- Defining The Issues:
- Getting To The Detailed Critique Of King James Only Claims Regarding The New International Version:
-"Gen 32:25 changes thigh to hip. Different part of the body."
-"Gen 38:9 changes seed or it to semen. Not very kid friendly in my opinion."
This argument does merit, depending on how this is viewed by the individual. But it seems that the only people being dogmatic on translational issues is the King James Version only camp. You do not have to read the New International Version, if you do not like it. The NIV rendering here is technically not inaccurate. However, phrases like "Pisseth against the wall" (1 Kings 16:11, KJV) are definitely considered vulgar in our language. So, if the New International Version is doctrinally corrupt because of a translation rendering, then so is the King James Version.
"The vast majority of Jewish and Christian biblical scholars and linguists do not believe “Jehovah” to be the proper pronunciation of YHWH. There was no true J sound in ancient Hebrew. Even the Hebrew letter vav, which is transliterated as the W in YHWH is said to have originally had a pronunciation closer to W than the Vof Jehovah. Jehovah is essentially a Germanic pronunciation of the Latinized transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH. It is the letters of the tetragrammaton, Latinized into JHVH, with vowels inserted. “Yahweh” or “Yehowah” is far more likely to be the correct pronunciation."
The medieval name "Jehovah" did not even appear in English biblical translation until the early fifteen thirties by William Tyndale. So it turns out that the King James Version actually contains a translational error, which refutes any notion of it being a divinely inspired book. Also, there is nothing wrong with calling God Lord, as that is exactly who He is.
On the contrary, both translations are saying the same thing. Can anybody tell us what makes the King James Version wording of a biblical text superior to that of other translations, without making a circular argument?
-"Jdg 19:22 bring out the man...so we can have sex. I like the KJV of "know" that way you don't have to explain the birds and the bees to your 5 year old."
If we are going to consistently argue that the New International Version's usage of the word "sex" is a corrupt translation, then we might as well forbid our children from reading scriptural texts such as Proverbs 5 and the Song of Solomon in any translation, which includes the King James, since they all use vivid, keen, and detailed descriptions of a romantic relationship between a husband and his wife.
-"1 sam 13:1 30 years old"
The N.I.V. footnotes speak for themselves:
"d 1 A few late manuscripts of the Septuagint; Hebrew."
"e 1 Probable reading of the original Hebrew text (see Acts 13:21); Masoretic Text."
So it turns out that the text of 1 Samuel 13:1 is a bit obscure for Bible translators. The footnotes of the Roman Catholic New American Bible spell this issue out rather clearly:
"13, 1: A formula like that of 2 Sm 5, 4 was introduced here at some time; but the age of Saul when he became king remains a blank, and the two years assigned for his reign in the recieved text cannot be correct. Tradition (Acts 13, 21) offers the round number, forty years."
-"2 Sam 21:19 Elhanan killed Goliath (1 chronicles 20:5) Obvious Error! he actually killed Lahmi Goliath's brother. This passage would be a contradiction because David slew Goliath."
Firstly, it is widely known that 2 Samuel 21:19 contains a copyist error, and that the correct answer as to who killed Goliath (i.e. David) is found in 1 Samuel 17:50 and 1 Chronicles 20:5. Elhanan killed Goliath's brother.
"The 2 Samuel text is probably a scribal error in copying the manuscript and should read, "Elhanan...slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." This conclusion is supported by a parallel report of the story in 1 Chronicles 20:5 which has the missing highlighted [italicized] phrase."
