This verse or word could be better translated....

[TidesofTruth]

1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The KJV is the only version that adds the words “the office of” without any support in the Greek.

Wyclife has “For thei that mynystren wel”

Tyndale has “For they that minister well”

Matthew has “For they that mynyster wel”

Coverdale has “For they that mynister well”

Great has “For they that mynister well”

Geneva has “For they that haue ministred well”

Rheims has “For they that have ministered well”

Bishop's has “For they that haue ministred well”

KJV 1611 has “For they that haue used the office of” in the margin they have “or, ministred”

NET Bible has “For those that have served well as deacons”

The KJV is the only version that uses the term “the office of”

My speculation is that this was done to give cover to the Anglican Church for their professional religious position of Deacon. They had Deacons, Priests, Bishops and Archbishop. This translation would let them make Deacons into religious professionals as they had priests and bishops, and lines up well with the Book of Common Prayer.

I think I can say that the KJV translators are the only ones that used the term “the office of”. No one before or after them used it.

They should have used what all the others before used, “For they that ministered well”

The only way the rules of translation allowed them to change it was if the Greek would be better translated with their new rendering, which it was not. Therefore the rendering was made for reasons other than making a  proper Bible translation. This may have been one of the edits that Bishop Bancroft is believed to have made.

I don't know about that.  The word Diakonia has many different context within the word itself.  In its simple form it means servant or one that serves food  but in the context of scripture I don't believe the KJV translators were outside the parameters of the word to use office because the servants here had to perform a certain function after being proven and their role or office was bestowed by the church.  Not unlike the term where Diakonia was translated in Romans 13 where the office of deacon was clearly a political office.  Same word, and very much meaning an office.  Furthermore Phil 1:1 Paul addresses all Saints, Overseers and Deacons.  I believe that it is not outside the scope of credibility that Deacon could have been legitimately prescribed as office of deacon within the context and not necessarily be tainted in trying to please the Anglican church/kings.  I am not dogmatic on this but I am wiling to give the translators much grace.

btw I am not nor do I have the desire to be a deacon office holder.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is one from Bro. Hyles.

Rev 22:13-14:
"DO HIS COMMANDMENTS" should be translated, "wash their robes."

And I would agree with him.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is another one from Bro. Hyles.

Rev 1:6:
"AND HATH MADE US KINGS" is better translated, " And hath made us a kingdom of priests."

Each believer carries the keys to Heaven to the world (the gospel).

 

[praise_yeshua]

1Ti 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

The KJV is the only version that adds the words “the office of” without any support in the Greek.

Wyclife has “For thei that mynystren wel”

Tyndale has “For they that minister well”

Matthew has “For they that mynyster wel”

Coverdale has “For they that mynister well”

Great has “For they that mynister well”

Geneva has “For they that haue ministred well”

Rheims has “For they that have ministered well”

Bishop's has “For they that haue ministred well”

KJV 1611 has “For they that haue used the office of” in the margin they have “or, ministred”

NET Bible has “For those that have served well as deacons”

The KJV is the only version that uses the term “the office of”

My speculation is that this was done to give cover to the Anglican Church for their professional religious position of Deacon. They had Deacons, Priests, Bishops and Archbishop. This translation would let them make Deacons into religious professionals as they had priests and bishops, and lines up well with the Book of Common Prayer.

I think I can say that the KJV translators are the only ones that used the term “the office of”. No one before or after them used it.

They should have used what all the others before used, “For they that ministered well”

The only way the rules of translation allowed them to change it was if the Greek would be better translated with their new rendering, which it was not. Therefore the rendering was made for reasons other than making a  proper Bible translation. This may have been one of the edits that Bishop Bancroft is believed to have made.

I don't know about that.  The word Diakonia has many different context within the word itself.  In its simple form it means servant or one that serves food  but in the context of scripture I don't believe the KJV translators were outside the parameters of the word to use office because the servants here had to perform a certain function after being proven and their role or office was bestowed by the church.  Not unlike the term where Diakonia was translated in Romans 13 where the office of deacon was clearly a political office.  Same word, and very much meaning an office.  Furthermore Phil 1:1 Paul addresses all Saints, Overseers and Deacons.  I believe that it is not outside the scope of credibility that Deacon could have been legitimately prescribed as office of deacon within the context and not necessarily be tainted in trying to please the Anglican church/kings.  I am not dogmatic on this but I am wiling to give the translators much grace.

btw I am not nor do I have the desire to be a deacon office holder.

Lets break this down. The English word "Office" has its roots in Latin word "officium". In the Latin religion, it primary is a reference to "church service".

I bet you guys didn't know your KJV was so closely related to all those "Catholic" things!!!

The Greek source is primary a reference to administration or service. There really is no sense of "office" associated with the Greek source. As if..... there is an a "office" to being a servant. The word Diakonia has long been abused by translators and those who teach the Gospel.

Even the apostles were "servants". Something they pulled away from in Acts 6:2.

There is precedent for the term "office" being associated with Diakonia. Its found in....

