Word-For-Word?

[Manny Rodriguez]

Hi Manny, I also hold to the traditional texts....

I understand. Our contention is that the Received Texts our the true accurate representation of the Original Autographs. Sometimes you will find Alexandrian corruption that have "crept in unawares" into some of our old TR-based Bibles. But these were texts-in-transition that needed purifying such as we see with the line of English Bibles that preceded the KJV. I believe God gave us an ultimate example to follow when he gave us the KJV and its exact underlying texts. Simply put, and for many reasons that I don't have the time nor energy right now to elaborate upon, I would look in that direction for accuracy and purity rather than the Alexandrian Critical Texts. And when I look in that direction, I would put my money on the evidence that says 'unto salvation' is an interpolation, rather than the evidence that says otherwise.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Have you checked the Ben Chayim Hebrew text and the several editions of the TR that were extant during the KJV translators time to verify that these things are so?

Manny, how are you progressing on checking those passages?
_______

Speaking of word-for-word translation, here is an example where the KJV translators did not translate literally from the TR. Notice Mark 2:15 (KJV) --

And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.​

The second "Jesus" (before "and his disciples") is an English transliteration of the Greek proper name Iesous (Strong's #2424). But the underlying Greek word behind the first occurrence of "Jesus" here is actually auton (a form of Strong's #846); this word is a pronoun meaning 'he', 'she' or 'it' (depending upon the antecedent's gender). Coverdale (1535) has the literal rendering "as he sat" --

And it came to passe as he sat at the table in his house, there sat many publicans & synners at the table with Iesus and his disciples: For there were many
yt folowed him.​

_______

Or another example in Luke 23:33 where the Greek word kranion (Strong's #2898 meaning 'skull') is represented by the Latin transliteration of calvariae (KJV) --

And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.​

The AV translates all three of the other occurrences of kranion as "skull". We get our word 'cranium' from the Greek word here. Young (1898) has the literal English reading for this location commonly referred to in the other Gospels as the "place of the skull" --

and when they came to the place that is called Skull, there they crucified him and the evil-doers, one on the right hand and one on the left.​

 

[HankD]

I understand. Our contention is that the Received Texts our the true accurate representation of the Original Autographs. Sometimes you will find Alexandrian corruption that have "crept in unawares" into some of our old TR-based Bibles. But these were texts-in-transition that needed purifying such as we see with the line of English Bibles that preceded the KJV. I believe God gave us an ultimate example to follow when he gave us the KJV and its exact underlying texts. Simply put, and for many reasons that I don't have the time nor energy right now to elaborate upon, I would look in that direction for accuracy and purity rather than the Alexandrian Critical Texts. And when I look in that direction, I would put my money on the evidence that says 'unto salvation' is an interpolation, rather than the evidence that says otherwise.

And I understand as well Manny. I agree that it should be dropped. I for one like the writings of John Burgon in support of the Traditional Text.

My point is that no one here says in their heart with purpose "I want a corrupt text therefore I choose the Wescott and Hort type texts". Or vice versa.

The desire of both groups of brethren here (Byzantine or Alexandrian text supporters) at the BB is the same - we both want the most excellent text that can be had.

HankD

 

[Logos1560]

According to what I have read, it was my understanding that Queen Elizabeth I appointed the Bishops of England to produce an English Bible on English soil. If all of my information is wrong, than I'll gladly stand corrected.

P. W. Raidabaugh maintained that the Bishops’ Bible “never received the Royal sanction, and it was not until two years after Parker’s death that an edition was printed ‘set forth by authority,‘ and then this authority was simply Episcopal, and not royal” (History of the English Bible, p. 49).

David Daniel wrote: "Queen Elizabeth did not do what her Archbishop requested, and acknowledge the Bishops' Bible as the standard English church text" (The Bible in English, p. 346).

 

[Logos1560]

Benson Bobrick noted that “Parker presented a copy of the new Bible to the queen and asked that ‘it might have her gracious favor, license, and protection,‘ but she took no public notice of it, nor ever offered to give it her sanction” (Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible, pp. 183-184).

KJV-only author David Cloud claimed: "The KJV formally replaced the Bishops' Bible which had been authorized by the crown, thus assuming the authority of its predecessor" (For Love of the Bible, p. 11), but so far I have found no evidence that supports Cloud's statement.

 

[Logos1560]

The finalizing of the KJV was a work in progress between 1611 and 1769. The language was still in development especially in terms of orthography. Those who revised some of the "archaic" English in the 17 and 18th centuries were living contemporary to the literary English that they were dealing with. Therefore the integrity of the text was not evilly effected by those who understood that literary English and were simply trying to purify and finalize the text.

Your argument or reasoning does not hold up. For one thing, it ignores the fact that KJV editions today are not every word the same as the 1769 edition of the KJV. Changes were still made in the early 1800's, in the 1820's, around the 1840's, and even afterwards. Some changes in present accepted Oxford editions of the KJV were not made until after 1881 and some in present Cambridge editions of the KJV were not made until after 1900. If unknown editors as late as 1900 (almost 300 years after 1611) could still understand that literary English enough to make changes, no valid reasons have been offered that prove that other changes could not be made today without affecting the integrity of the text.