Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

[Oldtimer]

Preachinjesus, thank you for accepting the challenge. And for putting some meat on the bones of your position. IMO, far too often, people simply put forth what they've heard others say and have nothing more than that to backup their viewpoints. The old 80/20 rule comes to mind. Perhaps with things Baptists (in general) tend to discuss it's more like 90/10. That makes it much more difficult to get to the truth when we have to walk through the crowds, if you know what I mean.

While, I probably won't buy the book you referenced, I do want to spend some time with the links you've provided. As I mentioned earlier, what I'd seen on his sexual orientation was written well after his death. And, apparently in the time frame of the turmoil that you wrote about. Thus I need to weigh your links against that. And, the end result may indeed be that you'll change my mind.

Wish I had time to do that today. But, I've already committed to continue work on the project previously mentioned. Another but.... that doesn't mean that I'm going to make excuses, as I intend to follow through on what I've said. It just may be a while before I can do just that.

Again, thank you for a well thought out and respectful reply to a layman seeking the truth. That's greatly appreciated on several different levels.

 

[Oldtimer]

Not necessarily the case. James was pretty insistent on some theological concepts within the text in order to maintain his kingdom. That said, my overarching point isn't to belabor this discussion with muddled conversation about James, but instead to point out that that there are often many aspects of a person's life that might not sit well with us. For those who accuse Westcott and Hort of, essentially, being pagans I would like to give them pause. Their lives are not at issue, their work in constructing a Critical Text is at issue.

Too often the KJVO crowd, as the article in the OP demonstrates, simply attack the men for their lives and never deal with their scholarship. So my larger point is that you can't have it both ways. In KJVO refuse to engage in discussions of the scholarship of Westcott and Hort's work then I shall simply pivot to the troublesome lifestyle of the man whose name is on the Bible.

IMO, you've made a good point. In trying to work through this issue, there's far too much "muddled conversation" that gives too much importance in relatively insignificant issues. (Not that King James is insignificant.) Verbal fights over upper/lower case Spirit/spirit is an example. Another is batting each other over the head regarding the first printing of the AV. Especially, when it's quite apparent that a MV proponant is deliberately baiting another person by "misunderstanding" the other's choice of words.

On to Westcott and Hort. I respectfully disagree. As translators of the Holy Scriptures, their lives are an issue, IMO. It's right beside translators indepth, fluent, knowledge of both languages involved. I believe that only true born again members of the body of Christ should be responsible for the translation of God's word. Or, at a minimum, the majority with the authority to override any members of the team who may have a questionable profession of faith.

The Joy of Cooking cookbook is a standard and is highly rated. As I like to cook, I was given a copy of the 75th anniversary edition. If this book were to be translated into Spanish, for example, should the translators be practicing vegans? (I realize this is a simplistic example.) How much would their views on avoiding any animal based foods influence the finished product? Wouldn't their normal bias inject a negative influence where direct word for word translation isn't possible. Either through omitting objectionable recipes and adding footnotes that cast doubt on the validity of the book. Or, substituting, where opportunity presents itself, more vegetable based instructions.

When I read the Bible, I pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. And I presume others in the body of Christ do, as well. Shouldn't I expect that those translating God's word do the same? Would I expect translators involved in worldly activities, condemmed by the body of Christ, to render a faithful translation of the scriptures?

I challenge this, I completely challenge this. Name me three contemporary versions that are in widespread use and we'll run down their translations of the relevant passages against homosexuality and we will see, absolutely see, that they continue the same stand against homosexuality in the KJV. I absolutely challenge this.

Search at BibleGateway.com - sodomite
KJB: Deut 23: 17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Total 5 instances of sodomite

NIV 1984: 17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. Zero instances of sodomite

NLT: 17 “No Israelite, whether man or woman, may become a temple prostitute. Zero instances of sodomite

Holman: 17 “No Israelite woman is to be a cult prostitute, and no Israelite man is to be a cult prostitute. Zero instances of sodomite

Message: 17-18 No daughter of Israel is to become a sacred prostitute; and no son of Israel is to become a sacred prostitute. And don’t bring the fee of a sacred whore or the earnings of a priest-pimp to the house of God, your God, to pay for any vow—they are both an abomination to God, your God. Zero instances of sodomite

NKJB: shall be no ritual harlot[a] of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. Footnote: qadesh, that is, one practicing sodomy and prostitution in religious rituals. Two instances of sodomite. The other is 1 Tim 1:10

In your response to this, please reference the specific manuscripts used by the translators, so as to know the exact applicable word to be translated into English.