-"Isa 14:12 Changes Lucifer with morning star (see 2 Pe 1:19, Rev 22:16). This Passage removes the only time Lucifer is mentioned in scripture and blasphemly puts Jesus' name in this condemning passage of scripture. We know this passage is refering to the devil because Pride was his condemnation 1 Tim 3:6. Another title for the devil is Leviathan who is described as having multiple heads, a sea serpent and being a king over all the children of pride. (Job 41:34, Psa 74:14, Isa 27:1, Rev 12:3,:9)"
This is an obvious translation error of the King James Version, since the devil's name was never Lucifer to begin with. Most translations now use "Morning Star" or "Day-Star". The context of Isaiah 14:12 is plainly about the King of Babylon, who falsely boasted of being like God Almighty. He claimed that the power of his throne would transcend the solar system (v. 13-14), but God had promised the destruction of that throne (v. 11). Quite simply, the name "Lucifer" was only a Roman concoction ascribed to the planet that we now understand to be Venus. St. Jerome, in his translating of the Hebrew Isaiah into the Latin Vulgate, was uncertain as to what the word "Helel" meant--something in the lines of "shining one". This is vital to note, considering that the King James Version translators relied heavily upon the Latin Vulgate for their work, and retained the same rendering of Isaiah 14:12. The English Poet John Milton, in 1667, authored a book titled Paradise Lost, which radically popularized the notion that Satan was once named Lucifer. But the King James Version rendering of Isaiah 14:12 nevertheless remains inaccurate. Neither is there any need to spiritualize the meaning of a literal, historical context.
-"Dan 3:25 Changes Son of God to a son of the gods. Removes a reference to Jesus Christ."
-"Mic 5:2 changes everlasting to Ancient times. (Attacks Christ's Divinity)."
Different renderings indeed, but the meaning nevertheless remains the same. "Ancient times" can indeed be a reference to eternity past from a human perspective. The New American Standard Bible renders "ancient times" as "eternity." What I find ironic about all this is that while King James Version only advocates vehemently oppose textual criticism, they have invented their own standard of modern textual criticism (based on emotions).
-"Matt 1:25 removes firstborn. To Help the Catholic doctrine that Mary never had kids after Jesus."
Oh, I bet that those same Roman Catholic scholars purposely took the King James Version rendering of 1 John 5:7 out of our modern translations because they wanted to steer people away from believing in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, right?
What's with the four gospel account authors having the title "saint" written before their names in the original King James Version, when such an inscription was utterly foreign in the Greek renderings of their names? I think this proves that this translation did indeed have some Catholic influence upon the text, which, according to the very logic of King James Version only advocates, would disqualify their own beloved translation from being read!
-"Matt 5:22 removes without a cause"
Is not the context of Matthew 5:22 about unjustified anger and hatred, all of which stem from a sinful heart? How come the author never even mentions the footnotes, which do contain the omitted phrase along with the reason for omission?
-"Makes Jesus a sinner (Mar 3:5)"
This is simply a faulty argument, built on another argument that had a poorly developed premise. Of course, Jesus never sinned, and anger is not intrinsically evil (Ephesians 4:26).
-"Matt 5:44 omits do good to them that hate you"
The phrase is redundant, knowing that the context is about Christians doing good for all, including enemies. The very definition of love entails self-sacrifice. Who is to say that the phrase was not added by a zealous scribe at some later point in time?
-"Matt 9:13 removes to repentance."
Matthew 9:13 is a quotation of Hosea 6:6, and the meaning of this verse is only reinforced by the New International Version's rendering.
-"Matt 28:20 changes world to age"
The verse still means the same thing in both translations.
-"Mar 1:2, 3 Changes prophets to Isaiah. (it is written also in Malachi 3 not just Isa. 40)"
This is not a difference in doctrine, but rather is a minor difference in manuscript rendering. Consider the words of John MacArthur's Commentary on the New King James Version:
"the better Greek manuscripts read 'Isaiah the prophet.' Mark's quote is actually from two O.T. passages (Is.40:3; and Mal. 3:1), which probably explains that reading 'the prophets' found in some manuscripts."
-"Mar 10:21 Removed take up the cross"
Try Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, and Luke 9:23 of the New International Version.
-"Mar 10:24 removes for them that trust in riches"
The context serves as a condemnation of greed. Also see 1 Timothy 6:17.
-"Luk 2:33 changes Joseph with father. Joseph wasn't Jesus actual Father, it was God."
Joseph was the father of Jesus Christ in a legal sense.
-"Luk 3:14 omits Do violence to no man."
