Preservation: over 2000 missing words in KJV's NT?

[rlvaughn]

Perhaps, but most KJV-only advocates who use the term "word-for-word" translation do not clearly explain what they mean.

Do you imply that only KJV-only advocates and no others use the term "word-for-word" translation without clearly explaining what they mean?

KJV-only author H. D. Williams gave the following definition of word-for-word translating: “rendering a word or words in a receptor language the same as in a source-language” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. xx). H. D. Williams asserted: “Literal word-for-word translating is translating words in the source language for words in the receptor language so far as the syntax of the receptor-language will allow” (p. 4).

From something I have read elsewhere about his book, I understand that Williams is extreme in his views about translation. Even so, when he admits "so far as the syntax of the receptor-language will allow," ultimately he gives up on exact one word for one word correspondence, exact grammar for grammar correspondence, etc. (and that, rightly so).

 

[rlvaughn]

In a link posted by Salty in another thread, the God's Word Translation uses Word-for-Word (and Thought-for-Thought) in a negative sense, and positions their own translation as the only one that hits the sweet spot -- Meaning-for-Meaning or Closest Natural Equivalence.

 

[Conan]

In a link posted by Salty in another thread, the God's Word Translation uses Word-for-Word (and Thought-for-Thought) in a negative sense, and positions their own translation as the only one that hits the sweet spot -- Meaning-for-Meaning or Closest Natural Equivalence.

"Christian advertizing".

 

[Yeshua1]

"Christian advertizing".

Well, did work for the NKJV, as in Optimal translation!

 

[Logos1560]

From something I have read elsewhere about his book, I understand that Williams is extreme in his views about translation. .

D. A. Waite is listed as the editor of H. D. William's book Word-For-Word Translating of The Received Texts--Verbal Plenary Translating, and it is published by Waite's The Bible for Today Press. He may be extreme, but he may not be any more extreme than Waite.

At times Waite makes some reasonable assertions but at other times he makes some extreme unreasonable assertions.

 

[Yeshua1]

D. A. Waite is listed as the editor of H. D. William's book Word-For-Word Translating of The Received Texts--Verbal Plenary Translating, and it is published by Waite's The Bible for Today Press. He may be extreme, but he may not be any more extreme than Waite.

At times Waite makes some reasonable assertions but at other times he makes some extreme unreasonable assertions.

He, along with other KJVO, seem to want to seem more reasonable to those of us not in their camp at times, but their agenda is still pretty much we have the perfect Greek text and English translation!

 

[rlvaughn]

Well, did work for the NKJV, as in Optimal translation!

I remember Broadman & Holman using "optimal" to describe the CSB. Interestingly, the GW Translation link sticks the CSB in Thought-for-Thought or Functional Equivalence.

The CSB was created using optimal equivalence, a translation philosophy that pursues both linguistic precision to the original languages and readability in contemporary English. We believe that you don’t have to choose between faithfulness to the original text and clarity. The CSB text has been proven to optimize both, making it ideal for preaching and study, and for sharing with others. From the CSB Website

 

[atpollard]

I FOUND ONE OF THEM!

It was "of".
I put it back, so now there are only 1,999 missing words.

 

[rlvaughn]

He may be extreme, but he may not be any more extreme than Waite.

For my comment, I would distinguish between his personally being extreme and being extreme in his views about translation, which is all I had in mind. I know nothing about H. D. Williams, and have not read his book. I am solely going off what someone else wrote (someone who would be pro-KJV, or at least pro-TR, but moves in a world of two languages).

 

[Yeshua1]

I stated: Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations.



Those who attempt to claim or suggest that the KJV preserves every one of God's words do not attest to that fact.

They seem to try to mislead and deceive others into believing claims that are not true.

Do those who suggest that the KJV is the preserved words of God attest to that fact?

Since the Kjv 1611 translators admitted that they added words not found in Greek, were they preserved and inspired?

 

[atpollard]

Since the Kjv 1611 translators admitted that they added words not found in Greek, were they preserved and inspired?

Every translator adds words not found in the Greek ... isn't that what makes it a translation?

One could attempt a transliteration of Greek to English, but I suspect many words have no direct equivalent.

John 3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

John 3:16 so for loved the God the world that the Son his only (he)gave that every he believes in Him not (he)destroy but have life perpetual.

Is that what we really want?
I don't.

 

[Yeshua1]

Every translator adds words not found in the Greek ... isn't that what makes it a translation?

One could attempt a transliteration of Greek to English, but I suspect many words have no direct equivalent.

John 3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

John 3:16 so for loved the God the world that the Son his only (he)gave that every he believes in Him not (he)destroy but have life perpetual.

Is that what we really want?
I don't.

We could all just either read and use the Greek NT, or else Interlinear, based upon logic of the KJVO!

