AV1611 Translator Sidenotes 2: Matthew

[Precepts]

I sincerely don't believe the KJB needs your help, especially when you include the 1873 "version" and compare the niv as accurate along with the 1611.

This is Ed quoted in another thread just recently:

Today's Parallel Bible, NIV, footnote
for Matthew 6:13 on page 2212 says:
13 ... for yours is the kingdom and the power
and the glory forever. Amen.

Therefore, the NIV does NOT omit this phrase
but properly documents it (which the KJV does not, BTW)

My question to Ed follows in the next post asking him when is it ever "proper" to include the Word of Gof in a footnote?

Here in his quote he obviously thinks the "KJV"/ KJB does not "properly" document the phrase in the niv "footnote".

So you decide, is it proper to include the phrase in the verrse as part of the Word of God as in the KJB, or is it proper to put it in a footnote in the niv?

Maybe I am wrong, Ed, and have misread you several times now and I apologize, but I will see where this discussion and the direction you're leading in eventually heads.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Precepts: "So you decide, is it proper to include the phrase
in the verrse as part of the Word of God as
in the KJB, or is it proper to put it
in a footnote in the niv?"

In fact, the sources vary: some include it, some do not
include it. The NIV is honest and allows the reader
to judge. The KJV is deceptive and does NOT give this
information hiding it from the reader like the Catholics
used to do.

Precepts: "I sincerely don't believe the KJB ... "

I can misquote with the best of them

Here is what i said on the other thread:

Michelle: "Example: the NIV omitts: in Matthew 6:13
"For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever, Amen".//

Today's Parallel Bible, NIV, footnote
for Matthew 6:13 on page 2212 says:
13 ... for yours is the kingdom and the power
and the glory forever. Amen.

Therefore, the NIV does NOT omit this phrase
but properly documents it (which the KJV does not, BTW)

Somebody omitted that I was showing that
the statement of a KJVOest was incorrect.
She claimed that the NIV omitts something.
The NIV contains it.
I was misquoted.
Instant replay showing ed can misquote also

Precepts post 23 Feb 10:39AM EST:
"Precepts: "I sincerely don't believe the KJB ... "

At least i put in the ... to show something was omitted

 

[Precepts]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
In Aug 2003 I moved. I got behind
on going through the KJV1611 translator
side notes. The topic is now in the
archives. This continues from where that
stopped at Matthe 5:21

S.Matthew V:21 (KJV1611):

Yee haue heard, that it was
saide ||by them of old time, Thou
shalt not kill: and , Whosoeur shall
kill, shalbe in danger of the iudgement.

Or, to them

S.Matthew V:21 (KJV1611alt):

Yee haue heard, that it was
saide to them of old time, Thou
shalt not kill: and , Whosoeur shall
kill, shalbe in danger of the iudgement.

Well, what is different certainly is not
the same. Which was it?
Did them of old time say "Thou shalt not kill"
or was it said to them of old time
"Thou shalt not kill".
Stragely, it doesn't matter one wit.
For it was said of them of old to them
of old.

May all God's best blessings fall unto
the reader of this post, their family,
and their ministry. Amen!

Maybe I should have just responded to you this way Ed: Jesus is speaking to an audience years upon years later to those on the Mount, the right reading would be to those that "Ye have heard by them of old time..." as in they heard what the prophets had said by those reading in the synagogues. IOW they weren't present to hear what was said to "them" by Moses the prophet in person, no way.

The example is Jesus gave them by example of Moses reading the Ten Commandmentrs to the children of Israel, it would be impossible for those present to actually hear Moses speak audibly as the side note otherwise indicates.

Don't know where you get your "alternate", except maybe you're trying to publish your own version now?

I do believe it does matter "one wit", it makes better sense the way it is read and then it would seem only proper to have the side note, because it was actually spoken to them at the foot of Sinai, just a diferent "them" then.

 

[Precepts]

Ed, I didn't see any sense in quoting you, quoting Michelle. I in no way misrepresented what you literally said. I never even made a reference to the "foot note" being an omission. The KJB is right. The niv puts the correct reading in a footnote, that is improper. The way you stated in the parenthesis is that the KJB did something improper by not placing the phrase in footnote. If it is your intention I have no problem letting you retract that staement or even clarifying it , or do we just let it stand?

If anything the KJB remains precise and accurate, pure and unadulterated, we cannot say that about the niv's use of the footnote though, but the niv is misleading, vague, inaccurate, just plain out wrong in this case alone, uh, and others, too.

