Is some Bible-correcting in effect accepted by believers?

[Yeshua1]

The KJV translators acknowledged that they engaged in a process of Bible correcting [that is, making corrections, improvements, and revisions to the pre-1611 English Bibles which they identified as being the word of God], and later editors/printers of KJV editions also engaged in a process of Bible correcting in making some corrections and revisions to the 1611 edition of the KJV.

In their dedication to King James, the KJV translators maintained that their translation would be "one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue," which would put their translation on the same level or in the same category as pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible.

Those who read the KJV are in effect accepting Bible correcting so that the obvious hypocrisy of those who make the inconsistent charge of Bible correcting against readers of other English Bible translations is clearly exposed.

The KJV translators asserted that if anything in a Bible translation was "not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected."

In their 1611 preface to the readers, the KJV translators wrote: "For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance in one or other of other editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected and the truth set in place."

The KJV translators also asserted: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it

The 1611 team never saw their translation in the same way as the Kjvo do, as they saw their version as revising prior legit ones, and that their product in turn would also be revised and improved in future!

 

[Yeshua1]

Let's never forget that all Bible translations, any language, are the products of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men. However, God sees to it that His word is presented in some 2400 languages, in the forms HE has chosen.

Yes, as there was ONLY the time originals were penned down that God inspired the texts!

 

[loDebar]

When was it not available after the first century though?

It is not available to some even today

 

[Dave G]

Actually, the newer English translations are made from an eclectic assortment of the over 5K mss. & parts of mss. available to translators now.

No, they are not.

They are purposefully focused on the collated "Critical Text" and its variants, which, in reality, is only concerned with roughly 2% of the existing manuscripts.
There is no comprehensive Greek apparatus today that reflects the findings of all 5,000+ manuscripts, uncials, papyrii and others bits and pieces.

The closest anyone has ever come to a complete, comprehensive and far-reaching Greek text of the New Testament is Hodges and Farstadt's collation of some 100 manuscript pieces, that is commonly called, the "Majority Text" and is reflected, I believe, in Young's Literal Translation.

 

[Dave G]

What minor doctrine (other than poison drinking and snake handling) is affected by the differences in Greek texts?

There is no such thing as a "minor doctrine".
Every word of God is important ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

If you want to say various translations affect doctrine, that's one thing. But no doctrine, major or minor, is affected by the differences in manuscripts. 1 John 5:7 is no exception. The trinity can be proven many ways without that verse, much as I love it.

Again, if one is concerned with every word, then any deviation should be alarming or suspect.
There is no such thing as a "major" or "minor" doctrine, if one cares about each and every word of God.

However, if changes in God's words do not concern you, or you're not upset with God's very words being man-handled by people who call themselves "scholars" and are not even saved, then by all means dismiss the differences and variations in "bibles" and Greek texts today, sir.

 

[Dave G]

Looks like the Kjvo are coming back to us now!

I have a question, Dave...
What exactly is it that you hate about the AV?
Too hard to read?

I admit that it does have a learning curve.
But at this point, after over 15 years of intense study, I know or am familiar with, all of the "archaic" words and their usage.
All I have to do is make a minor shift in the way I think when I read it, and I have no trouble.

To me, it really is worth the effort.



With that stated, "KJVO's", for the most part, are not trying to make everyone go back to the AV...they are concerned that there is a predominant attitude out there among professing believers, that every word of God doesn't count or is not important.


Among most "KJVO's", the main focus is, "if not the AV, then what new standard"?

Answer:

1) There is none.
2) They're all the word of God, despite the glaring differences.
3) Nothing is affected by all the missing, added or changed words compared to what believers had just 200 years ago.
4) Don't worry about all the missing pieces... all the areas of God's word where the divinity of Christ and many other vital pieces are beginning to get whittled away by each small increment of "new translation" using a botched, and even narrower "Greek text" than what Erasmus used, are not anything to get alarmed about.

6 Manuscripts?
The CT is based on half of that.

So...to me, slapping someone with the label of "KJVO" as some sort of ridicule, really should be re-considered, don't you think?


Thanks for reading.

 

[Dave G]

All major Greek text are in agreement 90-95 % of the time,

You may wish to look at the facts and figures again.

The CT is in agreement with the TR and MT far less than the other two agree with each other, because of their manuscript base.

