The ESV from a KJB Only perspective

Larry, you seem to imply there are not many Hebrew manuscripts. All the sites I have consulted say there are thousands of different Hebrew manuscripts that still exist today.

Here is just one such quote: "Even after the ninth century, Hebrew manuscripts remain very scarce. In Beit-Arié's words: "Of some 2,700 extant dated Hebrew manuscripts until 1540, 6 dated codices from the tenth century, 8 from the eleventh century and 22 from the twelfth century are known to us" (Hebrew Codicology, p. 11). These figures are in sharp contrast with the large number of Latin and Greek manuscripts that are extant from the fifth century onward."

Notice, this is 2,700 which date before 1540, then we have all the others past this date which are many more thousands. Even the NIV footnotes often say things like "some Heb. Mss say", Many Heb. Mss say....

As for the qere / kethid thing, here is some info from two different men, both of whom know a great deal about the Hebrew language and manuscript evidence.

Larry, after I post this info, I will have one specific question for you, OK? I would be very interested in your answer.

This by Scott Jones:


In the Hebrew there is the qere and the kethib. The kethib means "what is
written" and the qere means "what is read." What this signfifies is that the
kethib reading is in the actual text itself, whereas the qere is in the
margin, or Masorah Parva. You see,there is a VERY GOOD reason the AV sometimes follows the qere and sometimes
follows the kethib.


There were at least a dozen Hebrew texts in existence on the European
continent prior to Bomberg's 1525 edition. While it is true that the AV
translators followed the 1525 Ben Chayyim-Bomberg 1525 text IN GENERAL, this
does not mean that they followed this text slavishly. In the same manner,
the AV translators are said to have followed Beza's 1598 edition of the
Greek text, but neither did they follow Beza slavishly.

There are further considerations. The AV translators not only had access to
at least a dozen Hebrew texts, but as well, they had access to the VAST
trove of Masoretic literature in its different traditions, all of which were
represented in the Masorah Parva, the Masorah Magna, and the Masorah Finalis
of the various manuscripts, a GREAT deal of which is NO LONGER AVAILABLE
TODAY. In short, a VAST trove of this Masoretic literature has since
disappeared, and what remains is mostly ignored by modern scholars.

Therefore, it is comical to see someone "correct" the Hebrew of the AV by
looking in the latest lexicon or at another translation. Such people only
demonstrate how foolish they can be, for they have no clue as to how much
was actually involved in arriving at a translation from the Hebrew into the
English of the AV in the first place.

The various Masoretic traditions as represented in the Masorah - the Masorah
Parva, Masorah Magna, Masorah Finalis - not only provided a DETAILED
EXPLANATION of various passages throughout the OT, but likewise provided a
DETAILED explanation of HOW CERTAIN PASSAGES AND WORDS WERE TO BE
INTERPRETED AND TRANSLATED.

For example, while one Hebrew word would be translated one way in THIS
passage, the very SAME word, according to the Masorah (i.e., the Masoretic
tradition), should be translated THAT way in another passage. The AV
translators had access to this vast trove of Masoretic literature which had
been handed down from generation to generation, and they based their
translation decisions on the vast trove of information contained in the
various Masorahs (including the various Masoretic traditions), as well as
other Hebrew sources.

Modern scholars not only do not have access to a vast amount of this
literature, but the Masorah as found in the current BHS is not even a
legitimate Masorah. The BHS Hebrew text is not only based almost exclusively
on one manuscript, i.e., the Leningrad Codex, but its Masorah was compiled
and much of it created by a TWENTIETH CENTURY SCHOLAR, NOT a Jewish
Masorete. In short, its Masorah is not only not a truly Masoretic Masorah but it is only ONE Masorah out of the REAMS of Masorahs that the AV translators had access to. In other words, scholars today don't have even remotely the information at their fingertips that the AV tranlsators had, and furthermore, they completely ignore the Hebrew Masoretic traditions and instead base their "corrections" of the AV on a twentieth century scholar's piecemeal compilation of a single Masorah from the Leningrad Codex, which means that it's not even a legitimate Masorah.


Accordingly, you can see how foolish it is for somebody to charge the AV
with error when they don't even have the first clue as to which sources the
AV based their translation decisions on. It is even more foolish to assert
that the AV translators culled their information from the LXX or Latin
Vulgate, etc., since the AV translators not only had reams of Masoretic and
other Hebrew literature available to them, but many, many Hebrew texts as
well.
Scott Jones

And then, Larry, this was posted at a Bible club by Thomas Cassidy


Now, regarding the Hebrew text underlying the KJV and later
versions. It is true that BHS differs from Bomberg's 2nd Rabbinic
Bible in only 8 places which will affect translation (Proverbs 8:16;
Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel
30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12.) However, most of the
differences, especially between the KJV and the NKJV, are not due to
textual variants, but to the differing understanding of the
Qere/Ketiv pairs.

The Masoretic Text is the product of unbelievable exactitude in
copying on the part of the scribes. One scribe would specialize in
one portion of the OT copying it over and over again during his
career as a scribe. He would become so familiar with the text that,
when he came to what he KNEW to be an error, he could copy the error
EXACTLY AS IT APPEARED in the text he was copying from, then in the
margin he would place a correction note. Qere (pronounced keh-ray)
means "to read" and Ketive (pronounced keh-teev) means "to write."
The scribe would write one word but instruct the reader to read the
marginal word when reading the OT aloud. In other words, the Ketive
is what the text reads, and the Qere is the correction in the
margin. The problem arrises when you have two groups of translators
with different understandings of the meaning/purpose of the
Qere/Ketive pairs. The KJV translators understood them to be
corrections and thus the correct, canonical, word was the one in the
margin, and the translators of the later versions thought it best to
stick to the text itself and ignore the marginal note. I agree with
the KJV translators position.

