We are members at Richland Hills Church of Christ. Last Wednesday night "special servants" were recognized
during our assembly and a list of these people, both men and women, were provided to the congregation. Nothingwas said that let the congreation know that these people would now be used instead of Deacons. When we, various members of the congregation, began calling individual Elders we were told that we no longer have Deacons, but these "Special Servants." We were not given any biblical scripture to back this up, only an article talking about deaconesses.
ARE DEACONESSES NOT BIBLICAL, I THOUGHT THEY WERE.
PRAISE GOD CHURCHES ARE NOW BEGINNING TO SEE THAT WOMEN ARE SERVANTS TOO. ISN'T THAT WAT A DEACON OR DEACONESS IS CALLED TO?
Refer to 1 Timothy 3. (This is "rightly dividing the word of truth" as we are commanded.) This chapter speaks of the two scriptural offices: (1) that of a bishop or an elder and (2) that of a deacon -- not deaconess. This is very clear: that both offices are for men (husbands) who have wives and who have children whom they are to rule well. (I wonder if a deaconess needs a gender change to qualify for the office.)
Then, where does Phoebe fit into this scheme of things? Wasn't she noted as a Deaconess? Isn't the word, Deacon, Greek for our English words, "Special Servant?"
Also in Philippians 4:2-3 Paul mentions two women who were in the Philippian Church who he was appealing to a member there to implore Euodia and Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord that he had LABORED WITH THEM IN THE GOSPEL AND ALSO Clement, and the rest of the fellow workers whose names are in the Book of Life. Then he goes on to say Rejoice in the Lord Always and he repeats it again, REJOICE!! Where is the Joy in this website??? The Holy Spirit is GRIEVING OVER ALL OF THIS
STUFF!!! Enough said....
You will notice that Phoebe was not a "located" servant. Now, the evidence oozes out of Paul's writings that he had a team which helped to support him when he couldn't obey his own "law" which was "if one will not work then one will not eat." That meant his own team!
An elder worthy of honor is one who is "already laboring to the point of exhaustion in preaching and teaching." That is, you don't MAKE an elder you point him out as doing the work.
These women also labored but they were not "located evangelists" or "located traveling sales persons." Others were FELLOW HELPERS. Their labor is defined by the Greek word:
Kopiao (g2872) kop-ee-ah'-o; from a der. of 2873; to feel fatigue; by impl. to work hard: - (bestow) labour, toil, be wearied.
Kopos (g2873) kop'-os; from 2875; a cut, i.e. (by anal.) toil (as reducing the strength), lit. or fig.; by impl. pains: - labour, / trouble, weariness.
That does not mean "rule over a fraction of the unauthorized ministry system"
3 John 1:6 Which have born witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well:
3 John 1:7 Because that for his names sake they went forth, TAKING NOTHING of the Gentiles.
3 John 1:8 We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be FELLOWHELPERS to the truth.
They went out and co-labored with the honest evangelist who was a vocational preacher but who deserved his allowance of food like the temple servant. The "gospel" is not a psychological babble in an established church but a preacher is a herald, a Paul Revere where EUAGGELIZO is bringing the news to those who HAVE NOT YET HEARD "the British are coming!" You don't hire a permanent Paul Revere. Then, he moves on and because he is not a professional (seeing godliness as a means of financial gain) he needs a team to help him "making tents" while he is preaching.
Perhaps it will be women who are shamed by the guys playing the program pyramid game who will go out with all authority to teach the untaught. Would to God that there were more Phoebe's and yokefellows "on the road again."
We have noted that SPECIAL SERVANT gives one the title which Jesus refused and refused for the apostles: special means a superior one of the species.
Christ the Spirit insisted that we "test the spirits" and Paul identified the Christian walk as "spiritual warfare." "Dialog" is given to everyone and not the preachers who would have you believe that promoting discord is spiritual but contesting it is evil. don't buy into it!
Please rejoice and be glad when you see men refusing to acknowledge Caesars in things which belong to God and TAKING the oversight in teaching which belongs to the "one another" and not to a priest. They are speaking the truth and no one past Bible 101aaa can dispute it. The "spirit" of truth always trumps "the spirit of peace" when there is no peace.
To my dear dear BROTHER Kennth:
Your Post are so full of wisdom. And I learn much when I read them. You seem as frustrated as I with the hirelings, but you seem to be more restained Than I. I am thankful and honnored to fight along side such a man of God. I hope to continue this comradeship and push to the gaol of eternal life with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If I don't see you on this side I will meet you in the Sabbath Kingdom, it won't be long now.
Peace for Israel, LORD come quickly.
