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!

AV1611 Translator Sidenotes 2: Matthew

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Ed Edwards, Feb 21, 2004.

  1. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sincerely don't believe the KJB needs your help, especially when you include the 1873 "version" and compare the niv as accurate along with the 1611.

    This is Ed quoted in another thread just recently:

    My question to Ed follows in the next post asking him when is it ever "proper" to include the Word of Gof in a footnote?

    Here in his quote he obviously thinks the "KJV"/ KJB does not "properly" document the phrase in the niv "footnote".

    So you decide, is it proper to include the phrase in the verrse as part of the Word of God as in the KJB, or is it proper to put it in a footnote in the niv?

    Maybe I am wrong, Ed, and have misread you several times now and I apologize, but I will see where this discussion and the direction you're leading in eventually heads.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Precepts: "So you decide, is it proper to include the phrase
    in the verrse as part of the Word of God as
    in the KJB, or is it proper to put it
    in a footnote in the niv?"

    In fact, the sources vary: some include it, some do not
    include it. The NIV is honest and allows the reader
    to judge. The KJV is deceptive and does NOT give this
    information hiding it from the reader like the Catholics
    used to do.

    Precepts: "I sincerely don't believe the KJB ... " [​IMG]

    I can misquote with the best of them ;)

    Here is what i said on the other thread:
    Somebody omitted that I was showing that
    the statement of a KJVOest was incorrect.
    She claimed that the NIV omitts something.
    The NIV contains it.
    I was misquoted.
    Instant replay showing ed can misquote also

    Precepts post 23 Feb 10:39AM EST:
    "Precepts: "I sincerely don't believe the KJB ... " [​IMG]

    At least i put in the ... to show something was omitted
     
  3. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe I should have just responded to you this way Ed: Jesus is speaking to an audience years upon years later to those on the Mount, the right reading would be to those that "Ye have heard by them of old time..." as in they heard what the prophets had said by those reading in the synagogues. IOW they weren't present to hear what was said to "them" by Moses the prophet in person, no way.

    The example is Jesus gave them by example of Moses reading the Ten Commandmentrs to the children of Israel, it would be impossible for those present to actually hear Moses speak audibly as the side note otherwise indicates.

    Don't know where you get your "alternate", except maybe you're trying to publish your own version now?

    I do believe it does matter "one wit", it makes better sense the way it is read and then it would seem only proper to have the side note, because it was actually spoken to them at the foot of Sinai, just a diferent "them" then.
    [​IMG]
     
  4. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, I didn't see any sense in quoting you, quoting Michelle. I in no way misrepresented what you literally said. I never even made a reference to the "foot note" being an omission. The KJB is right. The niv puts the correct reading in a footnote, that is improper. The way you stated in the parenthesis is that the KJB did something improper by not placing the phrase in footnote. If it is your intention I have no problem letting you retract that staement or even clarifying it , or do we just let it stand?

    If anything the KJB remains precise and accurate, pure and unadulterated, we cannot say that about the niv's use of the footnote though, but the niv is misleading, vague, inaccurate, just plain out wrong in this case alone, uh, and others, too.

    Note: The website I gave you clearly shows the use of the cambridge 1762 in many of the verses given. I am waiting to hear from Brother Zeinner of BPS for more evidences of the Cambridge 1762. I ahven't seen you respond to that yet, am I missing it?
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The words of Iesus in S.Matthew VI:2 (KJV1611):

    Therefore, when thou doest
    thine almes, ||doe not sound a trumpet
    before thee, as the hypocrites doe, in the
    Synagogues, and in the streetes, that
    they may have glory of men. Verily, I
    say vnto you, they haue their reward.


    Sidenote: Or, cause not a trumpet to be sounded.

    The words of Iesus in S.Matthew VI:2 (KJV1611):

    Therefore, when thou doest
    thine almes, cause not a trumpet to be sounded
    before thee, as the hypocrites doe, in the
    Synagogues, and in the streetes, that
    they may have glory of men. Verily, I
    say vnto you, they haue their reward.


