Very good. So, if something needs to be purified, I just put it through the old gut and presto. ?? That is what you said.

Kland,

I think to win this argument with Harold you'll need to identify the added words in the Greek. For example, does the Greek text for Mark 7:19 contain either of the words "He" or "Jesus?" Does it even contain the word "declared" or "clean?"



I'm with Harold on this one. The parenthetical statements in the Not-As-Sound Bible and the Not-Inspired Version are both obviously added.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Harold, I'm just saying what the KJV says.
You said: Which is in agreement with the Greek:

from 2513; to cleanse (literally or figuratively):--(make) clean(-se), purge, purify.

purging <katharizo> all <pas> meats <broma>?
Cleaning all foods.


Green, are you saying the KJV added, purging all meats?

Because that's what you're showing. The other versions you listed show a parenthetical statement but the KJV doesn't say anything about it being parenthetical. So which version would you say added anything? The one which indicates something may have been added or the one which adds it without giving any indication?

Kland,

The KJV only uses the term "purging." The NASB uses "eliminated" and "clean," with the latter in an entirely separate, independent clause which includes several other words that are not in the KJV at all in order to complete their parenthetical statement. In the NIV the same pattern is exhibited, with the duplicity of speech including "out of the body" and "clean." The KJV never says anything is "clean." This concept is not in the text.

Both the NASB and the NIV add a foreign concept to the text which is not in the original. They add a completely independent clause that is explanatory of what Jesus meant--thus telling the reader how to interpret His words--all while implying that this explanation was intended by the original author. (Adding it to the text instead of as a footnote or marginal reference effectively makes it appear to be an inspired commentary.) This is deceptive.

The question I would pose is simply this: WHAT is being made clean? There are three possible options that might be suggested here: 1) the person himself who is doing the eating; 2) the person's bowels; or 3) the foods eaten. The first one and the third one are both ridiculous to suggest, because common sense tells us that they cannot be true. The gut does not make foods "clean." Neither will eating any old thing make the person clean. So the NIV and NASB assume a ridiculous position in saying that the food becomes clean by having been purged from the bowels and eliminated into the stool. One of the filthiest words in the English language is often used to reference that excrement.

So, again, what is made clean? It can only be that the bowel is "purged" when the "food" has been eliminated from it. We take laxatives to "clean us out." This is the concept here. You are "cleaned out" when you have "done your business," and in most cases you are also "relieved."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

One would have to stretch the text (Mk 7:19) beyond its context to make it refer to pork chops. It's not as if the disciples had just eaten a BLT. It had to do with whether the correct ritual had been performed. Jesus was merely stating that there is nothing unclean of itself. Also, the new versions don't say the Jesus declared all "flesh foods" clean, but all foods. In the Hebrew mind, there is a world of difference. To Jews, the word "food" does not include pork.

Evangelicals can try, but they fail to make a valid argument no matter what version of the Bible they use.

On the flip side, suppose that Hebrews 4:9 in the KJV said "there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God" and the new versions said "there remains a rest for the people of God." KJV-Adventists would be all over the new versions for undermining the Sabbath doctrine. Yet in this text, the modern versions support the doctrine of the Sabbath much better.

But don't you think that is exactly what the modern versions have done?


Really? What makes you think so?

Do you think that Jesus was speaking of physical cleanness or spiritual cleanness? Do you not believe that Jesus was speaking of the spiritual? After all, to suggest that Jesus was calling something "clean" which the Jews already accepted as "food" is to suggest that Jesus was "preaching to the choir." However, the evidence runs contrary to this. Jesus was calling out the Jews for their exacting traditions. Now, if they were eating pork or some other unclean thing per their traditions, I can see that you have a case. But you have yourself attested to the fact that the Jews would not have thought of these unclean things as foods, therefore Jesus could not have been declaring them clean.

Here's the important point: Jesus was declaring something that went contrary to the Jewish tradition. The modern versions have set the reader up for deception, by teaching that the tradition of clean and unclean meats has been abolished per Jesus' statement.

Regarding the "sabbath" comment, I guess you would then agree with the translators of the KJV for adding in 1 John 5:7 even if it weren't in the original text because it would help to reinforce correct doctrine, right?

