AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Nor did I say he did.
-
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 KJV has been Preserved more Perfectly than Human Possibility.
- Thread starter Alan Gross
- Start date
- Status
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
I try to ge along with everyone until they start acting stupid. As Forrest Gump says..."Stupid is as stupid does!" LOLWhy'd ya quote me???? You and I get along fine, even when we disagree.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
"Thomas Nelson Company, says its purpose is "To Preserve the Integrity of the Original in the Language of Today"-"To preserve the authority and accuracy . . . of the original King James while making it understandable to 20th Century readers"-
"To update with regard to punctuation and grammar; archaic verbs and pronouns"; and "Up-to-date accuracy with regard to words whose English meaning has changed over a period of 3 1/2 centuries."
"The completed NKJV text is said to be "Beautifully Clear" and "Highly Readable."
"Thomas Nelson Publishers has spent millions to convince Christians that the NKJV is "the" Bible of the present and the future."
from: The NKJV Examined
However, just like with the pontifications of Westcott, about his supposed motivations and intentions toward revising the A.V., first published in 1868(?), in "A General View of the History of the English Bible" (London: Macmillan and Co., 1905), Deacon posted, it couldn't have resulted in a much more different approach evidenced by their finished work in the New Testament in the Original Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881.
So, as far as the NKJV;
"It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes that result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes that clearly reveal that contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from c*******d Greek texts."
from: The NKJV Examined
When you notice the dozens upon dozens of Old Testament quotes and the differences in them that are made by Inspired writers of The New Testament, including by Jesus, you will see God's standard for "Inspiration in various wordings."
I say, "Inspiration doesn't always follow along in the same set of tracks", which I believe I got from a book on interpretation that I can't place right now.
In my mind, Strong's Hebrew: 7523. "רָצַח" (ratsach) and however Moses' tablets read that we came up with, "Thou shalt not kill", and my saying, "Don't Murder", are all inspired from God, as if it were He saying it.
That is how I view the different readings between the KJV and pre-KJV 1611 English Bibles, etc.
I see the differences between the KJV and the NKJV as another animal altogether, as noted above.
My only statement that I believe to be historical fact included what Salty picked up easy enough, which is:
There are irrelevant idiosyncrasies galore in people or anywhere we look, if that is what we are after, like these:
stu·pid
/ˈsto͞opəd/
adjective
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Hey, AVL1984, I hadn't noticed that was you. I was thinking it was someone else.
Ahhh, and you must not have noticed what you wrote, unless 'got saved' and 'salvation', as George mentioned, are different?(?)
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Why'd ya quote me????
What? When? Where?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Now!, I've got more material to borrow and re-post!
AVL1984
<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
I am fully aware of what I wrote...I don't have dementia yet...LOL! That was a question about the KJV...or are you unable to comprehend that? We all know people were saved before the KJV....I'm giving an argument against those who would say it's the only "perfect, preserved" WOG.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Well, you'd have gotten them, if they were here, today, I guess.
I have found the same type differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV as I find between the KJV and the NKJV.
I have found many places where the KJV improved upon the 1560 Geneva Bible that the NKJV is in agreement with the KJV, which would prove that the NKJV is at least better than the 1560 Geneva Bible.
I have found many pages of examples where the NKJV differs from the KJV that it is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible, and in many of those places the 1560 Geneva Bible may be better or more accurate than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The NKJV is translated from the same underlying original-language texts as the KJV.
There are greater textual differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV than any of the few differences that KJV-only advocates claim to find between the KJV and the NKJV. The 1539 Great Bible would have over 400 words in textual differences from the Latin Vulgate that are not found in the KJV. The 1560 Geneva Bible does not have one whole verse that is found in the KJV, which is a far greater textual difference than any difference that KJV-only advocates claim between the KJV and the NKJV. I have found over 50 likely textual differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV.
