Battle Royale XIV discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
brandplucked
New member
Shasta's Santa Claus "bible"
Shasta's Santa Claus "bible"
Shasta, you are still clinging to your non-existent Santa Claus "bible"
Can you show us a copy of this "the original Greek and Hebrew texts" you supposedly believe in? Not gonna happen, is it.
You are basing your whole faith on something that even YOU KNOW DOES NOT EXIST. Now, how silly is that?
Shasta's Santa Claus "bible"
Shasta, you are still clinging to your non-existent Santa Claus "bible"
Can you show us a copy of this "the original Greek and Hebrew texts" you supposedly believe in? Not gonna happen, is it.
You are basing your whole faith on something that even YOU KNOW DOES NOT EXIST. Now, how silly is that?
Speaking of scrolls, that's another think the KJV gets wrong.
For KJVO's it's "Dead Sea Books", not "Dead Sea Scrolls"
For example:
(Dan 12:4 KJV) But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
There were no books in the days of Daniel, there were scrolls.
The NIV, and many other translations get it right:
(Dan 12:4 NIV) But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."
It's the same thing for candlesticks. There were no candlesticks in the days of Moses, they were lampstands. The KJV incorrectly uses "candlestick", the NIV correctly uses "lampstand" in Exodus 25:31
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Tet: "The KJV is without error."
Shasta
Well-known member
In this post I am going to test one of the criticisms you made of modern translations in an attempt to prove the superiority and even perfection of the King James Translation. I have already addressed some of your other critiques and, I believe, successfully shown that the KJV does not always render a correct interpretation of the Greek text. This time I am going to focus on your post #4.
All the words used in this verse are identical in the “Critical Texts,” the Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550), and the Majority Text.
http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/19-8.htm
The Greek, word for that quality of godly character called “righteousness” is dikaiosune. It is used in many scriptures, for example, 1 Timothy 6:11. The original word translated "righteousness" can be seen in the chart on this site. Below you will find all the Greek texts in which it is used.
http://biblehub.com/text/1_timothy/6-11.htm
By clicking on Strong's number we can see the original word and it's definition.
#1343. Strong's Concordance
dikaiosuné: righteousness, justice
Original Word: δικαιοσύνη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: dikaiosuné
Phonetic Spelling: (dik-ah-yos-oo'-nay)
Short Definition: justice, justness, righteousness
Definition: (usually if not always in a Jewish atmosphere), justice, justness, righteousness, righteousness of which God is the source or author, but practically: a divine righteousness.
The problem is that "righteousness" (dikaiosune) is not the word that is used in Revelation 19:8 The word there is dikaiomata which is the plural form of the noun dikaioma[/I].
Strongs Concordance defines dikaioma in the following manner:
dikaióma:
an ordinance,
a sentence of acquittal or condemnation, or
a righteous deed
Original Word: δικαίωμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: dikaióma
Phonetic Spelling: (dik-ah'-yo-mah)
Short Definition: a thing pronounced to be just
Definition: a thing pronounced (by God) to be righteous (just, the right); or the restoration of a criminal, a fresh chance given him; a righteous deed, an instance of perfect righteousness
In this verse, dikaióma appears in its PLURAL form dikaiómata preceded by the plural article ta (the) neither of which are expressed in the KJV.
Of all the definitions listed for ta dikaiomata the one that best comports with the context is "righteous DEEDS"
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon agrees, defining this word as
2. a righteous act or deed: τά δικαιώματα τῶν ἁγίων, Revelation 19:8
http://biblehub.com/greek/1345.htm
Also in agreement with this is
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
by Ardnt and Gingrich
Because of what the KJB says you falsely assumed that the modern translations were claiming that the "saints" are made righteous by virtue of their good deeds and not because they have Christ's righteousness but the issue here is not one of salvation but one of rewards. Frequently in Revelation Christ makes promises to reward those who overcome various trials. God is very generous in giving these rewards because we could not overcome at all unless we had the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
Here too, the modern translations (i.e., all the “fake” Bibles) more accurately convey the meaning of the original Greek text than the "infallible" KJB. If I had no other examples this one would be sufficient to show that the KJB is not inerrant.
It is.
What the translators did is called adding an anachronism.
It doesn't mean the KJV has an error, it means the NIV and other translations do a much better job translating those verses than the KJV translators did.
Moses did the same thing in the following verse:
(Gen 47:11 KJV) So Joseph settled his father and his brothers in Egypt and gave them property in the best part of the land, the district of Rameses, as Pharaoh directed.
Joseph lived many years before Rameses, but Moses called the area that Joseph lived in "the district of Rameses" because that's what it was called when Moses was alive.
It's just like "New York" and "New Amsterdam".
Adding an anachronism is how most KJVO's explain "Easter" in Acts 12:4.
Shasta
Well-known member
Your narrative about the multi-staged production of the one and only PERFECT translation of the Bible in English has no basis in scripture. You yourself claim that the concept is a "revelation" yet how is that "revelation" received? The Mormon's claim they know the Book of Mormon is true because they feel a warmth and quickening when they read it. Is this something like the witness you have for your revelation, or have you had a dream or vision. The scripture (the texts we have in the original languages) say nothing of this coming work of perfection.
If this opinion was arrived at by an intellectual process then it is not some special Gnosis that spiritual people receive. The debate then becomes one of which version best conveys the meaning of the original text linguistically and semantically.
As for me, I read various translations. I read the original. I use the tools for understanding the original meaning of the scriptures. I might read the Greek Fathers. I listen to others. I try not to make up my mind until all the facts are in. Perhaps that method would make you feel less secure. The fact that I do not have to rely solely on ONE translation makes me feel more secure. I search the scriptures. I am not a translation idolator.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Then, I would suggest your conclusion is about to be shown to be in error and then you need to look elsewhere for your opinion about the KJB.
The bride’s preparation is explained in Rev:19:8: she clothes herself with “bright, pure, fine linen,” which symbolizes “the righteous deeds of the saints” (note the explanatory γάρ [“for”] in the closing clause of Rev. 19:8). Since δικαίωμα (righteous deed) and the δικαιόω word-group have such a variety of meanings, the word here must be defined by its immediate context and its usage elsewhere in John’s Apocalypse.
These righteous deeds may best be explained in part from Rev. 19:10, holding to the testimony of Jesus. Testimony (μαρτυρία) occurs at least six other times in the Revelation, usually in the expression testimony of Jesus and always within the context of bearing witness to Jesus in both word and deed (See Rev. 1:9; 6:9; 11:7; 12:11, 17; 20:4; with Rev. 1:2 possibly being an exception). For saints to hold to the testimony also means negatively that they will not give their loyalty to Babylon but separate themselves from Babylon (for example see Rev. 18:4).
