AboutDerrick Holland Expertise I was raised in the religion known as Jehovah`s Witnesses for 13 years. Since becoming a born-again Christian, I have researched extensively this religion, especially their doctrines and their history. I can answer questions about their doctrines from the perspective of Biblical Christianity.
Experience 23 years of Biblical research into the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and how they differ from the teachings of the Watchtower.
I was browsing through some of your oldest answers posted here and saw the answer on 'bible translations'. I read the KJV myself as you do. But you said it is a perfect translation and I want to see what you think of a passage in Hebrews that I believe is mistranslated. Its found in Hebrews 4:7-9. It says,
"7Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Well Derrick, as you probably already know, this passage is speaking of the rest of the old testament. Joshua gave them rest as God promised when he took them into the land of Canaan. They also had complete rest on the sabbath. As long as they obeyed God. I strongly believe that most other translations have it write. They say "if Joshua had given them rest". I don't see how this verse would even make sense if it says Jesus as the KJV puts it.
I know that this is a very important verse but I do think that it is rather interesting. Let me know what you think.
Thank you sir,
Ben
ANSWER: Hello Ben. First man, let me apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I intended to answer both your questions the same day, but ran out of time after sending you my previous answer to your other question. Since then, I have been non-stop. So tonight, I am getting caught up on the 4 questions I have waiting in my inbox.
Okay, you ask....
"I was browsing through some of your oldest answers posted here and saw the answer on 'bible translations'. I read the KJV myself as you do. But you said it is a perfect translation and I want to see what you think of a passage in Hebrews that I believe is mistranslated. Its found in Hebrews 4:7-9. It says,
"7Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Well Derrick, as you probably already know, this passage is speaking of the rest of the old testament. Joshua gave them rest as God promised when he took them into the land of Canaan. They also had complete rest on the sabbath. As long as they obeyed God. I strongly believe that most other translations have it write. They say "if Joshua had given them rest". I don't see how this verse would even make sense if it says Jesus as the KJV puts it."
Yes, I have made the statement that I believe God has preserved His Word perfectly in the King James Bible for the English speaking people. I would simply pose this question.....If the King James isn't the perfect Bible, then where is it? Interestingly, none of the other translations will even make this claim. Yet, it bothers me to hear people say that all translations have errors, and ONLY the originals are inspired. Unfortunately, the "originals" do not exist, so if they are the only perfect copies of God's Word, then that means we don't have it anywhere today.
But I also believe that in Psalm 12:6-7, we have a clear statement from Almighty God that He would preserve His Word for ever. So something has to give. We cannot accept this verse, and then say there is no perfect Bible anywhere. It makes no sense to me to say that God went through all the trouble to inspire the "originals" without error over a period of thousands of years, with numerous writers, only to lose them after a few centuries. Inspiration without preservation is useless.
Also, another point....Just read the comments on here, or for that matter, on ANY anti-KJV site. Funny how the King James is the one that other "Bibles" always compare themselves to. Not each other, but the King James.
You know, if you have read my comments for any length of time, you know this is an issue that I have solid convictions about. I was not always where I am now on this. But you also know I don't make it an issue of division between my brothers and sisters in Christ, nor does it cause me to think less of them. Much valuable information has been presented in this forum by true Christians who utilize other translations. I believe there are numerous problems with any Westcott-Hort translation, but I also know that many sincere Christians use those. Since this is a forum about JW issues, I will simply say that on my "Links" page of my web site, are links to excellent sites that deal with this subject in great depth....deeper than what I will go in to here.
But to answer your question.....No, I absolutely do not believe this is a mistranslation of ANY sort, even if the context refers to Joshua. How could it be?? Joshua and Jesus are the same word. To call it a "mistranslation", this would have to mean that the translators rendered the word wrongly. They didn't. The word appearing in Heb. 4:8 and Acts 7:45 is the SAME exact word that is translated "Jesus" (IESOU) every single other time in the New Testament where it is found. So this is certainly not a mistranslation.
A couple of points should be mentioned here.....
In the margin of the 1611 KJV, the translators said regarding their use of the word Jesus...."This is Joshua". So it is obvious that this was no oversight on their part. They knew the context, but also knew to translate what was there. The 1560 Geneva Bible had a similar notation. It reads....
""For if (b) Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." - (b) He speaks of Joshua the son of Nun: and as the land of Canaan was a figure of our true rest, so was Joshua a figure of Christ."
So please understand these were NOT mere translational oversights....they knew the context, but also gave a consistent translation of the word that is always translated "Jesus".
Secondly, you must remember that Joshua himself was called by four different names, including Jeshuah in Nehemiah 8:17. Joshua in Joshua 1:1, Jehoshuah in Numbers 13:16, and Oshea in Numbers 13:11. He is mentioned only 2 times in the New Testament, once in Acts 7:45, and the second time in Hebrews 4:8. In the Greek, his name translates as Insous, or Jesus in English.....the same way "Jesus" is spelled in each other instance.
In addition, there are other people in the Bible known as "Jesus". In Colossians 4:11, we read of "Jesus, who is called Justus". Also, we read in Acts 13:6 of a false prophet called "Bar-jesus", meaning...."son of Jesus".
Thirdly, the main point to emphasize here is that Joshua was a true type of Jesus in many, many ways. Consider the following remarks from John Gill in his commentary concerning Joshua....
"was an eminent type of Jesus Christ. There is an agreement in their names, both signify a saviour, Joshua was a temporal saviour, Christ a spiritual one; and in their office they were both servants; and in their qualifications for their office, such as wisdom, courage, faithfulness, and integrity. Joshua was a type of Christ in many actions of his life; in the miracles he wrought, or were wrought for him; in the battles he fought, and the victories he obtained."
