The "original" Autographs

Sure.

1. Original does not deal with the first writing but with the author's writing. Therefore they are more properly called the "autographa." Inspiration technically applies to the men as they wrote. The writings themselves are inspired because the men were. Documents by uninspired men are uninspired. Therefore, copies do not partake of the same inspiration because different, and uninspired, men copied them.

2. Because there are no two manuscripts alike anywhere in the world. Therefore we must say that inspiration is limited to only one of them, but since not even one of them is perfect, we are left to saying that inspiration didn't guarantee perfection. But we know it did. Therefore, the evidence shows us that inspiration was confined only to the authors in their writing.

This argument actually shows that the doctrine of preservation as many people, including Gipp, believe it is incorrect. The doctrine of preservation did not mean that individual copies cannot be corrupted or destroyed. Neither does it mean that the word of God always had to be available. Here in Jeremiah we see a place where the written word of God was not available, thus showing that preservation does not apply to availability.

It is also interestign to see the quantum leap that Gipp makes that any thinking person should see through. His last sentence is that we have the text of the originals preserved in the KJV. Did anything think to ask him how he knows this since he doesn't have the originals to compare it too?? Did anyone ask him how he knows this since he, like all the others, have never given us a place where God says this?? It is interesting how much sloppy thinking some in the KJOnly are willing to overlook without thoughtful interaction.

Thanks for asking.

 

Glad to see we have more of the same. Someone asks a question that they want no answer to ...

 

It is impossible to be true to a translation and not be true to the originals. A translation cannot be inerrant unless the source it came from is. If someone said the Gutenburg translation is the only inerrant translation, where would that leave us English speaking folks?? Yet some English speaking folk do that frequently. If we say that our version is the only true Word of God, then all Non-English translations could not be the Word of God.

 

Dear Pure Words,

You wrote...

First we need to know which one, there have beem several revisions between 1611 and 1769 and they are several hundred differences between them some of them substantive.

Also, there are at two editions and they are different, the Cambridge and the Oxford.

Here is a URL in the public domain.
This brother says that God "resurrected" (sic) His Word in the KJV.
He says the correct KJV is the 1769 Oxford Edition.
This will be found in the last paragraph of the article.

http://www.kingdombaptist.org/default.cfm?nav_id=6&par_nav_id=&content_id=&article_id=371&layout=Default&Link_URL=

Do you agree that God had to "resurrect" His Word?
Do you agree that it is the 1769KJV Oxford Edition?
If so how do you know that it is not the Cambridge Edition?

HankD

 

The KJV translators altered the doctrine in Daniel 3:25 to imply a reference to Jesus, when that reference is absent from the Hebrew text used by the translators. According to the Hebrew, Shadrach, Meshach, Abendnego were not with a man who looked like "the Son of God", but rather a son of a god (in Hebrew, bar elahh). The fact that Nebuchadnezzar was not a monotheist lends credence to this as well. While the KJV translation does strengthen messianic doctrine, it does so by adding to the OT, something that we're biblically forbidden from doing. This is an error on the part of the KJV translators, albteit possibly unintentional.

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form..." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.

Genesis 10:9 should read "...Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.

Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.

Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Jesus explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorce. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children."

Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth..."

Malachi 4:6 should read "...lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11.

Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature."

Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive."

Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7.

Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week..." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week..." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.

Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's favor (or choosing)." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts.

Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison."

John 1:17 is contains a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ."

John 13:2 should be "And in the course of supper" or "during supper" rather than "And supper being ended".

Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.

I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish."

I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection.

I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things..."

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil..."

Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents.

Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God."

Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation."

I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the trinity doctrine.

Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits.

Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four.

Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously.

Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."

Here are some examples of imperfections due to language evolution:

2 Cor. 8:1 "We do you to wit" should read "We make known to you." Wit, wist, wot, and even wotteth appear many times in the KJV, yet its meaning (know, knew) is no longer commonly known.

Common outdated verbages: "Let" meant to hinder then; now it means to allow. "Suburbs" in the KJV means "open lands". "Corn" then meant grain, not the crop grown today. "Botch" and "Blains" referred to inflammations. "Advertise" in Num 24:14 meant to "advise". "Prevent" meant only to go before; now it can also mean to keep a thing from happening.

The names of animals and birds in the KJV are often incorrectly identified due to the lack of knowledge of these 400 years ago. Conies are hares, gledes are falcons, pygargs are mountain-goats, chamois are mountain sheep, roe, roebucks are gazelles, etc. and satyrs, dragons, and unicorns are mythological; they have no place in the Scriptures.

The word "Brass" appears several times in the OT. "Brass" is incorrect, since only Bronze and copper were available in Old Testament days (brass is an alloy of copper and zinc).

"Wind" in John 3:8 should be translated "Spirit" (pnuema is so translated everywhere else in the Bible - there is another word for wind).

"Made" in John 1:3 should read "came into being".

