• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

JOYNER’S JOKE IS THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE INFALLIBLE? PART 1 -- 2 Peter 1:15-21 By Dr. Robert A. Joyner, D.B.S., Th. D., Ph.D. Dr. Robert Joyner of the Community Baptist church of Newport, NC has written a small yellow booklet with two excerpted chapters from his larger book, “King James Only,” and sent it to fellow BBF pastors (see the note at the end of part one). He postulates the following propositions. – Herb Evans Joyner: Many today say the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word of God in English and is the only Bible for us today. Evans: Yes and the number are growing. I am one of the many. Joyner: If we can show the KJV has many mistakes, statements that do not make sense, and verses that slander God, then obviously it is not perfect. Evans: Yes, if you can show that and not merely say it or imply it or suggest it. – Herb Evans Joyner: Please understand that we are not attacking the Word of God, we are pointing out errors in a translation. God's Word is perfect but translations are not. God inspired the apostles and prophets when they wrote but there is not one verse that says translations are inspired. Evans: 1. Joyner is attacking the KJB, so he must not believe it is even the word of God. 2. Joyner must now tell us what the word of God is and where it is at (in concise 3. Joyner must also tell us how he knows the word of God (whatever it is) is perfect. 4. Joyner must also tell us why he says the apostles and prophets were inspired, for there is not one verse that says that they were. Only the scriptures are said to be inspired. 5. Joyner must tell us why no translation can be perfect or be the word of God. 6. Joyner must also tell us how the extant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are perfect, if they indeed are. Joyner: The things I point out will help you better understand your KJV. It is a very accurate translation in most places. However, it has a few places where the reader will need help to find out what God actually said. Evans: And Dr. Joyner will be there to help us understand what God really said. You see, the KJB is not the authority; Mr. Joyner now is the authority, and we must come to him for the word of God. Joyner 1. In Hebrews 9:26 the KJV says, "But now once in the end of the world [aionon] hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." But the end of the world has not come and Christ has already appeared. Therefore, this is a false statement. The New American Standard Version (NASV) says "but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested." It was at the end of the Old Testament ages that Christ appeared, not at the end of the world. The KJV translates the Greek word aion as world. The word means age. The KJV does this about 40 times. Each time is a mistake and misleads the reader. John Gill: “. . . but now once in [not at] the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself - this is to be understood of his incarnation on earth . . . and the time of it was, ‘in [not at] the end of the world’; the same with the last days; the last age of the world." Evans: Joyner’s contradiction is such that he interprets the end of the age as the consummation of the ages, and then afterwards says that it was at the end of the Old Testament ages, something quite different. The NIV ignores the word altogether in Matt. 13:22 and renders it, “last days” in Heb. 1:1, 2; last times in 1 Pet 1:20; last times in 1 John 2:18; and “long ago” in Acts 15:18; and FOUR times “world.” Will Kinney on Hebrews 9:26: “Not only does the KJB say ‘the end of the world’ but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, Webster’s, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Green's Modern KJV, the KJV 21 stCentury, Worldwide English N.T. 2004, and the Third Millennium Bible. Likewise, the NIV has translated the word aion as ‘world’ four times [Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 4:4; 2 Tim. 4:10; 1 Tim 6:17]; ‘universe’ twice [Heb. 1:2; Heb 11:3]; and as ‘life’, ‘time’ and ‘ways’. The NASB translates this same word as ‘world’ seven times and once as ‘worlds.’ See Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:19 ‘the worry of the world;’ Romans12:2 ‘do not be conformed to this world,’ 2 Corinthians 4:4 ‘the god of this world has blinded the minds,’ 1 Timothy 6:17 ‘those who are rich in this present world,’ 2 Timothy 4:10 ‘having loved this present world,’ Hebrews 1:2 ‘through whom also He made the world,’ and Hebrews 11:3 ‘the worlds were prepared by the word of God.’” Evans: Most Bible Correctors zero in on the word “AIONA” to criticize the KJB for translating it “world” but also for sometimes translating it as “age.” Yes, “AIONA” is used in Heb. 9:26 but also, so is “KOSMOS.” Both are rendered “world” in Heb. 9:26 (KJB). However, Is Dr. Joyner aware of the fact that his other perversion, the NASB, also translates “AIONON” as "world" 7 times and once as "worlds?” Here are some passages pertinent to the alleged problem in the KJB regarding “AGE/AIONA.” God hath spoken . . . since the world [aionos (NIV-long ago)] began. [When is the beginning of long ago? – Herb Evans] --Acts 3:21 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world [aionos] -- Acts 15:18 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world [aionon (NIV-time)] unto our glory: -- 1 Cor. 2:7 . . . the mystery, which from the beginning of the world [aionon (NIV - ages past)] hath been hid in God . . . -- Eph. 3:9 Webster's 1977 Encyclopedic dictionary of the English language: tells us that "world" means the "AGE OF MAN." And that "world" comes from the old English "Wer" (man) and "Yldu" (age or aged). (Who doesn't know that a werewolf is a man wolf?) The German "Welt" (world) comes from Wer and alt (age or aged - Old High German). The 1979 Webster's 20th Century Dictionary gives 12 definitions of the word "world." Bible Correctors, with an agenda to advance, promote their preferred dictionary definition, while they characterize KJO's with the worst possible definition. Needless to say, we have been at the end of the world and the last time and the last days for a long while. – Evans Continued Joyner 2. The KJV calls the Holy Spirit an "it" in Romans 8:16, 26. The NASV corrects this and says the "Spirit Himself.” –Joyner The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God . . . but the Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us . . . --Rom. 8:16, 26 Evans: Berry's interlinear shows that which was the underlying Greek for the terms "Spirit" and "itself" in the passage, reminding us that the Greek for “Spirit (PNEUMA)” and for “self (AUTOS)” are in the neuter gender. Still, what will the Bible Correctors do with these passages? And John bare record, saying, I saw the SPIRIT descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him. -- John 1:32 . . . the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, IT is a SPIRIT . . . Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; IT is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if IT be thou, bid me come unto thee . . .--Mat. 14:26-28 . . . and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as IT was born. -- Rev 12:4 Another passage, where the KJB is challenged about using ”IT" in regard to the Holy Spirit, is found in John 1:32. Obviously, even the Lord Jesus Christ is called an "IT" three times in Matthew 14:26-28, and “IT” is also applied to the Lord Jesus in Rev. 12:4. Oh, of course, the modern translations change these pronouns to “he” and “you” to make it seem like they are something worth buying and using, but we know better. How terrible, but then, guess what? The NIV also calls Jesus an "IT" in Rev 12:4. Not very consistent! Now, if you want to have some fun (and we received this from someone else), knock on a Bible Corrector's door, and when he responds, "Who is IT?" say”IT is I." Then give him a horse laugh! Do this often enough and Bible Correctors might catch on. The moral of this story is that Bible Correctors cannot keep track of their own critical King James damning rules, and they often hit their pride and joy bibles, the NIV and the NASV with such nonsensical, self invented rules as they seek to discredit the KJB. Joyner 3. The KJV calls the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost. The Bible says, "God is a Spirit." (John 4:24). Sometimes the KJV translates the same word as Ghost and sometimes Spirit. The NASV always translates the word as Spirit. God is a Spirit, not a Ghost. Evans: The Holy Ghost and the Spirit of God are spoken in the same context, proving that it is a matter of style and not error. Also, the disciples used the word “SPIRIT” to describe a GHOST in Matthew 14:26. Mr. Joyner somehow equates uniformity with superiority and non-uniformity with error. This is a straw man objection. But this spake he of the SPIRIT, which they that believe on him should receive: for the HOLY GHOST was not yet given . . . the Father . . . shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the SPIRIT OF TRUTH . . . for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. -- John 7:39; 14:16, 17 . . . the things of God knoweth no man, but the SPIRIT OF GOD . . . the SPIRIT which is of God . . . Which things also we speak . . . which the HOLY GHOST teacheth . . . --1 Cor. 2:11 . . . no man speaking by the SPIRIT OF GOD calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the HOLY GHOST. -- 1 Cor. 12:3 And they were all filled with the HOLY GHOST, and began to speak with other tongues, as the SPIRIT gave them utterance. -- Acts 2:4 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, it is a SPIRIT [NIV - GHOST]; and they cried out for fear. –Matt 14:26 Joyner 4. Acts 12:4 in the KJV says Herod was planning "after Easter" to bring Peter out. The KJV translates this same Greek word as Passover 28 times. This is the only time they translated this Greek word as "Easter." So they were wrong 28 times or they are wrong in Acts 12:4. The NASV translates the Greek word as Passover all 29 times. Evans: What about Easter in the King James Bible? Well, here is the crowning point of Bible correcting scholarship, the word "EASTER." Bible Correctors and experts (fellows who used to be spurts) lecture us that the Greek "PASCHA" means "Passover" and that the King James translators mistranslated Acts 12:4. Bible Correctors have layd (old English spelling for laid) some mighty big "Easter" eggs (or should we say "Pasche eggs" or “Passover eggs” (Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, Vol. III) in this regard, making "much ado about nothing." The Oxford Dictionary, 1933, Oxford University Press, Vol. III) also gives the secondary and obsolete definition of "Easter" as the "Jewish Passover," citing six quotations from ancient English literature, dating from 971 to 1611, which used the word Easter in reference to the "Jewish Passover." The word "EASTER" was chosen by Tyndale to supply a much-needed English word for the Jewish feast. A word for the spring feast, Easter, was already available, so Tyndale used it throughout his New Testament. Later, Tyndale "invented" a new word (PASSOVER), which he used in his Old Testament. Subsequent English Bibles used both words (even in expressions like the “EASTER LAMB”). Tyndale is responsible for both English Bible words. The first English Bible, Tyndale's Bible (1525) from the so called "original" Greek, translates "PASCHA" --"PASCHALL" in Matthew 26:17, "ESTER" in the next verse (26:18), and "ESTERLAMBE" in the next verse (26:19). Also, it translates it "PASCALL LAMBE" in Mark 14:12 and "ESTER LAMBE" in Mark 14:14, 16. What nerve to translate 1 Cor. 5:7, "Christ oure ESTERLAMBE is offered up for us." . . . where wylt thou that we prepare for to eate the PASHALL LAMBE . . . the master sayeth . . . I will kepe myne ESTER at the hausse with my disciples. And the disciples . . . made ready the ESTERLAMBE. --Matt 26:17-19 (Tyndale Bible) And the JEWES ESTER was nye at hand, and many went out of the countre up to Jerusalem before ESTER. -- John 11:55 (Tyndale Bible) And what about the old Bishop's Bible? Well, it translates "PASCHA" to "EASTER" twice in John 11:55 and "PASSEOVER" in the very next verse (12:1). The old "Great Bible" renders the Greek "PASCHA" - "PASSEOVER" in Matthew 26:17,"EASTER" in the next verse (26:18), and “PASSEOVER” in the following verse (26:19). Huh? Could the Passover feast and the Easter feast (spring