This isn't an argument. James' actual legislative work condemned homosexual behavior more harshly than any king before him. The work of respectable historians has shown that this was done to a) shelter his own oppressed orientation and safeguard it and b) require those in relationship with him to remain so lest they fall into a trap and suffer punishment.

Well this point invalidates your above argument. However, as I've seen God uses broken people to accomplish His work as they yield themselves to Him. Take your point here and apply it to brothers Westcott and Hort. So that removes that line of argumentation against their work.

Now, let's get on with it...show me in the scholarship of Westcott and Hort how they failed to properly construct a Critical Text and how their Critical Text is inferior to the Majority Text.

That's all I have time to address this morning as I've got to leave in a few minutes. Hope this is enough to continue the conversation.

 

[InTheLight]

-It doesn't change the fact that the KJV condemns the practice of sodomy in the clearest and strongest terms then known and since. (In my opinion)..none of the subsequent translations,paraphrases,or even commentaries (that I am aware of) do anything to improve upon the clarity of this condemnation. Some, in fact, weaken it I'm sure.

Take a look at the most relevant verse in the New Testament regarding homosexuality and tell me which translation gives the clearest condemnation:

1 Cor 6:9 [KJV]
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

"Abusers of themselves with mankind"? What does that mean?


1 Cor 6:9 [NIV]
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men


1 Cor 6:9 [NKJV]
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Honestly?

Take a look at the most relevant verse in the New Testament regarding homosexuality and tell me which translation gives the clearest condemnation:

1 Cor 6:9 [KJV]
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

"Abusers of themselves with mankind"? What does that mean?


1 Cor 6:9 [NIV]
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men


1 Cor 6:9 [NKJV]
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

ITL...Honestly...I don't guess I can see any "technical" problem with any of those particular readings....BUT...I never had the slightest problem understanding the rendering in the KJV so I guess changing it for the sake of changing it makes no real sense to me. Most (if not all)of the new translations are less an attempt to clarify the text and more an opportunity for profits for some publishing house in our day. Just follow the advertizing employed if you don't believe me. I'm one of those who believes that this unending proliferation of new translations and versions does nothing but create confusion both in and out of church. When the Pastor is preaching out of one version and the people in the pew are reading out of two dozen others then there is not going to be a clear unity of understanding in the body. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that. God is NOT the Author of confusion.

Bro.Greg

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Thank You.....

IMO, you've made a good point. In trying to work through this issue, there's far too much "muddled conversation" that gives too much importance in relatively insignificant issues. (Not that King James is insignificant.) Verbal fights over upper/lower case Spirit/spirit is an example. Another is batting each other over the head regarding the first printing of the AV. Especially, when it's quite apparent that a MV proponant is deliberately baiting another person by "misunderstanding" the other's choice of words.

On to Westcott and Hort. I respectfully disagree. As translators of the Holy Scriptures, their lives are an issue, IMO. It's right beside translators indepth, fluent, knowledge of both languages involved. I believe that only true born again members of the body of Christ should be responsible for the translation of God's word. Or, at a minimum, the majority with the authority to override any members of the team who may have a questionable profession of faith.

The Joy of Cooking cookbook is a standard and is highly rated. As I like to cook, I was given a copy of the 75th anniversary edition. If this book were to be translated into Spanish, for example, should the translators be practicing vegans? (I realize this is a simplistic example.) How much would their views on avoiding any animal based foods influence the finished product? Wouldn't their normal bias inject a negative influence where direct word for word translation isn't possible. Either through omitting objectionable recipes and adding footnotes that cast doubt on the validity of the book. Or, substituting, where opportunity presents itself, more vegetable based instructions.

When I read the Bible, I pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. And I presume others in the body of Christ do, as well. Shouldn't I expect that those translating God's word do the same? Would I expect translators involved in worldly activities, condemmed by the body of Christ, to render a faithful translation of the scriptures?



Search at BibleGateway.com - sodomite
KJB: Deut 23: 17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Total 5 instances of sodomite

NIV 1984: 17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. Zero instances of sodomite

NLT: 17 “No Israelite, whether man or woman, may become a temple prostitute. Zero instances of sodomite

Holman: 17 “No Israelite woman is to be a cult prostitute, and no Israelite man is to be a cult prostitute. Zero instances of sodomite

Message: 17-18 No daughter of Israel is to become a sacred prostitute; and no son of Israel is to become a sacred prostitute. And don’t bring the fee of a sacred whore or the earnings of a priest-pimp to the house of God, your God, to pay for any vow—they are both an abomination to God, your God. Zero instances of sodomite

NKJB: shall be no ritual harlot[a] of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. Footnote: qadesh, that is, one practicing sodomy and prostitution in religious rituals. Two instances of sodomite. The other is 1 Tim 1:10

In your response to this, please reference the specific manuscripts used by the translators, so as to know the exact applicable word to be translated into English.



That's all I have time to address this morning as I've got to leave in a few minutes. Hope this is enough to continue the conversation.

Oldtimer...I want to publically thank you for stepping in and addressing some of the detailed issues that PiJ and others have raised of late. I will have to publically plead a measure of ignorance and an inability due to my lack of technical skills and my own personal shortcomings as a "student" in being able to adequately address objections in these matters. I read much and try to learn all I can and about many things I have enough knowledge to form my own beliefs and in some cases even defend them but I have "hit the limit" on this one. FOR THE RECORD....I am in over my head and not afraid to say so. I had no idea what kind of "can of worms" I was opening when I posted Bro.Van Nattan's article but knowing the anti-KJVO proclivities of most on this site and having the knowledge that they have the ability to almost "spam" the board with a dizzying barrage of "jots and tittles" of information(be it accurate and true....or not) in opposition to the KJV position, I guess I should have known better. I appreciate your skills as a student and a debater and I bow to them. You are far better at BOTH of those skills than I.
That said...I must sit on the sidelines while other more skilled players engage in the game. I'm benching myself. Now that said, I am not afraid to speak my mind on whatever topic is under discussion and I have that right as long as I am a member in good standing on the Baptist Board. Everyone of us is entitled to his/her opinions as long as we are honest about them. When I know FACTS I will state them as such...when I am offering an OPINION...it will be stated as what it is. My OPINION about my Bible is unchanged. Nobody here has proven to me that I have any reason to doubt what I believe about the KJV. I am willing to change if God wants me to because it is what He wants that really matters. He hasn't moved me to do that on this issue.

Bro.Greg

 

[Mexdeaf]

Take a look at the most relevant verse in the New Testament regarding homosexuality and tell me which translation gives the clearest condemnation:

1 Cor 6:9 [KJV]
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

"Abusers of themselves with mankind"? What does that mean?


1 Cor 6:9 [NIV]
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men


1 Cor 6:9 [NKJV]
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

KJVO's want to argue the KJV against everything else instead of the KJV against it's own source texts.

 

[Rippon]

When doing so, if you have a creditable source of evidence of his "rampant homosexuality" that was produced within his lifetime, please provide it. From what I've been able to find, so far, the claim of his homosexuality was made some 20 years after his death.


About the time I was first learning of the KJVO controversy, I heard a preacher say that King James was a ________. That was when I heard of this charge being made against him. So far, I haven't found any creditable evidence that this is a true charge. As best that I've been able to determine, this rumor started well after his death and was fostered by those who were opposed to his rule.

If you can prove the claim, I'm more than willing to listen, as above all, I seek the TRUTH. The end result will be that I'll either change my mind or be more firmly convinced that it is a false rumor.

If you'll accept the challenge, now is the time to prove it. If the claim is valid, it won't be the first time I've changed my opinion on a subject, when confronted with the truth. And, I'm sure it won't be the last time.

Not to pile on but...from Adam Nicolson's book God's Secretaries;

"He [King James] became chronically vulnerable to the allure of beautiful,elegant,rather Frenchified men..." page 7

"...the ridiculous aspects of James;his extravagance,his vanity,his physical ugliness,his weakness for beautiful boys,his self-inflation,his self-congratulatory argumentativeness." pages 60 and 61.

 

[Oldtimer]

Take a look at the most relevant verse in the New Testament regarding homosexuality and tell me which translation gives the clearest condemnation:

1 Cor 6:9 [KJV]
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

"Abusers of themselves with mankind"? What does that mean?


1 Cor 6:9 [NIV]
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men


1 Cor 6:9 [NKJV]
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

"Arsenokoitai" is a Greek word that appears to have been created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. No record remains of any writer having using the term before Paul. It has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version (KJV):

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind", Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)

The KJV was finished 1611 CE when there was no single word that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century. More recent versions of the Bible translate arsenokoitai here as:
•"homosexuals," (NASB);
•"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
•"homosexual offenders," (NIV).

