-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Key to the KJV-Only Conundrum
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
- Status
Only 47 of the chosen 54 translators actually worked on the new translation, and they took some eight years to complete their work. They were doing it gratis, but meanwhile most had families to feed, etc. & so worked on the translation when they found time. And I doubt if there were guards present at ALL their tables MOST of the time. But if there were, WHO was guarding the guards? Such guards woulda hafta been translators themselves, to have overseen the translators' work!
The making of the KJV wasn't so much of a miracle, but was done by God's will, same as was the making of every other valid Bible translation in any language.
As God causes/allows the languege style to change, He causes/allows newer translations to be made, to keep up with the language changes.
The making of the KJV wasn't so much of a miracle, but was done by God's will, same as was the making of every other valid Bible translation in any language.
As God causes/allows the languege style to change, He causes/allows newer translations to be made, to keep up with the language changes.
.
Like I said, a fairy tale. The committees had both High and Low (Puritan) Church Anglicans in their membership. IIRC, The High Church men had the positions of control.
It has been alleged from multiple sources that Alberto was a fake. Here is one who worked with him:http://www.thebibleistheotherside.org/lettersp5.htm. He didn't even know Latin!
I have some sympathy for Jack Chick's ministry (translated one of his tracts back in the day), and therefore his protestations about Alberto. (https://www.chick.com/articles/houstonletter.asp) I would like to believe him, but Jack has twice before been fooled by fakes: allegedly fake ex-sorcerer Johnny Todd and allegedly fake ex-witch Elaine whose story was told by Rebecca Brown.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice (or three times), shame on me.
Last edited:
Good point. The "guard" would have had to know the original languages and Latin too in order to tell what was going on.
I would say it wasn't a miracle at all by the common and normal definition of the word, not just "not much of a miracle."
Let me clarify what a miracle is. Here is a definition from the classic Smith's Bible Dictionary: "A miracle may be defined to be a plain and manifest exercise by a man, or by God at the call of a man, of those powers which belong only to the Creator and Lord of nature; and this for the declared object of attesting that a divine mission is given to that man."
Note that the usual word for miracle in the NT is semeion (σημεῖον), occurring 69 times in the Bible and often translated "miracle" in the KJV, but also translated often as "sign," the core meaning. The Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek (Robinson and House) has this definition: "a sign, an outward (visible) indication of secret power or truth; a miracle regarded from that point of view." (p. 315).
Note from these definitions that a miracle (a sign) must be "plain and manifest" (Smith), or "an outward (visible) indication" (Robinson and House).
Another word often translated as "miracle" is dunamis (δύναμις), with the core meaning of "power." Again, it is a word demanding outward recognition." A dunamis miracle is not one that can remain hidden. Again, the word teras (τέρας), or "wonders" (always in the plural and always linked with "signs") occurs 126 times and always means "miracle." Here is a definition: "a prodigy, an extraordinary occurrence (appearance, act), a startling portent" (Robinson and House). Once again, it will be clearly seen and understood.
So once again I repeat, there were no miracles in the translation of the KJV. None were claimed by the translators and none have been claimed by historians and none have been claimed by KJVO partisans. There were none, therefore the KJV cannot be perfect because man does not produce perfection without a miracle. I stand for the original texts, not for any translation, though I consider the KJV the best ever.
I know from experience how hard it is to translate. Even after the second draft was done, I have found many typos, omissions and other errors in our translation, even though I would have loved to have a miracle from God!
Only hard work can produce excellence in a translation. But I once had a thread here on the BB asking KJVO people how I could produce a perfect translation in Japanese. No one bit.
Note that the usual word for miracle in the NT is semeion (σημεῖον), occurring 69 times in the Bible and often translated "miracle" in the KJV, but also translated often as "sign," the core meaning. The Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek (Robinson and House) has this definition: "a sign, an outward (visible) indication of secret power or truth; a miracle regarded from that point of view." (p. 315).
Note from these definitions that a miracle (a sign) must be "plain and manifest" (Smith), or "an outward (visible) indication" (Robinson and House).
Another word often translated as "miracle" is dunamis (δύναμις), with the core meaning of "power." Again, it is a word demanding outward recognition." A dunamis miracle is not one that can remain hidden. Again, the word teras (τέρας), or "wonders" (always in the plural and always linked with "signs") occurs 126 times and always means "miracle." Here is a definition: "a prodigy, an extraordinary occurrence (appearance, act), a startling portent" (Robinson and House). Once again, it will be clearly seen and understood.
So once again I repeat, there were no miracles in the translation of the KJV. None were claimed by the translators and none have been claimed by historians and none have been claimed by KJVO partisans. There were none, therefore the KJV cannot be perfect because man does not produce perfection without a miracle. I stand for the original texts, not for any translation, though I consider the KJV the best ever.
I know from experience how hard it is to translate. Even after the second draft was done, I have found many typos, omissions and other errors in our translation, even though I would have loved to have a miracle from God!
Only hard work can produce excellence in a translation. But I once had a thread here on the BB asking KJVO people how I could produce a perfect translation in Japanese. No one bit.
Last edited:
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Scrivener's is Koine Greek. Is Duane Onley's NT modern Greek?Didn't know that. So Scrivener wasn't enough for him, eh? Is it published? (Not that I want to buy it.)
HankD
Har, har.