Therefore, a likely meaning here is that before the marriage can take place the saints must complete their preparation of performing “righteous deeds” by persevering in their faith despite the world’s persecution. The preservation of the saints is wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in them, hence the very deeds that they do is but God’s workmanship, so to imply, as does Mr. Kinney, or yourself, that there is a meaning here implying that righteousness comes from the believer’s performing works, a “works-based righteousness”, is to misunderstand the passage and its context.
According to this understanding, a classic theological tension appears to exist between the idea of the bride preparing herself (Rev. 19:7) and that of the bride being given her garments (Rev. 19:8), that is, “it was given to her that she should clothe herself” (for the tension elsewhere in Scripture see Lev. 20:7–8; Phil. 2:12–13).
Some try to solve the difficulty by diluting the lexical meaning of ἐδόθη (“granted”) and translating it as “permit, allow.” This is easily solved by noting this “granted” does not deny the Pauline doctrine of justification based on the righteous obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:18–19), but suggests that a transformed life is the proper response by the justified to the call of the heavenly bridegroom. After all, no one disputes that the believer will bear good fruit, some more than others, but good fruit nonetheless.
Accordingly, it would be better to view Rev. 19:7-8 as indicating that a transformed life of good works (though certainly not perfection) is not only the proper response to justification but a necessary external response or badge, if you will, required before entrance to the wedding of the Lamb is granted. Theologically, this would mean that justification is the causal necessary condition for entrance into the eternal kingdom, but good works are a non-causal necessary condition. In this regard, see also Rom. 2:6–8; 2 Cor. 11:2 and forward.
I would hope Mr. Kinney appropriates the above as a more reasoned argument in support of the KJB rendering denying any sort of works-based righteousness (as would be assumed by some later translations of Holy Writ) and that you reconsider your argument that the KJB rendering does injustice to its intended meaning once the full counsel of Scripture is considered. All of which is to say, I could have made the same argument above using non-KJB translations wherein "acts" or "deeds" is explicitly rendered, but the KJB rendering makes this less of a burden for someone reading the text by not being immediately sent down the erroneous "works-based righteousness" rabbit hole. That is often the problem with modern translations, as they force far more heavy-lifting upon the exegete to dig out the true meaning when the KJB renderings are more perspicuous.
AMR
Last edited:
You mean the sea of reeds is not the Red Sea?
I double-checked your work and it is correct in stating that the translation is in error, except one small thing. The order of words is different in the Stephanus text compared to that of the Majority text. But the order makes not one iota of difference to your point.
I agree. It is possible to theologise away the difference and make a case for 'righteousness' but such attempts are pretty see-through in my view. The text is quite clear and as you say, this in no way implies that salvation is obtained through righteous acts. The bride is already there - it's her clothes that make her beautiful. If I were even the slightest bit cynical, I would suggest that the translation here was deliberately biased to protect the vested interests of the reformed tradition. But then the translators did sign in blood that they would uphold the 39 articles so I guess this sort of thing is to be expected. As I have said elsewhere, I don't think the KJV is any better or worse than other translations in this respect. It is an error, but so long as such biases don't appear too often, it is an error that one can forgive.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
How is this comment not one-upmanship and emotional blackmail?
You don't sound like you are disagreeing with me...
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
We have found a new meaning for "Greek Tragedy".
brandplucked
New member
Bible agnostics and their lies -
Bible agnostics and their lies -
Wow, so you read the original, do you, Shasta? Why have you been hoarding them all to yourself all this time and haven't shared them with the scholastic community?
Any chance you might at least make copies of them for us and sell them on Ebay or something? Just think of all the money you could make. It staggers the mind to even think of it.
Oh, wait. You wouldn't by any change be fibbing to us, would you? Nah....what are the chances of that happening? :think:
Bible agnostics and their lies -
Wow, so you read the original, do you, Shasta? Why have you been hoarding them all to yourself all this time and haven't shared them with the scholastic community?
Any chance you might at least make copies of them for us and sell them on Ebay or something? Just think of all the money you could make. It staggers the mind to even think of it.
Oh, wait. You wouldn't by any change be fibbing to us, would you? Nah....what are the chances of that happening? :think:
brandplucked
New member
The Printing Errors Ploy - last ditch effort of the bible agnostics
The Printing Errors Ploy - last ditch effort of the bible agnostics
Uh...Docta, those are called minor printing errors. Guys like you and Bob Enyart who do NOT believe that any Bible is or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God will hang on to this flimsiest of excuses in order to maintain that NO Bible in history has ever been God's inerrant words.
If you wish to stumble over this pebble, you are welcome to it.
It wouldn't matter to either of you if every single printing of the King James Bible in history had been letter perfect in every detail. Guys like you would STILL not believe that it is God's inerrant Book.
Happy Trails,
The Printing Errors Ploy - last ditch effort of the bible agnostics
Uh...Docta, those are called minor printing errors. Guys like you and Bob Enyart who do NOT believe that any Bible is or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God will hang on to this flimsiest of excuses in order to maintain that NO Bible in history has ever been God's inerrant words.
If you wish to stumble over this pebble, you are welcome to it.
It wouldn't matter to either of you if every single printing of the King James Bible in history had been letter perfect in every detail. Guys like you would STILL not believe that it is God's inerrant Book.
Happy Trails,
brandplucked
New member
Revelation 19:8 "the fine linen is the righteousness of saints"
Revelation 19:8 "the fine linen is the righteousness of saints"
As usual, Shasta is wrong.
Revelation 19:8 KJB - "The fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" or
ESV - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints"?
Jehovah Witness New World Translation - "the fine linen stands for THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the holy ones."
Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - "The linen dress is THE VIRTUOUS DEEDS of God's saints."
Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "because her linen IS MADE OF THE GOOD DEEDS of the saints."
The Last Days N.T. 1999 says: “…because fine linen REPRESENTS THE GOOD LIVES LIVED by those who belong to the Lord.”
A Criticism of Revelation 19:8 by a version rummager with his “school boy Greek”
One King James Bible critic I ran into, who himself does not have or believe that any Bible in any language is the inerrant words of God writes: “One way of collapsing the card house built KJV Onlyism, is to show KJV's deviations from the Textus Receptus, its reported base text for the New Testament. Here some examples of NT-specific translational decisions of the KJV translators, the rationale of which I don't understand. Why, in Rev. 19:8, did KJV render "righteousness", singular? Which presupposes the noun dikaiosunê in singular. The Greek texts all have a plural number noun, δικαιωματα. Which noun is not the same as the cognate dikaiosunê. Many ancient versions correctly render as plural, Vulgate, Beza's 1556 Latin NT, Wycliffe NT 1394, Spanish de Reina 1569, Rheims NT 1582, to name a few. Although some of them may miss somewhat as to the word meaning. Dikaiôma is basically "a righteous act", while dikaiosunê is commonly understood to be "righteousness".” [End of Bible critic’s comments]
First of all, does this Bible critic actually believe “the” Textus Receptus is the inerrant words of God? He never tells us. He just seems to rummage through the various readings and decides for himself how he thinks “the Greek” should REALLY be translated.
