This is a continuation of the King James Only series. Part1 links here
Questions will be in purple answers in black. Headings in red, explanatory comments by CD-HOST in green
What is the King James Bible
What do we mean by King James Bible? Does the inerrant part of the bible include bracketing information like chapter titles and conclusions. For example the ending in 1611 for Hebrews, "Written to the Hebrewes, from Italy, by Timothie" is this inerrant, that is can I be sure that Timothy wrote Hebrews and did so from Italy?
By the King James Bible I simply mean the actual TEXT of the King James Bible is the complete, inspired, preserved, infallible and 100% true words of God. I do not defend the Prefatory remarks, though some of them are quite good.
What is the status of translator notes and other more literal readings within the KJV?
Sometimes they are of value and other times not. They are not inspired. The so called “more literal readings” are not always the best means of communicating or translating God’s words. ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV are far less literal than is the King James Bible, so it is a little silly to bring this up as some kind of objection to the accuracy or inerrancy of the King James Bible. It is the TEXT alone that we defend as the inspired and inerrant words of God. We believe God Himself guided the translators as to the correct TEXTS and meanings of those texts.
Is there a single King James which is inspired and inerrant or are there multiple ones? If a single 1611, 1769; Oxford, cambridge; with Apocrypha (pre 1826) or without (post 1826) etc...
Here you are confusing two very different things. One is the alleged “various revisions of the King James Bible” with “printing errors” and stylistic changes. There has never been a revision of the King James Bible. The real issue of the Printing Errors Ploy that the “No bible is the inerrant words of God” side brings up. You will find these objections addressed in the following article.
What is the status of the King James version Apocrypha?
Apocrypha never was the inspired words of God. The King James translators themselves did not consider them inspired. It is more than a little inconsistent and hypocritical for the modern versionists to even bring up this criticism. Why? See the following article about Why the 1611 KJB and other bible versions included the Apocrypha (article with additional information)
What is that status of the various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (like the Bomberg Hebrew, Stephanus Textus Receptus...) – note for reader the Bomberg, Stephanus, Clementine Vulgate and LXX were the main source text.
____________
What is the King James Bible
What do we mean by King James Bible? Does the inerrant part of the bible include bracketing information like chapter titles and conclusions. For example the ending in 1611 for Hebrews, "Written to the Hebrewes, from Italy, by Timothie" is this inerrant, that is can I be sure that Timothy wrote Hebrews and did so from Italy?
By the King James Bible I simply mean the actual TEXT of the King James Bible is the complete, inspired, preserved, infallible and 100% true words of God. I do not defend the Prefatory remarks, though some of them are quite good.
What is the status of translator notes and other more literal readings within the KJV?
Sometimes they are of value and other times not. They are not inspired. The so called “more literal readings” are not always the best means of communicating or translating God’s words. ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV are far less literal than is the King James Bible, so it is a little silly to bring this up as some kind of objection to the accuracy or inerrancy of the King James Bible. It is the TEXT alone that we defend as the inspired and inerrant words of God. We believe God Himself guided the translators as to the correct TEXTS and meanings of those texts.
Is there a single King James which is inspired and inerrant or are there multiple ones? If a single 1611, 1769; Oxford, cambridge; with Apocrypha (pre 1826) or without (post 1826) etc...
Here you are confusing two very different things. One is the alleged “various revisions of the King James Bible” with “printing errors” and stylistic changes. There has never been a revision of the King James Bible. The real issue of the Printing Errors Ploy that the “No bible is the inerrant words of God” side brings up. You will find these objections addressed in the following article.
What is the status of the King James version Apocrypha?
Apocrypha never was the inspired words of God. The King James translators themselves did not consider them inspired. It is more than a little inconsistent and hypocritical for the modern versionists to even bring up this criticism. Why? See the following article about Why the 1611 KJB and other bible versions included the Apocrypha (article with additional information)
What is that status of the various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (like the Bomberg Hebrew, Stephanus Textus Receptus...) – note for reader the Bomberg, Stephanus, Clementine Vulgate and LXX were the main source text.
God guided the KJB translators to the best texts among all the variant readings out there. The KJB is the sovereign work of God in history.
Translation issues
When you say, “The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. “ What exactly do you mean that the NASB is less literal then the KJV? It would seem to me that something like Jay Green's (MT/TR interlinear) is much more literal than the KJV on the same underlying texts?
I mean exactly what I said. The KJB is far more literal than the NASB and the others I mentioned, but again, a strict literalness is not always a good thing.
OK let example on that. Take a classic example like Isaiah 7:14. The Masoretic Text does not say "virgin" here, that comes from Matthew and the LXX. Why is it acceptable for the KJV to diverge from the Hebrew here?
Again, I disagree. Translating that Hebrew word as virgin is perfectly acceptable and even many Jewish translations have done so too.
