Luke 17:9 I trow not
In Luke 17:9-10 of the King James Bible we read the words of the Lord Jesus Christ saying: "Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I TROW NOT. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: for we have done that which is our duty to do."
There are a multitude of anti-King James Bible sites that love to bring up the rendering of this verse - "I trow not". They mock at this expression; tell us it is impossible to understand; and then try to get you to switch to a version like the NIV, NASB, Holman Standard or the ESV.
Do any of these people actually believe that ANY Bible or any single Hebrew or Greek text is the inspired, inerrant, complete words of God? Of course not. All they have to recommend to you is a confusing variety of multiple-choice, contradictory, Probably Close Enough, "reliable versions" (whatever that means) which each of them considers to be imperfect translations that they feel free to "correct" at any time according to their own understanding.
Let's examine the words "I trow not" and the surrounding texts in Luke 17. I think you will begin to see some of the serious problems these Bible critics fail to mention.
First of all, the English expression "I trow not" is simply an archaic way of saying "I think not".
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
Intransitive verb: Inflected forms: trowed, trow·ing, trows
1. Archaic To think. 2. Obsolete To suppose. ETYMOLOGY: Middle English trowen, from Old English trowian, to trust.
My Webster's 1999 Dictionary defines trow as an archaic or old word meaning "to think, to believe, or to suppose"; akin to "true" and "trust."
Not only does the King James Bible say "I trow not" in Luke 17:9 but so do Tyndale's Bible 1525 - "I trowe not.", the Coverdale Bible 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "Doth he thanke that seruaunte, because he dyd that whiche was commaunded to hym? I trowe not.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible of 1587 - "because hee did that which was commaunded vnto him? I trowe not.", the Beza New Testament 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, the Clarke N.T. 1795, the Hussey New Testament 1845, The Revised New Testament 1862 - "I TROW NOT.", the Dillard New Testament 1885, The Word of Yah 1993 - "I TROW NOT.", Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - "I TROW NOT.", God's First Truth 1999 actually reads this way: "I trow (think) not."
God forbid that we should have to look up and learn an unfamiliar word in English! Do any of these modern version proponents suppose there are no English words in their own recommended versions that most high schoolers wouldn't know how to define?
Of far greater significance than having to learn what an old English word means is the textual issue of most modern versions. Do we have the infallible words of God today or not? Without exception, I have not found one modern version promoter who believes that any single Bible out there is the complete, inerrant word of God.
Let's look at just a few of the more significant textual and translational changes in this same chapter of Luke 17.
Most modern versions are based on a very different Greek text than the Traditional Greek text that underlies the King James Bible. These modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman and the more modern Catholic versions omit or substitute some 5,000 words from the New Testament Greek text that underlies the King James Bible, and they often do not even agree with each other. However their basic New Testament text is the same in that they are all part of the Catholic/Evangelical Combine that has artificially produced this new "interconfessional" N.T. text.
See Undisputable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASBs are the new "Catholic" bible versions -
In Luke 17:9 the Greek words translated as "I trow not" are ou dokw - (οὐ δοκῶ)
These two little words are found in the vast majority of all Greek texts as well as in Alexandrinus, D, E, F, G, H, N, W, Delta, Pi, Psi, the Diatessaron and the Old Latin versions of aur, b, d, f, ff2, i, l, q, r1. The Old Latin text preceeds anything we have in Greek by about 150 years.
These words are also found in the Syriac Peshitta version that predates the two main manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which are used to produce most of today's conflicting modern versions. They are included in the Syriac Harclean, Gothic and Georgian ancient versions. And early church writers such as Antiochus and Augustine quote the verse textually as it stands in the King James Bible.
The words "I trow not" or "I think not" are also found in the Anglo Saxon Gospels 990 A.D. - 1200 A.D. - "ne wene ic", Mace N.T. 1729 "I believe not", Whiston's N.T. 1745, Thomas Hawel's N.T. 1795, the Living Oracles 1835 - "I suppose not", the 1849 Etheridge, the 1952 Murdock and Lamsa's 1933 translations of the Syriac Peshitta - "I think not.", the Aramaic Bible in Plain English - "I think not.", Webster's 1833 translation- "I suppose not.", Julia Smith Translation 1855, the Emphatic Diaglot New Testament 1864 NKJV, Darby - "I judge not.", Youngs, World English Bible, Green's literal Translation - "I think not.", Interlinear Greek N.T. 1997 (Larry Pierce) - "I judge not.", Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Analytical Literal Translation 1999 - "I think not.", The Last Days Bible - "I don't think so.", The Evidence Bible 2003 - "I think not.", Apostolic Bible Polyglot Greek 2005 - "ου δοκώ", A Conservative Interlinear Version 2005 - "I think not.", Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 - "I think not.", the New Living Translation - "Of course not.", the Concordant Literal Version 2009 - "I presume not!", Online Interlinear 2010 (André de Mol) - "I presume not.", the Jubilee Bible 2010, Conservative Bible 2011 - "I think not", The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Voice of 2012 both have - "I don't think so.", World English Bible 2012 - "I think not.", The Modern English Version 2014 and the New Matthew Bible 2016.