Note: The website I gave you clearly shows the use of the cambridge 1762 in many of the verses given. I am waiting to hear from Brother Zeinner of BPS for more evidences of the Cambridge 1762. I ahven't seen you respond to that yet, am I missing it?

 

[Ed Edwards]

The words of Iesus in S.Matthew VI:2 (KJV1611):

Therefore, when thou doest
thine almes, ||doe not sound a trumpet
before thee, as the hypocrites doe, in the
Synagogues, and in the streetes, that
they may have glory of men. Verily, I
say vnto you, they haue their reward.

Sidenote: Or, cause not a trumpet to be sounded.

The words of Iesus in S.Matthew VI:2 (KJV1611):

Therefore, when thou doest
thine almes, cause not a trumpet to be sounded
before thee, as the hypocrites doe, in the
Synagogues, and in the streetes, that
they may have glory of men. Verily, I
say vnto you, they haue their reward.

The original author knew that a person does not
have to do things themselves but can cause
other people to do it. Needless to say,
none of the modern versions have this depth as does
the the REAL ORIGINAL King James Version, 1611 Edition
(KJV1611).

 

[Precepts]

When others sound the trumpet for something I have done I immediately turn the attention towards the ord for His honour and glory. I get many thanks from the congregation in the short opening I have the opportunity to do before SS, I quickly say "Praise the Lord!" in response, then a gentle "Thank You" in return. (Yall didn't know i could be gentle , didja?)

hanks , ED, good recovery! Or whatever.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Speaking of Matthew 6:5, apparently it doesn't matter
if you toot your own horn or not

 

[Ed Edwards]

S.Matthew VII:14 (KJV1611)

||Because strait is the gate, and
narrow is the way which leadeth vnto
life, and few there be that finde it.

Sidenote: ||Or, how.

S.Matthew VII:14 (KJV1611)

How strait is the gate, and
narrow is the way which leadeth vnto
life, and few there be that finde it.

Does this term change make the
way narrower or wider?

NIV: but.
NLT: but.
NASB: for.

Isn't it interesting how many ways
the same thing can be said in English?

 

[Ed Edwards]

S.Matthew VIIII:16 (KJV1611):

No man putteth a piece of ||new
cloth vnto an olde garment : for that
which is put in to fill it vp, taketh from
the garment, & the rent is made worse.

sidenote: ||Or, raw, or vnrought cloth

S.Matthew VIIII:16 (KJV1611alt1):

No man putteth a piece of raw
cloth vnto an olde garment : for that
which is put in to fill it vp, taketh from
the garment, & the rent is made worse.

S.Matthew VIIII:16 (KJV1611alt2):

No man putteth a piece of vnrought
cloth vnto an olde garment : for that
which is put in to fill it vp, taketh from
the garment, & the rent is made worse.

This is interesting, a third best translation
from our friendly started out 48 ended up 47
usually rounded to 50 translators of the KJV.

Matthew 9:16 (KJV1769):
No man putteth a piece of new
cloth unto an old garment, for that
which is put in to fill it up taketh from
the garment, and the rent is made worse.

Note that the KJV1769 is DIFFERENT though that
difference is insignificant and not an error.
The ampersand (&) in the KJV1611 has been replaced
with the word it represents, "and".

Meanwhile, up in the 20th century, the
modern versions were saying:

NIV, unshrunk
NLT, unshrunk
NASB, unshrunk

All three MVs note it is not a "piece" (KJV) but
a "patch". This denotes the purpose of the piece.

So what is the meaning of this parable
for us in the 21th century? Probably
means life isn't back compatible (you
cannot play Pentium programs on a 386 chip
based computer).

May God's blessing be unto the reader this
Wednesday, 25 Fev 2004.

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:
Maybe I'm just slow, Mr. Ed, what is KJV1611alternate?

The KJV1611
(the real KJV, the original KJV) has
translator notes. These translators notes
give the second best translation.
The text has the second best translation.
I am repeating the verse with the
second best translation inserted instead
of the first best translation.
I call this the KJV1611alternate
or KJV1611alt.

P.S. I had to work late tonight.

</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for verifying, but do you use sidenotes over scripture?

 

[Ed Edwards]

1. Most KJBOs don't admit:
God has two WORDs:
A. the written Word: the Holy Bible
B. the Living Word: Messiah Iesus

2. I use sidenotes as a part of scripture

 

[Ed Edwards]

When Jesus raised a gril from the dead:
S.MATTHEW IX:26 (KJV1611):

And ||the fame hereof went aboard
into all that land.

Sidenote: || Or, this fame.

S.MATTHEW IX:26 (KJV1611alt):

And || this fame went abroad
into all that land.