I for one applaud the many
positive programs at RHCC,
and do not believe that
Rick or the elders would
condone anything that was
NOT scriptural. If the
CONCERNED MEMBERS on this
website do NOT agree with
what is going on at RHCC
they certainly have the
option to attend a more
TRADITIONAL Church of
Christ if that perhaps
fits their needs. I PREFER
a church like RHCC, and my
sister that lives in Okla.
is envious of me living close
to such a great church. The
"traditional" Churches of
Christ up there tend to
run members off if they
tend to NOT have VERY
rigid viewpoints about
the church operations,
but have no scriptures
to back up driving these
members away! Please do
not send out mailings to
ALL members any more.
PLEASE, remember most
of the members at RHCC are
happy there and resent the
materials that are being
mailed out! As Rick states
in his SPIRITUAL WARFARE
series; controversy within the church
such as this website is what divides
it! PLEASE remember~it is better to
attend a TRADITIONAL church~if you
prefer that doctrine, rather than
diving God's house!
Apathy and complacency are the biggest dangers to any Church. When the leaders begin to try to please men (and women) rather than God, we have a problem. It has nothing to do with traditional vs nontraditional--to me, it is scriptural vs nonscriptural. I pray for those who choose to follow men rather than God!
A big amen to your message. My family and I have not appreciated the mailings we have received from the so-called concerned members. I grew up in the Church of Christ. I attended Central Church of Christ in Amarillo. I also went to ACC/ACU for two years before transferring to Oklahoma State University for track scholarship reasons. So I know a little bit about scripture myself. I believe that this website has slandered Rick, the Elders, and members such as myself.
The mailings are a cowardly way to show disapproval if that is the way the concerned members feel.
I am constantly amazed at the rhetoric with which those who profess to love God respond to their so-called "brethren." If you are truly a servant of God you'll know about passages like "do unto others" and "love is not selfish" and "count others better than yourselves." Why is it that you think everyone should leave the church? Why should "they" find another place to worship? Is it so you can feel good and not be challenged yourself? Do you feel like you can do whatever feels right and makes you feel good inside? That's not what Jesus called us to. To say you love God means you love men. Read I John and you'll understand true love in a fuller sense.
We are bound by Christ to love each other with an unselfish love. If you believe the answer to your problem is to "run each other off" - you are clueless about what true "glory" involves. Grow up - all of you! Christ has called us together to be the servants of one another.
Don't let false teachers take the meeting place away from you.
April 5 2002, 7:12 PM
Mike you are right on target. Why do the righteous have to leave a place of worship, make sure you stay put and let the sinners leave. To add to God's word is SIN. When we transgress God's law we sin. How many times do we have to transgress God's law before we become a sinner? Once that's all.
I agree with you that the what the scriptures tell us. This whle mess is very scary. I am very worried about the Churches of Christ. I know God is not very happy.
I think it is sad that you people have nothing better to do than criticize a church that is out helping the community. You people are so full of yourselves, you have already received your rewards. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so why don't y'all step down off of your soap boxes? This is disgraceful.
I am seeking scriptural references for the office and position of deaconess in the church. Obviously women have always been servants as we all are or should be. I can not find anywhere that the scripture defines the office or qualifications required of a deaconess. Please provide these scriptures to enlighten me.
The short answer to your question is 1 Timothy 3:11. There is a text note in the NIV that explains that an alternate translation of this passage is "deaconesses". In the Authorized Version, the translation is, "Even so [must their] wives [be] grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things." As you can see in this version, [must their] was added. The Amplified Bible says, "[The] women likewise must be worthy of respect and serious, not gossipers, but terperate and self-controlled, [thoroughly] trustworthy in all things]." I am not a Greek scholar, but I have some friends who are, and they favor the translation of just "women" instead of "their wives" because apparently there is a better term for "their wives" that Paul uses repeatedly in the NT.
The long answer is to look at the various scriptures where the word deacon is used. The Greek word deakonos (strong's 1249) appears 31 times in the new testament: 20 times it is translated as minister, 8 times as servant, and 3 times as deacon. The term is used of:
1) The disciples, "whosoever will be great among you, let him be your deacon" (Matt 20:26, also Mark 9:35, 10:43)
2) King's servants of parable, "Then said the king to the deacons, Bind him hand and foot and take him away" (Matt 22:13)
3) Wedding deacons, "His mother saith unto the deacons, Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it." (John 2:5)
4) The "higher powers" of government, "he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the deacon of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil."
