KJVOnly or KJV?

I am going to assume that Mr. Edwards failed to see my question above. It is very much out of character for him not to respond to any KJVO question, let alone one directly address to him. I wanted to give him another chance to explain his position which he presents in post 95 and then answer the question I ask in post 99. I really am interested.

 

Oh, I may be slow, but sometimes I get there after awhile. On the up side: I did win the Christmas Hundred Yard Mosey at the Senior Citizen Center.

BRB (be right back)

 

Best laugh of 2009 so far. Ed, you are just too much (in a kind way, of course).l

 

"Ed Edwards has not spoken in an improper manner, here, as regards number. (The two typos? including the misspelling of the name of King Solomon, is another matter.) Had Ed Edwards said "I love the KJVs Editions.", it would have been an improper usage. That is not what was said. One KJV (Edition, here implied) + one KJV + one KJV do not add up to 'three KJV', but rather equal 'three KJVs'.

The personal opinion (and implication) that a specific theological position is being mischaracterized here, is irrelevant for the purposes of the question at hand.

This is a grammatical example of a Proper predicate adjective being used in the place of a 'count' noun, as the abbreviation KJV is properly termed a proper adjective. (Please do not ask me to repeat this, for I'm not certain that I could do so, even were I to be asked.)

I hope everyone on the BB has a very Happy New Year. :1_grouphug:

Even though 2009 is already starting to look as if it will be a very long year! [Sigh!] "

Signed, Language Cop

 

" ... there are multiple versions of the King James Version ... " Nay my beloved Elder & Brother Pastor_Bob, I clearly stated:
1. they are different
2. they are editions

Versions are major changes (6-90% of the words), editions are minor changes (1 to 10 % of the words). Generally the Versions have different teams of well-known & skilled translators, the editions have unskilled/unknown translators who are merely publishers &/or text formatting/speller persons.

Interestingly the KJV1611 Edition is not as close to the Geneva Bible of 1599 /some say the electronic edition from e-sword that I use is the 1587 edition/ AS is the KJV1769 Editions are to a non-KJV like the so called nKJV (new King James Version) which had it's own set of translators so is a totally new Bible. Consider Ruth 3:15 (it really is not important if 'she' or 'he' went to the city - both Ruth and Boaz end up at Naomi's house the next day)

Ruth 3:15 (Geneva Bible, 1599 Edition, e-sword.com edition):
Also he sayd, Bring the sheete that thou hast vpon thee,
and holde it. And when she helde it,
he measured sixe measures of barly,
and layde them on her, and she went into the citie.

Ruth 3:15 (KJV1611 Edition, e-sword.com edition):
Also he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee,
and holde it. And when she helde it,
he measured sixe measures of barley,
and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.

Ruth 3:15 (KJV1769, crosswalk.com KJV edition unspecified)
Also he said, Bring the vail F12 that thou hast upon thee,
and hold it. And when she held it
he measured six measures of barley,
and laid it on her: and she went into the city.

FOOTNOTES:
F12: vail: or, sheet, or, apron

Ruth 3:15 (nKJV, crosswalk.com edition)
Also he said, "Bring the shawl that is on you
and hold it." And when she held it,
he measured six ephahs of barley,
and laid it on her. Then she F4 went into the city.

FOOTNOTES:
F4: Many Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read she; Masoretic Text, Septuagint, and Targum read he.

Apparently a somebody (not a translator) along the way thought it correct to change 'he' to 'she' in the KJV. I have a KJV1873 where another somebody (not a translator) thought it alright to change 'she' back to 'he'. HELLO - who is in charge of the KJV being the KJV? Anyway, the nKJV finally takes the mystery out of what is going on for me.

(BTW, I have a paper Geneva 1560 which has neither 'he' nor 'she' but 'he' is the last pronoun used)

 

They largely originated from the work of William Tyndale.

 

Why would they be embarrassed by such flimsy "evidence"?

 

Antother perfect example of editing: the CONTEXT demands that Ruth had left Naomi to go to the fields/ definitely not in the city, to glean. After gleaning the handfuls of purpose, Ruth was "blessed' by Boaz/ her now kinsman redeemer/ picture of Christ, with a vail filled with 6 measures of barley.

Naomi would have been still in the city. Ruth in no doubt would return to her to show her the blessings received of the hands of Boaz.

"She" returned to the city, yet Boaz is found at the gate... of the city!

"He" went/ "she" went into the city. Both are true/ neither is incorrect.

This is just another example of the sillyness MV proponents stoop to as if it makes any difference.

Now comes these questions to the MV proponents: where did Boaz go after giving Ruth the barley?

Where did Ruth go after receiving the barley?

One answer for both questions: BOTH went into the city.

Together? Maybe, but they obviously went to two different locations within the city: Ruth, to Naomi, who would not have been with the elders of the city/ Boaz to the gate of the city where he met with the elders as found in Chapter 4.:sleeping_2:

 

It is used to give specific reference of the time which Peter was imprisoned.