feast) really be used synonymously? Well, that rendering could still be a fluke. Yet, the "Great Bible" translates "PASCHA" -- the "JEWES EASTER" AND "EASTER" in John 11:55. Hmmmmm! Obviously, the early Brits considered the words synonymous, since Easter and Passover were spring feasts. Then there was Luther’s Bible, and it gets worse, so I don’t think Robert Joyner is interested in that. – Herb Evans Joyner 5. In James 5:11 the KJV says, "The Lord is very pitiful." This is old English for God is full of pity. But still today the KJV says the Lord is very pitiful. This is a slander against God that needs to be updated. The NASV says, "The Lord is full of compassion.” Evans: Does Joyner mean to say that the old English slanders God or that the KJB translators do so? Obviously, Joyner’s view is a relative one in which, if a Bible were perfect, it would become imperfect as language changes (also true of the Hebrew/Greek Autographs?). Joyner, of course, here condemns William Tyndale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops’ Bible as slanderers of God. Actually, the pity word is “polusplagcheos” and the compassion word is “oiktirmon,” and both are in this verse. Berry’s interlinear has “full of tender pity . . . and compassionate.” W. E. Vine says “very pitiful” or “full of pity.” Methinks Dr. Joyner needs updated. Now, we have heard of those “advanced revelations,” but we have never before heard of “advanced slanders of God.” Joyner 6. Philippians 4:6 in the KJV says, "Be careful [merimnate] for nothing." This actually says to be careless about everything. The NASV correctly translates it, "Be anxious for nothing.” Evans: The KJB translators were aware of the word “merimate.” the word involves “care” or “concern” (Phil. 2:20; 1 Cor. 7:32, 33, 34; 1 Cor. 12:25) as well as protecting one’s self from harm. They used “careless” five times and the word “carelessly” three times. Simply, the word “careful” had a broad generic range of meaning back then. The word involved “concern” as well as protecting oneself from harm. Dr. Joyner is oblivious to context, employing his pattern of worse case definition in making a case against the KJB. By worst case definition, one could easily make a case against Joyner’s word “anxious” in the sense that one is being told to be “EAGER” for nothing. Joyner’s rule could also make the NASV to be encouraging us to be anxious about everything. Good for the goose is good for the gander. Tyndale’s Bible would send Joyner through the roof, “Be not carefull.” Berry’s Interlinear, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible agree with the King James Bible’s usage. So the problem is not error but stylistic use of synonyms. We are not even sure that the word “anxious” was available to the translators back then; one might check the OED for that. Joyner 7. Philippians 3:20 in the KJV says, "Our conversation [politeuma] is in heaven." Obviously we are not talking to one another in Heaven. The NASV correctly says, "Our citizenship is in heaven.” [More of this in Dr. Joyner’s Part 2] Only let your conversation [politeuesthe] be as it becometh the gospel of Christ . . . –Phil 1:27 Evans: Robert Joyner gets progressively sillier. The KJB never uses the word “conversation” as speech, although it does use it in the sense of what you say by what you do, whether actions or speech, namely, our conduct or behavior. Politeuma is where we get “polity” and “politics” and the proper way to do things. The translators knew that whatever it takes to be a good Christian is what it takes to be a good citizen. The citizenship (behavior of citizens) aspect of the underlying word is used figuratively, according to Strong’s. The KJB translators were aware of a possible use of “citizen” (Acts 21:39 and Luke 15:15 --“citizen”). Still, only the NIV wrongly confuses “speech” with “conversation (Isa. 19:7; Jer. 38:24, 27; Col. 4:6),” and “voice” with “cooing” (SS 2:12) Tyndale’s, the Great Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, and even some of the modern bibles do not confuse “conversation” with speech. Odd that the NIV would render the Greek word “conduct” rather than “citizenship” and then turn right around and render it “speech” [anastrofay]in 1 Tim. 4:12 instead of “conversation” where it has a stronger meaning of “conduct” or “behavior” Our politics and polity and our way of life are in heaven. Joyner 8. In II Thessalonians 2:7 the KJV says, "Only he who now letteth will let." This is speaking of the Holy Spirit who hinders the forces of sin. The English word "let" once meant to restrain but it has completely reversed in meaning. The NASV says, "He who now restrains will do so." This gives the meaning of what God actually said. Evans: Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was LET hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. –Rom. 1:13 We see no Holy Spirit mentioned in 2 Thess. 2:7, so it must be an interpretation. In tennis, a net ball is still a “LET,” denoting a hindrance or obstruction of the game. So, that which Dr. Joyner really suggests is that the modern English dog should wag the English Bible tail and that we should change the Bible every time a word is either changed, corrupted, or degenerated. Rom. 1:13 is sufficient to explain the word, unless you have an axe to grind or an agenda. Joyner 9. The word "meat" means the flesh of animals to us today. In the KJV it means anything to eat. In Leviticus chapter 2 it describes a "meat" offering but the contents contain no meat at all. In Leviticus 14:10 the KJV says, "Fine flour for a meat offering." The NASV calls it a grain offering. Many times the KJV uses the word meat to refer to food that has no meat in it whatever. And in the uppermost basket there was of all manner of BAKEMEATS for Pharaoh; and the birds did eat them out of the basket upon my head. – Gen. 40:17 And if thou bring an oblation of a meatoffering [grain offerings - NIV] BAKED in the OVEN, it shall be unleavened CAKES of FINE flour mingled with OIL, or unleavened wafers annointed with oil. And if thy oblation be a meat offering [grain offerings - NIV] BAKED in a PAN, it shall be of FINE flour mingled with oil: Thou shalt PART it in PIECES, and pour oil thereon: it is a meat offering [grain offerings - NIV]. -- Lev. 2:4-6 [Note: it is not a meat offering until it is prepared, cooked, and parted. Then it is no longer grain. - Evans] And Moses spoke unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his son that were left, Take the meat offering [grain offerings - NIV] that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made BY FIRE [now, no longer grain], and EAT IT [RAW or BAKED?-- Evans] without leave beside the altar: for it is most holy. . . – Lev. 10:12 Evans: Dr. Joyner would have a problem with modern nut meats and the KJB bakemeats as well. Meat is an old English word for food. The translators’ awareness of the words that they used demonstrates their flexible and stylish use of synonyms. They did not offer grain. The NASV is in error, when it says unground, unbaked, uncooked “grain,” which is not fine flour mingled with oil and baked in a pan. Again, Mr. Joyner demonstrates his own error of creating a picture of them eating unprepared, unbaked, uncooked, unground, unparted, raw grain (rather than the KJB being in error, with their knowledge that it was cakes that they ate—NOT raw grain). The KJB translators contrasted the food offerings with the drink offerings, which to be consistent, Dr. Joyner will now have to explain to us from that the drink offerings were really GRAPE offerings. Joyner 10. The word "corn" is used in the KJV 101 times. It never once means corn, as we know it today. It refers to any kind of grain. Genesis 42:1-3, 5; Matthew 12:1 are examples. Remember the American Indians gave us corn or maize. The white man knew nothing of corn until after the discovery of America. Evans: Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people: for thou hast gone a whoring from thy God, thou hast loved a reward upon every CORN FLOOR. --Hosea 9:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a CORN [KOKKOS] OF WHEAT fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone . . . -–John 12:24 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but BARE GRAIN [KOKKON], it may chance of WHEAT, or of SOME OTHER GRAIN . . . – 1 Cor. 15:37 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that TREADETH OUT THE CORN. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. –1 Tim. 5:18 Again, Mr. Joyner faults the KJB on the basis of what happens centuries later, but if white men only knew of “maize” corn after the discovery of America, why does he fault the translators for “corn” before America? The KJB translators knew about the word “grain” their use of corn was generic (grain kernels), for you do not thresh maize. The translators also knew that there were different kinds of corn or grain (KERNELS), the big reason why maize was called corn to begin with by the old English colonists because of their Geneva Bible. Isn’t it odd that the NIV translates it “corn of wheat” instead of “grain of wheat?” -- Evans Continued Joyner 11. Revelation 22:14 teaches salvation by works in the KJV. It says, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life." This is a verse taken from the Latin Vulgate and inserted in by Erasmas because he did not have a complete Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation. The KJV translators continued this error. There is no Greek manuscript in existence that has the KJV reading. The NASV says, “Blessed are they who have washed their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life.” Evans: Is Dr. Joyner right about "no Greek manuscript in existence that has the KJV reading.”? His own UBS critical text tells him that the KJB reading is that of THE MAJORITY of all Greek texts as well as found in some Old Latin copies, the Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian (it is in Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta), the Coptic Boharic, and it is so quoted by Tertullian. Also, Dr. Joyner goes against Tyndale’s bible, the Great Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, the King James Bible, and the Geneva Bible and the Textus Receptus. He tells us the story of how Erasmus supplied the missing verses from the Latin Vulgate, but which one? Jerome’s Latin Vulgate or the older Latin Vulgate that Jerome amended and edited. It is interesting that the Douay Rheims, the Roman Catholic bible, based on Jerome, has Joyner’s preferred reading as well as does the (RSV, ASV, and NIV). Pre-Jerome Bibles Peshitta - 150 A.D, Translated from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian about 150 A. D. (Antioch, capital of Syria, believers first called Christians). Italic - 157 A. D. - Italy France and Great Britain were once provinces of the old Roman Empire. Latin was then the language of the common people. So the first translations of the Bible in these countries were made from the Greek Vulgate into Latin. One of the first of these Latin Bibles was for the Waldenses in northern Italy, translated not later than 157 AD. The texts of these oldest bibles of the Roman Province were known as the Old Latin. This Old Latin was known as the Latin Vulgate. The Old Latin Vulgate was used by the Christians in the churches of the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albigenses, and other fundamental groups throughout Europe. Jerome's Latin Vulgate - 380 A.D. The Latin version of Jerome translated by order of the Roman Catholic Church, was published about 380 AD. The Roman Catholic Church chose the name "VULGATE" or "COMMON" for Jerome’s translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people. Jerome’s Vulgate was rejected by real Christians until approximately 1280 A. D., and only then, because Latin ceased to be the common language of the people and became the language of the learned (the violent, wicked persecutions were against true believers by Pope Gregory IX during his reign from 1227 to 1242 A. D.). The Grammatical rules in Greek are not the same as English. They are not even the same for Koine Greek and Classical Greek. The critical Greek text does not use the definite article before David but Erasmus' text inclusions do. In other words, "the David." For this very reason, the Latin which Erasmus had access to and used, was more reliable than the newer critical Greek manuscripts that had been tampered with or miscopied. The Peshitta, the Old