So, where do I stand on the version issue? I will defend the KJV
against any and all attacks, but I will defend it with facts and not
with invective, insinuation, or ad hominem.

I believe the KJV is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved,
perfect, pure word of God in the English language. But, as with all
such statements, it cannot be understood apart from definitions of
the terms in use.

Inspired. I believe the KJV is inspired in the derivative sense. The
Hebrew and Greek basis for the English words were, in the
autographa, given by inspiration of God, those words were
Providentially preserved down through the ages of ecclesiastical
history, and translated by excellent scholars into the English words
preserving the very nature and form of those words in the receptor
language.

Inerrant. I believe the KJV is without error of fact. However, I
reject the post-Warfieldian concept of "inerrancy" as it is
currently understood by most fundamentalists.

Infallible. I believe the KJV is infallible in the sense that the
history of the KJV is unfailingly accurate history, the prophecies
of the KJV will never fail to come to pass, and the promises of the
KJV will never fail to be kept.

Preserved. I believe in Providential perservation, but do not
understand that to mean perfect preservation in any one Hebrew/Greek
manuscript.

Perfect. I believe the KJV is complete, mature, with nothing lacking.

Pure. I believe the KJV is without admixture of evil.
Thomas Cassidy

Now, Larry, for the question: Do you believe the present Hebrew texts preserve the inerrant words of God, including the numbers and names found in the vast majority of remaining manuscripts? Would you then personally change, alter or correct them in various places because you think they contain scribal errors?

Keep in mind that this is exactly what the NASB, NIV, RSV, and ESV translators have done numerous times. What would you do, sir?

Will Kinney

 

Larry posts: " As to "where," he has preserved his word in every faithful manuscript and every faithful translation. We do believe that the KJV is the word of God. We simply do not share your unbiblical view of the KJV".

Larry, your statement "he has preserved his word in every faithful manuscript and every faithful translation" sounds very pious, but really tells us nothing of substance. It is a smokescreen. What is the practical outworking of such a neo-evangelical position? Well, the results are obvious. The NASB, NIV, and ESV differ in the texts themselves in literally hundreds of places, with many hundreds of words being added from such sources as the DSS, the Samaritan, the Syriac, and the fabled pre-Christian Septuagint, with many hundreds more variant readings listed in the footnotes.

Your modern scholars are getting more and more confused.

The earlier RV, ASV pretty much kept to the Hebrew texts, but drastically changed the New Testament. Then along comes the RSV and it departs wildly from the Hebrew texts as well as the Traditional Greek texts of the KJB, and this apparently was too much for that generation of Christians back in the 1950s. But now, after the nasb, niv, both of which did depart from the Hebrew texts but not as often as the RSV, ...now people are more ready to accept the new garbed ESV.

It is so obvious to me what is going on here, and yet you guys think this is progress.

You have no sure words from God and your case is getting worse by the year.

Though God never says in His word "My true words are found only in the King James Bible", He also did not say nor even imply that His words would be all mixed up with thousands of variant readings and contradictory messages and then placed in hundreds of conflicting versions.

Some of you guys accuse me of being arrogant. That is not my intention. But someone who really believes God has shown him the truth of something so critical and essential as to where the true words of God are found today, will always seem to be arrogant to those who differ from this position.

They naturally think "Well, who are you to disagree with our findings and conclusions?"

Larry, I am nobody special. I am a vile sinner who has been redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, but I do believe the Book and what it says about itself.

If we as Christians say there is only one Saviour and only one way to be forgiven our sins, those who disagree will also consider us to be arrogant and think, Well, who are you to differ from our conclusions?"

This is only the natural result of the thinking of a fallen, sinful, and rebellious creature who opposes himself against the words of God and His revelation in Scripture.

That is how I see it.

Will Kinney

 

John Owen writes: "Will... 2 things.... first, if you think that John Piper is ignorant, you must be an intellectual giant, another Aristotle! Have you read any of Piper's books? Listened to his sermons? If not, you have precious little by which to judge him, and, it seems, have judged out of your own ignorance."

John, I am not comparing intellects. Intellect has precious little to do with understanding spiritual truth.

I have read only a few articles and various comments by Mr. Piper. I read his comments on 2 Peter 3:12 where the KJB correctly says we are "looking for and hasting UNTO the coming of the day of God", and the ESV, along with the NASB, NKJV, NIV all commit a serious theological blunder by saying we are "hastening the coming of the day of God". Mr. Piper tries to defend this goof and ends up saying the passage doesn't really mean what it appears to say in the ESV.

I have also read his comments on 1 Timothy 2:4 where the KJB correctly has God will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth", whereas the ESV, NASB, NKJV, niv all equally blow it again and say God DESIRES all men to be saved, thus creating a contradiction with many other verses in Scripture.

Then Mr. Piper goes off on some weird thoughts about how God has two different wills concerning salvation, yet he says he is Calvinistic in his soterology.

And thirdly, the mere fact that he would endorse the ESV, and think that the RSV was "close enough" to the KJB that God used to save him, shows me that for all his intellect, he is sorely lacking in spiritual discernment and understanding - at least in those areas.


As for your remark about plagarism, I did not claim to have written the comments I posted. I was presenting a point of view which is shared by many other KJB Bible believers.

I am not writing a doctoral dissertation here. Try instead to refute the arguments I have presented rather than going off on a rabbit trail about my "plagarism".

You guys really do strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, don't you?


Now, I suggest you take a few deep breaths and ask God to calm you down before you begin to even think about replying.

Will K