In John 1:5, "comprehended it not" today would be tralslated "did not overtake it". "Comprehend" once meant "to overtake", but now has a completely different meaning.

 

I didn't think you could do it. Showing ONE error in the KJV compares to that old slogan about Lay's Potato Chips... No one can eat just one.

 

Sorry, John, but this one is speculative at best. The most common meaning of 'hayah' is "to be", and this is a Qal perfect form of it in Gen. 1:2. 'Was' is a perfectly acceptable translation, if not the preferred. I agree there are errors in the KJV, but this is not one of them.

Neal

 

I remember doing some research on this passage many years ago and the "problem" is ancient.

Whether the verb is HAYAH (to be) or HAWAH (to fall). The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) indicates that it should be HAWAH (to fall).

HAWAH TWOT #483b
HAYAH TWOT #491

Hebrew root words are triliteral (3 letters) without vowels.
The difference in ancient Hebrew between these two words is so small that is hardly visible. There is a tiny dot (dagesh forte) in the middle letter YOD/VAV of HAWAH.
If the dot is forgotten then "to Fall" becomes "to be".
I believe this is an example of a "tittle" of which Jesus spoke.

Other places (at least one in Job) are noted by ancient scribes (kethib) as to this problem.

If the root word is HAWAH and the other grammar is taken into consideration then one possibility is : And the earth fell; chaos, confusion and darkness was upon the face of the deep (abyss).

Another I remember was:
And the earth falling, it fell, and chaos, confusion and darkness...

Incidently I believe "was" is proper.
Chaos and confusion (wihout form and void) meaning that which needed to be later brought into dominion by Adam.
Without form and void (tohu v'bohu).
Perhaps one of our Hebrew scholars can elaborate, in another thread.

HankD

[ March 07, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

HankD, as Hebrew is being discussed, and you are apparently familiar with it, I would ask what is the literal reading of Isa. 8:20 in the Bomberg Masoretic text? KJV says "...no light IN them", some others say "... no dawn to them" or some similar. Which is it?
Thanks.

Harald

 

Sam the Gipper writes:

ANSWER: We should put as much value on the "originals" as God does.

That value must be pretty high - look at how many copies He made!

 

hey genius, a copy can't be an original. it is a copy. if i go to the copy machine and make a copy of an original form, are they both originals? you're slipping ransom.

 

ah yes, Dr. Sam Gipp indeed. does anyone happen to remember the gentle doctor's definition of Alma Mater?

givvup? check this out:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_50.asp

wld u build ur textual wisdom upon the rock that Gipp is?

 

ah yes, Dr. Sam Gipp indeed. does anyone happen to remember the gentle doctor's definition of Alma Mater?

givvup? check this out:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_50.asp

wld u build ur textual wisdom upon the rock that Gipp is? </font>[/QUOTE]ok i give up, i can't figure it out. what exactly is your point?

 

Dear Harald,

I haven't forgotten you.

This (Isaiah 8:20) is an obscure passage.

Be back soon.

HankD

 

The Harvest said:

That value must be pretty high - look at how many copies He made!

hey genius, a copy can't be an original. it is a copy.

I'm glad to see your missing the point skill hasn't dulled with age.

If the originals are worthless, as Sam the Gipper is saying, why copy their contents and spread them across the planet?

How much value does God put in the originals? Enough to preserve what they say so that no earthly power could destroy it.

 

what exactly is your point?

Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. is the Kook of Kooks.

First, here's Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.'s bizarre claim:

And here is the truth:

The term alma mater does not come from a combination of the Hebrew almah and the Greek meter. In fact, the phrase is pure Latin: alma ("fostering" or "nurtering") mater ("mother").

So we now have three good accusations against Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D:

</font>

1. He is a proven liar, for his fabrication of evidence against Westcott and Hort, claiming they were were closet Catholics and citing a letter of Westcott's that actually says the exact opposite.</font>
2. He is clueless, for not recognizing a very common Latinism when he sees it.</font>
3. He is reckless in his accusations, choosing to concoct an insane rant about people with an alma mater robbing Jesus of one of his unique attributes rather than look up the true meaning of word. People who make stuff up to cover their ignorance are no better than liars.</font>

Gee . . . with "scholarship" like this, who needs illiteracy? KJV-onlyism . . . you gotta laugh.

 

ok so then since they are all different, which of the copies are actually copies of the originals? and which are corrupt?

 

The Harvest said:

ok so then since they are all different, which of the copies are actually copies of the originals? and which are corrupt?

How long have you been involved in "defending" the KJV? And you haven't figured this out yet?

ALL of them are imperfect copies of the originals.

 

oh ok, so instead of taking his word for it, i should trust what you say. ok everyone, you've heard it. no more trusting anything Sam Gipp says, we all have to trust what ransom says. he is much more trustworthy. just ask him and i'm sure he'll tell you so.