In the following article, I, Tony, will deal with the supposed errors and supposed blatant contradictions in the Concordant Literal New Testament. Dons points will all be in italic
and mine Roman type (non-italic).
CONCORDANT LITERAL NEW
ERRORS IN TRANSLATING APPLICATION
AION AND AIONIOS
by Don C. Hewey
Copyright © 1998-1999,
1john57.com of KJV Apologetics. All rights reserved.
authors note: unless otherwise specified, all verse
renderings in this page are quoted from the Concordant Literal New Testament,
third printing, Copyright by Concordant Publishing Concern ©1983.
All rights reserved.
A. E. Knoch devoted a lifetime to the development of a concordant (i.e.,
harmonious and practically consistent) translation of the Scriptures, one that was as accurate and literal as the constraints of idiom and good diction would permit. The
Concordant Version employs a method of translation that takes into account the superhuman perfection of the scriptural writings, even to the minutest detail (Matt.5:18). Though the Version includes many technical features, ones which can be of great value to the advanced student, its greatest benefit accrues even to the ordinary reader whenever it is simply read, carefully and thoughtfully, whether in devotional reading
or study. ---Concordant Publishing Concern CONCORDANT
BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS WITHIN THE CONCORDANT
LITERAL NEW TESTAMENT, (CLNT):
The CLNT denies that Jesus Christ rose Himself up from the
dead in John 10:18.
John 10:18 No one is taking it away from Me, but I am laying
it down of Myself. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to get it again. This precept I got from My Father.
(note: the CLNT is denying that Jesus Christ can raise Himself from the dead by erroneously translating the Greek word 'exousia' as 'the right.' 'Exousia' is defined as power, authority when this word is used in reference to God. This incorrect translation contradicts John 2:19 Jesus answered and said to them, Raze this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Also contradicts John 10:29 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection
and the Life... )
Tonys reply: First of all, Don's premise in writing his thesis is to prove "Concordant Literal New testament error's in translating application of aion and aionios." I am at a loss as to why he brings up all these other side issues rather than his main thesis point which starts his paper. What Don bringing up "Christ rose Himself from the dead" has to do with aion or aionion I haven't a clue. However, let's go down his rabbit trail and see where it leads, shall we?
The Companion Bible for exousia says= "authority, or, delegated power; the liberty and right to put forth power, See, e.g., John 1:12."
Kittle (TWNT) states for exousia: . . . denotes "ability to perform an action" to the extent that there are no hindrances in the way, as distinct from dunamis in the sense of intrinsic ability" vol.2, p.562.
Let us try to think Dons premise through logically. If exousia is translated right according to the CLNT, or power according to the KJV, does either word cause this verse to contradict John 2:19 or 10:29? I would be compelled to say, No.
The bible never says that Christ roused or raised Himself from the dead.
First, let us see if Jesus raised Himself or if God raised Jesus. Let us look at the evidence for the term raise and its connection with Christs death and resurrection. Then we will look at the word rouse.
God raised Christ from the dead:
This One, given up in the specific counsel and foreknowledge of God, you, gibbeting by the hand of the lawless, assassinate, (24) Whom God raises, loosing the pangs of death, forasmuch as it was not possible for Him to be held by it (Act 2:23-24).
This Jesus God raises, of Whom we all are witnesses (Act 2:32).
To you first, God, raising His Boy . . . (Act 3:26).
God roused Christ from the dead:
. . . Jesus Christ, the Nazarene, Whom you crucify, Whom God rouses from among the dead . . . (Act 4:10).
We, then, were entombed together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father . . . (Romans 6:4).
Yet the Inaugurator of Life you kill, Whom God rouses from among the dead, of which we are witnesses (Act 3:15).
. . . seeing that we testify by God that He rouses Christ, Whom, consequently, He rouses not, if so be that the dead are not being roused (1 Cor.15:15).
being aware that He Who rouses the Lord Jesus will be rousing us also . . . (2 Cor.4:14).
Concerning Christ having the power as Don wrote, he only quoted verse 18 above. Let us begin with verse 17 so as to clear up some things:
Therefore the Father is loving Me, seeing that I am laying down My soul that I may be getting it [the soul] again. (18) No one is taking it [the soul] away from Me, but I am laying it [the soul] down of Myself. I have the right to lay it [the soul] down, and I have the right to get it [the soul] again. This precept I got from My Father (John 10:17-18). (Words in brackets [ ] added by me for clarity).
The Greek word for power is dunamis. Dunamis is missing in John 10:18. Exousia is present in John 10:18. The KJV often translated exousia as power but also very often translates exousia as authority.
And so, authority or right works perfectly in John 10:18. Christ had the right or authority to get His soul again.
Christ had the right to lay down His SOUL and the right to get get his SOUL again. Also the object is the soul not the body or the life. Christ had the right to lay down His soul (the KJV translated psuche as life here in John 10:17 rather than soul.) Life in Greek is zoe. Zoe is not in John 10:17. He had the right to get His soul (psuche) again. The soul is the result of the spirit and body coming together. Adams body was made first, then spirit was blown into his body and THEN Adam BECAME a living soul. It is like electricity entering a light bulb and the outcome or combination of these two things coming together is light. Likewise, soul is the result of body and spirit coming together to produce sensations and feelings, i.e., soul.
When Christ died and committed His spirit to God and the spirit exited His body, He, in effect, laid down His soul. It became non-functional. When the spirit re-entered Christ's body in the tomb, the result was soul. He, in effect, got His soul again. He had that right or authority to do so.
Jesus answered and said to them, Raze this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. (20) The Jews, then, said, In forty and six years was this temple built, and you will be raising it up in three days! (21) Yet He said it concerning the temple of His body. (22) When, then, He was roused from among the dead, His disciples are reminded that He said this, and they believe the scripture and the word which Jesus said (John 2:19-22).
