Problems In The KJV

[Rippon]

Rippon, what I think is that people are getting tired of your endless posts on this! Can you not read the replies on this thread?

This forum is intended for comparing and contrasting Bible versions and translations. That's what I am doing.

If you are not interested in this thread, then why even post here? If I am not intersted in a thread --I don't participate. That's simple. You need to use some common sense.

 

[Logos1560]

2 Peter 1:1

William Tyndale got it right in places where the KJV revisers chose their own rendering.


2 Peter 1:1
T : of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (same as NIV and MV's)
K : of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Several early English Bibles and many modern translations clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534 and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." The Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, Bishops', Haak’s 1657 English translation of the Dutch Bible, Wesley's, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, NKJV, Majority Text Interlinear, and many other translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." James White maintained that this is the proper translation of the Greek according to the Granville Sharp's rule (King James Only Controversy, p. 268). Granville Sharp (1735-1813) cited 2 Peter 1:1 as his first example “of sentences which fall under the first rule, and are improperly rendered in the English version [KJV]“ (Remarks, p. 20). Concerning this verse in his multi-volume commentary, David Sorenson wrote: “Though it is not quite as evident in English, in the Received Text, the phrase literally reads, ‘the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ’” (p. 228). Kenneth Wuest asserted: “The expression, ‘God and our Saviour’ is in a construction in the Greek text which demands that we translate, ‘our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (In These Last Days, p. 17). John Ankerberg and John Weldon noted that “Greek scholars Dana and Mantley, in their A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, confirm the truth of Sharp’s rule, and then explain: ‘Second Peter 1:1 … means that Jesus is our God and Savior” (Facts On Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 24). In his commentary on 1 and 2 Peter, Gordon Clark translated the phrase as “of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (New Heavens, New Earth, p. 170). Clark noted: “Other references to ‘our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ do not diminish the deity asserted here in 1:1” (p. 171). Surprisingly, the 1611 edition of the KJV has a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1 [God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ], and that comma seems to have remained in most KJV editions printed up to the 1769 Oxford edition. The 1743 Cambridge and 1760 Cambridge editions had removed it before the 1769. Even the first KJV edition printed in America in 1782 and KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1788 and in 1795 still have a comma after God at 2 Peter 1:1. How does this comma in KJV editions up to the 1769 Oxford affect the understanding and interpretation of this verse? Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611. At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). James Scholefield maintained that this verse has “the same construction as in verse 11” where it was rendered in the KJV as “of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (Hints, p. 157). A. T. Robertson wrote: “In 2 Peter 1:11 and 3:18, the pronoun ’our’ comes after ’Lord,’ but that makes no difference in the idiom. It is ’our Lord and Saviour,’ and it is so translated in the English versions. But we have precisely the same idiom in 2 Peter 1:1, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ’” (The Minister, p. 63). Robertson asserted: “The idiom compels the translation, ’our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (p. 64). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1, Ralph Wardlaw noted in 1815: “An instance of construction, in every respect the same, occurs at the eleventh verse of this same chapter” (Discourses, p. 75). Wardlaw asserted: “It is just as improper to render the words in the first verse, ‘through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,‘ (unless the appellations ‘God and our Saviour’ be understood as both connecting with ‘Jesus Christ’) as it would be to render those in this verse [1:11] ‘in the kingdom of the Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ’” (p. 76). John Dagg indicated that the rendering in our common English version at 2 Peter 1:1 should be emended to “the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Manual of Theology, pp. 183-184). Timothy Dwight (1752-1817) wrote: “According to the original, of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (Theology Explained, I, p. 525).

 

[Baptist4life]

This forum is intended for comparing and contrasting Bible versions and translations. That's what I am doing.

If you are not interested in this thread, then why even post here? If I am not intersted in a thread --I don't participate. That's simple. You need to use some common sense.

You have a really thick head. I guess I'm done. Carry on and continue to ignore what others say.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Many of these mistakes in the KJV demonstrate that it was wrong a number of times -- not just the fact that it employed a lot of archaic expressions. ...

Actually, many of these examples are archaic expressions and not mistakes. Below is merely a sampling of explanations for some archaic terms or phrases --

K =KJV ; N = NLTse

Luke 18:12
K : all that I possess
N : of my income

In a modern online dictionary 'possess' has this (similar definitions may be found elsewhere): 7.Obsolete. To gain or seize.

James 3:2
K : we offend all
N : we all make many mistakes
[Wm. Tyndale : "In many things we sin all."]

Under 'offend' can be found this or similar definitions: 3a. To transgress; violate: offend all laws of humanity. 3b.To cause to sin.

Ps. 5:6
K : Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing
N : You will destroy those who tell lies.

Under 'leasing' can be found this or similar: n. Archaic1.The act of lying. 2.A lie; a falsehood.

1 Kings 11:1
K ; Solomon loved many strange women.
N : Solomon loved many foreign women.

This should be self-evident from words we still use, like 'stranger'.

2 Tim. 2:15
K : Study
N : Work hard

I'm pretty sure the archaic meaning of 'study' has been discussed on the BB before.

For the record, I agree with Dr. White and Rippon frequently. Furthermore, I have found (and I believe I have 'proven' here on the BB) several errors of translation in the KJV text. The presented items above are not among genuine KJV errors.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Someone may have already pointed this out:

Your first item: Observe vs protect

observe

late 14c., "to hold to" (a manner of life or course of conduct), from O.Fr. observer , from L. observare "watch over, look to, attend to, guard," from ob "over" + servare "to watch, keep safe," from PIE base *ser- "to protect." ......
​

"observe." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 14 Dec. 2010. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/observe>.

