Ezekiel 24:7

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by HankD, Nov 22, 2003.

  1. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    KJV 1769 Ezekiel 24:7
    For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock;
    she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;

    KJV 1611 Ezekiel 24:7
    For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock;
    she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust;

    Here is a verse in which it appears that the KJV translators were not sure what was going on here.

    Whatever the reason they made an error (1611 or 1769) and FWIW to anyone, the word "NOT (Hebrew "LO" ) is present in the text of the original language. Therefore I say it is the 1611 edition which is in error.

    Presumably the Hebrew doesn't matter to the KJVO, apparently it did to the KJ Bible translators.

    Well, you say perhaps it was a printer error. So what? nonetheless it is an error which (according to the KJVO) happened to an "inspired" translation of the Bible. God was unable to protect and or perserve the very first edition of His Only Word published on earth from the printer?

    Again, the 1611 KJB First Edition is in error not because of God but because of human error.

    I say, TO THEIR CREDIT the KJ Bible translators were honest enough to admit their error and CORRECT it. So they did (or their appointed committee) in hundreds of places for over 2 centuries after its first publication.

    This very prima facie admission that the KJVO deny is in actuality one of the great strengths of the KJ Bible and those who keep watch over it.
    They were relentless (howbeit not 100% perfect IMO) in purifying the text to the best of their ability of plain and obvious errors.

    HankD
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good post. One comment:

    Well, since the KJV translators didn't live to be over 200 years old, obviously it was other men who made the changes. ;) My question is: by what authority did these other men change/correct the imperfect 1611, and how do we know they did it perfectly (didn't miss any other trouble spots, didn't introduce a problem, etc.)?

    But the thing that makes me shake my head in frustration is that the KJV-Onlyists are willing to say both readings are "the word of God", despite being exactly opposite of each other, and yet seem completely unable to wrap their minds around that exact same concept when it comes to comparing a verse between two different versions. Oh well, just another KJV-O double standard, I guess.
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Dear Brian,

    The Anglo-Catholic Church of England appointed several committees which went by different names, one of whose functions was to clear both the English and the Greek texts of plain and clear errors (such as Ezekiel 24:7 or 1 John 5:12).

    Ironically Dean John Burgon (KJVO hero) sat on one of these committees. (The Committee of Convocation – May 1870) commissioning Wescott and Hort to publish an English text cleared of “PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS” The Revision Revised, John Burgon, (Pg. 127-130).

    Burgon was angry that W&H had (in his opinion) gone beyond correcting “plain and clear errors” based upon readings from Aleph and B sometimes in opposition to all other witnesses.

    HankD
     
  4. Will J. Kinney

    Will J. Kinney
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 15, 2001
    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Supposed Contradiction in 1611 King James Bible
     
    Ezekiel 24:7
     
    I recently had correspondence with a man who is dealing with the Bible issue in England.  He gave me permission to use the correspondence to help others.  For privacy, his name has been withheld and the text has been slightly edited for readability.
     
    The correspondence deals with the question of differences between the King James Bible actually printed in 1611 and the one we have today—specifically with the text of Ezekiel 24:7
     
    QUESTION:
     
    Dear Pastor Reagan, greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am sending you this E-Mail as I need some help!!!!
     
    A bookshop owner here in England (Michael Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House) has recently produced a leaflet called "Is the King James Version Perfect?" in which he lists all of the 'errors' in the AV, details the differences between the 1611 and the one we have today and also belittles those of us that hold the AV to be the infallible word of God. A couple of brothers and I are preparing a thorough reply to this leaflet. I believe that if we don't it may do some Bible believers some harm. The Lord helping us we have managed to answer nearly all of the points he raises. However he does make reference to a textual change in Ezekiel 24v7.
     
    1611 KJV "she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust."
     
    Current KJV "she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust."
     
    Penfold then asks in light of this, which one is the infallible word of God?
     