Secondly, I am not an expert in Greek, nor do I need to be, but I can read it and I do recognize “sophomoric school boy Greek” when I see it. This "expert" seems to think that one word has only one meaning, regardless of the context, and he mistakenly tells us that since this particular Greek word in Revelation 19:8 is plural, that it should then be translated as a plural - which would make it “righteous ACTS”. And this is exactly what some versions have done and they end up teaching false doctrine and turning the meaning of the verse upside down.
Many words that are “plural” are often correctly translated as a “singular”, and all translations do this. There are numerous examples of plural nouns being translated as a singular and singular nouns as plural. ALL translations do this.
This anti-King James Bible critic has probably had a couple years of Greek at some seminary where they stole his faith in an inerrant Bible and now thinks he knows far more than the 47 learned men, who were giants in their field of languages, that God chose to give us His masterpiece.
For example - (the capitalized words are actually PLURAL in Greek) GENERATION Matthew 3:7, BIRTHDAY Matthew 14:6; WATER Matthew 14:29; BREAD Matthew 16:5 and 7; HEAVEN Matthew 16:17, 19 (over 50 in the KJB and most translations), A MARRIAGE Matthew 22:2; DAY Luke 5:17; BLOOD John 1:13; MY WILL Acts 13:22; SABBATH Acts 16:13; TIME Acts 11:27; THE PRICE Acts 19:19; MONEY Acts 24:26; A FEVER Acts 28:8; ARMOUR Romans 13:13; UNDERSTANDING 1 Cor. 14:20; HEAVEN Colossians 1:5; TIME 1 Timothy 2:6; and INCENSE Revelation 8:3.
And Regarding Revelation 19:8 many Bible commentators are in agreement with the KJB reading. Jamieson, Faussett and Brown remark - "righteousness - Greek, "righteousnesses"; DISTRIBUTIVELY USED. EACH SAINT MUSH HAVE THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
My Rebuttal and Defense of the King James Bible
What is your righteousness before a holy and just God? Is it your own righteous acts or the imputed righteousness of our precious Lord Jesus Christ? The imputed righteousness of Christ is illustrated and clearly taught throughout the King James Bible.
In the beginning, after Adam and Eve had sinned and hid themselves from God because they were naked, we are told in Genesis 3:21: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skin, and clothed them.”
An innocent animal was slain, and it's coat was made a covering for the naked, guilty pair. God has to cover us; we cannot cover ourselves acceptably before Him.
Isaiah 61:10 beautifully expresses this truth: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.”
Zechariah 3:1-4 illustrates the same truth. Satan stood at the right hand of Joshua the high priest to resist him. The Lord rebuked Satan. The Bible tells us that: “Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.” But God said: “Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.”
In Matthew 22 our Saviour gives us a parable about a wedding where the guests were bidden to the feast. But the king saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. "And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless." Then the man was bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness.
You and I have no righteousness of our own doing. Isaiah 64:6 tells us: "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags."
2 Corinthians 5:21 tells us, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
Philippians 3:9 the apostle Paul expresses his desire to "be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."
Revelation 19:7-9 tells us again of the wedding feast: "the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; FOR THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."
This last phrase is consistent with the rest of Scripture that it is not our righteousness that makes us acceptable unto God, but the imputed righteousness of Christ.
"THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS"
Versions that read just like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535 - "And to her was graunted, that she shulde be arayed with pure and goodly sylke. (As for the sylke, it is the rightewesnes of sayntes.)", the Great Bible 1540, Matthews Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599 - "for the fine linnen is the righteousnesse of Saintes.", Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation - "the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Worsley Version 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Bill Bible 1671, The Revised Translation 1815, The Thompson N.T, 1816, Daniel Webster's of 1833, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Commonly Received Version 1851, Noyles Translation 1869, Darby's translation 1890, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Murdoch's Translation of the Syriac 1852 - "for fine linen is the righteousness of saints.", Etheridge's Translation 1849, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Ainslie N.T. 1869, the Alford N.T. 1870.
Others Bibles that read "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" are the American Bible Union N.T. 1865, Anderson N.T. 1865, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Sinaitic New Testament 1918, The Plain English N.T. 1963, The Basic English Bible 1965, The Fenton Bible 1966, The Recovery New Testament 1985, the Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Webster's Bible 1995, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the 21st Century KJB version 1994, Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Green’s interlinear and Green's 2005 Literal Translation, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible and even the 2002 paraphrase called The Message which reads: "She was given a bridal gown of bright and shining linen. The linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Bond Slave Version 2012, the Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", the BRG Bible 2012 and the Modern Literal Version 2014 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the holy ones."
The Conservative Bible 2011 says: “To her was granted that she be dressed in fine linen, clean and bright, because the fine linen is THE JUSTIFICATION of the saints."
The Morgan New Testament of 1848 and the Smith Bible 1876 also read this way - "the fine linen is THE JUSTIFICATION of the saints."
The Hewett New Testament of 1850 reads: "the fine linen are THE JUSTIFICATIONS of saints."
The Catholic Connection
However, the Catholic Douay, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, and the Jehovah Witness Bibles read in a similar way to many modern versions. The St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 reads: "the linen dress is THE VIRTUOUS DEEDS of God's saints." and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible has: "because her fine linen IS MADE OF THE GOOD DEEDS OF THE SAINTS."
The Catholic doctrine of works righteousness is now being taught by such modern versions as the NKJV, ESV, NET, NIV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard, and the NASB. Small wonder, since versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB are the new Vatican Versions put out by a joint effort of the Vatican and modern day "Evangelicals" to create an "interconfessional" text for the New Testament. You can see the Proof of this in the article here and in their own words -
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
The Jehovah Witness New World Translation says: "the fine linen STANDS FOR THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the holy ones."
The NKJV, NASB, ISV (2003 International Standard Version), the 2001-2011 ESVs (English Standard Version), the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS DEEDS of God's people").
The Holman Standard reads: "For the fine linen represents THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints."
Dan Wallace's NET version says: "She was permitted to be dressed in bright, clean, fine linen” (for the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS DEEDS of the saints).
The Easy To Read Version 2006 actually says ; "The fine linen means THE GOOD THINGS GOD'S HOLY PEOPLE DID." (Well, it may be "easy to read" but it is theologically wrong!)
The Moffat translation 1913 had "the white linen is THE RIGHTEOUS CONDUCT of the saints."
The Worldwide English N.T. 1998 actually says: “The fine linen THE GOOD THINGS GOD’S PEOPLE HAVE DONE.”
