Psalm 77:10

The KJV translators make the sense to be that David would console himself by remembering the goodness of God to himself and others of his people in times gone by. But the original seems to consist only of the words, "the years of the right hand of the most High," and to express the idea that his long continued affliction, reaching through several years, was allotted to him by the Lord.

The word "remember" is borrowed from the next following verse, to supply the sense of this verse.

Ps 77:10 And I said, This is my infirmity: but I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High.
11 I will remember the works of the LORD: surely I will remember thy wonders of old. (KJV)

I believe the KJV does a very good job of indicating when a word or phrase was not in the original text. I also feel they did a good job of adding these words and phrases for greater clarity. It seems they have stayed within the context of each passage.

 

I believe the NASB and NKJV do the same, with marginal notes that indicate mss support for chosen and alternative renderings.

 

Quote

We were reading this psalm last night at Fremont, and discovered a great deal of confusion amongst the various versions' renderings.

Hauro, I couldn't have said it better myself!

That "confusion" is exactly why I stick with the KJB. It's not as many suspect that the KJB translators "added" words to the thought, but put those "italicized" words in the English text to clarify that thought. Have you ever tried reading the text w/o the italicized words? For the most part it still makes perfect sense, but it reads more like "broken English" w/o those "italicized" words.

I'm not confused by the KJB, I'm clarified!

In Christ,

Brother Ricky

 

Psalm 77:10 (KJV1769):
And I said, This is my infirmity:
but I will remember the years of the right
handof the most High.

Pfalmes LXXVII:10 (KJV1611):
And I sayd, This is my infirmitie:
but I will remember the yeeres of the rihgt
hand of the most high.

Look at the variation of caps on "high".
Look at the variation of whether the "is"
is implied by the Greek text (KJV1611)
or explicity in the the Greek text (KJV1769).

I think the KJV1769 is a noticable improvement
upon the Perfect KJV1611

 

That is probably the most proficient evidence of splitting hairs about italicized words and the use of capital letters I ever seen.

I'd have to say that the "most high" is still the Most High, whether "is" is is or not is, it still is "is".

 

Jots and tittles...

 

Or a church could use the NKJV, NASB, NIV, or ESV exclusively and achieve no confusion from the variety of translations.

Neal

 

Amen Brother Dr. Bob -- Preach it

Obviously you come from the part of the
world where "perfecter" ain't no word

 

Ah, but we were talking about God's word, weren't we? What features of God's word *are* changeable, according to you?

 

Or a church could use the NKJV, NASB, NIV, or ESV exclusively and achieve no confusion from the variety of translations.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Dr. David Jeremiah told his congregation to read aloud a verse altogether and "It doesn't matter which version you have, just read it aloud with us." You should have heard the confusion. I wonder what the unbeliever in their presence was able to comprehend from which version?

I disagree with your statement, though there might not appear to be any confusion by the exclusive use of those versions, the evidences will certainly show in the long run. The reason is this, eventualy that person in that particular group will pick up a KJB and read a familiar passage and see there really is a big difference, not only in what people call "archaic" the wording, which only the children of society use as a derogatory remark,but they'll begin to see more fully what is in the Word, due to it's being alive and accurate.

The ONLY reason mv's say that the KJB has "errors" and "mistakes" is because they use a version that comes from the Alexandrian manuscripts to make that erroneous determination.

(Brother Ricky lying here asleep in antcipation of the all out attack on his post for saying such thnings!)

 

Okay, but that had nothing to do with my statement.

Ah, but see, the same argument can be used against a church that uses the KJV exclusively. Someone picks up faithful MV and sees a big difference and they will begin to see more full what is in the Word, due to it's being alive and accurate. We had a gentleman in our church who used the KJV his whole life and he just receieved a NKJV this Christmas. He said that for the first time in his life the Word came alive and made sense. Can God use the KJV to relay His truth to an individual? Absolutely. Can He use a faithful MV? Absolutely.

No, that is not the only reason. I can look up the Greek word in my TR behind a translation in the KJV and see that the KJV is less than accurate at times. Sometimes it is more accurate than an MV. But see, your reason is not the only one.

No, I am not attacking you. I am trying to discuss something with you. But if you are going to see it as an attack beforehand, there is not much I can do.

Neal