Preservation: over 2000 missing words in KJV's NT?

[rlvaughn]

...Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures...

So is the claim that all of this is preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations? Obviously such a claim is false. If it were exactly the same, it would be a copy, not a translation. For example, if my Bible has θεὸς and λόγος it is not a translation. Greek words are not English words, not Spanish words, not French words, etc.

However, is the claim that is being made that there is, despite translation, some one word for one word, grammar for grammar correspondence going on? Or something else?

 

[Logos1560]

Several KJV-only advocates claim that they must have an every-word-of-God Bible, and they claim that is the KJV. It is suggested by some KJV-only advocates that the KJV preserves or has every word of God.

After referring to “God’s EVERY WORD doctrine,” Al Lacy asked: “Does man have EVERY WORD to live by today, or does he not?” (Can I Trust, p. 17), and he asked: “Do you believe that TODAY we have EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God … even in a translation?” (p. 24).

In his preface to his book, Troy Clark wrote: “This book answers one simple question. Does there exist today an every-Word-of-God Bible?” (Perfect Bible, p. 18).

Jack Hyles declared: “I must find this perfect Bible that is without error with every word of God preserved” (Need for an Every-word Bible, p. 21). After quoting Matthew 4:4, Jack Hyles claimed: “You cannot live if you don’t have ‘every word’ (p. 17). Jack Hyles asserted: “We must have every word, so there has to be a perfect English Bible or we cannot live” (p. 45). Jack Hyles declared: “I must have every word to live. I must have every word to get my prayers answered. I must have every word to receive Christ” (p. 152).

 

[rlvaughn]

But by "every word" do they mean exact one word for one word correspondence, exact grammar for grammar correspondence, etc.? Or something else? The former seems to be what you are talking about in the OP.

 

[Yeshua1]

But by "every word" do they mean exact one word for one word correspondent, exact grammar for grammar correspondence, etc.? Or something else? The former seems to be what you are talking about in the OP.

every Greek word in the Tr, which is exact copy of the originals per Kjvo, gets translated literally word for word into English!

 

[rlvaughn]

every Greek word in the Tr, which is exact copy of the originals per Kjvo, gets translated literally word for word into English!

So you've read those referenced quotes in context and know that is what they mean, or are you talking about something else altogether?

 

[Logos1560]

Troy Clark contended: “The entire King James Bible has been translated from the original books the whole way by formal (verbal) equivalency. That is, each word being translated into the new language must be the same, literal word being translated from. Word equals Word” (Perfect Bible, p. 39). Troy Clark claimed: “God wants every word equally preserved” (p. 45).

Dennis Corle contended that “somewhere there must be an every word and every jot and tittle Bible,” which he suggested is the KJV (God’s Inspired Book, p. 11).

Gail Riplinger maintained that the KJV is a “word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles” (In Awe of Thy Word, p. 270). Gail Riplinger also contended that the KJV has “literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text” and claimed that it shows “all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288). Riplinger claimed that “the KJV is the only English formal equivalency translation of the pure Greek and Hebrew Bible” (p. 90).

Ed DeVries declared: “Formal Equivalence demands that if it is a verb in the Greek or Hebrew, it must be a verb in the English. If it is a noun in the Greek or Hebrew it must be a noun in the English and so forth” (Divinely Inspired, p. 43).

Steve Woods maintained that “they [the KJV translators] not only translated ‘word for word’ but they also translated ‘form for form’” and that “verbs were translated as verbs, nouns for nouns, adjectives for adjectives, and so on” (King’s Bible, p. 491).

Dennis Kwok claimed: “The translators of the KJB appointed by King James used the Verbal Equivalence method, word for word, as originally given by God” (VPP, p. 91). Dennis Kwok declared: “Every noun, adjective, preposition, participle, and so on in the Hebrew and Greek text is brought into English in the same way. That includes the structure and form as well” (p. 80).

 

[rlvaughn]

Many people speak of "word-for-word translation" without meaning exact one word for one word correspondence, exact grammar for grammar correspondence, etc. However, some of the quotes in post # 26 seem to being saying that. I am still skeptical, without seeing more context of what these people are claiming. For example,

Gail Riplinger also contended that the KJV has “literal, word-for-word renderings of the Greek text” and claimed that it shows “all words, even if they seem repetitive” (p. 288).

Gail Riplinger is a quack, in my opinion. Nevertheless, the context of a person's writing is important. I don't have access to all these books you quote, but In Awe of Thy Word is on Archive.org. When she writes “all words, even if they seem repetitive,” she is specifically addressing Mark 9:2, comparing KJV and Bishop's to NIV, TNIV, NASB, and ESV.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you've read those referenced quotes in context and know that is what they mean, or are you talking about something else altogether?

Kjvo holds that the TR is the exact copy of the original Greek text of the NT, and that the 1611 did exact word for what into English!

 

[Yeshua1]

Many people speak of "word-for-word translation" without meaning exact one word for one word correspondence, exact grammar for grammar correspondence, etc. However, some of the quotes in post # 26 seem to being saying that. I am still skeptical, without seeing more context of what these people are claiming. For example, Gail Riplinger is a quack, in my opinion. Nevertheless, the context of a person's writing is important. I don't have access to all these books you quote, but In Awe of Thy Word is on Archive.org. When she writes “all words, even if they seem repetitive,” she is specifically addressing Mark 9:2, comparing KJV and Bishop's to NIV, TNIV, NASB, and ESV.

The very logic of the KJVO will undo their points!

 

[rlvaughn]

So then you admit you were not responding to question asked. Thanks.

Kjvo holds that the TR is the exact copy of the original Greek text of the NT, and that the 1611 did exact word for what into English!

Which KJVO? All of them?

 

[rlvaughn]

The very logic of the KJVO will undo their points!

What are you talking about? I am making a narrow point about a specific quote in a specific book.

 

[Yeshua1]

So then you admit you were not responding to question asked. Thanks.
Which KJVO? All of them?

The extreme ones, such as Ruckman, Waite etc!

 

[rlvaughn]

Kjvo holds that the TR is the exact copy of the original Greek text of the NT, and that the 1611 did exact word for what into English!

Which KJVO?

The extreme ones, such as Ruckman, Waite etc!

D. A. Waite? The one who wrote that “it is impossible to bring over into English all of the nuances of the original Words” and “How can English be a perfect representation of the autographs when they were written in Hebrew and Greek? The English can’t represent Hebrew perfectly and the English can’t represent Greek perfectly because it is a translation. Translations are not the same as the original Words of the text (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic)”?

 

[Yeshua1]

D. A. Waite? The one who wrote that “it is impossible to bring over into English all of the nuances of the original Words” and “How can English be a perfect representation of the autographs when they were written in Hebrew and Greek? The English can’t represent Hebrew perfectly and the English can’t represent Greek perfectly because it is a translation. Translations are not the same as the original Words of the text (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic)”?

Thanks, I got him confused with this author!
Rov, G. John. Concealed from Christians for the Glory of God: The 1611 KJV The King James
Bible Authorized Version. Lulu, 2019. 241 pages

 

[rlvaughn]

Never heard of Rov. Waite is well known.

 

[Dave G]

I stated: Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations.

After re-thinking the statement above, I hereby retract anything that gives you the idea that I believe that God's every word cannot be faithfully carried over with accuracy into a target language from the source languages.
Rather, I believe that they indeed can be, if the translator is faithful and accurate to the preserved copies of the originals, their witnesses and other sources that may be made available to them,
and takes very special care to utilize all the tools of translation that are available.

However, no matter what I say, I have the feeling that you will see that you've won whatever "debate" there was to win,
even though I don't come to these threads specifically to debate.
Any battle that was waged here since I began posting, I concede to you in the hopes that you will understand that I really don't care if people ultimately trust me and my own private opinions.

I'll simply continue to state my position without attempting to cast a bad light on others, and leave it at that.
The reader can decide after they've weighed any facts, opinions and evidence that can be presented about the subject,
and prayerfully sought the Lord's guidance about it.


One thing that I will say is that, to me, you seem to believe that anyone who holds a translation of the Bible in their hands,
isn't holding the actual, inspired word of God... and they cannot trust it to be such.

From our interactions thus far, it is fast becoming apparent to me that, in your opinion,
no translation can accurately capture the words of God when going from the source language to the target language;
And if there is such a translation, you are convinced that it is definitely not the AV or anything related to it.
Please correct me if I'm wrong in my observations.


With that, I take my leave of your thread.
I wish you well, and may God bless you this evening and every evening .

 

[Logos1560]

D. A. Waite? The one who wrote that “it is impossible to bring over into English all of the nuances of the original Words” and “How can English be a perfect representation of the autographs when they were written in Hebrew and Greek? The English can’t represent Hebrew perfectly and the English can’t represent Greek perfectly because it is a translation. Translations are not the same as the original Words of the text (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic)”?

D. A. Waite does make a number of accurate assertions that I favorably quote. However, he tries to have it both ways since at other times he will make other assertions that would conflict with or even contradict the truth of what he stated correctly. He may fail to see how some of his assertions would conflict with other of his assertions. He is in effect guilty of making some of the same type incorrect assertions that he would condemn others such as Ruckman for making.

D. A. Waite maintained that the KJV “preserves all of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Bible by means of an accurate English translation of those Words” (Fundamental Deception of Bible Preservation, p. 75). Waite asserted: “In our King James Bible, we have God’s Words kept intact in English because of its accurate translation of the verbal plenary preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie it” (p. 130). Waite maintained that “the King James Bible does not add, subtract, or change God’s Words” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 26). Waite claimed that “the King James accurately translates every Hebrew and Greek Word into the English language” (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 39). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible ‘preserves’ (with a small ‘p’) by means of an accurate translation into the English language, every word of the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie it” (p. 98). Waite maintained that “the King James translators adopted a method of verbal equivalence; and formal equivalence, that is, the words from the Greek or Hebrew were rendered as closely as possible into the English. The same is true for the forms of those words” (Defending the KJB, p. 90). By the technique of dynamic equivalence, D. A. Waite claimed that a translator “can choose to eliminate what God has explicitly and definitely stated, word for word, in the Hebrew or in the Greek” and that “this word, or that word, or several words if he wants to, he need not bother to translate, or put into the language” (p. 122). Waite asserted: “If you ADD to the Word of God what you think is implicit in the words, that is disobedience” (p. 124).

 

[Yeshua1]

Never heard of Rov. Waite is well known.

He seems to state though that the Kjv is a perfect English translation of the original texts!

 

[Logos1560]

I'll simply continue to state my position without attempting to cast a bad light on others,

One thing that I will say is that, to me, you seem to believe that anyone who holds a translation of the Bible in their hands,
isn't holding the actual, inspired word of God... and they cannot trust it to be such.
.

Do you contradict yourself as in your post you seemed to attempt to cast a bad light on my scripturally-based and factually-based position on Bible translations? You did not point to any statements that I made that you assert and demonstrate to be scripturally wrong or factually wrong, but you still try to infer some negative innuendo against it. Did you attempt to put words in my mouth that I do not state?

Are you attempting to suggest that the KJV is "the actual, inspired word of God"?

I have clearly noted the proper, secondary authority of English Bible translations. The derived authority of English Bible translations depend upon their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

Readers of a Bible translation should accept and trust it as what it actually is and should not believe or trust it to be something that it is not, deceiving themselves.

 

[Logos1560]

Many people speak of "word-for-word translation" without meaning exact one word for one word correspondence, exact grammar for grammar correspondence, etc.

Perhaps, but most KJV-only advocates who use the term "word-for-word" translation do not clearly explain what they mean. They attempt at least to imply that the KJV has "every word" of God.

KJV-only author H. D. Williams gave the following definition of word-for-word translating: “rendering a word or words in a receptor language the same as in a source-language” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. xx). H. D. Williams asserted: “Literal word-for-word translating is translating words in the source language for words in the receptor language so far as the syntax of the receptor-language will allow” (p. 4).