Where is the evidence suggesting that the supposedly omitted phrase belongs in the original manuscripts, or that the K.J.V. rendering is more faithful to the Greek than the N.I.V. rendering? It is not as though Jesus taught people to act violently. The meaning of the verse remains the same.
-"Luk 4:4 removes but by every word of God. Undermines the necessity to have ALL of Gods word Today."
For starters, this text is a quotation of Deuteronomy 8:3, and the same rendering is found in Matthew 4:4 of the New International Version.
This footnote from the Catholic New American Bible is helpful here:
"[1:18] The only Son, God: while the vast majority of later textual witnesses have another reading, “the Son, the only one” or “the only Son,” the translation above follows the best and earliest manuscripts, monogenēs theos, but takes the first term to mean not just “Only One” but to include a filial relationship with the Father, as at Lk 9:38 (“only child”) or Heb 11:17 (“only son”) and as translated at Jn 1:14. The Logos is thus “only Son” and God but not Father/God."
-"Joh 6:47 removes on me. This passage says everyone will be saved, because everyone believes in Something whether is Allah, Buddha, or even the big bang. You must believe on Jesus to be saved."
Well, the only person whom our Lord Jesus Christ ever pointed to for salvation was Himself, and such is obviously the case with John 6. Does CONTEXT mean anything?
-"Joh 19:29-30 wine vinegar contradicts Matthew 26:29. Again if Jesus lied and drunk of the fruit of the vine on the cross then his sacrifice is nothing worth!"
The Gospel of Mark fills us in with further details regarding the crucifixion (mere differences in reporting information):
"Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it." (Mark 15:23, NIV)
-"Act 3:13,26 and 4:27,30 changes Son/child to servant"
The difference in wording does nothing to the meaning of the text.
-"Act 17:22 changes superstitious to religious. I heard somebody once talking about how Paul praised the Athenians for being very religious as a result of reading these new translations."
The New International Version simply updated an archaic English term.
-"Rom 8:1 removed who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."
There is no change in doctrine, but rather is a difference in manuscript rendering.
-"13:9 omits Thou shalt not bear false witness."
But that is a part of the Ten Commandments, of which the Apostle Paul implicitly affirms when he says, "whatever other command there may be." Also, the New International Version directs the reader in the footnotes to Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, where the Ten Commandments are discussed in a more extensive way.
-"1 Cor 6:9 male prostitutes and homosexual offenders"
The New International Version simply updated archaic English language. Those who break God's laws would indeed be "offenders" in His sight.
-"11:29 takes out unworthily and switches damnation to judgment"
The meaning of the verse nevertheless remains the same.
-"2 Cor 5:18 Removes by Jesus Christ"
The verse still explicitly mentions the name of Christ, and conveys the same intended message.
-"Gal 4:7 removed through Christ."
This is simply a manuscript difference, not a change in doctrine. It needs to be understood that the Textus Receptus was based only on a handful of very late dated manuscripts, none of which can be traced prior to the twelfth century. In fact, the translators of the King James Version were not familiar with the Granville Sharp construction rule. Modern textual criticism has numerous advantages.
-"Gal 5:19-20 calls jealousy an act of a sinful nature. Jealousy itself is not a sin, God is a Jealous God and his name is Jealous as well see (Exo 34:14). You can quote me on this "If a husband isn't Jealous when he knows his wife is having an affair then he doesn't love her, it just shows he doesn't care for her."
The context in which the word jealously is used in Galatians 5:19-20 pertains to envy, lust, covetousness, and strife. These are not characteristics of God.
-"Eph 3:9 leaves out by Jesus Christ"
The meaning of the text remains the same. God had plans to reveal the fullness of the gospel not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles. God used the Apostle Paul as an instrument to make known to the world in writing this glorious mystery of salvation through God's supernatural grace. Notice how none of these small textual differences harm the historical reliability of the Bible nor impacts any doctrinal article of the Christian faith. This point alone renders the King James Only Movement devoid of intellectual substance.
Acts 13:24 of the King James Version fails to mention the name "Jesus" where the New International Version does. Does that somehow make the King James a corrupt translation?
