Rock of Ages Study Bible

[Logos1560]

The KJV used the ben Asher text of 1516-17 called the Bomberg text, not the ben Chayyim text which is the basis of the NKJV Old Testament according to the quote above.

What is the source of your claim?

The KJV-only authors that I have read claim that the KJV translators did use the 1524-1525 edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text printed by Bomberg and edited by ben Chayim.

For example, D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). In the preface of his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman wrote that “we shall accept Jacob Ben Hayyim’s text (Bomberg, 1524) as reliable” (p. vi).

 

[Logos1560]

Why put a reading in the text when you are going to challenge it in the footnotes. That creates confusion to the reader. .

The KJV translators in effect did the same thing. The 1611 KJV has some textual marginal notes.

 

[Bayouparson]

The KJV translators in effect did the same thing. The 1611 KJV has some textual marginal notes.

There was no effort by the KJV translators to impugn the text with margin notes like the NKJV does. I worked with Oxford Univ. Press and they changed the New Scofield where the text was designed to match the new translations with the KJV text in the margin. The sales of the New Scofield were dismal so they changed the text back to the KJV with the changes in the margin. They still cannot sell the New Scofield. That is the same problem with the NKJV. As I said, when one tries to veil the intent it is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Bayouparson]

What is the source of your claim?

The KJV-only authors that I have read claim that the KJV translators did use the 1524-1525 edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text printed by Bomberg and edited by ben Chayim.

For example, D. A. Waite maintained that "the Old Testament basis of our KING JAMES BIBLE" was this Second Rabbinic Bible edited by ben Chayim (Defending the KJB, pp. 27, 38). In the preface of his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman wrote that “we shall accept Jacob Ben Hayyim’s text (Bomberg, 1524) as reliable” (p. vi).

It is not necessary to document the claim. It was the only Hebrew text available in 1611. The critical Hebrew text did not come forward until much later when the German Higher Critics began to do their redaction of the Bible.

 

[Logos1560]

There was no effort by the KJV translators to impugn the text with margin notes like the NKJV does.

KJV defender Edward F. Hills noted that 37 of the KJV’s N. T. marginal notes give variant readings (KJV Defended, p. 216). Hills also acknowledged that 16 more textual N. T. marginal notes were added in the 1700’s (Believing Bible Study, p. 206). John Eadie also affirmed that the KJV’s N. T. has “thirty-five such textual notes,” and he listed them (English Bible, II, p. 212). In addition, Eadie referred to “at least sixty-seven notes referring to various readings of the Hebrew” (p. 210).

KJV-only advocates seem to ignore the fact of the additional textual marginal notes in the standard 1762 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford KJV editions. In addition, they seem to be unaware of the fact of the 1869 edition of the KJV’s N. T. that had hundreds of textual marginal notes from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus.



At Hebrews 6:1, Backus maintained that the 1611 KJV has in the margin "a literal translation of the Vulgate 'the word of the beginning of Christ'" (Reformed Roots, p. 147). At Matthew 4:12, Backus asserted that the 1611 KJV put “the Vulgate reading ‘delivered up’ in the margin” (p. 48). Scrivener suggested that the 1611 marginal note at 2 John 8 came from the Vulgate (Authorized Edition, p. 59). The 1611 KJV at Mark 7:3 has an alternative translation, the literal meaning of the Greek, and the translation of a church father: "Or, diligently, in the Original, with the fist; Theophilact, up to the elbow." The KJV translators put the following marginal note in the 1611 for “mercies” at Acts 13:34: “Greek, [hosios] holy, or just things; which word in the Septuagint, both in the place of Isaiah 55:3, and in many others, use for that which is in the Hebrew mercies.“ At Acts 13:18, the 1611 KJV has another marginal note that refers to the Septuagint and that also refers to Chrysostom. At Luke 10:22, the marginal note in the 1611 stated: "Many ancient copies add these words, 'And turning to his disciples, he said.'" At Luke 17:36, the marginal note in the 1611 stated: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." At 2 Peter 2:2, the marginal note in the 1611 noted: "Or, lascivious wages, as some copies read." At Acts 25:6, the marginal note in the 1611 was the following: "as some copies read, no more then eight or ten days." At John 18:13, the marginal note in the 1611 gave a conjectural emendation found in the Bishops' Bible: "And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." Other marginal notes that gave variant readings in the 1611 can be found at Judges 19:2, Ezra 10:40, Psalm 102:3, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 26:26, Acts 13:18, 1 Corinthians 15:31, Ephesians 6:9, James 2:18, 1 Peter 2:21, 2 Peter 2:2, 11, and 18.

