GodisgraciousR325
Active Member
No, the margins were for altenatives, they were honest.
-
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!
Reformation Bibles issues that are not the same as the King James Bible.
- Thread starter GodisgraciousR325
- Start date
- Status
In the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, its translators sometimes gave the more literal meaning of original Hebrew or Greek words, sometimes gave alternative translations, and sometimes even gave variant readings.
Laurence Vance cited the report to the Synod of Dort about the translating of the KJV as stating: “where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies” (King James, His Bible, p. 47).
F. H. A. Scrivener noted that 4,111 of the 6,637 marginal notes in the Old Testament of the 1611 "express the more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Chaldee" and "2156 give alternative renderings (indicated by the word 'Or' prefixed to them) which in the opinion of the Translators are not very less probable than those in the text" (Authorized Edition, p. 41). Scrivener also pointed out that 67 marginal notes in the 1611 O. T. "refer to various readings of the original, in 31 of which the marginal variation (technically called Keri) of the Masoretic revisers of the Hebrew is set in competition with the reading in the text" (Ibid.). Scrivener maintained that in the N. T. of the 1611 that 37 marginal notes relate to various readings (p. 56). He also listed those 37 notes (pp. 58-59) [Matt. 1:11, Matt. 7:14, Matt. 9:26, Matt. 24:31, Matt. 26:26, Mark 9:16, Luke 2:38, Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, John 18:13, Acts 13:18, Acts 25:6, Rom 5:17, Rom. 7:6, Rom. 8:11, 1 Cor. 15:31, 2 Cor. 13:4, Gal. 4:15, Gal. 4:17, Eph. 6:9, 1 Tim. 4:15, Heb. 4:2, Heb. 9:2, Heb. 11:4, James 2:18, 1 Pet. 1:4, 1 Pet. 2:21, 2 Pet. 2:2, 2 Pet. 2:11, 2 Pet. 2:18, 2 John 8, Rev. 3:14, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 13:1, Rev. 13:5, Rev. 14:13, Rev. 17:5]. The 1762 Cambridge edition added 15 more textual marginal notes (p. 59). The 1769 Oxford edition is said to have added at least one more. KJV defender Edward F. Hills also confirmed that 37 of the KJV’s N. T. marginal notes give variant readings (KJV Defended, p. 216). Hills 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. 212-213). In addition, John Eadie referred to “at least sixty-seven notes referring to various readings of the Hebrew” (p. 210). Jack Lewis maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 31 notes that “gave the Masoretic difference between Qere and Ketib” (Burke, Translation, p. 88).
Laurence Vance cited the report to the Synod of Dort about the translating of the KJV as stating: “where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies” (King James, His Bible, p. 47).
F. H. A. Scrivener noted that 4,111 of the 6,637 marginal notes in the Old Testament of the 1611 "express the more literal meaning of the original Hebrew or Chaldee" and "2156 give alternative renderings (indicated by the word 'Or' prefixed to them) which in the opinion of the Translators are not very less probable than those in the text" (Authorized Edition, p. 41). Scrivener also pointed out that 67 marginal notes in the 1611 O. T. "refer to various readings of the original, in 31 of which the marginal variation (technically called Keri) of the Masoretic revisers of the Hebrew is set in competition with the reading in the text" (Ibid.). Scrivener maintained that in the N. T. of the 1611 that 37 marginal notes relate to various readings (p. 56). He also listed those 37 notes (pp. 58-59) [Matt. 1:11, Matt. 7:14, Matt. 9:26, Matt. 24:31, Matt. 26:26, Mark 9:16, Luke 2:38, Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, John 18:13, Acts 13:18, Acts 25:6, Rom 5:17, Rom. 7:6, Rom. 8:11, 1 Cor. 15:31, 2 Cor. 13:4, Gal. 4:15, Gal. 4:17, Eph. 6:9, 1 Tim. 4:15, Heb. 4:2, Heb. 9:2, Heb. 11:4, James 2:18, 1 Pet. 1:4, 1 Pet. 2:21, 2 Pet. 2:2, 2 Pet. 2:11, 2 Pet. 2:18, 2 John 8, Rev. 3:14, Rev. 6:8, Rev. 13:1, Rev. 13:5, Rev. 14:13, Rev. 17:5]. The 1762 Cambridge edition added 15 more textual marginal notes (p. 59). The 1769 Oxford edition is said to have added at least one more. KJV defender Edward F. Hills also confirmed that 37 of the KJV’s N. T. marginal notes give variant readings (KJV Defended, p. 216). Hills 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. 212-213). In addition, John Eadie referred to “at least sixty-seven notes referring to various readings of the Hebrew” (p. 210). Jack Lewis maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 31 notes that “gave the Masoretic difference between Qere and Ketib” (Burke, Translation, p. 88).
