The"Psalm 12:6-7 thingie"

[robycop3]

What about accurately translated words?

Not every word in the KJV is an accurate translation, such as I pointed out to you with "Easter" in Acts 12:4.

 

[Logos1560]

Luther's 1534 German Bible does not agree perfectly and completely with the 1611 KJV. There are some significant textual differences between Luther's German Bible and the 1611 KJV, and many differences in translation.

Luther's German Bible provides sound evidence against inconsistent, erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

All the editions of Luther's Bible published during Luther's lifetime did not include 1 John 5:7, Mark 11:26, Luke 17:36, and Revelation 21:26 in addition to many other differences when compared to the KJV. When compared to the KJV, Luther's Bible was also missing phrases at John 19:38, James 4:6, 1 John 2:23, and Revelation 18:23.

Glenn Conjurske observed: "The fact is, (in addition to numerous other differences) there are whole verses in the King James Version which neither are nor ever have been in Luther's German" (Olde Paths, Sept., 1997, p. 212). Preserved Smith reported that 1 John 5:7 was first placed in the German Bible in 1575 (Age of Reformation, p. 570). Conjurske also pointed out that Luther omitted 1 John 5:7 from the revised edition of the Latin Vulgate that he published in 1529 (March, 1997, p. 72).

 

[Logos1560]

It has been a waste of mine.

You do not prove that my consistent, just application of scriptural truths and presenting of actual facts would be a waste of time for you to consider.

On the other hand, you do waste your time as you refuse to engage in serious discussion and as you refuse to back up what you claim. You do not prove your claims for the KJV to be true or scriptural.

 

[Logos1560]

Is there any chain of continual translation as you would translate it:

The German Luther:

Do you claim that Luther's German Bible has the preserved word at Leviticus 11:30?

Translations on the KJV-only view's good line or pure stream of Bibles disagree concerning how to translate most accurately a Hebrew word at Leviticus 11:30. Is there any chain of consistent continual translation of this Hebrew word in the KJV-only view's good line of Bibles?

Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops’ Bibles rendered the Hebrew word anakah as "hedgehog," possibly through the influence of the Rabbinical writers or Luther‘s Bible or both. The 1534 Luther’s German Bible has “Igel” [hedgehog] as its rendering. The 1637 authorized Dutch Bible evidently agreed with Luther’s at this verse as can be seen in Haak’s rendering “hedgehog.” The 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bibles have "erizo" [hedgehog, porcupine]. In addition, the 1853 Leeser's Old Testament also has "hedgehog." Aryeh Kaplan translated it “hedgehog” [“Anakah in Hebrew; yala in Aramaic (Targum; Bava Bathra)‘ herison in French (Rashi; Chizzkuni) erizo in Spanish (Ralbag)“ (Living Torah, p. 321). Do KJV-only advocates consider this rendering "hedgehog" in their pure line of good Bibles to be an error or a corruption? Was the KJV a revision of earlier English Bibles whose translators failed to translate what the Hebrew says? Is the evidence from their view’s good line possibly stronger for this rendering “hedgehog” than it is for the KJV’s rendering?

On the other hand, the Geneva Bible rendered it as "rat," perhaps through the influence of the Greek Septuagint and Latin that rendered it with a word or words meaning "shrew" or "shrew mouse." At his note for this verse, Kaplan asserted that “the Septuagint translates it mugale, a mole, shrew mouse or field mouse” (Living Torah, p. 321). Tristram maintained that “the old Greek translation renders it ’the shrew-mouse” (Natural History, p. 265).

The KJV rendered it as "ferret." What is the source of the KJV’s rendering? What sound evidence supports the KJV’s rendering? The ferret is a member of the weasel family that was already listed in the twenty-ninth verse of this chapter. In the Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus, Jacob Milgram suggested that the rendering "ferret" came from the Septuagint (p. 671). Andrew Willet also indicated that the rendering “ferret” came from the Septuagint and possibly also Pagnim [Viverra] (Hexapla, p. 269). Lancelot Brenton’s 1851 English translation of the Greek Septuagint has “ferret” at this verse, but it could have been influenced by the KJV‘s rendering. The truth of the original [language] text does not seem to have been responsible for the KJV translators changing the rendering of the pre-1611 English Bibles unless they possibly found it in the previous verse. At Leviticus 11:29 where the KJV has “tortoise,“ Kaplan has the translation “ferret” with this note [“tzau in Hebrew; huron in Spanish (Ralbag); faruita in Old French (Chizzkuni)” (p. 321). While other Jewish sources identify the Hebrew word in that verse with a form of lizard or with the toad (Rashi), Kaplan noted that “some say that the tzau is a tortoise (MeAm Lo’ez) since it is like a covered wagon, which is also called tzau (see Numbers 7:8)” (Ibid.). Perhaps the interpretation of some rabbical writers for a word in this previous verse [Jewish tradition] helped influence the KJV translators to follow the Greek LXX and include “ferret” in the list of animals. The 1568 Bishops’ Bible has “toad” and the 1560 Geneva has “frog” where the KJV has “tortoise.”