I'm not familiar with any. I presume you meant in English and not Christian/Jewish. Can you name an Jewish translation which uses virgin?
These 3 online Jewish translations all have "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and the clincher is the N.T. where the verse is quoted in Matthew 1:23 "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
Here is one online - BayithaMashiyach -- NASB with name changes
And another Jewish translation online - Word of Yah -- ASV with name changes
I'm not familiar with any. I presume you meant in English and not Christian/Jewish. Can you name an Jewish translation which uses virgin?
These 3 online Jewish translations all have "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and the clincher is the N.T. where the verse is quoted in Matthew 1:23 "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
Here is one online - BayithaMashiyach -- NASB with name changes
And another Jewish translation online - Word of Yah -- ASV with name changes
And another Jewish translation - House of Yahshua -- KJV with name changes
The word almah is only used 7 times in the Old Testament. It is translated 4 times as virgin in the KJB and 3 as maid. A maid or maiden was a young, unmarried virgin. See Exodus 2:8. The Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 Jewish translation has a "young woman" (who in Jewish culture were assumed to be virgins), but has translated the same word as "virgin" in Genesis 24:43 and in Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8.
I have one more question. The KJV was noted for replacing places in the Hebrew that are repetitive with variation. In other words the KJV translators altered structure of the Hebrew. You have been attacking modern versions for being too lose with the Hebrew. How would you respond?
The word almah is only used 7 times in the Old Testament. It is translated 4 times as virgin in the KJB and 3 as maid. A maid or maiden was a young, unmarried virgin. See Exodus 2:8. The Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 Jewish translation has a "young woman" (who in Jewish culture were assumed to be virgins), but has translated the same word as "virgin" in Genesis 24:43 and in Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8.
I have one more question. The KJV was noted for replacing places in the Hebrew that are repetitive with variation. In other words the KJV translators altered structure of the Hebrew. You have been attacking modern versions for being too lose with the Hebrew. How would you respond?
Give some examples, and I will show you that the Jewish translators themselves do this very thing. However the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, Holman stuff clearly reject entire Hebrew readings. The KJB does not.
Genesis 32:20 and the repetition of face. The KJV notes themselves they are dropping the last face and breaking with the Hebrew; and while they don't say why it is pretty clear that you are allowed more repetition in Hebrew than in English.
20And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me*.
* = of me: Heb. my face
The literal "face" is redundant in this case since it has already been mentioned. ALL bible versions and translations do stuff like this. Even 3 Jewish versions like the Jewish Pub. Society 1917, the Complete Jewish Bible, and the Hebrew Pub. Company 1936 all read exactly like the KJB here. So too do the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV and Holman.
Arguments for the uniqueness of the KJV
When you say , “So is it OK for you to believe that there was no perfect Bible before 1611 but not for me to agree with you?” What's outlandish is the claim of particularity. That this particular bible is in some way so far uniquely better.
Well, it may well seem outlandish to you because you do not believe such a things exists as a complete, inspired and infallible Bible. To me it makes perfect sense since I understand God's words as teaching that He would preserve His words in a tangible Book. I believe in this Book; you do not.
The English bibles before the KJB were generally quite good. They were not the perfect words of God, but quite good. You do not need to have a complete and perfect bible to get saved or to learn many good things about God, Christ and the history of redemption. Those bibles contained much of God's words, but they were not perfect.
Does that apply to today's bibles? Are they pretty good but not ideal?
Yes, basically, but I believe the modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman and NKJV are actually getting worse in many ways rather than better than even versions like Coverdale, Tyndale, Geneva and Bishops' bibles.
Do you believe there were supernatural resources. If so what was the mechanism and purpose of their interaction?
Other than the hand of the sovereign God, No.
So to make it clear. Do you believe:
1) The translators for the KJV had assistance from God in their selection of alternatives?
2) The translators for the KJV had actual revelation?
Yes, God guided their selections. That is what I believe. God led them to both the correct texts and the correct translations of those texts. That is what I believe. You do not have to accept this.
Referring to the thesis, "The King James Bible as being the only complete, inspired and inerrant words of God in Bible form", what we do we mean exactly by "only"?
Good question. We do not mean that ONLY those who read the King James Bible are saved. God can and does use any bible version out there no matter how poorly translated or no matter how much is missing. The gospel of salvation through the shed blood of the Lamb of God is still found in them all and God can use them to bring His people to faith in the Saviour. God can use a simple bible tract, a good hymn, the NIV, NASB, RSV, any Catholic version, the Jehovah Witness version or the Cabbage Patch version is He wishes. The gospel is still found in them all. However that does not make them the complete and inerrant words of God. They are not.
You said in your essay, "The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship". We may have to swing back to this but would constitute a proven error? As far as I can tell you are rejecting the authority of the Greek over the KJV. Even in theory how would one prove an error?