Italic Bible, and the Old Latin Vulgate preceded Jerome’s Latin Vulgate by quite a few years and are closer to the Koine Greek than the critical Greek. – Joyner 12. The KJV says, "The love of money IS the root of ALL [PAS] evil," (I Timothy 6:10). This is certainly a false statement. Adam and Eve did not sin for the love of money. Satan's fall was because of pride, not love of money. The adulterer and the fornicator do not do it for money, neither does the rapist. What God actually said was that money can be a root of all sorts of evil. People will do any kind of sin for money. The NASV says, "The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil.” –Joyner Evans: Dr. Joyner doesn’t even like the “ORIGINAL” Greek [PAS] on this one, making the Greek be false in favor of the NASV. Joyner misses the tense of the passage (IS as opposed to WAS), as he tries to squeeze the past fall of Satan and Adam and Eve into the equation. Even the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, when it says, “covetousness,” gets the gist of the passage. While a man does not always covet money, he does covet something in any and every sin. Needless to say, the Bible does say “ALL” in the early pre KJB Bibles, Herr Doktor. Now, if Joyner thinks that the KJB translators were showing a time sequence of events as opposed to a pair of actions, I’ll sell him a bridge. And worse, for Joyner to intimate that they did not know the time sequence of events is more of Joyner’s sophist fantasy and straw men. Why do Bible correctors complain about the KJB word “and” in the verse and not complain about the NIV word “by?” And why does Dr. Joyner not mind some bibles (NASV) changing the “tree” (curse) to “cross” here (Deut. 21:22-23; Gal 3:13). Not only did they seek to slay him, but they also cursed him by hanging Him on a tree. Joyner 14. In James 3:2 the KJV says we offend everybody. "In many things we offend all." The NASV says, "For we all stumble in many ways." I can agree with the NASV but not with the KJV. Evans: Well, sure, Joyner agrees with the perversions, because he is a Bible Corrector, which already has been established. But Joyner has to use the worst case interpretation of the word “all.” School children could get the gist of this passage, for we teach them to turn a sentence around in order to more easily find the parts of speech. The gist of that would be, “We offend all in many things” (or “We all offend in many things”). Now, that was not hard for a DOKTOR was it? Joyner 15. In Acts 9:7 when Paul was converted it says in the KJV the men "stood speechless hearing a voice, but seeing no man." In Acts 22:9 it says, "They heard not THE voice of him that spake with me." Of course this makes the Bible contradict itself. The NASV says, "Did not understand the voice of the one who spoke with me." The men heard but they did not understand what it said is the true meaning. The KJV makes the Bible contradict itself. The NASV does not. Evans: The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound [phone] thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit . . . – John 3:8 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice [phone] from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. Jesus answered and said, This voice [phone] came not because of me, but for your sakes. --John 12:28-30 And even things without life giving sound [phone], whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds [phone], how shall it be known what is piped or harped? -- 1Cor. 14:7 . . . I heard, as it were the noise [phone] of thunder . . . --Rev. 6:1 . . . they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound [phone] of their wings was as the sound [phone] of chariots of many horses running to battle. --Rev 9:9 Evans: Since the word for “voice” [phone] and “sound” [phone] and “noise” [phone (like “spirit” and “wind”)] are the same Greek word, is it possible for someone to hear the “sound” [phone] or “noise” [phone] of “A voice” [phone] but not THE “voice” [phone] of the “sound” [phone]. Now, even the ASV, RSV, and RV modern versions have it like the KJB. Curiously, the NIV has “sound” [phone] in Acts 9:37 and “voice” [phone] in Acts 22:9. Seems like these fellows could get together. Joyner 16. In Acts 19:2 the KJV says, "Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?" Much false doctrine has been built on this verse. The NASV says, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" This is more accurate and in line with the other Scripture teaching. Ephesians 1:13 tells us, "having believed you were sealed." Evans: Well, now, the false doctrine dog must wag the English Bible tail. The NIV has a curious note “OR AFTER” you believed. Now “after” is much closer to “since” than “when,” but for Joyner’s benefit we will allow Dr. Joyner to expound on the Greek word underlying Joyner’s “WHEN” word in this verse. Will Joyner oblige us? The modern perversions (RV, RSV, and ASV) are as Joyner would have it; however Tyndale and other pre-KJB Bibles have “since” like the KJB. Joyner 17. In Song of Solomon 2:12 the KJV says, the "turtle" was singing. The NASV says the "turtledove” We all know that turtles do not sing but turtle doves do. Yea, the STORK in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the TURTLE and the CRANE and the SWALLOW observe the time of their coming . . . --Jer. 8:7 Evans: The KJB uses both words, turtle and turtle dove synonymously translating it from the same Hebrew word as do earlier Pre-KJB Bibles. Jeremiah 8:7 is all about birds. Turtles are turtledoves according to my Webster 1828 and other dictionaries. Tortoises were later named turtles, so again present usage must modify the English Bible of the past for it to be error free, according to Dr. Joyner. Joyner 18. The KJV uses the word charity for love. This is wrong because charity today means giving to the poor and to others. 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 NASV uses the word love, which makes more sense. And though I give all my goods to feed the poor . . . and have not CHARITY . . . -- 1 Cor. 13:13 Evans: Notice, how “charity” (per Joyner) means such and such “TODAY.” The “Bible of the Month” club wants to change the KJB every time a meaning of a word changes or is perverted or is corrupted or degenerates. If not, it must bear the accusation of “advanced errors.” Obviously, Dr. Joyner has no clue as to context, or he would be able to read the passage with understanding. More on this in Joyner’s Part Two. Joyner 19. The KJV uses the word conversation about 20 times but it never means people talking to one another as we use the word today. I Peter 3:1-2 is a good example of the confusion this brings to the modern reader. Here the Bible is telling the wife with an unsaved husband not to talk to win her husband but to win him by her actions, her spirit and her obedience. But the KJV tells her to win him by her conversation, just the opposite of what God actually said. The NASV says the wife is to win the unsaved husband with her "behavior." Evans: Well, Mr. Joyner rejected the word “conversation” as meaning manner of life in favor of citizenship in number seven with the same straw man argument about “speech.” Now, Dr. Joyner wants to make “conversation” behavior in this passage. Mr. Joyner does not dare use “citizenship” here, because it is another Greek word [anastrophas]. This is why the laity mistrusts these professors and doctors, who juggle the word of God, for you cannot trust a Bible Corrector. Still, regarding Joyner’s straw man, the KJB has never used the word “conversation” as meaning “speech.” Joyner’s beef is that someone might misinterpret it as speech, so he wants to change it, but that does not constitute errors or mistakes in the KJB. Joyner 20. In Genesis 8:1 the KJV speaking of the flood water of Noah, says the "waters asswaged." I do not believe you will find this word anywhere in any dictionary. The NASV says, "the waters subsided." I can understand the NASV but I am not sure about the KJV. Evans: That is odd! The very first dictionary that I picked up had the word “assuaged.” Perhaps, Mr. Joyner was not aware of the spelling difference. Perhaps a course in English will help Dr. Joyner understand the King James Bible. He has made a mess of his attack upon it, not yet finding any errors or mistakes or slander of God in it (what he proposed to do). CONCLUSION JOYNER The KJV is a good translation.* It is accurate in most places, but if you know about the mistranslations and obsolete words, it will help you to understand what God actually said in the Hebrew and Greek. There is no valid reason to reject the other good English translations we have today. In many places they can be a great help. – Robert Joyner *Note Dr. Joyner’s cover letter to the BBFI pastors: “The King James only fanaticism is dividing our great Baptist Bible Fellowship. My book will give you a clear, factual, simple tool to inform your Church and unify your people on this subject.” -- Dr. Robert Joyner CONCLUSION EVANS The KJB is, indeed, an excellent translation. It is accurate in all places, but if you can’t find any error, mistakes, slander of God, or statements that do not make sense (propositions that were originally proposed), you ought to accept the KJB as the very word of God and reject the modern perversions. There is every valid reason to reject and condemn the error ridden and perverted modern translations. Since Dr. Joyner is zero for twenty, he has not been “any” help, rather he has been a “LETTER” (or hinderer) to many. Dr. Joyner is the Bible correcting fanatic that is causing all the division. -- Herb Evans

JOYNER’S JOKE - PART 2 IS THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE INFALLIBLE? II Peter 1:15-2 By Dr. Robert A. Joyner, D.B.S., Thad, Ph.D Joyner A. Many say the KJV is the preserved word of God in English. They believe it is without error. Christians have always believed it was the original Bible writers who were inspired, not the translators. It was the original writings that were perfect. The KJV translators believed this. Evans: Yes, the KJB is the preserved word of God in English, and it is without error. Dr. Joyner failed to prove otherwise in part one. Let us now see how he does in part two. Curiously, Dr. Joyner agrees (as do we) that the “original” writings were perfect. Yes, the KJB translators believed the original writings were inspired, as we also do believe. Nevertheless, why stop there, if you do not have the original Autographs? What good is something that is inspired, perfect, or even infallible, if you do not have it? In Part one, Dr. Joyner said that the apostles and prophets were inspired. Now, in part two, he is saying the original Bible writers were inspired. Still, read my lips, none of them were inspired. Joyner B. There is no verse in the Bible that teaches translators are inspired. The KJV translators disclaimed inspiration for themselves. Evans: There is no verse in the Bible that teaches that the apostles, prophets, or writers were inspired, yet Dr. Joyner says in part one and two that they were. The apostles and prophets did not claim inspiration for themselves, only for the scripture. It is scripture that is, indeed, inspired. If it is not scripture, it is not inspired. If it is not inspired, it is not Scripture. Does Herr Doktor Joyner have the inspired scripture? Under what name? Where? Joyner C. I want to point out some contradictions, mistakes, and obsolete words in the KJV. Of course, if I can do that it shows clearly the KJV is not infallible but has errors, like all other translations. Evans: Still, If Dr. Joyner does not do that clearly, he is blowing smoke. Joyner D. I want to show that the NIV and NASV correct all these mistakes. Therefore, other translations can be useful sometimes. Evans: We know what Dr. Joyner wants to do, but will he do it? Useful to whom? Bible Correctors? And then there is the matter of modern translations being very harmful. When will Dr. Joyner deal with their thousand fold mistakes and errors? Joyner E. Please understand I am not attacking the KJV. The things I point out will help you understand your KJV better. I am not saying that the KJV is inferior or that the NIV is superior. I am simply saying that it is silly to claim perfection for the KJV. Evans: But one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that Dr. Joyner “IS” attacking the KJB (as well as the Hebrew/Greek) and is placing the modern perversions above them both. How in the world can Dr. Joyner help us to understand the KJB by the modern perversions, when he and they contradict it? Joyner 1. In the KJV it says in I Kings 4:26 that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses and in II Chronicles 9:25 it says he had four thousand. This is an obvious contradiction. The NIV says four thousand in both places. Who would say the KJV is superior here? And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen [NIV - Charioteers; Septuagint - horsemen], and twenty thousand footmen . . . – 1 Chron. 