(Rom 13:4)
5) Jesus Christ, "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a deacon of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers:" (Romans 15:8)
6) Phebe, "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a deacon of the church which is at Cenchrea: "(Romans 16:1)
7) Phebe II, "To God only wise, [be] glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. [[[Written to the Romans from Corinthus, [and sent] by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.]]]" (Rom 16:27)
8) Paul and Apollos, "Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but deacons by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? " (1 Cor 3:5)
9) Phillipi church servants, "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil 1:1)
[Of interest here is the term Paul chooses for himself and Timothy: "servants" (strong's 1401) translates "bondslaves", perhaps to differentiate from the later use of the word deacon for the special church servants. Other places, Paul uses the term deacon of himself (e.g. #8)]
10) Epaphrus, "As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful deacon of Christ; " (Col 1:7)
11) Paul, "If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a deacon;" (Col 1:23, also v. 25)
12) Tychicus, "All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, [who is] a beloved brother, and a faithful deacon and fellowservant in the Lord:" (Col 4:7)
[Also of note with Tychicus, Paul uses the word deacon first, and then also calls him a fellowservant (same root as 1401: bondservant), meaning one who is bound to the same master]
13) Timothy, "And sent Timotheus, our brother, and deacon of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith: " (1 Thes 3:2, also 1 Tim 4:6)
14) Special church servants, "Likewise [must] the deacons [be] grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; " (1 Tim 3:8)
15) Special church servants II, "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." (1 Tim 3:12)
[Note here that an extremely conservative interpretation of deacon in this passage would preclude many of the deacons above, surely Paul, Phebe, and Jesus.]
These are the greater portion of examples of New Testament deacons. Other references that are easily obtained on www.blueletterbible.org by doing a strong's search on #1249 Greek (deakonos).
One final thought:
If the preferred NIV interpretation of 1 Tim 3:11 is true (not the text note), this would seem to me to infer that wives of deacons have qualifications. If so, would we not expect to find qualifications for wives of elders somewhere? Of course this does not prove anything because God can include or exclude whatever He wants in His book. However, if there are two interpretations that are both reasonable, we have to start looking at context, and this is a glaring context that I believe cannot be overlooked.
Why do the Elders and Ministers feel it is necessary to advance a position that is potentially so divisive? Is the way or position we used to take so bad or wrong? Weren't we serving the Lord and bringing many Souls to Christ before? Why stir up the waters? According to Rick, we are not doing anything nor are we planning to do anything any different than prior to his Wednesday night lesson. We just now have a stated public position, one which I say is potentially very divisive. Is God pleased with us when we state or assume a position that divides us, but is scriptually no different than a prior position we used to take or state? We should serve Him in meekness and quietness, and let Him have the Glory.
It is as necessary to remove confusion. Tell me, if a subject is difficult to understand, should it be avoided? I myself do not understand this issue completely - nor have I heard anyone who does. I have listened carefully to Rick's message some 25 to 30 times, and I was there when spoke it. I have examined all the facts on the sheet they handed out that evening. And I have also spoken to many members and elders directly about it and the conversations are less than conclusive - except for one thing. There were, in fact, women who were referred to in the New Testament with the same word as men (deacon). There were men in the New Testament referred to as decons who were married, unmarried, and fathers. And many whose personal situation is unknown. So what are we to do? Continue to do something that is clearly unbiblical so that we avoid the topic? Do we continue to ignore some servants who are clearly filling the role of servant. I don't have all the answers but I can sure answer that one: By no means! It is wrong to not recognize the service of some because they don't fit a church tradition that is clearly discriminating against a portion of those serving in the church. That's not right and should be stopped.
Now here's and idea I've been mulling over I thought I'd throw out for everyone's consumption: The eskimos have 38 words that we interperet as "ice". I am wondering if we have a Greek word here that is used in many different circumstances and depending on context has a slightly different meaning in this same way? Just a thought... Ideas?
What were we doing that was "unbiblical"? If RHCC was ignoring some that were serving then shame on them. Do these servants need to be recognized? If so, maybe they should look at their motives? Again, do you think it is a good idea to divide the church when you aren't really changing anything? Do you think the Elders should risk dividing a church just so some can "be recognized"? Last night the Elders in effect said that they erred in introducing something so abruptly. It has apparently caused some consternation with more than a few members. You aren't rejoicing over this, are you?
Thank you for the excellent link to Blue Letter Bible!
Here is a link that has a good explanation of the italicized words in the KJV.
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_11.asp
Also, please investigate the omissions from the NIV of many verses (just search for KJV vs NIV). Also, there are some good links on the subject on this site. Just go to the homepage www.concernedmembers.com
It appears from the reference given that my earlier post, which pointed out in the short answer that some italicized words were added in the KJV, may have come into question. If not, please disregard this post.
We in the 21st century have the incredible fortune of many different translations of the Bible from many men of integrity to help our understanding of exactly what the Spirit is saying. I know that genuine, concerned members will certainly use the best information available on this issue. I am confident that people who love the Lord's church will not take a phrase and make it a battle cry for division if many intelligent Greek scholars, who all are ostensibly men of integrity, have translated the phrase (at least contextually) differently.