    The original author knew that a person does not
    have to do things themselves but can cause
    other people to do it. Needless to say,
    none of the modern versions have this depth as does
    the the REAL ORIGINAL King James Version, 1611 Edition
    (KJV1611).

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Precepts

    Precepts New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    When others sound the trumpet for something I have done I immediately turn the attention towards the ord for His honour and glory. I get many thanks from the congregation in the short opening I have the opportunity to do before SS, I quickly say "Praise the Lord!" in response, then a gentle "Thank You" in return. (Yall didn't know i could be gentle , didja?)

    hanks , ED, good recovery! Or whatever.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Speaking of Matthew 6:5, apparently it doesn't matter
    if you toot your own horn or not [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    S.Matthew VII:14 (KJV1611)

    ||Because strait is the gate, and
    narrow is the way which leadeth vnto
    life, and few there be that finde it.


    Sidenote: ||Or, how.

    S.Matthew VII:14 (KJV1611)

    How strait is the gate, and
    narrow is the way which leadeth vnto
    life, and few there be that finde it.


    Does this term change make the
    way narrower or wider?

    NIV: but.
    NLT: but.
    NASB: for.

    Isn't it interesting how many ways
    the same thing can be said in English?
     
  9. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    S.Matthew VIIII:16 (KJV1611):

    No man putteth a piece of ||new
    cloth vnto an olde garment : for that
    which is put in to fill it vp, taketh from
    the garment, & the rent is made worse.


    sidenote: ||Or, raw, or vnrought cloth

    S.Matthew VIIII:16 (KJV1611alt1):

    No man putteth a piece of raw
    cloth vnto an olde garment : for that
    which is put in to fill it vp, taketh from
    the garment, & the rent is made worse.


    S.Matthew VIIII:16 (KJV1611alt2):

    No man putteth a piece of vnrought
    cloth vnto an olde garment : for that
    which is put in to fill it vp, taketh from
    the garment, & the rent is made worse.


    This is interesting, a third best translation
    from our friendly started out 48 ended up 47
    usually rounded to 50 translators of the KJV.

    Matthew 9:16 (KJV1769):
    No man putteth a piece of new
    cloth unto an old garment, for that
    which is put in to fill it up taketh from
    the garment, and the rent is made worse.

    Note that the KJV1769 is DIFFERENT though that
    difference is insignificant and not an error.
    The ampersand (&) in the KJV1611 has been replaced
    with the word it represents, "and".

    Meanwhile, up in the 20th century, the
    modern versions were saying:

    NIV, unshrunk
    NLT, unshrunk
    NASB, unshrunk

    All three MVs note it is not a "piece" (KJV) but
    a "patch". This denotes the purpose of the piece.

    So what is the meaning of this parable
    for us in the 21th century? Probably
    means life isn't back compatible (you
    cannot play Pentium programs on a 386 chip
    based computer).

    May God's blessing be unto the reader this
    Wednesday, 25 Fev 2004.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    The KJV1611
    (the real KJV, the original KJV) has
    translator notes. These translators notes
    give the second best translation.
    The text has the second best translation.
    I am repeating the verse with the
    second best translation inserted instead
    of the first best translation.
    I call this the KJV1611alternate
    or KJV1611alt.

    P.S. I had to work late tonight.

    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for verifying, but do you use sidenotes over scripture?
     
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Most KJBOs don't admit:
    God has two WORDs:
    A. the written Word: the Holy Bible
    B. the Living Word: Messiah Iesus

    2. I use sidenotes as a part of scripture

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    When Jesus raised a gril from the dead:
    S.MATTHEW IX:26 (KJV1611):

    And ||the fame hereof went aboard
    into all that land.


    Sidenote: || Or, this fame.

    S.MATTHEW IX:26 (KJV1611alt):

    And || this fame went abroad
    into all that land.


    Later KJVs follow the major translation.

    Matthew 9:26 (NIV):
    News of this spread through all that region.

    Matthew 9:26 (NLT):
    The report of this miracle swept through
    the entire countryside


    Matthew 9:26 (NASB):
    This news spread throughout all that land.