My comparison of the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV would demonstrate that the differences are not another animal altogether. Are you showing that you do maximize the differences between the KJV and the NKJV while you minimize the differences between the KJV and the pre-1611 English Bibles?
Perhaps you are using different measures/standards for comparing the differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV than the ones that you use for comparing the differences between the KJV and the NKJV.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Different measures/standards;
The brief snapshot of the differences between Pre-1611 KJV and KJV and that of the modern versions, judging from their Different measures/standards;
1. in their ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEXTS,
2. TRANSLATORS,
3. their TECHNIQUES in translation,
4. & their THEOLOGY;
...
ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEXTS;
To see the underlying text and/or sources for the Pre-1611 KJV,
Google, "the Hebrew and Greek Texts Underlying the _____ Bible".
"KJV O.T. HEBREW TEXT. There are two basic texts in existence in Hebrew, the false one, edited by Ben Asher, and the true one, edited by Ben Chayyim. ...The true text of Ben Chayyim on which our KJV is based is also available. It is called the Daniel Bomberg edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25)."
KJV NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT. The Textus Receptus, etc.
See: GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS - ENGLISH KING JAMES
Original texts used in modern Bibles;
See: H.P. Blavatsky said, "we have the Bible in true in Codex Sinaiticus (א) and Codex Vaticanus (B)"
Let's look at the Codex Sinaiticus (א)...said by H. P. Blavatsky to be "the Bible in true."
Let's look at the Codex Vaticanus (B)...said by H. P. Blavatsky to be "the Bible in true."
"B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, published their Greek text that rejected the TR in 5,604 places by my actual count. This included 9,970 Greek words that were either added, subtracted, or changed from the TR. This involves, on the average, 15.4 words per page of the Greek N.T., or a total of 45.9 pages in all. It is 7% of the total of 140,521 words in the TR Greek N.T. It was a radically new Greek text.
"Westcott and Hort concocted a new Greek text and changed the TR that had been used in the Church from the beginning of the writing of the N.T."
See:
Examination of Modern NT Text Criticism (1/2)
Examination of Modern NT Text Criticism (2/2)
"Most modern translations are based on the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society (NA/UBS) text, published by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society)."
"The use of the Septuagint (LXX) by these new versions instead of using the Hebrew text is a serious error."
Then, they have taken it upon themselves to "CORRECT" the Hebrew Text.
"The New Versions attempt to "CORRECT" The Hebrew Text in at Least 19 different ways."
"Another one of the nineteen methods is when they have no textual proof at all. It is pure conjecture.
"Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Syriac Version.
"Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with just "a few Hebrew manuscripts" rather than the entire Masoretic Traditional Hebrew text.
"Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Latin Vulgate.
"Some "CORRECT" the Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls."
"Some, like the NIV, use "quotations from Jerome" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
"Some use Josephus, an unsaved Jew, to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
"Some use a "variant Hebrew Reading in the margin" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
"Some use "words in the consonantal text divided differently" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
"Some use quotations from Jerome, Aquila, the Samaritan Pentateuch, or Symmachus to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
"Some use the Hebrew Targums, Theodotion, or the "Juxta Hebraica of Jerome for the Psalms" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text. Why are they taking Jerome as a substitute for the Hebrew Word of God? Was he there?
"Still others use a "different set of Hebrew Vowels" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew text.
"Some use "an ancient Hebrew scribal tradition" to "CORRECT" the Hebrew.
"Some use the BIBLIA HEBRAICA of Kittel or Stuttgartensia to "CORRECT" the Hebrew.
"These are 19 of the different methods that other English versions have used to "CORRECT" the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew Old Testament text, thus changing the very Words of God!
"The Ben Asher is exhibited in Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHK) (1937) with all of his suggested footnote changes, as well as in the Stuttgart edition of BIBLIA HEBRAICA (BHS) (1967-77) with all of their suggested footnote changes.
...
con't
Last edited:
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
TRANSLATORS;
Pre-1611 KJV and KJV Translators;
"The Pre-1611 KJV and KJV translators did not meet with such difficulty because they knew the cognate languages so well that they could unlock such mysteries. They truly were "GIANTS"!!
