Dake Bible Discussion BoardAn Error in the King James Version?

General Discussion Forum devoted to the study of God's Word in Honor of Finis J. Dake.
Locked
User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Dake v. the KJV: Proverbs 16:10

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

Proverbs 16:10 (King James Version 1900)
A divine sentence is in the lips of the king:
His mouth transgresseth not in judgment.


Dake's note on this verse:
"The law of God or the divine oracle is for the king to use in judgment.
"He must not be unfaithful in executing it."

So, is the KJV right when it says that the king's mouth does not transgress in judgment?
Or, is Dake right when he says that a king should be faithful in executing judgment?

Do kings' mouths ever err in judgment?



User avatar
bibleman
Administrator
Posts: 2818
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 1998 5:23 pm
Location: South Carolina
Contact:

Re: KJV mistakes - are there more?

Post by bibleman »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:12 am
bibleman wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:30 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:39 pm
bibleman wrote:
Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:49 pm
Sooner or later you have have a certain amount of faith in translation by those who know the original languages better than we do... Until we are Hebrew and Greek specialist and translators we really don't have much of an argument we can make.

What we have read has gotten my saved... filled... and healed... as well as made prosperous... So I don't have a problem with the Bible as we now have it.
Do you think Dake's notes suggesting alternate readings or improvements to the KJV text encourage faith or doubt in the KJV?
I know in Dake it never encouraged doubt.

Dake said on may occasions that the KJV was the very best translation available.
Thank you.
But, there is no way that Dake believed that the KJV was absolutely perfect. If he had, he wouldn't have presented alternative readings or revised translations or translations from alternate source documents which the KJV translators didn't follow.
Really, you are misrepresenting Dake (with the idea that he is at odds with the KJV) with all these post.

Listen to the Question and Answers Album 1 tape 1 for the last question.

Dake when asked if some places in the Bible are mistranslated. He answers: "There isn't any place in the Bible that I know that is mistranslated. That is, that an English statement is made there that you couldn't understand it in the English just like it is. Of course there are some words that if we will look into the Hebrew and Greek lexicons a little more clear due to the fact that we do not give the proper meaning to English words in certain passages."

"Let's quit talking about the Bible being mistranslated! There isn't one thing wrong with the New Testament."

He then talks about Dick Wilson who spent 45 years of study of the KJV. He then states Dick Wilson says: "This book is as near correct as any translation can possible be."

"Our Bible is alright. There isn't anything wrong with it. People that say that there is anything wrong with our Bible they are against the Bible to begin with. They are prejudice, they are infidels, they are men who seek to destroy the Bible rather than build up faith in the Bible."



On this video: When asked about the Living Bible....
Dake says the Holy Spirit ONLY gave him the King James version, not any other modern translations. He says after 5 years of studying different versions he found many of those translations were different than the Hebrew and Greek. There is nothing more beautiful than the King James Version, he says.

So really the heading "Dake vs the KJV" is very misleading when you consider Dake's high esteem and trustfulness of the KJV.


God bless
Leon Bible

http://www.ministryhelps.com
http://www.dakebible.com
http://www.dakebibleboard.com
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DakeBibleDiscussion/

The fault in Bible complications is not with God or the Bible, but with men who refuse to believe what God says and think we have to interpret what He says in order to get the meaning. Dake Bible -Mark 11:17 note

Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Romans 7:24-25: Dake v. the KJV

Post by Hill Top »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:07 am
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:03 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:07 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:27 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:35 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:32 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:52 pm


I understand your position on the idea that there are no Christians who serve God in their mind while serving sin with there flesh, very well. Dake's position is similar.

But, this thread is not about that topic. It's about Dake's position that the ending of Romans 7:25 should be moved to the end of 7:23. His argument makes sense, but I haven't seen enough justification to satisfy my own questions about moving it, yet.
Paul terminates the recollection from his past with verse 24's lament.
His summary is verse 25.
That very well could be. However, Dake and Moffatt both agree that the end of v25 should be moved to after verse 23.
That wouldn't be very good English grammar, either new or old.
Why wouldn't it be very good English grammar? It looks like it works, to me:

