MUST we have only one text?

[franklinmonroe]

Take Gal. 3:16 for example. If one version of the Bible claims that God's promises to Abraham were to Abraham and his descendants and another version claims God's promises were to Abraham only in his one Seed, the Lord Jesus Christ, it is not likely that both can be right. Those promises in Genesis in modern versions should be reviewed for accuracy.

Welcome to the BB, marke.

Since you brought this up, can you explain to me why Paul makes his argument based upon the case number (singularity or plurality) of the word "seed"?

The Hebrew word used in Genesis with Abram is zera' (Strong's #2233) and in the 220+ times it occurs in the KJV it is never translated as "seeds" (that is, with 's' as the last letter) even when the context would indicate that the word "seed" could be representing a plural. Take these verses for examples (KJV) --

And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, [then] shall thy seed also be numbered. (Gen. 13:16)

And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. (Gen. 15:5)

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (Gen. 17:9)​

Do not the words in these verses like "numbered", "number them", and "their generations" imply a multitude of seeds? The comparisons to the dust and the stars doesn't make much sense if there is only one seed; and there wouldn't be much point in the numbering of it (rather than "them") if there was merely one seed. Certainly in the KJV translation, the word "seed" seems to mean more than one seed. One dictionary states that the English noun 'SEED' can be defined as "Seeds considered as a group".

[Help requested: Can some one confirm the singular case of zera' in the above Hebrew texts?]

 

[Winman]

Let's use another analogy that a professional photographer friend uses-

Once upon a time a photographer was invited to have dinner at the home of a nice couple. During dinner the wife comments to the photographer “Your pictures are beautiful. You must have a great camera.” The photographer nods politely.

After finishing dinner the photographer comments to the wife “That was a fine meal. You must have some great pots!

What you are arguing is that the power is not in God's word, but the preacher. I disagree with this.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The scriptures declare themselves alive and powerful.

One of the most powerful sermons I ever heard was by an Indian preacher who could barely speak English. He very simply presented the Word of God from the Bible. I will never forget that sermon, I was literally brought to tears.

And I don't know about cooks, but I am a musician, and your instrument makes a huge difference. You are not going to sound as good playing a $100 beginners guitar through a cheap solid state beginners amp as you will with a $3000 Les Paul through a Marshall Plexi. No way.

 

[Rippon]

The KJV is a translation and, as such, shows evidence of translational difficulties common to translations.

The textus receptus, however, is not a translation and is the most accurate of all english translations

You had just said that ithe TR is not a translation --then you say it is the most accurate of all English translations. Strange,it's written in Greek.

The KJV stands alone among most of its peers

If it "stands alone" then it is not "among most its peers."

in exact adherence to the TR, evidenced, by one example, with the use of italicized words.

The use of italics was limited in the 1611. The usage of italics increased as time went along. Who is right?

What do you say about the times when the TR is not based upon any Greek mss?

 

[Logos1560]

I am glad you pointed out #2, you are absolutely correct that the KJB was not translated from any TR text known today, and that text has been lost (I believe it was destroyed in a fire if I remember correctly).

.

The printed editions of the Textus Receptus that were available to the KJV translators are not lost. The KJV did not translate or follow any one edition 100% of the time, but that is not evidence that those editions are not known.

What was lost and may have been destroyed in a London fire is the original manuscript for the text or the printed edition of the Bishops' Bible with the handwritten changes made by the KJV translators that was used for the printing of the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

#2- The KJV was not translated from any TR that exists today. The texts the KJV was translated from are lost to history.

.

It is true that the KJV was not translated 100% from any one edition of the Textus Receptus that was available to them. The KJV is based on more than one edition. Since the KJV is actually more of a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles than a new translation, some of the places where the KJV does not follow any one edition may actually come from the KJV translators following English renderings in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles that was translated from a different edition of the Textus Receptus than the 1598 Beza edition that the KJV translators usually followed.

