident that these two words actually work together in context and they must mean a return of something being given back. The King James rendering is little but dishonest. The phrase can only mean that “you shall recover the return”, of the inheritance. Indeed, Paul knew that he was talking to a part of the dispersion of ancient Israel, those who had lost their heritage in the first place as described in the histories and the prophets, all of which had nothing to do with jews.
Colossians 4:5: “Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.”
Toward them that are without what, I must ask. This archaic English rendering is quite obscure today and may be readily misconstrued to mean something that the Greek cannot possibly mean. The word rendered without means outside, referring to someone who cannot possibly be inside, or be considered to be within the Covenants of God. In reference to those outside, you walk in wisdom, buying the time. “In reference to those outside”, or “Pertaining to those outside” is precisely the exclusive statement which Paul intended, and the references supporting this statement are numerous. The covenants are only for Israelites even unto this day. Note, as examples, Gal. 6:10 where Paul talks about the “family of the faith”, Phil. 2:15 where he talks about “unmixed blood”, and II Thess. 3:2 where Paul says “and that we should be protected from those disgusting and wicked men, since the faith is not for all”. All of these passages are severely mistranslated in the King James version. See also I Cor. 5:12, 15:2; I Thess. 4:12; I Tim. 3:7; and Rev. 22:15, all where the same word is used in this same manner.
2 Thessalonians 2:6-8: 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
First, there is really no future tense here, for Paul is talking about something that was going on when he was writing. Furthermore, the verb κατέχω (2722), is “to prevail” in both vv. 6 and 7 in the CNT, which I shall read momentarily. But in the A.V. it is “to withhold” in v. 6, and “to let” in v. 7. The verb is defined “to hold fast...to hold back, withhold...to detain...to have in possession, possess, occupy...to hold down, overpower, oppress, afflict...intransitive:...to hold, stop, cease...to prevail...to have the upper hand...” (L & S) and although it is quite a versatile word I cannot account for the A.V. rendering of to let at v. 7. It seems that the A.V. translators took the subject of Paul’s statements here to be Yahweh Himself, and so they confused the rendering and they distorted of the verb while inserting words not found in the text (which are “will let” in the A.V.) in order to try to make sense of the statements. Rather, the subject of Paul’s statement here has not changed from vv. 3-4: it is that same “man of lawlessness” and “son of destruction” (the terms being used collectively) and so there is no confusion, keeping Paul’s statements in context.
This is one of those passages which the futurists use to support their false antichrist theory. Yet here Paul tells us that this entity he references was prevailing at Paul's time. But the first five verses tell us exactly who this is: it is that entity seated in the temple of Yahweh, and pretending to be as Yahweh. In verse 4 Paul tells us that he is seated, Present Tense! We must read the entire passage to understand verses 6 through 8 properly:
II1 Now we ask you, brethren, concerning the presence of our Prince Yahshua Christ and our gathering to Him, 2 that you are not to be quickly shaken from this purpose; and you should not be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as if by us; as though the day of the Prince is present. 3 You should not be deceived by anyone, in any way, because if apostasy had not come first, and the man of lawlessness been revealed; the son of destruction, 4 he who is opposing and exalting himself above everything said to be a god or an object of worship, and so he is seated in the temple of Yahweh, representing himself that he is a god. 5 Do you not remember that, yet being with you I had told these things to you? 6 And you know that which now prevails (καὶ νῦν τὸ κατέχον οἴδατε), for him to be revealed in his own time (εἰς τὸ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν τῶ ἑαυτοῦ καιρῶ). 7 For the mystery (τὸ γὰρ μυστήριον) of lawlessness is already operating (ἤδη ἐνεργεῖται τῆς ἀνομίας), he prevailing only presently (μόνον ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι), until he should be out of the way (ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται), 8 and then will the lawless be revealed (καὶ τότε ἀποκαλυφθήσεται ὁ ἄνομος), whom Prince Yahshua will destroy with the breath of His mouth (ὃν ὁ κύριος [ἰησοῦς] ἀνελεῖ τῶ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ), and abolish at the manifestation of His presence (καὶ καταργήσει τῇ ἐπιφανείᾳ τῆς παρουσίας αὐτοῦ).