The Catholic Connection -
The earlier Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 as well as the Douay of 1950 both contained these words in Luke 17- "I think not."
But then in 1968 the Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible all omitted these words, just like the ESV, NIV, NASB and Jehovah Witness NWT. However once again in 2009 the Catholic Public Domain Version has put them back in the text - "I think not."
Foreign Language Bibles
Many Foreign language Bibles also contain these words including Luther's German bible 1545 and Schlachter Bible 2000 -"Ich meine es nicht.", the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 and Louis Segond 2007 - "Je ne le pense pas.", and the French La Bible du Semeur of 1999 - Bien sûr que non!", the Afrikaans Bible 1953 - " Ek glo nie.", the Portuguese Almeida 1681 - "Creio que näo", the Italian Diodati 1649 and the New Diodati 1991 and the 2006 Riveduta - "Io nol penso.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 Reina Valera 1909-1995 -"no lo pienso.", the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible - " Ik meen, been.", the Finnish Bible 1776 - "En luule.", the Czeck BKR - "Nezdá mi se.",the Norwegian Det Norsk Bibelselskap - " Jeg tror det ikke.", the Romanian Cornilescu Bible - " Nu cred.", the Russian Synodal Bible - "Не думаю.", the Tagalog Ang Salita ng Diyos of 1998 - "Sa palagay ko ay hindi."
and the Modern Greek Bible - "δεν μοι φαινεται."
The very words "I trow not" or "I think not" (NKJV) are entirely omitted by such versions as the NIV, NASB, ESV the Holman Standard, Jehovah Witness NWT and the other more modern Catholic bible versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985. However the words were found in the earlier Catholic versions like the Douay-Rheims and the Douay version of 1950.
Why are they omitted in the modern Catholic versions and their textually identical counterparts like the ESV, NIV, NASB? Mainly because of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. But the interesting thing here is that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not even agree with each other. Vaticanus omits the words for "I trow not", but Sinaiticus not only omits these two words but the next nine words as well!
We need to ask ourselves: Did the Lord Jesus Christ originally speak these words or not? Remember, He said "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Did He mean this or was He just kidding?
In Luke 17:3 we read the Lord Jesus saying: "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."
These two little words "against thee" affect the entire application of the verse. Versions like the Holman, NASB, NIV, 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions, the RSV, ESV, Jehovah Witness New World Translation and the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph NAB 1970 and the New Jerusalem 1985 all omit these two words and say: "If your brother sins, rebuke him. And if he repents, forgive him."
The words "if thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE" are found in the majority of all Greek texts, as well as D, plus at least 24 uncials and the Old Latin copies c, d, e, q and r.
The reading of "If thy brother trespass AGAINST THEE" is found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549 - "Yf thy brother trespasse agaynst the, rebuke hym.", the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Beza N.T. 1599, Webster's 1833, Youngs 1898, Darby 1890, the Spanish Reina Valera, Italian Diodati, the Portuguese Almeida -"se teu irmäo pecar contra ti", NKJV, Green's MKJV, World English Bible, Hebrew Names Version, and the Third Millennium Bible. They were also included in the older Catholic Douay-Rheims version - "If thy brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do penance, forgive him."
But Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit these two words and so do the NASB, NIV 1973-1984 editions, RSV and Holman Standard. But wait! Now the brand new NIV 2011 has come out and they put these words back in their latest version, but they also add the words "or sister" not found in any Greek text at all. NIV 2011 - "If your brother or sister sins AGAINST YOU, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them."
In Luke 17:36 we read again the Lord Jesus saying: "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."
This entire verse is omitted by such versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, and the TNIV. The NASB is of interest in that from 1960 through 1972 the NASB omitted this verse from the text and placed it in the margin. Then in 1977 and again in 1995 they have now put it back in the text but in brackets indicating that it is not "in the originals". The Holman Standard has also placed this verse in brackets.
Why do these modern versions omit Luke 17:36? Mainly because it is not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. But guess what. Sinaiticus also omits all of Luke 17:35 as well!!! "Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left." However Vaticanus does contain 17:35 and so the versions include it. These two "oldest and best" manuscripts disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone, and yet most modern versions are based on these two corrupt texts, and as a result they omit thousands of inspired words from the New Testament text.