The accomplishments and acumen of five of the KJV translators are described at the link, below.
Modern version translators;
"When the modern "translators/paraphrasers" come upon a word they don't understand, they throw up their hands in dismay.
"Our modern "translators/paraphrasers" are linguistically illiterate when compared to the men who gave us our Pre-1611 KJV and KJV."
TECHNIQUE in translation;
Pre-1611 KJV and KJV technique of translation;
Is the Technique of translation of the Pre-KJV 1611 Bibles also very similar to that of the KJV?
"The KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence--not dynamic equivalence.
"The King James Bible's verbal and formal equivalence. The KJV basically uses the technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence. Verbal equivalence means that the very words, wherever possible, are brought over from Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. The KJV also uses the technique of formal equivalence, that is, the translators brought over, wherever possible, the very forms of the Hebrew and Greek words into English. They didn't transform the grammar. They didn't take a noun and make a verb out of it. They brought a verb into a verb and a noun into a noun wherever possible.
The modern versions Technique of translation;
"The modern versions' use of dynamic equivalence. I have a computer print-out research of three of these modern versions--the New King James, the New American Standard, and the New International. When compared to the Hebrew and Greek texts, I found that the New King James Version had over 2,000 examples of dynamic equivalency, that is, adding to, subtracting from, or changing the Words of God. In a similar study of the New American Standard Version, I found over 4,000 such examples. In a similar study of the New International Version I found over 6,653 such examples."
"What is meant by dynamic equivalency? "Dynamic" means "moving or changing." "Equivalence" means "the same or unchanging." You can't have it both ways! It is either changing or unchanging. Those who use this false technique in the various "translations/paraphrases" think it's a great technique. The bottom line for such a technique is that it gives a human being the right to ADD to God's Words (which is sin), to SUBTRACT from God's Words (which is sin), or to CHANGE God's Words (which is sin). God pronounces the strongest possible CURSE on anyone who dares to do any of those three things to God's Words!! Those who use this false technique are really paraphrasing rather than translating. Paraphrase comes from two Greek words, para ("along side or beside") and phrasis ("a word or phrase"). It means to use a word or phrase that is along side of the real meaning. It is to state something in other words. We should seek, as the KJV translators sought, to put into English the exact and accurate meaning of the Hebrew and Greek Words of God rather than to give something that is "beside" or "along side of" the word or phrase."
THEOLOGY;
The difference between Pre-1611 KJV and KJV Theology and that of the modern versions;
"Some examples of theology that is affected by Greek and English versions. I have given 158 examples of the theological superiority of the KJV in my book. I selected these from Dr. Jack Moorman's compilation of a total of 356 doctrinal passages that have been changed in the Egyptian h*******l Greek texts of "B" (Vatican), "Aleph" (Sinai), and others. I'll give you some examples of doctrines that are affected by these false Greek texts and new versions."
2 of the 5 examples:
1. John 3:15. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
"Do you know what the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, "should not perish"? They REMOVE them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. 3:15.
"What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So do the other modern versions and p*********s. For them, there is no hell in Jn. 3:15.
"Is this not a major doctrine?
2. Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are gone: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched".
Because "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and p*********s. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell.
"Is this not a major doctrine? [Editor: While it is true that verse 48 is retained in this passage in the modern versions, the power and authority is weakened by two-thirds. The God-honored Received Text says Jesus repeated this statement three times to emphasize the horrors of going to hell. The critical text removes two of these statements, thus weakening the force of the doctrine.]
