 |
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
Please open a Bible to the place where it is written, "But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her
age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth
her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better." This passage in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 is death to many
modern translations of the Bible, which impose an entirely different meaning in this passage than what one would naturally understand from meditating on the above text. Granted, it is not an easy text to discern, being one that is
perhaps "hard to be understood," (2 Peter 3:16) but it is not so difficult that one cannot memorize the text and its context, compare it with other relevant passages, and discover the truth. It so happens that a large number of
religious academics have exposed themselves quite awkwardly in their handling of it. One can note a striking difference between the above text and what is presented in most modern Bible translations. Some insert
the word "daughter" after the word "virgin" in the text; others add words such as "he is engaged to" to clearly present a particular opinion about the meaning of this text. For example, the New American Standard Bible reads as
follows: "But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she should be of full age, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. But he who
stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in
marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better." The New International Version presents the following rendering: "If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged
to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but
has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin -- this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better." The reasons for translating the above text these latter two ways are diverse, but invariably circle back to nuances in the Greek that might be taken differently than we have them in the Authorized King James Bible
(AV). Doubtless, the motives for the alternative translations relate to a desire to clarify the meaning, which many find difficult to understand in the AV. I present here a formal proof that such embellishing
translations are wrong. I find that they are not only wrong, but also that they give great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme His name. Versions of the Bible containing these or similar translations, such as the New
International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the American Standard Bible (ASB), and many others, should not be inherently trusted for revelation from God. I present evidence that they should be treated
merely as weak commentaries on the Word of God written by men who did not know the Living God very well... if at all. My purpose in presenting this proof is to expose some of the corruption inherent in modern
translation work, which many use and depend upon while not understanding how the translations were derived or the nature of their manuscript foundation. The Greek texts behind these translations vary from that of the AV in some six
thousand places, where corruptions were introduced by the powers of darkness into the ancient manuscript witness of God's written Word, and are of significantly inferior quality to that used for the AV and the New King James Bible.
This fact has been The nature of a formal proof implies the presentation of clear logic that convinces the careful reader and leaves no room for reasonable doubt. I trust you will find the following treatment both sound and
unanswerable. If you do not find the following presentation entirely waterproof, so to speak, and are able to articulate this in a reasonably concise and compelling manner, I would be interested in this. Meanwhile, please do
pardon my repetition below; I do re-emphasize a good bit in the discourse that follows to certainly establish the proof from several angles. The proof must hinge upon the meaning of the word "her
" and the meaning of the word "virgin", for they are one and the same in the context of this passage. Please note that one must be careful not to assume what one is trying to prove, and take for granted that "her"
means a daughter, or an espoused bride, as stated in the more recent translations. It is the meaning and intent of this word that must be proved -- and not assumed -- in order for the proof to succeed. It is an understanding of the
phrase, "his virgin" that is in question. This phrase "his virgin" may be understood as a reference to a man's virginity; it need not refer to a supposed daughter or to one's betrothed, as suggested by
modern translators. Any proof of the correct meaning of this word must focus on what this phrase actually means and why, and base the proof upon the context of the passage. To make the proof, let us look carefully
and sanely at the text as we have it in the English versions. We answer the NASB-type rendering first, that "his virgin" refers to a man's daughter. If the text were referring to a father dealing with a virgin
daughter, and giving instruction as to whether the father should give this virgin daughter in marriage to another man, the feelings, passions, and desires of the daughter would be the subject of the passage and not the feelings,
will and passions of the father. These two concepts are totally foreign to one another: the marital disposition of a father and whether his virgin daughter should get married or not. The needs, feelings and dispositions of the
father should have no bearing at all, in and of themselves, upon the appropriateness of marriage for his daughter. This fact, if not obvious, is also evident in such passages as Ephesians 6:4: "And, ye fathers,
provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." and "I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to
speak reproachfully." (1 Tim 5:14) To be so dense as to encourage a father to domineer a young woman and deny her the comforts and privileges of motherhood and marriage simply due to the fact that the father has no current
appreciation for such a thing... and to think that this is godly... I simply cannot imagine such insane insensitivity. I find it difficult to craft a persuasive statement here... it is so very obvious... as if I would try to
convince you to breathe. The decision as to whether the daughter should marry or not would have everything to do with the "necessity" and desires of the daughter in this matter, and naturally also of the man
who would have her to be his wife, which are not mentioned anywhere in the text. The desires of the supposed "daughter" are the only
desires that would be appropriate to mention in the text if her entering into marriage was the subject of this passage. Decisions concerning the marriage of a daughter, when made by sane and loving fathers, also consider the type of man that wishes to marry the daughter, the potential husband's general decency and ability to provide for the daughter in the context of a lasting marriage, the young man's spiritual disposition, his family background. These aspects are also very important to consider, as well as the daughter's interest in this suitor, yet are not mentioned at all in the text.