Rom 11:13  For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

However, its still a mistake. Most modern version translate the term "ministry". Which is exactly what "service" entails.

 

[Walt]

Here is another one from Bro. Hyles.

Rev 1:6:
"AND HATH MADE US KINGS" is better translated, " And hath made us a kingdom of priests."

Each believer carries the keys to Heaven to the world (the gospel).

I don't know; elsewhere, Scripture calls us a "royal priesthood"; the KJV "kings and priests" seems to fit this well.  The RT version I looked at says "kings and priests".

A kingdom of priests leaves out the royal aspect.  Surely, adopted children of the King of Kings must be royalty as well.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Php 4:6  Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.


"Be careful" has entirely different meaning today than it did in 16th and 17th century. In fact, this IMPORTANT verse in the Scriptures is often rephrased by those who preach from it. Which begs the question...... why be opposed to altering it?

The better translation is

Php 4:6  Be anxious for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Here is another one from Bro. Hyles.

Rev 1:6:
"AND HATH MADE US KINGS" is better translated, " And hath made us a kingdom of priests."

Each believer carries the keys to Heaven to the world (the gospel).

I don't know; elsewhere, Scripture calls us a "royal priesthood"; the KJV "kings and priests" seems to fit this well.  The RT version I looked at says "kings and priests".

A kingdom of priests leaves out the royal aspect.  Surely, adopted children of the King of Kings must be royalty as well.

Its interesting to note that "kings and priest" is pretty much exclusive to the Latin text. So much for all those other "Catholic Bibles".

The oldest copies give a sense of "a kingdom, priests."

We are His kingdom. We are His priests. I don't think is correct to say we are "Kings".

The issue reminds me of

1Co 4:8  Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

 

[brainisengaged]

"Be careful" has entirely different meaning today than it did in 16th and 17th century. In fact, this IMPORTANT verse in the Scriptures is often rephrased by those who preach from it. Which begs the question...... why be opposed to altering it?

The better translation is

Php 4:6  Be anxious for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

Meh. I realize I am a dinosaur, but as someone who appreciates classical literature, classical art, classical music -- the classical language of the King James is truly crystal in its meaning and quite beautiful in its expression. Be careful for nothing is quite clear. You needn't be full of care over anything. In a society that is becoming stupider by the moment, it is a shame that reading comprehension is such that it is thought "no one" can understand the beauty of the English language at its height.

That being said, if it comes down to a choice between someone truly not able to comprehend the Bible unless it is simplified or modernized, then I truly believe the Holy Spirit will still use the Word of God to illumine that soul whether or not it is KJV.

 

[praise_yeshua]

"Be careful" has entirely different meaning today than it did in 16th and 17th century. In fact, this IMPORTANT verse in the Scriptures is often rephrased by those who preach from it. Which begs the question...... why be opposed to altering it?

The better translation is

Php 4:6  Be anxious for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

Meh. I realize I am a dinosaur, but as someone who appreciates classical literature, classical art, classical music -- the classical language of the King James is truly crystal in its meaning and quite beautiful in its expression. Be careful for nothing is quite clear. You needn't be full of care over anything. In a society that is becoming stupider by the moment, it is a shame that reading comprehension is such that it is thought "no one" can understand the beauty of the English language at its height.

That being said, if it comes down to a choice between someone truly not able to comprehend the Bible unless it is simplified or modernized, then I truly believe the Holy Spirit will still use the Word of God to illumine that soul whether or not it is KJV.

Do you just realize that you reworded the verse don't you? You reworded the verse I posted to make it easier to understand and.......... then you want to support the KJV original?

Either way, what you said isn't what the KJV says.

The English language wasn't at its "height" with the KJV. Not even close. English changed for a reason. Its better today..... than yesterday. Dinosaurs don't do well with change. Which, by the way, is often a sign of pride in being "better".

 

[brainisengaged]

I think when most of us read, we generate the meaning in our minds. I immediately comprehend the meaning as I read, and have no need to reword the verse. You seem to think that "be careful" is difficult to comprehend or archaic, so for the point of the post, I explained a little for your sake.

And yes, I honestly believe some things are better than others. Don't you?
I say "dinosaur"  in an attempt to be self-deprecating. Pride is something with which many of us do battle. Yes it is there. Who can deny it?

 

[praise_yeshua]

I think when most of us read, we generate the meaning in our minds. I immediately comprehend the meaning as I read, and have no need to reword the verse. You seem to think that "be careful" is difficult to comprehend or archaic, so for the point of the post, I explained a little for your sake.

And yes, I honestly believe some things are better than others. Don't you?
I say "dinosaur"  in an attempt to be self-deprecating. Pride is something with which many of us do battle. Yes it is there. Who can deny it?

I might agree that you can get a general sense of what the verse is trying to say in the KJV.... but I don't get how "be careful" equals "be anxious". "Anxious" is the best definition. In fact, even Webster changed the wording in his translation. Even the YLT changed it.

Sure. Pride is everywhere. I battle it myself. Its also found in holding on to a particular choice of words for the sake of holding on.