18:4 . . . Solomon had FORTY [NIV - FOUR] thousand stalls OF horses FOR his chariots, and twelve thousand HORSEMEN [NIV and Septuagint (3 Kings 3:3) - HORSES]. -- 1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen [NIV - horses; Septuagint -horsemen]; and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen [NIV - horses; Septuagint - horsemen], which he placed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. --2 Chron. 1:14 And he saw a chariot with a couple of horsemen [NIV - teams of horses (Septuagint - horsemen)], a chariot of asses [NIV - riders on donkeys], and a chariot of camels [NIV - riders on camels]; and he hearkened diligently with much heed . . . – Isa. 21:7 Evans: And Solomon had FOUR thousand stalls FOR horses AND chariots and twelve thousand horsemen [NIV - horses with a note “or charioteers; Septuagint - horsemen”]. -- 2 Chronicles 9:25 What we have here is Bible correcting duplicity by Dr. Joyner and the NIV that is not attacking merely the King James Bible but the Hebrew itself, which Dr. Joyner insists that he is not doing. Also, we have a wholesale, hodgepodge corruption of interpolated and amended and juggled words, Septuagint and all. The Hebrew is not Joyner’s authority, but the corrupt NIV and Septuagint are his authorities. The Hebrew does not say the same thing in both places, so why should the KJB? Yes, Herb Evans would say the KJB is more superior and more accurate; the NIV, however, is inferior and inaccurate. *Note: The Septuagint in 3 Kings, chapter 3, verse one (1 Kings 4:26 KJB) says, “FORTY THOUSAND brood mares.” And yes, it changes horsemen to horses. (You must be careful with the Septuagint in that it has FOUR Books of Kings, some of which are really parts of Samuel. It also has alternate verse and chapter numbering differences.) John Gill: ". . . a reconciliation may be made, by observing, that here the writer, as Ben Gersom notes, gives the number of the horses that were in the stables, which were forty thousand, there the stables themselves, which were four thousand, ten horses in a stable." Will Kinney: “In 1 Kings 4:26, not only does the King James Bible read FORTY thousand but so also do all three Hebrew translations of 1917, 1936, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Names Bible, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Young's, Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, Third Millenium Bible, Today's English Version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac, Living Bible, Green's Modern KJV, the Holman Standard and many others. However the NIV says Solomon had FOUR thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand HORSES." Then in a footnote, the NIV tells us the number four thousand comes from SOME Septuagint manuscripts*, but that the Hebrew says forty thousand.” Thomas Mallory: It is the difference between stalls OF horses versus stalls FOR horses AND chariots. In 1 Kings 40,000 stalls of HORSES, the meaning is the total number of horses (I board horses and have a 10,000 square foot arena and boarding facility to supplement my salary). You generally only put ONE horse per stall as horses tend to kick at or bite other horses. Two horses in one stall is a good way to start a real problem. However, there are 4000 stalls that can accommodate a chariot that is pulled by a team of 10 horses. If these horses are hooked up to the chariot they are separated and prepared for battle, and etc. The harnesses would eliminate the problem of kicking and biting as the horses are separated. It is simple math. The 4000 in 2 Chronicles, 4000 chariot stalls with 10 horses per would give you the 40,000 horses mentioned in 1 Kings. How Old Was Ahaziah When He Began to Reign? Joyner: In the KJV it says in II Kings 8:26 that Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign. In II Chronicles 22:2 it says he was forty-two years old when he begins to reign. Of course, this is a contradiction. The NIV says he was twenty-two years old in both places. Everybody knows this is better. TWO AND TWENTY YEARS OLD was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. – 2 Kings 8:26 FORTY AND TWO YEARS OLD was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. --2 Chron. 22:2 Evans: There are a number of explanations to this supposed problem. We will touch on some of the factors that are involved as follows. Dr. Joyner is truly a Bible Corrector to find this supposed error in the KJB Bible, when the KJB follows the Hebrew which says “TWENTY-TWO” in 2 Kings 8:25-27. Nevertheless, the KJB also follows the Hebrew in 2 Chron. 22:1-4, which says FORTY-TWO. So, Dr. Joyner is attacking both the so-called original Texts as well as the KJB. He will give neither the benefit of the doubt. An alternate explanation may be found at Will Kinney’s web site: www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html Evans: The Record According to Second Kings 2 Kings 8:16-18 And in the FIFTH year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign. THIRTY AND TWO YEARS OLD was he when he began to reign; and he reigned EIGHT YEARS in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab: for the daughter of Ahab was his wife . . . (1.) Jehoram, Jehoshaphat’s son began to reign in the fifth year of the son of Ahab, king of Israel, Jehoram. (2.) Jehoram was 32 when he began to reign in Judah and reigned for 8 years there. (3.) Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, King of Israel was his wife. Conclusion: If Jeroram began to reign at 32 in Joram’s 5th year, Jehoram must have died in the 12thyear of Joram at 40 (32+ 8). 2 Kings 8:25 – 29 In the TWELFTH year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. TWO AND TWENTY YEARS OLD Ahaziah when he BEGAN TO REIGN; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel . . . he was the SON IN LAW of the house of Ahab. And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramothgilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram. And king Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick. (1.) This Ahaziah also went to war along with Joram, the son of Ahab, and Joram was wounded. (2.) This Ahaziah also went down to visit Joram, the son of Ahab. 2 Kings 9:27 But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this [the smiting of King Joram], he fled by the way of the garden house. And Jehu followed after him [Ahaziah], and said, Smite him also in the chariot. And they did so at the going up to Gur, which isby Ibleam. And he fled to Megiddo, and DIED there. (1.) When Ahazia, king of Judah, visits the recovering King Joram of Israel, he is smitten in a chariot. (2.) Ahaziah fled to Megiddo and died THERE. 2 Kings 9:28, 29 And his servants carried him [Ahaziah] in a chariot to Jerusalem, and buried him in his sepulchre with his fathers in the city of David . . .and in the 11th year of Joram the son of Ahab BEGAN Ahaziah king of Judah TO REIGN over Judah. (1.) Ahaziah’s SERVANTS carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem. (2.) HIS SERVANTS buried Ahaziah THERE. (3.) One Ahaziah began his reign over Judah in the 11thyear of Joram Conclusion: In the ELEVENTH year of Joram, this could have been a co reign of a certain Ahaziah with Jehoram, who was then 38 or 39 (32 +6 or 7), BEFORE Jehoram died, for he began his reign in Joram’s 5th year (5 + 6), and he began his reign at 32 and died at 40 (32 + 8). Evans: The Record of Second Chronicles 2 Chron. 21:1, 2, 5, 6 Now Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And Jehoram his son reigned in his stead. And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel . . . Jehoram was THIRTY AND TWO YEARS OLD when he BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned EIGHT YEARS in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife . . . (1.) Jehoshaphat, King of Judah, dies. (2.) Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram reigns at 32 for 8 years. (3.) Jehoram married the daughter of Ahab, King of Israel. [Note: Two of Jehoshaphat’s sons had the same name (Azariah).] Conclusion: Jehoram, who began his reign in the 5th year of Joram, King of Israel and must have died in the 12th year of Joram, if he reigned 8 years (32 + 8). 2 Chron. 21:16, 17, 18 . . . the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines . . . And they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and CARRIED AWAY all the substance that was found in the king's house, and HIS SONS also, and his wives; SO THAT THERE WAS NEVER A SON LEFT HIM, SAVE JEHOAHAZ, the YOUNGEST of his sons. THIRTY AND TWO YEARS OLD was he when he BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned in Jerusalem EIGHT YEARS. (1.) Jehoram’s sons were all taken away and there was NEVER a son left him except the YOUNGEST, JEHOAHAZ. 2 Chron. 21:18, 19, 20 And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of TWO YEARS, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness: so he died of sore diseases. Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years. . . (1.) Facts: Jehoram died of an incurable disease from the Lord, two years after his sons were carried away. 2 Chron. 22:1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made AHAZIAH HIS YOUNGEST SON king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. (1.) All the youngest sons were killed except JEHOAHAZ. (2.) Ahaziah, his YOUNGEST son, was made king. (3.) Jehoahaz was also said to me Jehoram’s YOUNGEST son. Conclusion: Jehoram had no real son named Ahaziah left. Perhaps, Jehoahaz was renamed Ahaziah. This Ahaziah must have been made king in the 12th year of Joram, King of Israel in that Jehoram must have died in the 12 th year of Jehoram after reigning 8 years. Both Ahaziah and Jehoahaz were Athaliah sons or the same person and her same son. 2 Chron 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. (1.) This Ahaziah or Jehoahaz was 42 when he began to reign and he reigned one year. His mother was Ahab’s daughter, Athaliah. Conclusion: If Ahaziah began to reign at 42 when Jehoram was 40 at his death, Ahaziah and Jehoahaz were indeed sons or a son of Athaliah (grand daughter of Omri and wife of Jehoram) but may have been Jehoram’s step son or sons, or perhaps. Also, Jehoram’s reign may have been added to his son’s age. 2 Chron 22:5, 6 He [Ahaziah] walked also after their counsel, and went with Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramothgilead: and the Syrians smote Joram. And he returned to be healed in Jezreel because of the wounds which were given him at Ramah, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria. And Azariah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Jehoram the son of Ahab at Jezreel, because he was sick. (1.) Joram, King of Israel, son of Ahab, was also called Jehoram. (2.) Joram received a severe wound from the Syrians. (3.) Ahaziah, King of Judah, went down to see him while Joram was recovering. 2 Chron 22:7-9 And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against Jehu the son of Nimshi, whom the LORD had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab. And it came to pass, that, when Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab, and found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah, that ministered to Ahaziah, he slew them. And he sought Ahaziah: and they CAUGHT HIM, (for he was hid in Samaria,) and brought him to Jehu: and WHEN THEY HAD SLAIN HIM, THEY BURIED HIM . . . (1.) During this visit, Jehu killed the princes of Judah that came with Ahaziah; Jehu sought Ahaziah. (2.) Jehu captured Ahaziah, brought him to Jehu; then they slew him and buried him. (3.) 2 kings account has Ahazia smitten in a chariot and dying in Megiddo and his servant taking him back to Jerusalem and burying him there. 2 Chron. 22:10-12 But when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah . . . and Athaliah reigned over the land. (1.) Athaliah killed the rest of the seed of the royal house of Judah except the child that was hid. (2.) Athaliah took over as queen.

Summary of Discrepencies and/or Differences between the Ahaziahs We may find the KJB Bible guilty of error only if there is NO reasonable doubt. In this case, there is plenty of reasonable doubt. To begin with, the Hebrew text gives us the same NUMBERS in Hebrew in the same passages as does the KJB Bible in English. Second, the year that one Ahaziah BEGAN his reign was the 11th year of Joram versus the 12th year of Joram for the other, both references being in Second Kings. There are discrepancies between the two names of the youngest sons that were left. There are differences as to who buried the Ahaziahs and where as well as where he died. And then there is the question of a 39 or 40 year old king with a 42 year old son. The possibility of a second Ahaziah, a second son exists. Some think that one Ahaziah co reigned with his father Joram for one year and that the second Ahaziah succeeded his father, Joram, after he died.

– by Herb Evans HOW OLD WAS SO AND SO?

Why Bible Correctors Err in Regard to The Ages of Kings and When their Reigns Begin?

accession year: The year in which a ruler begins to reign. Accession-year dating: The method employed for numbering the years of a king when the year in which he comes to the throne is termed his accession year, and his first official year is that which begins with the new year's day after his accession. Also called postdating. Antedating: See nonaccession-year dating. Canon of Ptolemy: A document prepared by the famous Egyptian astronomer Ptolemy (A.D. 70-161) in which he enumerates the years of a consecutive series of rulers commencing with Nabonassar of Babylon in 747 B.C. as the first year, and continuing with the succeeding rulers of Babylon; then the rulers of Persia to Darius III, the last ruler of Persia when it was overthrown by Alexander the Great; next the Greek rulers of Egypt from Alexander and the Ptolemies to Cleopatra; and concluding with the Roman rulers of Egypt from Augustus to Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161). What makes Ptolemy's Canon of such immeasurable chronological value is the fact that in his Almagest Ptolemy has recorded over eighty solar, lunar, and planetary positions together with their dates, which may be coordinated with the years of the Nabonassar era beginning in 747 B.C., and thus securing a complete confirmation of this series of years. Chronology: The science that deals with time and assigns dates to the years involved. Co regency: A period of rulership when a son sits on the throne with his father. Dual dating: The method of numbering the years of rulership of a king who rules as regent during a period when a rival ruler controls some other part of the land, in which the total years of reign are counted from the time when he first comes to the throne, including both his years of overlap and sole reign, but giving the year of his accession as the year when the overlapping reign ends and the sole reign begins. Eponym: Any Assyrian official whose name was given to some particular year in his honor. Eponymy: An Assyrian year that was named after some officer of state. No accession-year dating: The method of numbering the years of a ruler in which the year he comes to the throne is termed his first year, and his second official year begins with the new year's day following his accession. Also called antedating. Official reign: The years of reign as officially counted. In the case of an overlapping reign this may include both the years of overlap and of sole reign, or it may include only the years of sole reign. Overlapping reign: A reign which overlaps the reign of some other ruler in the land. This may be a coregency in which the years of a son overlap those of his father, or it may be a reign in which the years of one king overlap those of another in some other part of the land. Postdating: See accession-year dating. Regency: The period of a ruler's reign. Regal: Pertaining to the year of reign. Synchronism: The coordination of the year of a ruler in one nation with the same year of a ruler in another nation. Synchronistic: Taking place at the same time. -- copied Joyner 3. In the KJV it says in I John 3:9, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin." This contradicts plain scriptures in many places. Ecclesiastes 7:20 says there is not a just man upon the earth that sinneth not. The NASV says in I John 3:9, "No one who is born of God practices sin." This is more in harmony with the other scripture and with Christian experience. We sin but our life is not characterized by sin. Evans: He that committETH sin is of the devil [NIV - He who does what is sinful is of the devil]; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God DOTH NOT commit sin; for his SEED remaineth in him: and he CANNOT SIN [NIV - cannot go on sinning], because he is born of God. --1 John 3:8, 9 All this is merely old English verb conjugation. Older verb forms had special inflections in both the second and third person singular. The suffix – EST denoted the second person singular. The suffix - ETH denoted the third person singular. Sometimes the “E” is dropped as in DOTH versus DOETH. The Hebrew and Greek and other languages inflect verbs in number and person. The capability exists also in the second and third person in old English. So, what is the big deal, Bible Correctors? Modern Bible Correctors, who have given the world the American Standard Version, the Good News for Modern Man, and the Living (?) Bible (?), have been careful not to copy the Revised Version and the RSV with the "TH" endings that changed to "S" in the above passages. Not liking the A.V. endings and fearing the accidental LISPING of the KJB terminology into their more modern perversions, the MV’s decided instead on terms like "continue" to sin and "keep on sinning" and "practicing sin." If a verb ends in "TH," the MV’s believe a continued action is intended, but this gets them into all kinds of trouble. For example, a fornicator (1 Cor. 6:18) “commitETH” fornication and a divorced person is one that commitETH adultery, and it follows that they are therefore ones that are guilty of PERPETUAL or CONTINUED adultery, and fornication because they “KEEP ON” and “PRACTICE” or “CONTINUE” in that ADULTERY and fornication. To try to make a case by virtue of the modern interpretation of the “ETH” words is folly. Dr. Joyner doesn’t understand 1 John 3:8, 9. What born again Christian “CANNOT” practice sin? Imagine 1 John 3:1 saying, "the world does not keep on knowing us” or “the world does not continue to know us” or “the world does not practice knowing us,” instead of "the world knowETH us not." Shall we change, "Whosoever abidETH in him sinnETH not.” or "whosoever keeps on, continues, or practices abiding in him, sins not (3:6). Or change "whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; or his seed remainETH in him (1 John 3:9)” to “Whosoever is born of God does not practice sin; for his seed practices remaining in him.” Certainly, to change "God knowETH all things" to "God practices knowing all things” (3:20) would be the height of absurdity. Also, the change of "he abidETH in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us" to "he practices abiding in us” should raise the stiffest eyebrow (3:24). Personally, we do not know of anyone that is not ABLE to sin, if we are talking about the flesh, the old man, or the carnal nature. Still, we do are supposed to count that part of us dead. Yet, we can correctly say that the new creature, the new nature, and the seed that remainETH in us, that which is born of God, truly CANNOT and DOTH NOT COMMIT SIN! Without regard to the Greek tenses and senses, we need to examine the English of First John three with some spiritual common SENSES, taking note of those who would corrupt our English Bibles with NONSENSE. I know plenty of professed born again Christians that “PRACTICE” sin. So much for modern inconsistency, but what about the annoying proposition of a child of God not being born again and/or being of the devil, if he practices sins? So, watering down the word will not solve the problem, which should not need to be addressed in the first place. Obviously, the same epistle makes provision for a Christian’s sins (plural - 1 John 1:9) and makes deceivers of those, who would deny such sins (1:8). 1 John 3:9 states plainly that a person that is born of God CANNOT (notice any “DOTH” or “TH” endings. Joyner 4. In Exodus 25:31-38 the KJV describes the making of the candlestick but no candles are mentioned. Verse 37 says, "make the lamps thereof." The description that is given us is a lampstand with seven branches. A beautifully wrought stand for seven lamps. The oil which the lamp would burn is described in Exodus 27:20. Throughout the KJV it calls a lampstand a candlestick. Examples in the New Testament are Matthew 5:15 and Revelation 1:20; 13. The NASV always says lampstand. Anyone in their right mind knows this is plainer. Again, NASV uniformity demands correct translation. – Joyner Continued Evans: Neither do men LIGHT A CANDLE [luchnon not Lampas, Berry - lamp], and PUT IT under a bushel, but on CANDELSTICK [luchnian, Berry - Lampstand]; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. [see Lampas variations as Lamps in Matt. 25:1, 3, 4, 7, (25:8 lights - KJB); Acts 20:8; Rev. 4:5; 8:10 (NIV - Torch)] --Matt. 5:15 For thou wilt light my CANDLE [neer or nare]: the LORD my God will enlighten my darkness. -- Psa. 18:28 And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring thee pure olive OIL beaten for the light, to cause the LAMP [neer or nare] to burn always. –Exo. 27:20 The CANDLESTICK [menorah] also for the light, and his furniture, and his LAMPS [neer or nare], with the OIL for the light . . . -- Exo. 35:14 And in the CANDLESTICK [menorah] were four bowls made like almonds, his knops, and his flowers . . . --Exo. 37:20 Let us for a moment engage in Dr. Joyner’s type of foolishness. Cambridge International Dictionary tells us that “a lamp stand is “a heavy often decorative, base for an electric light which stands on a table or floor.” Moses did not have electric lights or even electric. Are Joyner and the NASV trying to confuse their readers? Joyner’s problem is that he does not know the difference between a “candle” and a candlestick. Joyner is thinking of a “TAPER” made of tallow or wax. The candlestick is the candle holder, and the candle is the light or luminary placed on top of the candlestick. A candle is a generic, artificial light/luminary or means or source of light of SOME kind (literally or spiritually), whether a taper, a lamp, or a torch. The pre-KJB Bibles use the generic term “candlestick” as well as