Featured King James vs the original Greek

If you knew of them, why ask for them?

 

You did not understand the question.

 

Puritan William Whitaker (1547-1595) wrote: "We make no edition authentic, save the Hebrew in the old, and the Greek in the new, Testament" (Disputation on Holy Scripture, p. 140). William Whitaker asserted that our churches determine “that the Hebrew of the old Testament, and the Greek of the new, is the sincere and authentic scripture of God; and that, consequently, all questions are to be determined by these originals, and versions only so far approved as they agree with these originals” (p. 111). William Whitaker maintained that "the authentic originals of the scripture of the old Testament are extant in Hebrew, of the new in Greek" (p. 138). Whitaker observed: "The papists contend that their Latin text is authentic of itself, and ought not to be tried by the text of the originals. Now in this sense no translation ever was, or could be, authentic. For translations of scripture are always to be brought back to the originals of scripture, received if they agree with those originals, and corrected if they do not. That scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote by inspiration of God, is in every way credible on its own account and authentic" (p. 138). Whitaker asserted: “That is called authentic, which is sufficient to itself, which commends, sustains, proves itself, and hath credit and authority from itself” (p. 332). Whitaker wrote: “Our adversaries determine that the authentic scripture consists not in the Hebrew and Greek originals, but in the Vulgate Latin version. We, on the contrary side, say that the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New” (p. 135). Whitaker noted: “The church hath not power of approving any man’s translation, however accurate, in such a manner as to pronounce it alone to be authentic scripture, and preferable to the sacred originals themselves. For authentic scripture must proceed immediately from the Holy Ghost himself; and therefore Paul says that all scripture is divinely inspired” (p. 148). Whitaker asserted: “We ought to understand the words which the Holy Spirit hath used in the Scriptures; and therefore, we ought to know the original languages. We should consult the Hebrew text in the Old Testament, the Greek in the new: we should approach the very fountain-heads of the scriptures, and not stay beside the derived streams of versions” (p. 468). Whitaker observed: “Translators, indeed, we often see go wrong; on which account it is not always safe to acquiesce in them” (p. 479).

William Whitaker and KJV translator Laurence Chaderton were married to sisters. E. S. Shuckburgh noted that for a period of time Chaderton had “a dwelling house in common with ‘the famous and learned Whitaker,‘ who was related to him by marriage and friendship” (Laurence Chaderton, p. 9).

 

Baptist John Gill (1697-1771) presented the Baptist view of Bible translation of that period that was in agreement with the view of the early Bible translators including the KJV translators.

John Gill wrote: “The apostle Paul speaks of himself, and other inspired apostles of the New Testament, Which things, says he, we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches [1Cor 2:13], and it is the writing, or the word of God as written, that is, by inspiration of God [2Tit 3:16]. Fourth, This is to be understood of the Scriptures in the original languages in which they were written and not of translations. Unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into the several languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose.”

John Gill added: "To the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried, and judged, and to be corrected and amended; and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule to go by; for it must be either all the translations together, or some one of them; not all of them, because they agree not in all things: not one; for then the contest
would be between one nation and another which it should be, whether English, Dutch, French, etc. and could one be agreed upon, it could not be read and understood by all: so the papists, they plead for their vulgate Latin version; which has been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes; nay, so far do they carry this affair, that they even assert that the Scriptures, in their originals, ought to submit to, and be corrected by their version; which is absurd and ridiculous" (Body of Divinity, p. 18)

 

Is it really important?

 

At this point, no.

 

"Logos",

I think that perhaps you're not seeing what Mr. Gill ( and William Whitaker ) was actually arguing in favor of...
He was advocating translations of the Bible that were not controlled by the Roman Catholic Church, and for translations of the Bible into the vernacular.

Now it seems that you're using his argument to justify the plethora of today's English ( and now multiplying into other languages as well ) Bible translations,
which don't even agree much with one another in their wording, or in the collated Greek and Hebrew texts that they are translated from.
Would you clarify what it is, exactly, that you are in favor of?
If not a single standard, then what?

A continuation of the current " runaway-everyone-do-their-own-thing-and-call-it-the-Bible" translation process,
that is flooding the market and leading to all sorts of confusion among professing believers about what God's words really are...

Not to mention endless debates and discussion such as these?

I'm curious...

You keep bringing up what seem to be objections as to why the "KJV" itself should not be the standard;
Given that there are 3 major collated Greek texts, 2 Hebrew ones, and a host of ( now exceeding upwards of 50 ) translations just in English alone...
Again, and as in other threads where I've asked this question:

What do you think should be the solution to the problem?

 

Would not a key to any claimed solution involving a matter involving Bible doctrine be the Scriptures themselves? The following scripturally-based observations or points and thought-provoking questions have been posted here before, but perhaps you have missed them.

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:21-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 John 4:1). Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)? According to the Scriptures, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18). According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God. According to scriptural truths, it can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2). Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption or of error.

Just as the source definitely had to be the correct standard, proper authority, and just measure or balance for evaluating the copy; likewise, the words in the preserved original language sources would have to be the proper standard and greater authority for evaluating the different words in a translation made from them (Rom. 11:18, Prov. 16:11, Deut. 16:20, Job 14:4, Deut. 25:13-15, Lev. 19:35-36, Ezek. 45:10, Matt. 7:17, Prov. 11:1, Micah 6:11). Do the Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36)? Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47). Unless the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority, norm, and standard for Bible translations, there would be no sound, true criteria for distinguishing between a good, accurate translation and a poor, inaccurate translation. Would not the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God and preserved by God be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing? Do the Scriptures suggest or teach that some original-language words of Scripture would be lost and would need to be recovered and restored in the 1500’s based on the secondary, derived authority of the imperfect copies or imperfect printed editions of a Latin Bible translation— the Latin Vulgate of Jerome or based on any other translation?