Notice it does not say in verse 22: When, then, He roused Himself from among the dead but says when, then, He was roused from among the dead . . . . There is a big difference there. He was roused through (or by means of) the glory of the Father as Romans 6:4 states. So just how are we to take Christs words in three days I will raise it up, since He did not, by His own power raise Himself from the dead? The Scriptures are abundantly clear that it was God that raised Him from the dead. There are only two ways I know of taking this verse. One is that the Father was speaking through Christ. The Father speaking through Christ happened on another occasion in a dialog Jesus had with Philip: Philip is saying to Him, Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficing us. Jesus is saying to him, So much time I am with you, and you do not know Me, Philip! He who has seen Me has seen the Father, and how are you saying, Show us the Father? (John 14:8-9). It is not that Jesus was saying He (Jesus Himself) was the Father but that the Father was speaking through Him and doing the works through Him.
Jesus was neither God in the absolute sense of the word nor the Father for Jesus said this after He was alive from the dead:
. . . Jesus is saying to her, Do not touch Me, for not as yet have I ascended to My Father. Now go to My brethren, and say to them that I said, Lo! I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God (John 20:17).
According to what Christ just said we can be sure of a couple of things:
- 1. The Father was not where Christ was.
- 2. God was not where Christ was (i.e. in the garden).
- 3. The Father was above.
- 4. God was above.
- 5. Christ was ascending to where His God and His Father was.
- 6. That God and that Father is the disciples God and Father.
Therefore we must conclude from Jesus own words that Jesus is not the disciples Father nor the disciples God and that therefore, when Jesus said raze this temple and in three days I will raise it up it must have been the Father speaking through Christ. One other way of looking at this would be that the Father was instrumental in raising Christ up after God roused Him out of the sleep of death. Lets look at these two words a little more in depth. When I go to bed at night the first thing that happens in the morning is that I am roused from sleep. My eyes open. I can remain lying in bed but once I raise myself I am no longer in a supine, horizontal position. I am either sitting on the edge of my bed or standing up. It could be that the God and Father of Christ gave Christ the power to be raised and that it was then that Christ raised Himself from the dead. So either way, Christ could not have been raised unless His God and Father first raised Him.
Don Continues: Romans 14:10 ...For all of us shall be presented at the
dais of God...(note: Incorrectly translates the Greek word 'bema.'
contradicts Romans 2:16 in the day when God will be judging the hidden
things of humanity, according to my evangel, through Jesus Christ.
Contradicts John 5:22 For neither is the Father judging anyone, but
has given all judging to the Son.
And contradicts 2 Corinthians 5:10 ...dais of Christ...)
2 Corinthians 5:10 For all of us must be manifested in front of the dais of Christ,
that each should be requited for that which he puts into practice through
the body, whether good or bad.(note: Incorrectly translates
the Greek word 'bema.' contradicts Romans 2:16 in the day when God
will be judging the hidden things of humanity, according to my evangel,
through Jesus Christ. Contradicts John 5:22 For neither the Father judging anyone, but has given all judging to the Son.)
Tonys reply: Let us look at each verse in question:
Now why are you judging your brother? Or why are you also scorning your brother? For all of us shall be presented at the dais of God. (Rom.14:10)
The Sinaticus editor put XY which is the abbreviated form for XPICTOY in the margin standing for Christ in Romans 14:10. So according to the two oldest manuscripts, Alandrinus and Vaticanus, THEOU (God) is in Romans 14:10 for the dais of God whereas the Sinaticus editor has dais of XY. So, in 2 Corinthians 5:10 the dais is called the dais of Christ whereas in Romans 14:10 it is called the dais of God. Knoch had to make a judgment call. He could either go with the Sinaticus editor and use his reading of XY in the margin or use other main manuscripts. He chose the latter. If Knoch is wrong then the oldest manuscripts are wrong. It is possible that since God is not a proper noun, that the writer of Romans 14:10 was referring to Christ as the Subjector which is the basic meaning of THEOS.
in the day when God will be judging the hidden things of humanity, according to my evangel, through Jesus Christ (Rom.2:16)
God does the judging, but He does it through the means of Jesus Christ.
For neither is the Father judging anyone, but has given all judging to the Son(John 5:22).
The Father is not judging anyone directly but does so through the Son.
For all of us must be manifested in front of the dais of Christ, that each should be requited for that which he puts into practice through the body, whether good or bad (2 Cor.5:10).
Here all manuscripts agree that this is the dais of Christ. Also, there is no reason why bema cannot be translated as dais rather than judgment seat as the KJV does. The words judgment seat would call for two different Greek words if Knoch were to translate it that way. Bema is a raised platform as is dais. therefore there is no contradiction.
Don wrote: Matthew 1:25 omits her firstborn (note:
contradicts Luke 2:7)
Tonys reply: There is nothing in the three oldest manuscripts to warrant adding firstborn in Matthew 1:25. Wescott-Hort Greek New Testament also does not show prototokos or firstborn in its text. Neither do various other translations have firstborn. Also, not having firstborn in Matthew 1:25 does not contradict Luke 2:7 as Don asserts. It is just that Luke 2:7 adds to the information lacking in the Matthew account.
Don wrote: Matthew 5:22 omits without a cause (note: contradicts John 15:25, Lamentations 3:52, Psalm 109:3, Psalm 69:4, Psalm 35:9, Psalm 25:3, Psalm 7:4, etc.)
Tonys reply: If the Greek word dorean (meaning gratuitously or without a cause) was in Matthew 5:22 in the Vaticanus, Alexandrinus or Sinaticus, Knoch would have put it in the CLNT. In the Greek text of this verse used by the KJV, the word is eike and is translated without a cause and vain/vainly in the KJV. The Concordant Version translates this word feinedly in every passage it appears.
