A KJV question

[DHK]

Quote:
"? You are correct in saying the word "God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek. However, the words "me genoito" in the second aorist middle deponent optative are a very, very strong statement referring to something that is eternally forbidden. The KJV translation committee, recognizing the impotence of man, while believing in the Omnipotence of God, understood that no man could eternally forbid something from happening, but the Eternal God could, thus their very appropriate translation "God forbid." A much better, because much stronger, rending then the modern versions (which sounds almost like wishful thinking), and completely in keeping with the unique meaning of the Greek term."

A very good explanation Dr. Cassidy. However, the real question at hand here is one of translation. A translater's duty is to translate, not paraphrase. "God forbid," however accurate a paraphrase it maybe is just that, a paraphrase, and no more. If its paraphrases that we are looking for we could read the Living Bible, couldn't we? The work of a translater is to translate from the original into his language as accurately and literally as possible. This was not done by the KJV translation committee. They inserted words (such as "theos") that were not in the original. If they had simply translated the phrase "may it not be," the onus would be up to the reader (as it always is) to find out the sense of the phrase or words in question. It is not the duty of the translater to interpret, but rather to translate.
DHK

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DHK:
A very good explanation Dr. Cassidy. However, the real question at hand here is one of translation. A translater's duty is to translate, not paraphrase. "God forbid," however accurate a paraphrase it maybe is just that, a paraphrase, and no more. If its paraphrases that we are looking for we could read the Living Bible, couldn't we? The work of a translater is to translate from the original into his language as accurately and literally as possible.
DHK<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points and I agree with you. But then the KJV is more accurate than most all other versions in 1 Samuel 25:22; 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; etc where it translates shathan ( to urinate) qirah (a wall) as "any that pisseth against the wall", which is more accurate than the NKJV's "males".

Interestingly, the KJ21 translates it as "any who urinates against the wall."

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Interestingly, the KJ21 translates it as "any who urinates against the wall."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is exactly how I read it when I come to that passage.

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; Interestingly, the KJ21 translates it as "any who urinates against the wall."
--------------------------------------------

Which is exactly how I read it when I come to that passage. &gt;

Alright KJVO's--- is the general alarm sounding? Is the fact that Cassidy (among others) 'reads' "urinates" instead of "pisseth" (I Samuel 25:22, et al)-- thus changing the "true preserved Word of God," the KJV-- grounds to condemn him and his message for proclaiming a "perversion?"

[ June 10, 2001: Message edited by: Rockfort ]

 

[HankD]

Isn't this expression in I Samuel a figure of speech? Sort of like "he's a chip off the old block" which means he's just like his father. The expression in I Samuel was a slang figure of speech, was it not?
Do we have to be painfully literal to be honest to the Word of God or can we translate the figure into the underlying reality.
It's obvious they were "males".
I guess another question qould be why did God allow this figure of speech in His word?

There are other "coarse" figures of speech in the Bible in the original Hebrew which the KJV translators sanitized. Why here and not there?

HankD

 

[John Wells]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
It's really very sad to see so many "Christians" pushing the modern versions. It's to be expected, though, considering the last days apostasy predicted in the Bible.

We have the preserved Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible. The text from which it is translated from is dependable. The new versions on the market today are translated from corrupted text, not the same text that the translators of the King James Bible used.

Also, the King James Bible was translated from the very words of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text by way of verbal and formal equivalence. The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase.

If you want to have a Bible that is a paraphrase of corrupted text, then use the new versions. If you want the inerrant Word of God, then keep your King James Bible !

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately, what you say is wrong on every count! The NASB is considered by most open-minded biblical scholars to be the best word-for-word translation.

The KJV of 1611 was translated from what were called the great codecs, and no more than 25 copies of Greek new testament manuscripts. On the other hand, translations written in modern times have well over 5000 manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate any codec by at least 200 years. In this environment, older means closer to the original in terms of accuracy.

Regarding your condemnation of adding words, the KJV is as guilty as any other English translation. Case in point:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Readers of the Authorized or King James Version will notice that in the NIV and other modern translations 1 John 5:7 does not contain the three who “testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit.” The reason for this omission is quite simple. The clause appears in late manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, not in the early ones. And in the Greek manuscripts it does not appear before the sixteenth century. As a result, scholars universally conclude that the original text of 1 John lacked this statement, which was probably added by a pious scribe in the margin at some later time as a “Praise the Lord” and got copied into the text by a still later scribe (doubtless thinking that the first scribe was putting in the margin something that he had unintentionally left out). Hard Sayings of the Bible - One-volume edition © 1996 by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce and Manfred T. Brauch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ultimate translation is one that influences the behaviors in readers’ lives and brings them hope.

The translation effort in all its forms is a sincere effort on the part of many people of many different religious persuasions to make the Bible accessible and understandable to people to whom it might otherwise be a closed book. A diligent study of any of the efforts will increase one’s understanding of the Bible.

I have nothing against the KJV, in fact have a couple. It's poetic-like old English is beautiful. But saying that God only had a hand in one translation effort and frustrated thousands of biblical experts in other efforts is extremely narrowsighted and pure and simple prejudice!

[ June 26, 2001: Message edited by: wellsjs ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
The NASB is considered by most open-minded biblical scholars to be the best word-for-word translation.

The KJV of 1611 was translated from what were called the great codecs, and no more than 25 copies of Greek new testament manuscripts. On the other hand, translations written in modern times have well over 5000 manuscripts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate any codec by at least 200 years. In this environment, older means closer to the original in terms of accuracy.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The NASB is a very good, and very literal, translation of a very poor underlying text type.

The KJV is based on a text type (the Traditional Text) which is represented by over 5200 Greek manuscripts (regardless of how many were available to the translation committees). The NASB, on the other hand, is based on a text type that reflects the readings of only about 50 Greek manuscripts.

The testimony of the ancient versions, the Old Latin, Old Coptic, and Old Syriac give strong testimony to the antiquity of the readings found in the Traditional Text.

Don't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that the "oldest" extant MSS are necessarily the "best." Remember, there were manuscripts prior to these "oldest" MSS from which the ancient vernaculars were translated, and those ancient vernaculars give strong witness to the antiquity of the Traditional Text readings.

 

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
? You are correct in saying the word "God" (theos) does not appear in the Greek. However, the words "me genoito" in the second aorist middle deponent optative are a very, very strong statement referring to something that is eternally forbidden. The KJV translation committee, recognizing the impotence of man, while believing in the Omnipotence of God, understood that no man could eternally forbid something from happening, but the Eternal God could, thus their very appropriate translation "God forbid." A much better, because much stronger, rending then the modern versions (which sounds almost like wishful thinking), and completely in keeping with the unique meaning of the Greek term.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I won't argue whether "God Forbid" is technically possible or not, but as you have framed this explanation, it is a theological choice more than a scholarly one, it it not? Is this not what the NIV gets much of it's flak for?

 

[Pastor Larry]

In the interest of equal representation:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The NASB is a very good, and very literal, translation of a very poor underlying text type.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most would argue,as would I, that this is a misstatement. The NASB is a very literal translation of a very good text type. It is the TR that is a very poor text.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The KJV is based on a text type (the Traditional Text) which is represented by over 5200 Greek manuscripts (regardless of how many were available to the translation committees). The NASB, on the other hand, is based on a text type that reflects the readings of only about 50 Greek manuscripts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A commonly asserted but fallacious statement. It is true the the TR resembles very closely the majority text type. But the TR and the MajT differ in some 1800 places and the where they differ the KJV sides with the TR, not the MajT. It is simply wrong to say that the KJV is based on the majority text (which I know is not technically what Thomas said) since the TR was edited from a extreme minority of the 5200 manuscripts and was changed many times as more texts became available. Furthermore to say that the eclectic text is based on 50 or so manuscripts is a clear misstatement as well. The eclectic text, whether right or wrong in its methods and conclusions, takes into account 100 percent of the manuscript evidence. It gives differing weights based on certain factors. The TR and the MajT advocates automatically eliminate certain witnesses without any consideration. While is is fashionable in some circles to say that the KJV is based on 95% of the evidence and the MVs are based on the other 5%, it is a lie. The MVs take into account the 95% plus the 5%. And by the way, on occasion the eclectic text sides with the majority text type.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that the "oldest" extant MSS are necessarily the "best." Remember, there were manuscripts prior to these "oldest" MSS from which the ancient vernaculars were translated, and those ancient vernaculars give strong witness to the antiquity of the Traditional Text readings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A good reminder; but don't forget the other side. Do not be too hasty to jump on the MajT bandwagon but repetition of an error does not change its fact. If 1000 people agree that 2+2=5 and only one states that 2+2=4, the rules of mathematics will not change. One thousand people are simply wrong and we would not hesitate to say so. While in text critical method, the MajT may have some valid arguments, the fact they are in the majority is not among their strongest.

I think the call in this discussion is to moderation in rhetoric since there is no way of reaching a unchallengeable conclusion.

 

[TomVols]

It is also worth remembering that witnesses are not counted; they are weighed. I know this has been alluded to but thought it bore stating flat out.

 

[John Wells]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I think the call in this discussion is to moderation in rhetoric since there is no way of reaching a unchallengeable conclusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree! KJVO advocates are not moderate and intolerable about which translations are "of God's doing." It's a "my way or the highway" mentality. Some even say people who study and use other translations are going to eternal torment. On the other hand, non-KJVO advocates typically accept the KJV as an acceptable representation (for the most part) of the original message from God. Our main objection is that it inhibits comprehension because of its difficult readability. This turns many seekers away from discovering the truth.

I believe God's hand has been in numerous (not all) translations, and the student who avails him/herself to them achieves more depth of meaning and understanding than one who sticks to a single translation, no matter which one they choose.

 

[DocCas]

Pastor Larry, you seem to have missed the point of my post. I never mentioned the Majority Text nor the TR. I do not stand behind either of them completely. Perhaps you would like to read with I actually wrote and respond to that instead of responding to what you wish I had written.

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs:
This turns many seekers away from discovering the truth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Pastor Larry, you seem to have missed the point of my post. I never mentioned the Majority Text nor the TR. I do not stand behind either of them completely. Perhaps you would like to read with I actually wrote and respond to that instead of responding to what you wish I had written.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read what I wrote instead of responding to what you wish I had written, you will notice that I put a disclaimer that what I said was not tecnically what you said.

I know you know that difference and I realized you were referring to a "text type." It is not inconceivable that there are those who do not even know what a text type is, even in this august gathering.

However, I have heard men say (even in published tapes and books) that there are 5000+ perfectly matching manuscripts that the KJV was translated from and the others completely disagree in thousands of places. More often I have heard thme say that the TR is the MajT - that they are identical. Most do not realize there are significant differences. To them the TR is the MajT that was passed down from God to the authors to Erasmus to King James.

I was simply addressing a common and loudly shouted misconception.