-"Eph 4:6 removes you. So God is in Lost people too? I thought you get the Holy Ghost when you get saved, according to this translation lost people have the Holy Ghost too."
The meaning of Ephesians 4:6 is the same in both the King James Version and the New International Version. Paul was speaking to a Christian audience. Though the Triune God is sovereign over all, the presence of the Holy Spirit dwells only in the bodies of believers. Should I take the phrase "you all" in the King James Version's rendering to literally mean all Christians and non-Christians? Of course not. Context makes all the difference.
-"Eph 5:30 omits of his flesh, and of his bones."
Different renderings indeed, but the meaning of the verse nonetheless remains the same. There is most certainly no corruption of the text in the New International Version here We are all His ambassadors. We are conjoined spiritually through the atonement of Christ. We were bought with His shed blood. We as a church are kept together because of His faithfulness. Just as the literal flesh of a male and female is united through marriage, so the church is spiritually united to Christ through heartfelt commitment to the gospel. This marriage analogy conveys a divine mystery of the Christian faith.
-"Phili 4:13 changes Christ to him. "him"...him Who? the Pope...Hulk Hogan...the Slim Jim Guy?"
There are several places in the New Testament of the New International Version where references to "him" in the King James Version are replaced with "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ". Examples would include Mark 8:25, Mark 14:61, Luke 13:18, Matthew 12:22, Luke 20:27, John 10:42, Acts 16:7, 2 Corinthians 11:4, Mark 16:19, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, Jude 1:25, Romans 1:4, Hebrews 13:15, and Galatians 5:24. Rest assured, there are many other places where the Lordship of Christ is reinforced in the New International Version.
It seems to me that the King James Only Movement has based its entire position on a small number of manuscript or copyist errors, none of which impact the reliability of Scripture. Nevertheless, it can be said with absolute confidence that the New Testament documents alone are almost one hundred percent textually pure. The following statements from scholarly sources are relevant here:
"One number that appears often in this context is 200,000 variants in the New Testament...Taking the number mentioned above, 200,000, we first note that these variants occur in only about 10,000 places....Westcott and Hort, the two men most vilified by KJV Only advocates, indicated that only about one eighth of the variants had any weight, the rest being 'trivialities'. This would leave the text, according to Westcott and Hort, 98.33 percent pure no matter whether one used the Textus Receptus or their own Greek text! Philip Schaff estimated that there were only 400 variants that affected the sense of the passage, and only 50 of these were actually important. He asserted that not one affected 'an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching.' The great American Greek scholar, Dr. A.T. Robertson, whose familiarity with the most intimate details of the Greek text is abundantly verified by his massive 1,454 page A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, indicated that areas of real concern regarding textual variants amounted to but 'a thousandth part of the entire text.'...The reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures! I make this statement (1) fully aware of the wide range of textual variants in the New Testament, and (2) painfully aware of the strong attacks upon those who have made similar statements in the past. KJV Only advocates are quick to attack such statements, but I stand by it and will document its truthfulness throughout the rest of this book. The simple fact of the matter is that no textual variants in either the Old or New Testaments in any way, shape, or form materially disrupt or destroy any essential doctrine of the Christian faith. That is a fact that any semi-impartial review will substantiate....A person who would read Codex Sinaiticus and who would apply sound exegetical methods to its text would come to the very same conclusions as anyone reading a Byzantine manuscript written a thousand years later." (Dr. James White, The King James Only Controversy, originally cited on this blog)
Further Confirmation From The Reputable New Testament Scholar Dr. Daniel B. Wallace During An Interview With The Gospel Coalition:
"NT scholars face an embarrassment of riches compared to the data the classical Greek and Latin scholars have to contend with. The average classical author’s literary remains number no more than twenty copies. We have more than 1,000 times the manuscript data for the NT than we do for the average Greco-Roman author. Not only this, but the extant manuscripts of the average classical author are no earlier than 500 years after the time he wrote. For the NT, we are waiting mere decades for surviving copies. The very best classical author in terms of extant copies is Homer: manuscripts of Homer number less than 2,400, compared to the NT manuscripts that are approximately ten times that amount."