A 1672 edition of the KJV has a textual marginal note at Matthew 27:9 [“Seeing this prophesy is read in Zech. 11:12, it cannot be denied but Jeremy‘s name crept into the text either through the printers fault, or by some others ignorance: it may be also that it came out of the margin, by reason of the abbreviation of the letters“]. This same 1672 edition of the KJV has this marginal note at Matthew 1:23 [“There is in the Hebrew and Greek text, an article added, to point out the woman, and set her forth plainly; as you would say, That virgin, or a certain virgin”]. At Matthew 22:37, this 1672 KJV edition has this note [“The Hebrew text readeth, Deut. 6:5, with thine heart, soul, and strength: and in Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27 we read with soul, heart, strength, and thought”].

One of the additional textual marginal notes added in 1762 is the one at Revelation 22:19 as found in the 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible: “Or, from the tree of life” (p. 1868). Oxford KJV editions printed in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and Cambridge KJV editions printed in 1769, 1872, and 1887 have this same marginal note. Another example is found at Hebrews 10:17 [“Some copies have, Then he said, And their”]. At 2 John 12, a marginal note was added in 1762 [Gr. mouth to mouth]. At Revelation 15:3, Scrivener maintained that the marginal note added in 1762 gave two alternative readings: one from the Complutensian, “which is much the best supported,” and the other from the Clementive Vulgate [“or, nations, or ages“] (Authorized Edition, p. 59).


Some of these are the same-type marginal notes or footnotes that KJV-only advocates claim are harmful to the faith. Tow claimed that the "NKJV translators undermine God's word with deadly 'footnotes,'" and he contended that such textual notes "cast doubt on the Scriptural text" (Defined KJB, p. 1682). The presence of one such note in the 1611 KJV or in any other editions of the KJV condemns the KJV-only view for its inconsistency and hypocrisy when it strongly blasts the NKJV and other translations for the same-type notes.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Anything that impugns the text of the KJV is a direct attack on the KJV and we all know how much everyone just LOVES the KJV neverwould attack it. :tongue3:

If you have any problem with the KJV go dig up King James, smack him around a little bit but please put him back when you're finished.raying:

The remember it's still God's words.

 

[Bayouparson]

Anything that impugns the text of the KJV is a direct attack on the KJV and we all know how much everyone just LOVES the KJV neverwould attack it. :tongue3:

If you have any problem with the KJV go dig up King James, smack him around a little bit but please put him back when you're finished.raying:

The remember it's still God's words.

Some good thoughts

 

[Bayouparson]

FROM LOGOS 1560 KJV-only advocates seem to ignore the fact of the additional textual marginal notes in the standard 1762 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford KJV editions. In addition, they seem to be unaware of the fact of the 1869 edition of the KJV’s N. T. that had hundreds of textual marginal notes from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus.

You have done your homework and are to be commended. There is one major point to be made. The Cambridge and Oxford texts you reference have marginal notes but they do not invoke any manuscript evidence to suggest the text might be wrong. Most discerning people do not pay attention to the marginal notes. I have both of these Bibles and seldom pay attention to the margin notes. Your mention of the 1869 edition where the additions of marginal notes were inserted that referred to the various manuscripts is interesting. Do you know what happened in 1880? Westcott and Hort came out with their new translation the English Revised Version that was supposed to be a revision of the KJV. Instead they came out with a new translation and even a new Greek text. The insertion of these manuscript evidences was probably placed there to give credence to what these two men were attempting to do, hijack the King James Bible that had dominated the spiritual world for over 200 years and precipitated one of the greatest missionary movements in history. They, as most KJVO opponents, had one goal in mind and that was to replace the Reformation Bible that came from the Textus Receptus and the Bomberg Hebrew Text. The Devil has never liked the word of God and anything he can do to dilute it so the Christian church can become a Laodicean Church is a plus for his movement. Thank you for the discussion. I will not respond to any further posts on this subject.

 

[Trotter]

The remember it's still God's words.

Yes, it is... exactly the same as the NKJV, NASB, NIV, etc.

Anything that impugns the text of the KJV is a direct attack on the KJV and we all know how much everyone just LOVES the KJV neverwould attack it.

Actually, I do love it, along with several other translations... but I do not elevate it above what it is, which is one of many translations. The translators did not elevate it as such, and neither has God.

How is pointing out something amiss in the KJV any different than you pointing something out in another translation? There is none. No one here is trying to bad mouth the KJV, but every non-KJVO will stand up against the assertion that the KJV is the be all and end all of English translations.

 

[EdSutton]

FROM LOGOS 1560 KJV-only advocates seem to ignore the fact of the additional textual marginal notes in the standard 1762 Cambridge and 1769 Oxford KJV editions. In addition, they seem to be unaware of the fact of the 1869 edition of the KJV’s N. T. that had hundreds of textual marginal notes from Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus.

You have done your homework and are to be commended. There is one major point to be made. The Cambridge and Oxford texts you reference have marginal notes but they do not invoke any manuscript evidence to suggest the text might be wrong. Most discerning people do not pay attention to the marginal notes. I have both of these Bibles and seldom pay attention to the margin notes. Your mention of the 1869 edition where the additions of marginal notes were inserted that referred to the various manuscripts is interesting. Do you know what happened in 1880? Westcott and Hort came out with their new translation the English Revised Version that was supposed to be a revision of the KJV. Instead they came out with a new translation and even a new Greek text. The insertion of these manuscript evidences was probably placed there to give credence to what these two men were attempting to do, hijack the King James Bible that had dominated the spiritual world for over 200 years and precipitated one of the greatest missionary movements in history. They, as most KJVO opponents, had one goal in mind and that was to replace the Reformation Bible that came from the Textus Receptus and the Bomberg Hebrew Text. The Devil has never liked the word of God and anything he can do to dilute it so the Christian church can become a Laodicean Church is a plus for his movement. Thank you for the discussion. I will not respond to any further posts on this subject.

Who or what exactly is this "most discerning people," the "they, " and "the Reformation Bible" to whom you allude, here?

Let it be known, in advance, that I am in no way a fan of Drs. Westcott and/or Hort, but this 'snippet' makes several assumptions that are not historically credible, IMO.

You are more of less correct in that the W/H was published in 1881, as was the RV. However, regardless of what anyone may think of these two men, neither the W/H NT text nor the RV did not just "fly off the table" in that year, but had been long since underway since at least the 1850's for the W/H text, with the RV underway since 1870.

It is also very historically inaccurate, IMO, to attempt to place the "blame" for the RV entirely at the feet of these two individuals. While the RV does basically follow the W/H in many places, the fact remains that Drs. Westcott and Hort were only two members of the 100 or so that were responsible for the RV and/or ASV. And in fact, such individuals as Drs. Brown (Chairman), Elliott, Driver, Gotch (who was, I believe, the only Baptist on the English OT Committee) and Smith in OT as well as Drs. Ellicott, Trench, Angus (again, I believe to be the only Baptist on the English NT Committee), Moulton, Scrivener, Wilberforce, Tregelles, and Alford were not exactly slouches, nor could or should most of the others be considered as "Biblical light-weights," either. And I have not even mentioned the American Revision Committees, where again, the members were not exactly of the lightweight variety.

I further suggest that the (unspoken) characterization of the KJV as "the Reformation Bible" is a bit misleading here as well, for that response is misleading as to the fact that various versions dating from the time of Dr. Wycliffe, who was aptly described as "The Morning-Star of the Reformation," through such as Drs. Luther (Luther Bibel), and Calvin, the TYN, and MCB along with Messers. Beza and Whittingham with the GEN and others in various languages, several of which predate the KJV, as well.

In fact, most of the so-called "leading lights" of the Reformation were not English, such as Erasmus, Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Melancthion, Beza, etc.

And I'll also tack-on that while I too, seldom give a great deal of attention to marginal or foot-notes, I certainly do not oppose such.

Ed

 

[Logos1560]

Most discerning people do not pay attention to the marginal notes. .

In their preface to their 1611 KJV, the KJV translators in effect maintained that discerning people should pay attention to their marginal notes.

 

[Harold Garvey]

In their preface to their 1611 KJV, the KJV translators in effect maintained that discerning people should pay attention to their marginal notes.

Discerning that the word of God is one thing and discerning the footnotes as not the word of God is another.


Guess you forgot that.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Yes, it is... exactly the same as the NKJV, NASB, NIV, etc.