the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936. Even the RSV and American Standard Version, Young’s, the Amplified, Darby, Webster’s 1833 translation, and even the New Living Translation (Isa. 43:17) translate so. The King James translators were well aware of the word “LAMP” and used that word as well (synonymously). – Evans Continued Joyner 5. In the KJV the word "quick" never means fast. It means living or alive. In Hebrews 4:12 it says the word of God is quick and powerful. The NASV says it is living. The KJV says Christ will judge the quick and the dead. (II Timothy 4:1) The NASV says the living and the dead. It is easy to see which is more accurate. Evans: Joyner be nimble, Joyner be quick, Joyner jump over the candle stick. So, if the KJB never means “fast,” what is the beef? Again, more advanced revelation errors and mistakes? We are asked to judge the older Bibles by the newer and more modern changes, updates, and degeneration of English. Now, when the KJB tells us someone is “quickened.” We must change it to “alivened.” Joyner 6. In the KJV the word "prevent" is used 15 times in the Old Testament and twice in the New. Today the words mean to hinder or stop. The Psalmist said in Psalm 119:147, "I prevented the dawning of the morning." He does not mean he hindered the dawning. The NASV says. "I rise before dawn." In I Thessalonians 4:15, the KJV says when Jesus comes the living will not "prevent" them which are asleep. The NIV says they shall not "precede" them. The living Christians and those who are asleep will go up together is the teaching here. Seventeen times the KJV obscures the meaning of the scripture by the word "prevent." In all these cases the NASV or the NIV is much clearer. Evans: Prevent or Precede? For this we say . . . that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not PREVENT [PHTHSOMEN] them which are asleep. --1 Thess. 4:15 No, Herr Doktor Joyner, we will not go up together; we will go up TO BE together. The dead rise first, even as Joyner tells us. But he tells us here that the word should not be “prevent” but rather should be “precede,” in 1 Thess. 4:15, because the dead rise first. Supposedly, the concern of”Bible Correctors," in this matter, is to avoid the misleading impression that we shall not "stop" or "hinder" the sleeping dead from rising. However, Bible Correctors and the most critical of gainsayers are forced to submit to the word etymology that is in the following definition of the word "prevent," which also includes their preference (precede); albeit, not a Webster first choice for 1611. Nevertheless, regardless of how you look at it, the A.V. 1611 is correct and not in error! prevent--(pr, invent'), v.t. (ME. preventen L. praeventus. pp. of praevenire, to anticipate; prae-before + venire, to come), 1. a) archaic: to anticipate (as an occassion, an appointed time) or satisfy (as a question. wish, objection) in advance, c) archaic: to act ahead of (another's action) d) archaic: to arrive before e) to forestall; balk; frustrate. 2. to stop or keep from doing something. 3. To keep from happening; make impossible by prior action; hinder. Why do "Bible Correctors" not follow their own authorities, in these matters, is a mystery. The English dictionary, "Strong's Concordance," W.E. Vine's "Dictionary of New Testament Words."George Ricker Berry's "Greek/English Interlinear" all give the "primary" meaning of "prevent" as "anticipate," and yet, the "Bible Correctors" and newer bibles insist on the word “precede." The New King James Bible renders the underlying Greek word (PHTHANOS) as "precede" in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 but turns right around and renders the stronger PROPHTHANOS as "anticipate or to come sooner," but it is admitted that "the verb does not convey a mere succession of one event after another." Concerning the stronger form of the Greek word, PROEPHTHASEN (Matt. 17:25), we are told that it too means "to anticipate (an extension, by PRO, before, of PHTHANOS, which has the same meaning)." George Ricker Berry uses the word "anticipate" as a literal rendering for both of these words as found in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 (PHTHSOMEN) and Matthew 17:25 (PROEPHTHASEN). Strong’s says to get an early start or anticipate. One might observe that both the English word "prevent" and its underlying Greek word are very flexible words. The word "precede" cannot be substituted for PROPHTHANOS in the other places that it is mentioned. The LITERAL ROOT of PROPHTHANOS is expressed in Luke 11:20 (EPHTHASEN - come); 2 Corinthians 10:14 (EPHTHASAMEN - came); 1 Thess. 2:16 (EPHTHASEN - come); Rom. 9:31 (EPHTHASEN - attained); Phil. 3:16 (EPHTHASAMEN - attained), where it is rendered "come" and "attain." Actually, the words which one might expect to find in 1 Thess. 4:15, if the idea of succession was intended, would be the PROEGEN (went before) of Matt. 2:9, the PROERCHETO (was going before) of Luke 22:47 or even the stronger (PROEPHTHASEN) of Matt. 17:25, which no one translates “precede.” The earlier Bibles (Tyndale and the Great Bible) actually literally translate PHTHSOMEN as "come" in 1 Thess. 4:15. The word "prevent," by definition, encompasses four possibilities of interpretation is as follows: 1. to anticipate--act ahead of; to be in readiness for; to enjoy in advance; to make happen earlier than due. 2. to precede--go before; to be first in succession. 3. to stop to keep from happening; to make impossible by prior action. 4. to forestall--balk; frustrate; delay; hinder. Now, by definition, these are all justifiable interpretations of the word “prevent” by itself,” but they are not all justifiable changes for the KJB Text in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, and although we may lean to one of these interpretations; it does not mean that we are qualified or justified in changing or even advocating a change to the King James Text. To make the mistake of substituting a modern word that falls short of the intended meaning and to substitute a private interpretation in the place of an older yet more accurate translation, would be extreme folly. Evans: Our Authority – Scripture with Scripture And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said. Doth not your master pay tribute? He said. Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus PREVENTED [NOT PRECEDED] him, saying, What thinkest thou Simon? -- Matt. 17:25 We interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:15 in the light of the only other place, where the word prevent is used in the N.T., Matthew 17:25. In Matthew, 17:25, Jesus either acted ahead of or was in readiness for Peter's troubled thoughts, which were caused by the tribute collector's question. This resulted in Jesus saying something to Peter about the matter, before Peter had a chance to say anything. As we think on these things, we are overwhelmed at a prospect of the great spectacle of the rapture that is not usually considered. When the rapture occurs, the dead will certainly rise first, but what are we, who are alive, going to be doing while they are rising from their graves? We will be standing there in awe, with our mouths open, witnessing one of the most marvelous spectacles ever seen by man. Without prior intuition and the only forewarning being a shout and the trump, we shall be watching the "dead in Christ" ascend to the Saviour. Talk about chill bumps. Whoo- eee! However, we which are alive will not be in absolute readiness for the exact time nor shall we act ahead of that time. In other words, we won't just take a drive out to the cemetery one day to stand to wait for the rapture; neither should we store up food in a cave somewhere as some have done. We shall not enjoy in advance, nor make happen earlier than due, this event, which is to be as sudden as it is imminent. The current penchant for correcting the KJB is careless, irresponsible, irreverent, unscrupulous, opinionated, interpretive, and downright sinful. Even so, come Lord Jesus. Joyner 7. In Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 the KJV gives “fornication" as the only grounds for divorce under the law. Today this word means premarital sex. This grossly confuses the Bible teaching about divorce. The Greek word used here is porneia. Both STRONG'S CONCORDANCE and VINE'S word studies say the word is not confined to illicit sex between unmarried but it covers all kinds of sexual immorality. It means harlotry, adultery, incest or idolatry. The NIV translates the word as "marital unfaithfulness." The NASV says "unchasity" or "immorality." Certainly this makes more sense. Evans: Well, la dee da! King James onlies have known that for a long time. I have even written an article on fornication. I hope Dr. Joyner does not mind the word “pornography,” which comes from that word; it also is not confined to one thing. Nevertheless, to blame the KJB for a modern perversion of the word and the modern misunderstanding thereof, due to the degeneration of English, is not even worthy of comment. Methinks, the good DOKTOR is stretching and straining here. Joyner 8. In the KJV the word "nephew" actually means "grandson." The Hebrew word means "sons of sons." In Judges 12:14 the "thirty nephews" are changed to "thirty grandsons" in the NASV. The word "nephews" in I Timothy 5:4 in the KJV means grandchildren in the Greek. The NIV says grandchildren. The KJV can bring confusion here because it is telling us who is responsible to take care of the destitute widows in our family. The KJV says children and nephews are responsible. The NIV says children and grandchildren are to do it. It is easy to see which is right. . . . swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son [NIV - descendants (Hebrew - neked)] . . . – Gen. 21:23 He shall neither have son nor nephew [NIV - descendants (Hebrew - neked)] among his people . . . Job 18:19 . . . I will cut off from Babylon the name and remnant, and son, and nephew [NIV descendants (Hebrew - neked)], saith the LORD. – Isa 14:22 Evans: The first dictionary that I reached for at our school, the Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary (1977), defined the word “nephew” as coming from the French “nevue” and the Latin “nepos” (where we get nepotism) and defined it as “GRANDSON, NEPHEW; akin to the Greek nepodes, offspring.” In Judge 12:14, the underlying Hebrew word, “BEN,” is general and not specific as to whose “sons of sons” they are which Strong’s dictionary indicates that they are sons with the family name. This permits wider latitude of usage than Dr. Joyner would ever allow. Oddly, the NIV recognizes this wide sense and translates the KJB “nephew” of Isa. 14:22 and Job 18:19 as “descendants,” rather than grandchildren or “sons of sons” as Dr. Joyner demands in Judges 12:14. The real gasser is when the NIV translates the KJB’s “son’s son” as descendants in Gen. 21:23 and not grandchildren. If you can find a pattern to this NIV madness, let us know. The other N. T. word “ekgonon,” is used only once in the N.T. in 1 Tim. 5:4 and comes from “ek” or “out of” and “ginomai, which means to “become” or “come into being” and is said by Strong’s to also have a wide latitude in its usage. The root sense here would also seem to be descendents or relatives. And so Berry’s interlinear has it, “descendants” and not grandchildren. Joyner 9. In the KJV Paul says, "I know nothing by myself." (I Cor. 4:4) The NASV says "against myself." This agrees with the Greek and the context where Paul is defending himself against the accusations of the Corinthians. He is saying, you may accuse me but my conscience is clear. Evans: Berry’s interlinear translates literally, “Nothing in myself, I am conscious.” The word “against” is not found in the English or the Greek. Not quite a Paul apologetic defense, Paul seems to take an introspective look into himself, saying that he is unaware or conscious of the things that he is being criticized for, as being a part of him. Joyner 10. In the KJV Paul says, "Let your moderation be known to all men." (Phil. 4:5) This has been used to justify mediocrity and used to justify moderate drinking of alcoholic beverage. "Moderation" in the Greek means gentle, kind, forbearing. The NASV says, "Let your forbearing spirit be known to all men." The NIV says, "Let your gentleness be evident to all." Either of these is closer to the true meaning than the KJV. Evans: Epiekikes “denotes seemly fitting, hence equitable, fair moderate, forbearing,” according to W. E. Vine. It is strange that someone should expect us to throw our King James Bible away, because someone gets a wrong impression of it or uses it to justify some sin. The obvious intent of the scripture here is to avoid the extremes and excess in behavior (i.e., moderation) and to observe reasonable and temperate limits, which would “include” calmness, mildness, self restraint, forbearance, and gentleness, rather than such to “become” substitutions for the word itself. Joyner 11. The word "naughty" as used in the KJV can be misleading. The Hebrew and Greek words means very wicked. To us "naughty" means something trivial that a child or an adult might do. For example, "You naughty boy." In the KJV Jeremiah 24:2 says the figs were "so naughty" they could not be eaten. This shows the true meaning of the word by the context. The NASV says they were very bad. The NIV and the NASV always use a better word than "naughty.” Evans: We are amazed that amoral figs could be “wicked” in Dr. Joyner’s estimation. And we see no such dictionary definition that forces “triviality” into the word “naughty” as Dr. Joyner does in his KJB witch hunt. The generic word “naughty” covers a wide range of “bad” from a neutral degree of worthlessness to morally bad to mischievousness (this is the approximate Joyner example but seldom used) to bad to perverseness to wickedness. W. E. Vine tells us that KAKOS has a broader meaning (James 1:21 - kakias, i.e., telling a toddler KA-KA). PONEROS has a narrower and stronger meaning. Dr. Joyner’s Bible correcting is a real example of “naughty superfluity” in his literary adventures. Joyner 12. Many people complain that the new versions leave out things that are in the KJV. The question is not whether something is in the KJV or some other version but is it in the original Hebrew and Greek? Below are some examples of things left out of the KJV but are in the NIV. Evans: This the pot calling the Kettle aluminum, since the NIV is the grossest of offenders, when it comes to following the underlying Hebrew and the Greek, which is not in our purview to present here. We will continue examining Dr. Joyner’s examples. – Herb Evans Joyner 12. A. In Jude verse 25 the NIV says that God gets glory "through Jesus Christ our Lord." The KJV leaves this phrase out. Evans: We do not know which Greek Dr. Joyner is using, but again, he seems to have slipped a corrupt Greek text into the discussion. It’s not Italian; it’s not in there! – Herb Evans Joyner 12. B. In Acts 4:25 the KJV says that God spoke through the mouth of David. The NIV says that God "spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David." The KJV leaves out the "Holy Spirit.” Evans: Again, the Holy Spirit is not in our Greek. He has done it again. It’s a Greek forgery and not the TR or even the Majority Text. This is false information. – Herb Evans Joyner 12. C. In Acts 16:7 the KJV says, "the Spirit suffered them not." The NIV says, "the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to." "Of Jesus" is left out of the KJV. Evans: Now, we are really getting suspicious of this fellow and his source material. “Jesus” is not in the verse in the proper Greek. Joyner 12. D. In Philippians 1:14, "of God" is left out of the KJV. The NIV says the "word of God." The KJV simply says "word.” Evans: Again, Dr. Joyner is using a corrupt Greek Text. “God” is not in this verse, proving my title premise, “Joyner’s Joke.” Joyner 12. E. In Colossians 2:9, the KJV say "in Him." The NIV says "in Christ. When things are left out of the modern versions, some say there was a conspiracy or the translators were biased against the deity of Christ, etc. Why did the KJV leave these out? Evans: Well, the man is zero for five here with his Greek. Christ is not in the passage. We see a pattern here of the NIV pretending to be more deity oriented than the KJB and inserting these terms where they do not belong. This is done in order to accomplish this deceit. Joyner reminds me of the Catholics, who ask us why we left the extra Catholic Books out of the Bible. Joyner 13. Some say the NIV and the NASV are weak on the deity of Christ. This is a lie. I will show you some key verses on the deity of Christ and anyone can clearly see the KJV is the weakest on this subject. Evans: We do not have the time to waste on this subjective nonsense, but we could produce much evidence to the watering down of Christ’s deity in the modern perversions. The NIV follows the JW New World Translation in much of this. Still, our task here is to show that Dr. Joyner’s imagined errors and mistakes are frivolous and not valid, which we shall continue to do. Joyner 13. A. Jude 4 in the KJV says, "denying the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ." By adding an "and," the KJV makes it appear like God and the Lord Jesus are different persons. The NIV says, "deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign and Lord." The KJV separates God and Christ. The NIV makes God and Christ one. Joyner 13. B. In Titus 2:13 the KJV inserts the word "our" and makes it sound like God and Jesus are different. It says, "The great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The NIV and NASV both say, "Our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." They make it clear that the great God is the same as the Saviour Jesus Christ. Joyner 13. C. The KJV adds "and" again in II Peter 1:1, "Righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The NIV says, "God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The KJV makes it appear like God and Saviour are two different persons. The NIV and NASV make it clear they are one and the same. Evans: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and [KAI] our [hemon] Saviour Jesus Christ . . . --Titus 2:13 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and [KAI] our [hemon]Lord Jesus Christ. –Jude 1:4 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 [KAI]our [hemon] Saviour Jesus Christ . . . – 2 Pet. 1:1 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our [hemon] Lord and [KAI] Saviour Jesus Christ. – 2 Pet. 1:11 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and [KAI] our [hemon] Father . . . --Gal. 1:4 Now God himself and our Father, and [KAI] our [hemon] Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you. – 1 Thess. 3:11 Evans: The KJB translators added nothing; the word “and” is in Jude 4. It is an exegetic or explanatory “and” (or an exegetic “even” - KAI). The words “and” and “our” are in Titus 2:13 as well as 2 Peter 1:11. It is not the job of a translator to interpret the scripture, whatever his motive or agenda might be. His job is to accurately translate the scripture, which the KJB translators have done. The KJB even follows the Greek’s word order here. The added fact of the commonly used exegetic “and (KAI)” or “even (KAI),” which occurs quite often in the Greek, if understood, presents no problem to anyone but our Bible Correctors. Note that these explanatory “ands” of the KJB and other Bibles do not intimate or imply a difference in character or attributes of those so joined (See Isa. 44:6 with 44:24); Of course, if you have an agenda, you can force read anything that you want into such passages. Again, the exegetic or explanatory “and” [or even – KAI] is employed here. It is an explanatory term in English, as shown when the KJB sometimes renders KAI as “even.” Now, Dr. Joyner’s conjunction obsession resorts to slandering and characterizing the KJB translators for following the underlying Greek word and often even its word order, implying that they had bad intentions in that they “make it appear to be something that it is not.” So, you see the character of those Bible Correctors with which we must deal. Joyner 13. D. In Colossians 2:9 the KJV says, "For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." The NIV says, "For in Christ all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form." The NIV is definitely clearer and stronger. Evans: Well, because Dr. Joyner says it, it has to be true. Pontification exemplified! Deity is not even a Bible word. It is a theological word, nowhere to be found in the Bible. The NIV is neither stronger nor clearer. In fact, it obscures the trinity by eliminating the word “Godhead.” Why does not the NIV tell us in Romans 1:20, “Deity’s invisible qualities” as opposed to the NIV “God’s invisible qualities? Why in Acts 17:29, does the NIV not use, “We are Deity’s offspring” rather than “God’s offspring?” Of course, Bible Correctors are not after consistency; they are after getting rid of the word “Godhead” (found nowhere in the NIV). Joyner 13. E. In Philippians 2:6 the KJV says, "Who, being in the form of God." The NIV says, "Who, being in the very nature of God." The “very nature of God" is certainly better than "the form of God.” Evans: Excuse me? The