 

[Logos1560]

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 29:1

Then Jacob lift up his feet [1534 Tyndale’s; 1537 Matthew’s Bible, 1540 Great Bible]
Then Jacob gat him up upon his feet [1535 Coverdale’s]
Then Jaakob lift up his feet [1560 Geneva Bible]
Then Jacob went on his journey [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. lift up his feet”]
And Jacob lifteth up his feet [YLT]
And Jacob lifted his feet [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

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 32:20

accept of me [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. my face”]
lifteth up my face [YLT]
will lift me my face [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]

 

[Logos1560]

D. A. Waite maintained that the KJV “preserves all of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Bible by means of an accurate English translation of those Words” (Fundamental Deception of Bible Preservation, p. 75). Waite asserted: “In our King James Bible, we have God’s Words kept intact in English because of its accurate translation of the verbal plenary preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie it” (p. 130). Waite maintained that “the King James Bible does not add, subtract, or change God’s Words” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 26). Waite claimed that “the King James accurately translates every Hebrew and Greek Word into the English language” (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 39). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible ‘preserves’ (with a small ‘p’) by means of an accurate translation into the English language, every word of the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie it” (p. 98). Waite maintained that “the King James translators adopted a method of verbal equivalence; and formal equivalence, that is, the words from the Greek or Hebrew were rendered as closely as possible into the English. The same is true for the forms of those words” (Defending the KJB, p. 90).

By the technique of dynamic equivalence, D. A. Waite claimed that a translator “can choose to eliminate what God has explicitly and definitely stated, word for word, in the Hebrew or in the Greek” and that “this word, or that word, or several words if he wants to, he need not bother to translate, or put into the language” (p. 122). Waite asserted: “If you ADD to the Word of God what you think is implicit in the words, that is disobedience” (p. 124).

Does Waite possibly ignore or avoid the fact that in some place the KJV translators did not bother to translate or put into English some original-language words of Scripture?

 

[Yeshua1]

D. A. Waite maintained that the KJV “preserves all of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Bible by means of an accurate English translation of those Words” (Fundamental Deception of Bible Preservation, p. 75). Waite asserted: “In our King James Bible, we have God’s Words kept intact in English because of its accurate translation of the verbal plenary preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie it” (p. 130). Waite maintained that “the King James Bible does not add, subtract, or change God’s Words” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 26). Waite claimed that “the King James accurately translates every Hebrew and Greek Word into the English language” (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 39). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible ‘preserves’ (with a small ‘p’) by means of an accurate translation into the English language, every word of the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie it” (p. 98). Waite maintained that “the King James translators adopted a method of verbal equivalence; and formal equivalence, that is, the words from the Greek or Hebrew were rendered as closely as possible into the English. The same is true for the forms of those words” (Defending the KJB, p. 90).

By the technique of dynamic equivalence, D. A. Waite claimed that a translator “can choose to eliminate what God has explicitly and definitely stated, word for word, in the Hebrew or in the Greek” and that “this word, or that word, or several words if he wants to, he need not bother to translate, or put into the language” (p. 122). Waite asserted: “If you ADD to the Word of God what you think is implicit in the words, that is disobedience” (p. 124).

Does Waite possibly ignore or avoid the fact that in some place the KJV translators did not bother to translate or put into English some original-language words of Scripture?

This seems to be what allows some of them to actually see the Kjv as being authority over the original languages themselves!

 

[Logos1560]

Michael Hollner wrote: "The A. V. of God's Word holds nothing back, nor does it omit any of God's Words" (King James Only Debate, p. 5, 2021 edition).

Does this author try to dodge and avoid what the KJV translators acknowledged--that they did not provide any English rendering for some original-language words of Scripture in their underlying text so they in effect did omit some of God's words?

 

[rlvaughn]

KJV-only author H. D. Williams gave the following definition of word-for-word translating: “rendering a word or words in a receptor language the same as in a source-language” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. xx). H. D. Williams asserted: “Literal word-for-word translating is translating words in the source language for words in the receptor language so far as the syntax of the receptor-language will allow” (p. 4).

If my source is correct (I do not have his book), a larger excerpt of what you quote is:

DE theorists mistakenly think that word-for-word translating is only one word for one word and only one class of words (nouns, verbs, pronouns, etc.) for one class of words. Although the primary attempt should be one word for one word or one class for one class, the syntax of language determines the final disposition of translating.

Nothing could be further from the truth than the accusation by modern language theorists that word-for-word translating is rigid. Rather, it is militancy for accurate and faithful translation of His words! Literal word-for-word translating is translating words in the source language for words in the receptor language so far as the syntax of the receptor-language will allow. (Word-for-Word Translating of the Received Texts, p. 4)

 

[Logos1560]

Do you imply that only KJV-only advocates and no others use the term "word-for-word" translation without clearly explaining what they mean?

No, that is clearly not what my accurate statement said.

Most KJV-only advocates who use the term "word-for-word" translation do not clearly explain what they mean. I have read most KJV-only authors so I know what most of them write.

 

[rlvaughn]

No, that is clearly not what my accurate statement said.

You did not mention others, hence the question. But now I understand you agree others do it as well. Thanks.