The original written word of God.

[37818]

In the 1611 or later additions are you saying that there were blanks with italics set forth

I said no such thing.

Logos has shown that there are big differences between the 1611 and future additions with respect to the number of italics.

So? The current KJVs do not have the 1611 footnotes

I don't understand what you were saying about the 2020 NASB

Oh, that is easy. You never really understood their value. Those italics are of no use to you.

 

[Logos1560]

The current KJVs do not have the 1611 footnotes

The 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 edition (edited by David Norton) do have the 1611 edition marginal notes. These two editions also include the few additional marginal notes that were added in the 1762 Cambridge edition and in the 1769 Oxford edition. In addition, these 2005 and 2011 Cambridge KJV editions do not have any words in italics. [There have been and are other KJV editions that do not have any words in italics].

The 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by Scrivener had had 34,712 words in italics, and this edition was reprinted in some Zondervan KJV editions beginning around 2000 and then later reprinted in some editions by Henrickson. Besides the 1873 reprint editions, most present post-1900 KJV editions probably have less than half the number of words in italics as was indicated in the 1873 edition.

Perhaps explaining why he did not use italics in his 2005 edition, David Norton wrote: "The original italics were thoroughly inadequate, and the modern proliferation remains an ineffective guide to the original text for the few readers who understand their intention (Strong's numbers, interlinear, and electronic Bibles are all infinitely better guides to the connections). Bemusing, inadequate and ineffective, whether in the original or the current form, the italics only make reading more difficult" (A Textual History of the King James Bible, p. 162).

The original 1611 edition in Gothic type did not have the added words in italics, but instead it indicated added words by a different size type [small roman]. At the 1618 Synod of Dort, KJV translator Samuel Ward listed the rule or principle followed by the translators as the following: "Sixthly, that words which it was anywhere necessary to insert into the text to complete the meaning were to be distinguished by another type, small roman" (Textual History, p. 10). It was post-1611 KJV editions that changed the added words to italics as had been used in the 1560 Geneva Bible.

 

[Logos1560]

Here is an example of the inconsistency in the use of italics in most present KJV editions. The added word "man" is in italics in "hungry man", but not in "thirsty man". The 2000 and 2002 Zondervan reprints of the 1873 and the 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 Hendrickson reprints of the 1873 have the added "man" in italics but most post-1900 KJV editions do not.

Isaiah 29:8 [italics] [compare hungry man in this same verse]

thirsty man (1679, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1737, 1743, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1804 Oxford) [1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1812, 1816, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1660, 1689, 1703, 1706, 1711, 1712, 1717, 1730, 1735, 1741, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1768, 1772, 1811, 1853, 1879 London} (1755 Oxon) (1715, 1722, 1735, 1751, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1806, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1834, 1842, 1843, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1696, 1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Bristol) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1777 Wood) (1782 Aitken) (1790 Bolton) (1790, 1804, 1828 MH) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1803 Etheridge) (1804 Blomfield) (1814, 1832, 1835, 1851, 1858 Scott) (1814 Woodward) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1830, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1821, 1831 Brown) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1835 Towar) (1836 Stebbing) (1839, 1845, 1854, 1857, 1876 Harding) (1841 Thomas) (1844, 1848 Hartford) (1846 Benson) (1846 Portland) (1910 Collins) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)

thirsty man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Logos1560]

Some examples of where words were not put into italics until the 1743 Cambridge or the 1769 Oxford, and these examples also indicate some later KJV editions that do not use italics.
In Luke 10:30, there is a Greek word in the text while "man" is in italics as though there was not a Greek word.

Luke 7:37 [use of italics]

Jesus (1675, 1679, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1743, 1747, 1753, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1928 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1648, 1650, 1655, 1657, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1689, 1706, 1711, 1723, 1730, 1735, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1753, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772, 1795 London} (1755 Oxon) (1637, 1638, 1714, 1715, 1722, 1751, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1695, 1798 Baxter) (1770 Dodd) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1782 Aitken) (1790 MH) (1843 AFBS) (1897 Mackail) (2003, 2011, 2012 Barbour) (2003 IGC) (EB) (KJVJB) (2006 PENG) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (NCE) (2013 CC) (2015 KAPPA)