J.B. Phillips paraphrase called The New Testament in Modern English 1962 (a critical text version) reads: "She may be seen dressed in linen, gleaming and spotless—for SUCH LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUS LIVING OF THE SAINTS."
The Last Days N.T. 1999 says: “…because fine linen REPRESENTS THE GOOD LIVES LIVED by those who belong to the Lord.” ("The Last Days New Testament" is an appropriate name for this perversion, indeed.)
The Spoken English N.T. 2008 has "The fine linen represents ALL THE PROOFS OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE HOLY ONES."
The Knox Bible of 2012 (a mixed critical text version) actually says: "hers it is to wear linen of shining white; THE MERITS OF THE SAINTS ARE HER LINEN."
If our righteous acts, righteous deeds or "merits" are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered, don't you think? How many "righteous acts" did the dying thief on the cross manage to accumulate during his short life? Will he have just a thread or two to make up his individual robe of "righteous acts"?
If our righteous acts make up our fine linen robes, then some will have much finer robes than others and some will be dressed in tatters or just a few threads of material. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same truth in this verse. So which one is right?
A couple of Christian Bible agnostics I have run into on the internet clubs (if you are not KJB only then you are a bible agnostic -
http://brandplucked.webs.com/biblebelieveragnostic.htm )
- have tried to defend the reading found in such modern versions as the NKJV, NIV, NASB and ESV.
They point to verse 7 where it says: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." Verse 8 - "And to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness (MV's "righteous acts") of the saints."
They tell us that the phrase "his wife hath made herself ready" means that we are looking at what the wife did, her righteous acts of obedience". However this is still teaching a works based righteousness that makes the bride ready to meet her Husband.
No, the truth of the matter is that the only way the wife (the redeemed members of the church) can "make herself ready" is by coming to the Lord Jesus Christ - "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." - and by believing on Him as their Saviour and Redeemer - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
They also fail to notice the next verse where it says "And to her IT WAS GRANTED that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white". The verb here is a passive verb; that means she did not do it herself but Someone else did it for her - it was granted or it was given to her. This means that she did not earn it in any way nor did the bride make up this robe herself. It was a gift and righteousness itself is a gift from Almighty God our Redeemer (Romans 5:17)
The Greek word used here for "righteousness" is dikaioma. It can have several different meanings depending on the context. Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon list: "act of righteousness, judgment, punishment, plea of right, ordinance, decree, making or accounting righteous, a just claim or judgment of what is right".
Kittel's Theological Dictionary shows: "a legal claim, statute or ordinance, a judicial sentence especially of punishment, the actualization of justice, fulfillment of a legal requirement, righteous acts or righteous judgments".
The NASB complete concordance itself on page 1643 says the word comes from the verb meaning "to show to be righteous or to declare righteous". The NASB has variously translated the word dikaioma as: "justification, act of righteousness, ordinance, regulation, requirements".
Likewise the NIV has translated it as: "regulation, righteous, act of righteousness, justification, requirements, righteous decree, and righteous requirements".
The context is very important in determining the sense of the word, and overall theology is paramount. If the NASB, NIV, NKJV had translated this as "the fine linen is the righteous requirements of the saints" there would not be much of a difference from the King James Bible, Geneva, Tyndale, Green, Darby, Spanish of 1909, Websters, and Third Millenium Bibles. The fine linen provided by Christ Himself meets all the legal requirements of the laws of a holy God.
However to translate this phrase as: "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints" overthrows the correct doctrine that there is no righteousness acceptable to God save that of Christ's alone - He is the LORD our righteousness. It is really quite simple.
Revelation 19 is talking about the fine linen, clean and white that makes up the dress or robe of the bride of the Lamb and it IS (estin -singular verb and singular linen) the same robe that covers the whole bride collectively and individually. There is only one and the same fine linen for all the redeemed members that make up this bride or wife of the Lamb.
It has to be the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ; otherwise, if these robes were made up of the individual "righteous acts" of each believer, there would have to be many different robes of differing sizes, beauty and make up. The King James Bible is right and the versions that say "righteous acts" are wrong.
I will show four traditional Bible commentaries relating to this verse. Those by Matthew Henry, John Gill, Matthew Poole and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.
Matthew Henry says: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared; not in the gay and gaudy dress of the mother of harlots, but in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness, both imputed for justification and imparted for sanctification—the stola, the white robe of absolution, adoption, and enfranchisement, and the white robe of purity and universal holiness. She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord. 2. The marriage-feast, which, though not particularly described (as Mt. 22:4), yet is declared to be such as would make all those happy who were called to it, so called as to accept the invitation, a feast made up of the promises of the gospel, the true sayings of God.
John Gill on Revelation 19:8 - "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, or "righteousnesses"; not good works, or their own righteousness; for though these are evidences of faith, by which the saints are justified, and are what God has prepared for them, that they should walk in them; yet these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints: and though it is but one, yet it may be called "righteousnesses", or "justifications", in the plural number; partly because of the many persons that are justified by it, as also because of the excellency of it."
"Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white, because of its spotless purity; those that are arrayed with it being unblamable and irreprovable, and without spot and blemish, and without fault before the throne;... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, which was despised by the Jews in Christ's time, who refused to come to the marriage feast; and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it; and so Christ's righteousness is called the gift of righteousness, the free gift, and gift by grace, and abundance of grace; and faith, which receives it, and puts it on, is the gift of God, (Romans 5:15-17) (Ephesians 2:8) . Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)."
Matthew Poole comments: "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And to her was granted; that is, to the Lamb's wife, whether Jews or Gentiles, or both. That she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; that she should be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, reckoned to her for righteousness. This is the righteousness of the saints; called the righteousness of God, Rornans 1:17; a righteousness through the faith of Christ, Phil. iii.9: called righteousnesses, in the Greek, because there are many saints to be clothed with it; and because it is imputed both for justification and sanctification, not to excuse us from holiness, but to make up our defects."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment: "granted--Though in one sense she "made herself ready," having by the Spirit's work in her put on "the wedding garment," yet in the fullest sense it is not she, but her Lord, who makes her ready by "granting to her that she be arrayed in fine linen." It is He who, by giving Himself for her, presents her to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, but holy and without blemish.
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown continue: "righteousness - Greek, "righteousnesses"; distributively used. Each saint must have this righteousness: not merely be justified, as if the righteousness belonged to the Church in the aggregate; the saints together have righteousnesses; namely, He is accounted as "the Lord our righteousness" to each saint on his believing, their robes being made white in the blood of the Lamb."
The King James Holy Bible gives us the correct doctrine of the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. We are clothed in HIS righteousness, not our own "righteous acts".
For another article I have written about the religion of works being promoted by all modern versions, including the NKJV, see:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/satansreligionworks.htm
All of sovereign grace and mercy, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, my Lord and Saviour,
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
Revelation 19:8 "the fine linen is the righteousness of saints"
As usual, Shasta is wrong.