Philip W. Comfort Wrote In His Book, The Complete Guide to Bible Versions:
"At present, we have more than 6,000 manuscript copies of the Greek New Testament or portions thereof. No other work of Greek literature can boast of such numbers. Homer’s Iliad, the greatest of all Greek classical works, is extant in about 650 manuscripts; and Euripides’ tragedies exist in about 330 manuscripts. The numbers on all the other works of Greek literature are far less. Furthermore, it must be said that the amount of time between the original composition and the next surviving manuscript is far less for the New Testament than for any other work in Greek literature. The lapse for most classical Greek works is about eight hundred to a thousand years; whereas the lapse for many books in the New Testament is around one hundred years. Because of the abundant wealth of manuscripts and because several of the manuscripts are dated in the early centuries of the church, New Testament textual scholars have a great advantage over classical textual scholars. The New Testament scholars have the resources to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament with great accuracy, and they have produced some excellent editions of the Greek New Testament. Finally, it must be said that, although there are certainly differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading."
Even Professor Bart Ehrman, who is noticeably liberal, had made this confession during an interview which can be found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus:
"Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament." (p. 252)
In light these remarks, King James Version only advocates can easily be paralleled to the vicious liberal, naturalistic skeptics who would do anything to discredit all this wonderful manuscript evidence testifying to the overall reliability of the New Testament Scriptures (with the only difference being to defend a particular religious tradition). King James onlyism casts doubt upon the validity of Christian claims. Even from an honest liberal perspective, the New Testament can be deemed reliable.
-"Colo 2:18 replaces not seen with has seen. That means the opposite!!"
If anybody takes the time to honestly compare Colossians 2:18 in both the King James Version and the New International Version, then he or she can see plainly that both translations are saying the same thing. The verse is presented in its entirety from both translations of the Bible as follows:
God is mentioned in this context. See this article for further discussion.
-"1 Tim 6:5 removed from such withdraw thyself."
Can anybody prove that this was not added to manuscripts by some zealous scribe?
-"2 Tim 1:7 changes sound mind to self discipline"
Both translations are conveying the same message.
-"2 Tim 2:15 changes study to do your best to present yourself. Sure...Get rid of one of the passages that commands us to Study the word of God."
The meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in both translations is identical.
-"Titus 3:10 heretick changed to divisive. A person who causes disunity isn't necessarily the same as a man who teaches things that are contrary to scripture aka lies. Example: Just because I don't go and worship with Catholics that makes me divisive however it doesn't make me a heretic."
Divisive in the sense of being contentious, rebellious, and striving to promote false doctrine is acceptable in this context.
-"Hebrews 4:12 changes powerful to active. A little "water-down" don't you think?"
Definitely modernized, but not watered down. The Word of God transforms the hearts and minds of people.
The King James Version, like the New International Version, undoubtedly contains a number of translation errors (none of which can be traced back to malicious ideologies):
"…the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars)." (Daniel B. Wallace, “Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today”)
What real difference does this omission make? The New International Version renders this verse as follows:
"Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart." (1 Peter 1:22)
"a.1 Peter 1:22 Some early manuscripts from a pure heart"
-"2 Peter 1:21 takes out holy"
Prophets were indeed holy men of God. Nothing is even removed from this passage in the New International Version.
-"1 Joh 5:7 removes the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. Removed in most modern verses despite strong evidence of it being in there."
This excerpt from When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe on the Comma Johanneum is useful here:
"This verse has virtually no support among the early Greek manuscripts, though it is found in Latin manuscripts. Its appearance in late Greek manuscripts is based on the fact that Erasmus was placed under ecclesiastical pressure to include it in his Greek NT of 1522, having omitted it in his two earlier editions of 1516 and 1519 because he could not find any Greek manuscripts which contained it.