Our study should be to ascertain truth, not to defend established traditions or doctrines--would you agree? So any addition to the Word of God, however innocuous it might otherwise seem, is improper and against God's own Word.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Regarding 1 John 5:7, no because there is essentially no textual justification for inclusion of the text. Even Erasmus himself remained highly suspicious that it shouldn't be there.

But regarding Mark 7:19, even as the modern versions render it, the context does not allow it to refer to clean and unclean flesh foods. The issue at hand is whether food can be unclean as a result of neglecting rabbinical requirements -- which carried a lot of weight among the people at that time. It is not about either spiritual or physical cleanness, but rather ritual cleanness.

If the translators of the modern versions wanted to drive the point home that it was all flesh foods that were declared clean, they would have clearly stated so, rather than generally referring to "all foods."

Perhaps the SDA Commentary says it better than I can, and to that I refer you. Picking on Mark 7:19 is kinda' scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments to condemn modern versions. No one here is trying to condemn the KJV -- it is still the Bible. So are the modern versions -- at least the non-liberal literal renditions such as the NASB/ESV and even the dynamic equivalent NIV. Some of the others do warrant criticism for taking too much liberty with the original language. But that is not a matter of Majority-vs-Critical-Texts, but of translation itself.

My point about Hebrews 4:9 is that those opposed to modern versions hold them to a different standard than the KJV itself. As I said, if the difference in rendering was the other way around, those against the modern versions would seize the opportunity to show how the modern versions have corrupted the text to undermine the Sabbath. Your last paragraph is true, but you don't realize that you have just made an argument against your own position.

Good sense of humor, Herold. I just noticed I haven't posted in this section since 2010, so I had to read through everything. You raise an important point. There are many ways of solving problems. I solved this one by becoming a vegetarian long before I was born. Just selected the right mother.

Your friends here have made some remarkable remarks about translations and manuscripts, all of which are quite important. But the most important of all is to find Jesus Christ in Scripture.

The other day I read an article in the Daily Mirror by a former editor of a Roman Catholic monthly. Now he wonders if his Catholic male dominating church bosses in the 4th century always selected the best unadulterated manuscripts since they were so heavily preoccupied with the idea that no woman should have any influence in their church. He claims women were but second rate citizens in their eyes, with only the virgin Mary gradually gaining the status of divinity.

Is this too dangerous a subject to stir up some interest?

Actually, the NASB only uses "clean" for purging. Harold said purging means cleaning. What do you say purging means?

True. To delineate that it was Mark's addition and not part of Jesus' statement. This verse demonstrates how the KJV is wrong. It implies it was part of Jesus's statement rather than Mark's parenthetical comment.

You imply all other versions or most other versions add several other words. But the ones I showed did not. The only word's I see added in the NIV you listed are, "In saying this, Jesus". Which is more accurate than the KJV implying Jesus said the parenthetical statement.

Clean concept is in the KJV text. I have shown it is. Show that it isn't - What is purging defined as?

Not as deceptive as KJV. The words added were from Mark. Are you saying Mark was deceptive? Or do you suppose Mark was referring to the topic Jesus was discussing about at the beginning of the chapter?

Whaa...? Is this a case of choosing which one doesn't belong?

What Dave said.


Something you may want to consider:
Sound like if you and Harold wanted to say some versions justified eating Pork, these verses of KJV would be it! But Jesus isn't talking about that, is He?

Amen! Which is what I've been trying to tell you all along. As such, if this verse is a strong argument against other versions and for KJV, it doesn't look like there's any strong arguments out there.

The concept is in the text such that contextual clues should be sufficient to a grade-schooler in understanding the usage of "purging." The harder word would be "draught," which is just another word for excrement. When you know what "draught" means, the usage for "purging" becomes clear.

However, here is a place where those with knowledge of Old English or who have a large vocabulary do have it easier. The companion word to "purging" as used in the text is that of "purgative." Here are some definitions of "purgative."



This is why the usage is more in line with "clean out" than "clean." The KJV translators chose a very good word. It gives exactly that connotation.

Consider a couple other places in the Bible that use this same Greek word and it is translated in the KJV as "purge" or "purged."



Both of the above imply "removed" or "cleaned away." The "dead works" get "purged" from the conscience upon choosing to serve the living God. Certainly, those works of sin are not "made clean." Rather it is the conscience that is purged as those works are stripped away.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.