"When you take the "literal fire" out of hell, as many new evangelicals and (and even some fundamentalists) have done, and as all of the apostates have done, and as Mary Baker Eddy and all false cults have done, you are in serious trouble and in grievous doctrinal error! For centuries, many have removed the fire out of hell even though the KJV keeps it in. Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English p*********s will assist them in their h****y of a "fireless hell"!
from: The Four-Fold Superiority of the KJV (2/2)
Pre-1611 KJV and KJV Translators;
"The Pre-1611 KJV and KJV translators did not meet with such difficulty because they knew the cognate languages so well that they could unlock such mysteries. They truly were "GIANTS"!!
The accomplishments and acumen of five of the KJV translators are described at the link, below.
Modern version translators;
"When the modern "translators/paraphrasers" come upon a word they don't understand, they throw up their hands in dismay.
"Our modern "translators/paraphrasers" are linguistically illiterate when compared to the men who gave us our Pre-1611 KJV and KJV."
TECHNIQUE in translation;
Pre-1611 KJV and KJV technique of translation;
Is the Technique of translation of the Pre-KJV 1611 Bibles also very similar to that of the KJV?
"The KJV translators used the superior technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence--not dynamic equivalence.
"The King James Bible's verbal and formal equivalence. The KJV basically uses the technique of verbal equivalence and formal equivalence. Verbal equivalence means that the very words, wherever possible, are brought over from Hebrew into English and from Greek into English. The KJV also uses the technique of formal equivalence, that is, the translators brought over, wherever possible, the very forms of the Hebrew and Greek words into English. They didn't transform the grammar. They didn't take a noun and make a verb out of it. They brought a verb into a verb and a noun into a noun wherever possible.
The modern versions Technique of translation;
"The modern versions' use of dynamic equivalence. I have a computer print-out research of three of these modern versions--the New King James, the New American Standard, and the New International. When compared to the Hebrew and Greek texts, I found that the New King James Version had over 2,000 examples of dynamic equivalency, that is, adding to, subtracting from, or changing the Words of God. In a similar study of the New American Standard Version, I found over 4,000 such examples. In a similar study of the New International Version I found over 6,653 such examples."
"What is meant by dynamic equivalency? "Dynamic" means "moving or changing." "Equivalence" means "the same or unchanging." You can't have it both ways! It is either changing or unchanging. Those who use this false technique in the various "translations/paraphrases" think it's a great technique. The bottom line for such a technique is that it gives a human being the right to ADD to God's Words (which is sin), to SUBTRACT from God's Words (which is sin), or to CHANGE God's Words (which is sin). God pronounces the strongest possible CURSE on anyone who dares to do any of those three things to God's Words!! Those who use this false technique are really paraphrasing rather than translating. Paraphrase comes from two Greek words, para ("along side or beside") and phrasis ("a word or phrase"). It means to use a word or phrase that is along side of the real meaning. It is to state something in other words. We should seek, as the KJV translators sought, to put into English the exact and accurate meaning of the Hebrew and Greek Words of God rather than to give something that is "beside" or "along side of" the word or phrase."
THEOLOGY;
The difference between Pre-1611 KJV and KJV Theology and that of the modern versions;
"Some examples of theology that is affected by Greek and English versions. I have given 158 examples of the theological superiority of the KJV in my book. I selected these from Dr. Jack Moorman's compilation of a total of 356 doctrinal passages that have been changed in the Egyptian h*******l Greek texts of "B" (Vatican), "Aleph" (Sinai), and others. I'll give you some examples of doctrines that are affected by these false Greek texts and new versions."
2 of the 5 examples:
1. John 3:15. "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
"Do you know what the "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) manuscripts do to the three words, "should not perish"? They REMOVE them. So, in the two false Greek texts, there's no hell in Jn. 3:15.
"What versions follow these corrupted Greek texts? The NIV follows them, the NASV follows them, and the NKJV in the footnotes, follows them. So do the other modern versions and p*********s. For them, there is no hell in Jn. 3:15.
"Is this not a major doctrine?
2. Mark 9:44 and 9:46. Another example is Mark 9:44 and 46. Both verses are gone: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched".
Because "B" (Vatican) and "Aleph" (Sinai) remove both verses, so does the NKJV in the footnotes; so does the NASV (by putting them in brackets); and so does the NIV. So do the other modern versions and p*********s. In so doing, they take away the fires of hell.
"Is this not a major doctrine? [Editor: While it is true that verse 48 is retained in this passage in the modern versions, the power and authority is weakened by two-thirds. The God-honored Received Text says Jesus repeated this statement three times to emphasize the horrors of going to hell. The critical text removes two of these statements, thus weakening the force of the doctrine.]
"When you take the "literal fire" out of hell, as many new evangelicals and (and even some fundamentalists) have done, and as all of the apostates have done, and as Mary Baker Eddy and all false cults have done, you are in serious trouble and in grievous doctrinal error! For centuries, many have removed the fire out of hell even though the KJV keeps it in. Now these false Egyptian Greek texts and the false English p*********s will assist them in their h****y of a "fireless hell"!
from: The Four-Fold Superiority of the KJV (2/2)
37818
Well-Known Member
What made one deemed false and the other deemed true?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
from: TerryHomePage:Masoretic Texts - Wiki
"There are two basic texts in existence in Hebrew, the false one, edited by Ben Asher, and the true one, edited by Ben Chayyim. Both texts are still referred to as "Masoretic", so care must be taken as to which text is being referred to.
"The Ben Asher text was based on a text called the Leningrad Manuscript (B19a; also called simply L), which was dated around 1008 A.D., and differs widely from the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament. The Ben Asher is exhibited in Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (BHK, 1937) with all of his suggested footnote changes, as well as in the Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica (BHS, 1967-77) with all of their suggested footnote changes.
"It had apparently not dawned on Kittel (and others) that the Ben Asher version was based on a small handful of corrupt manuscripts. Both of these false Biblia Hebraica (BHK & BHS) Hebrew texts offer in their footnotes about fifteen to twenty suggested changes per page (changes from the authentic Ben Chayyim Masoretic text). This adds up to about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text. One or the other of these false Hebrew texts, either BHK or BHS, are used as the basis for the Old Testament in all modern bible versions, as can be shown by reading their introductory pages.
"The true text of Ben Chayyim on which the KJV is based is the authentic Hebrew Masoretic text. It is called the Daniel Bomberg edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25). This is the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text represented by the vast majority of existing Old Testament manuscripts. The Ben Chayyim Masoretic text was the uncontested text of the Old Testament for over four hundred years. In fact, Rudolf Kittel*, in his first two editions of 1906 and 1912, used that text in his Biblia Hebraica. It was not until 1937, that he changed his Hebrew text from the Ben Chayyim to the Ben Asher text. Kittel found a large and receptive market in the rapidly growing modernist camp that had grown to hate the traditional texts of both the Old and New Testaments.
"In 1516, Daniel Bomberg published a text of the Old Testament under the name "First Rabbinic Bible." This text was followed in 1524 by a second edition that had been compiled from ancient manuscripts by a Hebrew scholar and converted Jewish Rabbi named Abraham Ben Chayyim. Today this work is called the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text and is the text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. The word "masoretic" comes from the Hebrew word "mesor" meaning traditional. The Masoretes were the scribes that were given the responsibility of guarding and keeping the text of the Old Testament, and keep it well they surely did, as we shall soon see."
"So then, our only choice is between the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text that has been the standard text of the Old Testament for well over two thousand years, and is represented by the vast majority of the existing Old Testament manuscripts, or the new, modern text that has only a little minor manuscript support, and introduces errors into the text. The choice is obvious, only the Traditional (Ben Chayyim) Text can lay claim to uninterrupted use for all the generations from the time of David (Psalm 12) until now."
from: The Ben Asher text in not the Ben Chayyim text. Watch out for the Kittel family
"The Hebrew text is the best complete Ben Asher text available (K. Ellinger and W. Rudolph, eds., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1977]).
* "Bible scholars today trip over themselves to obtain a set of Gerhard Kittles Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, the most revered Greek lexicon.