    I have a copy of your article entitled  The Myth of Early Revisions which has been most helpful. However, with regard to the above, it is obviously a textual change with the reading being opposite.  Albeit I note Dr Scrivener records it as being amended in 1613.
     
    Although I have some ideas, I would be grateful if you could please offer some advice on this one as if we can 'nail' this point then we can go back to Mr Penfold and God willing help him to change his mind.
    Yours in Christ
     
     
    ANSWER from Brother Reagan:
     
    Brother H,
     
    Thank you for your letter.  I am always interested in the latest attacks on the word of God.  Perhaps you could tell me a little about yourself.  I don't think I have ever corresponded with you before.
     
    Pulling out Ezekiel 24:7 shows me the desperation to which these fellows are driven to attack the King James Bible.  It is so obviously a printing error in the 1611 edition that it hardly needs defense.  However, I will do so for those who need it.
     
    Any particular copy of the King James Bible does not have to be error-free for the Bible to be the infallibly preserved Bible in the English language.  Typographical errors continue to occur in Bibles today even with our superior computer checking and long-term correction of errors.  If any particular copy of the Bible is found to have a misprint, we simply correct it in the next printing or in the text of our particular copy of the Bible.
     
    The error in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible in Ezekiel 24:7 is clearly a misprint which was spotted and corrected so early that there can be no honest opposition to this truth.  First, let's eliminate the other possibilities.
     
    1.  It is not a textual problem--by this I mean that there is no difference in the Hebrew text that would cause them to translate without the "not."  The Hebrew Massoretic text used for the translation of the King James Bible has the Hebrew word "lo", meaning "no" or "not".  I also checked several modern translations.  They all have the negative so there is no problem with a different Hebrew text. 
     
    2.  It is not a translation problem.  There is no reason to believe that the King James translators translated this passage which clearly has a "not" without the negative.  In fact, the early correction (1613) proves that this was an error in the first printing.
     
    3.  It is not a doctrinal error.  One of the interesting things about the printing errors in the King James editions is that they are either so benign that hardly any difference can be discerned in meaning or they are so obvious (as in this case) that they are simple to correct.  One early edition had "Printers have persecuted me without cause" in Psalm 119:161.  This is not something to lose our religion over.  Rather, it is amusing to consider what "printers" have done to the Bible.  Correct it in the text (write the correct words in) or in the next printing but don't glee over your superiority to the Bible God has given to us. One other thought: even though the Ezekiel 24:7 example is the opposite of what it should be, I would challenge anyone to try and teach any false doctrine from the misprint.
     
    What is it then?  It is a printing error.  Either the handwritten copy of Ezekiel handed to the printers had the not inadvertently left out or the printers themselves failed to see the not when they laid out the type.  I believe that the Lord preserved His word through the translation process, but I do not believe that He kept the hundreds of people involved in the process from making any mistakes.  These few and minor errors would be corrected over a period of time.
     
    A simple word like "not" is very easy to leave out when making a copy of something.  However, it is also very easy to put back in when the mistake is discovered.  This was done in 1613--only 2 years after the original printing!  So, for the last 389 years (out of the 391 since the original King James printing), we have had the correct printing in Ezekiel 24:7--the one that certainly matches the translation decision of the 1611 translators. 
     
    Attacking the King James Bible on the basis of such printing errors shows a profound hatred for the Bible used by God for the saving of more souls, the sending of more missionaries, the establishing of more churches, the strengthening of more believers and the stirring of more revivals than any other edition of the Bible in any language for the last 2,000 years--including those in the original tongues.  I actually feel sorry for people like that.
     
    NOTE: You can study this question further in the The Myth of Early Revisions.
     
     By David F. Reagan
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    This is a classic illustration of KJVO double-speak. George Orwell would be proud.

    Somehow God was able to preserve His word through the translation process but was unable to protect it from the hundreds of people involved in that process.

    Say what?

    HankD
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Revise : vb 1) To look over something written in order to correct or improve.
    The Merriam Webster Dictionary.
     
  7. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Echo the "say what?", Hank!