Considering the whole counsel of God, the scriptural truths concerning righteous judgments and just measures would provide sound guidance in determining how to know which words the LORD has or has not spoken or given as part of Scripture. The use of any unrighteous divers weights, unequal or false balances, inconsistent divers measures, unfair or untrue judgments, or double standards in evaluating, judging, trying, or comparing original language manuscript copies of Scripture [likewise printed original language texts and translations] would be wrong according to a consistent, sound application of scriptural truths and principles (Prov. 16:11, 20:10, 11:1, 20:23, Deut. 25:13-15, Ezek. 45:10, Lev. 19:35-36, Amos 8:5, Ps. 82:2, Lev. 19:15, Luke 16:10, Matt. 7:2, John 7:24, Lev. 10:10, Ps. 58:1, Deut. 16:18-20, Ps. 19:7-9). The scriptural principles of using just measures and not using unjust measures would be timeless and edifying, and they would not be limited to a specific situation or time period. Just use of these scriptural principles would aid in proving all things, in proving what is acceptable to God, and in holding fast that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21, Eph. 5:10, Rom. 12:9). These instructions to use just measures and not use unjust measures are not in conflict with other scriptural teaching, but instead they are in agreement with other scriptural teaching and are part of all the counsel of God (Acts 20:27, Prov. 19:21). Applying scriptural truths justly would agree with and become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1, 2 Tim. 4:3). The use of inconsistent, unjust measures or double standards could be soundly connected to being double-minded (James 1:8). Use of unjust divers measures are an abomination to the LORD (Prov. 20:10, 23).

If you have a better solution than advocating the consistent, just application of scriptural truths, please present it.

 

IMHO, both Anderson & "Hreb" Evans are quacks.(I call Dr. Evans "Hreb" because that's the way his signature read in our correspondences of 17-20 years ago on now-defunct sites.) Anderson'e quackery speax for itself, while Dr. Evans, same as Ruckman, puts the cart before the horse by saying the KJV corrects the Greek.

 

We have quite a few "good enough" English Bible versions, from Tyndale's to the ESV.

 

They had revised and made better prior translations, in the same fashion, we have made better and revised their work!

 

Back to those holding to a physical kingdom Age yet to come are blinded, eh?

 

But was NOT a perfect work!

 

They were NOT Kjvo, in fact, they fully expected future scholars to revise, update, and better their Kjv work!

 

The Hebrew and Greek texts are more fully the word of the Lord to us then ANY tgranslation would be though!

 

Even the "patron saint" for the KJVO Dran Burgeon held that the Kjv and the TR should be revised and corrected!

 

@Logos1560 :

Thank you for your very carefully thought-out and well-reasoned answers above.
In the next few posts I'd like to offer some replies and observations, if I may.

Respectfully, I don't see that this is a matter of doctrine;
To me, this is a matter of God's words ( the ones that Biblical doctrine is derived from )...where we can actually find them and what they do and do not consist of.

I agree, and especially with the underlined.

That said,
What do you see among the examples that I've given you for the varying Greek texts and the varying Hebrew texts (not to mention older preserved witnesses in other languages), that would function adequately as the basis for that careful examination?
In other words, what manuscript(s) today would serve as the foundation for that examination?

All of them?
That's not going to happen based on a variety of reasons...
One of which is, that public access to them is still restricted in many cases.

A collated sampling of them?
We already have those, and simply comparing the 3 major Greek texts texts alone will yield nothing but differences.
Equally as true would be comparing Bomberg's Hebrew text with Kittel's.

This then leads to the next question:


Who gets to decide which are the closest to the originals, and which are not?

 

I disagree.

The scriptural instructions and truths provided are not the basis for knowing which words the Lord has or has not spoken...
In fact, I think you've missed the point entirely with regard to this.

According the Scriptures themselves, the believer hears his or her Savior's voice ( John 10:27 ),
hears His words because they are "of" God ( John 8:47 ), and has the Spirit in them so that they not only know the things that are freely given to them of God ( 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 ), but they don't need men to teach them the validity ( or even the correct understanding ) of His words because they have His Spirit for that ( 1 John 2:20-27 ).

In other words,
This subject goes way beyond using man-made statistical means...
Provided one actually believes in the spiritual realm and its influences on both believers and unbelievers.

 

Not to be disrespectful,
But what I'm picking up here is that you would rather argue the case by logic, rather than simply stating that no translation is perfect... and we as believers cannot find God's perfect words in anything but the originals.

Please correct me if I'm in error.

I'm sorry, Logos, but if true, that doesn't give me any comfort, nor do I find it acceptable...
Knowing the possibility that I would probably have to learn Greek and Hebrew, and then collate all of the manuscripts together to determine what God has said to me as a believer.

Therefore, it seems that I cannot use any translation in any language ( simply because of the possibility of man-made error creeping in ), and actually trust it be the inspired and perfect word of God.

 

In the underlined, which preserved Scriptures would those be, exactly?
Please clarify if you're so inclined.

As it stands, you're being very general here, at least from my perspective.

However, in the bolded portions, I believe that I see where you're going:
In effect, what you're telling me is that, despite your use of the KJV for the past 50 years, you don't believe that it's actually the inspired word of God without error.

I'm not talking about the italics, as we know why the translators added them in...
For continuity.

I'm talking about people holding the it and trusting the rest of it to be God's inspired and perfect word.