Letter from Dr. Frank Logsdon Editor of NASV

[Guest]

So let me throw a Molotov cocktail on this and argue that this whole debate is a sideshow, and none of the English translations should be trusted.

Students with even an introductory understanding of the biblical languages soon come to appreciate the shortcomings of any English attempt to render the full power and potential of the original language texts. Come now - if people truly believe these documents constitute the very word of God, should they not bother to learn how to read them?

Again, if people search these scriptures, thinking to find life in them, should they not acquire the skills to actually know them?

Now, after one has sufficient understanding of the language and literary paradigms of the New Testament, then one may be qualified to attempt the sensitive task of distinguishing the relative merits of one manuscript from another. But first things first. Those who cling to any English translation are removed from the ancient landmarks.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

good point emmett. i think i'll sign up for ancient aramaic and greek at the local community college.

TK

[Guest]

Super Sola,

Maybe you can help me understand something. Where is it that King James Only people get the idea that the KJV is the inspired word of God? I can't recall anyone ever really saying why they believed that it was inspired.

You did not answer this question. All you said was that it was here and well known for a long time.

[Guest]

My friend, in all love and respect for you and the proponents of KJV-only, this debate is a distraction from the real work of the Kingdom of God and is inappropriately divisive to the church.

Really? The preservation of the Holy Scriptures isn't important? The Holy Scriptures being perverted via the "updated translation" gimmick isn't important??? If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? The foundation of whatever you believe to be the real "work" of the Kingdom comes from the Bible. Of course Satan would attack it! Of course Satan would, as in the Garden, through subtilty, question and change what God said. Thats the first lesson in Scripture--the Devil twists what God says in a crafty manner. The problem is none from your side teach this, because it would immediatley bring them and thei work under testing and scrutiny!

So you believe the Devil never, not once in 2000 years tried to pervert the Words of the Living God. Not one time in the over 100 "updatings" of the KJV was any devil to ever be found working??? You believe this?

[Guest]

I posted this on another forum. Maube this can help you understad things:

Now don't be judgemental! There is no such thing as a bad new version! All new versions are great! They were all done perfectly, and no one ever had an agenda one time in 400 tries of replacing the KJV(unsuccessfully). Satan has never had an interest one time in 2000 years of corrupting the Scriptures, and he has never once been involved in any updatings of any new versions, neither has the love of money and filthy lucre been a driving force in creating yet another fabulous "new" version in the midst of 399 other competing ones. Never once has any company or committee seen the trend in the body of Christ to have to buy the newest thing and quickly produced a new version to cash in. Why never once! To say so would be judgemental and "mean"! So enjoy your newest "new" version. It fills such a "void" and such a "need" to update the old arachaic KJV, which refuses to go away, even though there are 399 other "updatings" to choose from. Yes we need a new version every single year! Where would we be without them???

[Guest]

Hi S.S.S.,

I'm not real familiar with all of the arguments in the KJV only debate. Can you maybe give an example of a critical Christian tenet that is perverted by the other versions?

I'm aware of many differences between the manuscripts, but can you give an example of a doctrine that you feel is essential to the Christian faith that is corrupted by the Alexandrian texts.

Also, do you feel that the KJV has always given the most accurate rendering of the original word?

For example, What would you make of the translation of the Hebrew word:

OT:7214
re'em (reh-ame'); or re'eym (reh-ame'); or reym (rame); or rem (rame); from OT:7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness):


KJV translates it "unicorn". (Num 23:22, 24:8, Job 39:9-10, Ps 29:6, Ps 92:10).


My understanding is that "wild ox" is the better translation for that word. If so, the KJV doesn't seem to be entirely infallible.

What would you say?

[Guest]

Super Sola,

Maybe you can help me understand something. Where is it that King James Only people get the idea that the KJV is the inspired word of God? I can't recall anyone ever really saying why they believed that it was inspired.

You did not answer this question. All you said was that it was here and well known for a long time.

[Guest]

Derek, I was not answering a "question", I was refuting your assertion that we are guilty of circular reasoning, when in fact, we are not. The new versions do delete, change and corrupt God's words, as we have had them for hundreds of years. You need to concede this point. The burden is on those who suddenly want to change things, not us. And when we look at the actual reasons for the changes, even more so do we hold fast to our precious Scripture.

As to your question. Where did you get the idea that the KJV IS NOT God's Holy Words, preserved to us in the English language. Did the Holy Spirit of God tell you it is not His word--His words??? Or did some man teach you this?

My question to you, is do you believe this:

Now don't be judgemental! There is no such thing as a bad new version! All new versions are great! They were all done perfectly, and no one ever had an agenda one time in 400 tries of replacing the KJV(unsuccessfully). Satan has never had an interest one time in 2000 years of corrupting the Scriptures, and he has never once been involved in any updatings of any new versions, neither has the love of money and filthy lucre been a driving force in creating yet another fabulous "new" version in the midst of 399 other competing ones. Never once has any company or committee seen the trend in the body of Christ to have to buy the newest thing and quickly produced a new version to cash in. Why never once! To say so would be judgemental and "mean"! So enjoy your newest "new" version. It fills such a "void" and such a "need" to update the old arachaic KJV, which refuses to go away, even though there are 399 other "updatings" to choose from. Yes we need a new version every single year! Where would we be without them???

[Guest]

UNICORNS
Is the word “unicorn” an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 “Jerusalem, and ‘it shall be lifted up’ and inhabited in her place.” This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - “God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.” Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way in our Lord’s prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 “Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.” There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need.

This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job “Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?” This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all, nor used in farming to plow the fields like an ox can. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as “wild ox”. The wild ox is nothing more than a “wild guess” and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God’s question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a ‘Yeah, I can do that.’

Those who criticize the KJB’s unicorns try to muster a group of “scholars” who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carfully to their words. Henry Morris - “The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct.” W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) “the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct.” Charles Spurgeon wrote “The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct.” William Houghon “we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended.”

Eastons’ Bible dictionary says: “The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct.”

All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible translators do not know what this animal was, and many of them say that whatever it might have been, it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, and they can be tamed and domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as “buffalo”, while the Douay Rheims sometimes has “rhinoceros” and other times “unicorns”. Young's 'literal' translation shows that he simply did not know what the animal in question referred to, so he merely transliterated the Hebrew word, and did not translate it at all. His version consistently reads "the rheem".

Unicorn means literally, “one - horned”; it was a one horned animal. Daniel Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 defined unicorn as “an animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” There have been fossils found, and are now in museums, of a giant one horned beast or dinosaur. There are also the unicorn bird, the unicorn fish, the unicorn moth, the unicorn shell, plant, root and the unicorn constellation. So several things, both plants and animals have the word unicorn attached to them to describe some physical characteristic.

There are even historical accounts of the unicorn. In 416 BC, the Greek physician Ctesias set out to attend to the Persian King Darius II, where he spent 18 years. He later wrote a book called Indica, in which he said: “There are in India certain wild asses which are a large as horses, and larger. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length.”

Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, describes “an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros (one - horned)...It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive.” Aristotle frequently mentioned the unicorn. He said in one passage: “I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India. It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length..” Julius Caesar said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest, and Alexander the Great is said to have seen one before attempting to invade a certain territory, and took it as a sign not to attack, because the land was protected. Are these reports true? I do not know, but I mention them only to show that there are many conflicting views as to what this animal was and in what form it existed.

Justin Martyr writes concerning the unicorn in Psalm 22. In his book "Dialogue with Trypho" this early church fathers says: "And what follows of the Psalm,--'But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from THE HORNS OF THE UNICORNS,'--was also information and prediction of the events which should befall Him. For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Moreover, it is similarly foretold that He would die by crucifixion. For the passage, 'Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from the horns of the UNICORNS,' is indicative of the suffering by which He should die, i.e., by crucifixion. For the 'horns of the, unicorns,' I have already explained to you, are the figure of the cross only."

In chapter 16 Justin Martyr continues his reference to the unicorn, saying: “And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, ‘From the blessing of the Lord is his land; for the seasons of heaven, and for the dews, and for the deep springs from beneath,... Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is like the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an UNICORN: with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.' Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an UNICORN represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns."

The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating this specific Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation 1395, Tyndale 1525 (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible 1535, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati 1649, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition, the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament (not to be confused with the so called LXX), the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation of 1870, the 21st Century King James Version, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible 1833, Lamsa’s 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Peshitta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.

The Greek Septuagint (LXX). Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.

One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of “wild ox”, besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. ‘But my HORN shalt thou exalt like the HORN of AN UNICORN.” The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: “You have exalted my HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX.” Now, I ask you a simple question. How many horns does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.

Psalm 92:10 Wycliffe 1395 - And myn horn schal be reisid as an vnicorn; and myn eelde in plenteuouse merci.

Bishop's Bible 1568 - But my horne shalbe exalted lyke the horne of an vnicorne: for I am annoynted with excellent oyle.

Coverdale 1535 - But my horne shalbe exalted like the horne of an Vnicorne, & shal be anoynted with fresh oyle.

Geneva Bible 1599 - But thou shalt exalt mine horne, like the vnicornes, and I shalbe anoynted with fresh oyle.

Third Millenium Bible 1998 - But my horn shalt Thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn; I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel. He says: “His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his HORNS are like the HORNS OF UNICORNS: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth.” The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew - unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural “unicorns” not only by the KJB but also by Websters Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB. Those who criticze the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are showing their selective use of the Hebrew language.

All Bible translations frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the NKJV, NIV and NASB do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 “nachash” & “aqrab” (singular nouns) are translated by all as “serpents & scorpions”, in Deut. 1:19, 20 “har” is mountains in the NKJV, Deut 1:1, 2:37 “bahar” and “har” as hills or mountains in NKJV, KJB, and NIV. Deut. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places “ish” as “men”; Dt. 3:3 “sarid” as survivors in NIV, NKJV; Deut. 5:15 “ebed” slaves in NIV, Deut. 7:9 “dowr” generations in NIV & NKJV; Deut. 8:8 “rimmown” as pomegranates in NASB, NIV and NKJV; Deut. 9:ll, 18, 25 “layil” as “nights” in NASB, NIV and NKJV; and Deut. 10:19 “gare” as strangers or aliens in NIV, NKJV, and NASB.

So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Because of the “horns” plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.

By the way, some have tried to blame the rendering of unicorn on the alleged KJB translator's use of the so called Greek Septuagint. However, the translators marginal note in Deut. 33:17 clearly says: "Hebrew - unicorn", not "LXX - unicorn". The King James Bible translators clearly believed that the Hebrew word itself means unicorn. You can differ if you like from their beliefs, but don't try to blame this reading on the supposed use of the Greek Septuagint.

The historic rabbinic commentary (Ibn Ezra, Radaq, Rashi, Saadi Gaon et. al.) views on Deuteronomy 33:17, and the re'em question in general support the King James reading in Deuteronomy. As an example Radaq (Kimchi) is considered, historically, as the single most important Hebrew linguist and grammatical expert.

http://britam.org/proof3.html

Rabbi David Kimchi (Safer HaShorashim, RAEM): His horns are like the horns of unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17). "It is intended to mean that his horns are like the horns of (several) unicorns for the Raem has only one horn."

The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don’t think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the NKJV, NASB, NIV have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, while the "wild ox" of the NKJV, NIV, NASB has two horns; not just one.

One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS.

In the original 16ll edition of the KJB, the editors placed “or Rhinoceros” in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: “And the unicorns shall come down with them.” It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else but God, what the unicorn was or is.

It was a one horned animal of great strength; it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their “wild oxen” and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong.

Will Kinney

[Guest]

I will answer your question in hopes that you will be so kind as to answer mine.

Now don't be judgemental!

I agree with this part.

There is no such thing as a bad new version! All new versions are great! They were all done perfectly...

This is a straw man. I have said no such thing and in fact I think many are horrible.

and no one ever had an agenda one time in 400 tries of replacing the KJV(unsuccessfully).

The forward to the NASB says that " of the English Bible Translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious".

It is a different translation. Not an attempt to "replace" the King James. Nor are the other modern versions.

Satan has never had an interest one time in 2000 years of corrupting the Scriptures, and he has never once been involved in any updatings of any new versions, neither has the love of money and filthy lucre been a driving force in creating yet another fabulous "new" version in the midst of 399 other competing ones. Never once has any company or committee seen the trend in the body of Christ to have to buy the newest thing and quickly produced a new version to cash in. Why never once!

Aside from the sarcasm I would agree that Bible translation has indeed become a business and is getting ridiculous. When I speak of modern versions, I generally mean the ones I consult which are the ESV, NASB, NKJV, sometimes the NIV and various interlinear versions. All are conservative respectable translations. I am not talking about the Message and similiar bible translations when I speak of "modern versions".

To say so would be judgemental and "mean"!

What is judgmental and mean is the general tone of KJV onlyists. Like your (ad hominim) comparison of me to JW's who I regularly evangelize, study, pray for and welcome into my home for discussions. Like your likening someone who doesn't agree with your opinion as a "simpleton". etc. etc.

So enjoy your newest "new" version. It fills such a "void" and such a "need" to update the old arachaic KJV, which refuses to go away, even though there are 399 other "updatings" to choose from. Yes we need a new version every single year! Where would we be without them???

Again, more of the ridiculous sarcasm that so frequently takes the place of solid argumentation in the KJV only movement. I use the KJV as my main bible and feel no need to "update it". But I will continue to consult the modern versions as well because I want to understand the word of God better.

Now, I have answered your quesiton. Now here's mine for the third time.

Maybe you can help me understand something. Where is it that King James Only people get the idea that the KJV is the inspired word of God? I can't recall anyone ever really saying why they believed that it was inspired.

If you don't want to provide a real answer, then our dialogue is over I suppose. I hope you stick around for other topics though.

God bless,