Some errors are easy to prove. Can God be deceived? The nasb says He was. That is an error.
You had written in your essay, "The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God." I don't quite follow how you would know this one way or the other. You believe in scripture as the source of doctrine. So "sound doctrine" comes from scripture. In particular base text plus interpretation yields a collection of doctrines. Obviously a different base text could result in a collection of different doctrine, but I'm not sure how you can call one sound and the other unsound. To determine soundness you would need a judge over and above the base text (the bible). What is that judge?
I.E. let say I have
Bible 1 which leads to the doctrine that salvation is from eating duck food
Bible 2 which leads to the doctrine that salvation is from playing jacks
How do I determine whether bible 1 or bible 2 is more sound?
False doctrine is determined by the consistent teaching of the Bible itself. If something clearly contradicts other parts of the Bible, then it is false. Did you read the article? I gave several examples (link to article mentioned)
For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See: link
The confessions relate directly to the Bible and the words of God; not doctrines of the Catholic church.
Yes but why not? Why couldn't you apply the same spirit of argument more broadly?
You are the one trying to come up with an argument here that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm strictly talking about what the words of God are, not what they might mean as interpreted by any number of different groups or organizations.
God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.
___
Link to part3 of this series.
28 comments:
God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away.
Can anyone show me where this verse is? Further, where it applies to the KJV (pick one).
God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away.
Joel posts: "Can anyone show me where this verse is? Further, where it applies to the KJV (pick one)."
Hi Joel. I will pick both. Here is my article called "Is King James Bible onlyism Scriptural?"
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/KJBonly.html
In this article I mention many verses that teach that God will preserve His words in a real and tangible "book of the LORD".
We have seen that your strong point, whatever it might be, certainly is not in the realm of logic. But if anyone cares to actually use the logic of tying one verse of Scripture to another, we find that God has promised to preserve His words. Psalm 12.
Jesus said the Scripture cannot be broken and that heaven and earth would pass away, but His words would not pass away. God also tells us several times about His Book, and how one should not add to nor take away from this Book.
I and many others believe God meant what He clearly seems to be telling us. How do we know this Book is the King James Bible?
Well, for one thing God cannot lie. The only Bible out there that does not lie is the King James Bible. The only Bible that always tells the truth is the King James Bible.
The only Bible believed by millions throughout history as the inspired and infallible words of God is the King James Bible.
Now to contrast what is the Truth and what is a Lie, all we have to do is look at your previous statement when you were asked about the 4 or 5 completely different readings found in one simple verse - 1 Samuel 13:1 - where you then told us that all of these were "inspired and infallible".
Is your statement True or False? If it is the truth, then please explain how all these different readings can possibly be true, inspired and infallible.
In case you forgot, here they are again: 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible.
Thank you,
Will Kinney
Wow! This is a great conversation. For me It is very clear the the KJB is the perfect Word of God. This is very simple only the "Educated" try to make it hard.
I believe what God said.
We have seen that your strong point, whatever it might be, certainly is not in the realm of logic.
Will careful that is an attack on a person not an argument. It is OK to attack arguments here but not people.
Will, I have read that article, and the 'scholarship' is subpar. Not once does it take into account of the Hebrew word - you know, the original language - of what book is. Until you can show that 'book' actually means the KJV (pick a version), then merely saying it does nothing to sway any bible believer.
Joel posts: "Will, I have read that article, and the 'scholarship' is subpar. Not once does it take into account of the Hebrew word - you know, the original language - of what book is. Until you can show that 'book' actually means the KJV (pick a version), then merely saying it does nothing to sway any bible believer."
Joel, the "Book of the LORD" refers to what would become The Bible. Now, do you consider yourself among those who are called "Bible believer"? From what I have seen of your position, you apparently believe that any "honest translation" no matter how radically different in literally hundreds of textual readings or non-readings are all "inspired and infallible".
That's not being a Bible believer. That's a position of gullibility and illogic all postured to appear as a Bible believer.
I notice you never did get around to explaining to us how all these readings in just one verse, let alone hundreds of others of like nature, can possibly all be "inspired and infallible".
Care to try doing that for us? Here it is again.
1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible.
How in the name of common sense can all of these equally and at the same time be "inspired and infallible"?
Will K
Joel posts: "Will, I have read that article, and the 'scholarship' is subpar. Not once does it take into account of the Hebrew word - you know, the original language - of what book is. Until you can show that 'book' actually means the KJV (pick a version), then merely saying it does nothing to sway any bible believer."
Hi Joel. A couple more thoughts on your statement. I agree that for the O.T. the inspired words of God were in the original language of the Hebrew. Why then do you accept as being "inspired and infallible" not just "the Book" or "a Bible", but many different bibleS that so often reject these very original Hebrew words?
Is that a consistent and logical position to hold? I trow not.