So there is no way this can be considered an error of translation, when they were translating exactly what was there. The context makes it clear who it is talking about, and by doing so, it reveals the divine foreshadowing and type that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Hope this answer has helped. Take care, Ben, and God bless.
Derrick
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Hey brother Derrick,
Thanks for the info. I just had one question from what you said. You said that you believe that God's Word has been perfectly preserved. I would have to agree with that. However, do you think it is possible that it has been preserved through more than one translation? In other words, do you think that it has to be preserved in one translation and not a little bit here and a little bit there? That is actually my personal belief regarding Christian beliefs among different denominations. I don't believe that there is one true religion. I know that sounds sloppy, but I think that no church is perfect when it comes to doctrine, especially JW's or SDA's or Mormons. Anyway, just let me know what you think? I have great respect for you and love reading your answers. I to have most of my family that are either Jw's or 7th Day Adventists. I don't think these groups (especially family members) understand how difficult it is to leave such a critical family view. I admire anyone who will put God first and suffer the consequences with their family. Well, thanks again brother and I eagerly will await for your response.
God bless,
Ben
Answer Hello Ben, good to hear from you. You ask....
"Thanks for the info. I just had one question from what you said. You said that you believe that God's Word has been perfectly preserved. I would have to agree with that. However, do you think it is possible that it has been preserved through more than one translation? In other words, do you think that it has to be preserved in one translation and not a little bit here and a little bit there?"
I suppose anything would be possible, but in addition to that, I would also have to ask if this is probable. And I don't think it is. This would seem, to me, a quite confusing way to preserve the Word of God. If this were the way it was done, I would immediately want to know how many different translations I would need to get the whole thing, preserved without error. I certainly wouldn't want to leave one out, and only have part of it. Also, I would want to know which ones to avoid as well, so as to not make it any more confusing. But even then, I would still have a problem, because I would have to sift through all the various versions, and figure out which verses were correctly preserved and which ones might have a problem. To me, I just cannot see it.
Now, I do agree with your point somewhat about there not being any single group with "all the truth". Even as an Independent Baptist myself, I have a minor disagreement or two with our stance on some things. But by and large, I believe we have correctly "rightly divided" the Word of God. And like you, I would say that it is important that we agree on the FUNDAMENTAL doctrines of the faith....the Trinity, eternity, salvation only through the blood of Christ, the necessity of being born again, etc. Some variations on non-essentials are not a major problem.
But Ben, I see that as a little different scenario than the Bible being a little here, and a little there. God promised us a perfect Word of God....I don't recall ever saying there would be a perfect church. The church is made up of imperfect people, and I see no promise that anything they do church-related would necessarily be inspired by God. The Bible was also written down by imperfect men, but I DO see a promise of divine inspiration in its writing, and in its preservation.
Now, I want you to understand what I am saying when I say the King James is the preserved Word of God in the English language. Many critics allege "error" in a King James wording in a particular passage. There are thousands of these so-called "mistakes". Most of them are laughable, and desperate attempts to find a flaw that isn't there. Some are decent questions....like the one you asked the other day. And some incredibly, are based on the usage of a word that changed AFTER the KJV was translated, which certainly can NOT be used as proof of any error.
But let's define what "error" is NOT....It is not a disagreement a person may have with the way God did something. Nor is it "error" when the King James renders the word accurately, but there may be another just as accurate rendering as well. Let me elaborate....I believe the King James is mistake-free. I do not necessarily think that a particular rendering in the King James is always the ONLY possible good rendering of the verse. But to say that there could be another way of rendering it accurately, certainly does not imply the KJ rendering is wrong. Listen, I have books on this subject, with just about every possible so-called "error" that critics have alleged, and I am more convinced than ever that the King James got it right.
And again, I would simply ask....WHERE is God's Word today? It HAS to be preserved, or the Scriptures promising preservation are themselves errors. And I would simply say this.....I think your question about the preservation being scattered around in the various versions, while I respect your view, has something else that needs to be said about it. The King James comes from an entirely different set of manuscripts than your modern versions today. And this point cannot be over-looked.
Now, let me say that the overwhelming majority of manuscripts that have ever been found, support the King James Bible. That is why it is often called the Majority Text. But most of your modern versions today use as their basis the text of Westcott and Hort. These men had a whole host of problems and reasons why not to trust them with the words of God. One reason is that these men did not even believe the first 3 chapters in Genesis are meant to give a literal and accurate history? In other words, they deny the literalness of the creation account. And following logically, they were also Darwinists. One of these men say that Darwin's theory was "unanswerable". I don't want to use a "bible" translated by men who themselves do not hold to the literalness of the Bible.
And not to mention that these translations DO contain a number of errors.....removing references to "the blood" many times, removing entire verses and portions of verses, etc. I ask you....Should the account of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11 actually be part of inspired Scripture? What about Mark 16:9-20? According to the manuscripts of Westcott and Hort, these should be removed.
So I guess my question would be....Why would God choose to "preserve" His Word in this manner, by placing parts of it hidden within error-filled translations based on a faulty text to begin with?
That's the problem I have with it.
This really only scratches the surface of this issue. Like I said, I wasn't always where I am now on this. So I can understand the perspective of other Christians who love the Lord, and use other versions. I don't fall out with them. But after looking into this issue the way I have, there is no other conclusion for me to come to. The King James is the most harshly attacked and ridiculed Bible in history, yet remains the comparison by which all others base themselves. It has been used in the great revivals by far more than any other, and I believe, has produced the most fruit. And until it is proven wrong, I see no reason to try and find the truth elsewhere.
Thanks for writing Ben. I appreciate your desire to inquire into these things. I would simply ask you to look at both sides of this, and prayerfully do what God leads you to do. I know you can find some good things in the others, but for me, I want the best.