Later KJVs follow the major translation.

Matthew 9:26 (NIV):
News of this spread through all that region.

Matthew 9:26 (NLT):
The report of this miracle swept through
the entire countryside

Matthew 9:26 (NASB):
This news spread throughout all that land.

Notice how each of these say THE SAME THING
but in different words. Having multiple
translations (and remember, the sidenotes
are multiple translations in one book)
helps one understand what God is trying
to communicate to us. If the communication
doesn't get through, is that God's fault
or man's fault?

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
1. Most KJBOs don't admit:
God has two WORDs:
A. the written Word: the Holy Bible
B. the Living Word: Messiah Iesus

2. I use sidenotes as a part of scripture

Isn't the sidenotes from the translators? Aren't they the translators opinions?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by HomeBound:
Isn't the sidenotes from the translators? Aren't they the translators opinions?

Yes.

However, they are more than JUST opinion.

1. It is their learned opinion.
(the first choice, the one that went into
the text is their learned opinion also)

2. It is their honest opinon.
The honest opinion documents the knowledge
that the translator has. Compare to
footnoteless documents like most
KJV1769s which are not honest. They try
to conceal that their translation
has some questionable areas. The
authors of such a "bible" are being
decietful and/or stupid. This phenomona
i've described has NOTHING to do with
an unchangable God and a lot to do with
changable languages.

 

[BrianT]

They are much more than "opinion". Some give alternative, valid translation. Some tell us what the Hebrew/Greek more literally says (i.e. documenting a few of the places where the Translators used dynamic equivalence and gender inclusiveness in their translation). Some give textual critical information. Some give cross-references. Some give measurement conversion information. None that I've ever seen give opinion or commentary. In fact, one of the reasons the KJV was made in the first place was to create a Bible that *didn't* have *any* opinion/commentary in the margins, in response to the Geneva which had a lot of it.

 

[Nicolas]

I don't understand mr. edwards, my cambridge KJB has all those sidenotes. Are the majority of KJB's out there missing the notes?

 

[Nicolas]

I don't understand mr. edwards, my cambridge KJB has all those sidenotes. Are the majority of KJB's out there missing the notes?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Nicolas:
I don't understand mr. edwards, my cambridge KJB has all those sidenotes. Are the majority of KJB's out there missing the notes?

IMHO, yes, most KJVs miss
out on the notes.

I have a KJV which might be of the Oxford KJV1769
type, but I can't be sure, it has no notation
that it is a KJV1769. It is real proud
of it's Tim LaHaye notes, which is why i
got it. Is that a KJB?

I have a KJV that belonged to my
Grandmother. It claims to be an 1851
edition by the American Bible Society.
So i doubt it can be a Cambridge KJV1762
or an Oxford KJV1769 There are no
footnotes of any type. Revelation 5
and past are missing, as well as any
endnotes?

I have an unknown version of the KJV
from the evil Zondervan. It has the
prophecy notes of Grant R. Jeffrey.
It has no clue as to what edition of
the KJV it might contain. The text
of Ruth 3:15 is like the other KJV1769s
that i think i have. There are no
translator footnotes.

I have to work for a living.
I don't have time to compare these
word for word. Any short tests known
whereby i might find out which edition
of the KJV i have in these three
books?

 

[Nicolas]

The Bible that I have is a Cambridge 1769 edition of the 1611 KJ. All the KJ's on the market today are 1769 edition unless stated otherwise. I like my Cabridge because it has the original translator sidenotes and the "translators to the reader" letter which is hardly found in most KJB today

 

[Ed Edwards]

S.Matthew IX:36 (KJV1611):

But when he saw the multitudes,
he was moued with compassion
on them, because they ||fainted, and
were scattered abroad, as sheepe hauing no
shepheard.

Sidenote: ||Or, were tyred and lay downe.

S.Matthew IX:36 (KJV1611):

But when he saw the multitudes,
he was moued with compassion
on them, because they were tyred and
lay downe, as sheepe hauing no
shepheard.

Now did they get pass out and pass all
over the place or did they get tired and
take a nap?
As usual, many Versions make for better
understanding. But in any case, Jesus
is the Gread Shepherd and takes care
of us, His sheep.

Matthew 9:36 (New Century Version - NCV):

When he saw the crowds, he
felt sorry for them becasuse they were hurting
and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.

Matthew 9:36 (Third Millennium Bible - TMB)

But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved
with compassion for them, because
they were faint and were scattered abroad,
as sheep having no shepherd.

/note that the TMB, an update of the KJV1611
is generally mal-aligned with other "modern versions (MVs)"./