No, it would actually be only the koine Greek words with the syntax mixed up. But what Onley maybe didn't realize is that word order is not that important in Greek, so in most cases the meaning would not change. The prefixes and suffixes provide most of the meaning, and those would be intact in Onley's scheme.
Agreed, with one very notable exception. By changing the word order of the Greek in John 1:1 he also agreed with the JW denial of the deity of Christ. Because the last phrase is anarthrous (no definite article) they claim that an indefinite article should be added making the phrase read "and the Word was a God."Har, har.
No, it would actually be only the koine Greek words with the syntax mixed up. But what Onley maybe didn't realize is that word order is not that important in Greek, so in most cases the meaning would not change. The prefixes and suffixes provide most of the meaning, and those would be intact in Onley's scheme.
What they, and apparently Onley, overlooked was that the word order in the last phrase is changed and the word translated "God" is in the emphatic position. Thus the meaning is "and the Word was (most emphatically) God!"
But I suspect that is why you said "most" of the meaning.
That's an excellent analysis of John 1:1 which, yes, would be covered by my "most."Agreed, with one very notable exception. By changing the word order of the Greek in John 1:1 he also agreed with the JW denial of the deity of Christ. Because the last phrase is anarthrous (no definite article) they claim that an indefinite article should be added making the phrase read "and the Word was a God."
What they, and apparently Onley, overlooked was that the word order in the last phrase is changed and the word translated "God" is in the emphatic position. Thus the meaning is "and the Word was (most emphatically) God!"
But I suspect that is why you said "most" of the meaning.
Now I appreciate all you translator brethren and all of the different language translated from... One brother may decide with much study that one translation is better than the rest... I am KJV but I think that we forgot what I feel the biggest miracle of all relating to any translation... I am not of the translator brethren but in all my 70 years upon this earth I have learned a little... The scriptures were handed down generation to generation and to my understanding meticulously copied by each generation until I believe in the providence of All Mighty God the Gutenberg Printing Press was invented allowing the Bible to be distributed to the masses... Ergo the Gutenberg Bible... The first I believe in a long line of many translations of the Bible and an answered prayer of a martyr William Tyndale for the KJV English translation... I've had my say... Brother Glen
Yes brother Glen, the Bible is the miracle book from God. A gift from heaven to a lost world
HankD
An Understandable History of the Bible, by Samuel Gipp, a graduate of Ruckman's Bible school who also has an honorary degree from there, is an interesting read if only to find his mistakes. (Just try to match the footnotes to the sources, if you have the books he used. Many don't match!)
Anyhoo, Gipp does use the word "miracle" in connection with the preservation of Scripture, unlike the great majority of KJVO writers. He says, "Is a miracle [his emphasis] too hard for the God of miracles? Was the creation too hard for God? Was the flood too hard for God? Was the parting of the Red Sea too hard for God? Was the 40 years of manna too hard for God? Was the virgin birth too hard for God? Was the collection of the 66 books of the Bible written over a period of 1,700 years too hard for God? Was overcoming the human nature of the sinful writers too hard for God? Is preserving the words of those writers too hard for God?" (pp. 19-20).
That's it, though. Gipp does not tell when and how the miracle happened, even though the true miracles that he listed were all easily discernible as events in space-time: creation, the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the manna, the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scriptures. Unfortunately, he then mixes in with these obvious miracles the collection of the canon, which was providential and not miraculous, as any student of Bibliology knows.
Nowhere else in his book does Gipp call preservation a miracle, or even tell how the process occurred. Apparently we are simply to believe that what he said is true, with not a historical hint of a miracle: the KJV is perfect and inerrant, and can correct the Greek and Hebrew.
Anyhoo, Gipp does use the word "miracle" in connection with the preservation of Scripture, unlike the great majority of KJVO writers. He says, "Is a miracle [his emphasis] too hard for the God of miracles? Was the creation too hard for God? Was the flood too hard for God? Was the parting of the Red Sea too hard for God? Was the 40 years of manna too hard for God? Was the virgin birth too hard for God? Was the collection of the 66 books of the Bible written over a period of 1,700 years too hard for God? Was overcoming the human nature of the sinful writers too hard for God? Is preserving the words of those writers too hard for God?" (pp. 19-20).
That's it, though. Gipp does not tell when and how the miracle happened, even though the true miracles that he listed were all easily discernible as events in space-time: creation, the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the manna, the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scriptures. Unfortunately, he then mixes in with these obvious miracles the collection of the canon, which was providential and not miraculous, as any student of Bibliology knows.
Nowhere else in his book does Gipp call preservation a miracle, or even tell how the process occurred. Apparently we are simply to believe that what he said is true, with not a historical hint of a miracle: the KJV is perfect and inerrant, and can correct the Greek and Hebrew.
Last edited:
Chick Publications put out a little (88 pp., starting on p. 7) tome by Barry Burton (no info on the author) entitled, Let's Weigh the Evidence. I found nothing whatever in the book about preservation, either providential or miraculous. It is a pretty basic book with the usual attack on Westcott and Hort and the usual comparisons between the KJV and other versions.
John does Gipp say which KJV is perfect and inerrant - Oxford or Cambridge?
Seems to be a division in the camp.
Oxford: http://www.35thavenuebaptist.org/oxford-kjb-or-cambridge-kjb.html
Cambridge: http://www.bibleprotector.com/purecambridgeedition.htm
HankD
Last edited:
- Status