Jesus (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1790 Cambridge, DKJB]


Luke 7:38 [use of italics]

him (1675, 1679, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1743, 1747, 1753, 1754, 1758, 1764, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1783, 1928 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1648, 1650, 1655, 1657, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1689, 1706, 1711, 1723, 1730, 1735, 1743, 1747, 1750, 1753, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772, 1795 London} (1755 Oxon) (1637, 1638, 1714, 1715, 1722, 1751, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1695, 1798 Baxter) (1746 Leipzig) (1770 Dodd) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Birmingham) (1776 Pasham) (1782 Aitken) (1790 MH) (1843 AFBS) (1897 Mackail) (2003, 2011, 2012 Barbour) (2003 IGC) (EB) (KJVJB) (2006 PENG) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (NCE) (2013 CC) (2015 KAPPA)

Him (KJRLB) (CB)

him (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1790 Cambridge, DKJB]



Luke 9:57 [use of italics] [Greek word for man not in text]

a certain man (1675, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1729, 1747, 1753, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1928 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1640, 1648, 1650, 1655, 1657, 1672, 1684, 1689, 1706, 1711, 1723, 1730, 1735, 1743, 1795 London} (1755 Oxon) (1637, 1638, 1714, 1715, 1722, 1751, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1695, 1798 Baxter) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Pasham) (1782 Aitken) (1790 MH) (1843 AFBS) (1897 Mackail) (2003, 2011, 2012 Barbour) (2003 IGC) (2003 EB) (KJVJB) (2006 PENG) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (NCE) (2013 CC) (2015 KAPPA)

a certain man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]


Luke 10:30 [see Luke 14:2, Luke 14:16, Acts 3:2] [Greek word for man--anthropos in text]

A certain man (1675, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1729, 1747, 1749, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1758, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1928 Oxford) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1634, 1640, 1648, 1650, 1655, 1657, 1672, 1684, 1689, 1706, 1711, 1723, 1730, 1735, 1743, 1795 London} (1755 Oxon) (1637, 1638, 1714, 1715, 1722, 1751, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1722, 1743, 1762, 1801 Dublin) (1645 Dutch) (1695, 1798 Baxter) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1776 Pasham) (1782 Aitken) (1790 MH) (1821 Brown) (1832, 1835 Scott) (1843 AFBS) (1897 Mackail) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (2003, 2011, 2012 Barbour) (2003 IGC) (2003 EB) (KJVJB) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (2011 AMP) (2011 PJB) (NCE) (2013 CC) (2015 KAPPA)

A certain man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Deacon]

If there are no original documents (and the autographs are long gone) and neither “transcription” nor “translation” is INSPIRED, then Matthew 24:35 is false … the words of God HAVE passed away because God failed to protect them. From your statements, even the Torah written by the hand of Moses was only an “uninspired transcription” of the inspired spoken words of God with the two tablets of stone and the wall in Daniel the only words “written by God”.

I think God has a vested interest in preserving His word. I believe Matthew 24:35 is true. I believe that God has inspired more than you give Him credit for. The errors do not negate the hand of God, they necessitate the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth.

You are free to follow an unknowable God whose words are lost to time … that is your right.

As long as God is God, his word remains. The declaration that his word will not pass away is an aspect of his character, unchangeable and eternal, it is also a promise that we as his children can hold dear, we can trust him. It is something we need to trust him to do, by faith.

We can argue about the validity of various translations, about text-forms and manuscript families, about variants,….
…but through all this God’s word is communicated in a way that his message is clear and present.
And when the world ends, his words will not have passed away.

Rob

 

[atpollard]

As long as God is God, his word remains.

Perhaps true, however, under your “GIVEN” premise …

More factors

Matthew 24:35 “…my words will not pass away.”
(Includes written and spoken words)
Inspiration - God inspired the authors who wrote as they were moved by the Spirit
There are no original documents of Scripture.
Transcription (copying) of Scripture is not inspired
Translations are not the original Word of God, translators are not inspired

Rob

God’s word is known only to God, making it unknowable to man. We only have “illegible photocopies” to guess at what God’s word was.

Your premise invalidates the manuscripts and all translations … removing access to God’s word from everyone and placing God’s word TWICE REMOVED from everyone that does not read dead languages. Thus by your premise, I know NOTHING of God … I only have hand-me-down rumors of what God might or might not have promised.