Its inclusion in the Latin Bible probably results from a scribe incorporating a marginal comment (gloss) into the text as he copied the manuscript of 1 John. But including it in the text violates almost every rule of textual criticism. Even the nkjv, which generally retains the longer readings and disputed passages (see Mark 16:9ff and John 7:53–8:11), comments in the margin that this is “a passage found in only four or five very late Greek mss.”
-"Revelation 1:11 Removes I am Alpha and Omega"
Check out Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 22:13 in the New International Version.
-"Revelation 15:3 changes King of saints. to king of ages"
Calling God the "King of ages" most certainly strengthens the overtones of God's sovereignty in this text.
-"Revelation 21:24 omit of them which are saved. Supports Teaching of Universalism which teaches all will eventually be saved."
This is simply a small difference in manuscript rendering, not a change in doctrine. And no, the New International Version has never promoted the heresy of Universalism:
"And the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever...All whose names were not found written in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:10, 15)
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Revelation 21:8)
-"Worship changes to knelt, knelling, etc in (Matt. 8:2, 9:18, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20, mark 5:6). Attack on Christ Divinity."
The problem with this argument is that it wrongly assumes changing the word worship to identifying the specific acts of worship to be a form of textual perversion. That is not the case, however. We know from Scripture, as well as logic, that actions such as prayer, bowing, and knelling are acts directed toward a higher entity. They are, in religious contexts, acts of worship. So the New International Version does not really infringe upon the deity of Christ.
As a matter of fact, there are several places in modern translations of the Bible where the deity of Christ is enforced, where the doctrine is not so clearly affirmed in the King James Version. Following are just a handful of excerpts from the New International Version:
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." (Romans 9:5)
"while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13)
"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours." (2 Peter 1:1)
"For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretely slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God and into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (Jude 4)
-"Switches sodomite with male shrine prostitute (Deut 23:17,1 King 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, 2 King 23:7). Supports gay agenda since Sodomites means homosexual but prostitute isn't necessarily gay."
False. Consider Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:9-11, and Jude 7-8. Also, consider these words from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Qedesha, also spelled kedesha or kedeshah, Akkadian qadishtu, one of a class of sacred prostitutes found throughout the ancient Middle East, especially in the worship of the fertility goddess Astarte (Ashtoreth). Prostitutes, who often played an important part in official temple worship, could be either male or female. In Egypt, a goddess named Qedeshu, Lady of Kadesh (Syria), was worshiped in the 19th and 20th dynasties (1292–c. 1075 BC). Her representation is found on private stelae of middle-class workers. She is shown nude, posed frontally on a lioness (or a leopard), holding arrows in her hands. Although Israelite prophets and reformers repeatedly denounced sacred prostitution, the early Israelites seem to have adopted the local Canaanite rites, which they apparently practiced publicly until the reform of King Josiah about 621 BC."
-"Changes glorying or rejoicing with pride or boast (1 Corinthians 1:12, 2 Corinthians 1:14, 5:12, 7:4, Galatians 6:4, James 1:9,10)"
Whoever boasts, should boast in the name of the Lord. We should praise, glorify, and confide in Him. This is completely different than arrogance or having an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
-"Changes word to message ( Act 5:20, 4:4, Luke, 4:32, 2 Thessalonians 3:1)."
So the apostles had delivered the message of the Gospel to this lost and fallen world. What is even the big deal here? The meaning of these texts has not in any way been changed.
-"Changes hell to grave/depths (2 samuel 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalms 9:17, 16:10, 18:5, 55:15, 86:13, 116:3, 139:8, Proverbs 5:5, 7:27, 9:18, 15:11,24, 23:14, 27:20, Isaiah 5:14, 14:9,15, 57:9, Ezekiel 31:16,17, 32:21,27, Amos 9:2 Jonah 2:2 Matthew 11:23, Luke 10:15, Acts 2:27,31) Attack on Punishment after death."
In verses like these, "Hell" is either "Sheol" (Hebrew) or "Hades" (Greek), and both terms are correctly translated as the grave. "Gehenna" is the Hebrew word for hell. So this has nothing to do with attacking eternal punishment after death.