In doing this, they appear to have little respect to the actual meaning of the original Greek verse. By using the term "homosexual" the translators changed the scope of the verse. The original Greek refers to men only; the English translation refers to both males and females; i.e. to gays and lesbians. We suspect that the temptation to attack lesbians overcame the translators' desire to be accurate.

--------
What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?

Nobody knows for certain.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."

Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Many sources have speculated about the meaning of "arsenokoitai:"
http://syntribate.com/pages/arsenokoitai.html

Some snips from an article discussing this phrase. Someone with expertise can check/challenge this far better than I can. And in comparing usage in the various versions of the bible, a true comparison would also include observations of which manuscripts had what. All use the same Greek source word?

For the KJB and homosexuality could/would placing focus on the word "effeminate" better illustrate same sex?

Etymology

Effeminacy comes from the Latin, ex which is "out," and femina which means woman; it means "to be like a woman." The Latin term is mollities, meaning "softness."

In ancient Koine Greek, the word for effeminate is kinaidos (cinaedus in its Latinized form), or malakoi. A man "whose most salient feature was a supposedly "feminine" love of being sexually penetrated by other men." (Winkler, 1990).

"A cinaedus is a man who cross-dresses or flirts like a girl. Indeed, the word's etymology suggests an indirect sexual act emenating a promisculous woman. This term has been borrowed from the Greek kinaidos (which may itself have come from a language of Ionian Greece of Asia Minor, primarily signifying a purely effeminate dancer who entertained his audiences with a tympanum or tambourine in his hand, and adopted a lascivious style, often suggestively wiggling his buttocks in such a way as to suggest anal intercourse....The primary meaning of cinaedus never died out; the term never became a dead metaphor." (Williams, 1999)

Other vernacular words for effeminacy include: "pansy", "nelly", "pretty boy", "sissy", "pussy", and "girl" (when applied to a boy or, especially, adult man). Contrastingly, a masculine girl would be called a "tomboy", "butch",. The word effete similarly means effeminacy or over-refinement, but comes from the Latin effetus, from ex- + fetus (fruitful).
-----------------
[edit] The Bible

Malakos is listed among other vices in the New Testament book of I Corinthians 6:9. Translations use different terms to express this: "The JB (1966) chooses 'catamite,' the NAB (1970) renders arsenokoités and malakos together as 'sodomite,' others translate malakos as 'male prostitute' (NRSV 1989), and again some combine both terms and offer the modern medicalised categories of sexual, or particularly homosexual, 'perversion' (RSV 1946, TEV 1966, NEB 1970, REB 1992)." The online Greek Interlinear Bible uses Strongs concordance (last corrected in 2008) translates Malakoi as Catamites, and Arsenokoitia as sodomites. ((Martin, 1996). The word malakos, #3120 in the Greek Dictionary of The New Testament of James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to The Bible translates: "of uncertain affinity". Strong's Concordance is not a translation of the Bible nor is it intended as a translation tool. The use of Strong's numbers is not a substitute for professional translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English by those with formal training in ancient languages and the literature of the cultures in which the Bible was written
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effeminate

Same with this. I don't have the expertise to evaluate Greek words, in context, and whether the usage is the same in the various manuscripts used by translation teams.

 

[Oldtimer]

Oldtimer...I want to publically thank you for stepping in and addressing some of the detailed issues that PiJ and others have raised of late. I will have to publically plead a measure of ignorance and an inability due to my lack of technical skills and my own personal shortcomings as a "student" in being able to adequately address objections in these matters. I read much and try to learn all I can and about many things I have enough knowledge to form my own beliefs and in some cases even defend them but I have "hit the limit" on this one. FOR THE RECORD....I am in over my head and not afraid to say so. I had no idea what kind of "can of worms" I was opening when I posted Bro.Van Nattan's article but knowing the anti-KJVO proclivities of most on this site and having the knowledge that they have the ability to almost "spam" the board with a dizzying barrage of "jots and tittles" of information(be it accurate and true....or not) in opposition to the KJV position, I guess I should have known better. I appreciate your skills as a student and a debater and I bow to them. You are far better at BOTH of those skills than I.
That said...I must sit on the sidelines while other more skilled players engage in the game. I'm benching myself. Now that said, I am not afraid to speak my mind on whatever topic is under discussion and I have that right as long as I am a member in good standing on the Baptist Board. Everyone of us is entitled to his/her opinions as long as we are honest about them. When I know FACTS I will state them as such...when I am offering an OPINION...it will be stated as what it is. My OPINION about my Bible is unchanged. Nobody here has proven to me that I have any reason to doubt what I believe about the KJV. I am willing to change if God wants me to because it is what He wants that really matters. He hasn't moved me to do that on this issue.