I do not know any of the KJV translators personally, so I obviously cannot speak to their integrity. I am not sure if the translaters of the KJV, centuries ago, were better Greek translators and/or had better resources for determining which italicized words to add than translators today--perhaps they did, perhaps they are did not. Obviously there are differences. I am not a Greek scholar myself, so I won't even begin to try to parse these words. I am merely making an observation how blessed we are to have so many versions to compare for our edification, and am taking the excuse away from any troublemaker who would hone in on one particular version on the basis of, "It's all we've got". So, here are several examples of how our "men of integrity" have translated the word "gune" (1 Tim 3:11) through the centuries:
I respectfully disagree with your conclusion that having many translations of the Bible is fortunate. On the contrary, it is unfortunate that so many versions cause so much confusion.
Please read anything and everything you can on the KJV vs NIV. You will see that it matters little what the integrity of the translator was when they use a Greek text that is so perverted. "Which Bible" is a very good book with a history of the two streams of Bibles that we have today - the KJV and the modern versions.
In reference to your earlier post about the Greek word "gune". Can you please ask your friends that are familiar with Greek which word Paul used that was a better term for "their wives"? I have tried finding it by using blueletterbible and studylight.org lexicons and have only been able to find these:
gameo - (means to marry) KJV 58 times
graodes - (means old wife) KJV 1 time
gunaikeios (means wife) KJV 1 time
gune - (means wife, wife's) KJV 92 as wife 129 as woman
penthera - (means mother-in-law) KJV 6 times
Can your friends shed some more light on this subject?
Although I am not a Greek scholar my understanding is that when Paul referred to wives in other places, he always used a pronoun before the word "gune", something to indicate "their women" rather than just "women." He did not use that pronoun in this case.
This message has been edited by KevinHamm from IP address 205.172.62.1 on Mar 27, 2002 1:17 PM
"Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed." (Mark 12:20)
where "wife" is also "gune" with no pronoun.
or:
"In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife" (Mark 12:23)
where "wife" is also "gune" with no pronoun.
Are we saying that wife should be woman in all cases where "gune" was used without a pronoun? If so, does this mean that it was acceptable to "take a woman" outside of marriage?
Prayerfully Onward,
Kevin
This message has been edited by KevinHamm from IP address 205.172.62.1 on Mar 29, 2002 6:50 AM
It is equally unfortunate to have many versions of the Bible causing so much confusion as it is to have one version of the Bible causing so much confusion. The only way out is love one for another.
With respect to the reference to the "integrity of the translator," this was a quote from the link you proposed in your post entitled, "Link for explanation of italicized words in KJV". The link was:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_11.asp
This link is very vicious in tone. It is also filled with non sequitur's like the assertion that KJV translators were men of integrity (apparently because they were translators of the KJV). No support is given.
But even worse is the non sequitur that, "To remove one italicized word and leave another in is to claim <b>Divine Inspiration</b> in knowing which words should go and which words should stay." The only way this can be claiming Divine Inspiration is if you first claim that the original translators of the KJV were Divinely Inspired, rather than scholars that worked as dilligently as possible from the best available texts. Also, the overriding premise of the author of the included link is plain: there is but one source from which to translate scripture and it is the KJV--any deviation, critique, or dispute from the KJV is heresy; thus, over and over the author repeats the word, "remove" when speaking of words that were added to (and not in) the original text. It is even ironic that the author takes issue with NIV translators leaving out the word "unknown" when translating 1 Corinthians 14, Paul's passage on speaking in tongues--does the author not know how much confusion that has caused? Translators of the Bible today translate from Greek and add words for clarity as they deem best, just like translators of the KJV did some 390 years ago.
I will not defend the NIV, if that is what I am being asked to do. I believe there are minor problems with the NIV as there are minor problems with the KJV and any translation you may choose to cite, which is why Paul exhorted Timothy to, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:13). I probably like the KJV better than the NIV, generally. My personal preference is a literal translation without any words added (for clarity, modernization, or otherwise). But, anyone who would hold up one particular translation of scripture above all other sincere translations is no better than the one who would sing with glee, "The B-I-B-L-E, yes that's the book for me, I'll stand all alone on the part I'll read: poor, sad B-I-B-L-E." The important thing is God's Word, not the particular translation. If I have posted anything that appears to be an assault or a defense of any particular translation, please forgive me and now understand otherwise.
---------------
With respect to the request for occurrences in the Bible where the better term for "their wives" is:
These are all places in the Greek where the personal possessive (his or their) is used. There are apparently two words used in the Greek for this: autos and heautou (heautou is a derivitave of autos), athough sometimes idios is also used when the connotation is privacy or ownership.
autos [846] gune [1135]
Rev 19:7 his wife
Eph 5:31 his wife
Acts 24:24 his wife
Acts 5:7 his wife
Acts 5:2 his wife
Acts 5:1 his wife
Luke 2:5 his espoused wife
Luke 1:24 his wife
Luke 1:5 his wife
Mark 12:19 his wife
Mark 10:11 his wife
Mark 10:7 his wife
Matt 27:19 his wife
Matt 22:24 his wife
Matt 19:9 his wife
Matt 19:5 his wife
Matt 19:3 his wife
Matt 18:25 his wife
Matt 5:32 his wife
Matt 5:31 his wife
Matt 1:24 his wife
heautou [1438] gune [1135]
Eph 5:33 his wife
Eph 5:28 their wives
1 Cor 7:2-33 his own wife
Luke 14:26 his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and bretheren
Thank you for the verses. It will take me some time to study them.