It is incorrect to suggest that those all those editions of the Textus Receptus that were available to them are lost to history. I do not know that any of those editions that were in print in that day are actually lost to history. Scrivener was able to compile his 1800's edition from those printed editions. I have reprints of a couple of the TR editions that were available to the KJV translators. Some scholars have examined the TR editions that were available to the KJV translators, which is why they could state that the KJV translators did not follow one or the other in certain places.

 

[marke]

Welcome to the BB, marke.
Since you brought this up, can you explain to me why Paul makes his argument based upon the case number (singularity or plurality) of the word "seed"?
The Hebrew word used in Genesis with Abram is zera' (Strong's #2233) and in the 220+ times it occurs in the KJV it is never translated as "seeds" (that is, with 's' as the last letter) even when the context would indicate that the word "seed" could be representing a plural. Take these verses for examples (KJV) --

And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, [then] shall thy seed also be numbered. (Gen. 13:16)
And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. (Gen. 15:5)
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (Gen. 17:9)​

Do not the words in these verses like "numbered", "number them", and "their generations" imply a multitude of seeds? The comparisons to the dust and the stars doesn't make much sense if there is only one seed; and there wouldn't be much point in the numbering of it (rather than "them") if there was merely one seed. Certainly in the KJV translation, the word "seed" seems to mean more than one seed. One dictionary states that the English noun 'SEED' can be defined as "Seeds considered as a group".
[Help requested: Can some one confirm the singular case of zera' in the above Hebrew texts?]

It might help if we make an important observation here at the outset before proceeding. The Bible makes the claim that it is the Word of God in written form. In Rev. 22 we are clearly warned that God will curse anyone monkeying with His written word, by taking away or adding or editing words or passages, for example. The reason the KJV translators italicized many words can be traced right back here to Rev. 22, a fact I admire about the KJV translators.

Having said that, let me say that God said He did not use the plural word "seeds" when making His promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:16), but specifically chose the singular word "seed" for one reason. God never promised to bless the earthly children of Abraham at all, apart from their adoption into the family of God in Christ Jesus by the faith of God. Jesus told some Jews once that they only thought they were God's children when in fact they were the children of the devil. Here is the key: The seed of the devil in Gen. 3 is composed of all the wicked people born in Adam's sin, while the seed of the woman is Jesus Christ, the virgin-born Son of God. You get out of the devil's family by being born by faith into God's family.

Modern translations which do not make the clear distinctions between the singular and the plural "seed" in God's blessings upon Abraham and all nations of the earth (recorded several times in Genesis), are guilty (unwittingly or otherwise) of removing the key element in the promise, The Lord Jesus Christ, without Whom there is no promise of blessing to anyone anywhere.

 

[Logos1560]

inconsistencies in KJV's italics

In Rev. 22 we are clearly warned that God will curse anyone monkeying with His written word, by taking away or adding or editing words or passages, for example. The reason the KJV translators italicized many words can be traced right back here to Rev. 22, a fact I admire about the KJV translators.

.

Many of the italicized words in present KJV editions were not italicized by the KJV translators themselves. The KJV translators failed to put in italics many words that they added. Later editors in the 1638 Cambridge, in the 1743 or 1762 Cambridge, in the 1769 Oxford introduced much of the italics found in present KJV editions, and those uses are still inconsistent in some cases.

For example, the 1769 Oxford removed proper use of italics at Proverbs 9:8 that should have been kept just as it was at Proverbs 9:9.

Proverbs 9:8 [see also wise man at Prov. 9:9]
wise man (1679, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1873 Cambridge] {1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1722, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
wise man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Again at Isaiah 29:8, the 1769 Oxford introduced an inconsistency in the use of italics.

Isaiah 29:8 [compare hungry man in this same verse]
thirsty man (1679, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1804 Oxford) [1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1660, 1711, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772, 1879 London} (1722, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1846 Portland) (1854 Harding) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (1842 Bernard)
thirsty man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

At Luke 10:30, "man" was incorrectly put in italics in the 1743 Cambridge and in the 1769 Oxford when there was a Greek word for man in the text.

Luke 10:30 [see Luke 14:2] [Greek word for man--anthropos in text]
A certain man (1675, 1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1928 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1873, 2005 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1672, 1711, 1795 London} (1638, 1722, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
A certain man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Winman]

The fact that there are errors and inconsistences using italicized words in the KJB does not bother me, it is actually to be expected, especially in the past when printing was extremely laborious and primitive. What is important is that the KJB translators showed they had added words to clarify the translation. It's not like I take a marker and blot out the italicized words and try to read my Bible like that.

The only thing you demonstrate with your posts is how much you hate the KJB.

 

[Rippon]

The fact that there are errors and inconsistences [sic]using italicized words in the KJB does not bother me, it is actually to be expected, especially in the past when printing was extremely laborious and primitive.

What is important is that the KJB translators showed they had added words to clarify the translation.

But the point is,the KJV revisers did not show all the words they added. And now,even though a lot more words have been italicized,all added words are not shown.

The only thing you demonstrate with your posts is how much you hate the KJB.

He has always labored to demonstrate facts. And those facts often run counter to the views of KJVO folks.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What you are arguing is that the power is not in God's word, but the preacher. I disagree with this.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The scriptures declare themselves alive and powerful.

You misunderstand me. The power is not the Preacher or the Book but the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mexdeaf]

It is true that the KJV was not translated 100% from any one edition of the Textus Receptus that was available to them. The KJV is based on more than one edition. Since the KJV is actually more of a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles than a new translation, some of the places where the KJV does not follow any one edition may actually come from the KJV translators following English renderings in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles that was translated from a different edition of the Textus Receptus than the 1598 Beza edition that the KJV translators usually followed.

It is incorrect to suggest that those all those editions of the Textus Receptus that were available to them are lost to history. I do not know that any of those editions that were in print in that day are actually lost to history. Scrivener was able to compile his 1800's edition from those printed editions. I have reprints of a couple of the TR editions that were available to the KJV translators. Some scholars have examined the TR editions that were available to the KJV translators, which is why they could state that the KJV translators did not follow one or the other in certain places.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Logos1560]

The fact that there are errors and inconsistences using italicized words in the KJB does not bother me, it is actually to be expected, especially in the past when printing was extremely laborious and primitive. What is important is that the KJB translators showed they had added words to clarify the translation.

The only thing you demonstrate with your posts is how much you hate the KJB.

Your accusation is false. Perhaps you jump to hasty and wrong conclusions based on your KJV-only assumptions, speculations, or opinions. I do not hate the KJV. How is attempting to provide accurate information about the KJV supposedly evidence of hatred towards it? Disagreeing with the modern KJV-only view that is not stated in the Scriptures also does not suggest that believers hate the KJV. It seems that KJV-only advocates often want to close their eyes to the truth as they throw out accusations against believers who disagree with KJV-onlyism.

The fact remains that the KJV translators did not always show where they added words to clarify the translation. As already pointed out, later editors added much of the italics that you see in present KJV editions.

 

[JesusFan]

Your experience or mysticism is not firm biblical evidence concerning faith.

A mystical view of translation would be one that claims that a translation is inspired when or if the reader or hearer feels or experiences something from reading or hearing it. A mystical view of translation would seem to reside in the individual reader or hearer's opinion of the particular translation that he is reading or hearing. Such a view implies that a translation is not the true Word of God if the reader or hearer is not moved by it.


