1611 KJV only and anger

First, my KJB does not have this comma.

Second, I hardly think this discredits the original 1611 KJB. You would have to prove that the translators intentionally inserted this comma to give 2 Pet 1:1 a different meaning. Can you do that?

It is very likely that this was a typographical error that was copied for some time. Printing was very primitive in 1611, and typos were common. Thousands of copies would be sold and distributed, others would copy these editions. The Bible is a massive book, sometimes errors were not spotted until many years later. In the mean time, thousands of copies with these typos were printed and often copied by others. The fact that this error was spotted and corrected shows the original text was without corruption.

And this is the real issue between the KJB and the MVs, the original source text. As I have said, the TR has nearly 3000 more words in the original Greek than the CT. This cannot be blamed on a "typo". Entire verses and even passages are either added in the TR, or omitted in the CT according to your perspective. I believe the CT omits scripture.

The omitted "a" in John 4:24 is another matter altogether. In our modern age with computers, scripture can be checked in seconds (or minutes at most) for errors. This difference was known long ago, so there is no excuse other than the NKJV intentionally selected a translation that conforms to the MVs and departs from the KJB.

 

After walkin the dog and other things I finally got to the almost end of the thread....I do not know what you mean by this statement...please explain...is their derogatory sarcasm involved or should I be praising God??.BTW...This and CCM are THE two biggest attacks of apostaty upon the church...IMHO..so its no surprise I came here first and not the 'sports' forum or whatever else is here...I like to converse about these issues..

 

Welcome to BB Mark!

Oh, if you like to debate this issue you have come to the right place. You will find plenty of opposition here. I have been KJO for years, but I rarely engage in these debates.

I hope you do a better job than me, I can't seem to get through to these guys at all. :BangHead:

 

You assume or speculate that it was likely a typographical error. The 1611 also had a similar comma at Titus 2:13, which could suggest that it was intentional in both places.

This comma at 2 Peter 1:1 was spotted and pointed out as early as 1633, but it was not corrected until 1743.

Concerning this verse in his 1633 commentary on 2 Peter, Thomas Adams observed: “Some read these words by disjoining them; of God, and of our Saviour,“ which would seem to refer to the rendering in the 1611.

 

If that was the real issue, KJV-only advocates would have no real reasons for not accepting the 1833 Webster's Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the 1994 KJ21, the KJ2000.

 

Thanks Winman..don't know you but I do appreciate your stand..not here to convince ..more to defend..natural man would love to bring God down to their level..hence the slippery slope of translation..it is obvious that the Lord has put his stamp of approval on the KJV...proven down through the ages..with minor grammatical changes over the years..but to tear it down and start over from alexandrian manuscripts is the height of error in our day..where does it stop?..KJV bibles can be printed in our garage if we chose to...any effort like that to print other versions would get a knock on our doors...no copyright on the KJV...wonder why?..Gods word is free and will remain that way forever..these other versions are frauds IMHO..mixing truth with subtle changes in meanings to weaken the fabric of Gods Holy Word...let the attacks begin!

 

Amos 6:12 in the NKJV

At Amos 6:12, the Wycliffe’s Bible, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible, the 1537 Matthew’s Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1560 Bishops’ Bible, and the NKJV all translate one Hebrew word as “wormwood.” On the other hand, the KJV changed this rendering to “hemlock.” What truth of the original demanded that this change be introduced into the English Bible? Is this change an improvement? What reasons required that the same Hebrew word translated at Amos 5:7 as “wormwood” by the KJV translators be translated by a different English word at Amos 6:12?


Tristram affirmed that “La’anah is always translated ‘wormwood,‘ excepting in Amos 6:12, where it is rendered ‘hemlock’” (Natural History, p. 493). The Companion Bible has a note for the word “hemlock” at this verse indicating that this is a reference to the Pentateuch “(Deut. 29:18, same word as ‘wormwood’)“ (p. 1240). At Amos 5:7, this same source again has a note that points out this same reference (p. 1237). Young’s Analytical Concordance defined this Hebrew word as “wormwood” (p. 475). Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon has the definition “wormwood” (p. 440) as does Green‘s Concise Lexicon (p. 121). A Reader’s Hebrew Bible has the note “wormwood” for this Hebrew word (p. 1033). Wilson’s O. T. Word Studies defined this Hebrew word as “wormwood” (p. 490). William Newcome (1729-1800) translated it “wormwood” in his version of the Minor Prophets (p. 44). Groser maintained that the word “hemlock” at Amos 6:12 “should be ‘wormwood’ as in other places” (Trees and Plants, p. 195). Unger’s Bible Dictionary maintained that “hemlock [was] an unfortunate translation of the Hebrew … laanah (Amos 6:12), which should be, as in R. V., ’wormwood‘” (p. 1138). The Jewish author of Bible Flowers and Flower Lore wrote: “The wormwood was known to the ancient Jews by the designation ’La‘anah,’ and the Authorized Version, in every place where the word is found, saving one, correctly renders it by its rightful botanic equivalent. This exception is in the sixth chapter of Amos. And in this passage the translators of the Anglican Bible have, probably for variety’s sake, used the word ’hemlock’ instead of ’wormwood.’ Why, it is impossible to conjecture; for the Hebrew word in this instance is the same as that correctly rendered in all other passages where it occurs by the English term wormwood” (pp. 47-48).