 

[Norefund]

Heard JH mention this clarification often:

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. KJV

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love NIV

JH used the NIV's "love" instead of "charity" when explaining the meaning.

 

[rsc2a]

When do we get a KJV where all the positive mentions of alcohol are changed to fruit juice?

I know they did one "translation" like that.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

"(archaic) A person's way of life." Our "way of life" is heavenly, not earthly. From the Greek πολιτευμα from which we get our word "politics."

...and every time you see the word baptism. The unregenerate Anglicans refused to translate the word.

Uh, no. The English word baptism had been in the English language for over 500 years when the KJV translators did their work. Check the Bishops Bible from which the KJV descended. Not to mention just about every English translation reads "baptism."

You don't mine brass. You mine copper.

From Late Latin cuprum,  contraction of Latin (aes) Cyprium (literally “brass of Cyprus”).

Other times it's not quite that easy, as in, "The Holy Spirit itself." Romans 8:16.

αυτο το πνευμα . . .  αυτο is a neuter pronoun because πνευμα is a neuter noun. If you have a problem with this verse you will have to take it up with God. After all, He is the one who inspired it.

Most of the "errors" of translation in the KJV are due to an inadequate understanding of early Modern English and the changes in the English language since that time.

If you want to see real errors of translation in the KJV you will have to look a little harder.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Thomas Cassidy]

You don't mine brass. You mine copper.

From Late Latin cuprum,  contraction of Latin (aes) Cyprium (literally “brass of Cyprus”).

...

Most of the "errors" of translation in the KJV are due to an inadequate understanding of early Modern English and the changes in the English language since that time.

If you want to see real errors of translation in the KJV you will have to look a little harder.
[/quote]

brass (n.)
    Old English bræs "brass, bronze," originally in reference to an alloy of copper and tin (now bronze), later and in modern use an alloy of two parts copper, one part zinc. A mystery word, with no known cognates beyond English. Perhaps akin to French brasser "to brew," because it is an alloy. It also has been compared to Old Swedish brasa "fire," but no sure connection can be made. Yet another theory connects it with Latin ferrum "iron," itself of obscure origin.

    As brass was unknown in antiquity, use of the word in Bible translations, etc., likely means "bronze." The Romans were the first to deliberately make it. Words for "brass" in other languages (such as German Messing, Old English mæsling, French laiton, Italian ottone) also tend to be difficult to explain

You still don't mine brass. For that matter, you don't mine bronze. You mine copper.

 

[bgwilkinson]

It is most interesting how the KJV translators came up with the word charity to use in place of love in 1Cor. 13. Better translated love.

All Greek to English translations before 1611 used love in 1 Cor. 13 instead of charity.

When we say charity today we think of benevolence and giving not love.

The Rheims NT of 1582 was the first English translation to use charity to translate agape in 1 Cor 13.

Richard Martin our Catholic friend who led the Rheims translators is the man most responsible as the source of the charity reading in the KJV1611. Once again Rheims Vulgate readings are influencing our 1611 English translation. It's translating Greek through a Latin filter.


quote from etymology on line.
charity (n.)
mid-12c., "benevolence for the poor," from Old French charité "(Christian) charity, mercy, compassion; alms; charitable foundation" (12c., Old North French carité), from Latin caritatem (nominative caritas) "costliness, esteem, affection" (in Vulgate often used as translation of Greek agape "love" -- especially Christian love of fellow man -- perhaps to avoid the sexual suggestion of Latin amor), from carus "dear, valued," from PIE *karo-, from root *ka- "to like, desire" (see whore (n.)).

Vulgate also sometimes translated agape by Latin dilectio, noun of action from diligere "to esteem highly, to love" (see diligence).
Wyclif and the Rhemish version regularly rendered the Vulgate dilectio by 'love,' caritas by 'charity.' But the 16th c. Eng. versions from Tindale to 1611, while rendering agape sometimes 'love,' sometimes 'charity,' did not follow the dilectio and caritas of the Vulgate, but used 'love' more often (about 86 times), confining 'charity' to 26 passages in the Pauline and certain of the Catholic Epistles (not in I John), and the Apocalypse .... In the Revised Version 1881, 'love' has been substituted in all these instances, so that it now stands as the uniform rendering of agape. [OED]

 

[FSSL]

"Suffer the little children..." KJV

"Torture the little children..." FSSL1972

 

[praise_yeshua]

"Suffer the little children..." KJV

"Torture the little children..." FSSL1972

That made me laugh!!!

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

"Suffer the little children..." KJV

"Torture the little children..." FSSL1972

Yet we still use the word "insufferable" to mean intolerable or unallowable. So "suffer" still means "allow."

 

[praise_yeshua]

"Suffer the little children..." KJV

"Torture the little children..." FSSL1972

Yet we still use the word "insufferable" to mean intolerable or unallowable. So "suffer" still means "allow."

Allow would be a much better choice of words. I think that is the point. Given the direction that "suffer" took in meaning.... We need to update the verse.