For example (and I have literally hundreds of them) let's look at the NIV.
In Psalm 72:5 we read: "THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations."
This is the reading of the KJB, Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young's, Darby's, Geneva, and the 2001 revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version.
The NIV, however reads: "HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun..." This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has again gone back to the KJB and Hebrew reading.. But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "they shall fear thee".
So why did the NIV change the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn't the Hebrew make sense? Didn't God inspire the words of the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek, Syriac or Latin?
The second example is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: "THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish."
This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV and the ESV versions. However the NIV says: "FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY". Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says "their eyes bulge with fat."
Again, why would the "good, godly, evangelical scholars" who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?
Also of note is the totally changed meaning of verse 9 where we read: "THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth."
These wicked people speak against God, blaspheme heavenly truths and talk only of earthly interests. "They set their mouth against the heavens" is the reading or meaning of even the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, and NKJV. Yet the NIV actually says: "Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth."
Is the NIV among your "honest translations" that is inspired and infallible?
Will K
In Exodus 14: 24-25 we read: "And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, And TOOK OFF their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily."
"TOOK OFF their chariot wheels" is the reading of Tyndale 1530, Coverdale 1535 (smote the wheels from their chariots), Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the King James Holy Bible 1611, Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902, the NKJV 1982, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV of 1901 (the predecessor of the NASB), the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, World English Bible, the two Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, Darby, the Living Bible and 1998 New Living Bible, Green's interlinear, MKJV, the NIV and the Spanish versions - quitó las ruedas.
However the "scholarly" NASB tells us : "He caused their chariot wheels TO SWERVE". This is also the reading of the brand new 2004 Holman Christian Standard version.
Now I've had the unpleasant experience of having my car wheels swerve on ice or snow, but thankfully I have never had them come off yet. You have to admit there is a difference between the Lord taking off their wheels and the Lord causing them to swerve.
The word used here is # 5493 soor and it means to remove or take away. It is used in Exodus 8:8 "take away the frogs"; in 8:31 "he removed the swarms of flies", in 34:34 Moses took off the vail", Genesis 41:42 "Pharoah took off his ring" and in Genesis 8:13 "Noah removed the covering of the ark".
Besides the confusion of the NASB and Holman Standard, let's see how some other modern versions clarify this passage for us.
The 1950 Catholic Douay version says God OVERTHREW the wheels; but the more recent Catholic versions say God was "clogging" the wheels.
The RSV 1952, NRSV, ESV 2002, New English Bible 1970 and The Message all say God was "CLOGGING the wheels", with a footnote that tells us this reading (clogging) comes from the Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch and Syriac; but that the Hebrew text reads "took off" or "removed". Actually, the Greek version called the Septuagint doesn't say "clogging", as we shall soon see.
The Bible in Basic English of 1965 says God "made the wheels STIFF"
The New Century Version tells us God "kept the wheels from turning".
Young's "literal" (hah) says: "and turneth aside the wheels of their chariots." This would mean they swerved, but not that they actually came off.
Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta reads: "clogging the wheels" (from the Syriac we get the reading found in the Message, RSV, NRSV and ESV)
Today's English Version 1992 "He made the wheels get stuck"
And the famed Greek Septuagint says God "bound the axel-trees of their chariots"; it doesn't say "clogging the wheels" as the false footnotes of the RSV, ESV tell us.
So when you read glowing recommendations about the next Bible of the Month Club version coming out that is based on better manuscripts and greater advances in scholarship, just realize it is a lot of pious sounding baloney. None of these people believe any Bible or any text is the inspired words of God, and all their efforts are designed to overthrow the time tested, inerrant, God approved King James Holy Bible.
Will Kinney
Will, as I answered on another forum, faith is not about a numbers game. Biblical inerrancy is not about textual variants, etc... but about the word of God. Every honest translation is the infallible Word of God. Simple.
Will, simply because you don't like the answer does not mean that you didn't get one. Now, how about returning the favor and answering mine? Unless you simply have none.
'Book' means writing, scroll - nothing pointing to a codified canon. If we apply your understanding of 'book' to Bible, then we should stop at Genesis 5. Further, if 'book of the Lord' does refer to the Bible as we know it, there is nothing in this verse which screams King James Version (pick a publication). Why not Tyndale, or the Vulgate, or the NRSV?
Will, you must know that a discussion is two sided. Answer my questions if you desire an honest debate.
Joel posts: "Will, as I answered on another forum, faith is not about a numbers game. Biblical inerrancy is not about textual variants, etc... but about the word of God. Every honest translation is the infallible Word of God. Simple."
Joel, this is just plain silly. The TEXT of the word of God includes the numbers and the names and all parts of inspired Scripture. When you run across not just 2 or 3 but literally scores of clear examples where totally different names, numbers, additions, omissions and completely different TEXTS are used to make up the words of God, they all cannot possibly be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God. That is just basic, fundamental logic.