Those alternative were textual variants were showing to us that they did do textual criticism, despite majority of Kjvo seeing that as being a very bad thing to be doing in the translation process
GodisgraciousR325
Active Member
Not the same
Your opinion is incorrect. There are a few of the same type textual marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV that you would likely condemn in other English Bibles.
The 1560 Geneva Bible is a good Reformation Bible with God blessing its use for many years, and yet it has some significant differences with the KJV.
Jack McElroy contended: “Each Bible says and means two different things. The Lord can’t have the same verses saying two different things without looking inconsistent” (Which Bible, p. 138). Jack McElroy asserted: “The Lord can’t recommend both of these Bibles because they say and mean the exact opposite” (p. 139). Jack McElroy made his statements concerning the KJV and the NKJV, but the same things would apply to actual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and the KJV.
Does Jack McElroy attempt to dictate to the Lord Jesus Christ what He must do?
Does Jack McElroy ignore and avoid the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ blessed the reading and preaching of the 1560 Geneva Bible for around 100 years even though it has some renderings that say and mean different things than those in the later 1611 KJV and even though it follows some different textual readings than those in the KJV?
Would Jack McElroy suggest that if the 1560 Geneva Bible wasn’t a “standard English Bible based on the best Greek text then God made a terrible mistake rolling it out in the first place?” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 333).
At Job 30:29, the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV say and mean different things as they render a Hebrew name as two different birds [ostriches—Geneva and owls—KJV], and yet God chose to bless them both. God permitted some and even many verses in the Geneva Bible and the KJV to say different things that are not verbally equivalent and that do not mean the same thing. Would Jack McElroy in effect accuse the Lord Jesus Christ of looking inconsistent because He blessed both the use of the earlier 1560 Geneva Bible and the later 1611 KJV?
Does the 1560 Geneva Bible provide compelling evidence that would refute McElroy’s inconsistent human reasoning concerning Bible translations?
Would KJV-only advocates in effect be Bible rejecters if they were to question or reject the 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles?
One of the fruits of the 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles would be the later 1611 KJV.
Jack McElroy contended: “Each Bible says and means two different things. The Lord can’t have the same verses saying two different things without looking inconsistent” (Which Bible, p. 138). Jack McElroy asserted: “The Lord can’t recommend both of these Bibles because they say and mean the exact opposite” (p. 139). Jack McElroy made his statements concerning the KJV and the NKJV, but the same things would apply to actual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and the KJV.
Does Jack McElroy attempt to dictate to the Lord Jesus Christ what He must do?
Does Jack McElroy ignore and avoid the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ blessed the reading and preaching of the 1560 Geneva Bible for around 100 years even though it has some renderings that say and mean different things than those in the later 1611 KJV and even though it follows some different textual readings than those in the KJV?
Would Jack McElroy suggest that if the 1560 Geneva Bible wasn’t a “standard English Bible based on the best Greek text then God made a terrible mistake rolling it out in the first place?” (Bible Version Secrets, p. 333).
At Job 30:29, the 1560 Geneva Bible and the KJV say and mean different things as they render a Hebrew name as two different birds [ostriches—Geneva and owls—KJV], and yet God chose to bless them both. God permitted some and even many verses in the Geneva Bible and the KJV to say different things that are not verbally equivalent and that do not mean the same thing. Would Jack McElroy in effect accuse the Lord Jesus Christ of looking inconsistent because He blessed both the use of the earlier 1560 Geneva Bible and the later 1611 KJV?
Does the 1560 Geneva Bible provide compelling evidence that would refute McElroy’s inconsistent human reasoning concerning Bible translations?
Would KJV-only advocates in effect be Bible rejecters if they were to question or reject the 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles?
One of the fruits of the 1560 Geneva Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles would be the later 1611 KJV.
GodisgraciousR325
Active Member
As a King James Believer, I reject the Geneva since there is errors, and such in it. It still had the gospel, it did use the right text. The KJB is the final word of God
GodisgraciousR325
Active Member
Check link I posted in first post, its a dialogue from the Hampton Court about why there was errors in previous translations.
So you do assert that the 1611 translators were indeed afforded from the Holy Spirit to make perfect choices in every case of thei translation process? That he gave just to their group infallible wisdom to know which exact rendering to take each and every time, so yhta means original in Hebrew and Greek xact same thing now in English 1611 bible?
GodisgraciousR325
Active Member
I am not discussing this any futher, take care.
Thread closed. OP's account deleted as requested.
- Status