 

[atpollard]

Transcription and translation may not be infallibly ‘God-breathed’, but I believe that History affirms it to be ‘inspired’ and ‘protected’ by the God that raised up the men for the task of preserving and spreading His word.

 

[Logos1560]

Transcription and translation may not be infallibly ‘God-breathed’, but I believe that History affirms it to be ‘inspired’ and ‘protected’ by the God that raised up the men for the task of preserving and spreading His word.

You may believe your statement, but that does not mean that it is true. You could choose to believe an assertion that is not true.

Are you possibly trying to suggest that one unidentified, specific Bible translation is affirmed by history to be "inspired" and "protected" by God or are you making your claim for more than one Bible translation?

 

[Conan]

Transcription and translation may not be infallibly ‘God-breathed’, but I believe that History affirms it to be ‘inspired’ and ‘protected’ by the God that raised up the men for the task of preserving and spreading His word.

His name was William Tyndale, and he translated and revised and published complete New Testaments from Greek to English. Also he translated and published the first 5 Books of Moses/Jonah from Hebrew to English. After he was hunted down and executed for doing such his friend John Rogers published the Historical Books thought to be translated by William Tyndale from the Hebrew. His pioneering, original translations have passed into the .......

Coverdales Bible
Matthew's Bible
The Great Bible
Geneva Bible
Bishops Bible
Douay Rheims Bible
King James Bible
Revised Version
American Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
New American Standard Bible
English Standard Bible
With other, unamed editions also.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I think one issue is a translation is the language itself.

There is a reason God did not chose the origional text to be english. Its amazing how God not only used this created greek language which is more precise and deep to create the New Testament.

I think we have enough copies of the greek texts we can determine or actually see what God has said.

The issue I see is the argument on which text.

The majority (the text which has the most copies)
The textus receptus
the older manuscripture (which we have less copies of)

the arguments are aplenty

 

[37818]

I think we have enough copies of the greek texts we can determine or actually see what God has said.

What is accepted as the Critical Text readings of a few oldest texts goes against that real evidence of for the original text readings.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What is accepted as the Critical Text readings of a few oldest texts goes against that real evidence of for the original text readings.

what evidence would this be?

 

[37818]

what evidence would this be?

. . . we have enough copies of the greek texts we can determine or actually see what God has said.

Every copy of a book has text in common with other copies.

The common reading translated "being ended" is also in it's case the oldest reading in P66 with a spelling error. Because of a believed difficulty in the account in John 13 the original reading is rejected for the reading of few other old mss. Which is believed to be better.

 

[atpollard]

Are you possibly trying to suggest that one unidentified, specific Bible translation is affirmed by history to be "inspired" and "protected" by God or are you making your claim for more than one Bible translation?

First, I am affirming the accuracy of the manuscripts to the autographs. While not perfect ... which is acceptable since only God is perfect and even with perfect autographs, our understanding would still be imperfect ... the manuscripts are inspired by God to the extent that they preserve His word sufficiently for their stated purpose (that we might know Him). That is not an accident of fortuitous chance but the hand of Divine Providence at work. God raised up men to faithfully preserve His word that it might survive to be passed down to us to continue to serve the purpose for which He breathed it.

Second, I do not affirm ANY ONE translation as THE INSPIRED translation, rather I affirm that the act of carrying God's word to EVERY TONGUE is not a work of man, but a stated desire of God. As such, the hand of God raises up men and guides their work according to His desire. Any and Every translation that bears fruit is GOD BREATHED ... the FRUIT being the proof of His hand in the work.

• [1 Corinthians 12:4-11 NASB20] 4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all [persons.] 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another [various] kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

This list is not meant to be exhaustive and that same SPIRIT dwells in every believer. How can it be that the Spirit of God dwelling in the People of God would not protect the integrity of the Word of God! It is a self-evident truth. (or everything that we believe is a lie and as Paul said, we are to be pitied above all men for believing a lie).

• [Ephesians 2:10 NASB20] 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

By what twisted logic is the Christian that sets his hand to faithfully copying a manuscript to preserve God's sacred words for another generation, or the Christian that sets to translating the word of God so that MILLIONS of people that cannot comprehend will be able to hear the word of God ... excluded from THOSE good works being prepared by God in advance for them to walk in them.