In reference to your statement:
<<It is also filled with non sequitur's like the assertion that KJV translators were men of integrity (apparently because they were translators of the KJV). No support is given. >>
The author was simply stating that because of the integrity of the KJV translators, they put the added words in italics. They did not try to hide the fact that they were added as the translators of the NIV did.
Yes, the overall tone of the author is that the KJV is the one true Word of God. Here is the link for the whole book in support of the KJV:
There is also a very detailed book with biographies of the translators of the KJV called "Which Bible?".
Again, I reiterate that the problems with the NIV are not minor. The fact that the Greek texts from which it was translated are so corrupt (and seemingly intentionally so) has lead me to the conclusion that this corruption is the root of the problems we are facing in the church today.
I did not mean to imply that you were pro or anti any version, I was merely responding to what I understood your post to say. Also, I was not only responding to you, but I was also hoping to reach anyone that might read the post.
I realize that I can only provide information. I don't have it within me to convince anyone of anything. That power belongs to the Holy Spirit.
Oh. If this is the standard for integrity, then please understand that the KJV translators were not men of integrity. There are cases where they did the same thing. For example: in John 7:50, the KJV translators translated thus: "Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)" In the Greek, the word Jesus is not found. They did also "hide" the fact that this word was added as the translators of the NIV did. Jesus is not in italics in this verse. If you check the footnote in the King James Version, it clearly states that in the Greek, the word from which the KJV was translated, is "Him", and not "Jesus."
I do not have the same issue with translations as you, but you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. The KJV translators took the liberty of adding a word to God's Word and denoting it in the footnotes just as the NIV translators did in cases. If you want to see examples of where the NIV translators did this same exact thing, you can view my other post on this page in response to the on-line test called, "Someone Has Been Messing With Your Bible!" (My post is called, "A disciple's attempt" and I would include it here except for brevity's sake, and at least you can easily find this information without leaving this website.) To be intellectually honest, either all translators are allowed to do the best translation they see fit and footnote accordingly, or none of them are. If the former is true, then both of these sets of translators do not fail your integrity test. If the latter is true, then both do fail your integrity test.
The KJV is not the one true Word of God because the Word of God is the one true Word of God. A is A. The Word of God was the Word of God before there was a King James Version, therefore the King James Version and the Word of God are not equal. You could continue to argue that it is the best translation, but not that they are one and the same. Please see the excellent post by the Chinese Christian on this page entitled, "KJV From a China-man's Point of View."
Now, on to the corrupt versions of Greek texts used to translate any other translation (since your assertion was the KJV was the ONLY true one). Since all these translations were substantially translated from the same texts, which Greek/Hebrew texts are corrupt? Can you give an example of the corruption? Will you also include an example of what leads you to believe that were corrupted intentionally?
If you will do this, then I will be happy to go and review the full source of the links you have provided, but I believe it would edify everyone if you could give some specifics here.
You're probably right that I should be doing more reading than preaching. And more praying than posting.
Nevertheless, I have yet to see any specifics on this website, or any non-ridiculous specifics in any of the links yet provided, so I don't recommend that any of the visitors to this site follow them and waste hours of their time until someone can at least articulate the real issues. Conspiracy theories are a dime-a-dozen, and until we see some specifics, they are merely hearsay and unsubstantiated rumors.
By the way, I believe I passed the test on "Try Answering These From Your NIV". Please see my post entitled "A disciple's attempt" on this site. Most, but not all, of the answers were right there in black and white in the NIV.
Since ConcernedMembers did not respond to my claim that the KJV translators were just as guilty as the NIV translators (by your standards), I assume that you have conceded this point. Why must you continue this unless you have some other agenda? Is your entire issue with Richland Hills Church of Christ really related to the use of the NIV? Even though the NIV is not the official Bible of RHCC? Even though even the NIV translates 1 Tim 3:11 "their wives"? I thought this whole issue was related to the recognition of sisters as special servants and the removal of traditional deacons from RHCC. Is it really simply reduced to the perceived rejection of the KJV by RHCC?
When I first started studying the differences in the NIV and the KJV I went through several stages. I looked at a chart comparing the two, then I compared them in my KJV and my NIV. Then I noticed at the bookstore that the same publisher that published the NIV also published a KJV. So I investigated the differences in the versions of the KJV by different publishers. I believe the Cambridge edition is closest to the 1611 KJV.
The verse that you indicated (John 7:50) was changed for the Oxford edition of 1769. The original 1611 edition did indeed read "him" not "Jesus"!
I believe the answers you are looking for may be here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjv.html
After investigating the differences in the KJV's by different publishers, I began thinking about the greek lexicons and dictionaries. Could they be corrupt also?
<<The Greek and Hebrew Lexicons and dictionaries are written by men, "most of whom are unbelievers," writes Princeton and Yale scholar Edward Hills. A few examples will suffice: 1) The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon's editor (Briggs) was defrocked by the 'liberal' Presbyterian Church for his 'liberalism'. 2) Trench, author of the much used Synonyms of the New Testament, was a member of Westcott's esoteric clubs, as was Alford, whose Greek reference works are still used. 3) J. Henry Thayer, author of the New Thayer's Greek Lexicon, was a Unitarian who vehemently denied the deity of Christ. (Thayer was also the dominant member of the ASV committee!) His Lexicon contains a seldom noticed warning by the publisher in its Introduction (p. vii). It cautions readers to watch for adulterations in the work relating to the deity of Christ. 4) The acclaimed A.T. Robertson's Greek Grammar also sends up a red flag in its preface saying, "The text of Westcott and Hort is followed in all its essentials." 5) Conclusions drawn by Kurt and Barbara Aland of the Nestles-Aland Greek New Testament elicit the response by Phillip Comfort that "the Alands' designations must be taken with caution. 6) James Strong, author of Strong's Concordance was a member of the corrupt ASV Committee.>>
The full article may be found here:
http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/lex1.html
For the sake of brevity I misrepresented my statement that the KJV was the one true Word of God. I should have stated that it was, in my opinion, the best representation of the true Word of God.
I did read the post "The KJV from a China-man's Point of View". I found it very poignant; however, I don't agree with his philosophy. I believe it is a perfect example of why the saints must assemble, fellowship and study together so that more mature christians can teach the young in faith and explain those things that are difficult to understand.
In his example, he quotes 1 Cor 16:13.
<<1Cor.16:13 (KJV) Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. What is the meaning of “quit”? I look up in the American College Dictionary. It means: 1. to stop, cease, or discontinue. 2. To depart from; leave. 3. To give up; let go; relinquish… 5. Archaic. To acquit (oneself). Is the KJV instructing the readers to “quit” acting like men? How do I know what is the right meaning? By comparing KJV with several other more contemporary translations. This is an example of a word in the KJV that has gone completely opposite to its original meaning. Imagine with me. Here is young male believer. He does not know anything about Shakespearean English. He has been advised not to use any abominable, easy to read, translation except the Authorized Version KJV. One day, after his quiet time alone, start acting effeminate. He thought he was following God’s word, but everybody looks at him kind of funny, and no one knows why.>>
A quick search at www.dictionary.com yields:
<<quit Pronunciation Key (kwt)
v. quit, or quit·ted (kwtd) quit·ting, quits
v. tr.
To depart from; leave: “You and I are on the point of quitting the theater of our exploits” (Horatio Nelson).
To leave the company of: had to quit the gathering in order to be home by midnight.
To give up; relinquish: quit a job.
To abandon or put aside; forsake: advised them to quit their dissipated ways.
To cease or discontinue: asked them to quit talking; quit smoking.
Computer Science. To exit (an application).
To rid oneself of by paying: quit a debt.
To release from a burden or responsibility.
To conduct (oneself) in a specified way: Quit yourselves like adults.>>
Please notice the very last definition: "To conduct (oneself) in a specified way: Quit yourselves like adults."
A mature christian would point out 1 Cor 6:9, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind"
As for the corrupt greek texts I offer the following:
There are two streams of greeks texts. The one from Antioch (KJV) and the one from Alexandria (NIV and MVs). The stream from Antioch contains the majority of texts (thousands) in substantial agreement. The stream from Alexandria contains four (but substantially two were used: Codex Vaticanus (B) and the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)) used by Westcott and Hort for their revision of 1881.
Here is what John Burgon had to say about the texts used by Westcott and Hort:
"It matters nothing that all four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS, besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz. That in different degrees they all five exhibit a fabricated text. . .We venture to assure [the reader] without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph, B, D, are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant: -- exhibit the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: -- have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, -- which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God."
John Burgon examined these texts personally. The Codex Vaticanus (B) was found on a dusty shelf in the Vatican. The Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) was found in the trash bin in a monastery at Mt. Sinai. These two texts don't even agree substantially with each other!
Please read the links provided on this thread to read more about this.
As far as intentional corruption is concerned. Hort himself wrote:
October 21, 1858 -- to Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams -- On the Authority of Scripture
"Further I agree with them [authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology. . . The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible . . . If this primary objection were removed, and I could feel our differences to be only of degree, I should still hesitate to take part in the proposed scheme. It is surely likely to bring on a crisis; and that I cannot think desirable on any account. The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if is allowed to go on quietly; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism."
