Individual words of KJV editions

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Sep 29, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In another thread, AVBunyan had posted:

    "It appears many today are not as concerned in the individual “words” of the scripture. It appears to me that many today believe that as long as the “message” or the “thought” is somewhere in whatever version they use then it is ok. I believe God is interested in his “individual words” and these little 2 and 3 letter words make a difference – such as “in” vs. “of” or “a” vs. “the” or “ye” vs. “you”.

    The message of God is made up of individual words and one ought to make sure the individual words are right.

    My authority is the text of a present day King James Bible" <<<<<<
    _________________________________

    Here are some documented claims of some KJV authors about KJV editions.
    KJV-only author Dave Reese claimed: "If words are changed, it is not the King James Version. It is another Bible" (The Book No One Can Read, p. 56). KJV-only author Jim Ellis asked: “How could it be a King James Bible if it is different from the King James Bible?“ (Only Two Bibles, p. 17). Charles Perkins wrote: “Personally I cannot find anything ‘Godly’ about changing even one word in the King James Bible” (Flaming Torch, April-June, 1998, p. 7). Attacking the idea that the New Scofield Reference Bible has the same basic text as the KJV, William Grady contended: "A lost man would laugh at the suggestion that a particular text could be promoted as the same text with even one alteration" (Final Authority, p. 311). Raymond Blanton wrote: “If man changes one word he has corrupted the Word of God” (Perilous Times, March, 1998, p. 2). Bill Bradley asked: “Would you allow someone to take your King James Bible and change it in more than 130 places, and still call it a King James Bible?“ (Carter, Elephant, p. 142). Len Smith wrote: “Be careful if you go buy a King James Version. The publishers will deceitfully call some of them Authorized Versions without letting you know they’ve changed some of the words, some of the spelling, and some of the capitalization” (Age of Reason, D22, p. 9). Mickey Carter wrote: “Some Bible publishers will print what on the cover reads ‘King James Version,‘ yet without any warning anywhere make changes on the inside” (Things that are Different, p. 90). E. W. Whitten claimed: “If any variance or inconsistency can be found in the truth, or version, the entire article is tainted and no longer has any credibility” (Truth, p. 35). Are the publishers of editions based on the 1769 Oxford edition deceitful for calling their edition that changed some words and changed some spelling and capitalization a KJV? In effect, KJV-only advocates are promoting current KJV's with many more than one hundred thirty alterations from the original 1611 edition of the KJV as being the same text as the 1611. KJV-only advocates often do not apply their own statements and claims consistently. Even D. A. Waite seemed to make an issue out of the updating of spelling in some present KJV editions. Concerning the Open Bible KJV edition, D. A. Waite wrote: “I came to some words that were spelled differently, so I couldn’t make a true comparison. . . . I couldn’t tell if it was a change from the original King James or not. I’m not sure what text they use” (Defending the KJB, p. 231). Is it unreasonable to expect that a person who compared the 1611 edition with one present-day Oxford edition should be able to compare other present KJV editions?

    Has the text of the KJV remained every word the same from 1611 until 1890 or until today? Which present-day edition of the KJV is the one that has all the individual words right? Do the 2 and 3 letter words make a difference between KJV editions? In what year were all the individual words of a KJV edition first made right without any errors of any kind including any errors by printers?

    For example, there would be over 3,000 words different between the last Cambridge KJV edition [the 2005 New Cambridge Paragraph Bible] and the present-day Oxford KJV edition. There would be around 2,000 differences that affect the sound between the 1611 edition and the present-day Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible.
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I have always believed that the THOUGHTS AND MESSAGES of Scripture takes precedence over the individual WORDS. Why? Because that's the way GOD made our languages. God knows that no one language can be translated into another with 100% exactness, with all the subtleties & nuances of the original language. But I have faith that He caused His word to be translated as HE chose to have it appear in the languages He's chosen for us to use. Very few people know the deeper meanings of more than one language, while God's written messages are meant for ALL. Therefore, differences are bound to occur in translations, as all the translators are mere humans, same as we. And the old translators lived in a much-different society from what WE live in. Every translator is bound to have been affected by his/her society and environment.

    As a living thing, His word changes, as do all other living things on earth. The various Bible versions, old and new, are frozen in the time they were made. Had God not updated His word as He updated the languages, how many people could read the Scriptures for themselves? Why should WE imitate the RCC and attempt to limit our brethren to any one Bible version when GOD has not thus limited Himself?

    I believe GOD has made His word available in whatever languages are used now, same as He's done for hundreds of years earlier. WE are blessed enough to have both old and new versions available. "Variety of translations is profitable for the understanding of the sense of the Scriptures."
     
    #2 robycop3, Sep 30, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2006
  3. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    And all the holy men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost were "mere humans".

    The wordings are what make the message up. Any word can alter the message to bring about other possibilities of interpretation.

    Specific words have been chosen as they were inspired words to communicate to man from God The Message of His heart.

    In the example of "ye", it is to be understood in the plural, where "you" can either be singular or plural.

    "Ye" is actually the better word.:sleeping_2:
     
  4. rbell

    rbell
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You heard it here first, folks...Salamander likes "The Message!"

    :tongue3: :laugh:

    I just had to do that to you...it was set up too perfectly.

    Ya'll forgive me for injecting humor into the translation threads...I know it's against BB rules :tongue3:
     
  5. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    neh.

    better only if:

    1. u're referring to the plural. thou might be better in the case of the singular.

    2. thy interlocuter speaketh the tongue of Iames IV of Scotland.
     