2 Thessalonians 3:2 2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
The last clause of this verse, consistent in all of the ancient manuscripts which are cited by the NA27, is indisputably οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἡ πίστις. A word for “men”, italicized by the A.V. here, does not appear in the clause. Neither does the verb “to have”, but that word is not italicized in the A.V.
The conjunction γάρ is here explained by Liddell & Scott: “I. Argumentative, to introduce the reason for a statement, which usually precedes....” This first use fits this occasion perfectly. Other uses of γάρ listed are “II. Epexegetic” and “III. Strengthening” and do not fit the grammatical purpose or the context here. L & S states that γάρ is in Greek “regularly placed after the first word of a sentence” although of course this is not the case in English. γάρ here is rendered “since”, to introduce the reason for the statement which precedes.
The word πάντων here is the Genitive Plural of πᾶς, “all”. The Genitive case marks source or possession. Surely in this case it does not indicate source. The particle οὐ is an unconditional negative, as opposed to the conditional μή. Here it negates πάντων, the word which follows.
The verb εἰμί, “to be”, is unique among Greek verbs in that “as in classical Greek, so also in the N.T. εἰμί is very often omitted ... ἐστίν most frequently of all the parts” (quoting Thayer, εἰμί, VI., p. 180 col. B.). ἐστίν is the 3rd person Present singular of εἰμί, i.e. “it is” or simply “is”: Examples of this are near at hand, see II Thess. 1:5, 1:6, 3:1, 3:16, and 3:18 in the A.V., noting the words in italics. This verb will be supplied here in it's most natural position, following the subject of the clause – here marked by the Nominative Case.
ἡ πίστις, “the faith”, with the definite article, is in the Nominative case and certainly cannot be the object of any verb, as the A.V. has it to be, supplying a verb of their own which does not exist. That situation which would require the Accusative Case: τὴν πίστιν. Since ἡ πίστις is Nominative, the words must be the subject of the clause. This is a fundamental of grammar and should be readily evident in any Greek grammar textbook.
With this it surely should be clear that the A.V. rendering of the clause is absolutely untenable. The rendering of the text: since (the conjunction γὰρ introducing the reason for the preceding statement) the faith (because in English we are inclined to state the subject of the clause at its beginning) is (ἐστίν being implied, as it often is) not (the negative particle preceding that which it negates) of (i.e. belonging to, or for) all (being in the Genitive case), and so “since the faith is not for all” is proper and literal.
This brings us to the epistle to the Hebrews. This is a fairly safe epistle for the King James translators, and there are some petty things to pick on, but they all revolve around minor matters of interpretation or differences in the manuscripts. Since it is an epistle to Hebrews of the circumcision, who still kept the law and the prophets, there was not much opportunity for the King James translators to screw up. Because of its nature, most of the epistle comes straight from Old Testament passages.
One place where the KJV translators erred in Hebrews is at 11:4, where it states “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” The “God” in the Greek of this passage where it says “God testifying of his gifts” is in the Genitive Case, and not the Nominative, and therefore it is not necessarily the subject of this sentence. Rather, since the word rendered testifying is a Participle form of the verb, and since in Greek Participles, while being verbs, also have Case, which in this instance is Genitive, the Genitive Participle verb and the Genitive noun rendered God must be understood as a unit. What this verse is really saying is that the fact that Abel was accredited came from Abel's having testified of Yahweh and not Yahweh's having testified of Abel. Here is a simple and straightforward rendering which is perfectly literal from the Greek: “By faith Abel offered to Yahweh a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he was accredited to be righteous, having testified of Yahweh by his gifts, and being slain because of it [meaning of the testimony] he still speaks.”
Hebrews 11:17: “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son” . Yet Abraham at this time had another son, Ishmael!