A mystical view of translation is similar to the mystical view of inspiration. KJV-only author Wally Beebe described and condemned this mystical view. He noted that the neo-orthodox say: "Only what speaks to me is the real Word of God." He added: "I don't believe that, and I know of no one who is a fundamentalist who does" (Church Bus News, Oct.-Dec., 1997, p. 3). KJV-only author Robert Sargent pointed out: "Theology based upon such a view of inspiration can only be emotive and mystical and again makes man the authority" (English Bible, p. 27). Robert Barnett also stated: "We are quick to spot the error of Neo-orthodoxy for saying the Bible is only the Word of God when the Holy Spirit subjectively applies the Word to our hearts" (Word of God on Trial, p. 24). Barnett also wrote: "Neo-orthodoxy would say that the Bible is only the Word of God when an individual experiences the Word through the work of the Holy Spirit" (Ibid., p. 37). The mystical view has also been called "flash" inspiration.

David Norris observed: “The Bible does not mean what it means to me, it means what God gave it to mean quite apart from me” (Big Picture, p. 236). In mysticism, he noted that “authority is determined subjectively by the reader and not by God” (p. 256).


While KJV-only advocates correctly reject the mystical view of inspiration, do they as strongly condemn a mystical view of translation? A mystical view of translation also makes man or his experience the authority. Do not some of the statements of some KJV-only advocates imply that they only acknowledge as from God the one translation that touches their own hearts? Since they believe that no modern English translation can deliver God's Word to their hearts, their self-fulfilling mystical predication comes true.

Gail Riplinger announced: "The KJV is the Bible through which God speaks to me" (Language of the KJB, p. xviii). Mickey Carter wrote: "The King James Version has the awe of the Holy Spirit on it" (Things That Are Different, p. 92). William Grady claimed: "These counterfeit Bibles were void of Holy Spirit endorsement" (Final Authority, p. 277. Hugh Pyle stated: "The new versions leave me cold. I've tried to read some of them and there's something missing--the vitality, the life, the warmth, the power just isn't there" (Church Bus News, Oct.-Dec., 1995, p. 18). Waite also contended: "Many of these new versions do not even sound like the 'Bible' to those of us who love the King James Bible" (Burgon's Confidence in the KJB, p. 16). Paisley contended: "The very expression of the truths of the Bible in the Authorized Version carry with them their own intrinsic power and godliness" (Plea, p. 96). Bruce Cummons claimed: "I believe the Bible to be the Authorized Version or the King James Version. If I had no evidence at all, I would still believe it, because of the way it speaks to my heart" (Foundation, p. 46).


Another author seems to use this same mystical argument to support the use of the Douay-Rheims. Thomas A. Nelson wrote: “Personally speaking, this writer has been reading the Douay-Rheims Bible for over 30 years and can attest that it literally bristles with meaning, that it is replete, verse after verse, with wonderful shades and nuances of meaning, such that no human being could possibly have written without being aided by Almighty God“ (Which Bible, p. 5). Nelson also claimed: “This writer has never experienced anything similar while reading any other version. In comparison, all other versions seem prosaic and flat” (p. 5).

So the view of KJVO on this regarding viewing the word of God subjectively appears to be a liitle karl barth, with a dash of ole charasmatic "wisdom/revelation" mixed into the soup?

 

[Winman]

Your accusation is false. Perhaps you jump to hasty and wrong conclusions based on your KJV-only assumptions, speculations, or opinions. I do not hate the KJV. How is attempting to provide accurate information about the KJV supposedly evidence of hatred towards it? Disagreeing with the modern KJV-only view that is not stated in the Scriptures also does not suggest that believers hate the KJV. It seems that KJV-only advocates often want to close their eyes to the truth as they throw out accusations against believers who disagree with KJV-onlyism.

The fact remains that the KJV translators did not always show where they added words to clarify the translation. As already pointed out, later editors added much of the italics that you see in present KJV editions.

Going through every publication of the KJB looking for errors is nothing but nit-picking and looking for fault. The KJB was printed by printers, not the translators. It is a massive volume of work and folks make errors. Sometimes it took years to even spot an error and correct it. This was especially common in the early years of printing, and is not unusual at all.