 

[Logos1560]

Again, if one is concerned with every word, then any deviation should be alarming or suspect.
There is no such thing as a "major" or "minor" doctrine, if one cares about each and every word of God.

However, if changes in God's words do not concern you, or you're not upset with God's very words being man-handled by people who call themselves "scholars" and are not even saved, then by all means dismiss the differences and variations in "bibles" and Greek texts today, sir

Perhaps you are not fully informed about the facts concerning the KJV and do not apply the exact measures/standards to it that you want applied to other English Bibles. In my opinion you cannot apply your own assertions to the KJV itself.

Does the 1611 KJV actually give a completely accurate or inerrant English rendering for each and every original language word in every verse as some KJV defenders seem to assume or directly suggest in their own statements? How is every individual preserved original-language word of Scripture actually kept intact and unchanged in the KJV when the 1611 KJV changed them to different words and even gave no English word for some of them as the KJV translators themselves clearly acknowledged in some of their marginal notes? How would giving no English word for a Hebrew word found in a verse or a Greek word found in a verse be taking every inspired word and giving an accurate translation of that word and be preserving that word in English? Would KJV defenders in effect suggest that the KJV subtracts from God’s words or adopted “the diabolical principle of subtraction” (Waite, Defending the KJB, p. 91) when it does not give an English translation for a noun in the KJV’s underlying Hebrew Old Testament text or for a noun in the Greek New Testament text as they would do concerning the NKJV? If the KJV translators did not give an English word for some preserved original language words of Scripture found in their underlying texts, would that suggest that the English-speaking believer has no assurance that he can read every word of God in the KJV?

Would KJV defenders suggest that the KJV is not authoritative in any places where it does not strictly adhere to word-for-word translating, where it does not give an English word for an original language word, and where it gives what could be considered a dynamic equivalent rendering and not the exact equivalent? Would KJV defenders suggest that the KJV translators did not translate what God explicitly said in those cases where they did not translate word-for-word, did not show all words, did not give an English word for an original language word, or did not preserve the same word order? How could the KJV preserve every original language word of Scripture when it is a fact that it provides no English word for some of them? Is the foundation of Scripture weakened by the fact that the KJV translators did not translate word-for-word literally or changed the form of words in many places?

 

[Logos1560]

In their marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators themselves actually pointed out some places where they did not give an English rendering in their text for original-language words found in their underlying texts. In other cases, they did not give a marginal notes when they did not provide an English rendering for an original-language word.

Possible examples of non-word-for-word or non-formal-equivalent renderings in the KJV

Genesis 1:20 [1611 margin—“Heb. face of the firmament of heaven”]

in the open firmament of heaven [1611 KJV]

on the face of the expanse of the heavens [Young’s Literal Translation—YLT]

across the face of the firmament of the heavens [NKJV]

on the face of the expanse of the heavens [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Genesis 5:20 [Hebrew has two conjunctions in this number]

nine hundred sixty and two years [1611 KJV]

nine hundred and sixty and two years [YLT]

nine hundred and sixty-two years [NKJV]



Genesis 7:22 [1611 margin—“Hebr. The breath of the spirit of life”]

Every thing in whose nostrils the spirit of life did breathe [1560 Geneva Bible]

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life [1611 KJV]

All in whose nostrils is breath of a living spirit [YLT]

All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life [NKJV]


Genesis 12:4

Abram was seventy and five years old [1611 KJV]

Abram is a son of five and seventy years [YLT]



Genesis 13:8

we be brethren [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. men brethren”]

we are men—brethren [YLT]

we are men, brothers [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Genesis 17:8 [1611 margin—“Heb. of thy sojournings”]

the land wherein thou art a stranger [1611 KJV]

the land of thy sojournings [YLT]

the land of your sojourning [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Genesis 17:12 [1611 margin--"Hebr. a son of eight days"]

And every man child of eight days old [1560 Geneva Bible]

And every manchild of eight days old [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

And he that is eight days old [1611 KJV]

And a son of eight days [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Genesis 23:6

a prince of God [1537 Matthew’s Bible; 1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]

a mighty prince [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. a Prince of God”]

a prince of God [YLT]


Genesis 30:8

With godly wrestlings [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

With great wrestlings [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. wrestlings of God”]

With wrestlings of God [YLT]

with struggles of God [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Genesis 30:39 [Hebrew has word for “flocks” twice in verse]

and brought forth [1611 KJV]

and the flock beareth [YLT]

and the flocks brought forth [NKJV]


Genesis 31:2

as in times past [1560 Geneva Bible]

as it was wont to be [1602 Bishops’ Bible]

as before [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. as yesterday and the day before”]

as the day before yesterday [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Genesis 37:1 [1611 margin—“Heb. of his fathers sojournings”]

wherein his father was a stranger [1611 KJV]

of his father’s sojournings [YLT]

of his father’s travels [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Genesis 43:16

and kill meat [1560 Geneva Bible]

and slay [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. kill a killing”]

and slaughter an animal [YLT] [NKJV]


Genesis 44:7 [the word for God is not in Hebrew]

God forbid [1611 KJV]

far be it [YLT]

Far be it [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Genesis 47:8

How old art thou [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“how many are the days of the years of thy life”]

How many are the days of the years of thy life [YLT]

How many are the days of the years of your life [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

 

[Dave G]

To the thread:

I feel that I am fully informed about the facts regarding this issue, having studied it for some years now.
There is nothing on either side that I believe I have not considered.

When those whose only reason for supporting the mess ( that is the current state of affairs with regard to English translations of the Bible ) can admit that their facts and reasoning leads to no solution or eventual standard that we can all use together, then we can start to resolve the mess.

Until then, I stay on my end of the camp, and they can stay on theirs.
They can malign me and consign me to the the rank of "dinosaur" if they wish, but here I stand and here I fall.
I've only 30 or so short years left to live, and I'm plenty able to avoid anyone who professes Christ that violently disagrees with me on any issue.

I'll trust the Lord to show me right from wrong, and who to fellowship closely with.
In the meantime, my hope is, and has always been, that the God who loves me and gave Himself for me, will continue to correct me when I make a fool of myself.


For now, I see no reason to jump ship and follow those who either cannot or will not see the evidence...
Something stinks in the area of new "bibles" on the market today and most of the so-called "translating" being done to produce them, and I'm not trusting anyone who tells me that it's all in the name of arriving at a better one.

This is my final reply in this thread...


May God, in His grace, bless each and every one of us abundantly.

 

[Logos1560]

Again, if one is concerned with every word, then any deviation should be alarming or suspect.
There is no such thing as a "major" or "minor" doctrine, if one cares about each and every word of God.

Are you alarmed concerning all the many deviations of the 1611 KJV from the Bishops' Bible?

According to the rules given the KJV translators, the KJV was officially a revision of this Bishops' Bible. Backus noted that the KJV translators "were issued with forty-two copies of the Bishops' Bible, printed in folio by Robert Barker in 1602" (Reformed Roots, p. 28). Several sources state that it was forty copies. These copies were unbound so that portions could be passed back and forth. One of these copies with annotations made by the KJV translators themselves has been found. Thus, the KJV is more closely connected to the Bishops’ than to any of the other earlier good English Bibles. David Norton affirmed that “the KJB of 1611 reproduces peculiarities of the Bishops’ Bible, some of which are found only in the 1602 printing” (Textual History, p. 35). In his introduction to a reprint of the 1611, Pollard pointed out that the 1611's N. T. has a separate title-page with a woodcut previously used in editions of the Bishops' Bible (p. 33). In spite of this close connection, some KJV defenders seem to want to overlook or ignore the Bishops' Bible.

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 following examples should support and confirm the above statements. Some of the additions may have first been added in the Great Bible or another earlier English Bible.

The Bishops’ Bible added the words “in companies” at Genesis 14:15. It added: “shall he bear out“ (Lev. 4:11), “of the altar“ (Num. 18:9), “Ye shall number the people“ (Num. 26:4), “That is to wit“ (Num. 31:43), and “as upon an horse“ (Deut. 32:26) Some other example additions include the following: “otherwise called“ (Jud. 8:35), “so shall my house be, but not“ (2 Sam. 23:4), “as namely” (1 Kings 6:29), “that is to wit” (1 Kings 9:10), “offence which Solomon hath committed“ (1 Kings 11:39), “with your cry” (1 Kings 18:27), “that came in his way” (1 Kings 20:20), “in the ceremonies“ (2 Kings 17:8), “I beseech thee” (2 Kings 19:16), “O thou king of Assyria“ (2 Kings 19:21), “even so deal with me“ (2 Chron. 2:3), and “shall this building be“ (2 Chron. 2:6). At the end of Job 9:24, it added: “that can shew the contrary.“ It added “to God” at Job 35:14. In the middle of Psalm 139:20, this addition is found: “thou art O God.“ At the end of Isaiah 1:7, it added: “in the time of war.“ After the word “replenish” at Isaiah 2:6, it added “with evils,“ and it added “the wicked ones of” before “the earth” at the end of Isaiah 2:19 and 2:21. In the middle of Isaiah 3:14, this addition is found: “and shall say to them.“ These words are found in a different size type at the end of Isaiah 3:18: “after the fashion of the moon.“ In the middle of Isaiah 8:19, these additional words are found: “then make them this answer.“ At the beginning of Jeremiah 4:22, it added: “Nevertheless, this shall come upon them.“ At Jeremiah 28:9, it has this addition: “if God hath sent them in very deed.“ It added “when ye had gotten the victory” at the end of Jeremiah 50:11. At the end of Jeremiah 50:28, it added “yea, a voice of them that cry against Babylon.“ At Ezekiel 28:14, it added this phrase: “in this dignity.“ The words “their sacrifices” were added at the end of Ezekiel 40:41. At Ezekiel 45:2, the Bishops’ Bible has the following two additions in a different size type: “in length” and “in breadth.” This chapter has another addition [“a portion shall be” (45:7)]. At the beginning of Daniel 7:20, six words were added [“I desired …to know the truth”]. After “Loruhamah” in Hosea 1:6, it added: “that is, not obtaining mercy.“ Likewise, it added after “Loammi” in Hosea 1:9: “that is, not my people.“ More Old Testament examples could be given.

More such examples of possible additions are also found in its New Testament. Would Bradley, Riplinger, and other KJV-only advocates consider the Bishops' Bible's addition at John 18:13 ["And Annas sent Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest"] to be a faithful or perfect translation? At John 18:22, the Bishops' Bible has the rendering "smote Jesus with a rod." The Bishops’ Bible inserted “the fishers” at Matthew 13:48. At Matthew 26:30, the Bishops’ began as follows: "when they had praised God." After “preparing” at John 19:31, it inserted “of the Sabboth.“ It added "of the synagogue" in italics or a different size type at Matthew 9:18 and 9:23, "of God" at Matthew 26:64, "of the gospel" at Mark 2:2, “from the region which is“ at Mark 3:8, “at his feet“ at Mark 3:11 and Luke 8:47, “And said“ at Mark 10:7, “of God“ at Mark 14:62, “of the city“ at Mark 15:43, “unto them“ at Luke 8:10, “of their sins” at Luke 10:13, “at the doors“ at Luke 14:35, “and no man gave unto him“ at Luke 16:21, “the means“ at John 5:16, “the means“ at John 6:57, “as though he heard them not” at John 8:6, “on high“ at John 8:28, “unto you“ at John 16:15, “any question“ at John 16:30, “unto them“ at Acts 2:41, “unto him“ at Acts 8:37, “one Scripture with another“ at Acts 9:22, “that is“ at Acts 15:22, “that is to say“ at Acts 15:29, “of the Lord“ at Acts 19:9, “that is to say“ at Acts 28:25, “the inheritance given“ at Romans 4:16, “election“ at Romans 9:16, “I mean“ at Romans 9:24, “nations“ at Romans 11:32, “not only before God, but also“ at Romans 12:17, "I did not mean" at 1 Corinthians 5:10, and “the shedding of“ at Hebrews 12:4. At the end of 1 Corinthians 9:25, it added “to obtain” before “an incorruptible” and “crown” after it. At the end of Revelation 9:11, it added “that is to say, a destroyer.“

 

[Logos1560]

.
There is no comprehensive Greek apparatus today that reflects the findings of all 5,000+ manuscripts, uncials, papyrii and others bits and pieces.

Thanks for admitting that the claim that the KJV is supported by over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts has not been demonstrated to be factually correct.

The twenty to thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus editions were likely based on an imperfect collation of less than 50 Greek manuscripts along with some readings added from the Latin Vulgate by Erasmus. Some textual conjectures introduced by Erasmus or Beza and which are found in no known Greek NT manuscripts may be found in TR editions.

 

[Logos1560]

Every word of God is important ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

Again, if one is concerned with every word, then any deviation should be alarming or suspect.
There is no such thing as a "major" or "minor" doctrine, if one cares about each and every word of God.

However, if changes in God's words do not concern you, or you're not upset with God's very words being man-handled by people who call themselves "scholars" and are not even saved, then by all means dismiss the differences and variations in "bibles" and Greek texts today, sir.

Dave Brunn maintained that the Textus Receptus has 248 words in sixteen verses (Matthew 1:1-16) and that "the KJV subtracted 22 words" since it has only 226 words (One Bible, Many Versions, pp. 82-83).

Dave Brunn asserted that "no English version is a consistent word-for-word representation of the original" ((p. 83).

 

[MartyF]

I feel that I am fully informed about the facts regarding this issue, having studied it for some years now.
There is nothing on either side that I believe I have not considered.

It’s settled then. Everyone must bow to the will of Dave Gilbert.

When those whose only reason for supporting the mess ( that is the current state of affairs with regard to English translations of the Bible ) can admit that their facts and reasoning leads to no solution or eventual standard that we can all use together, then we can start to resolve the mess.

You make the assumption that Christians believe a plethora of Bible translations is a “mess”. Most would disagree with you.

 

[Logos1560]

I feel that I am fully informed about the facts regarding this issue, having studied it for some years now.
There is nothing on either side that I believe I have not considered.

For now, I see no reason to jump ship and follow those who either cannot or will not see the evidence...

Perhaps you could be one who either cannot or will not see all the evidence evaluated by use of consistent, sound, just measures/standards applied justly. You seem to think that you know it all and could not learn anything else.

What evidence do you try to claim that I do not see? I have read carefully as many KJV-only books as I can find, well over 100, and they do not prove a modern, non-scriptural KJV-only theory to be true.

 

[John of Japan]

The extra Biblical detail is not found elsewhere in the written word.

Okay....

 

[John of Japan]

There is no such thing as a "minor doctrine".

Oh, really? So snake handling and poison drinking are major doctrines? And whether or not foot-washing is a valid ordinance is as major as the deity of Christ? No way.

Every word of God is important ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).

Well of course. I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the originals of the Bible.

Again, if one is concerned with every word, then any deviation should be alarming or suspect.
There is no such thing as a "major" or "minor" doctrine, if one cares about each and every word of God.

I disagree. I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture, and I care about "each and every word of God," but I say there is such a thing as a major doctrine and a minor doctrine. I could give many illustrations (and gave one above), but I'll just give one: If you believe the doctrine of the Antichrist is as important as the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord, you are as wrong as you can possibly be.

However, if changes in God's words do not concern you, or you're not upset with God's very words being man-handled by people who call themselves "scholars" and are not even saved, then by all means dismiss the differences and variations in "bibles" and Greek texts today, sir.

Your statement here has no connection with anything I have said on this thread or anything I believe or teach.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, they are not.

They are purposefully focused on the collated "Critical Text" and its variants, which, in reality, is only concerned with roughly 2% of the existing manuscripts.
There is no comprehensive Greek apparatus today that reflects the findings of all 5,000+ manuscripts, uncials, papyrii and others bits and pieces.

The closest anyone has ever come to a complete, comprehensive and far-reaching Greek text of the New Testament is Hodges and Farstadt's collation of some 100 manuscript pieces, that is commonly called, the "Majority Text" and is reflected, I believe, in Young's Literal Translation.

That Majority text would be superior to the TR one!

 

[Yeshua1]

Dave Brunn maintained that the Textus Receptus has 248 words in sixteen verses (Matthew 1:1-16) and that "the KJV subtracted 22 words" since it has only 226 words (One Bible, Many Versions, pp. 82-83).

Dave Brunn asserted that "no English version is a consistent word-for-word representation of the original" ((p. 83).

The claim is made by KJVO over and over that MV subtract from the actual word of God, so is now Kjv shown to have done the same here?

 

[Yeshua1]

You may wish to look at the facts and figures again.

The CT is in agreement with the TR and MT far less than the other two agree with each other, because of their manuscript base.

Yes, but even the Ct Agrees FAR more with the other 2 than disagrees with them!