 

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy. How can you supposedly defend the truth using a fallacy [false argument]?

 

Hebrews 10:23 in the NKJV

In Hebrews 10:23, James D. Price noted that the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and all Greek manuscripts have the Greek word for "hope" while the KJV has "faith." Scrivener thought that "faith" for "hope" at Hebrews 10:23 was a "mere oversight of our [KJV] translators" (The Authorized Edition, p. 247). Henry Craik referred to it as “a manifest oversight” (Hints, p. 49). Ezra Abbot suggested that “as a misprint, which would easily escape correction, it may have originated in the expression, ’assurance of faith’ in the preceding verse, putting the thought of ’faith’ into the mind of the type-setter, and making it natural for him to substitute the common expression, ’profession of faith,’ for the unusual one, ’profession of hope.’ This may also have been facilitated by the occurrence of the word ’faithful’ in the following clause” (Authorship, p. 226). Thomas Horne as edited by Samuel Tregelles maintained that the rendering in our version at Hebrews 10:23 is “simply a mistake” (Introduction, Vol. 4, p. 227). This is stated in a note concerning that comment: “’Faith’ in this passage of our English Bibles, seems to have been merely an erratum of the first edition, formed by the eye of the compositor resting on ’faithful’ immediately after” (Ibid.). C. E. Hammond proposed that “the compositor’s eye in the first edition perhaps rested upon the word ‘faithful’ in the line immediately below; so it [faith] crept in accidentally, and has never been corrected” (Outlines, p. 55). David Norton also asserted that “faith” “could be a printer’s error because of ‘faithful’ later in the verse” (Textual History, p. 351). In 1871 in a note concerning Hebrews 10:23, Thomas Abbott commented that “faith may, perhaps, be a typographical error” (English Bible, p. 40). Alan Macgregor, a defender of the KJV, acknowledged that “faith” “appears, however, to be an uncorrected printing error” (400 Years On, p. 205).


Was it impossible for the KJV translators to have overlooked a questionable rendering? Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale's Bible, Matthew's Bible, Coverdale's Duoglott, the Great Bible, Jugge’s New Testament, Whittingham's New Testament, the Geneva Bible, Thomson’s New Testament, and the Bishops' Bible all translated this Greek word accurately as "hope" as do Jay Green's Interlinear and Berry's Interlinear. According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded that this rendering in the Bishops’ and other earlier English Bibles be altered? Luther’s 1534 German Bible rendered this word as “hoffnung” [hope]. According to a consistent application of KJV-only reasoning noted earlier, Luther’s German Bible and the KJV would be equal in authority. The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible also has “hope.“ This same Greek word was translated "hope" by the KJV translators every other time it is found in the TR (53 times).


Young's Analytical Concordance defined elpis at Hebrews 10:23 as "hope" (p. 324). The Ryrie Study Bible has this note for this verse: “Lit. the confession of our hope” (p. 1865). The Companion Bible has this note: “our faith=the hope, Gr. elpis” (p. 1838). In his commentary on Hebrews, Oliver B. Greene noted about this verse that "The Greek reads, 'Let us hold fast the confession of our hope'" (p. 406). Concerning this verse, Ralph Earle observed: "The Greek word is not pistis, ' faith,' but elpis, 'hope'" (Word Meanings, p. 427). Bullinger defined the Greek word elpis at this verse as “hope” (Lexicon, p. 272). C. E. Hammond maintained that “the true reading is ‘hope’” (Outlines, p. 55). In his Expository Discourses on 1 Peter, John Brown asserted that “hope, not faith, is the genuine reading” at Hebrews 10:23 (p. 445). In the 1824 New Family Bible edited by Benjamin Boothroyd, “confession of our hope” is in the text at Hebrews 10:23. In his book A Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine under the heading “the nature of hope,” KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes would quote “hold fast” with the reference (Heb. 10:23) (p. 95). This would indicate that Andrewes considered this verse to be referring to hope. It may be possible that his comments were based on the text of the Geneva Bible.

Some have noted a parallel or comparison between the three of 1 Corinthians 13:13 [faith, hope, and love] to the same three in Hebrews 10:22-24 [faith, v. 22; hope, v. 23; love, v. 24]. At 1 Corinthians 13:13, they are clearly identified as “these three,“ not as these two with “faith” and “hope” referring to the same thing or being synonyms. While clearly present in the Greek, this parallel is missing in the KJV. In 1659, Robert Gell wrote: "And let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, (the [KJV] translators turn it [faith] which should be turn'd [hope,] according to all Greek copies, I have yet seen. Beside, the apostle in verses 22, 23, 24 hath the three theological graces, in their order)" (Essay, p. 525). Alfred Dewes wrote: “In the three consecutive verses the three graces of faith, hope, and love are introduced; but the translation fails to represent them” (Plea, p. 13). In 1866, Henry Alford (1810-1871) asserted: “We have here an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder through centuries. The word ’faith,’ given here by the A. V., instead of hope--breaking up the beautiful triad of vv. 22, 23, 24,--faith, hope, love,--was a mere mistake, hope being the original, without any variety of reading, and hope, being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611” (New Testament for English Readers, Vol. 2, p. 706). In his commentary on Hebrews, Donald Guthrie maintained that “10:22 mentions faith, 10:23 refers to hope, and 10:24 to love” (p. 56). The same three graces [faith, love, hope] are also found in Colossians 1:4-5 and 1 Thessalonians 1:3.