Joel continues: "Will, simply because you don't like the answer does not mean that you didn't get one."
No, I certainly do not like the "answer". It is absurd in the extreme.
Joel continues: "Now, how about returning the favor and answering mine? Unless you simply have none.
'Book' means writing, scroll - nothing pointing to a codified canon. If we apply your understanding of 'book' to Bible, then we should stop at Genesis 5. Further, if 'book of the Lord' does refer to the Bible as we know it, there is nothing in this verse which screams King James Version (pick a publication). Why not Tyndale, or the Vulgate, or the NRSV?"
Joel, first, Genesis 5 does not mention the Book of the Lord at all. Scripture talks about "the book of the LORD" and at other times about "this book" or "this scroll" when it refers to actual Scripture.
How can we tell that it refers to the King James Bible? Well, if we believe there is such a Book, meaning the whole 66 book Bible, then we start examining the evidence to see if we can find such a Book. Since God cannot lie, then any "bible" on the list of candidates would have to always be true. When I find a false statement or a false doctrine, then I know that such a "bible" is a false witness and is not the true Bible.
I have not always been a King James Bible onlyist. For many years I was not. It was only after I was faced with all the different and contradictory "bible" versions out there in Biblelonia, that I began to think about it seriously.
It was a simple process of elimination along with a lot of prayer, thinking and personal study that led me to the conclusion that if the King James Bible is not the only true Bible, then none exists and God was a liar.
Seven Ways to tell the True Bible from the False Ones. This was the first article I ever wrote on the subject, and I have only become more convinced of this truth in the years since I wrote it.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/7ways.html
All of grace, believing The Book,
Will Kinney
'belief' 'thinking'
Will, doctrine needs to be based on the whole of Scripture, not thinking and elimination.
I can understand your point, however, wrong it is. I will base my doctrine on Scripture, not on hours of thinking about it.
Joel posts: "'belief' 'thinking'
Will, doctrine needs to be based on the whole of Scripture, not thinking and elimination.
I can understand your point, however, wrong it is. I will base my doctrine on Scripture, not on hours of thinking about it."
Hi Joel. The doctrine of teaching found in the Bible itself is that God would preserve His pure words. The doctrine is that God cannot lie and God certainly is not confused or doesn't know what He said or didn't say.
The doctrine is that "If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:19
Even if you limit this last Scripture to only the book of Revelation, we see that God severely threatens those who would either add to or take away from these individual words.
Yet the modern versions have removed scores of words and whole phrases from this book alone.
You say you base your doctrine on Scripture. Well, where in any Scripture do we find taught the ideas you yourself have expressed here by saying basically that numbers and names do not matter, and scores of verses that have completely different numbers, names, textual readings amounting to literally thousands of words, and hundreds of verses with completely different meanings are "all inspired and infallible".
Can you find any Scripture or example at all in any Bible version out there that would support or teach such nonsense?
From what verse or verses do you base such a strange and bizarre "doctrine" on?
Will K
Hi Joel. Here is another example (I have a couple hundred of them) for you to consider. Is it your "doctrine" derived from Scripture that these "honest translations" are "all inspired and infallible"?
Deuteronomy 33:2 "The LORD came from Sinai, and ROSE UP from Seir unto THEM; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came WITH ten thousands of saints; FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM."
The multitude of conflicting, multiple-choice, Let's go to the Original Languages, Do It Yourself Scholars really strut their stuff in this verse.
First of all, the phrase "the LORD...ROSE UP from Seir UNTO THEM" is the reading of the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, Coverdale, Bishops', Geneva, Webster's, Darby, Young's, Hebrew Names Version, Green's Modern KJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.
Beginning with the RSV and now in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, it now reads: "The Lord DAWNED ON them from Seir."
More importantly, the part that reads "FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM" is found in Tyndale 1630, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version of 1881, the ASV of 1901, the NKJV 1982, Green's MKJV, Webster's 1833, Third Millenium Bible, the Douay-Rheims, the 1917 and 1936 Hebrew - English versions, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, and Darby.
John Wesley comments: "A fiery law - The law is called fiery, because it is of a fiery nature purging and searching and inflaming, to signify that fiery wrath which it inflicteth upon sinners for the violation of it, and principally because it was delivered out of the midst of the fire."
Compare Deuteronomy 4:11-12 and 5:26. "And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the midst of heaven...and the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice." "For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?"
(more to come)
Now let's see what the noted scholars of today, all of whom have gone to seminary and consulted "the original languages", have done with this passage.
Instead of "FROM HIS RIGHT HAND WENT A FIERY LAW FOR THEM" we read:
The RSV 1952, and ESV 2001 - " dawned from Seir upon US; he shone forth from Mount Paran, he came FROM the ten thousands of holy ones, WITH FLAMING FIRE AT HIS RIGHT HAND."