Romans 7:23-8:1 Dake's Revised Version
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 25B So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25A I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Where's the grammatical issue?
Rom 7:8 -24 is written in the present-historical tense, (or present-narrative tense), and is a recollection of Paul's past under the Laws which he could not live up to because he was in the flesh.
Rom 7:24 is the final agonizing lament.
Rom 7:25 is back to the present in which Paul no longer is under the Law or in the flesh.
His mind, now centered on Christ, "rules the roost".
Putting the final scene, in the middle of the "movie", is pure confusion.
You seem to have left out the part of Romans 7:25 where his flesh is still ruled by sin.
But, as Rom 7;5 and 7:18 make clear, (not to mention Rom 6:6), Paul is no longer in the flesh.
Rom 7:25 differentiates between those who walk after the holy mind and those who walk after the soiled flesh.
We can't walk after both.
Which do you feel Paul walked after?



Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Acts 10:4: "What is it, Lord?"

Post by Hill Top »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:08 am
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:14 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:32 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:36 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:00 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:09 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2022 8:37 pm


I think this might be the closest answer.

Given that the KJV uses the capitalization, I think there must've been reason for the translators to choose the capital rather than the lower case. Add to that the number of other translations that also use the capital and it seems confirmed that other translators also felt the need for the capital, there.
I feel the word "Lord" is used as a title of respect (or fear) in some places.
Like "Mr. Smith" or "Mrs. Jones".
Absolutely. But, it needn't be capitalized when used as a title of respect or fear. The KJV translators didn't always capitalize "Lord," but they did, here. I would like to know why they chose to capitalize this occurrence. I cannot assume that my own preference for capitalization for terms pertaining to the Members of the Godhead was what they were following.
It needn't be, or still be: but it is still used that way today Mr. Spiritblade.
Perhaps, at some point, I'll look for other examples of capitalization of the work "Lord" in the KJV when it doesn't apply to one of the Members of the Trinity?
Acts 10:3-4 is a good example of an angel being addressed as Lord..."He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
Thanks.
I'd still like to see some other examples to compare this one to.
While studying this use of the word "Lord", I saw the use of the capitalized "Lord" and the uncapitalized "lord" both had the same Greek word.
(Strong's Concordance...) GR2962...kyrios...supreme in authority, ie as noun. "controller"; by implication, "Mister", (as a respectful title):--God, Lord, master, Sir.
Whether or not it is capitalized, seems to be subject to context.



Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Acts 10:4: "What is it, Lord?"

Post by Hill Top »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:08 am
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:14 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:32 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:36 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:00 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:09 pm

I feel the word "Lord" is used as a title of respect (or fear) in some places.
Like "Mr. Smith" or "Mrs. Jones".
Absolutely. But, it needn't be capitalized when used as a title of respect or fear. The KJV translators didn't always capitalize "Lord," but they did, here. I would like to know why they chose to capitalize this occurrence. I cannot assume that my own preference for capitalization for terms pertaining to the Members of the Godhead was what they were following.
It needn't be, or still be: but it is still used that way today Mr. Spiritblade.
Perhaps, at some point, I'll look for other examples of capitalization of the work "Lord" in the KJV when it doesn't apply to one of the Members of the Trinity?
Acts 10:3-4 is a good example of an angel being addressed as Lord..."He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
Thanks.
I'd still like to see some other examples to compare this one to.




While studying this use of the word "Lord", I saw the use of the capitalized "Lord" and the uncapitalized "lord" both had the same Greek word.
(Strong's Concordance...) GR2962...kyrios...supreme in authority, ie as noun. "controller"; by implication, "Mister", (as a respectful title):--God, Lord, master, Sir.
Whether or not it is capitalized, seems to be subject to context.
Or, the state of mind of the user.



Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Dake v. the KJV: Gen. 6:3

Post by Hill Top »

luchnia wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:18 am
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:20 pm
Newer translations would like you to not believe the KJV.
So all new translations are this way?
I couldn't say, not having put them all to the test.



Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Dake v. the KJV: Gen. 6:3

Post by Hill Top »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:22 am
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:20 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:35 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:48 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Sun Jan 09, 2022 2:54 pm
There have been many English translations since the KJV was released. So, I don't understand what you are saying?
Yes, there have been...and I don't value any of the ones I've seen.
I can appreciate that as I used to be KJV-Only, then KJV-Preferred, then KJV-Only Again. But, now, I've learned a little more and I am coming to appreciate the benefits of having more than one good translation. I could still revert to KJV-Only, but I don't think that that is a sensible position, knowing what I know, now.
Do you pity the folks who endured 500 years of study, not knowing what you know now?
God doesn't hide his heart from anyone.
Newer translations would like you to not believe the KJV.
I do not believe that newer translation do not want us to believe the KJV.
Our opinions differ...in regards to the alternate versions I have tested. (And it is the translators, not the translation that forces the watered down beliefs).
Rather, their desire seems to be to make what is contained in the manuscript copies that we have that were written in the original languages understandable and intelligible to contemporary readers. Essentially, their making translations for today's Average Joe or today's Plow Boy. And, they don't believe that today's Average Joe or today's Plow Boy should be required to learn an alternate and archaic dialect of English in order to understand God's Word.
I feel that they substantially underestimate the minds of those seeking God.
As to God hiding his heart? I know that Jesus deliberately spoke in parables to keep some from understanding what He was saying.
Perhaps He is still using the "modified" versions of the bible to allow the posers to spin their wheels?
As to pitying folks that endured study without knowing what I know now? I think it unlikely that we would have the tools in English that we have, now, were it not for them. So, I very much appreciate them.
That made me think of 1 Cor 2:5..."That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
And 1 Cor 1:21..."For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

Can you give one example of something you learned from a "later" version of the bible that was denied you in the KJV?



Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Dake v. the KJV: Proverbs 16:10

Post by Hill Top »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:26 am
Proverbs 16:10 (King James Version 1900)
A divine sentence is in the lips of the king:
His mouth transgresseth not in judgment.


Dake's note on this verse:
"The law of God or the divine oracle is for the king to use in judgment.
"He must not be unfaithful in executing it."

So, is the KJV right when it says that the king's mouth does not transgress in judgment?
Or, is Dake right when he says that a king should be faithful in executing judgment?

Do kings' mouths ever err in judgment?
If the "sentence" is divine, so too will be the judgement.
Who is "the King" in question?
God almighty.



Hill Top
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: KJV mistakes - are there more?

Post by Hill Top »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:15 am
Hill Top wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 9:25 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:38 pm
Hill Top wrote:
Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:24 pm
I just wish folks would live the words we have, instead of analyzing their authenticity.
Why?
I wish they would live the words we have, so they could walk as sanctified, justified, children of God.
Everything we need to do so is in the KJV of the bible...thanks be to God.

If you ever meet a "retranslator", ask them if they live without sin.
Their answer will show you from whence they get their impetus.
But, why wouldn't you want folks to look into the authenticity of the words of the Bible?
I don't care if they do or not.
But the prime reason most look at scripture in that way is to find loop-holes to righteousness.
Surely the truth has nothing to fear from an investigation?
Agreed, especially if that "truth" is that which Jesus said could free us from committing sin in John 8:32-34.
Do you believe that the KJV translators lived without sin?
I won't hazard a guess, but I know God can use the worst of the wicked for His own good.
Look at Saul, or Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or even Paul in his earlier years.



User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 2479
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Re: Romans 7:24-25: Dake v. the KJV

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:07 am
You seem to have left out the part of Romans 7:25 where his flesh is still ruled by sin.



Hill Top wrote:
Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:33 pm
But, as Rom 7;5 and 7:18 make clear, (not to mention Rom 6:6), Paul is no longer in the flesh.
Rom 7:25 differentiates between those who walk after the holy mind and those who walk after the soiled flesh.
We can't walk after both.
Which do you feel Paul walked after?




Romans 7:25B (KJV 1900)
So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Paul, regardless of what we feel or do not feel, claims, here, that he was simultaneously serving the Law of God with his mind and the Law of Sin with his flesh.

In Romans 7:18, Paul confesses that nothing good dwells in his flesh and that regardless of his will, he is unable to perform good deeds.

Romans 7:18 (KJV 1900)
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

So, if Romans 7:25B still has Paul serving the Law of Sin with his flesh, then it would seem that Paul is still in the flesh in Romans 7:25B, since the motions of sins, by the Law, are still working in his members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Romans 7:5 (KJV 1900)
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Thus, to me, given Dake's perspective on the necessity of not being flesh ruled to be saved, Dake's desire to move Romans 7:25B to after Romans 7:23 makes perfect sense, as it does not leave Paul's flesh serving the Law of Sin and Paul would be free to walk after the Spirit in Romans 8:1.



Locked