Did Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible translators, and other early translators supposedly corrupt the Bible by translating this word as "hope" or were perhaps the KJV translators mistaken in translating this word as "faith?" By changing a noun in all the earlier English Bibles, were the KJV translators guilty of unfaithfulness in translation, inaccuracy in translation, or unreliability in translation according a consistent application of the claims of a KJV defender? Did the KJV translators receive new revelation which makes their choice of words infallible so that we should read their interpretations back into the Greek? Considering the meaning of this Greek word and the way the KJV translators consistently rendered it fifty-three times, can KJV-only advocates honestly condemn present-day translators for rendering it as "hope?" Did the KJV translators improve on the Greek by translating this word "faith?" D. A. Waite indicated that “reverse translation” [translating the English back into the Hebrew or Greek] could show the accuracy or inaccuracy of a version and that the KJV “will be the one that will come out ahead every time” (Defending the KJB, p. 252). If this test of reverse translation was used at Hebrews 10:23, does the KJV come out ahead with its rendering “faith?“ Does Waite accept the preserved Greek word at Hebrews 10:23 as the final authority for its meaning or does he accept the English word in the KJV as his standard? The evidence of the earlier English Bibles, Luther’s German Bible, the Dutch authorized Bible, and the way that even the KJV translators translated this word in all other places make a strong case for suggesting that these finite, fallible, and uninspired translators could possibly be incorrect in this rendering.

 

are you attacking the attacker?:tongue3: simply meant to amplify the thought that faith is out the door with some...and it is depressing to hang around those that have little of it when trying to defend the issue..was not 'attacking'...a bit sensitive on this board..is their a 'political correctness' filter I should be using?..let me know..:thumbsup:

 

Is it?...how many 'versions' are out there now..fallacy indeed..

 

Well, you have to understand that most KJOs are not Greek and Hebrew scholars. They trust the KJB, they are not sure they can trust another version.

The truth is, I went to many various web sites to compare the NKJV to the KJB. I did not like some differences as I have pointed out with John 4:24.

I do not like this difference;

Now I think you would agree that a perverted person is not necessarily a sodomite. This change was most likely made to be politically correct and not offend homosexuals.

I like the feature at Blue Bible that lets you see how various versions translate a particular verse. In most instances the NKJV is fine, sometimes the MVs are fine. But at other times I see a real difference as I have shown above.

 

I just walked my DoG too, and I still find it interesting that you just joined, and went right to defending winman!!!! Funny how you answered others after me, but were "walking your pooch." Interesting stuff for a "new" guy.

 

Logos, you can point out supposed errors in the KJB all night long and I won't be convinced. I said from the beginning I cannot defend my conviction that the King James is the only accurate version in English scientifically.

You fail to understand that I believe this by faith, not sight. I firmly believe that God promised to preserve his word without corruption. I happen to believe this promise. So, the accurate word of God is out there, and I think the KJB is it. I do not believe God would hide his word from the world, why would he speak to prophets if he did not desire to reveal himself to us?

The Bible is not a textbook. It is not to be approached scientifically, but through faith. I don't know how anybody reading the Bible can miss this, the scriptures speak of faith from beginning to end.

Some folks try to reduce the Bible to simply knowledge or science. They are truly missing the boat.

 

what are you really trying to say?..I am still not following you...do you think I am lying or trying to deceive you in any way?...if you would want to forensically analyze the times of the posts....wow..would you like me to swear on a stack of KJV's.??

 

Winman...did you run over this guys lawn with your car or something?? maybe you can illuminate this guys position towards you..

 

He seems to imply we know each other, that I got you to come here and support me. I have been to Southern California and loved it, but that was way back in 1973. I do have a friend in the Los Angeles area, but his name is James. Other than James, I do not personally know anyone in California.

These guys get so worked up over the KJB they become paranoid sometimes. Wait to you meet our resident super hyper-Calvinist.

 

Compare your 100 books to this link and expose the error..

http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/bible/nkjv.html

ya know..this type of 5th grade research is not hard to do...why the rabid defense of these modern versions??..and a refusal to admit that these errors in the modern translations are of a severe breach of warnings in the book of Revelation..

 

I was making a point. Since you are supposedly new I'll let your slime about faith slide. Just because many of us do not kowtow to the KJVO line does not make us without faith.

 

No need to be a scholar, one just needs to recognize that the Bible was written in those languages (as well as in Aramaic) originally, not in English, and that the English is not very good at bringing out the richness and depth of the original languages. Nor was the English inspired by God- in any version.