Bro.Greg

Brother Greg, thank you for your kind words.

Truthfully, I'm also hitting my limits within this type of debate. I don't have any training in other languages (except 2 years of highschool French long forgotten). Thus, I'm very much limited when debating with those who have those skills. This also forces me to place an uneasy trust in *some* internet resources. Uneasy, because it's usually difficult to discern how close to the truth any site may be positioned.

I'm also hitting my limits with time to study. While it would be nice to spend hours, it's been hectic the last few weeks and months. I still haven't had (taken) the time needed for the OP. (sigh) Plus, there's been 2 phone calls from different people on the same subject, while reading/replying to this thread.

That's probably more than you'd ever want to know. :tonofbricks:

IMO, there's a good side of this. However slowly, however much I agree or disagree, I believe that I am learning. Slowly moving forward. The scriptures don't say that it's easy to move from milk to meat. The main thing, IMO, is seeking truth, whether it's revealed in scripture study by the Holy Spirit or elsewhere.

2 Tim 2:15 always.

 

[Oldtimer]

KJVO's want to argue the KJV against everything else instead of the KJV against it's own source texts.

Instead of drive by shooting how about also replying to my last post in response to Preachinjesus. At this point, I have no idea what his research will turn up. Therefore, I have no premature opinion on his results.

Perhaps just this point, instead.

Should Bible translators be in the body of Christ? Or, is it acceptable that anyone with credentials be considered suitable for this task? Does that include those from non-Christian faiths, non-believers in any God, members of assemblies considered to be "Christian cults", etc.

And/or if you prefer, address the use of the word sodomite in the referenced scriptures. When you stop to think about it, that does, indeed, check the KJB "against it's own source texts".

Uhmmm..... Thinking about the title of this thread. The whole premise of this thread is to pit the KJB against MV using manuscripts influenced by Hort and Westcott. Based on that premise, isn't the idea that each side should be looking at the "source texts" of the other? If everyone stopped to look at the "source texts" of their own preference, this thread would come to an end. Wouldn't it?

 

[robycop3]

ITL...Honestly...I don't guess I can see any "technical" problem with any of those particular readings....BUT...I never had the slightest problem understanding the rendering in the KJV so I guess changing it for the sake of changing it makes no real sense to me. Most (if not all)of the new translations are less an attempt to clarify the text and more an opportunity for profits for some publishing house in our day. Just follow the advertizing employed if you don't believe me. I'm one of those who believes that this unending proliferation of new translations and versions does nothing but create confusion both in and out of church. When the Pastor is preaching out of one version and the people in the pew are reading out of two dozen others then there is not going to be a clear unity of understanding in the body. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that. God is NOT the Author of confusion.

Bro.Greg

Well, first of all, the term "sodomite" is seldom applied to homosexuals today. It now means a practitioner of a certain type of sexual act that can be performed by men and women as well as men with men.
The word "homosexual" didn't come about until C.1897, so the KJV makers didn't have it to use. However, WE do, and it's the most-common term used to describe one who is sexually oriented toward his/her own gender. Also, most other names used today for other sexual perversions weren't around then.

And don't think the KJV wasn't/isn't used for profit. The earliest copies offered for sale bore the king's TAX STAMP, placed there by Sir. Robert Cecil, KJ's financial minister. This priced the AV outta financial reach of most common British. And, if the KJV wasn't selling enough copies, it'd soon go outta publication. Those printers don't make Bible copies for free!

And applying "God is not the Author of confusion" to English Bible versions goes AGAINST the KJV, since it's not in OUR English style. No need to repeat the umpteen words that now have a different meaning now than what they had in 1611. Thus, modern versions eliminate what is often a source of confusion to the English Bible reader.

 

[InTheLight]

What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?

Nobody knows for certain.

"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."

So if the two parts of the word are rendered "man" and "beds" how in the world do KJV translators come up with "abusers of themselves with mankind"? Where is the "bed" component in their translation and where did they get "abuser"?

I think the modern translations have got it correct. The context of the verse lists fornicators and adulterers, two sexually related sins, then you have effeminate and "man" and "bed" listed. How is effeminate men and beds taken in the context of adultery and fornication NOT translated homosexual or sodomy?

 

[InTheLight]

Well, first of all, the term "sodomite" is seldom applied to homosexuals today. It now means a practitioner of a certain type of sexual act that can be performed by men and women as well as men with men.
The word "homosexual" didn't come about until C.1897, so the KJV makers didn't have it to use. However, WE do, and it's the most-common term used to describe one who is sexually oriented toward his/her own gender. Also, most other names used today for other sexual perversions weren't around then.

And don't think the KJV wasn't/isn't used for profit. The earliest copies offered for sale bore the king's TAX STAMP, placed there by Sir. Robert Cecil, KJ's financial minister. This priced the AV outta financial reach of most common British. And, if the KJV wasn't selling enough copies, it'd soon go outta publication. Those printers don't make Bible copies for free!

And applying "God is not the Author of confusion" to English Bible versions goes AGAINST the KJV, since it's not in OUR English style. No need to repeat the umpteen words that now have a different meaning now than what they had in 1611. Thus, modern versions eliminate what is often a source of confusion to the English Bible reader.

Great post. The KJV was copyrighted, just as modern translations are nowadays.

I dare say if you asked 1,000 people what "abusers of themselves with mankind" meant you wouldn't get a single reference to homosexuality. That phrase is confusing.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Not to pile on but...from Adam Nicolson's book God's Secretaries;

"He [King James] became chronically vulnerable to the allure of beautiful,elegant,rather Frenchified men..." page 7

"...the ridiculous aspects of James;his extravagance,his vanity,his physical ugliness,his weakness for beautiful boys,his self-inflation,his self-congratulatory argumentativeness." pages 60 and 61.

Only one thing to say . . . YUCK!!!

 

[jonathan.borland]

[snipped - see special rules on version debate]

Don't think I've every been snipped before. Apologies to all. Shouldn't happen again.

 

[jonathan.borland]

There is a kind of problem here with the homo King James. It's kind of like Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt commissioning a new version of the Bible.

 

[preachinjesus]

[snipped - see special rules on version debate]

 

[preachinjesus]

So now that we've, hopefully, agreed that dragging the personal lives of scholars into a discussion about original language manuscripts isn't benefiting the larger conversation since we've all got problems on all of our sides...

So what specific issues do those opposed to the Westcott and Hort process raise concerning the method and conclusions of their research?

More to the point: what areas of concern do KJVO/P raise against the process of critical engagement (note: this doesn't mean negative engagement) in considering various texts and textual features which exist in older manuscripts as they are accumulated, evaluated, and recommended for study in constructing a Greek and Hebrew text that more accurately reflects the original autographs?

If we can move into this point of the conversation and away from the red herrings about personalities, I think this would benefit us to see an actual exchange from respectable positions.

 

[Mexdeaf]

If everyone stopped to look at the "source texts" of their own preference, this thread would come to an end. Wouldn't it?

That would be nice, but it will never happen- because people would find that the two sides are actually closer together than they otherwise have thought.

As for the "drive by"- I pastor, work two part-time jobs and attend grad school full-time. "Drive by" is about all I have time to do. Plus I have wasted years on this silly debate and really, other than trying (mostly hopelessly) to help KJVO people see the lies and double-speak, I don't get involved much any more.

 

[franklinmonroe]

That this is not literal is arguable. My English dictionary in Microsoft Bookshelf (American Heritage, 3rd ed.) has for "jot": "The smallest bit; iota." Then for "iota" it has, "1 The ninth letter of the Greek alphabet."

Thank you for your comments, John. I agree that in contemporary speech "jot" and "iota" have basically synonymous meaning. However, when speaking technically (literally) there is a distinction.

Actually, it seems that "jot" comes to us through the Latin jota (although the Vulgate seems to have "iota"), and this Latin word in turn derives from the Greek iota itself. Remember, the Greek iota can also be transliterated as j, in addition to i. But English did not originally even have a character for J; in fact, early English versions spelled the English word here variously as "iott", "iotte", and "iote" (the 1611 spelling). The RSV still had "iota". When did we get "jot"? Is it possible that "jot" is some sort of typographic error that has beem held over?