Westcott himself wrote:
May 5, 1860 -- To F.J.A. Hort -- On Infallibility of Scripture
"For I too 'must disclaim settling for infallibility.' In the front of my convictions all I hold is the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth -- I reject the word infallibility -- of Holy Scripture overwhelming."
The revision of 1881 was accomplished with the most strict code of secrecy.
Specific corruptions:
I John 4:3 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (KJV)
omitted from the NIV
Mark 10:24 for them that trust in riches (KJV)
omitted from the NIV
Luke 4:4 but by every word of God (KJV)
omitted from the NIV
Luke 4:8 Get thee behind me, Satan (KJV)
omitted from the NIV
Matthew 23:14 ye devour widows houses and for a pretense make long prayers (KJV)
omitted from the NIV (referenced in footnote only)
Many, many more examples here:
http://watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
Also, as I've stated before, you can search for "NIV vs KJV" or "KJV vs NIV".
I know this has become long. There are some very good links on this site that explain these things better than I.
One more word about footnotes. I understand that footnotes are included in the NIV, but how many more revisions before they are excluded completely?
I provided what you asked for. Why haven't we heard from you?
March 24 2002, 1:31 PM
A. Deacon,
I gave you the information you asked for and I haven't heard so much as a peep from you. I thought maybe you were reading the links and studying the differences between the KJV and the NIV, but now I'm beginning to believe that you have conceded that the modern versions are corrupt and therefore you had no more to write on the subject.
"Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed." (Mark 12:20)
where "wife" is also "gune" with no pronoun.
or:
"In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife" (Mark 12:23)
where "wife" is also "gune" with no pronoun.
Are we saying that wife should be woman in all cases where "gune" was used without a pronoun? If so, does this mean that it was acceptable to "take a woman" outside of marriage?
How did this dire prediction about the NIV come to pass at The Madison Church Of Christ?
March 2 2002, 12:15 PM
How did this dire prediction about the NIV come to pass at The Madison Church Of Christ?
The year was 1984. Ira North was the Minister at The Madison Church of Christ.
The New International Version of the Bible was relatively new.
During this period there was a concern about the NIV Bible (New International Version), and whether to recommend it to the membership.
This concern was no doubt inspired impart by a critical review that was published by A. G. Hobbs.
This was a rather extensivive review and very critical of the NIV. Among it's warnings was this quote;
======================================
The threat of division is real. How can faithful brethren sit back in silence and hear the word of God mutilated, and see the faith of our young members destroyed? Let us note well where the blame will rest. Who is guilty of splitting a log? The one who drives the wedge? or the one who pleads for it not to be driven? THE ONE WHO DRIVES THE WEDGE! Who was guilty of dividing the church over Instrumental Music? Those who injected it into the worship! The blame will not only rest on preachers who use the corrupt version but also on elders who are to protect and to guard the flock. I plead with all elders to wake up, study up, and to speak up!
=======================================
Cecil N. Wright one of the Madison Ministers at the time was asked to do a review of this critical review. Who asked him to do the review? We don't currently know. Who read the review? We don't know that. Where is the review today? It's setting on a shelf in the Church Library.
What we do know is that Ira North was not to be with us much longer in this world . New ministers came in, and so did the NIV, Jublilee, and here we be.... Today in 2002 the Madison Church of Christ is split, and the NIV is thriving.
We tend to rely on our Elders and Ministers in the same way we trust our doctors. After all we can't read and study all this. Shouldn't the experts be trained in these things and warn us when problems arise? Just like doctors there are good and there are bad.. There are those that study and those that don't. There are those that warn, and those that won't.
Ultimately, we ourselves are responsible. Reading the word is different from being preached the word. Reading about the NIV and other modern versions is different from being preached to about them. If you have not read the word, then you are open to what any Preaching Joe tells you.
The facts are now out there in volumes on the NIV. They are accessible to you! If you don't read them then you are leaving yourself open to what anyone tells you.
When someone tells you something about the KJV (King James Version) or the NIV, ask them where you can read that That alone should serve as your first proof to find the truth.
We are listing some warnings below about the NIV. We believe these to be valid and truthful, but ultimately you need to be the judge by reading.
Don't depend on listening to us or anyone else.
A reader wishes to know if it is scriptural to have deaconesses in the church today. We read that Phoebe was a deaconess in the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). The translators did not spell out the Greek word with English letters in this place as they did in 1 Timothy 3:8, and other places where it refers to men, so our text says she was a "servant of the church."
