1 Chronicles 9:41

[KJB1611reader]

1 Chronicles 9:41

Authorized (King James) Version

​

41 And the sons of Micah were, Pithon, and Melech, and Tahrea, and Ahaz.

Ahaz is not in the M.T but in Syriac/Vlgte.

Shawn

 

[Logos1560]

At 1 Chronicles 9:41, the KJV translators amended the Masoretic Text by adding "and Ahaz" in italics perhaps because these words are found in the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Version, and 1 Chronicles 8:35. Robert Girdlestone maintained that the A. V. “does not hesitate to use these” [“conjectural emendations based on the analogy of similar cases existing in the ‘repeated passages’”], and he gave as one case when the A. V. “inserts the words ‘and Ahaz’ into the text of 1 Chronicles 9:41 on the strength of chapter 8:35” (Foundation, p. 190).

Is the use of unjust divers measures or double standards displayed when the same amount of leeway given to the KJV translators is not also given to other English Bible translators?

 

[KJB1611reader]

At 1 Chronicles 9:41, the KJV translators amended the Masoretic Text by adding "and Ahaz" in italics perhaps because these words are found in the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Version, and 1 Chronicles 8:35. Robert Girdlestone maintained that the A. V. “does not hesitate to use these” [“conjectural emendations based on the analogy of similar cases existing in the ‘repeated passages’”], and he gave as one case when the A. V. “inserts the words ‘and Ahaz’ into the text of 1 Chronicles 9:41 on the strength of chapter 8:35” (Foundation, p. 190).

Is the use of unjust divers measures or double standards displayed when the same amount of leeway given to the KJV translators is not also given to other English Bible translators?

The KJB is right. As I said, mine authority is the text; not a fixed t.r or m.t.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJB is right. As I said, mine authority is the text; not a fixed t.r or m.t.

The final authority for Scripture was given long before 1611, and it existed before 1611.

The KJV is not the final authority in and of itself. The KJV derives its acquired or secondary authority from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The preserved Scriptures in the original languages has been used to make over 2,000 changes, revisions, and corrections to the 1611 edition of the KJV, proving that the 1611 KJV was not the final authority in and of itself.

 

[KJB1611reader]

The final authority for Scripture was given long before 1611, and it existed before 1611.

The KJV is not the final authority in and of itself. The KJV derives its acquired or secondary authority from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The preserved Scriptures in the original languages has been used to make over 2,000 changes, revisions, and corrections to the 1611 edition of the KJV, proving that the 1611 KJV was not the final authority in and of itself.

So, the kings men shouldn't have used other manuscripts to add to the text?

 

[Logos1560]

So, the kings men shouldn't have used other manuscripts to add to the text?

The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

The fact that the makers of the KJV were right in some or many of their textual criticism/Bible revision/translation decisions does not prove that they are to be assumed right in all their decisions.

 

[KJB1611reader]

The word of God is not bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

The fact that the makers of the KJV were right in some or many of their textual criticism/Bible revision/translation decisions does not prove that they are to be assumed right in all their decisions.

I see. Could we discuss Japeth now?