Thus I bristle at the claim that "manuscripts are not the inspired word of God" and "translations are not the inspired word of God" and only "unavailable autographs are the inspired word of God". I have no use for an unknowable God with an unavailable word.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Every copy of a book has text in common with other copies.

The common reading translated "being ended" is also in it's case the oldest reading in P66 with a spelling error. Because of a believed difficulty in the account in John 13 the original reading is rejected for the reading of few other old mss. Which is believed to be better.

I have not heard of this actual event. So still not sure exactly what your saying.

Which do you think is more accurate, the ones which are closer to the origional. or the many which came many many years later, And what do you think we should do to determine which is more accurate.

 

[37818]

I have not heard of this actual event. So still not sure exactly what your saying.

Luke 22:20 after the supper. John.13:2 the supper being ended. John referring to where they are as the supper, John 13:4 and John 13:23-24 from John 21:20. And there is still bread there, John 13:26.

Which do you think is more accurate, the ones which are closer to the origional. or the many which came many many years later, And what do you think we should do to determine which is more accurate.

It comes down to what methodology of textual criticism is going to be used.
N. T. Textual Criticism - Manuscriptology - Prunch

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Identity-of-the-New-Testament-Text-IV.pdf

Side note. Pickering, it is said that he believes the Greek text he put together to be error free. I have no doubt that is the intent of his work. That his work with New Testament is actually error free, one can only hope that it is. I disagree with him on too many of his some of his interpretations to believe his Greek text to be error free. But I do highly trust his Greek text choices. One needs to read his New Testament translation notes, where he gives opinions on some doctrinal issues.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Luke 22:20 after the supper. John.13:2 the supper being ended. John referring to where they are as the supper, John 13:4 and John 13:23-24 from John 21:20. And there is still bread there, John 13:26.

It comes down to what methodology of textual criticism is going to be used.
N. T. Textual Criticism - Manuscriptology - Prunch

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Identity-of-the-New-Testament-Text-IV.pdf

I guess I never really got that deep. Whether its after or during supper. It depends on context.were they done with the main meal? and now Jesus institutes the cup and the bread? Did he wash the feet before the main meal or after? I do not think we can tell from what is written. so to me there is no issue here.

I was thinking more in like with the end of Mark 16. Where jesus says some things that really do not make any sense. And how they are missing from the earliest manuscripts..

 

[37818]

I guess I never really got that deep. Whether its after or during supper. It depends on context.were they done with the main meal? and now Jesus institutes the cup and the bread? Did he wash the feet before the main meal or after? I do not think we can tell from what is written. so to me there is no issue here.

I was thinking more in like with the end of Mark 16. Where jesus says some things that really do not make any sense. And how they are missing from the earliest manuscripts..

Only 3 manuscripts omit the long ended of Mark out of some 1700 manuscripts. And the Apostle Paul seems to refer to Mark 16:15 in Colossians 1:23. And the regarded oldest manuscript that omits it has a blank column where it would go. Codex Vaticanus.

Foot washing was the common practice. So it would have been done for example, between Mark 14:17 and verse 18. What Jesus did was for the purpose of teaching. And the instruction of the remembrance was after the supper, per Luke 22:20. Judas did not leave until after Jesus did His foot washing teaching.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

I said no such thing.

I was only asking because your posts are sometimes difficult to follow. I just sought to understand what you meant.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Only 3 manuscripts omit the long ended of Mark out of some 1700 manuscripts. And the Apostle Paul seems to refer to Mark 16:15 in Colossians 1:23. And the regarded oldest manuscript that omits it has a blank column where it would go. Codex Vaticanus.

Foot washing was the common practice. So it would have been done for example, between Mark 14:17 and verse 18. What Jesus did was for the purpose of teaching. And the instruction of the remembrance was after the supper, per Luke 22:20. Judas did not leave until after Jesus did His foot washing teaching.

I was speaking more of vs 16 after.

Jesus many times said whoever believes is saved. In mark, he seems to add the word to be baptized.

As for eating snakes and drinking poison and not dying, this makes no sense Many a believer had died of snake bites and being poisoned.