Revelation 19:8 KJB - "The fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" or
ESV - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints"?
Jehovah Witness New World Translation - "the fine linen stands for THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the holy ones."
Catholic St. Joseph New American bible 1970 - "The linen dress is THE VIRTUOUS DEEDS of God's saints."
Catholic New Jerusalem bible 1985 - "because her linen IS MADE OF THE GOOD DEEDS of the saints."
The Last Days N.T. 1999 says: “…because fine linen REPRESENTS THE GOOD LIVES LIVED by those who belong to the Lord.”
A Criticism of Revelation 19:8 by a version rummager with his “school boy Greek”
One King James Bible critic I ran into, who himself does not have or believe that any Bible in any language is the inerrant words of God writes: “One way of collapsing the card house built KJV Onlyism, is to show KJV's deviations from the Textus Receptus, its reported base text for the New Testament. Here some examples of NT-specific translational decisions of the KJV translators, the rationale of which I don't understand. Why, in Rev. 19:8, did KJV render "righteousness", singular? Which presupposes the noun dikaiosunê in singular. The Greek texts all have a plural number noun, δικαιωματα. Which noun is not the same as the cognate dikaiosunê. Many ancient versions correctly render as plural, Vulgate, Beza's 1556 Latin NT, Wycliffe NT 1394, Spanish de Reina 1569, Rheims NT 1582, to name a few. Although some of them may miss somewhat as to the word meaning. Dikaiôma is basically "a righteous act", while dikaiosunê is commonly understood to be "righteousness".” [End of Bible critic’s comments]
First of all, does this Bible critic actually believe “the” Textus Receptus is the inerrant words of God? He never tells us. He just seems to rummage through the various readings and decides for himself how he thinks “the Greek” should REALLY be translated.
Secondly, I am not an expert in Greek, nor do I need to be, but I can read it and I do recognize “sophomoric school boy Greek” when I see it. This "expert" seems to think that one word has only one meaning, regardless of the context, and he mistakenly tells us that since this particular Greek word in Revelation 19:8 is plural, that it should then be translated as a plural - which would make it “righteous ACTS”. And this is exactly what some versions have done and they end up teaching false doctrine and turning the meaning of the verse upside down.
Many words that are “plural” are often correctly translated as a “singular”, and all translations do this. There are numerous examples of plural nouns being translated as a singular and singular nouns as plural. ALL translations do this.
This anti-King James Bible critic has probably had a couple years of Greek at some seminary where they stole his faith in an inerrant Bible and now thinks he knows far more than the 47 learned men, who were giants in their field of languages, that God chose to give us His masterpiece.
For example - (the capitalized words are actually PLURAL in Greek) GENERATION Matthew 3:7, BIRTHDAY Matthew 14:6; WATER Matthew 14:29; BREAD Matthew 16:5 and 7; HEAVEN Matthew 16:17, 19 (over 50 in the KJB and most translations), A MARRIAGE Matthew 22:2; DAY Luke 5:17; BLOOD John 1:13; MY WILL Acts 13:22; SABBATH Acts 16:13; TIME Acts 11:27; THE PRICE Acts 19:19; MONEY Acts 24:26; A FEVER Acts 28:8; ARMOUR Romans 13:13; UNDERSTANDING 1 Cor. 14:20; HEAVEN Colossians 1:5; TIME 1 Timothy 2:6; and INCENSE Revelation 8:3.
And Regarding Revelation 19:8 many Bible commentators are in agreement with the KJB reading. Jamieson, Faussett and Brown remark - "righteousness - Greek, "righteousnesses"; DISTRIBUTIVELY USED. EACH SAINT MUSH HAVE THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
My Rebuttal and Defense of the King James Bible
What is your righteousness before a holy and just God? Is it your own righteous acts or the imputed righteousness of our precious Lord Jesus Christ? The imputed righteousness of Christ is illustrated and clearly taught throughout the King James Bible.
In the beginning, after Adam and Eve had sinned and hid themselves from God because they were naked, we are told in Genesis 3:21: “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skin, and clothed them.”
An innocent animal was slain, and it's coat was made a covering for the naked, guilty pair. God has to cover us; we cannot cover ourselves acceptably before Him.
Isaiah 61:10 beautifully expresses this truth: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels.”
Zechariah 3:1-4 illustrates the same truth. Satan stood at the right hand of Joshua the high priest to resist him. The Lord rebuked Satan. The Bible tells us that: “Joshua was clothed with filthy garments.” But God said: “Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.”
In Matthew 22 our Saviour gives us a parable about a wedding where the guests were bidden to the feast. But the king saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. "And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless." Then the man was bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness.
You and I have no righteousness of our own doing. Isaiah 64:6 tells us: "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags."
2 Corinthians 5:21 tells us, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him".
Philippians 3:9 the apostle Paul expresses his desire to "be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."
Revelation 19:7-9 tells us again of the wedding feast: "the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; FOR THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."
This last phrase is consistent with the rest of Scripture that it is not our righteousness that makes us acceptable unto God, but the imputed righteousness of Christ.
"THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS"
Versions that read just like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535 - "And to her was graunted, that she shulde be arayed with pure and goodly sylke. (As for the sylke, it is the rightewesnes of sayntes.)", the Great Bible 1540, Matthews Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599 - "for the fine linnen is the righteousnesse of Saintes.", Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation - "the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Worsley Version 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Bill Bible 1671, The Revised Translation 1815, The Thompson N.T, 1816, Daniel Webster's of 1833, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Commonly Received Version 1851, Noyles Translation 1869, Darby's translation 1890, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Murdoch's Translation of the Syriac 1852 - "for fine linen is the righteousness of saints.", Etheridge's Translation 1849, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised N.T. 1862, The Ainslie N.T. 1869, the Alford N.T. 1870.
Others Bibles that read "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" are the American Bible Union N.T. 1865, Anderson N.T. 1865, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Sinaitic New Testament 1918, The Plain English N.T. 1963, The Basic English Bible 1965, The Fenton Bible 1966, The Recovery New Testament 1985, the Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Webster's Bible 1995, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the 21st Century KJB version 1994, Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Green’s interlinear and Green's 2005 Literal Translation, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible and even the 2002 paraphrase called The Message which reads: "She was given a bridal gown of bright and shining linen. The linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Bond Slave Version 2012, the Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", the BRG Bible 2012 and the Modern Literal Version 2014 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the holy ones."
The Conservative Bible 2011 says: “To her was granted that she be dressed in fine linen, clean and bright, because the fine linen is THE JUSTIFICATION of the saints."
The Morgan New Testament of 1848 and the Smith Bible 1876 also read this way - "the fine linen is THE JUSTIFICATION of the saints."