In this verse the RSV, NRSV, and ESV all change the Hebrew reading of "unto THEM" to "upon US" and then footnote that the word "us" comes from the Syriac, the LXX and the Vulgate, but that the Hebrew texts read "them".
The 1989 New RSV - " With him were myriads of holy ones; AT HIS RIGHT HAND, A HOST OF HIS OWN."
NIV- "The LORD came from Sinai and DAWNED OVER them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran. He came with myriads of holy ones FROM THE SOUTH, FROM HIS MOUNTAIN SLOPES." (That's right, this is what it says in place of "from his right hand went a fiery law for them".)
NASB - "The LORD came from Sinai, and DAWNED ON them from Seir; He shone forth from Mount Paran, And He came FROM THE MIDST OF (not with?) ten thousand holy ones, AT HIS RIGHT HAND THERE WAS FLASHING LIGHTNING FOR THEM."
The Bible in Basic English 1960 says: "coming from Meribath Kadesh: from his right hand went flames of fire: HIS WRATH MADE WASTE THE PEOPLES."
This is the only version I found that instead of saying "Yea, HE LOVED the people" changes this to "His wrath made waste the peoples" -- pretty close in meaning, isn't it?
The New English Bible 1970 - "He showed himself from Mount Paran, and with him were myriads of holy ones STREAMING ALONG AT HIS RIGHT HAND."
Young's translation - "Jehovah from Sinai hath come, And hath risen from Seir for them; He hath shone from mount Paran, And hath come with myriads of holy ones; At HIS RIGHT HAND ARE SPRINGS FOR THEM."
The Greek Septuagint and the Syriac Peshitta are of no help at all in this verse. They both give conflicting readings as well. The Greek Septuagint reads: "The Lord has hasted out of Mount Pharan with the ten thousands OF CADES, on his right hand WERE HIS ANGELS WITH HIM."
Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta has: "he came with ten thousands of saints AT HIS RIGHT HAND. YEA, HE SUPPLIED THEIR NEEDS: he also made them to be beloved BY THE NATIONS."
Was it a "fiery law", "flashing lightning", "he supplied their needs", "his angels with him", "tongues of fire", "streams", "a host of his own", or "from the south"? Who really cares? They all mean the same thing, right? As Professor James White says, "If we compare all the bible versions together, we arrive at a better understanding of what is really being said." Don't you agree?
Will Kinney
Will, I have a question for you: how do you know the KJV correctly translated Acts 9:6? What Greek manuscript can you point me to that matches the KJV?
Nathan posts: "Will, I have a question for you: how do you know the KJV correctly translated Acts 9:6? What Greek manuscript can you point me to that matches the KJV?"
Hi Nathan. Thanks for the question.
Acts 9:5-6
The King James Holy Bible says: "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? AND THE LORD SAID, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."
The words in capital letters are disputed by the modern versionists. They tell us that these 33 English words do not belong in the New Testament, and are omitted in such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard.
The first few words: "and the Lord said" are found in the majority of all Greek manuscripts and the Textus Receptus. However Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other here. Vaticanus omits the verb but it is included in Sinaiticus. The NASB includes the phrase: "and He said", while the NIV omits the phrase altogether, plus it adds "Saul" which is not in any text.
There is also another variant reading found in the manuscripts used to make up the modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman. Manuscripts A and C add additional words to "I am Jesus" which are not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These two manuscripts read: "I am Jesus THE NAZARENE", but versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV do not include "the Nazarene".
The NASB of 1972 and 1977 say "rise" while the NASB of 1995 says "get up". So far we see that both Sinaiticus differs from Vaticanus, and both differ from the Majority and the TR. The NIV does not faithfully follow any manuscript here, but omits even the Sinaiticus-Vaticanus reading, and adds the word Saul to the text.
(more to come)
Regarding the second longer part of this verse - IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM - according to Jack Moorman's book "When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text, all these words are found in the Textus Receptus of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Greek mss. 629, and the Modern Greek New Testament used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches today. The entire reading is also found in the Old Latin translation dating from150 AD ( ar, c, h, l, p, ph, t), the Clementine Vulgate, one Arabic version, the Ethiopic version, Armenian, Slavonic, and the ancient Georgian version of the 5th century. It is also quoted by the church Fathers of Hilary 367, Ambrose 397, Ephraem 373, and Lucifer in 370.
Manuscript D is missing the whole section from 8:29 through 10:14, so it is of no help at all in determining the reading. The Greek manuscripts of the uncial E and the cursive of 431 contain all these words as found in the KJB but they are placed at the end of verse 4 instead of in verse 6, and so read the Syriac Peshitta translations of Lamsa 1936 and James Murdock 1858.
The verses stand as they are in the King James Bible, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Calvin's Latin translation, Young's, Green's Modern KJV, the NKJV 1982, the 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Websters's 1833 translation, Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602-1995, the Italian Diodati 1649, the Italian Riveduta 1927, the Amplified Bible, the Douay-Rheims 1950, Luther's German Bible 1545, the German Schlecter 1951, the French Martin 1744, the French Louis Segond 1910, and Ostervald 1996, Afrikaans Bible 1953, the Albanian Bible, the Dutch Staten Vertaling version, Czech Bible Kralicka, Hungarian Kavoli, Finnish Bible 1776, Latvian N.T. (modern day Slavonic version), Romanian Cornilescu Version, Maori, Russian, Ukranian, Xhosa Bible 1996 (8 million people in Eastern Cape of Africa) and the Modern Greek version used today throughout the Greek Orthodox churches.
(more to come)
What we have here is a cluster of divergent readings found in the remaining Greek copies available to us today and neither the KJB, NIV or NASB all read exactly the same as each other.
The Greek texts of Erasmus 1516 (pre-Tyndale 1525) and of Stephanus in 1550 as well as the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras Versión Antigua of 1569 all read exactly as the text of the King James Bible. These men obviously had access in their day to underlying Greek texts which we no longer possess. Erasmus and Stephanus amassed a good number of manuscripts to compile their Greek editions. Stephanus makes reference to Greek manuscripts that we no longer possess today. Here are the readings of these three sources which existed many years before the KJB 1611.
Acts 9:5:eipen de tis ei kurie o de kurios eipen egw eimi ihsous on su diwkeis sklhron soi pros kentra laktizein
Acts 9:6:tremwn te kai qambwn eipen kurie ti me qeleis poihsai kai o kurios pros auton anasthqi kai eiselqe eis thn polin kai lalhqhsetai soi ti se dei poiein (Erasmus 1516, Stephanus - 1550)
Acts 9:5: Y él dijo: ¿Quién eres, Señor? Y él Señor dijo: Yo Soy Jesus el Nazareno a quien tú persigues; dura cosa te es dar coces contra el aguijón.
Acts 9:6: El, temblando y temeroso, dijo: ¿Señor, qué quieres que haga? Y el Señor le dice : Levántate y entra en la ciudad, y se te dirá lo que te conviene hacer. Las Sagradas Escrituras Versión Antigua 1569.
Acts 9:5-6 as they stand in the KJB is found in the following Greek texts.
Erasmus 1516 Stephanus 1550 Theodore Beza 1598 Elzevir 1633 Greek N.T. 1894 (available on the internet) Trinitarian Bible Society N.T. George Ricker Berry's Greek text 1981 J.P Green's Greek interlinear 1976 The Modern Greek N.T. 1954 Modern Greek (available on the internet)
It is false to make the assumption that the long phrase found in Acts 9:5-6 was brought directly over from Acts 26:14-16, or Acts 22:6-11, because the order of events and words recorded there differ from the account given in Acts 9. Three times Paul relates his conversion experience in the book of Acts, and all three are somewhat different - adding to one account what he leaves out in another. They are found in Acts 9:3-9; Acts 22:6-11, and Acts 26:13-18.
(more to come)
In both Acts 9 and Acts 26, the Alexandrian texts differ somewhat from the Textus Receptus, but even following the Greek texts of the TR we can see that the words found in Acts 9 were not taken directly from Acts 26 nor Acts 22.
In Acts 9:4-6 we have: "And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And {the Lord said,} I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: {it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him.}..."
The portions in brackets are left out of the NASB, NIV, RSV.
But when we compare the account found in Acts 26:14-15 we see a different set and order of words employed. There we read: "And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice {speaking} unto me, {and} saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why prsecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And {he} said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise..."
The words in brackets are either omitted or changed in the texts underlying the NASB, NIV, RSV. Notice the changes from "he fell" to "we were all fallen", "he heard a voice" to "I heard a voice" and more importantly, in Acts 9 it is only after Paul asks Who is it?, and the Lord identifies Himself as Jesus, that we read "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord what wilt thou have me to do?"
However in the Acts 26 account Jesus first tells Paul Who He is and that it is hard for Paul to kick against the pricks, and then Paul asks who it is that is speaking to him. Of great importance is the fact that none of these debated words which are omitted in the NASB, NIV, RSV - "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord what wilt thou have me to do?" - are found there in Acts 26. To assert that they were taken from Acts 26, or Acts 22 and placed in Acts 9 is obviously false, because they do not appear in any texts in Acts 26 nor 22.
In summary, the words in question by many modern versionists are found among a cluster of divergent readings (as if very often the case). They are found in a few remaining Greek manuscripts, many compiled Greek texts (Ten listed), several ancient versions (the Old Latin existed long before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were penned), quoted by several early church fathers, and are found in many different Bible translations, both old and new, througout the entire world, including the Modern Greek version used in all Greek Orthodox churches today.