Here is Matthew 5:22: Yet I am saying to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to the judging. Yet whoever may be saying to his brother, Raka! shall be liable to the Sanhedrin. Yet whoever may be saying, Stupid! shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire.
And here is John 15:25: but it is that the word written in their law may be fulfilled, that they hate Me gratuitously.
What I would like to ask Don is why he thinks he that is angry with his brother, if without a cause is not in Matthew 5:22, contradicts but it is that the word written in their law may be fulfilled, that they hate Me gratuitously (John 15:25). It doesn't contradict 5:22 at all. Neither do all the other verses Don references above contradict 5:22. What I think Don is trying to say is that if without a cause is in all the verses he quoted above, then it should be in Matthew 5:22. But that is incorrect. Without a cause should be in Matthew 5:22 only if dorean is in the Greek texts. It is not in the three oldest Greek manuscripts Knoch used, therefore, according to Knoch, he did not feel warranted in inserting it.
Don continues: Revelation 1:7 ...and every eye shall be seeing Him--those, also, who stab Him...
John 19:34 But one of the soldiers pierces His side with a lance head...
(note: present tense for stab Him?
Jesus Christ's side was pierced while
He was on the cross. Contradicts (prophesized
in) Zechariah 12:10 & (fulfilled in) John 19:34)
Tonys reply: There is nothing sinister going on in the Concordant Version here.
In Matthew 27:49 and John 19:34 employ pierces: now another, getting a lance head, pierces His side, and out came water and blood. Here, pierces has ENUXEN, the form of nusso which is pierce in Greek. John 19:34 employs pierces. However, just a few verses later in John, he uses the word Stab, which in Greek is ekekenteo and is used as such in John 19:37 and Revelation 1:7. Let us look at the verses:
John 19:34-37 But one of the soldiers pierces His side with a lance head, and straightway out came blood and water. (35) And he who has seen has testified, and true is his testimony. And he is aware that he is telling the truth, that you, also, should be believing. (36) For these things occurred that the scripture may be fulfilled, A bone of it shall not be crushed. (37) And again, a different scripture is saying, they shall see Him whom they stab. If one used the King James Version one would not know that there were two entirely different Greek words employed in verses 34 and 37.
It seems to me that John is applying this prophetic scripture: And they will look to Him Whom they stabbed (Zech.12:10) to the time Christ was stabbed in the Gospel of John. Yet in Revelation, John writes it as if it is yet a future event:
John wrote around 96 A.D.: Lo! He is coming with clouds, and every eye shall be seeing Him-those, also, who stab Him-and all the tribes of the land shall be grieving over Him. Yea! Amen! (Rev.1:7).
So it doesn't really contradict Zechariah 12:10 as Don would have us believe. It is just that his version is not in line with the Greek texts.
It is just that it is showing the aorist (or indefinite) act form of the verb pierce. This does not contradict Zechariah 12:10 which puts stabbed in the past tense. It is just that, in the future, they will look at Him Whom they stabbed but John wrote of the event as if the soldier was presently piercing Christ. Knoch could have made it pierced. He just wanted to show the aorist or indefinite in the Greek.
John in his Revelation 1:7 talks about the future day when every eye shall be seeing Him--those, also, who stab Him.
Don continues: In Mark 14:21, the CLNT deliberately capitalizes the H in 'Him' which is referring to Jesus Christ. The 'Him' is clearly referring to Judas Iscariot, the 'H' should be lower case. Mark 14:21: ...The Son of Mankind is being given
up! Ideal were it for Him if that man were not born!
note: Jesus Christ was not referring to Himself in Mark 14:21, the Him should be him which is referring to Judas Iscariot. This contradicts: Luke 22:22 the Son of Mankind is indeed going, according as it has been specified. However, woe to that man through whom He is being given up!
and also contradicts: Matthew 18:7 Woe to the world because of snares! For it is a necessity for snares to be coming. Moreover, woe to that man through whom the snare is coming!
and this is further confirmed by: 2 Peter 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein,
and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2 Peter 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
Tonys reply: Don is correct as to this statement given above: the CLNT deliberately capitalizes the H in 'Him' which is referring to Jesus Christ. There is no apology needed for such deliberateness.
Let us put Mark 14:21 and Luke 22:22 into a display that will make it much easier to understand why Him should be capitalized, and, does indeed, refer to the Son of Mankind and not Judas:
If this proper rendering causes other verses to be contradicted, according to Don, then there must be either an improper translation of the other verses in question or an improper understanding of the other verses in question. I believe the latter to be the case. Neither Mark 14:21 nor Luke 22:22 contradict each other nor do they contradict Matthew 18:7 nor 2 Peter 2:20,21 as Don suggested.
Don continues: The CLNT erroneously translates the Greek word 'xulon' which means: wood, tree, staves, or stocks. Acts 5:30 Now the God of our fathers rouses Jesus, on Whom you lay hands, hanging Him on a pole. Acts 10:39 ...Whom they assassinate also, hanging Him on a pole. Galatians 3:13 ...becoming a curse for our sakes, for it is written, Accursed is everyone hanging on a pole...
and also 1 Peter 2:24.
Why does Peter refer to the cross as a tree? Because he is quoting
from O.T. scripture: Deuteronomy 21:22-23,
Deuteronomy 21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
Deuteronomy 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.
Where it says that a person who is hanged from a tree is cursed by God. The Apostle Peter is bringing attention to the dire consequences of their rejection of Jesus Christ, showing them that they killed Jesus Christ in the worst way possible, both from a Roman (the cross) and a Jewish (the tree association) point-of-view.
Tonys reply: The CLNT translated dendron as tree and xulon as wood and cudgel as a weapon made of wood, stocks made of wood for confining the feet and a log and pole.