What is the better or more accurate rendering of the Hebrew word at Leviticus 11:30 according to the overall known evidence? Henry Hart contended that “there is little doubt that the ferret could not have been intended by the word anakah, which means literally ’that which groans or sighs’” (Animals, p. 93). The Illustrated Bible Treasury edited by William Wright maintained “the translation ‘ferret’ is now admitted to be incorrect” (p. 278). G. S. Candsdale asserted that the KJV’s rendering “ferrent” is “incorrect, as also are older suggestions of shrew mouse and hedgehog” (All the Animals, p. 200). Candsdale maintained that “the ferret is not a wild animal but a domesticated form, usually albino, of the polecat” (p. 128, footnote 1). Hedgehog seems to have stronger support than ferret.

 

[Logos1560]

The German Luther:

Peter Ruckman seemed to suggest that “Luther’s German Bible is nearly identical” to the KJV (Bible Babel, p. 91). Ruckman recommended “Martin Luther's German version" (Scholarship Only Controversy, p. 1). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Ruckman wrote: “Martin Luther’s German Bible is the same text as the King James, 1611” (p. 80). In his same commentary, Ruckman asserted: “Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible is a monument in the German language, exactly as the King James Bible is a monument in the English language” (p. 82). Ruckman wrote: “Martin’s German Bible is the German King James Bible. It is the equivalent of the ‘King’s English,’ and so all affirm” (Biblical Scholarship, p. 146). Ruckman wrote: “God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent” (p. 230). Ruckman asserted: “Never hesitate to correct any Greek text with the text of the ‘Reichstext’” (Monarch of the Books, p. 19).

If according to KJV-only reasoning Luther’s German Bible and the KJV are equal to the same underlying texts, it suggests that they are equal to each other. When the water of the Received text was poured out into Luther’s German Bible, did it not remain the same water according to KJV-only reasoning? If according to KJV-only reasoning Luther’s German Bible and the KJV are equal to the same thing [the self-attesting, self-authenticating word of God], it again indicates that they are equal to each other. J. J. Ray maintained that “things equal to the same thing are equal to each other” (God Wrote Only One Bible, p. 29). Likewise, D. A. Waite acknowledged that “things equal to the same thing are equal to each other” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 84). Waite wrote: “As in geometry, two things that are equal to the same thing are equal to each other” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 119). According to the KJV-only view’s own tree, Luther’s German Bible and the KJV are branches on the same tree. This would also seem to imply that they are equal to each other. In his book Biblical Scholarship, Ruckman referred to the “Luther‘s Bible and the King James Bible” (p. 56), “Receptus of King James and Martin Luther” (p. 94), “Martin Luther’s German Bible and the King James Bible” (p. 142), and “Martin Luther’s German Bible and the King James Authorized English Bible” (p. 390), seeming to make them equal.

According to a consistent application of KJV-only claims and reasoning, Luther’s German Bible and the KJV would have equal authority, and one of these translations cannot have greater authority than the other. If a standard and consensus English translation of the Received text is supposed to be self-attesting and self-authenticating, a standard and consensus German translation of that same text would also need to be self-attesting and self-authenticating. Is Luther's German Bible the consensus and sole final authority for believers that speak German? Can there be two varying and different consensus sole and final authorities for any believers that speak and read both English and German?

Based on what greater authority or standard can it be claimed that one of these translations is greater than or superior to the other? If there are any differences between them and there actually are, it is valid evidence of the need a greater authority than either of these translations to determine which is more accurate.

 

[Logos1560]

Do you believe in preservation?

I believe in what the Scriptures state and teach concerning preservation. Perhaps you are the one who does not have a consistent, sound view of preservation and instead advocate your own private interpretation. You do not demonstrate that the Scriptural teaching concerning preservation directly relates to the KJV.

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets. The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. A writing from Elijah would be written in the language in which Elijah wrote it (2 Chron. 21:12). The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do the Scriptures teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration. For when a king [or whoever] copied them, he would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them to be able to “keep all the words” (Deut. 17:18-19).

 

[Logos1560]

Can I show you how the NIV contradicts itself, and other English 'versions'?

Are they all the word of God then, preserved? If not, which ones are then?

I have not recommended the NIV.

Are you willing to see the evidence that the KJV sometimes contradicts the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it is a revision, and could be understood to sometimes contradict itself and that some editions of the KJV conflict with or contradict other editions of the KJV?

Do you blindly accept all the many varying editions of the KJV including the 1611 edition with its errors?