Variations/alterations for variation sake?

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

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    It seems that some KJV defenders think that modern translations introduce variations/alterations in our English Bibles just for the sake of variation or in order to obtain a copyright.

    Would they think as negatively concerning any variations/alterations that the 1611 KJV may have introduced into our English Bibles? Did the 1611 KJV introduce any variations/alterations in our English Bibles just for the seeming sake of variation or any variations/alterations that do not seem to be improvements? Did the KJV translators produce any variations/inconsistencies in KJV renderings by following one pre-1611 English Bible in some cases and by following a different pre-1611 English Bibles in others?
     
  2. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    examples of KJV variations

    Here is some information that relates to the last question I asked in the first post in this thread.

    A few times, the KJV translators may have introduced variations in their renderings when they chose or kept one rendering from one Bible but a different rendering from another Bible. For example, at 1 Chronicles 6:28, the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible's rendering "Shemuel" with the Bishops‘ Bible rendering "Samuel" while it kept "Shemuel" from the Geneva a few verses later (6:33). The Bishops‘ Bible had “Samuel“ at both verses where the Geneva had “Shemuel.” The KJV may have taken the rendering “land of Armenia” (2 Kings 19:37, Isa. 37:38) from the Bishops’ Bible while taking “mountains of Ararat” (Gen. 8:4) from the Geneva. All four times the Geneva Bible rendered the Hebrew word “Ararat” (Gen. 8:4, 2 Kings 19:37, Isa. 37:38, Jer. 51:27) while the Bishops’ Bible rendered it “Armenia” three of the times and “Ararat” once (Jer. 51:27). At Genesis 10:6, the KJV seems to have taken the Bishops’ spelling “Phut” while at 1 Chronicles 1:8 it seems to have taken the Geneva Bible’s spelling “Put.“ At Ezekiel 27:10, the KJV may have followed the Geneva [“Phut”] while following the Bishops’ [“Libya”] at Ezekiel 30:5 where the Geneva has “Phut.“ At Numbers 10:29, the KJV may have followed the Bishops’ rendering “Raguel” while at Exodus 2:18 it may have kept the Geneva Bible rendering “Reuel.“ The Bishops’ Bible had “Raguel” at both verses (Exod. 2:18, Num. 10:29) where the Geneva had “Reuel.“ Six times the KJV agreed with the Bishops’ Bible spelling “Enos” (Gen. 4:26, 5:6, 7, 9, 10, 11), and one time it agreed with the Geneva Bible spelling “Enosh” (1 Chron. 1:1). The Geneva had “Enosh” all seven times while the Bishops’ had “Enos.“ Did the KJV take “diminish” at Exodus 5:8 from the Geneva and take “minish” at Exodus 5:19 from the Bishops’? The Geneva Bible has “trumpet” twice at 1 Corinthians 15:52 while the Bishops’ Bible has “trump” twice. The KJV seems to have “last trump” from the Bishops’ and “trumpet” from the Geneva.
     
  3. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tilting at windmills again, eh? What a shame.
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Might as well 'tilt with windmills'.
    One can only blow away the KJVO theory
    a couple of times a day with this one:

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
    And ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
    about the time they were caried away to Babylon.


    Margin note:
    || Some read, Iosias begater Iakim, and
    Iakim begat Iechonias.


    Yes, the first footnote in the KJVs
    blows KJVO right out of the water. This variant
    footnote shows that the translators of the KJVs
    had at least two different sources called collectively
    The Textus Receputs (TRs).
    The KJVs translators didn't have one and only one
    source and the KJVs don't constitute one and
    one one Bible.

    God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
    all valid English translations collectavly and individualy!
     
  5. PrimePower7

    PrimePower7
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    0
    God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
    all valid English translations collectavly and individualy![/quote]

    My goodness. It is statements like this one that make Bible believers wonder if any one Bible is reliable and why KJVO people believe theirs is it. They want something surer than the above froth, and decide they're just going to stick with what they got. So, they find reasons why it is the ONLY word of God.

    Come now, "Collectively and Individually"??? Ed! Are you serious? You need to go back to an early KJVO book and look at the simple comparisons to see that all Bibles are not the same, so all Bibles cannot be preserving the Word of God. A Mazda is not a luxury car. This is nonsense. A Lincoln is not an Economical Compact.

    Now, Ed. It is true that the KJV has some issues, but to say that you take any two Bibles and compare two verses which disagree in message (not just wording) and say, "THEY SAY THE SAME THING!" is sheer nonsense!:BangHead:

    I yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
     
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    PrimePower7: //A Mazda is not a luxury car.
    This is nonsense. A Lincoln is not an Economical Compact.//

    Yes, a Mazda /NIV/ is not a luxury car /HCSB/.
    A Lincoln /NKJV/ is not an Economical Compact /ASV/.
    But the Mazda, luxury car, Lincoln, and Economical Compact
    are all modern vehicles. Along with the 17 century
    horse carts /KJVs/ which is also a vehicle, these
    items are useful for getting you where you are going,
    under various circumstances.

    I used to say:
    God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
    all English translations collectively and individualy!


    But folks on BB (Baptist Board) convinced me that
    //'valid' English translations// is even better.

    I also tryed to explain the logic of my beliefs.
    But non-thinking folks ignorant (not knowing) about
    logic succedded only in misunderstanding what I said.
    I said something like :
    //It is an assumption that
    God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
    all valid English translations collectively and individualy!//


    Not understanding assumption, it went over their
    pointy heads??? They though 'assumption' meant the
    same as 'guess' and figured i'd guessed wrong.

    I changed to something like:
    //It is a logical assumption that
    God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
    all valid English translations collectively and individualy!//


    Hoping folks would notice that 'logical assumption'
    doesn't mean 'guess'. I was slow to catch on.
    Here we go, people who use an 18th Century (1769)
    Bible might understand this:

    //It is Axiomatic that:
    God has preserved His inerrant Written Word in
    all valid English translations collectively and individualy!//


    By contrast, certain small minded folks who don't even
    understand logic make this as their translation axiom:

    Axiom: The KJV is God's Word for all time.

    This makes a lousy Axiom, for it can be shot through with
    holes. The first hole should is the Axiom might be
    right if read:

    The KJVs are God's Written God's Word for all time.


    Anyway, anybody who starts with
    //The KJVs are God's Written Word for all time.//
    aught to be able to prove the proposition that
    "The KJVs are God's Written Word for all time" ;)

    But that is just simple logic, not complex arguing.

    BTW, I am serious.
    I'm 63 years old and CRAMIN' FOR LIFE'S FINALS.
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    The KJV translators seemed to have drawn heavily from the RCC 1582 Rheims Version of the NT. Many verses are word-for-word.

    Here is an example of 2 variations in one passage which have doctrinal implications:

    KJV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:​

    DRA Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.​

    Strange, though the Rheims promotes "penance" rather than "repentance" the Rheims correctly follows the Greek en translating it "in" rather than the KJV "with" (Rheims - "in" water, "in" the Holy Ghost) rather than (KJV - "with" water, "with" the Holy Ghost). ​

    Each promoting a pet doctrine?

    HankD​
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    I prefer the the translation of the Greek en as "in" at this verse because I believe is a better description of the proper meaning of "baptize", that is, the immersion or dipping in water (not just with water).

    However, "with" is an acceptable English rendering of en, depending upon the understanding of the context. My greater disappointment is not in the choice of preposition but that both versions completely avoided translating baptismo, leaving us with merely a transliteration of the Greek.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    Could be acceptable, yes but as you indicate, is it accurate?

    I believe if water was meant to be instumental rather than locative in this passage then the preposition meta would have been used.

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...