Are KJV's italicized words inspired?

Roby; I noticed you are in Chesapeake.
Are you picking on Labradors because you are biased toward Chesepeake Retrievers?


In HIS service;
Jim

 

I thought Chesapeake Retrievers were the cleanup crew after the Ohio River's flooding subsides.

 

Perhaps we should send some goose fajitas over to those mean little Baptist kids in the Netherlands.

lacy

 

Perhaps you can explain why William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the KJV
who was guided by the Holy Spirit in his translating, did not add all the words in italics that are found in the KJV.

At 1 Cor. 14:4a, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Taverner's Bibles all have:
"He that speaketh with tongues."

At 1 Cor. 14:4a, the Great Bible has:
"He that speaketh with the tongue."

At 1 Cor. 14:4a, the 1557 Whittingham's and
1560 Geneva has: "He that speaketh strange
language" [with the strange in italics and used with the meaning foreign].

At 1 Cor. 14:4a, the Bishops' Bible has
"He that speaketh with an unknown tongue."
The KJV followed the Bishops' Bible in adding
the word "unknown" in italics at this verse.
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue."

Is your belief implying that new or additional revelation or a second inspiration was given in
1568 or 1611 when the word "unknown" was added
in italics? </font>[/QUOTE]Given the context of the passage would you say that the 'tongues' being spoken in this church were known or unkown?

 

If they have, then their problem is with English, not Greek. (Same as with the word, "replenish".) Words have multiple meanings in Greek too.

I'm sure there would be problems reading a Bible in any language if you limited the definitions of words to your own current understanding of the words.

IMHO, "archaic" usually means, "English dictionaries don't make me look as smart/cool as Greek Lexicons."

Lacy

 

Unknown. What does that mean?
As with any word, English or otherwise I suppose, the context of its usage is generally what gives the word its meaning since we all know that many words have more than one meaning.
I still see no problem with the italiciized words.

In HIS Service;
Jim

 

The entire epistle is a charitable rebuke of false doctrines, and it is clear as a bell concerning the tongues issue that what they were doing wasn't scriptual.

The Corinthian church is a case study of the pentacostal movement and it had nothing to do with italicized words. Or are you suggesting that perhaps they had and early edition of the KJV.

 

Question: If Peter and Paul (Mary, too?) spoke 17th century English back in their days, why did it take so long to evolve on the western side of the English Channel?

 

More than one KJVO says the italicized words are inspired by God. BUT...if that's the case, why italicize them at all, to differentiate them from the direct translation? If they're all inspired, it shouldn't matter.

One little prob...The KJVOs simply CANNOT PROVE that THEIR fave version alone was inspired or otherwise influenced by GOD. I believe every valid version in every language was influenced to some degree by God. After all, He wants His word to be read, preached, and obeyed. How could that be done if people couldn't understand it?

Every English BV has words added to make it understandable in English. The AV may have been the first version to italicize the added words, but they did NOT italicize many of their paraphrases, such as "God forbid" or "God save the king". I'm not arguing against such paraphrasing; I'm just reminding the KJVOs their fave version does NOT have a monopoly on clarification by adding words & phrases, and that ITS usage of particular forms of clarification does NOT render all others incorrect, nor did it have any special inspiration from the LORD that no other version has.

 

This is ridiculous.

 

What is? The whole thread? Any one explanation?

 

The entire thread of KJV VS. Non-KJV. What is the purpose. Obviously, education would not be one of them seeing that nothing but arguing and bashing takes place.
Just plain ridiculous.

 

You're entitled to your opinion L2dy...but many of the people here don't cotton to kjvO (the "O" standing for "ONLY") when there is no scriptural proof of the same. There is a cause for those who stand against such nonsense. Maybe if you think it's so ridiculous you shouldn't be here, as you're setting yourself in a way which offends you.

 

Thanks for the definition of the letter "O"
I was lost, but now I'm found!
Answer the question, what profit comes out of a debate over this topic? Obviously, you are only here to prove your side with little or no interest in learning the other. There is no scriptural support for a translation debate.

It's a cat and mouse game. Just a waste of time.

 

A lot of good comes out of a debate over the subject matter. As far as me "proving my side"...you don't know WHERE I stand or otherwise and are just shooting off your "keyboard" (MOUTH) instead of knowing any facts. Typical, though I find of many. If it's a 'cat and mouse game' to you, then feel free not to participate or read these particular threads. If it's a waste of time for you, then why are you still here? I think you're just looking for someone to argue with, not debate seriously. So, with that I'll bid you "ADIOS"!

 

loving2daysyouth:The entire thread of KJV VS. Non-KJV. What is the purpose. Obviously, education would not be one of them seeing that nothing but arguing and bashing takes place.
Just plain ridiculous.

With all due respect...

If it's so ridiculous, why do ya spend time READING it, let alone POSTING in it?

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH...

Since English generally uses more words than most other tongues, every translation of ANYTHING from an old work in another language needs some clarifying words to "make sense" to us in English.

I thank GOD that He has allowed us to read His word in OUR language in understandable form.

 

Nice way to bash me, knowing nothing about me. Good Christian discussions around here. Gotta love the "Christian" websites out there.

You make statements of that nature and then want us to respect your opinions? You have to earn respect, of which you have none.

I challenge you to get away from your computer, and go minister somewhere!

 

Uh...please...remove the moat from your own eye first, friend. If you recall you were the one with the first swing.