  6. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, especially since you interjected the "Message" was somehow thought to be Inspired!:1_grouphug: :love2:
     
  7. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. "U're" can only be translated as "you are"

    2. At least by your prodding me it can be distinctly acerted that you thought you knew what you were talking about.:1_grouphug: :love2:
     
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    There are over 200 places where the 1611 edition and the present Zondervan KJV editions based on the 1873 Cambridge edition edited by Scrivener and the present 2005 Cambridge edition have "you" where many KJV editions after 1762 or 1769 now have "ye." Are you suggesting that
    those KJV editions with more "ye's" are better than the ones with fewer "ye's"?
     
  9. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    If God chose the specific words that were translated from the originals, then why did He not protect those words so that they never changed meanings? Look at "prevent" - it has a different meaning than it had in 1611. I believe the thought is more important than the individual words, since the words do sometimes change meaning.
     
  10. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    If, and since, the word "ye" is always applicable to the Church, and that being made of a plurality of members being in number,well, YES! It would cut some of the element of confusion to those who might not discern that there is a difference in "ye" and "you".

    I am a Cambridge 1762 man because it is just like the 1611 except for word spelling updates and word type changes. The "germane" type is very readable, it's just we don't use that text-type format today.

    An example of the plural use of "you" that is best understood is when the adjective "all" precedes: as in "all of you" or even "y'all", maybe even "you'all".

    "Ye" isn't that easily misunderstood.:godisgood:
     
  11. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems you might be judging God there by suggesting the things men change?
     
  12. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Actually, he's not. The English words are far-different in pronunciation/phonics than the Greek or Hebrew words...but the MEANINGS are as alike in an accurate translation. Didn't GOD make Hebrew, Greek, English, & all other languages? If the words hadn't been changed, we wouldn't have any translations, would we?
     
  13. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    But it seems more like men are changing and God hasn't changed.

    Men change words and God hasn't changed.

    Men translate words into new meanings and God hasn't changed.

    Men used to be considered eductaed in the general sense, but today only some are considered educated while many slip thru the system of education.


    Men try to simplify the Word of God so that uneducated men can easily undertsand the Bible. It is the Spirit's work to reveal the meanings of the "dark sayings".

    Matt 13:13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
    Mat 13:14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
    Mat 13:15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
    Mat 13:16But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
    Mat 13:17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them].

    Seems men are trying to do the work of the Holy Ghost and God hasn't changed!
     
  14. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or is it something wrong with what Jesus said, and meant? (in any language?)
     
  15. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, we wouldn't want the uneducated to read a Bible they can understand...

    And if it is the Spirit's job to teach today's generation the meaning of 17th centuries words... then why not just skip the 1611 and go back to the original Greek and Hebrew.

    The Spirit can then just teach us Greek and Hebrew as we go.

    What about the one's with a reading problem? say, "well, unless you understand this verse, you are not letting the Holy Spirit rule in your life."?????
     
  16. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Sal, the Holy Spirit isn't just gonna cause us to automatically understand Greek, Hebrew, obsolete English, etc. It's not that He CAN'T, it's that He WON'T.

    Why won't He? Because He wants us to believe by FAITH, and if He caused us to automatically understand another language, it would be a miracle, and empirical evidence. And God isn't gonna provide such empirical evidence to the vast majority of us.

    If He performed that miracle on a regular basis, He wouldn'ta caused His word to have been translated, would He? There'da been no need.

    And aren't you just GUESSING that a particular version is "The One"? Without any Scriptural support , it IS just a guess.
     
  17. Dave

    Dave
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another point comes to my mind.

    If God is sovereign over all, and languages change over time, then isn't God allowing the language to change? God has a plan for this world and His people that cannot be thwarted by man. If man's changing the language was thwarting the purposes of God in seeking to save the lost, then that would mean that man was thwarting the purpose of God and that cannot be.

    Change is a constant in the world. Generally downward decay type of change, but change not withstanding. People change in understanding, appearance, etc. Seasons change, climates change over many years and language changes as well. It is the way of the world. To restrict God to the language of 400 years ago is placing a limit on what you think He can do, no?
     
  18. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, Salamander, I'm not judging God. Where did you get that ridiculous idea?

    God certainly has the power to control language usage. If He chose the particular words of any version or tranlation, then it stands to reason that He would protect the words and phrases so that their meanings never change. However, God chose not to keep those meanings from changing. God's choice was to protect the meaning - not the words themselves.
     
  19. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you think too little of the Spirit's ability to teach all men all things needful for serving the Lord.

    If you want to treat the English of the KJB as a foreign language that is your opinion at work.

    I suppose you can't have the creation declaring the glory of God unless there is a current description manual on how to tell what is created a why?

    "Gigi"? Well, she's this 15 yr old black girl who can barely read. Through preaching she has learned far more than she ever had learned from reading her Bible, she can't read in most people's opinion. Does she know the Lord? Yes! I have preached to her for a year and a half. I see God working in her life and it's not from reading her Bible, she can barely read!

    Something's amiss in having "easier" to understand versions, I believe it's preaching with power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost that effects lives! So let's just agree with the Lord when His choosing is to confound you wise acres with us poor little base and ignorant preachers.:tongue3:
     
  20. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love the way you dictate to the Lord

    Say what? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, that is still in the Bible, or is it in your version?

    Hmmm? seems He performs the miracle of opening the ears of undestanding through PREACHING more than you're willing to admit.

    The Scriptural evidence is made by comparison. You want support? Try the KJB for awhile, then preach what thus saith the Lord instead of what thus saith the modernist.:sleep:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...