underlying Greek word is MORFAY, where we get the computer image word “MORPH” and “MORPHING.” It is primarily used for SHAPE or FORM and is only used figuratively for one’s nature. Moses saw his hinder parts, so God has a shape or form. Even Jesus, the Word, appeared as a Theophany in the O.T. Dr. Joyner’s subjective “better” is only “better” in Dr. Joyner’s eyes. Berry’s Interlinear says “FORM” in both 2:6 and 2:7 (FORM of a servant). Joyner 13. F. In Romans 9:5 the KJV says, "of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever." The NIV says, "from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised." It is hard to see the deity of Christ in the KJV but it is crystal clear in the NIV. Evans: Now, why would you want to emphasize deity here anyway, when it is talking about Christ’s flesh and human ancestry? It is easier to see Christ’s humanity here than in the NIV. And we remind folks that denying that Jesus is come in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist. Joyner 13. G. In John 1:18 the KJV says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." The NIV says, "No man has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known." Certainly anyone can see that "God the one and only" is stronger and better than "only begotten Son.” Evans: The NIV says a number of different things, depending on which year’s edition you have (1973, 1977, or 1984). Now, here is where Dr. Joyner and the NIV slip into alternate corrupt Greek manuscripts (See NIV note) There is no linguistic support from the Textus Receptus or Berry’s interlinear. All the early English Bibles agree with the KJB. Dr. Joyner’s rendering is almost as funny as Bob Ross’ and the NASB’s rendering, “only begotten God” in this passage. How does God get begotten? Still, Dr. Joyner and the NIV say that “No one has seen God but God,” and in their minds this might seem stronger, but it certainly is a foolish way to put it and inaccurate as well. Substitute this for the only begotten Son in other places and it will be stronger as well--a stronger perversion and inaccuracy. Still, the KJB term “only begotten” as it is changed to the “God the one and only” or “God the only Son” is nothing more than watering down and perversion of both the Greek and the English “only begotten.” Joyner 13. H. These examples are given to show anyone who is willing to see that the NIV is stronger than the KJV on the deity of Christ in many places. The KJV obscures the deity of Christ in some places. There have been many lies told about this but now you know. Evans: These examples were given to imitate the slimy Garden of Eden, “Yea, hath God said?” type questions of Eve and the serpent. The KJB uplifts and emphasizes the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and also the GODHEAD, even the TRINITY. Joyner 14. 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. 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.” 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 meant love. Still they put charity in some places. Charity is giving and helping the needy. Love is described in I Corinthians 13 but the KJV weakens this basic Christian doctrine about God and man by substituting charity for love. The modern versions undergirt it by rightly translating agape as love. Evans: Dr. Joyner repeats himself from Part One. We answered this partially in Joyner’s Part One, point 18, and here it is as follows: (Part 1; 18. Joyner: “The KJV uses the word charity for love. This is wrong because charity today means giving to the poor and to others. 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 NASV uses the word love, which makes more sense.)” Evans: Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and BELOVED [egapemenoi], bowels of MERCIES, KINDNESS, HUMBLENESS OF MIND, MEEKNESS, LONGSUFFERING . . . –Col. 3:12 And though I give all my goods to feed the poor . . . and have not CHARITY [agape] . . . --1 Cor. 13:13 If thy brother be grved with thy meate now walkest thou not CHARITABLYE [agapen]. Destroye not him with thy meate for whom Christ died. --Rom.14:15 (Tyndale) Evans: Bible Corrector Joyner points out that “charity” means feeding the poor “TODAY.” This “Bible of the Month” club wants to change the KJB every time a meaning of a word changes or is perverted or is corrupted or degenerates. If the KJB does not reduce its vocabulary to that of a Bible Comic Book, it must bear the accusation of “advanced error revelations.” Sadly, Dr. Joyner does not have any clue as to context, or he would be able to read the passages with understanding. When Paul used “charity” in 1 Cor. 13:13 and other places, his denial of not giving to the poor, proves the word “charity” of the translators to be otherwise interpreted. Paul emphasized a kind, working, active love. And of course, Dr. Joyner is wrong, since William Tyndale DID use the word in his Bible as an adverb, and charity is used in the earlier pre-KJB Bibles, the Great Bible, Geneva Bible, and Bishop’s Bible, and etc., as well as post-KJB Bibles. Wycliffe (1395) used “charitie” 90 plus times throughout the Old and New Testaments. Of course, Wesley would not think of telling folks to give each other a kiss of (. . . ahem . . .) “love” in his 1755 translation. Note that Charity was always used as an adverb, an adjective, or a noun but never as a verb. You could not say, I charity you or someone was charitied. Nevertheless, the KJB translators often devised other ways that they could use words like “beloved,” “dear,” and “charity” to make the extra distinctions in regard to saved people.) The KJB also emphasizes love or charity towards the brethren with further differentiation in the KJB renderings of certain “agape” passages, by using beloved, dear, dearly beloved, and etc. One of Webster’s definitions for “charity” is “dearness.” Evans: Beloved and Dear Brethren in the Lord The KJB translators devised a way to distinguish certain MANNER OF LOVE (from other types of love) towards other Christians (as did the earlier English Bibles) and rendered “charity” as an active, kind, and benevolent love towards other Christians in certain contexts, and they differentiated it from PHILEO and EROS love as “charity, beloved, and dear” in those passages. Even some Bible Correctors try to make just such a differentiation in the Greek to force the differentiation of “PHILEO LOVE” and “AGAPE LOVE” into John 21:15-17, when Jesus said three times to Peter, “Lovest thou me?” But it will not work there, because “Agape” and “Phileo” are both used in this passage synonymously and interchangeably in the underlying Greek (which does not intimate or require such distinction here). The KJB translators purposely distinguished the different “MANNER of love” and its different manner of meanings, depending on the context, where necessary. See the following examples. . . . Having yet therefore one son, his WELLBELOVED [agapeton], he sent . . . – Mk 12:6 . . . This is my BELOVED [agapetos] . . . -- Luke 9:35 [Berry - “my son THE BELOVED”] ...... a brother BELOVED [agapeton] . . . in the Lord? – Philemon 1:16 . . . BELOVED [agapetois] of God, called to be saints . . . – Rom. 1:7 . . . they are BELOVED [agapetoi] for the fathers' sakes. – Rom 11:28 . . . Greet Amplias my BELOVED [agapeton] in the Lord. – Rom 16:8 . . . my dearly BELOVED [agapetoi], flee from idolatry. – 1 Cor. 10:1 . . . DEARLY BELOVED [agapetoi], let us cleanse ourselves . . . – 2 Cor. 7:1 . . . dearly BELOVED [agapetoi], for your edifying. – 2 Cor. 12:19 . . . followers of God, as DEAR [agapenta] children . . . -- Eph. 5:1 . . . a BELOVED [agapetos] BROTHER . . . in the Lord . . . -- Eph. 6:21 . . . my brethren DEARLY BELOVED [agapetoi] . . . my DEARLY BELOVED [agapetoi] . . . -- Phil 4:1 . . . Epaphras our DEAR [agapetou] fellowservant . . . – Col 1:7 . . . the kingdom of his DEAR [gapes-autou] Son . . . -- Col 1:13 . . . put on as the elect of God, holy and BELOVED [egapemenoi] – Col. 3:12 . . . DEARLY BELOVED [agapeto] . . . And to our BELOVED [agapete] Apphia . . . -- Philemon 1:1, 2 . . . because ye were DEAR [agapetoi] to our souls . . . -- 1 Thes 2:8 . . . DEARLY BELOVED [agapetoi] . . . abstain from . . . -- 1 Pet 2:11 . . .This is my BELOVED Son [agapetos] . . . – 2 Pet 1:17 . . . my BELOVED [agapetoi] brethren . . . –James 2:5 . . . affectionately desirous of you because ye were DEAR [agapetoi] unto us. – 1 Thess. 2:8 BRETHREN BELOVED [egapemenoi - verb] of the Lord . . . --1 Thess 2:13 . . . MANNER OF LOVE [agapon] . . . BELOVED [agapetoi], now are we the sons of God . . . -- 1 John 3:1, 2 CONCLUSION JOYNER: Anyone who is not willingly ignorant and blind can see the King James Version is not perfect and not infallible. It is a human translation. It is a good and accurate version in most places. But sometimes you will need the good modern translations. They can really help you understand what God actually said in some verses. Don't let anyone deprive you of this help. Please understand that I am not putting down the KJV. I am not saying it is inferior or that the NIV is superior. I am saying the KJV is not perfect. The NIV and the NASV can help you sometimes. The KJV translators themselves said, "A variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures . . . must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." (TO THE READER section, 1611 KJV) Don’t let anyone lie to you saying the KJV is God’s perfectly preserved word without error and don’t listen to the slander against the NIV and the NASV. Again let me say, I am not against the KJV. I am against extremism. CONCLUSION EVANS: Anyone that is not willingly ignorant and spiritually blind can see the KJB has not been proven imperfect, mistaken, or in error by Dr. Joyner. The errors are preconceived in Dr. Joyner’s mind. His typical modus operandi has not heretofore produced any errors in the KJB, only Mr. Joyner’s “druthers.” The KJB is a superior English Bible and is head and shoulders above the modern English perversions, all of which are the result of Greek perversions and eclectic texts. The KJB can be understood and more important, it is PROFITABLE for correction, reproof, doctrine, and instruction in righteousness and can throughly furnish the man of God unto all good works and does not demand that a person run to self-made authorities like Dr. Joyner. Don’t let unscrupulous Bible Correctors brain wash you with supposed errors and mistakes, which are figments of their imagination. Let me say that I am not against detailed Bible study, but I am against the Bible correcting extremism among Bible Correctors and all the enemies of the KJB. – Herb Evans -- The End, Compiled by Herb Evans

Load more

  18

Copy Link