Instead, the dispositions, convictions, and desires of the supposed "father" are the only
concepts mentioned in the text, and they are conceptually totally unrelated to the supposed meaning of the passage as rendered in the NASB. Therefore the concept of the father giving his daughter in marriage cannot be the subject of the passage.
The context of this passage implies that the phrase "his virgin" cannot be a reference to a man's daughter since the giving of a daughter in marriage would have nothing at all to do with a man having, "
power over his own will." However, a man is told that if he does have "power over his own will," that he does well to "keep his virgin." If the phrase "his virgin" is referring to a man's own virgin
daughter considering marriage, as the false translations suggest, this text from the Word of God would encourage men who do not have a strong sex drive to prevent their daughters from ever marrying. This is evidently exceedingly
absurd. Giving a daughter in marriage has nothing at all to do with the father of such a daughter standing, "steadfast in his heart, having no necessity." A father cannot, in good conscience, "so decree in
his heart that he will keep his virgin" daughter from marrying another man, independent of her desires and dispositions, based on his own cold frame and constitution. This is absolute nonsense -- unheard of in any sane family.
The text is speaking of a man's inner resolve, his own desire for marriage or his determination and ability to remain single. The "necessity" of a father in this very real and practical setting has nothing
to do with his daughter: it cannot. This context of this passage in the Word of God does not fit at all with a father pondering whether to let his virgin daughter marry. The parental context implied
here by the NASB is described and handled entirely differently based upon altogether different principles found throughout the rest of God's Word. The NASB thus encourages profound insensitivity and deep wickedness in the paternal
role, clearly a foundational role in the home, church, and culture. The NASB simply cannot be trusted here. If it cannot be trusted in a matter so plainly obvious and simple as this, if it promotes such blatant wickedness in such a
critical component of the fabric of daily domestic life, why should it be trusted anywhere else? The rendering of the NIV fares no better. Here we have a man who has secured the love and dedication of a pure young
woman and has promised himself in love to her for life: they are betrothed, engaged to be married. If the betrothal has happened according to righteousness, the young man has both won the affection of his bride by demonstrating his
love for her consistently over time and has developed her respect and admiration for him in his dealings with her and others, and he has also obtained the permission of her father in this matter, who has permitted and blessed their
mutual commitment to one another after coming to genuinely trust this young man with his precious daughter. The young couple has already entered into a lifelong commitment to one another and are jointly preparing to consummate
their marriage relationship in both public ceremony and physical union. Thus, the betrothed couple is already in a state that is equivalent to marriage in regards to the duty of marital fidelity. However, based
upon the false translation, when re-examining himself and his inner passions, the young groom is prompted to linger and procrastinate in consumating his marriage to his bride, defrauding her the comforts and protection of the
completed marriage bond for as long as he can, and we find him being heartily encouraged in this... true wickedness... by the text. Think you that God commends such a thing as wholesome and godly? I say not!
The fact that engagement and betrothal are equivalent is perhaps a matter of semantics, but it can be reasonably inferred that the biblical concept of betrothal is the intent of the word engaged in the
NIV. Clearly, the relationship as it is defined biblically implies the establishment of a lifetime commitment between the bride and groom that is equivalent to that of the marriage relationship. A woman pledged to be married to
another is expected to continue in sexual fidelity to her fianc Once the nature of engagement is seen to be equivalent to marriage in terms of lifetime committment, the encouragement in this
second type of false translation encourages a protracted defrauding of the waiting bride. She is not free to break the engagement and marry another, neither is she permited to enjoy her husband so long as he sees fit to defraud
her. What should such a woman do? The translation encourages every young man who is engaged to be married to seek this defrauding if he is able to do so comfortably, regardless of the concerns and desires of his bride. Should such
a man succeed in damping his marital passions for some protracted season, his bride is inconveniently forced to wait in cold, lonely hopelessness because her husband simply will not take her. This second rendering of the text by
the NIV and comparable translations then explicitly violates the command given earlier in this same context for spouses not to defraud one another. (vs 5) Decisions concerning the consumation of a marriage are
equivalent to those that end a marriage. Refusing to consumate a marriage is equivalent to abandonment and is very wicked unless the marriage covenant has been broken by the young bride. An engaged or betrothed man has already
assumed the responsibility of caring for his bride and wife -- he certainly should not seek to defraud his bride in the context of his engagement to her. Once he has permitted the engagement to take place and has entered the
betrothal state, duty requires that he take his wife at the first appropriate opportunity, not prolong her waiting. The false translation of the NIV thus applies concepts that are completely foreign to the marriage relationship to
encourage ungodly behavior within the context of the marital relationship. The considerations mentioned in the text, that being what a man should do when he is not in need of sexual fulfillment, are only relevant
completely outside the context of marriage -- including betrothal/engagement; there is no legitimate place for defrauding a spouse due to a man's lack of sexual interest in the context of marriage. Postponing the marriage ceremony
and prolonging the betrothal period indefinitely violates this same principle in spirit. The concepts are also completely foreign to any parental role, as that of a father considering a daughter's desire to marry. Both of these
general contexts are completely foreign to the real context of this passage when considered in light of common sense, the rest of the Word of God, and basic Christian charity. This text is not meant for a groom, nor for a concerned
father, but for a man that is completely free of the duties of marriage and parenthood who is pondering his own unique constitution and disposition.
Every aspect of the immediate context of this passage points to a man dealing with an inner
struggle that involves no one else, not an external struggle. The man is dealing with inward desires of his own heart and will, not that of another. The struggle the man in this context faces fits perfectly with whether he should give up his virginity, "
his virgin," as it is expressed here, to another woman by seeking a bride, entering himself into a betrothal period, and then finally into a marriage relationship with her. His struggle and its resolution are to take place
completely outside the context of any marital engagement, commitment or betrothal and are relevant only to his own personal marital state: it should hinder or influence no other person should he deem himself fitly single. His
virginity can be and should be given or kept without defrauding anyone else, and "she," his virginity, can be given or withheld naturally and sanely in this context, based on the man's own sexual needs, regardless of the desires of
any other person in the matter. The entire context of the passage is consistent with this approach. To insist that the use of the female pronoun, the "her" in this text, is necessarily a reference to a human being,
a virgin woman, as it is earlier in this seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, is unreasonable due to the evident absurdity implied in the context by this assumption. Referring to sexual passion as a concept or quality within the frame
of a man by using a female pronoun is not inappropriate, any more than referring to a boat as a "her" (Acts 27:32) or a candlestick as a "he." (Ex 25:31) Such use of non-neuter pronouns in reference to inanimate objects or concepts
is common in most any language, and was certainly extant in the English language during the era in which the AV was born. Such constructions are certainly not altogether lost from my own mother tongue today, though "she" has
certainly changed a bit. The text is correctly translated by the AV, which uses a female pronoun to identify a man's sexual disposition, and personifies this sexual disposition in a poetic sense, being faithful to
the Greek construction underlying the text. The text simply means that any man who does not have strong sexual passions does well to remain single rather than to enter into a marriage relationship, which he certainly might consider
appropriate for some other reason than sexual desire. Though it is clearly not wrong for such a man to marry despite his lack of sexual interest, it is generally considered a "better" choice for him to remain free of the duties and
obligations and cares of marriage so that he may devote himself entirely to the service of the Lord in non-domestic ministry. Such a man does not give his sexual purity, the "her" in the text, up for marriage, but keeps "her" by
remaining single. He makes this choice outside the context of any marital obligation: if he is engaged to be married or is already married he should fullfil his duty toward his wife as clearly expressed in 1 Cor 7:5.
This meaning is proven to be correct for the text due to the nature of the entire context which surrounds it, and due to the consistency of this meaning with the rest of God's Word. To obey either of the false translations, to
isolate a daughter or significantly defraud a bride, would not only violate the concepts of marriage and fatherhood found throughout the rest of God's Word, they would each be considered extremely unhealthy and inappropriate in any
culture at any time in any age past or present. In fact, it would simply be utterly devastating to actually obey this passage as a godly father or an earnestly spiritual groom the way that it has been falsely
translated… the way that it has been damaged by the false versions of the Bible so often looked to for spiritual nourishment. No righteous man could ever obey with a clear conscience what has been twisted into this text. The Holy
Spirit would scream bloody murder inside of any true believer! It would be unthinkable! There are NO instances of this type of thoughtless, senseless insensitivity mentioned elsewhere in the Word. The attempted
pollution of the Word of God by the NASB, the NIV, and the other equivalent texts is totally inconsistent with all culture, reason, and sanity. It plainly violates the healthy principles promoted by God in the rest of His Holy
Word. What we observe embedded in such tranlations is complete nonsense -- utter… absolute… nonsense… A father "righteously" unwilling to give his daughter in marriage due to some sexual coldness in himself! A groom stalling and
postponing the consumation of his marriage to his lovely bride indefinitely! There is nothing like this in any society on earth... in either case. One case is being totally inconsiderate of the desires and needs of a daughter and
is merely provoking the child to wrath and rebellion in a most profound and callous way. The other is defrauding a vulnerably hopeful, loyal, and committed bride. These errors touch the very intimate places of human experience in a
manner that is actually insane. I am DEEPLY amazed that any sane, thoughtful human being could ever write such foolish things as have been written in these texts… literally amazed. Further, these errors tempt
believers to disobey the Lord – and any reasonable person WILL disobey this wrongly translated passage if they ever become engaged in marriage or become father to a daughter... and also happen to have little/no sexual passion
during that season of life. Disobeying false
patterns which feign themselves to be directed and blessed of God corrupts believers to confusion and disobedience and gives much occasion for the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. What would the world think if the church openly taught and practiced such absurdity?
And what then are true believers to do who read this in their Bible? Must we state the obvious? It is not a light thing that these corruptions of the truth have been offered as Scripture. I would
not want to be in the shoes of anyone who has tampered with actual the text of Holy Scripture and then presented this awful senselessness to humanity as the very Word of God, as such folk have plainly done. It is written, "
Add thou not unto His words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Pr 30:6) And again, " Finally, it is certainly evident to me... though it be to
no other, that those who translated the Word of God in these dreadfully corrupt fashions evidenced no intent whatsoever to walk in obedience to what they wrote... to what they claimed to be the Word of God... or to encourage anyone
else to obey it. To add to the Word of God is certainly a terrible thing... but to do so with no intent at all to soberly apply it in the practice of life indicates innate enmity and deadness toward its supposed Author. The error
exposes the inward nature of such translators in a profoundly significant way, casting a long dark shadow over each of their translations in entirety. Most will think my final conclusion here uncharitable and
unwarranted, being too severe for the type of mistake made. Perhaps some will argue that there are compelling reasons in the Greek for such errors in translation. Even so, it is a mistake to take this lightly.
You do know such men by their fruit: a good tree cannot produce corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree good. While I might grant that these translators may not have been maliciously
deliberate in their errors, it is certainly obvious that they were quite ignorant of God and of His Word. The translations before us are evidently either written by men who did not fear the living God, men who would intentionally
disobey Him unless they happened to find His Word convenient for them, or by men who did not believe that God inspired the Bible. In either case, this is not the nature of the children of God, children of light... elect unto
obedience. What we ponder is essentially the work of children of disobedience... children of darkness. "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his
ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Cor 11:14-15) It is absolutely vital that children of the living God have an implicit trust in the
written Word of God with the constant intent to be doers of the Word and not hearers only. This is to keep us from deception and sin so that we might walk in daily communion with our God and be fully equipped to serve Him in this
life. You are encouraged to find such a Book, a living Book... inbreathed by the Holy Spirit of the living God... a Book that you can hold in your hand, written in your own mother tongue... and to memorize it as the inspired Word
of God to you. I suggest you begin narrowing your selection by discarding any translation that corrupts this text before us in Corinthians. You may find my complete appeal in this matter in the article, |
||||