The KJV translated xulon as staff 5 times, stocks 1 time, tree 10 times and wood 3 times. It translated dendron as tree in every occurrence as does the CLNT. The problem with the KJV is that one would never know if xulon or dendron was being translated unless one had a Greek-English concordance. I'm sure that Christ did not carry a tree (dendron) with branches and leaves to His crucifixion. He carried something made of wood (xulon) to His crucifixion.
Don continues: 1 Corinthians 15:24 ...whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father,...
Jesus Christ is God! Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the
Almighty. The Greek word for his is 'autos' which is not in any Greek manuscript. The CLNT adds His to verse 24 attacking the deity of Jesus Christ.)
The CLNT denies (Revelation 21:6 by adding the word 'become', the Greek word for 'become' is ginomai and does not appear in Revelation 21:6) that Jesus Christ is alway's [sic] the Alpha and the Omega.
Tonys reply: In the Greek text it is: KAI (and) eipen (He said) moi (to me) gegona (have become) ego (I) to (the) alpha (alpha) kai (and) to (the) W (omega). Gegona which is have become, is in the Greek text of Revelation 21:6. Gegona is a form of ginomai and has the exact same Strongs number of 1096. This is why the CLNT has become. If ginomai is supposed to be, according to Don, the only time a word should be translated become, then why did the KJV give become for so many different Greek words? (see Strong's numbers 1096, 1519, 889, 1402, 2289, 2673, 4241, and becometh from 4241, 1096, 516, 4241, 2412.)
Don wrote: Revelation 1:8 I am the Alpha and the Omega, is saying the Lord God, Who is and Who was and Who is coming, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:17 ...And He places His right hand on me, saying Do not fear! I am the First and the Last...
Revelation 2:8 ...He is saying Who is the First and the Last, Who became dead, and lives.
Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Origin and the Consummation.
Revelation 21:6 And He said to me, I have become the Alpha and the Omega, the Origin and the Consummation...
(note: verse 21:6 adds the word become...blatant contradiction of the deity of Jesus Christ! Contradicts Revelation 22:13, 1:17, 2:8 & 1:8)
Tonys reply: The above verse should in no way be construed to be understood as contradicting 1 Corinthians 15:24 or 28. First of all, God is giving to John an unveiling of Jesus Christ (Rev.1:1) thus showing a difference between Christ and God. In Revelation 1:6 John is talking about Christ making them a kingdom of priests to His (Christ's) God and Father. The Greek text has: to the God and Father of Him thus showing both God and Father as the possession of Him. So, Christ has a God and a Father.
Of course Jesus is God. But in what sense is Jesus God? The noun God is a title, not a name. If Jesus is the God Who fills heaven and earth, who is Jesus subjecting Himself to in 1 Corinthians 15:28? The One in verse 28 is said to be the only One not being subjected to Christ. That One is God. God is the One subjecting all humanity to Christ. Then Christ subjects Himself to that One. In 1 Corinthians 15:24 the editor of the Sinaticus manuscript has tou Theou as an alternate reading both of which showing a genitive (possessive) case. So it could be written He may be giving up the kingdom of the God and of the Father. The CLNT has His in lightface showing it is not in the Greek text. Anyone who knows the conventions of the CLNT would know His is not in the Greek text without Don having to inform us. Even should His be left in, this does not, as Don says attack the deity of Christ.
Don continues: Revelation 2:13 I am aware where you are dwelling---where the throne of Satan is---and
you are holding My name, and do not disown My faith in the days in which
Antipas, My faithful witness, was killed among you, where Satan is dwelling.
(Note: From Genesis 41:40 thru Revelation
22:3, only king's have a throne. No where in the bible is satan called
a king. The CLNT mistranslates 'archon' (throne) in John 12:31 and I
can PROVE it using the CLNT by itself. Compare Matthew 12:24 with John
12:31. 'Archon' is used in both verses to denote chief. Beezeboul is
the 'chief of the demons' in Matthew 12:24, Mark 3:22, and satan is 'chief'
in John 12:31. If satan is a King, then how are there two chiefs? There
must be two thrones for satan and beezeboul. That doesn't make any sense.
Tonys reply: I'm not sure what version Don is using but the CLNT translates archon as chief in John 12:31 and Matthew 12:24.
The only instance in which archee is used of superior earthly powers is found in Luke 12:11, which reads, they may be bringing you before synagogues and chiefs (AV, magistrates) and authorities. Here we see two distinct grades of earthly rule. The synonym archoon is used of the chiefs (AV, rulers) in Israel (Matt.9:18,23; Luke 18:18;23:35; Acts 4:5, etc.) Nicodemus was such a chief (John 3:1). It is also used of the chief (AV, ruler) of the synagogue (Luke 8:41). It will also help us to note that Beezeboul is called the chief (AV, prince) of the demons (Matt.9:34;12:24; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15), Satan is chief (AV, prince) of the aerial jurisdiction (Eph.2:2), and Christ is Chief or Suzerain of the kings of the earth (Rev.1:5).
Such superior positions on earth are called chief in order to help us to apprehend what is meant when the Scriptures mention the celestial sovereignties. Usually, indeed, the earthly and heavenly dignitaries are both included in the term, as in Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16; 2:10,15. No sovereignties, no chiefs, captains, or princes, with all their might, whether on earth or in heaven, will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Rom.8:38). All of these are connected with rule, and all will be gone when rule retires (1 Cor.15:24). Christ has ascended above all such, not only on earth, but in the heavens (Eph.1:21). The whole universe, in heaven and on earth, was created in the Son of God's love, whether thrones or dominions or sovereignties (Colossians 1:16) (A.E. Knoch, Unsearchable Riches, vol.25 p.154).
Don wrote: Another illustration: John 3:1 ...Nicodemus his name, a chief of the Jews. How can a chief be a King in John 3:1? There can be many chiefs, but there is only one King. Scripture is consistent with this....even in the CLNT, however, the CLNT's translational inconsistencies shine great in Revelation 2:13. John 12:31 Now is the judging of this world. Now shall the Chief of this world be cast out.
Tonys reply: Why must, according to Don, Nicodemus be a king if he has the title chief? Why must a chief be a king? Who said that only kings sit on thrones? Who said a chief cannot sit on a throne or a place of authority? Obviously, since Satan has a throne but carries the title chief, this proves that chiefs do indeed sit on thrones. In Revelation 4:4 the twenty-four elders each have a throne. The King James version translated thronos here as seats. In the Greek it is: And around the THRONOU (throne-singular) twenty four THRONOUS (thrones-plural) and on the THRONOUS (thrones-plural) I saw 24 elders sitting. They are not called Kings nor chiefs yet they have thrones. They each have positions of authority. Christ, in Luke 22:30 told his twelve disciples that they would each have a throne (the KJV says as much also) and yet, are they ever called kings?
In Revelation 2:13 thronos is in the Greek and so is translated throne in every instance where it occurs. Seat on the other hand is kathedra in Greek. Someone reading the KJV would not know which Greek word was used but they would if reading the CLNT. What is also interesting is that quite a few other Bibles translate thronos as throne in Revelation 2:13. Not that that makes it right, but I do find it interesting that Don does not go after those other translations.
Don wrote: John 5:18 Therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, for He not only annulled the sabbath, but said His own Father also is God, making Himself equal to God.
(note: disgusting attack on the deity of
Jesus Christ. Blatant contradiction of John 10:30 I am [sic] my Father are one.)
Tonys reply: Well, Don can glibly say what he wants. The term or title God is not a proper noun. Jesus carries this title just as His Father does. If Don does not like the idea of Jesus making Himself equal to the Subjector (God), then he would really have a hairy fit if He read what Jesus said here:
I and the Father, We are one. Again, then, the Jews bear stones that they should be stoning Him. Jesus answered them, Many ideal acts I show you from My Father. Because of what act of them are you stoning Me? The Jews answered Him, For an ideal act we are not stoning you, but for blasphemy, and that you, being a man, are making yourself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, that 'I say you are gods'? If He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can not be annulled), (John 10:30-35).
Think about this. It is as if Jesus is saying: Look, guys, you want to stone me because you think I am making Myself 'God,' and yet the very scriptures allow for this for it is written: 'I say ye are gods.' It is in that same sense that I carry that title 'God.' The people in the Old Testament who were subjecting Israel to the law were called 'elohim' or 'theos' or 'God.' Even God told Moses he (Moses) is God and that Aaron is his prophet in Exodus 7:1.
Was Moses, now considered to be the Supreme Deity of the universe once God had conferred upon him the title God? Now I hope Don or those of his persuasion will not say that we believe we all become gods or God.
It also begs the question: What exactly did Jesus mean by I and the Father, We are one? Let us look at John 17:22 for the answer: And I have given them the glory which Thou has given Me, that they may be one, according as We are One. Are the twelve apostles now a part of the blessed holy Trinity? Are they now God? If according to Don, oneness with God means one becomes the Supreme Deity of the universe then are we to understand that the 12 become twelve separate supreme Deities of the universe? Are they now equal to GOD? Or do they all get absorbed into God? I doubt it.
Don continues: John 3:36 He who is believing in the Son has life eonian, yet he who is stubborn as to the Son shall not be seeing life, but the indignation of God is remaining on him.
(note: blatant deceitful rendering of the Greek word apeitheo)
Tonys reply: Actually, if any version is blatant and deceitful as to this verse it would be Don's beloved KJV. Notice how it translated this verse:
He that believeth 4100 on 1519 the 588 Son 5207 hath 2192 everlasting 166 life: 2222 and 1161 he that believeth 544 not the 3588 Son 207 shall not 3756 see 3700 life; 2222 but 235 the 3588 wrath 3709 of God 316 abideth 3306 on 1909 him 846 (John 3:36).
You will notice that the first believeth is Strong's number 4100 and the second believeth is number 544. 4100 is pisteuo and 544 is apeitheo. The KJV had the audacity to give believeth for two completely different Greek words! What Don is doing is the kettle calling the pot Black. 4100 is believeth but 544 should be stubborn.
Don wrote: The CLNT contradicts itself twice in Luke 4:3 & 4:9, the s is not capitalized, but is capitalized in Matthew 4:3 & 4:6. Luke 4:3 Now the Adversary said to Him, If you are
God's son, speak to this stone that it may be becoming bread.
stones(lithos) that(hina) it be made(ginomai) bread(artos)
(note: the s in 'son' is not capitalized. Compare with Matthew 4:3 & 4:6)
Tonys reply: We are thankful for such close scrutiny of the CLNT. Don is correct. There is a capitalized Son in Matthew 4:3 and 4:6 but not in Luke 4:3 and 4:9. This will probably be fixed in the next printing. It is just a typographical error.
Don wrote: Matthew 4:3 And, approaching, the trier said to Him,
If you are God's Son, say that these stones may be becoming cakes of bread. (Note: added the words cakes of which do not appear in the Greek manuscripts. these (houtos) stones(lithos) be made(ginomai) bread(artos).)
Tonys reply: Don is correct. Cakes is not in the Greek text. That is why we put it in lightface in the CLNT. In the Holy Land the common thing to do with dough was to make ember cakes of bread. The King James version does the same thing with words it adds which are not in the Greek text but puts them in italic instead of lightface. It is nothing sinister on our or the KJV's part.
Don wrote: Luke 4:9 Now he led Him into Jerusalem and stands Him on the wing of the santuary, and he said to Him, If you are God's son, cast yourself down hence,(note: the s in 'son' is not capitalized. Compare with Matthew 4:3 & 4:6)
Matthew 4:6 And he is saying to Him, If you are God's Son, cast yourself down, for it is written that 'His messengers shall be directed concerning Thee' and 'On their hands shall they be lifting Thee, Lest at some time Thou shouldst be dashing Thy foot against a stone.'
Tonys reply: Already dealt with above. It is just a typographical error.
Don wrote: Ephesians 4:13 unto the end that we should all attain to the unity of the faith and of the realization of the son
of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature of the complement
of Christ,(note: the s in 'son' is not capitalized. Compare with Matthew 4:3 & 4:6,).
Tonys reply: The article THE is always given in the Sublinear, but it cannot always be transferred to the Version, because English and Greek usage differ. When to use it in English and when to use a, or omit it entirely cannot be determined by rule. It depends on a knowledge of the idiom of the two languages which comes only from long acquaintance. English usage is not uniform or definite. We can say the horse and mean either a particular horse, or horses as a class. This is true also in Greek. But when Bible readers speak of THE Son of God, they do not think of a class but of a particular Person. This is not so in Greek. Hence it is wise in such passages as Ephesians 4:13 to translate a son of God, which avoids giving the passage a twist which the peculiar English usage demands. Such renderings in the CONCORDANT VERSION are not the result of oversight or a desire to inject an interpretation, but are due to the state of our language. This will be dealt with more fully later. (A.E. Knoch, Unsearchable Riches vol.28, p. 199)
Don wrote: John 5:27 And He gives Him authority to do judging, seeing that He is a son of mankind. (note: the s in 'son' is not capitalized. Compare with Matthew 4:3 & 4:6).
Tonys reply: Interesting. It is just a typographical error.
Don wrote: Blatant deceitful attack on the deity of Jesus
Christ by adding a. There is only one Son of Man: Jesus Christ) Revelation 14:14 And I perceived, and lo! a white
cloud, and on the cloud One sitting like a son of mankind, having a golden wreath on His head, and a sharp sickle in His hand.
Tonys reply: Interesting that the King James Version of 1611 has it pretty much like the CLNT: And I looked, and beholde, a white cloud, and vpon the cloude one sate like vnto the sonne of man, hauing on his head a golden crowne, and in his hand a sharpe sickle. Young's Literal, American Standard Version, Bible in Basic English 1965, Bishop's Bible of 1568 have it a son of mankind and the son of mankind. I guess Don's cherished KJV's translation is a blatant deceitful attack on the deity of Jesus christ. By the way, the definite article the is not even in the Greek. It is just one like son of mankind.
Don wrote: (note: The CLNT contradicts itself in 73 other verses in the New Testament. The s in 'son' is not capitalized and this contradicts numerous other renderings of the Son of Mankind in the CLNT: Blatant deceitful attack on the deity of Jesus Christ by adding a. There is only one Son of Man: Jesus Christ).
Tonys reply: Psalm 8:4 says otherwise. We are all sons of mankind. Last I looked my dad was a man and I am a son of that man. Therefore I am a son of man. Why did Don's cherished KJV of 1611 do what he accuses the CLNT of doing by putting son of mankind in lower case? You just can't trust that King James Version! It is just blatant and deceitful I tell you! *grin*
Don wrote: John 5:29 and those who do good shall go out into a resurrection of life, yet those who commit bad things, into a resurrection of judging.
(note: a resurrection
of life? There is only one resurrection of life and one
resurrection unto damnation. a resurrection of judging? Contradicts CLNT renderings of 'krisis' in 2 Peter 2:9 ...keeping the unjust for chastening in the day of judging..., 2 Peter 2:4 ...for chastening judging..., 2 Peter 3:7 ...for the day of the judging and destruction of irreverent men. 1 John 4:17 ...in the day of judging... Jude 1:6 ...for the judging of the great day...)
Tonys reply: John 5:29 supports Daniel 12:2. It does not contradict 2 Peter 2:9 or 3:7 or 1 John 4:17. There is more than one resurrection and more than one judging. When Christ comes for the believers of the body of Christ, we are resurrected before the son of lawlessness is revealed. As far as I know, the Jewish believers are resurrected after that. Daniel writes of this resurrection: Dan 12:2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life and these to reproach for eonian repulsion. Notice it does not say that all mankind shall awake. Those who commit lawlessness will be judged as not worthy of the kingdom and cast out of the 1000 year kingdom. Then at the end of the 1000 years there will be the resurrection and judging of all mankind before the great white throne. We believers are resurrected at least 1000 years before the rest of all mankind are at the great white throne. So it is incorrect to suggest as Don does that there is only one resurrection.
Don wrote: Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith is out of tidings, yet the tidings through a declaration of Christ. (note: how many Word's of God are there?)
Tonys reply: In the Concordant Greek Text, the sublinear has: CONSEQUENTLY THE BELIEF OUT OF-HEARing (Grk. AKOHC, THE YET HEARing (Grk. AKOH) THROUGH declaration OF-ANOINTED. So Don does have a case for faith cometh by hearing and hearing . . . . Yet, in the verse just preceding this one in Romans 10:16 the KJV has translated AKOH report! So why does not Don castigate his own beloved KJV on this matter? Also, this is not concerning how many Word's of God there are. It is talking about when an evangelist gives out the tidings (report, KJV) concerning Christ that it is through that means that faith comes. In the CLNT logos is translated word and rhema is translated declaration. In the KJV rhema is translated saying 9 times, thing 3 times and word 56 times. The KJV translated logos as account 8 times, cause 1 time, communication 3 times, do 1 time, doctrine 1 time, fame 1 time, intent 1 time, matter 4 times, mouth 1 time, preaching 1 time, question 1 time, reason 2 times, rumor 1 time, saying 50 times, shew 1 time, speech 8 times, talk 1 time, thing 4 times, things to say 1 time, tidings 1 time, treatise 1 time, utterance 4 times, word 208 times, Word 7 times, words 4 times, work 2 times. Now I ask you, how can anyone know what logos or rhema mean using the King James Version?