The use of μονογενής (3439) here, literally “only-begotten”, where there were other sons (compare Gen. 22:2 in the A.V., and in the LXX where Isaak is instead called “the beloved one”), as the term was also used by Flavius Josephus at Antiquities 1:13:1 (1:222) and 20:2:1 (20:17) and which Whiston makes note of at those points in his translation, shows that the term (and Josephus was a contemporary of Paul) surely was used as a metaphor for “best beloved” or “most loved”, as I have written here, and as the LXX translators clearly understood when they translated Genesis to Greek, and which I would also write where the word appears at John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; and I John 4:9. With this understanding it is manifest that by no means do these passages conflict with the statements at Deut. 14:1; Psa. 28(29):1 (in the LXX) and 82:6 (81 in the LXX); Matt. 5:45; Luke 3:38; John 10:34-36; Acts 17:28-29; Rom. 8:14-39; Heb. 2:13 and 12:8; I John 3:1-2 et al.
1 Timothy 1:2: In Paul's salutation to Timothy in the first epistle of that name, we find in the King James Version: “ 2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” Yet the words “my own” do not appear in any Greek manuscript.
The King James translation does omit another word, however, and that is γνήσιος. Perhaps I am being sarcastic. Instead, the King James has apparently translated γνήσιος as “my own”, but that is a definition that the word does not bear at all. γνήσιος (1103), means “of or belonging to the race, i.e. lawfully begotten, legitimate, opposed to νόθος” (L & S). The word νόθος appears at Heb. 12:8 opposed to υἱός (son), and is translated “bastard”, even in the A.V., which is as it should be. νόθος also appears several times in the Septuagint in the same context, describing someone who is not of the pure race. The word should be translated “purely bred” both here and at Titus 1:4, where in this context, only a phrase such as “purely bred” can capture its full meaning and the intention of the writer. In other contexts, the word is “legitimacy” at II Cor. 8:8, “genuine” at Phil. 4:3, and the adverb γνησίως (1104) is “genuinely” at Phil. 2:20.
However both here and in Titus, a stronger translation is required because a stronger meaning is inferred. As it is explained elsewhere in Scripture, Titus was a Greek, and Timothy was Hebrew on his mother's side but had a Greek father. He especially would have been considered a bastard by both the Judaeans and by the Greeks. Titus may have been held suspect by the Judaeans, since Greek was a general term denoting the language and culture of a collection of diverse Adamic tribes, and the Greeks as a people had lost the genealogies that the Judaeans were more recently accustomed to maintaining. But Paul, as he correctly did throughout his ministry, taught that many of the Greeks actually descended from the ancient Israelites of Scripture. Paul, knowing as much, was surely assuring Titus and Timothy of their legitimacy, and therefore of their respective shares in the covenants made with Israel.
I must read 1 Timothy 1:2, as I did in the CNT, in this manner: “to Timotheos, purely bred child in faith: favor, mercy, peace from Father Yahweh and Christ Yahshua our Prince.” And Titus 1:4 must be read likewise: “to Titos, a purely bred child according to common belief, favor and peace from Father Yahweh, even Yahshua Christ our Savior.” Here κοινός is “common” and πίστις is “belief”, both which are perfectly literal meanings, and these are perfectly literal renderings of the Greek which are quite harmonious with the purpose of Scripture.
1 Timothy 2:14 reads in the King James version “14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” The Greek to this verse reads: καὶ ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν.
ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν, is a specific phrase which can only mean “when the transgression occurred” (or “happened”), the transgression (παράβασις, 3847) being the subject of the verb (ἐξαπατάω, 1096) here and not the woman, as the A.V. reads the clause. While Adam certainly also transgressed (Job 31:33, I Cor. 15:22), he was not deceived into doing so. Sin came into the society through Adam and not through the woman, as Paul explains in Romans Chapter 8, and the King James translators here seem as though they too – like Adam did – are trying to blame the woman instead! The distinction being made here is that Adam was in the transgression, as was the woman, but of the two only the woman had been deceived. So Adam must have sinned purposefully. (Milton, writing Paradise Lost, fully understood this same thing.)
The word deacon appears 5 times in all of Scripture. One occasion is in Philippians 1:1, “bishops and deacons”, and the other four times are all here in 1 Timothy Chapter 3. In the following four passages of 1 Timothy, we see that the Greek word διάκονος was never translated, but rather only transliterated as “deacon”:
1 Timothy 3:8: “Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre”.
1 Timothy 3:10 “And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.”
1 Timothy 3:12: “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.”
1 Timothy 3:13: “For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
Refusing to translate διάκονος as it should be, as either minister or servant (and a minister is properly nothing more than a servant), and transliterating the word instead, is, I believe, outright deception. The word appears approximately 30 times in Scripture, and on only these four occasions, and once in Philippians 1:1, was the word rendered deacon.
A deacon, in the Anglican Church, is an official of the Church just below a priest. Of course, in the New Testament and in the early years of Christianity, there is no such thing at all as a Christian priest. The phrase does not appear in the early Christian writings until the time of the Council of Nicaea. Then as soon as Christianity became lawful, voila, an entire generation of so-called Christian priests emerged from pagan temples looking to extend their careers as oppressors of their brethren. The word διάκονος, transliterated in these few passages where everywhere else it is minister in the King James Version, was clearly used here in a manner by which the Anglicans could look for Biblical approval of their false and un-Christian administrative organization.
Okay, I wonder how many people have read this next verse and have headed straight for the swine in the barbecue pit:
1 Timothy 4:3-4: “3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”
In 1 Timothy 4:3 we find the word κτίζω (2936), properly to found, used of colonies, and then to establish (L & S, κτίζω, 3.). It may also be “to create...invent” (ibid., 4.) where the King James translators have rendered it here as created in the past tense. Yet Paul could hardly be saying that anything, or everything, which was created by Yahweh may be eaten. Although the Romans and the French, and especially the orientals, may imagine it to be a good idea, that is really a notion which could lead to all sorts of error. Should we really imagine it good to eat mud, rocks, sticks, or even poisons? Rather, Paul is telling us that whatever was “established” by Yahweh may be eaten, and we as Christians must therefore look to the Old Testament laws in order to make a determination of just what those things are. Even Peter, when he received his vision as it was recorded at Acts 10, after having spent nearly four years walking with and learning from Christ, had still proclaimed that he would not eat anything common or unclean, referring to the law, and that vision had nothing to do with food.
In 1 Timothy 4:4 we find the word κτίσμα (2938), a noun which is derived from that same verb κτίζω which we have seen in verse 3. It can only be “an establishment” here, which would agree with the sense of the verb as it is used at 4:3. Thayer defines κτίσμα as a “thing founded, created thing”, L & S “II. that which was created, the creation...an authority created or ordained...”, Strong “an original formation...i.e. product” and L & S again “I. a founding, foundation...2. loosely...a doing, an act...3. a creating...” where I find it safe, and even insist, in the spirit of the verb, upon adding to the lexicons the definition for κτίσμα as being “an establishment”.
These are the only examples of mistranslations which I will elucidate here from the epistles of Paul. Of course, these were a remainder of those epistles which we did not get to discuss in the first segment of this series of essays. Now I will move on to the other epistles, and then – Yahweh willing - in later segments of this series I will be able to expose the many mistranslations in the Gospels and the Acts, and also in the Revelation. For now, I will move on to the epistles of Peter and James.
1 Peter 1:1: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia...” The word parepidemos is not stranger, as it is in the King James Version, but rather it is sojourner. It describes one who leaves his own land and travels in a strange country. It is a specific word with a specific meaning which cannot be generalized without leaving behind a good part of the original writer's intent. The word does not signify people who are strangers to Israel, as churchianity would have it. Rather, the word signifies people who are estranged from Israel: a statement which can only be made of the deported Israelites! We had seen several times in the first segment of this essay how these misinterpretations had changed the entire meaning of Paul's epistles, and here we see the same thing in Peter's first epistle. Peter defines sojourner later in this same chapter, by his use of paroikos, a synonym, rendered here as sojourn and in the KJV as sojourning in verse 17.
In 1 Peter 2:11, these two words appear together. In that place the King James Version rendered paroikos as strangers, but this here word parepidemos as pilgrims, which is stranger yet. I would render the words there as “emigrants and sojourners”, looking at their meanings and examining the Scriptural context.
1 Peter 3:6: “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”
The portion of this verse which must be discussed here is “whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well”. The King James Version has an “as long as” here. This is a conditional clause which is not found anywhere in the Greek! The King James Version also reads the verb as it would a simple εἰμί, “you are” when in fact it is γίγνομαι, which means to become, to come into being, and of people, to be born. The King James Version also attempts to cover for its errors here by translating the infinitive verb, to do, as a second person active verb, after it supplies a conditional clause that is not in the text! So one error necessitates the creation of another. Peter here is saying that you have to be BORN as one of Abraham’s children! There is no word anywhere in the Bible about anyone being able to somehow become one of Abraham’s children! Everywhere the translators have inferred such an idea, it does not appear in the meaning of the original Greek.
Here is my reading of 1 Peter 3:5-6: “5 For thusly at one time also the holy women who have hope in Yahweh had dressed themselves being subject to their own husbands, as Sarah had obeyed Abraham calling him master, whose children you have been born to do good and not fearing any terror.”
2 Peter 1:1: “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ...”
The Greek word λαγχάνω, Strong’s # 2975, is according to Liddell & Scott to obtain by lot, by fate, or by the will of the gods. There are many ways in Greek to say “obtain”, but here Peter uses a specific word which indicates that this obtaining was by the will of God. Since the decrees of Yahweh are spelled out in the Old Testament prophets and nowhere else, and since the Old Testament prophets tell us that this obtaining is only for the children of Israel, the dispersed and the still-circumcised, then we certainly cannot assume that Peter was including anyone else in his message here. While back in Acts Chapter 10 Peter evidently did not understand this, he surely shows an understanding here in this epistle, written about 30 years later: that the uncircumcised peoples of Europe and Mesopotamia who were the children of those Israelites that had either emigrated or were deported 700 to 1,500 years before the Advent of Christ were still included in the covenants of Yahweh our God.
Therefore, the second epistle of Peter was written “to those who have obtained by fate with us an equally valued faith in the righteousness of our God and Savior Yahshua Christ...” and yes, Peter is calling Yahshua Christ “our God and Saviour”, as the Greek construction is a hendiadys, both nouns referring to the same entity.
2 Peter 2:5: “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly...”
The King James reading here is absurd. Noah was not “the eighth person”, where we see that person is italicized and was added to the text. The indefinite article was also added to the text, along with the comma. The Greek word ὄγδοος is an ordinal number, and not a cardinal number, which would be ὀκτώ, so neither is it talking about how many people were saved in the flood, as some people assume! The text clearly states that Noah was the eighth proclaimer of righteousness. The words “proclaimer” and “eighth” are both in the Accusative case, and the adjective modifying the noun therefore the two must be understood as a unit. While they are not adjacent in the Greek, they rather bracket the words for Noah and “of righteousness”, which is not an uncommon device in Greek, and therefore the entire phrase must be understood as a unit. It is now important to show what “preacher of righteousness” means, so let us begin by counting patriarchs from Adam: Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. That is ten, and Abel is discounted because he was never a patriarch. Now since Enoch and Lamech both were outlived – or outlasted - on earth by their fathers, neither of them ever fulfilled the role of a living head patriarch, and therefore there were only eight through Noah! Therefore that is what the term “preacher of righteousness” must have meant, and of course Cain was discounted also – he was a patriarch of the serpents seed rather than Adam's, and he can never be righteous. This verse must be read: “and He did not spare of the old society but He had kept Noah, the eighth proclaimer of righteousness, having brought a deluge upon the society of the impious....”
Remember, that even according to the Westminster Confession, it is the original manuscripts in the original languages which were inspired by Yahweh our God, and not particularly any English translation, even the King James. We must therefore ask ourselves if we should base our beliefs upon a translation which can clearly be demonstrated to contain errors, or whether we are obligated to examine the Greek manuscripts. Now I will move on to the epistles of James.