    How many revisions and corrections of errors did the AV1611 go through before someone found this grievous error?

    How many souls were MISLED, DUPED and DECEIVED for hundreds of years because they relied on the AV? Hmmmm
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Indeed Dr Bob.

    And this just on the heels of a rant concerning a one word difference between the KJV and an MV.

    On the one hand when the adherents of the MVs point out a one word error, they are "desparate" and "hate" the word of God and are "driven to attack" the word of God

    When on the other hand however the KJVO defend a correction (strange they do not use the term "Bible correctors" when it comes to the KJV) in the text of the KJV of the Bible, we have this astonishing statement "Any particular copy of the King James Bible does not have to be error-free for the Bible to be the infallibly preserved Bible in the English language" by Mr. Reagan.

    A pure case of double talk plain and simple which if when we follow through with this remarkable piece of logic we have "infallible errors" (because if we have a Bible which is not error-free and yet is the infallibly preserved Bible then we have a Bible which contains "infallible errors").

    And so we have the most unbelievable statement yet (IMO) by the KJVO that even the errors in the KJV are infallible!

    So it would appear that "things different are not the same" unless it is the several revisions of the KJV of the Bible.

    I can see why they follow after this method. It is much easier to win a debate when one makes up and then changes (even to the extent of reversing them) those rules midstream.

    HankD

    [ November 29, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  9. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Great post again Will Kinney! [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  10. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    AGAIN, we do not "attack the King James Bible". We discuss issues that show a view ABOUT the King James Bible to be FALSE. And what's this about "profound hatred for the Bible"?????!?! Absolutely ridiculous!!!! When are you guys going to understand that?!? David F. Reagan is now officially a liar. Thanks Will, I'm sure he appreciates you making that public, and showing everyone exactly what kind of person he is.
     
  11. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    BTW Will here is another question concerning Mr. Reagan's amazing conclusion:
    Why can't this be true of any family of Bible manuscripts?

    HankD
     
  12. R. Charles Blair

    R. Charles Blair
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    As long as we're on the "not" or not, what about Isaiah 9:3? The 1611 and 1769 both have the "not"
    with a center column reference which reads "or, to him" - ASV, etc. omit "not" - ASV reads "Thou hast increased the joy" with a footnote that adds the "not." Isaac Leeser's "interlinear", where it is verse 2 (chapter division different), reads:
    "Thou hast multiplied the nation, made great their joy. . . ." Young's Literal, "Thou hast made great the joy." It would be interesting to run a thorough study on this one verse!
    But Romans 8:28 is still true. -- RCB
     
  13. aefting

    aefting
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isaiah 9:3 is a great example as it nicely illustrates a qere reading. A qere reading is one that occurs in the margin of the Masoretic text. In this case, the marginal reading is “to him” while the reading in the main text is “not.” So if you take the qere reading (which is much more likely given the context), you get “to him increase the joy” but if you stick with the main text, you get “not increase the joy.” The two Hebrew words are very similar and scribes could get confused and they indicate their uncertainty by putting an alternate reading in the margin.

    If a KJVO objects to using such a marginal reading, then he must reject the KJV because the KJV uses the qere reading in Job 13:15, “though he slay me, yet I will trust in him.” What does this verse look like if you don’t use the marginal reading? Well, the RSV happens to use the reading in the main part of the text and translates, “he will slay me, I have no hope.”

    There are probably a dozen or so of these “not/to him” qere options sprinkled throughout the OT. Did the KJV translators make an infallible choice in every case? How you could you prove that they did? Dogmatic assertion?

    Andy
     
  14. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good post Andy. I would also add the question: is the Masoretic "the word of God"? If so, why did the KJV OT explicitly and intentionally deviate from it in at least these places? If not, where was "the word of God in the OT" before the KJV was produced?

    A few years ago, I compiled such a list. I found a about 300 qere readings in the KJV, and I know I missed many more. I have an article and the list at:

    http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/qere.html
     

Share This Page

Loading...