Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2008, 05:56 PM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default Vials or Bowls in the book of Revelation?

Vials or Bowls in the book of Revelation?

It is always a wonder to me to see how some men who seem to pride themselves on their “deep scholarship” make fools of themselves when they try to criticize or find fault with God’s amazing Book - the Authorized King James Bible.

Not one of these men believes that there exists a single book called the Holy Bible in ANY language under the sun that they consider to be the complete, inerrant, inspired and infallible words of God. Instead, each of them places his own mind and understanding as his final authority, and of course whatever he happens to think is not universally shared by others of equal or greater understanding.

“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25.

Such a case presents itself in the translation of a single word in the book of Revelation - the word VIALS, as in “the VIALS of the wrath of God”.

Here are a couple examples of men who do not believe that any Bible in any language is now the inspired and inerrant words of God.

David Guzik quotes: “The King James Version says that the angels had seven golden vials full of the wrath of God. THE WORD VIALS IS A REALLY POOR TRANSLATION. They are really “Shallow, pan-like, golden bowls, or censers, such as were used in the temple to hold the fire when incense was burned.”

Another site comments: And golden vials -”The word "vial" with us, denoting a small slender bottle with a narrow neck, evidently DOES NOT EXPRESS THE IDEA HERE. The article here referred to was used for offering incense, and MUST HAVE BEEN a vessel with a large open mouth. The word "bowl" or "goblet" would better express the idea, and it is so explained by Prof. Robinson, Lexicon, and by Prof. Stuart. The Greek word - phiale - occurs in the New Testament only in Revelation 5:8, Revelation 15:7; Revelation 16:1-4, Revelation 16:8, Revelation 16:10, Revelation 16:12, Revelation 16:17, Revelation 17:1, Revelation 21:9, and is uniformly rendered "vial" and "vials," THOUGH THE IDEA IS ALWAYS THAT OF A “BOWL” OR “GOBLET.”

When we look at the Greek word translated as VIAL in the King James Bible and many other translations as well, we find that the English word “vial” comes directly from this Greek word. Webster’s New Word dictionary, college edition, tells us that a vial is a small vessel or bottle, usually made of glass, and that it comes from the Latin word phiala and the Greek word phiale - which just happens to be the exact Greek word used all 12 times in the book of Revelation.

Why do many modern versions translate this word as BOWL instead of VIAL? Is it because long after God’s Book (the King James Bible) came on the scene in the English language, that some guy wrote a lexicon that says the word should be translated as “bowl, or saucer or platter”? How much of God’s concentrated wrath do they think is needed to bring judgment upon a wicked world? One drop could destroy the universe, let alone 7 entire vials of it. Do they think that by changing “vials” to “bowls” this will somehow add to the terror? I don’t get it.

Versions that actually mistranslate the Greek word phialas as “bowls” instead of the more accurate “vials” are the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ASV, RV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, the Holman Standard and the latest Catholic versions of the Douay, New American Bible and the New Jerusalem bible. Some like the New Life Version have JARS, while the 1960 Bible in Basic English has VESSELS.

However the word is correctly translated as VIALS in the following Bible translations: the ancient Latin versions of 425 A.D, Jerome in 382 A.D. and the Latin Clementine- “fialas irae Dei”. In the English language we have the translations of Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace’s N.T. of 1729, John Wesley’s translation of 1755 reads “phials”, the early Douay-Rheims (though later Catholic versions now have “bowls”), Webster’s 1833 translation, Young’s ‘literal’ translation, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac, the 21st Century KJV 1994 and the Thrid Millenium Bible of 1998.

Look up the early Bible commentators like John Gill, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, John Wesley, Matthew Henry, B.W. Johnson of the People’s New Testament, John Darby, Adam Clarke, or Albert Barnes in his New Testament Notes, and you will see that every one of these Bible commentators expounded upon the VIALS of the wrath of God, and not the alleged “BOWLS”. Not one of them tried to “correct the really poor translation” of the King James Bible’s “vials” because they all knew it was the correct word.

It isn’t until Wescott and Hort got their apostate hands on God’s pure words and the perversions started with the Revised Version that we begin to read about the “really poor translation” found in the King James Bible, and that it should actually read “bowls” instead of “vials”.

Admittedly, languages change over the years, but even today in modern Greek the word phialee means a bottle and not a bowl. As pointed out earlier, the English word itself comes directly from the Greek and Latin word for VIALS!

The King James Bible is always right. Don’t fall for the constantly changing opinions, pontifications, and personal preferences of those who do not believe that ANY Bible in any language is now the complete, pure and inerrant words of God. If you do, you will end up just like them.

Will Kinney
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #2  
Old 10-11-2008, 06:50 PM
chette777's Avatar
chette777 chette777 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Puerto Princesa City, Palawan Philippines
Posts: 1,431
Default

Will,

It looks to me the KJV translators did not translate but rather transliterated the word from Greek to English. better to transliterate than to pervert the word of God, I always say.

I noticed that a lot in David Guzik's commentary, for learned man I am very disappointed in his writtings
  #3  
Old 10-12-2008, 08:48 AM
chette777's Avatar
chette777 chette777 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Puerto Princesa City, Palawan Philippines
Posts: 1,431
Default

by the way great job again Will.

I have to save these posts of yours they give me lots of info to use for when I teach the word to my congregation.

blessing to you
  #4  
Old 10-12-2008, 09:13 AM
Gord's Avatar
Gord Gord is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Burlington, Ontario
Posts: 171
Default

I really appreciate your insight sharing. Thank you.
  #5  
Old 10-12-2008, 10:05 AM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default

Hi brother Chette. Glad to hear the article was of some use to you. Isn't it strange that all these Bible correctors only mention how it the the King James bible that is "so poorly translated", when they ignore all the other ones like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops, Geneva, Youngs, Lamsa, Wesley, Webster, and versions like the KJV 21?

There is only one Book they all attack. Satan and fallen man hate this one single Book and all their efforts are aimed at overthrowing its authority, and yet they have absolutely nothing to replace it with. We do live in interesting times.

God bless,

Will K
  #6  
Old 10-12-2008, 10:07 AM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default God's perfect Book - the King James Bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gord View Post
I really appreciate your insight sharing. Thank you.
You are most welcome. May God increase our faith and love for His precious words.

Accepted in the Beloved,

Will K
  #7  
Old 10-12-2008, 08:02 PM
Forrest's Avatar
Forrest Forrest is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 597
Default

"Every word!" Indeed. Thanks, Brother Will.

Last edited by Forrest; 10-12-2008 at 08:32 PM.
  #8  
Old 10-18-2008, 07:38 AM
Steven Avery Steven Avery is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 462
Smile the goblet minds of the modern versionists

Hi Folks,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Vials or Bowls in the book of Revelation?
Another great study, Will.

And you may actually be too kind to the modern perversion of 'bowls'. The Dean ran into this and also noticed the same and added a bit more from his voluminous knowledge and understanding of the languages and the ancient writers and the early church writers. You were actually a bit on the meek and mild side in discussing the inanity and stupidty of the modern versions and some of their commentaries and the Bible correctors.

http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA200
The Revision Revised p. 200 Dean John Burgon (1883)

In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the extravagant bad taste which, at the end of 500 years, has ventured to substitute ' bowls ' for ' vials ' in the Book of Revelation.1 As a matter of fact, we venture to point out that (phiale) no more means 'a bowl ' than ' saucer ' means ' a cup.' But, waiving this, we are confident that our Revisers would have shown more wisdom if they had let alone a word which, having no English equivalent, has passed into the sacred vocabulary of the language, and has acquired a conventional signification which will cleave to it for ever. ' Vials of wrath ' are understood to signify the outpouring of GOD'S wrathful visitations on mankind : whereas ' bowls ' really conveys no meaning at all, except a mean and unworthy, not to say an inconveniently ambiguous one. What must be the impression made on persons of very humble station, — labouring-men, — when they hear of ' the seven Angels that had the seven bowls ' ? (Rev. xvii. 1.) The (phiale) — if we must needs talk like Antiquaries — is a circular, almost flat and very shallow vessel, — of which the contents can be discharged in an instant. It was used in pouring out libations. There is, at the back of it, in the centre, a hollow for the first joint of the forefinger to rest in. Patera the Latins called it. Specimens are to be seen in abundance.

(1) Eight times in Rev xvi.


A goblet ????? lol.

Good thing the Dean didn't have to deal with that one !

=======

If you want to know the different Greek words for a wine jug and a a bowl and a vial and a goblet, matching the Dean's insight, there is a little section in 'Religion in the Ancient Greek City'.

http://tinyurl.com/5njmsk
Religion in the Ancient Greek City - Louise Bruit Zaidman, Pauline Schmitt Pantel p.40


Since you noted above that the nonsense here started with Westcott & Hort, I figgered the Dean would probably notice it and comment !

Shalom,
Steven

Last edited by Steven Avery; 10-18-2008 at 07:53 AM.
  #9  
Old 10-19-2008, 03:41 AM
Will Kinney's Avatar
Will Kinney Will Kinney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Colorado, a beautiful state with four distinct seasons; sometimes in the same day!
Posts: 252
Default vials or bowls

Hi Steven. Thanks for the additional notes. Much appreciated.

Will K
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com