Also, should this be a declaration of Christ or of God? Alexandrinus has THEOU which is Greek for God. The editor of the Sinaticus manuscript put THEOU in the margin as a correction but the Sinaticus and Vaticanus both have Christou in the text which is Christ. So the CLNT went with that information.
Don wrote: Romans 3:22 yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ's faith, for all, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, (note: this rendering contradicts elsewhere within the CLNT itself with John 3:16, Romans 3:25, Acts 24:24, Acts 20:21, Acts 26:18, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:26, and Ephesians 1:15 to only name a few verses! Righteousness is only thru faith IN Jesus Christ.)
Tonys reply: If the way Romans 3:22 is translated in the CLNT contradicts the verses Don suggests above, then Don's KJV is guilty of the same thing. For instance, let us look at the KJV rendering of Romans 3:22:
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.
Here, in the KJV, the righteousness of God is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all that believe. Even the KJV acknowledges that Jesus Christ had faith and it is by His faith that God's righteousness comes to us. There is the relative and the absolute. Absolutely, God's righteousness comes to humanity through the faith of Jesus Christ. In the relative sense, we do have faith that God is right and truthful when it is stated that Christ died for our sins. But even that faith which we have is gratuitously or freely given by God and did not originate in us. There was a time when we who have faith now had no faith at all.
Galatians 2:16 does not contradict Romans 3:22 as Don suggests. Both the CLNT and the KJV have both verses as showing the faith of Jesus Christ. In Galatians 2:16 we are, according to Don's KJV justified by the faith of Jesus Christ: . . . a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
The CLNT is similar:
having perceived that a man is not being justified by works of law, except alone through the faith of Christ Jesus, we also believe in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of law, seeing that by works of law shall no flesh at all be justified.
Don wrote: Romans 3:26 ...His righteousness is the current era... (note: Jesus Christ is only righteous
for an era??????? Even A.E. Knoch in his book entitled All in All---The Goal of the Universe page 146, c.1978, printed by Concordant Publishing Concern. A.E. Knoch writes It is a permanent,
and abiding power which will never lose its potency...
Tonys reply: Don misquoted Romans 3:26 in the CLNT. It should be: toward the display of His righteousness in the current era, for Him to be just and a Justifier of the one who is of the faith of Jesus.
God's righteousness is displayed in the current era. Just because it is said to be displayed in the current era does not mean it will not be displayed in subsequent eras to come. God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Does this mean He is not our God too? Of course not.
Don wrote: Romans 5:2 ...through Whom we have the access also... (note: Who else is there? Contradicts John 14:6, Acts 4:12)
Tonys reply: Being, then, justified by faith, we may be having peace toward God, through our Lord, Jesus Christ, (2) through Whom we have the access also (Rom 5:1).
It is not a matter of who else is there? The point is that we have peace toward God through Jesus and it is also through Jesus we have the access.
Don wrote: Ephesians 3:12 in Whom we have boldness and access with
confidence, through His faith. (note: this rendering contradicts with Romans 3:25, Acts 24:24, Acts 20:21, Acts 26:18, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:26, and Ephesians 1:15 to only name a few verses! Righteousness is only thru faith IN Jesus Christ.)
Tonys reply: In the Greek text it is: through the faith of Him. Faith of Him can also be properly translated His faith just as Son of God can be translated God's Son. Therefore His faith is perfectly fine and in harmony with the Greek text. The verse is not about righteousness is only through faith in Jesus Christ as Don suggests. The verse is concerning having access to God with confidence after one is saved and after one already has the righteousness of God. It is concerning prayer and coming to God therein.
Don wrote: Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet...(note: written in Malachi 3:1, not Isaiah).
Tonys reply: Don's KJV does not say As it is written in Malachi. Here is an interesting read on this verse:
Concerning Mark 1:2: As it is written in the prophets - Rather, As it is written by Isaiah the prophet. I think this reading should be adopted, instead of that in the common text. It is the reading of the Codex Bezae, Vatican, and several other MSS. of great repute. It is found also in the Syriac, Persic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Vulgate, and Itala versions, and in several of the fathers. As this prophecy is found both in Isaiah and Malachi, probably the reading was changed to tois prophetais, the prophets, that it might comprehend both. In one of Assemanís Syriac copies, both Isaiah and Malachi are mentioned. See all the authorities in Griesbach, 2d edit.; and see the parallel place in Matthew 3:3: (For this is he of whom it is declared through Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of one imploring: 'In the wilderness make ready the road of the Lord! Straight...be making the highways'of Him!), where the Prophet Isaiah is mentioned, which seems fully to establish the authority of this reading (Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible).
The verse is found in Isaiah 40:3.
Don wrote: Luke 4:8 Jesus said to him, Go away behind Me, Satan!
It is written, The Lord your God shall you be worshiping, and to Him only
shall you be offering divine service. (note: Satan can offer divine service?
The Greek word 'latreuo' does not mean divine service.)
Tonys reply: Interesting that the KJV has it basically the same way thus: Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. So I guess I can ask the same stupid question: Satan can serve God? It is not about what Satan can or cannot do. It is concerning what was actually written in the law which Christ was quoting.
In the CLNT it is offering divine service where offer is in lightface type showing it is not in the Greek text but the ing form of the verb is. In the CLNT lutreuo is divine service.
Don wrote: John 1:1 In the beginning was the word,
and the word was toward God, and God was the word.
(note: the W in word is not capitalized with
emphasis to John 1:14 where the W is capitalized for the Greek word logos.
Blatant blasphemy of the deity of God and attack's the Son. Also
contradicts itself with John 1:14.)
Tonys reply: The Bishop's Bible of 1568 which the King James is based upon has John 1:1 thus: In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God.
As God always was, there is no absolute beginning brought before us in the Scriptures. Both here and in Genesis 1:1 the article the is lacking in the originals, showing that it refers to the commencement of the subject in hand. In Genesis it is the beginning of creation. Here it is the beginning of revelation. The phrase might be rendered idiomatically, To begin with.
The Logos, or Saying, or Expression, or Word, brings before us the revelation of God through sound, which appeals to the ears of His creatures. It is inferior to and in contrast with the revelation in which Christ is presented to sight, as the Image of God. Paul was saved by a sight of His transcendent glory. John was called by His word. Sound is slow and confined to the earth. Sight is swift and searches the heavens. This suggests the limited sphere of John's ministry.
With suggests two Greek words neither of which is used here. hence for accuracy's sake it is best to translate literally toward. With God has no cogency in this connection. Toward indicates that the revealed Word pointed the creature in the direction of God. Take every thus saith the Lord in the Hebrew Scriptures and they all point us to God, and reveal some attribute of the divine character.
It is impossible for the mind to entertain the two thoughts that the Word was toward (or with) God, and the Word was God. Nothing which is toward (or with) an object can actually be that object. The difficulty lies in the difference between English and Greek idiom. Was and is are usually omitted in Greek, unless they are used in a figurative sense. Thus This is my body does not mean that the bread of the communion actually is the Lord's body but represents it. As the bread stands for the Lord's body, so the Word took the place of God. The God of the Hebrew Scriptures spoke: it was an oral revelation. He was revealed as Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai, etc., by means of utterances which came to the fathers through the prophets. while His essence was concealed. As at Sinai, His voice was heard, but He was hid (A.E. Knoch, Concordant Commentary on John 1:1)
Don wrote: John 1:13 who were begotten, not of bloods...
(note: bloods? Contradicts
Matthew 16:17, Matthew 23:30, Matthew 23:35 and many other verses in the
Tonys reply: Yes, bloods. Bloods is plural in the Greek text and so this is shown in the CLNT. In Matthew 16:17, 23:30,35 Don references above, blood is not plural. There is no contradiction.
Don wrote: John 1:14 And the Word
became flesh and tabernacles among us, and we gaze at His glory, a glory
as of an only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
(note: The W in Word
is capitalized here but is not in John 1:1. Separates and attacks
the deity of the LORD Jesus Christ.)
John 1:18 God no one has ever seen. The only-begotten
God, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He unfolds Him.
(note: blatant blasphemy of The Son and contradicts
John 8:58. The Greek word 'huios' doe's not mean God. Jesus Christ
is the only begotten Son.)
Tonys reply: The Greek text Knoch used has Theos (God) instead of huios. Wescott-Hort Greek New Testament has Theos in it here as well. What I'd like to have Don explain to us is how it is that if Theos in some Greek texts is accepted how this is blatant blasphemy.
Blatant blasphemy? The Alexandrinus has [h]uios (Son) here in 1:18. Vaticanus and Sinaticus have Theos (God). Also, if 1:18 is translated the only-begotten God or the only-begotten Son I fail to see how this would contradict John 8:58: before Abraham came into being, I am. Is it not written in the King James Version: Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. And: Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And: Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. And finally: Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. Oh, the blatant blasphemy of the King James! Notice that they did not capitalize the words I bolded in red above? The CLNT capitalized all those words. See, I can play that game too. But why does the KJV have only begotten Son? Does not God have many sons? But Christ, by spirit, is the only-begotten Disposer/Subjector/Placer i.e., God.
Concerning this verse, A.E. Knoch wrote: He is God's Image and His Expression. Often is God spoken of as the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Yet the title God is not denied the Son. Thomas
acknowledges Him to be his Lord and his God, and is not rebuked
for his confession (John 20:28). There is a strong probability
that He is called the Only Begotten God in the first chapter of
John's gospel (v.18). The same apostle tells us that He is the
true God (1 John 5:20). The apostle Paul characterizes Him as
God over all, blessed for the eons (Rom.9:5).
Indeed, while the title Father is the one most distinct from
the Son, He is the Impress of the Divine Fatherhood, too. He told
His disciples `If ye had known Me, ye should have known My
Father also. And from henceforth ye know Him and have seen Him.'
Philip saith unto Him, `Lord, show us the Father, and it
sufficeth us.' Jesus saith unto him, `Have I been so long time
with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that hath
seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou `Show us the
Father?' Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the
Father is in Me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not from
Myself. But the Father that abideth in Me, He doeth the works.
Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me' (John
From all of these examples it is evidently beside the mark
to seek to limit any divine characterization to Deity, for we
cannot hear Him apart from His Expression, we cannot see Him
apart from His Image, we cannot perceive the characters He
assumes apart from the Impress of His assumptions. This does not
obliterate manifest differences of identity and personality.
Indeed, we are forced to distinguish between the Image and its
invisible Original, we cannot confuse the Expression with the One
Who speaks, and we are not distressed when the Impress is spoken
of in the same terms as the Assumption. The one great Mediator
between God and humanity is fully authorized to speak and act as
God; and to receive the honors which are due to Him only. And this because His will and ways and words are not His own but His Who sent Him.
From this it is manifest how unscriptural is the theological
theory of a trinity. We are asked to believe that there are
three gods whose three wills act in unity. Scripture knows of but
one God whose will is supreme and needs no subordination or
compromise or harmony with any other will. The Son of God always
did the will of His God, and never presumed to cooperate with
Him. As the Expression of God He does not announce His own will;
and He renounces any will of His own as the Impress of the Divine
Assumptions. (A.E. Knoch, Unsearchable Riches, vol.8, pp.30,31)
To continue reading my response to more of Don Hewey on the Concordant Literal New Testament please go here to Part II
Copyright © Saviour of All Fellowship
P.O. Box 314,
Almont, MI 48003, U.S.A. 810-798-3563
This publication may be reproduced for personal
(all other rights reserved by copyright holder).