Will Kinney
Will, speculating that 16th-century scholars had access to manuscripts that we do not does not constitute evidence. Jerome had access to manuscripts we do not when he translated the Vulgate.
I asked for evidence of Greek manuscripts, not the various readings adopted by the many different translations. Flooding the comments with information irrelevant to the question only makes it harder to determine whether what you're saying can be reasonably called an "answer."
Nathan posts: "Will, speculating that 16th-century scholars had access to manuscripts that we do not does not constitute evidence. Jerome had access to manuscripts we do not when he translated the Vulgate.
I asked for evidence of Greek manuscripts, not the various readings adopted by the many different translations. Flooding the comments with information irrelevant to the question only makes it harder to determine whether what you're saying can be reasonably called an "answer."
Nathan, one has to wonder if you actually READ what I posted. Here are the pertinent parts that DO answer your inquiry.
Regarding the second longer part of this verse - IT IS HARD FOR THEE TO KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS. AND HE TREMBLING AND ASTONISHED SAID, LORD, WHAT WILT THOU HAVE ME TO DO? AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM - according to Jack Moorman's book "When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text, all these words are found in the Textus Receptus of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Greek mss. 629, and the Modern Greek New Testament used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches today. The entire reading is also found in the Old Latin translation dating from150 AD ( ar, c, h, l, p, ph, t), the Clementine Vulgate, one Arabic version, the Ethiopic version, Armenian, Slavonic, and the ancient Georgian version of the 5th century. It is also quoted by the church Fathers of Hilary 367, Ambrose 397, Ephraem 373, and Lucifer in 370.
Will K
So your answer is, a 14th century miniscule (629). That's what I wanted to know.
Nathan posts: "So your answer is, a 14th century miniscule (629). That's what I wanted to know."
Well, the evidence for Acts 9:5-6 being inspired Scripture is a whole lot more than just one surviving Greek mss. The uncial E and the cursive 431 also contain all those words. We also have the Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the modern Greek Bibles used by the Orthodox churches today. Then we have all the ancient versions that contain them and the quotations from several church fathers as well, plus the fact that most bibles all over the world still have those words in them.
It is part of the Traditional Greek texts used all over the world.
But since you yourself do not believe that any Bible in any language is the complete and 100% true words of God, I guess you will keep trying to find SOMETHING that you think is an error in God's Book.
Nobody has been able to do it yet. The anvil still stands.
Will K
Will, the question was: which Greek manuscripts constitute evidence for the reading? It's a simple, straightforward question; there is no need to over-complicate it. The compilations of Erasmus, et al. are irrelevant.
If the evidence does not exist, amend the Textus Receptus accordingly and place your faith in God's preserved Greek text. Quit placing your faith in Erasmus and Jerome and other human beings. You yourself consider the Latin text to be corrupt, yet you must consult it to get evidence for this reading.
Nathan posts: "If the evidence does not exist, amend the Textus Receptus accordingly and place your faith in God's preserved Greek text. Quit placing your faith in Erasmus and Jerome and other human beings. You yourself consider the Latin text to be corrupt, yet you must consult it to get evidence for this reading."
"place your faith in God's preserved Greek text"
You're kidding, right? Would you mind informing us all as to exactly what this "God's preserved Greek text" is? Do you have a copy of it anywhere in print or is it an imaginary text subject to change at any time that exists solely in your own mind?
"God's preserved Greek text" - What a joke! That's a good one, Nathan.
Will K
The simplest way to find it is to remove the Latin corruptions from your Textus Receptus. That shouldn't be too difficult to do.
Nathan --
The simplest way to find it is to remove the Latin corruptions from your Textus Receptus. That shouldn't be too difficult to do.
Are you opposed to traditional renderings of verses (i.e. renderings from the Vulgate) in translation or only in Greek original. And if so what bibles do you use?
Nathan posts: "The simplest way to find it is to remove the Latin corruptions from your Textus Receptus. That shouldn't be too difficult to do.
Are you opposed to traditional renderings of verses (i.e. renderings from the Vulgate) in translation or only in Greek original. And if so what bibles do you use?"
Nathan, there are literally thousands of textual variants out there, and the Critical Text editions, which are behind most modern versions, are constantly changing. Sometimes they follow a reading found only in one known Greek manuscript, and other mvs will follow a different reading.
Your modern versions will sometimes just make up a text out of thin air with nothing to back it up. Like 1 Samuel 13:1.
If you try to work with what is called the "science" of textual criticism, you will never end up with a perfect Bible.
I "use" many versions, but only for comparison. There is only one Bible that I believe and that of course is the King James Bible.
Will K
Post a Comment