1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

only present KJV that follows 1769?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Aug 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll take the opinion of James Strong (1822-1894)
    over that of D. A. Waite.


    Mat 23:24 (Geneva Bible)
    Ye blinde guides, which straine
    out a gnat, and swallowe a camell.
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If James Strong is going to be your authority, you better get ready to be wrong quite often. Strong's is, arguably, the very worst concordance/lexicon ever compiled.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    So?

    I got it free. It is in my computer.
    It works when my Internet Service Provider (ISP)
    is gone and i can't get the on-line resources.

    Strangely, Strong's starts out telling what
    the Hebrew or Greek means and sometimes,
    without any logical connection, tells what
    the KJV used :eek:
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are many, serious, flaws in the old Strong's. If you want to use a Strong's I recommend The Strongest Strong's as edited and updated by Kohlenberger and Swanson. It isn't available in electronic format yet (as far as I know) but is available in most book stores for around $20.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a copy. It gives me a hernia to
    pick it up. The electronic Strong's has
    no weilght. The pages on Strongest Strong's
    are thin and my old hands can't pick them
    apart; the electronic Strong's has no pages
    to turn.

    I'll be using the Electronic Version of Strong's [​IMG]
     
  6. kubel

    kubel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    150+ years sounds like an aweful long time to find a typo. By what authority did they have to correct this?

    If it was a printing/spelling error, they couldn't possibly have determined this by the original 1611 translators manuscripts, since they disappeared in 1655 and were not seen since then. So how was it determined to be a spelling error? With what was it compared to? All we had were published copies (with those same errors)!

    My thought is they were compared with other versions of the time, determined to not match up at all, and were corrected. But this would go against all KJVO beliefs. Corrected by another version! NEVER!

    I think they were.
     
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Actually, some of the notes from the final revision committee have been found covering Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John, Jude, and the Revelation.

    Unfortunately the notes on the Gospels and Acts have never been found.

    But I agree. It is nit picking in the extreme to quibble about at vice out.
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kubel: "150+ years sounds like an aweful long time to find a typo. By what authority did they have to correct this?"

    Well, it was the AUTHORIZED VERSION.

    Some say the version was authorized by God, so God finally found
    His error ???

    Some say the version was authorized by King James, so King James
    speaks from the afterlife to correct a misspelling?

    Here is something interesting i found:
    ------------------------------------------
    On-line KJV variant #1:

    http://www.bartleby.com/
    The King James Version 2000
    Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
    he was afterward ahungered.

    [follow this trail:
    Reference &gt; The Bible &gt; The King James Version &gt; Matthew &gt; 4 ]


    http://www.christnotes.org/
    The King James Version
    Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
    he was afterward an hungred.

    http://www.servantofjesuschrist.com/
    quoted St. Matthew 4:2:
    And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
    he was afterward a hungered.
    (my paper KJV1873 reads like this)

    http://www.Crosswalk.com/
    The King James Version (Authorized)
    Matthew 4:2
    And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
    he was afterward an hungred.
    (My Grandmother's Bible is like this.
    From the title page: New York: American Bible
    Society, 1851.)
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Askjo: D. A. Waite wrote:

    quote:This is absolutely false. To "strain at a gnat" means you strain at the sight of a gnat. Meaning #9 of "at" means "because of; in response to [terrified at the sight, to smile at a remark]" That's what it means and it's perfectly good English. You don't have to say strain "out" a gnat at all. You could say he jumped "at" the sound of his voice. It wouldn't be right to say he jumped "out" the sound of his voice. That just means when the sound of his voice is heard you jump. This is not an error in the King James translation at all. (Fuzzy Facts from Fundamentalists on Bible Versions, page 33)


    Askjo, I thought YOU were smarter than that! What is absolutely false is Waite's defense! The Greek that Ed pointed out has no adjective nor adverb after it, and it means 'to strain or filter out'. Where do you think our word 'dialysis' comes from? There wouldn't be too many kidney failure vics alive for long if dialysis only strained "at" the excess water and inpurities in their blood.

    Waite is simply doing what most KJVOs do...trying to manufacture something to explain a clear booboo, just as a naughty child does when caught in the cookie jar. How could YOU believe something so ridiculous?
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, not so fast, Hoss! The Greek word here is "diulizontev" which is a present, active, participle. What is interesting about this word is that it is a construct - two Greek words put together to make one new word. The two Greek words are "dia" and "hulizo." "Hulizo" means to filter or strain, but it is "dia" that we must look at very closely. "Dia" is a primary preposition and is most often translated "through" indicating the means or channel of the action. The primary meaning of "dia" in this sense is the reason something is done. "Because of," or "for this reason." The meaning here is that the person "strains because of" the gnat.

    "Strain out" is a perfectly good translation, but "strain at" is also in keeping with the grammar of the construct and the meaning of the context. They don't strain at the impossible and ridiculous task of swallowing a camel, but do strain at the very likely task of swallowing a gnat.

    This is, quite simply, one of the ridiculous cases where the anti KJVO forces have shot themselves in the foot by being so picky, trying to find each and every little blemish in the KJV. There are much, much better examples to show the shortcomings of KJVO that using this one is just plain dumb. [​IMG]
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I wonder. Just about all other English versions read 'strain OUT'.

    As for 'strain', I believe it means 'filter' here, and not'exert great effort'.

    However, I also believe it's a small matter concerning anti-KJVOism; in fact, no bigger than a gnat!
     
  12. Ziggy

    Ziggy Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    163
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Even though DIULIZW is hapax legomenon in the NT, it does occur also in LXX Amos 6:6 as a descriptive participle, and clearly does NOT mean "strain because of" anything:

    OI PINONTES TON DIULISMENON OINON....
    Lit: "the ones drinking the having-been-strained-out wine"

    Nor should it be claimed that the intensification of the main verb hULIZW by addition of DIA should somehow carry the meaning "because of" merely since DIA standing alone can bear that sense.

    In general, prepositions attached to and used to intensify various verb forms usually reflect but *one* of their possible stand-alone meanings, and this to the exclusion of the other possible meanings when compounded with a verb form.

    DocC -- can you cite *any* other verb in the NT or LXX that, when compounded with DIA, carries the "because of" meaning as opposed to either "through" or simple non-translatable intensification of the verbal intent? I am willing to be corrected if so.

    I certainly don't know of any such case (a computer count shows 543 occurrences of verb forms beginning with DI- or DIA-; I don't have time to examine each one, but a rough scan through the list does *not* seem to show any case where the appended DIA would imply "because of").

    DocC: This is, quite simply, one of the ridiculous cases where the anti KJVO forces have shot themselves in the foot by being so picky, trying to find each and every little blemish in the KJV.

    I don't think so. Rather, I suspect it is one of the more typical cases where the KJVO and even KJV-preferred side continues to shoot themselves in the foot by elevating what seems to virtually everyone else as a printer's error left uncorrected into a "more perfect" translation than any other option (especially when such a rendering does not appear in KJV predecessor translations).

    As I have said elsewhere before, I doubt that such a line of argument ever would have occurred had there not been an underlying attempt to "justify the KJV rendering", no matter what.
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's clear that the KJVOists are now recognizing the fact that the gnat exists, thus nullifying their oft-repeated doctrine that the KJV is gnat-free.
     
  14. kubel

    kubel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL.
     
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, that is what I said. The word means "to filter, or strain." The point was they filter because of a gnat but ignore the camel. [​IMG]
     
  16. kubel

    kubel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    Question: Is there any way the average joe can see these original 1611 manuscripts (or copies of them)? Are there any books or web sites or anything else that contains these so we can view them?

    I would like to determine myself whether or not the corrections to the KJV are really just publishing errors, or if these errors were present in the 1611 manuscripts as well.
     
  17. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Several Christian bookstores can order an AV1611 (which actually was issued in 1612). They're not very popular, though. The most popular edition of the KJV is the 1769 edition. In fact, it's the second most popular bible translation, surpassed only by the NIV.
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If you mean the original printing of the 1611, yes there are some photographic reprints available, but they are quite costly. I have one I bought from www.greatsite.com.

    If you mean the original manuscripts of the version sent to the printers, no such thing ever existed. The AV of 1611 was a revision of the earlier "Authorized Version" - the Bishops' Bible, and the translators marked their revisions in copies of the Bishops' Bible and sent those bibles to the printers. After the typesetting was done (it was out-sourced to several printing establishments) it is presumed the marked up Bishops' Bibles were discarded.
     
  19. kubel

    kubel New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    526
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm looking for the work that was taken from London to Dr. Miles Smith and Bishop Wilson (who were in charge of having it printed). This is the work that all KJVO's claim is inerrant (I just want to see if it was).

    TCassidy- is there any history behind the claim that the original manuscript (pre-printed 1611) was a Bishops' Bible just scribbled in? All history I have read shows that it was translated and then compared and revised according to the other translations (Bishops).
     
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The Kings rules started with,
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...