That is dishonest to say the least, take all the omissions for instance.....

Actually, I do love it, along with several other translations... but I do not elevate it above what it is, which is one of many translations. The translators did not elevate it as such, and neither has God.

Why is it you think you speak for so many, especially God?

How is pointing out something amiss in the KJV any different than you pointing something out in another translation? There is none. No one here is trying to bad mouth the KJV, but every non-KJVO will stand up against the assertion that the KJV is the be all and end all of English translations.

Evdiences give credence to your accusations and you have NONE.

The surmization of RoA began as they were attacked for standing on the KJV as their sole resource to God's word.

Take heed lest ye fall for a plethora of translations and get overtaken by modernistic theologies.

The translators gave their humblest reply to their critics and maintained their work. You see it as permissiveness, I see it as taking a stand.:sleep:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Who or what exactly is this "most discerning people," the "they, " and "the Reformation Bible" to whom you allude, here?

Let it be known, in advance, that I am in no way a fan of Drs. Westcott and/or Hort, but this 'snippet' makes several assumptions that are not historically credible, IMO.

You are more of less correct in that the W/H was published in 1881, as was the RV. However, regardless of what anyone may think of these two men, neither the W/H NT text nor the RV did not just "fly off the table" in that year, but had been long since underway since at least the 1850's for the W/H text, with the RV underway since 1870.

It is also very historically inaccurate, IMO, to attempt to place the "blame" for the RV entirely at the feet of these two individuals. While the RV does basically follow the W/H in many places, the fact remains that Drs. Westcott and Hort were only two members of the 100 or so that were responsible for the RV and/or ASV. And in fact, such individuals as Drs. Brown (Chairman), Elliott, Driver, Gotch (who was, I believe, the only Baptist on the English OT Committee) and Smith in OT as well as Drs. Ellicott, Trench, Angus (again, I believe to be the only Baptist on the English NT Committee), Moulton, Scrivener, Wilberforce, Tregelles, and Alford were not exactly slouches, nor could or should most of the others be considered as "Biblical light-weights," either. And I have not even mentioned the American Revision Committees, where again, the members were not exactly of the lightweight variety.

I further suggest that the (unspoken) characterization of the KJV as "the Reformation Bible" is a bit misleading here as well, for that response is misleading as to the fact that various versions dating from the time of Dr. Wycliffe, who was aptly described as "The Morning-Star of the Reformation," through such as Drs. Luther (Luther Bibel), and Calvin, the TYN, and MCB along with Messers. Beza and Whittingham with the GEN and others in various languages, several of which predate the KJV, as well.

In fact, most of the so-called "leading lights" of the Reformation were not English, such as Erasmus, Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, Melancthion, Beza, etc.

And I'll also tack-on that while I too, seldom give a great deal of attention to marginal or foot-notes, I certainly do not oppose such.

Ed

Wasn't many translations prior to W/H and many, many debates since.

"Debate" falls under a catagory for sin. That makes the root for the debates to be of the seed of sin.:sleep:

 

[Johnv]

they [Victory Baptist Church] remain probably the most doctrinaly sound ministries in the prisons today.

It's one thing to have a single-translation-only stance as a matter of practical application, but if a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine.

 

[sag38]

John, I don't always agree with you but you got the last one right. To make KJVO a doctrine is to add to the Bible. No where is this doctrine found in the word of God no matter what translation you may choose to use. In fact, they are guilty of adding to the Word of God which I believe is a grevious sin.

 

[robycop3]

SAG38, have you noticed the KJVO CANNOT & WILL NOT address their problem of the fact that there's NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for their doctrine? That fact alone makes it false, & they just can't bring themselves to face it.

 

[Bayouparson]

One translation position

Several of you have noted that KJVO people have no answer to the issue of one translation. Did it ever occur to you that the Old Testament people had only one translation for centuries in the Hebrew language? God only had one Bible during the Old Testament times and even during the New Testament period of the life of Christ. There was no "scriptural" support for their position either, they just believed it was the word of God. Then when the New Testament was developed in Greek, God only had one translation of the New Testament. According to the position posted the Old Testament saints were heretics because they held to one version of the Bible. I'm sure the Philistines complained that the Hebrews thought they were the only ones who knew what God said and how He said it. Surely the Romans thought that if God wanted to talk to them He surely would have written it in Latin since that was the language of the Roman elite (and the RCC). Why would God be so limited and have only one version of the Bible? The only thing the new translations have done is create confusion in the pew. If you read the Introduction by James White in his book The King James Only Controversy he tells of a volunteer staff member who used the NIV and the pastor of the church they attended preached from the NASB. The pastor read from Matthew 18 and they wondered why the NIV would delete something the pastor read from the NASB? Both of them had failed to see the footnote that described why this was so says Mr. WHite. He says, "It is this kind of confusion that provides the perfect breeding ground for controversy" (page IV) [emphasis added]. Do you know what Mr. White does? In the next paragraph he blames this confusion on the King James Controversy. The King James people had nothing to do with it. The controversy came about because the NIV and NASB were used in a church and they did not agree. Mr. White's tactic is called building a straw man. You can destroy a straw man and look like a hero. "Yea, we slew the giant of the KJVO crowd." I'm sorry but the King James issue had nothing to do with it. I am glad to know there are those who see themselves as "Protestant Popes" to help the poor dumb people in the pews see that the King James Bible is not the word of God and they can trust all the new translations that do not agree in most places. Then they can deal with the confusion and blame it on the KJVO crowd. If I believe that inspiration is in the "original autographs" I don't have an inspired Bible because most people know the "original autographs" do not exist anywhere on this earth. Maybe God did preserve His word for us today in ONE translation that was based on the best and majority of Greek manuscripts (i.e. Textus Receptus) and the "non-critical" Hebrew text (i.e. the Bomberg Hebrew text). Maybe God does have just one Bible. I would really hate to be on the wrong side of this issue.

 

[Trotter]

Did it ever occur to you that the Old Testament people had only one translation for centuries in the Hebrew language? God only had one Bible during the Old Testament times and even during the New Testament period of the life of Christ. Then when the New Testament was developed in Greek, God only had one translation of the New Testament. According to the position posted the Old Testament saints were heretics because they held to one version of the Bible.

These were in the original tongues, not translations as is the KJV. Apples and oranges.

I am glad to know there are those who see themselves as "Protestant Popes" to help the poor dumb people in the pews see that the King James Bible is not the word of God

No one has said that the KJV is not the word of God. However, several from the KJVO camp have said that anything else is not the word of God. Funny thing is that no one can find that verse in ANY translation.

they can trust all the new translations that do not agree in most places.

Translating from the original languages is not a precise science. There are no direct word-for-word translations for most of the words used. In these cases the translators must choose the English equivalent as best they can through both knowledge and prayer (which is exactly what the KJV translators did... except when the Church of England dictated otherwise).

Maybe God did preserve His word for us today in ONE translation that was based on the best and majority of Greek manuscripts (i.e. Textus Receptus) and the "non-critical" Hebrew text (i.e. the Bomberg Hebrew text). Maybe God does have just one Bible. I would really hate to be on the wrong side of this issue0.

Maybe... but why would God limit Himself to a single man-made translation? God didn't perform a single feeding of the Israelites in the wilderness and say, "Yep, that's good enough." Jesus didn't heal a single leper and decide that that one was a perfect representation of His power and never heal another. And yet you, and others who have decided that a 400 year old translation is perfection itself, want to try to put God in your little box? Sorry, mate, but the God I know has nothing to do with man-made boxes... or doctrines.

You want controversy? Try taking a look at all the cults and fringe "denominations" (very loosely defined to apply here) who base their cock-and-bull stuff out of the KJV. And why do they use the KJV? Because most people cannot understand the archaic language. Sure, you can understand as can I... but Tom and Mary America have not studied God's word and become familiar with the prose, syntax, and outdated words (as well as the changed meanings of many words used in the KJV that mean something totally different today).

 

[Bayouparson]

It's one thing to have a single-translation-only stance as a matter of practical application, but if a church has a single-translation-only position as part of its doctrinal position statement, that position categorically disqualifies them as having sound doctrine.

Well , Mr. John, I'm glad to know that you see that anyone who has a doctrinal statement on one translation is heresy. You have no more scriptural support for what you say than the claim that the KJVO people cannot give scriptural support for their position on one translation. I have never called anyone who uses another translation a heretic and I know some who believe their translation is the only one. Yet you seem to believe that you have some super revelation that anyone who believes the King James Bible is the word of God is a heretic if they have a doctrinal statement to that effect. I hope heaven is not uncomfortable for those who have this position against the King James Only people.