KJB1611reader
Active Member
2 Chronicles 1:13 and 2 Chronicles 2:3's italized words.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Where did the king's men get these words?
- Thread starter KJB1611reader
- Start date
Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “One evident blemish of the Bishops’ Bible lies in its frequent flat and unnecessary additions in brackets [or italics]” (Olde Paths, March, 1996, p. 57). Blackford Condit maintained that “the text of the Bishops’ Bible is weakened still more by the introduction of explanatory words and phrases; a seeming attempt to expound as well as translate the original text” (History, p. 286). Concerning the Bishops‘ Bible, Scrivener asserted that “it is one of the most considerable faults of this not very successful version, that its authors assumed a liberty of running into paraphrase” (Authorized Edition, p. 62).
The Bishops’ Bible added the words “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3).
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Dear Rick,
Every single version of the Holy Bible had to add italics (they are honest.)
Second, those words are in the Sryaic and the vulgate if I am not mistaken.
Shawn
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Then, what should I read instead of this 'errornous translated version?'
KJB1611reader
Active Member
The NSAB and ESV are some.modern translations that added the supplied words without 'italics
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Dear Rick, languages sometimes imply something not stated in the text.
The text added is necessary to finish the sentence and it was also taken from the Latin.
Shawn
There are several editions [perhaps eleven or more] of the KJV that add the words without having them in italics. Those editions would likely be eleven of the KJV editions below that do not have "of flies" in italics at Exodus 8:21.
Exodus 8:21 [italics] [see Ps. 78:45, 105:31, where of flies not in italics in 1769]
send swarms of flies (1675, 1928 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1614, 1616, 1626, 1631, 1633, 1640, 1644, 1648, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1657, 1672, 1684, 1698, 1795 London} (1645 Dutch) (1696, 1700 MP) (1799 Helston) (1843 AFBS) (1853, 1855, 1858, 1860, 1868, 1881, 1888, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (1897 Mackail) (2003 EB) (2003 IGC) (2006 PENG) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (NCE) (2013 CC) (2015 KAPPA) (2022 SKJV)
send swarms of flies (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1638, 1743, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]
Last edited:
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Dear Rick, this was before the computer.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I don't understand what you mean. Computers aren't necessary to print in italics, and plenty of editions of the bible in English published before the computer age have words in italics. I think I may have misunderstood you.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
I will just leave this: before printers, there was no auto correct, it would be easy to leave out stuff...
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
True, but autocorrect doesn't change ordinary print into italic, does it?
KJB1611reader
Active Member
If you were to put individual letters backwards and upside down into a printing press. Would it be easy accidently put something not in italics? Also, italics was a seprate piece of text block. Anyway, italics are word of God.
Are you contradicting clear scriptural truth?
According to scripture, words added by men are not pure words directly given by inspiration of God.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
But the word of God was originally given by God in Hebrew and Greek. Italics in English translations indicate that the words were inserted by the translators, usually in order to make sense in English, because when you translate from one language to another, if you just do it word for word, you often just get a muddle. Take the French sentence, "Je m'appelle David." If I translate that word for word, it comes out in English as, "I myself call David.," but what it actually means is, "I am called David," or "My name is David."
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Well, of God was implied.
KJB1611reader
Active Member
Well, than Paul and Jesus added to the Hebrew.
Invalid comparison. What the Lord Jesus Christ and Paul said in the New Testament is part of the giving of the New Testament by direct inspiration of God.
That is not the same thing as words added in post-NT translating in 1611.
Will Kinney is misinformed. His claims are not all true. The KJV translators were not honest enough to put most of the words they added in translating in a different type or italics. The 1611 edition of the KJV put added words in a different type while post-1611 editions put the added words in italics.
The truth remains that the KJV translators did not put most of their added words in a different type or italics since later editors/printers put many, many more added words in italics that were not in a different type in the 1611 edition. The number of words in italics in post-1611 editions is three or four times as many as in the 1611 edition with even a larger number of words in italics in the 1873 Cambridge edition by Scrivener. The actual facts reveal that the KJV translators themselves put less than 1/2 the words they added in italics or a different type so that fact proves that they did not put most of the words they added in italics.
J. R. Dore pointed out the many differences in the number of words in italics in various KJV editions. In his book entitled Old Bibles, Dore presented a table with the number of words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew in some KJV editions (p. 340).
Place of Publication Year No. of Italic words
London 1611 -----------------43
Cambridge 1629 ------------165
Cambridge 1638 ------------224
Cambridge 1762 -----------352
Cambridge 1870 ------------583