 

[Winman]

So the view of KJVO on this regarding viewing the word of God subjectively appears to be a liitle karl barth, with a dash of ole charasmatic "wisdom/revelation" mixed into the soup?

And I would say that if the scriptures do not speak to your heart and conscience there is a problem. The word of God declares itself quick and powerful and able to pierce the heart and soul. Read in Acts 2:37 where it says the Jews who heard Peter's preaching were "pricked in their heart". Read Acts 7:54 where the Jews were "cut to the heart" when they heard Stephen preach. Read Jn 8:9 where the men who brought the woman caught in adultery were "convicted by their own conscience" when they heard Jesus's words.

If your Bible does not speak to you this way, maybe you need to get another one.

 

[marke]

You had just said that ithe TR is not a translation --then you say it is the most accurate of all English translations. Strange,it's written in Greek.

What I meant to say is that I understand the Textus Receptus is a compilation of all extant manuscripts at the time of the KJV translation, including copies of the originals as well as other translations. The KJV was translated into English from the TR.

If it "stands alone" then it is not "among most its peers."

The KJV is the most accurate of all English translations.

The use of italics was limited in the 1611. The usage of italics increased as time went along. Who is right?

Whoever understood the need to be extremely careful to not add or take away even one piece of one word of the original word of God.

What do you say about the times when the TR is not based upon any Greek mss?

If the KJV translators judged a particular reading to be suspect, then I believe they had good reason. I am glad they sorted all of those things out back then so modern Christians are not stuck with the task. I don't trust the modern textual critic crowd who think they know it all and who give us all these conflicting multiplied opinions of what is the best reading of what manuscript and all that junk. There are so many of these critics and their opinions are so different that we'd never know what God said if we didn't already have the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

I don't trust the modern textual critic crowd who think they know it all and who give us all these conflicting multiplied opinions of what is the best reading of what manuscript and all that junk. .

Where is the documented evidence for your assertion that modern textual critics think that they know it all?

It would seem that KJV-only advocates assume that the KJV translators were infallible textual critics who knew it all. On what consistent basis do you suggest that Church of England scholars in 1611 [who actually believed some incorrect Church of England doctrinal views and who persecuted believers for their faith] should be trusted completely in their textual decisions and in their interpreting/translating decisions?

 

[Logos1560]

And I would say that if the scriptures do not speak to your heart and conscience there is a problem.

If your Bible does not speak to you this way, maybe you need to get another one.

You miss the point. It was not suggested that the Scriptures cannot speak to people's hearts.

KJV-only posters implied that their personal, subjective experience or feelings should be considered a proof for their claims for the KJV when experience is not the proper standard for determining truth.

God speaks to the hearts of believers who read many translations of the Scriptures whether the 1560 Geneva Bible, the KJV, the NKJV, or some other translation.

 

[DiamondLady]

Where is the documented evidence for your assertion that modern textual critics think that they know it all?

It would seem that KJV-only advocates assume that the KJV translators were infallible textual critics who knew it all. On what consistent basis do you suggest that Church of England scholars in 1611 [who actually believed some incorrect Church of England doctrinal views and who persecuted believers for their faith] should be trusted completely in their textual decisions and in their interpreting/translating decisions?

Individually, no they were not infallible. If you understood the careful process used, the length of time they took, the research and time the education of the scholars, ....then yes, I believe the KJV is an accurate translation. No modern translation used the same level of process, scholars, time, research or come even close to the KJV.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Individually, no they were not infallible. If you understood the careful process used, the length of time they took, the research and time the education of the scholars, ....then yes, I believe the KJV is an accurate translation. No modern translation used the same level of process, scholars, time, research or come even close to the KJV.

Nor were they infallible as a group. Perhaps with modern technology there is no need for taking that length of time to produce a translation of equal quality to the KJV. Of course, "quality" lies in the eye of the beholder.