The Hewett New Testament of 1850 reads: "the fine linen are THE JUSTIFICATIONS of saints."
The Catholic Connection
However, the Catholic Douay, the Catholic St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, and the Jehovah Witness Bibles read in a similar way to many modern versions. The St. Joseph New American bible of 1970 reads: "the linen dress is THE VIRTUOUS DEEDS of God's saints." and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible has: "because her fine linen IS MADE OF THE GOOD DEEDS OF THE SAINTS."
The Catholic doctrine of works righteousness is now being taught by such modern versions as the NKJV, ESV, NET, NIV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard, and the NASB. Small wonder, since versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB are the new Vatican Versions put out by a joint effort of the Vatican and modern day "Evangelicals" to create an "interconfessional" text for the New Testament. You can see the Proof of this in the article here and in their own words -
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new "Vatican Versions"
http://brandplucked.webs.com/realcatholicbibles.htm
The Jehovah Witness New World Translation says: "the fine linen STANDS FOR THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the holy ones."
The NKJV, NASB, ISV (2003 International Standard Version), the 2001-2011 ESVs (English Standard Version), the Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS DEEDS of God's people").
The Holman Standard reads: "For the fine linen represents THE RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints."
Dan Wallace's NET version says: "She was permitted to be dressed in bright, clean, fine linen” (for the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUS DEEDS of the saints).
The Easy To Read Version 2006 actually says ; "The fine linen means THE GOOD THINGS GOD'S HOLY PEOPLE DID." (Well, it may be "easy to read" but it is theologically wrong!)
The Moffat translation 1913 had "the white linen is THE RIGHTEOUS CONDUCT of the saints."
The Worldwide English N.T. 1998 actually says: “The fine linen THE GOOD THINGS GOD’S PEOPLE HAVE DONE.”
J.B. Phillips paraphrase called The New Testament in Modern English 1962 (a critical text version) reads: "She may be seen dressed in linen, gleaming and spotless—for SUCH LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUS LIVING OF THE SAINTS."
The Last Days N.T. 1999 says: “…because fine linen REPRESENTS THE GOOD LIVES LIVED by those who belong to the Lord.” ("The Last Days New Testament" is an appropriate name for this perversion, indeed.)
The Spoken English N.T. 2008 has "The fine linen represents ALL THE PROOFS OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE HOLY ONES."
The Knox Bible of 2012 (a mixed critical text version) actually says: "hers it is to wear linen of shining white; THE MERITS OF THE SAINTS ARE HER LINEN."
If our righteous acts, righteous deeds or "merits" are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered, don't you think? How many "righteous acts" did the dying thief on the cross manage to accumulate during his short life? Will he have just a thread or two to make up his individual robe of "righteous acts"?
If our righteous acts make up our fine linen robes, then some will have much finer robes than others and some will be dressed in tatters or just a few threads of material. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same truth in this verse. So which one is right?
A couple of Christian Bible agnostics I have run into on the internet clubs (if you are not KJB only then you are a bible agnostic -
http://brandplucked.webs.com/biblebelieveragnostic.htm )
- have tried to defend the reading found in such modern versions as the NKJV, NIV, NASB and ESV.
They point to verse 7 where it says: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." Verse 8 - "And to her it was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness (MV's "righteous acts") of the saints."
They tell us that the phrase "his wife hath made herself ready" means that we are looking at what the wife did, her righteous acts of obedience". However this is still teaching a works based righteousness that makes the bride ready to meet her Husband.
No, the truth of the matter is that the only way the wife (the redeemed members of the church) can "make herself ready" is by coming to the Lord Jesus Christ - "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." - and by believing on Him as their Saviour and Redeemer - "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
They also fail to notice the next verse where it says "And to her IT WAS GRANTED that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white". The verb here is a passive verb; that means she did not do it herself but Someone else did it for her - it was granted or it was given to her. This means that she did not earn it in any way nor did the bride make up this robe herself. It was a gift and righteousness itself is a gift from Almighty God our Redeemer (Romans 5:17)
The Greek word used here for "righteousness" is dikaioma. It can have several different meanings depending on the context. Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon list: "act of righteousness, judgment, punishment, plea of right, ordinance, decree, making or accounting righteous, a just claim or judgment of what is right".
Kittel's Theological Dictionary shows: "a legal claim, statute or ordinance, a judicial sentence especially of punishment, the actualization of justice, fulfillment of a legal requirement, righteous acts or righteous judgments".
The NASB complete concordance itself on page 1643 says the word comes from the verb meaning "to show to be righteous or to declare righteous". The NASB has variously translated the word dikaioma as: "justification, act of righteousness, ordinance, regulation, requirements".
Likewise the NIV has translated it as: "regulation, righteous, act of righteousness, justification, requirements, righteous decree, and righteous requirements".
The context is very important in determining the sense of the word, and overall theology is paramount. If the NASB, NIV, NKJV had translated this as "the fine linen is the righteous requirements of the saints" there would not be much of a difference from the King James Bible, Geneva, Tyndale, Green, Darby, Spanish of 1909, Websters, and Third Millenium Bibles. The fine linen provided by Christ Himself meets all the legal requirements of the laws of a holy God.
However to translate this phrase as: "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints" overthrows the correct doctrine that there is no righteousness acceptable to God save that of Christ's alone - He is the LORD our righteousness. It is really quite simple.
Revelation 19 is talking about the fine linen, clean and white that makes up the dress or robe of the bride of the Lamb and it IS (estin -singular verb and singular linen) the same robe that covers the whole bride collectively and individually. There is only one and the same fine linen for all the redeemed members that make up this bride or wife of the Lamb.
It has to be the imputed righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ; otherwise, if these robes were made up of the individual "righteous acts" of each believer, there would have to be many different robes of differing sizes, beauty and make up. The King James Bible is right and the versions that say "righteous acts" are wrong.
I will show four traditional Bible commentaries relating to this verse. Those by Matthew Henry, John Gill, Matthew Poole and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown.
Matthew Henry says: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared; not in the gay and gaudy dress of the mother of harlots, but in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness, both imputed for justification and imparted for sanctification—the stola, the white robe of absolution, adoption, and enfranchisement, and the white robe of purity and universal holiness. She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord. 2. The marriage-feast, which, though not particularly described (as Mt. 22:4), yet is declared to be such as would make all those happy who were called to it, so called as to accept the invitation, a feast made up of the promises of the gospel, the true sayings of God.
John Gill on Revelation 19:8 - "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, or "righteousnesses"; not good works, or their own righteousness; for though these are evidences of faith, by which the saints are justified, and are what God has prepared for them, that they should walk in them; yet these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints: and though it is but one, yet it may be called "righteousnesses", or "justifications", in the plural number; partly because of the many persons that are justified by it, as also because of the excellency of it."
"Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white, because of its spotless purity; those that are arrayed with it being unblamable and irreprovable, and without spot and blemish, and without fault before the throne;... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, which was despised by the Jews in Christ's time, who refused to come to the marriage feast; and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it; and so Christ's righteousness is called the gift of righteousness, the free gift, and gift by grace, and abundance of grace; and faith, which receives it, and puts it on, is the gift of God, (Romans 5:15-17) (Ephesians 2:8) . Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)."
Matthew Poole comments: "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And to her was granted; that is, to the Lamb's wife, whether Jews or Gentiles, or both. That she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; that she should be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, reckoned to her for righteousness. This is the righteousness of the saints; called the righteousness of God, Rornans 1:17; a righteousness through the faith of Christ, Phil. iii.9: called righteousnesses, in the Greek, because there are many saints to be clothed with it; and because it is imputed both for justification and sanctification, not to excuse us from holiness, but to make up our defects."
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment: "granted--Though in one sense she "made herself ready," having by the Spirit's work in her put on "the wedding garment," yet in the fullest sense it is not she, but her Lord, who makes her ready by "granting to her that she be arrayed in fine linen." It is He who, by giving Himself for her, presents her to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, but holy and without blemish.
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown continue: "righteousness - Greek, "righteousnesses"; distributively used. Each saint must have this righteousness: not merely be justified, as if the righteousness belonged to the Church in the aggregate; the saints together have righteousnesses; namely, He is accounted as "the Lord our righteousness" to each saint on his believing, their robes being made white in the blood of the Lamb."
The King James Holy Bible gives us the correct doctrine of the grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. We are clothed in HIS righteousness, not our own "righteous acts".
For another article I have written about the religion of works being promoted by all modern versions, including the NKJV, see:
http://brandplucked.webs.com/satansreligionworks.htm
All of sovereign grace and mercy, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, my Lord and Saviour,
Will Kinney
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
Shasta
Well-known member
Then, I would suggest your conclusion is about to be shown to be in error and then you need to look elsewhere for your opinion about the KJB.
The bride’s preparation is explained in Rev:19:8: she clothes herself with “bright, pure, fine linen,” which symbolizes “the righteous deeds of the saints” (note the explanatory γάρ [“for”] in the closing clause of Rev. 19:8). Since δικαίωμα (righteous deed) and the δικαιόω word-group have such a variety of meanings, the word here must be defined by its immediate context and its usage elsewhere in John’s Apocalypse.
These righteous deeds may best be explained in part from Rev. 19:10, holding to the testimony of Jesus. Testimony (μαρτυρία) occurs at least six other times in the Revelation, usually in the expression testimony of Jesus and always within the context of bearing witness to Jesus in both word and deed (See Rev. 1:9; 6:9; 11:7; 12:11, 17; 20:4; with Rev. 1:2 possibly being an exception). For saints to hold to the testimony also means negatively that they will not give their loyalty to Babylon but separate themselves from Babylon (for example see Rev. 18:4).
Therefore, a likely meaning here is that before the marriage can take place the saints must complete their preparation of performing “righteous deeds” by persevering in their faith despite the world’s persecution. The preservation of the saints is wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit in them, hence the very deeds that they do is but God’s workmanship, so to imply, as does Mr. Kinney, or yourself, that there is a meaning here implying that righteousness comes from the believer’s performing works, a “works-based righteousness”, is to misunderstand the passage and its context.
According to this understanding, a classic theological tension appears to exist between the idea of the bride preparing herself (Rev. 19:7) and that of the bride being given her garments (Rev. 19:8), that is, “it was given to her that she should clothe herself” (for the tension elsewhere in Scripture see Lev. 20:7–8; Phil. 2:12–13).
Some try to solve the difficulty by diluting the lexical meaning of ἐδόθη (“granted”) and translating it as “permit, allow.” This is easily solved by noting this “granted” does not deny the Pauline doctrine of justification based on the righteous obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:18–19), but suggests that a transformed life is the proper response by the justified to the call of the heavenly bridegroom. After all, no one disputes that the believer will bear good fruit, some more than others, but good fruit nonetheless.
Accordingly, it would be better to view Rev. 19:7-8 as indicating that a transformed life of good works (though certainly not perfection) is not only the proper response to justification but a necessary external response or badge, if you will, required before entrance to the wedding of the Lamb is granted. Theologically, this would mean that justification is the causal necessary condition for entrance into the eternal kingdom, but good works are a non-causal necessary condition. In this regard, see also Rom. 2:6–8; 2 Cor. 11:2 and forward.
I would hope Mr. Kinney appropriates the above as a more reasoned argument in support of the KJB rendering denying any sort of works-based righteousness (as would be assumed by some later translations of Holy Writ) and that you reconsider your argument that the KJB rendering does injustice to its intended meaning once the full counsel of Scripture is considered. All of which is to say, I could have made the same argument above using non-KJB translations wherein "acts" or "deeds" is explicitly rendered, but the KJB rendering makes this less of a burden for someone reading the text by not being immediately sent down the erroneous "works-based righteousness" rabbit hole. That is often the problem with modern translations, as they force far more heavy-lifting upon the exegete to dig out the true meaning, when more often than not, the KJB renderings are more perspicuous.
AMR
I never assumed the burden of defending all modern translations throughout all of scripture but then I do not think translations are inerrant. That property is reserved for the scriptures as they were God-breathed into the Greek and Hebrew language. Our guest is the one who made this claim for the KJV. He went as far as to say that it was divine revelation and that I was carnally minded for not accepting it. By focusing on some of the specific assertions HE had made I was testing his hypothesis
I also have no problem with the idea that God rewards our obedience. I agree completely with what you said about Rev. 19:7-8. It was our guest who said that the modern versions were wrong for translating dikaioma as "righteous deeds" because it implied a work-based salvation. It was not hard to show that the modern versions who used the word "good deeds" had faithfully translated the meaning of dikaioma. The word for "righteousness" is not dikaioma but dikaiosune. I did not make this up whole cloth. It was not a personal revelation. I wrote this only after consulting various references.
If I am hearing you correctly, you prefer the KJB's word "righteousness" over "righteous deeds" because it guides people away from certain errors. Should that be the goal of translators. I have always thought the goal of translating was to make meaning of the words clear and congruent to the meaning of the original authors. That is why I never read those Bibles that are appended with the names of ministers, past and present. When I open the Bible I want to read what it says and not be prejudiced by the views of clergymen. I listen to them at Church and on the radio. I do not want them in my Bible.
Guiding people into a proper interpretation of the Word IS the job of teachers and Pastors. They certainly have their place but it is also the job of the Holy Spirit to guide believers into all truth. "You have an anointing from the Holy One...and need not that any man teach you." The Gnostics had been telling people that they could only understand the truth by listening to them. In a similar way the Rabbi's came to be the interpreters of the Word for Israel just as the Catholic Church tried to stand between the people and the Bible. I have had a great many teachers in my life some of whom I greatly respected but we are not to call any man "Rabbi" It gives them too much authority.
I do not believe the people of God should be spared the "heavy lifting" of searching diligently in the scriptures for the hidden treasure of the truth. That is the way people mature. Otherwise they will always be dependent on professional clergy who relieve them of having to think for themselves by bottle-feeding them ready-made answers. Tozer once said he had been accused of 'preaching over his congregation's head.' He replied "I deny that I ever preach over my people's heads. I might preach through them if there is nothing there to stop it..."
when is the next post due ?
brandplucked
New member
Shasta still has NO idea what he is talking about -Rev. 19:8
Shasta still has NO idea what he is talking about -Rev. 19:8
Shasta, try a little more honesty. You don't believe that ANY Bible, translated or UNtranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant Bible. You certainly do not have "the" original like you said you study. And you can't and won't show us any Greek text in existence that you honestly believe is the inerrant N.T. either. And you know you won't. So who do you think you are kidding?
Sir, did you actually read my article? I went over it again this evening and found about 25 more Bible translations that translated Revelation 19:8 exactly as it stands in the KJB, and several of them are Critical text versions.
"THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS"
Versions that read just like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535 - "And to her was graunted, that she shulde be arayed with pure and goodly sylke. (As for the sylke, it is the rightewesnes of sayntes.)", the Great Bible 1540, Matthews Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587, The Beza New Testament 1599 - "for the fine linnen is the righteousnesse of Saintes.", The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation - "the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Worsley Version 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, The Thompson N.T, 1816, Daniel Webster's of 1833, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Murdoch's Translation of the Syriac 1852 - "for fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", Etheridge's Translation 1849, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised New Testament 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, The Anderson N.T. 1865, the Ainslie N.T. 1869, Noyes Translation 1869, The Alford New Testament 1870 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", The Revised English Bible 1877 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", Darby's translation 1890, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta.
Others Bibles that read "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" are The Coptic Version of the New Testament (Memphitic and Boharic) A Literal English Translation 1904 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Sinaitic New Testament 1918, The Plain English N.T. 1963, The Basic English Bible 1965, The Fenton Bible 1966, The Recovery New Testament 1985, the Word of Yah 1993, the 21st Century KJB version 1994, The Revised Webster's Bible 1995, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the set apart ones.", Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Green’s interlinear and Green's 2005 Literal Translation, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible and even the 2002 paraphrase called The Message which reads: "She was given a bridal gown of bright and shining linen. The linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Bond Slave Version 2012, the Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", the BRG Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 and the Modern Literal Version 2014 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the holy ones."
Did you by any chance read the Bible commentators I included in my article?
Here is just one of them-
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment: "granted--Though in one sense she "made herself ready," having by the Spirit's work in her put on "the wedding garment," yet in the fullest sense it is not she, but her Lord, who makes her ready by "granting to her that she be arrayed in fine linen." It is He who, by giving Himself for her, presents her to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, but holy and without blemish.
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown continue: "righteousness - Greek, "righteousnesses"; DISTRIBUTIVELY USED. EACH SAINT MUST HAVE THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS: not merely be justified, as if the righteousness belonged to the Church in the aggregate; the saints together have righteousnesses; namely, He is accounted as "the Lord our righteousness" to each saint on his believing, their robes being made white in the blood of the Lamb."
The King James Bible is right, as it always is, and you are not.
May God give you a heart to receive His truth.
God bless.
Shasta still has NO idea what he is talking about -Rev. 19:8
Shasta, try a little more honesty. You don't believe that ANY Bible, translated or UNtranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant Bible. You certainly do not have "the" original like you said you study. And you can't and won't show us any Greek text in existence that you honestly believe is the inerrant N.T. either. And you know you won't. So who do you think you are kidding?
Sir, did you actually read my article? I went over it again this evening and found about 25 more Bible translations that translated Revelation 19:8 exactly as it stands in the KJB, and several of them are Critical text versions.
"THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS"
Versions that read just like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535 - "And to her was graunted, that she shulde be arayed with pure and goodly sylke. (As for the sylke, it is the rightewesnes of sayntes.)", the Great Bible 1540, Matthews Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1587, The Beza New Testament 1599 - "for the fine linnen is the righteousnesse of Saintes.", The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, John Wesley's 1755 translation - "the fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Worsley Version 1770, The Clarke N.T. 1795, Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Revised Translation 1815, The Thompson N.T, 1816, Daniel Webster's of 1833, The Dickinson N.T. 1833, The Longman Version 1841, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Pickering N.T. 1840, Murdoch's Translation of the Syriac 1852 - "for fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", Etheridge's Translation 1849, The Commonly Received Version 1851, the Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Revised New Testament 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, The Anderson N.T. 1865, the Ainslie N.T. 1869, Noyes Translation 1869, The Alford New Testament 1870 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", The Revised English Bible 1877 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", Darby's translation 1890, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta.
Others Bibles that read "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints" are The Coptic Version of the New Testament (Memphitic and Boharic) A Literal English Translation 1904 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints", The Clarke N.T. 1913, The Sinaitic New Testament 1918, The Plain English N.T. 1963, The Basic English Bible 1965, The Fenton Bible 1966, The Recovery New Testament 1985, the Word of Yah 1993, the 21st Century KJB version 1994, The Revised Webster's Bible 1995, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Koster Scriptures 1998 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the set apart ones.", Lawrie Translation 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Green’s interlinear and Green's 2005 Literal Translation, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the 2010 English Jubilee Bible and even the 2002 paraphrase called The Message which reads: "She was given a bridal gown of bright and shining linen. The linen is the righteousness of the saints.", Bond Slave Version 2012, the Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUSNESS of saints.", the BRG Bible 2012, The Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 and the Modern Literal Version 2014 - "the fine linen is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the holy ones."
Did you by any chance read the Bible commentators I included in my article?
Here is just one of them-
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment: "granted--Though in one sense she "made herself ready," having by the Spirit's work in her put on "the wedding garment," yet in the fullest sense it is not she, but her Lord, who makes her ready by "granting to her that she be arrayed in fine linen." It is He who, by giving Himself for her, presents her to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, but holy and without blemish.
Jamieson, Faussett and Brown continue: "righteousness - Greek, "righteousnesses"; DISTRIBUTIVELY USED. EACH SAINT MUST HAVE THIS RIGHTEOUSNESS: not merely be justified, as if the righteousness belonged to the Church in the aggregate; the saints together have righteousnesses; namely, He is accounted as "the Lord our righteousness" to each saint on his believing, their robes being made white in the blood of the Lamb."
The King James Bible is right, as it always is, and you are not.
May God give you a heart to receive His truth.
God bless.