The whole verse of Luke 17:36 is found in many Greek manuscripts and ancient Bible versions. It is in D, the Old Latin a, aur, b, e, f, ff2, i, l, q, and the Syriac Peshitta, Sinaitic, Curetonian, and Harclean. It is also in the ancient Georgian and Armenian versions and quoted by several church fathers.
The whole verse is in Wycliffe 1395, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley 1755, Webster's 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 and 1960, the Italian Diodati, Portuguese Almeida 1681, NKJV, Green's MKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible. It is either inspired Scripture or it isn't. Your Bible is either the complete word of God or it is missing many whole verses and thousands of words. To see much more about Luke 17:36 and why it is inspired Scripture that belongs in our Bible see-
One last example of a translational error found in many modern versions.
In the last verse of this chapter we read in Luke 17:37 - "And they answered him and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will THE EAGLES be gathered together."
The word used here for "eagles" is the same in all texts. It is aetoi (οι αετοι) and is always translated as "eagles" in the King James Bible and many others. The verse is even a reference to the Old Testament book of Job 39:27-30 where all versions speak of the EAGLE and where the slain are, there is she.
I have a hard copy of Divry's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Dictionary. It has nothing to do with the Bible; it is just an ordinary dictionary. If you look up the word "eagle" there is one word given as how to say this in Greek - aetos. Then if you look up how to say "vulture", there likewise is just one word - gups. They are two different words, with two different meanings. An eagle is not a vulture, nor is a vulture an eagle.
Among the versions that correctly translate this word as "EAGLES" are: Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534, Coverdale, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's N.T. 1745, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Noyes N.T. 1869, the Revised Version 1885, Darby 1890, Youngs 1898, the American Standard Version 1901, Worrell N.T. 1904, the RSV of 1952, the NKJV, the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims 1582, the Douay 1950, Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Tomson N.T. 2002, Green's Literal 2005, English Majority Text Version 2009, Jubilee Bible 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, The Far Above All Translation 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, and The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 - "the EAGLES",
Among foreign language Bibles that correctly say EAGLES are the Italian Diodati 1991 and La Nuova Riveduta 2006 - "le aquile", Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Reina Valera 1995 - "las ágilas", Portuguese Almeida Corrigenda 2009 -"as águias", the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996 - les aigles"
However the NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, The Message 2002, Dan Wallace's NET version 2006, Names of God Bible 2011, Common English Bible 2011, New Living Translation 2013, The Voice 2012, and Holman Standard 2009 (All Critical Text versions) have all mistranslated this word as "VULTURES" here instead of "eagles", even though they all have twice rendered the same word as "eagle" in Revelation 4:7 and 12:14!
Guess who else has mistranslated the word as "vultures" in Luke 17:37. That's right, the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.
There is an entirely different Greek word that means vultures - gups. It is not even close to the word for eagles - aetoi (οι αετοι). The national bird of the United States of America is the bald eagle. I'm quite sure that if someone referred to our national symbol as a vulture instead of the eagle many Americans would be quite upset over this change. Yet modern perversions of God's holy words keep rolling off the presses and nobody bats an eyelash.
If I have to choose between that old King James Bible that occasionally uses an unfamiliar word I might have to look up, and a modern multiple choice version that omits thousands of God's inspired words, and changes the meaning of hundreds of verses, it is not a difficult decision to make at all. I will take the inspired and inerrant King James Holy Bible that God has clearly set His mark of approval on for the last 400 years.
Do I or anybody else actually think one of these new bible versions is the true words of God? I TROW NOT!
Luke 18:12 “I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I POSSESS.”
Is James White a "less-than-sterling" scholar?
I find it somewhat amazing to see the silly lengths some people like James White will go in his vain efforts to try to prove just some little “error” in the King James Bible.
In his book, The King James Only Controversy, on page 225 James White writes: “Another less-than-sterling translation is found at Luke 18:12 “I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I POSSESS.” KJB. “I fast twice in a week; I pay tithes of all that I GET.” NASB.
Mr. White continues: “Did the Pharisee tithe of his POSSESSIONS or his INCREASE? The term means to “procure for oneself, to acquire, get”. Some would find the difference quite significant.”
James White is a funny guy. This man professes to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, yet Mr. White can’t and won't tell any of his readers where this supposedly inerrant Scripture can be found. This is simply because Mr. White is piously posturing a position of faith in something (the inerrant Word of God, as he calls it) he knows he cannot point to or produce for anybody to see.
All he has to offer us instead are his own personal opinions about what the Scriptures might be and how perhaps they should be translated; yet many others of equal or superior ability often disagree with Mr. White’s conclusions.
It is pure silliness on Mr. White’s part to ask: “Did the Pharisee tithe of his POSSESSIONS or his INCREASE?” Well, Duh...If the Pharisee gained an increase in his wealth, then he obviously possessed it and it was his possession, wasn’t it?
Barne's Note on the New Testament - "I give tithes. A tithe means the tenth part of a thing. A tenth part of THE POSSESSIONS of the Jews was required for the support of the Levites, Numbers 18:21. In addition to the tithes required strictly by law, the Pharisees had tithed everything which they POSSESSED--even the smallest matters--as mint, anise, cummin, &c., Luke 11:42. It was this, probably, on which he so particularly prided himself. "I possess". This may mean either all which I have, or all which I pain or acquire. It is not material which meaning be considered the true one."
John Gill comments on Luke 18:12 - "I give tithes of all that I possess; not only of what was tithable by the law of Moses, as the produce of his ground; and by the traditions of the elders, as the herbs in his garden, (Matthew 23:23) but of every thing he had, which was not required by either of them; upon which he thought himself a very righteous person, and more than a common man."
Let’s take a closer look at this passage in Luke 18:12. The word in question is “of all that I POSSESS.” The Greek word from which this is translated is ktaomai. The verb form is used 7 times in the New Testament and is variously translated as “possess, provide, obtain, and purchase”.
The noun form (kteema) is found 4 times and in all cases is translated as “possessions” as in talking about the rich young ruler who “had great possessions”. See Matthew 19:22, Mark 10:22, Acts 2:45 “sold their possessions” and Acts 5:1.
Even the NASB Mr. White used to favor has translated this same Greek word as “to possess” in 1 Thes. 4:4 where it says “that each of you know how to POSSESS his own vessel in sanctification and honor.” Likewise the complete NASB concordance defines the noun form of this word as “a possession”.
Not that I hold any of these lexicographers as my final authority, but in the Liddell and Scott, the Thayer, and in the Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich lexicons, all three list “to possess” as one of the meanings of this verb.
So does Vine. The Expanded Vines, 1984, page 865 has "(k t a o m a i ), to procure for oneself, acquire, obtain, hence, TO POSSESS (akin to B, No. I), HAS THIS MEANING IN LUKE 18:12 and I Thes. 4:4"
Not only does the King James Bible read in Luke 18:12 “I give tithes of all that I POSSESS” but so too do the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395 - "Y yyue tithis of alle thingis that Y haue in POSSESSIOUN.", Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549 - "I geue tythe of all þt I POSSESSE.", the Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Douay-Rheims 1582, the Beza N.T. 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Wesley’s translation 1755, Daniel Mace N.T. 1729, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, Worsley Version 1770, the Clarke N.T. 1795, the Thomas Haweis N.T. 1795, The Newcome N.T. 1796, The Thompson Bible 1808, The Improved N.T. 1809, The Revised Translation 1815, The Wakefield N.T. 1820, The Kneeland N.T. 1823, Webster’s 1833, the Living Oracles 1835, The New Covenant N.T. 1836, The Pickering N.T. 1840, The Hammond N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, the Etheridge Translation 1849, The Hewett N.T. 1850, Murdock Translation 1851 of the Syriac - "and tithe all I POSSESS.", The Boothroyd Bible 1853, The Kendrick N.T. 1862, The American Bible Union N.T. 1865, Anderson N.T. 1865, Young’s ‘literal’ 1898, The Clarke N.T. 1913, Bible in Basic English 1961- "I give a tenth of all I have.", the Godbey New Testament 1902, Living Oracles New Testament, Montgomery N.T. 1924 - "I pay tithes of all my POSSESSIONS", The Fenton Bible 1966, the NKJV 1982, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, God's First Truth 1999, The Noble Bible 2001 "I give tithes of all things that I have in POSSESSION.", The Tomson N.T. 2002, Bond Slave Version 2009, English Jubilee Bible 2010, Holy Scriptures V W Edition 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The Renewed Covenant N.T. 2011, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, the Knox Bible of 2012 - "I give tithes of all that I POSSESS.", the BRG Bible 2012, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English 2013 - "I give tithes of all that I POSSESS" and the New Matthew Bible 2016.
We also have the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1549, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and Reina Valera Gómez of 2010 - "doy diezmos de todo lo que POSEO", the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991 - "tutto ciò che POSSIEDO" and the Italian Nuova Riveduta of 2006 - "pago la decima su tutto quello che POSSIEDO”. and the Portuguese Almeida of 1681 - "Jejuo duas vezes na semana, e dou os dízimos de tudo quanto POSSUO." and the French Martin Bible of 1744 and the French Ostervald of 1996 - "et je donne la dîme de tout ce que je POSSEDE." and the Portuguese Almeida Corrigenda 2009 - "Jejuo duas vezes na semana e dou os dízimos de tudo quanto POSSUO."
In his book, Mr. White recommends the NKJV as being one of his good bible translations, yet it reads in the same manner which he ridicules in his own book.
Here is some good advice from the book of Proverbs. “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.” Proverbs 14:7.
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm