Does the Living Bible hold up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
So we’re now returning again to this. I started this series and even though it’s painful to see such bad argumentation as is common from KJV-Onlyists, I intend to see it through to the end. As always, the source material is here.
KJV: “I WAS NOT IN SAFETY. NEITHER HAD I REST, NEITHER WAS I QUIET: YET TROUBLE CAME.”
LB: “I was not fat and lazy yet trouble struck me down.”
In this case, I again prefer the KJV. I don’t see any basis for fat in the text. All the words seem to refer to having rest. Lazy is understandable since if Job is saying he didn’t have rest, it would mean he was busy.
KJV: “HE KEEPETH ALL HIS BONES: NOT ONE OF THEM IS BROKEN.”
LB: “God even protects him from accidents.”
COMMENT: There are NO ACCIDENTS with God!
This is an example of how translation is a form of interpretation. This would depend on what you mean by accident. For instance, in the Aristotlean sense, God has no accidents, but other things do have accidents. Is this necessitating that God is in direct control of everything that happens? A hyper-Calvinist would have no problem with that, but what does this mean if one doesn’t hold that theology?
Johnson’s comment raises more questions than it would supposedly answer.
KJV: “AND HE SAID UNTO ME, SON OF MAN, STAND UPON THY FEET, AND I WILL SPEAK UNTO THEE.”
LB: “And he said unto me, Stand up, son of dust and I will talk to you.”
COMMENT: In the book of Ezekiel `son of dust’ is used in place of `son of man’. Does the term ‘son of dust’ sound as derogatory to you like as it does to me?
I can see the reason for the Living Bible using this seeing as man comes from the dust. This is true even in the KJV. However, the reason given for the translation being wrong is just dumb. We shouldn’t go with an interpretation because Johnson finds it derogatory? Personally, I find it derogatory to be told I’m a sinner, but sadly, it’s true.
KJV: “HE THAT TOUCHETH YOU TOUCHETH THE APPLE OF HIS EYE.”
LB: “For he who harms you sticks his finger in Jehovah’s eye.”
The Living Bible is getting at what the text is saying here. Touching refers to harming and saying anyone who harms you harms the one that YHWH loves. It’s not the way I would phrase it, but it does work.
KJV: “AND ONE SHALL SAY UNTO HIM, WHAT ARE THESE WOUNDS IN THINE HANDS? THEN HE SHALL ANSWER, THOSE WITH WHICH I WAS WOUNDED IN THE HOUSE OF MY FRIENDS.”
LB: “And if someone asks then, what are these scars on your chest and your back, you will say, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend.”
COMMENT: The footnote about this verse says: “That this is not a passage referring to Christ is clear from the context. This is a false prophet who is lying about the reasons for his scars.” We wonder how the editor of the LB (Taylor) came to know this.
Yes, boys and girls. If someone else has an interpretation that differs, you are to question how they got to it. If Johnson has an interpretation of a text, shut up and get in line! A man of God has spoken! Taylor likely just studied the text and looked at the context and determined what was going on. He could be right, or he could be wrong, but just saying “I don’t know how he concludes this!” is not an argument.
KJV: “AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, THIS KIND CAN COME FORTH BY NOTHING, BUT BY PRAYER AND FASTING.”
LB: “Jesus replied, Cases like this require prayer.”
COMMENT: Notice: fasting is left out! Wonder why Satan does not want us to fast?
I wrote about this kind of thinking in a blog post once. These people have a mindset that treats the devil as if he was the counter opposite to God with just as much power to alter reality, as if the devil alters texts regularly. These translations are just going by what the oldest and best manuscripts have and don’t think fasting was originally included. Johnson needs an argument to why the text he prefers is better instead of just saying “SATAN!”
KJV: “AND HE SAID UNTO JESUS, LORD, REMEMBER ME WHEN THOU COMEST INTO THY KINGDOM.”
LB: “Then he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
COMMENT: What justification is there to strip Jesus of his title “Lord”?
Probably based on the text used. Either way, the LIving Bible calls Jesus Lord in several other places and the thief does refer to Jesus as someone having a kingdom.
KJV: “FOR THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH CAME BY JESUS CHRIST.”
LB: “For Moses gave us only the law with its rigid demands and merciless justice while Jesus Christ brought us loving forgiveness as well.”
COMMENT: The Old Testament contained God’s mercy and grace, too.
Because obviously one verse was supposed to give an entire interpretation of everything in the Old Testament….
Hopefully, next time we come, we can finish off the look at the Living Bible. After that it will be the Amplified.
(And I affirm the virgin birth)