 

[MagicDar]

I still believe in the leading and conviction of the Holy Spirit and the discernment the spirit gives to me on what to read and what not. I read niv and others, that is what I go by and I have no problem with it. I don't think it is right for other christians to refere to those who don't use KJVonly as "christians", refering that they are only christians in name, that is really wrong. Just my opinion. -dar

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I was simply addressing a common and loudly shouted misconception.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is very interesting, because, preceeding ever refutation of each "loudly shouted misconception" was a quote from my post. You were addressing my post, not a "common and loudly shouted misconception." If you were not addressing my post, you had no business quoting my prior post. You can't have it both ways. And, as to your disclaimer, you said, in reply to the quote from my post, "A commonly asserted but fallacious statement." The only possible context for that statement was the quote from my prior post which immediately preceded it. You then say, "It is simply wrong to say that the KJV is based on the majority text (which I know is not technically what Thomas said) since the TR was edited from a extreme minority of the 5200 manuscripts and was changed many times as more texts became available." You hide behind the word "technically" as if to say, "he didn't say that, exactly, but that is what he meant." Sorry, but no cigar. You then changed my statement in which I said the CT was "based" on about 50 MSS to "takes into account." I never claimed they did not "take into account" all the MSS, my claim was they rejected the vast majority of the readings in favor of the readings contained in only about 50 MSS and based their text on those readings.

[ June 27, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas,

A basic hermeneutical principle that everyone (except Covenant theologians) accept is that words have a single meaning determined by authorial intent. As the author of my words, it is my prerogative to say what they mean and when they are misunderstood, to clarify as needed. I was misunderstood and I clarified. You do not accept my clarification, instead deciding for yourself what they mean.

The common misconception I was correcting that you were citing is that the eclectic text is based on 50 manuscripts. It is not. It is asserted or implied by many, including you it seems, that it is 5200 vs. 50. It is not that way and you know it. The “50” is really 100% and the 5200 do have differences that require text critical choices. (I know you know that but for the sake of those who might not be as familiar). On that point you misrepresented the issue. You can claim the eclectic text is based,on those 50 but I think you are still wrong. They are not based on the 50, IMHO though we might differ on the meaning of based. When I say that they take into account all the manuscripts I mean that they consider all the readings and give weight to the manuscripts on a clearly defined objective basis. The MajT does not take into account all the evidence. The TR does not even take into account a majority of the evidence. I know you do not totally agree with either text. I am sure that there are places in the eclectic text where I would reject their reading, but I depart very carefully since they know far more than I. Most places it makes no significant difference as you well know. Furthermore they (the committee) do not, as you say "reject the vast majority of readings." They reject many of the readings of the majority text type because those readings most likely spring from a later source. They actually include some form of the vast majority of readings, actually omitting only very few. You are familiar enough with the apparatus to know that many times they do side with a portion of the majority text type against another portion of the majority text type. You could just as well say that the MajT excludes a majority of the readings since they choose only one for every variant, sometimes rejecting 3 or more. Furthermore, they reject all of the Alexandrian readings that are not repeated in the Byzantine or Western text types.

The earlier point of the paragraph was dealing with text types. My point was that the TR and the MajT are not identical (and you were not technically saying that). Whether or not you would say that the KJV is based on the majority of manuscripts is something only you can answer. I haven't seen you address it yet that I know of though I may have forgotten it. As for my hiding behind the word technically, I do not know for sure what you meant. I know what you said and I clarified my post to say that you were not saying what I was addressing. Technically meant that I could read the words and say that they did not say expressly what I said. By my parenthetical remark I was trying to avoid this very conversation because it is a non-issue. Of course, it is a pretty easy discussion because no one can prove conclusively one way or the other. We can go back and forth and gain no ground.

[ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[TomVols]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Thomas,

A basic hermeneutical principle that everyone (except Covenant theologians) accept is that words have a single meaning determined by authorial intent. [ June 28, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with your premise here. Could you cite evidence for your statement?

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I disagree with your premise here. Could you cite evidence for your statement?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The fact that you understood what I just said. Your ability to disagree requires that you understand what you are disagreeing with. If there was more than one meaning, you would not know what you disagreed with.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:

A basic hermeneutical principle that everyone (except Covenant theologians) accept is that words have a single meaning determined by authorial intent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is one HUGE strawman! CTs also believe "words have a single meaning determined by authorial intent." They just don't hold to the wooden idea of dispensationalism that the same author always means the same thing by the same words in every context.