The word used for servant and deacon is diakonos. According to Thayer, it means "one who executes the commands of another, esp. of a master; a servant, attendant, minister." it is used of the servants of a king (Matthew 22:13); of household servants (John 2:5); of rulers of nations (Romans 13:4); of Jesus Christ (Romans 15:8); of the devil's ministers (2 Corinthians 11:15); of gospel preachers (1 Corinthians 3:5); and of both men and women who serve the church (1 Timothy 3:8,11; Romans 16:1). From the foregoing you will see that the word has a general use. Every person who serves another is the other's deacon or deaconess. But the word must have been used by the Holy Spirit in a particular way and with a special connotation. Paul speaks of the "bishops and deacons" in the church at Philippi (Philippians 1:1). He first mentions the saints and then says "with the bishops and deacons." This suggests that the deacons are in a class to be distinguished from the whole body of the saints the same as bishops are to be distinguished from the body of the saints. Of course, this does not mean that bishops and deacons are not saints, but it does mean that they are in a class deserving of special mention.
Furthermore, the fact that certain qualifications are demanded of people who serve as deacons which are not demanded of all Christians is proof that the word deacon is used by the Holy Spirit with a special connotation. Though all Christians are servants (deacons) of Jesus Christ, they do not all have to possess all the qualifications demanded of those who are called deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.
But our reader wishes to know if women may be servants (deaconesses) in the special sense, and, if so, what qualifications they must possess. I hold a view which differs little from the majority of brethren. I believe Paul intended for women to be servants (deaconesses) of the church in the same way he intended for men to be servants (deacons) of the churches. My first reason is that the qualifications of women who serve are contained within the paragraph on deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13). He gives qualifications of deacons (men who serve) in verse 8 through 10; then he gives qualifications of deaconesses (women who serve) in verse 11; and then verses 12,13 are devoted to men who serve. There are several views of the matter. One is that verse 11 applies to wives of both elders and deacons. This is such a violation of the rules of grammar that it is hardly worthy of consideration. Another view is that verse 11 applies to wives of deacons. Those who hold this view usually say that a man with a wife who does not have these qualifications would be hindered in his work. This view is worthy of consideration, but it does not take into consideration certain important Greek construction now to be discussed.
When a series of things is dealt with, the second, third, etc., may be introduced with the Greek word hosautos, meaning likewise or in like manner. We see this illustrated in Matthew 21:30, where a father said a certain thing to one of his sons and then "said likewise" to the second. Again, the five talent man gained five talents, and "in like manner" he that received two gained another two (Matthew 25:17). Jesus said a man married a wife, died leaving no seed. The next son married her, left no seed, "and the third likewise" (Luke 20:21). Jesus took the bread, and "the cup in like manner" after supper (Luke 22:20). In each of these cases, two or more things in a series and the second, third, and so on are introduced by the word hosautos. And in 1 Timothy 3:8 and 11, we have the same word. From this we conclude that Paul had a series of offices, or positions, for people with certain qualifications to fill. The first is that of bishops where the verb "must be" is expressed. But in verses 8 and 11 this verb is not expressed as is often the case in these peculiar Greek constructions. After treating bishops, Paul says, to introduce the second in his series, "Deacons in like manner must be grave." That there are three classes of persons who serve the church mentioned in this paragraph cannot be denied. That they are mentioned as being parts of a series of servants of the church cannot very well be denied.
Someone says he objects to this view of the matter because it elevates women to a position equal to that of men; especially does it give women servants a position equal to that of men who serve the church. This objection has weight only because we have usually elevated the position of deacon to the equal of the bishop in authority. The truth is that bishops are the overseers of the church, including the deacons, preacher, and the deaconesses. Deacons and deaconesses are simply men and women with special qualifications which fit them to serve the church in a peculiar way. We have no objection to appointing women to serve on committees, but we are usually careful to see that none are appointed who will bring reproach on the church. I am not advocating a change in our practice so much as I am advocating calling these women who serve deaconesses instead of saying they are members of a committee.
I believe Paul mentioned two classes of women who serve. The first class is in 1 Timothy 3:11, and these are women who need no financial support. The second class is found in 1 Timothy 5:9ff., widows who not only have certain specified qualifications, but who also need financial support. Paul tells us not to receive a widow under sixty years of age "into the number." What number? Brethren usually say these are widows to feed, clothe, and shelter. Would Paul exclude a forty-year-old widow who had all the other qualifications? Would he leave her to starve or go to the Salvation Army? Would Paul exclude a spinster and refuse to feed and shelter her? The qualifications specified prove that these women not possessing these qualifications are not to be used to serve the church; they are not to be recognized as public servants of the church.
How could these women serve the church? If a young mother dies after a long illness and leaves two children and a husband deep in debt, the church can send one of these women to "live in" with this family until the man finds another wife or gets on his feet financially. There would be no criticism if the woman (deaconess) was sixty years old, but if a young widow "lived in" there would be criticism, and justly so. They could teach women from house to house. There is no end to the ways such women can serve the church and make it a force for good in any community. I think there is no doubt Paul would call these deaconesses as well as those in 1 Timothy 3:11.