We celebrate Easter as Christians as it has replaced a pagan ritual. We don't celebrate The Passover, but we do celebrate The Resurrection.

We don't celebrate "Sun Day" but we do celebrate Christmas Day!

We replace everything with Christian importance and emphasis over everything else the pagans have tried to give homage to. We even replaced "all hallows eve" with various named activities to give an alternative to that pagan ritual.

Anyone who disagrees with this replacing inadvertantly gives credence to pagan rituals.:godisgood:

 

Sal, as is always the case, you're wrong. No matter how much you talk about what we celebrate now, you would have to be able to re-write history in order for "Easter" to be the right word. At the time Acts was written, Easter didn't exist. Herod threw Peter in prison and intended to bring him out to the people after the Jewish celebration they were observing. It would be impossible for Herod to bring Peter out after Easter since Easter didn't exist at the time. And since the word "Passover" was in common use when the 1611 KJV was translated (as witnessed by the fact KJV translators used "Passover" in every other appearance of the Greek pascha) then "Easter" is wrong. The word "Passover" hadn't been coined when many of the earlier Bible translations wer in progress, so "Easter" or "Ester" was a weak although the best English equivalent at the time. But no matter how you try to twist facts and deny the truth, Sal, the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 of the KJVs is an error because of the existence of the correct "Passover."

 

I find this laughable! You argue for the changing of words and then object to Easter replacing a pagan ritual and also instead of The Passover!

You must be intermingling your wine, again, with Judaeo-Christian abnormailities.

Just for your info: The Passover is celebrated in Jewish fashion alone. Christians celebrate Easter as His Resurrection day.

I believe you're stuck.

 

Of note: The Passover lasts 7 days, how long does Easter last?

 

Keith, Sal is not wrong. Pascha is EITHER Easter or Passover. Many sites disagree with you because they KNOW pascha on Acts 12:4 is EASTER. Let me ask you 2 questions:

When did the passover BEGIN?

When did the Easter BEGIN?

 

"Easter" is a pagan holiday that was absorbed by the Catholic Church, like most other pagan holidays, in order to make the pagan "converts" more comfortable (sounds a lot like today, when you think about it). You have to look beyond the current observance and traditions to what was done in Israel in the time of the New Testament.

The Jews observed Passover, pure and simple. What the Romans observed, who knows. But the Jews did Passover.

Pascha, as has been said above, was translated as "Passover" in every other instance but this one. By 1611, "Easter" had been fused with Passover by the Catholic Church. That's how the KJV translators came up with it.

 

Actually, the Catholic church, regardless of practice, does not translate pascha as Easter, at least in Acts 12:4. VUL (~ 425) had rendered it as "pascha" basically only a transliteration; the WYC & WYC-P (~ 1384, 1395) rendered this in a similar manner, as "pask"; the D-R renders it as "pasch" ; the RVA as "pascua"; and it is rendered in the LSG as "Paque". The GEN (1560, 1587) render it as "Passouer" as does WES (1755) with "Passover".

Where this actually likely originates is in the German of Luther who rendered it as "Ostern" only slightly before Tyndale renders it as "Ester". The influence of Luther can be clearly seen, in this, IMO. Although Tyndale is actually the one who coined the term 'Passover' for us from the OT, rendering the Hebrew as "pass over", he strill failed to get this implications of the word. It remained for those later to realize that ester was a poor, and even misleading translation of pascha, hence the gradual elimination of it by Rogers, Coverdale, Taverner, et al. and better rendering as "Passover". Whittingham,& Beza, et al, had already seen this clearly, and the GEN rendering bears this out.

I do not especially fault Tyndale in this, by any stretch. I realistically doubt that there could be found a handful of BB members, including those who are currently actual Bible Translators, such as John of Japan, TCassidy and Nigel, to name the three that I do know that are currently involved in translating, who could done one half as well, considering Tyndale was actually, effectively starting from scratch, did all this over only about 13 years, and spent part of his time in hiding in Germany), translated all the NT (and also revised it), and a large part of the OT, mostly alone, although working alongside Coverdale and Rogers at certain times.

The very enormity of the work that Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers accomplished can be put in some perspective by noting that there were almost 50 involved, over a period of 7 years, on the KJV, which is essentially based on the work of the aforementioned three, and modern translating teams have often exceeded 100 individuals, over a decade or more, while still indirectly basing much of their work on the initial works of those three.

Ed

 

Just some questions here, but can anyone here tell me how much of the text of the original Geneva Bible was "original" by those who actually translated it?

Is/are there a good, reliable books on the history of the GB?

I wonder if there was anything like a "Geneva Bible Only" sect after AD 1611?

 

The American Pilgrim fathers for several decades were primarily GBP.A minority liked the Bishops' Bible.

 

The Geneva Bible note at Exodus 23:15:
"That is, Easter, in remembrance that the angel passed over and spared the Israelites, when he slew the first born of the Egyptians."

 

Everyone knows that notes cannot be trusted. :smilewinkgrin: