Part 4 - Recapturing The Vocabulary Of The Holy Spirit

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Recapturing The Vocabulary Of The
HOLY SPIRIT
[Part 4 - Finale]​

Let us not conclude that the KJV is the only biblical Version containing errors. True, it is among the worst, however. I use the English Standard Version a big part of the time. It is among the up-to-date Versions. But its errors are quite detectable.

Take I Corinthians 14:34 of the ESV, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches.” The Greek renders “congregation” or “assembly” in both places where “churches” is used. The passage should read, “As in all congregations of the saints, the women should keep silent in your assemblies.” (P.S. In Paul’s day, women speaking in public meetings was a cultural negative.) In issuing rules, Paul says, “This is my rule in all the churches” (I Cor. 7:17). Again, this should read, “This is my rule in all the congregations.”

Here’s another sample of the partisan hang-up of translators and publishers. On the passage cited above, the New International Version reads, “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.” This passage is half valid and half invalid—or half correct and half incorrect, for “congregations” convey the Greek ekklesia, but “churches” do not. “Churches” is an absolute and fallacious translation.

On another term, I commend the English Standard Version’s correction of “Easter” in Acts 12:4. It is replaced by “Passover,” the correct translation. And since we’re addressing “Easter,” allow me to add a little history.

As a youngster in the Appalachian Mountains of Eastern Kentucky, I was introduced to “Easter” annually, as were a lot of other youngsters. On each Easter, our church’s adults would hide colored eggs and turn us loose to “unearth” them. To us kids, this was the nucleus of Easter. To Christian adults, however, the resurrection of a Man called Jesus took the center stage. Those unbelievers in the mountains who took no delight or interest in Jesus were at least exposed to what the religious holiday meant to others. That, in itself, was a proclamation of the Gospel message, “He has risen!”

After growing up and becoming an independent thinker, I discovered the origin of “Easter” had pagan roots. According to credible sources, “Easter” stemmed from Eastre, a pagan goddess, and denotes a pagan festival, while the Greek pascha refers to the Jewish Passover. Rome’s Vatican borrowed “Easter” from the pagans, dressed it up with a few eccentric solemnities, and began to celebrate it as a holy day. Protestants then acquired the “holy day” from the Papacy.

Why did King James’ translators translate the Greek pascha “Easter”? It was because the King, who was also Head of The Established Church of England, instructed his translators, “The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church not to be translated congregation.” Among those ecclesiastical words was “Easter.” As noted earlier:

The King insisted that all ecclesiastical terms be retained. “Church,” “Easter,” “baptize,” and “Bishop” were a few of his preferences. The Greek for “baptize” is “baptizo,” and it relates to dipping or immersing—never sprinkling. King James was King and Head of The Established Church of England. To permit his translators to deliver the Greek ekklesia correctly would have placed him in the position of being King and Head of a mere congregation! Apparently, he wanted no part of that. And since “Easter” was an integral part of the King’s Church, the term was substituted for “Passover.”

It should be strongly emphasized that none of these errors in our English Bibles erases or changes the historical fact that Jesus died on a Roman tree, was buried, and three days later, Jewish time, resurrected. And this is the most beautiful and fascinating part of the Good News. He has risen! This I believe, and this I proclaim.​

 

[Josheb]

Let us not conclude that the KJV is the only biblical Version containing errors. True, it is among the worst, however.​

Curious, I find myself in the odd position of wanting to defend the KJV even though I don't like it. The KJV has errors. That is indisputable. I'm not sure it has more errors or worse errors than most other translations, though. If I had to pick a bad translation, I'd say the worse is the CEV and, imho, the KJV is a much better alternative to that translation. The KJV's chief problem is a reasonable formal (word-for-word) translation. With the introduction of other formal translations, like the NRSV, NAS, and ESV, there are better alternatives, but thus be thine KJV a wording better of than many in thine field, assuming thou dost the language of thy forefathers of old tolerate .

 

[Josheb]

I use the English Standard Version a big part of the time. It is among the up-to-date Versions. But its errors are quite detectable.​

Take I Corinthians 14:34 of the ESV, “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches.” The Greek renders “congregation” or “assembly” in both places where “churches” is used. The passage should read, “As in all congregations of the saints, the women should keep silent in your assemblies.” (P.S. In Paul’s day, women speaking in public meetings was a cultural negative.) In issuing rules, Paul says, “This is my rule in all the churches” (I Cor. 7:17). Again, this should read, “This is my rule in all the congregations.”

Here’s another sample of the partisan hang-up of translators and publishers. On the passage cited above, the New International Version reads, “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.” This passage is half valid and half invalid—or half correct and half incorrect, for “congregations” convey the Greek ekklesia, but “churches” do not. “Churches” is an absolute and fallacious translation.​

Why don't any of the translation simply say "called out"? Would your comprehension suffer were that the case? Mind would not. I've developed the habit of "co-reading" literal definitions of certain words (like "Israel" meaning "God perseveres") that also contain allegorical meaning and significance. When a person stops reading the word "Israel" to mean ONLY a geo-political nation-state and keeps the meaning of the word in mind the Bible becomes much more revelatory than without that meaning in mind. The same holds true for many other words and names in the Bible. These are meanings that the ancient Jews would have instantly understood in their reading, meaning that is lost in translation from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. There's no reason our modern English translation couldn't use the name "Y'shua" were it not for an allegiance to tradition. It seems to me if the goal is to preserve the "vocabulary of the Separate Spirit of Sacred Purpose" then we should improve translations in that specific regard.

 

[Josheb]

On another term, I commend the English Standard Version’s correction of “Easter” in Acts 12:4. It is replaced by “Passover,” the correct translation. And since we’re addressing “Easter,” allow me to add a little history.​

As a youngster in the Appalachian Mountains of Eastern Kentucky, I was introduced to “Easter” annually, as were a lot of other youngsters. On each Easter, our church’s adults would hide colored eggs and turn us loose to “unearth” them. To us kids, this was the nucleus of Easter. To Christian adults, however, the resurrection of a Man called Jesus took the center stage. Those unbelievers in the mountains who took no delight or interest in Jesus were at least exposed to what the religious holiday meant to others. That, in itself, was a proclamation of the Gospel message, “He has risen!”


After growing up and becoming an independent thinker, I discovered the origin of “Easter” had pagan roots. According to credible sources, “Easter” stemmed from Eastre, a pagan goddess, and denotes a pagan festival, while the Greek pascha refers to the Jewish Passover. Rome’s Vatican borrowed “Easter” from the pagans, dressed it up with a few eccentric solemnities, and began to celebrate it as a holy day. Protestants then acquired the “holy day” from the Papacy.

Why did King James’ translators translate the Greek pascha “Easter”? It was because the King, who was also Head of The Established Church of England, instructed his translators, “The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church not to be translated congregation.” Among those ecclesiastical words was “Easter.” As noted earlier:

The King insisted that all ecclesiastical terms be retained. “Church,” “Easter,” “baptize,” and “Bishop” were a few of his preferences. The Greek for “baptize” is “baptizo,” and it relates to dipping or immersing—never sprinkling. King James was King and Head of The Established Church of England. To permit his translators to deliver the Greek ekklesia correctly would have placed him in the position of being King and Head of a mere congregation! Apparently, he wanted no part of that. And since “Easter” was an integral part of the King’s Church, the term was substituted for “Passover.”​

That's a pretty good summary but I'd be cautious about assigning motive because no one can read another person's mind. Unless there is documentation either declaring or demonstrating the motive it's best to either exclude that information or couch the suspicions as speculation, and if there is documentation then citing the source(s) is in order. I might just as easily and just as validly speculate "Easter" was used is a means of asserting gospel dominance and sovereignty over the pagan holiday, or that the translation was merely keeping the wording consistent with the liturgical calendar. It seems a stretch to attribute the use of the word "Easter" to King James not wanting to be king of a mere congregation when that congregation is millions of people inhabiting lands far outside the geography of England. That would be an exponential increase of his rule, not a reduction. It'd also instantly establish a confrontation with Rome but that's an already existing tension once the Church of England was established.

It should be strongly emphasized that none of these errors in our English Bibles erases or changes the historical fact that Jesus died on a Roman tree, was buried, and three days later, Jewish time, resurrected. And this is the most beautiful and fascinating part of the Good News. He has risen! This I believe, and this I proclaim.​

Amen!

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

Why don't any of the translation simply say "called out"? Would your comprehension suffer were that the case? Mind would not. I've developed the habit of "co-reading" literal definitions of certain words (like "Israel" meaning "God perseveres") that also contain allegorical meaning and significance. When a person stops reading the word "Israel" to mean ONLY a geo-political nation-state and keeps the meaning of the word in mind the Bible becomes much more revelatory than without that meaning in mind. The same holds true for many other words and names in the Bible. These are meanings that the ancient Jews would have instantly understood in their reading, meaning that is lost in translation from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. There's no reason our modern English translation couldn't use the name "Y'shua" were it not for an allegiance to tradition. It seems to me if the goal is to preserve the "vocabulary of the Separate Spirit of Sacred Purpose" then we should improve translations in that specific regard.

The KJV is, of course, better than no Version at all. Two of my readers, one a professor, recently researched the number of errors in the KJV, and they each found over 700! Wow.​

 

[Josheb]

The KJV is, of course, better than no Version at all.​

It managed to drive the gospel fruitfully for nearly 300 years.

Two of my readers, one a professor, recently researched the number of errors in the KJV, and they each found over 700! Wow.​

Have him do the CEV next.

I'm partial to the NAS. It's been through three re-writes that supposedly improved on its translation but I still find problems in it from time to time and sometimes the KJV is the best option!