It is not about the King James Bible, it is about changing the Word of God on almost a daily basis.
RSV 1952 The National Council of Churches Bible, heavy Catholic influence and the NAB, a Catholic Bible. You are right I didn't look these two up. Note that the NASB which got permission from the NCC to revise the NAB did not use cubits.Ezekiel 42:16
First let me point out that the NIV isn't the first version to use cubits. So they didn't get any new copyright out of that. The RSV and NAB have cubits and they pre-date the NIV.
If the word cubit is not in any Greek manuscript in verse 42:16, what right do translators have to add it?That being said, the Septuagint has cubits. So you ask on what basis was the change made? The Septuagint. Now you have rightly pointed out that cubits isn't used in 42:16. No measurement standard is in verse 16. It just states that the measurement was 500. However, the Septuagint has cubits in verses 17 and 20.
This is a premise on your part. There is one Septuagint that the greatest forger of the Nineteenth Century claimed to write. If you are manufacturing a manuscript you merely quote word from word.The Septuagint is accepted by the New Testament authors. They quote it more often than the Hebrew. Interestingly, the author of the epistle to the Hebrews quotes the Septuagint almost exclusively. Why would the author of the epistle to the Hebrews quote the Septuagint so much? For purposes of this discussion, the reason doesn't really matter, just the fact does.
So when New Testament authors quote the Septuagint, then God has made the Septuagint the Word of God at that point.
It is a fact that no bible translation takes the Septuagint as their main source for the Old Testament, and the reason is it would not sell, for no one would accept it.You can't take this issue up with me, or the NIV Committee on Bible Translation or Westcott or Hort. If you have issues with the Septuagint as a source, such as the timing of the death of Methusaleh and the flood, you must take this up with God since he made parts of the Septuagint part of the New Testament. By the way, I'm curious how you deduced the Methusaleh dating issue. It won't bother me since I don't expect the Septuagint to be perfect and a sound Biblical theology doesn't require the Septuagint to be perfect, but I am curious how you came to that conclusion.
Tell me something Joe, just how many old Manuscripts have the Septuagint in them that we can today observe?
You ask how I came to the conclusion that Methuselah went swimming in the flood. When I started reading the Septuagint as found in the Vaticanus 1209 I observed in chapter five that they changed the age of Adam by a hundred years when he begat Seth. From there I check further on the ages in the genealogy that was found in chapter five, and if you run the numbers, Methuselah, instead of dying the year of the flood dies fourteen years later, just do the math.
The first question is, do we just arbitrarily change something in the Bible because in our mind it doesn't add up? The second point is that those dimensions as found in Ezekiel 42:16-20 are not the Temple proper, but rather a line drawn around Jerusalem. As I have suggested to Fenris that perhaps that line is the same line as found in Zechariah 1:16 Therefore thus saith the LORD, I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.Another factor is that if you add up the dimensions of the temple, 500 cubits fits nicely compared to 500 reeds. It seems to me that sometime between the writing of Ezekiel and the Hebrew manuscripts that are known today, a copyist error was made and that the Septuagint preserved what Ezekiel actually wrote.
And then we have Zechariah 2:5 For I, saith the LORD, will be unto her a wall of fire round about, and will be the glory in the midst of her. In Ezekiel 42:16-20 we see a line stretched with neither height or breadth, and a wall upon that line. I would suggest that the wall is the wall of fire that the Lord is, as found in Zechariah 2:5. If this is true than putting cubits in place of reeds is surely altering the Word of God.
I have faith that God is able to protect his Word even though Satan would love nothing better than to destroy it.So that's the authority. What was the purpose? To make newer translations more accurate at this point of detail where older translations were mistaken. But since the Bible never promised inerrant translations, there is no problem. No Bible ever promised inerrant translations.
It is about changing the Word. They did not change the Word for the sake of change, but truly tried to be faithful to the Word of God, and that is no longer the case.Matthew 1:19
First you talk about whether Joseph was a just, righteous or good man in newer versions. The KJV itself translates this word as just or righteous at various points. And as for good, I have no need to defend every choice made by modern translations because I don't hold an infallibility view of English versions.
If you read the Old Testament you will find that once betrothed the law applies as if one is married, because a betrothed wife, caught in adultry, is treated the same as a married woman, she is to be stoned to death. What happens when you start changing words in the bible you lose the connection between the various books.As for whether the newer versions claim Joseph and Mary were married, none of them do. Just keep reading further into Matthew 1:20-25 where in all versions it's clear that Joseph had not married Mary.
When you take away public example in this context you take away the idea that Mary was in danger of being stoned to death, and also lose the connection to the law. Where certain words have one meaning in one context they may have a slighter different meaning in another context.Now you may counter about the word "divorce." The KJV has "put away". But the KJV uses this same language for divorce. See Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:9 for some examples of where a husband may "put away" his wife. So, again, be consistent and make the same charge against the KJV or be more kind and gracious with new versions and give some benefit of the doubt.
Your third example of trying to make a distinction between public example versus shaming or disgracing seems like a stretch to make your point. Especially since the KJV translates the same Greek as "open shame" in Hebrews 6:6.
It is all about changing the words, and therefore changing the meaning.
Compare the NIV with the Geneva Bible, the KJV bible, and ASV bible in Matthew 1:19 and then say there hasn't been a drastic change.Now you wrote to me . . .
You have not mentioned the KJV.
However you say the NIV changed the Bible. So what Bible are you comparing the NIV to? It's not the originals since you agree they don't exist. What's the Bible which the NIV is changing and how have you established, since said Bible isn't the original, that said Bible is correct and the NIV is wrong?
The Geneva Bible. Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.
The KJV.---------- Matthew 1:19 Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
The ASV-----------Matthew 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
The NIV.---------- Matthew 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Can you see the respect that the KJV and the ASV had for not entirely reconstructing the whole verse. We no longer have that respect and in so doing change connections with the Old Testament as well as meanings.