So we see that the two words do converge.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Oh, how about that yummy "PIE base" mmmm!

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, what I think is that people are getting tired of your endless posts on this! Can you not read the replies on this thread?

You know,I get a kick out of that kind of comment. Several months ago a mod said he was was tired of my posts as he imagined others were too. At the time he said the comment there were almost 900 views of the thread. Now the total is 1,153. If folks were actually not interested the views would be far lower.

If,as you claim, people are getting tired of this thread -- why are there 1,047 views as I make this post? Hmm?

 

[Rippon]

Actually, many of these examples are archaic expressions and not mistakes.



For the record, I agree with Dr. White and Rippon frequently. Furthermore, I have found (and I believe I have 'proven' here on the BB) several errors of translation in the KJV text. The presented items above are not among genuine KJV errors.

I concede Franklin,with what you and others such as AntennaFarmer have pointed out that a number of my examples in my OP would not qualify as real mistakes -- just old forms that had the same meaning in our modern versions.

But as I have looked at my original list of 21 examples -- I think ten remain as translational errors. Those are:
Mark 9:18
Acts 5:30
1 Cor. 4:4
Is. 13:15
Acts 19:2
Matt. 27:44
2 Sam. 8:18
1 Sam. 10:24
Col. 2:14
Titus 1:8

Some of you can do some research on the matter and see if they qualify as mistakes or simply archaic expressions.

 

[TomVols]

For the record, I agree with Dr. White and Rippon frequently. Furthermore, I have found (and I believe I have 'proven' here on the BB) several errors of translation in the KJV text. The presented items above are not among genuine KJV errors.

I don't know that Dr. White would fancy to his work being portrayed as it is. He usually does not.

I'm surprised this thread is still going. Then again, people still watch Oprah and WWE. :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

I don't know that Dr. White would fancy to his work being portrayed as it is.

"...would fancy to his work being portrayed as it is." That sounds like ESV-speak!

I got my original examples from his book as I explained in my OP. So I guess it would be to his fancy.

 

[Baptist4life]

If,as you claim, people are getting tired of this thread -- why are there 1,047 views as I make this post? Hmm?

Perhaps people are looking to see if you've shut-up yet? :laugh:

 

[TCassidy]

If,as you claim, people are getting tired of this thread -- why are there 1,047 views as I make this post? Hmm?

Perhaps it is because we want to see what kind of a stupid KJVO type argument you will post next.

What you seem to be unaware of is that your style of argumentation is exactly the same as the KJVO! Post a comparison between two versions, and automatically, without support, assume one version is correct and that any deviation from that reading constitutes an error. The only difference is they use the KJV as the basis of their "correct" reading and you are using the NLTse as your "correct" reading without any exegetical support.

 

[sag38]

We are waiting to see if Rippon is going to research the longevity of KJVOnlyist compared to those who are not. Calvinist live longer according to him. Now we'd like to know who is going to live longer based on which side of the argument they are on. Will it be StillLearning, Baptist for Life, and Winman or will it be Dr. Bob, Mexdef, and of course Rippon himself?

 

[robycop3]

Well, actually that would be the monx in the monster-ery on toppa Mount Rush-Less, founded by Pharaoh Khee-Ponn-Truk-Kenn in 1610.

 

[RAdam]

This thread proves what I've longed believed to be true:

1) Rippon hates the KJV with a passion and spares no effort to tear it down. It is not simply that he opposes extreme KJVO views, but hates the translation itself.

2) Rippon is arrogant and mean.

3) If you disagree with him you had better prepare for unChristian behavior.

 

[Baptist4life]

We are waiting to see if Rippon is going to research the longevity of KJVOnlyist compared to those who are not. Calvinist live longer according to him. Now we'd like to know who is going to live longer based on which side of the argument they are on. Will it be StillLearning, Baptist for Life, and Winman or will it be Dr. Bob, Mexdef, and of course Rippon himself?

I'm NOT KJVO. I'm KJV Preferred. How long will I live? :laugh:

 

[Baptist4life]

This thread proves what I've longed believed to be true:

1) Rippon hates the KJV with a passion and spares no effort to tear it down. It is not simply that he opposes extreme KJVO views, but hates the translation itself.

2) Rippon is arrogant and mean.

3) If you disagree with him you had better prepare for unChristian behavior.

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

I borrowed this from James White's updated book :The King James Only Controversy.

292:

KJV : For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

NASB : For you have brought these men here who who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess.

"Again, there really is no question about the Greek term's proper translation. this is an example of the King James translators falling into a bit of anachronism,using a familiar term to them (churches) rather than the term that would accurately reflect what was originally written. There were no Christian churches in existence as we know them today during the days of the apostles' ministry,and even if there had been,the town clerk of Ephesus was talking about idols and temples,not churches."

 

[Rippon]

71,76,77

I guess I'm done.

As usual, you're not a man of your word having posted numbers 71,76 and 77. You are as attracted to this thread as a moth is to a flame.

 

[Rippon]

Perhaps it is because we want to see what kind of a stupid KJVO type argument you will post next.

What an intemperate remark. I guess you don't want to live according to the contents of the veresion you prefer.

What you seem to be unaware of is that your style of argumentation is exactly the same as the KJVO! Post a comparison between two versions, and automatically, without support, assume one version is correct and that any deviation from that reading constitutes an error.

I showed no support for the better renderings? Quite the contrary.

The only difference is they use the KJV as the basis of their "correct" reading and you are using the NLTse as your "correct" reading without any exegetical support.

Please put your specs on Doctor.