"He is the last word on the interpretation of Greek words used in the New Testament. However, Herr Kittle, the mouthpiece of Herr Adolph Hitler, was a dedicated Nazi who justified theologically the extermination of the Jews. His method of Bible word interpretation is simple:
"Rule One is to pick and choose the Greek manuscript that agrees with your theology.
"Rule Two is to define words based on citations by ancient pagan Greeks like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. This twisted method is bound to result in a corruption of the Word of God.
"The Bible Method of defining Bible words is let the Bible interpret the Bible. We are told to "compare spiritual things with spiritual," I Corinthians 2:13.
"Gerhards father Rudolf Kittle was the author of Biblia Hebraica, used by all new versions to translate the Old Testament (along with Origens Septuagint). NIV translators say Kittles's text is an " . . eclectic [pick and choose] text."
37818
Well-Known Member
Being claimed. But not a single verse example was given.
Both the KJV and modern Bibles are pick and choose Bibles. To say anything different is to give false witness. To think the 1611 Translators rigidly followed a single text is wrong. Just look at the 1611's marginal readings. They often give alternative hebrew readings. And they certainly didn't use any Hebrew edition for the Apocryphal Books, now did they?
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
Are we supposed to be talking about 'verse changes' or 'suggested footnote changes', changes in vowel pointing (100's), word changes, that cause them to be false, etc.?
There are a view striking verse changes that should give you a heads up as to the type of differences they cause.
from: Another King James Bible Believer
"Many recent versions of the Bible are based on the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the third edition of the Masoretic text edited by Rudolph Kittel. There are eight places where differences between the two texts (the Ben Chayyim and the Rudolph Kittel) affect translation – they are: 1 Kings 20:38, Proverbs 8:16, Isaiah 10:16, Isaiah 27:2, Isaiah 38:14, Ezekiel 30:18, Zephaniah 3:15, and Malachi 1:12.
Verse 1 Kings 20:38
Ben Chayyim
“ashes upon his face”
Rudolph Kittel
“bandage over his eyes”
Proverbs 8:16
Ben Chayyim vs Rudolph Kittel
“all the judges of the earth”
“all who judge rightly”
Isaiah 10:16
Ben Chayyim vs Rudolph Kittel
“Lord”
“LORD”
Isaiah 27:2
Ben Chayyim vs Rudolph Kittel
“vineyard of red wine”
“pleasant vineyard”
Isaiah 38:14
Ben Chayyim vs Rudolph Kittel
“LORD”
“Lord”
Ezekiel 30:18
Ben Chayyim vs Rudolph Kittel
“Be darkened”
“Be held back”
Zephaniah 3:15
Ben Chayyim vs Rudolph Kittel
“see evil”
“fear evil”
Malachi 1:12
Ben Chayyim vs Rudolph Kittel
“table of the LORD”
“table of the Lord”
"The Ben Asher text was based on a text called the Leningrad Manuscript (B19a; also called simply L), which was dated around 1008 A.D., and differs widely from the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament.
"The Ben Asher is exhibited in Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (BHK, 1937) with all of his suggested footnote changes, as well as in the Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica (BHS, 1967-77) with all of their suggested footnote changes.
"It had apparently not dawned on Kittel (and others) that the Ben Asher version was based on a small handful of corrupt manuscripts.
"Both of these false Biblia Hebraica (BHK & BHS) Hebrew texts offer in their footnotes about fifteen to twenty suggested changes per page (changes from the authentic Ben Chayyim Masoretic text). This adds up to about 20,000 to 30,000 changes in the entire Hebrew Old Testament text. One or the other of these false Hebrew texts, either BHK or BHS, are used as the basis for the Old Testament in all modern bible versions, as can be shown by reading their introductory pages.
It is not one or the other. In case of the Hebrew it is both Editions are the Word of God. Both contain some mistakes. Both are very accurate. Quit trying to nullify God's Word.
Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
- Status