James 1:23-24: 23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: 24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
First, I have to offer my own reading of James 1:23: “Because if one is a hearer of the Word and not a doer, he is like a man observing the appearance of his race in a mirror...”
The Greek to the passage rendered by the KJV as “his natural face” reads: τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ, which is here τὸ (the) πρόσωπον (appearance) τῆς γενέσεως (of the race) αὐτοῦ (of him). The words τὸ πρόσωπον are a noun with the definite Article and are in the Accusative case and therefore are the object of the verb translated “observing”. The words τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ are respectively a noun with the definite Article and a pronoun, and are both in the Genitive case. Together here they are treated as an adjectival phrase modifying the noun πρόσωπον by the King James and most other translators. While the phrase itself may be adjectival, the words are still nouns, and should not merely be reduced to an adjective, i.e. his natural face. The Greek language certainly had adjectives for such a purpose, if that were what Paul wanted to say. This is a blatant error on the part of the King James translators.
The word πρόσωπον (which we will see again in Chapter 2 here) is defined by Liddell and Scott: “…the face, visage, countenance … one’s look … outward appearance, beauty …” The word γενέσεως is the genitive form of γενέσις (from which we have the English genesis) and is defined “… an origin, source, productive cause … a beginning … manner of birth …[and then] race, descent …” In the context here, speaking of the sight of a person in a mirror, I have translated the word race, and I would assert that descent, origin, or source may bear the same meaning in this case, but would nevertheless be masking the intent of the statement if employed in place of race. This clause can only be read “the appearance of his race”, since γενέσεως is a genitive noun!
All of this is supported by a comment found at the word face here in the Bible Works program in the edition of the New American Standard Bible, where it is stated: “ Lit., the face of his birth; or, nature”, but I would assert that neither do they understand the literal and true meaning of the phrase. Phrases such as “the face of his birth” or “the appearance of his birth” make no sense to us today, or at all in this context. I have translated them “the appearance of his race” because that is exactly what James meant. The message here is that although we may be children of Adam and of Israel, born in the image and likeness of Yahweh our God, this is not enough by itself: for unless we are also doers of His Word then we are certainly not doing well, and not performing to the intent of our Creator. However, and this is important, by using the phrase “appearance of his race” James also indicates to us that not every race here was born in that image and likeness!
This is the end of the second part of my presentation Errors Inspired by Who? The next segment will discuss the many mistranslations found in the works of Luke, his Gospel and Acts.
Here now, because we have just discussed some things from James, and really do not have the time left tonight to start one of the other books, I will do a comparison of James 4:4 and John 3:16. Many think that these two statements conflict with one another. They do not. Rather, it is often our own lack of understanding which is the source of such conflicts.
John 3:16, in the King James Version states: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
James 4:4 states: “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
The word world in these passages, is κόσμος, or society as we shall see shortly, on each occasion. But what society does Christ love, and what society does James despise? The society which Christ loves must be that which is described in John 1:10, which I must read: “He was in the Society, and the Society came to be through Him, yet the Society knew Him not.” And the society which Christ needed to save is also described by John at 1 John 5:19 where it says: “We know that we are from of Yahweh and the whole Society lies in the power of the Evil One.” That is the world that James disdained.
The following passages reveal why the society had become corrupt:
John 12:31: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.”
John 14:30: “Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.”
John 16:11: ”Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.”
1 Corinthians 2:6-8: “ 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”
This corruption of the society, the “world”, began in the garden of Eden with Adam, Eve and the Serpent, as Paul explains in Romans Chapter 8, 2 Corinthians 11:3, and elsewhere. If the society had not become corrupt, Christ would not have had to save it in the first place! The world which Christ loved which is mentioned in John 3:16 is defined by John as that world which was made by Him, at John 1:10. The world which James despised is the world which became corrupt, i.e. John 5:19 and the verses from Paul just cited. Hence we see that there is really no conflict between John 3:16 and James 4:4.
[Last paragraph edited May 11th, 2011 - WRF]