    Notice how each of these say THE SAME THING
    but in different words. Having multiple
    translations (and remember, the sidenotes
    are multiple translations in one book)
    helps one understand what God is trying
    to communicate to us. If the communication
    doesn't get through, is that God's fault
    or man's fault?

    [​IMG]
     
  13. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Isn't the sidenotes from the translators? Aren't they the translators opinions?
     
  14. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes.

    However, they are more than JUST opinion.

    1. It is their learned opinion.
    (the first choice, the one that went into
    the text is their learned opinion also)

    2. It is their honest opinon.
    The honest opinion documents the knowledge
    that the translator has. Compare to
    footnoteless documents like most
    KJV1769s which are not honest. They try
    to conceal that their translation
    has some questionable areas. The
    authors of such a "bible" are being
    decietful and/or stupid. This phenomona
    i've described has NOTHING to do with
    an unchangable God and a lot to do with
    changable languages.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. BrianT

    BrianT New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are much more than "opinion". Some give alternative, valid translation. Some tell us what the Hebrew/Greek more literally says (i.e. documenting a few of the places where the Translators used dynamic equivalence and gender inclusiveness in their translation). Some give textual critical information. Some give cross-references. Some give measurement conversion information. None that I've ever seen give opinion or commentary. In fact, one of the reasons the KJV was made in the first place was to create a Bible that *didn't* have *any* opinion/commentary in the margins, in response to the Geneva which had a lot of it.
     
  16. Nicolas

    Nicolas New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't understand mr. edwards, my cambridge KJB has all those sidenotes. Are the majority of KJB's out there missing the notes?
     
  17. Nicolas

    Nicolas New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't understand mr. edwards, my cambridge KJB has all those sidenotes. Are the majority of KJB's out there missing the notes?
     
  18. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    IMHO, yes, most KJVs miss
    out on the notes.

    I have a KJV which might be of the Oxford KJV1769
    type, but I can't be sure, it has no notation
    that it is a KJV1769. It is real proud
    of it's Tim LaHaye notes, which is why i
    got it. Is that a KJB?

    I have a KJV that belonged to my
    Grandmother. It claims to be an 1851
    edition by the American Bible Society.
    So i doubt it can be a Cambridge KJV1762
    or an Oxford KJV1769 ;) There are no
    footnotes of any type. Revelation 5
    and past are missing, as well as any
    endnotes?

    I have an unknown version of the KJV
    from the evil Zondervan. It has the
    prophecy notes of Grant R. Jeffrey.
    It has no clue as to what edition of
    the KJV it might contain. The text
    of Ruth 3:15 is like the other KJV1769s
    that i think i have. There are no
    translator footnotes.

    I have to work for a living.
    I don't have time to compare these
    word for word. Any short tests known
    whereby i might find out which edition
    of the KJV i have in these three
    books?

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Nicolas

    Nicolas New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible that I have is a Cambridge 1769 edition of the 1611 KJ. All the KJ's on the market today are 1769 edition unless stated otherwise. I like my Cabridge because it has the original translator sidenotes and the "translators to the reader" letter which is hardly found in most KJB today
     
  20. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    S.Matthew IX:36 (KJV1611):

    But when he saw the multitudes,
    he was moued with compassion
    on them, because they ||fainted, and
    were scattered abroad, as sheepe hauing no
    shepheard.


    Sidenote: ||Or, were tyred and lay downe.

    S.Matthew IX:36 (KJV1611):

    But when he saw the multitudes,
    he was moued with compassion
    on them, because they were tyred and
    lay downe
    , as sheepe hauing no
    shepheard.


    Now did they get pass out and pass all
    over the place or did they get tired and
    take a nap?
    As usual, many Versions make for better
    understanding. But in any case, Jesus
    is the Gread Shepherd and takes care
    of us, His sheep.

    Matthew 9:36 (New Century Version - NCV):

    When he saw the crowds, he
    felt sorry for them becasuse they were hurting
    and helpless
    , like sheep without a shepherd.


    Matthew 9:36 (Third Millennium Bible - TMB)

    But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved
    with compassion for them, because
    they were faint and were scattered abroad,
    as sheep having no shepherd.


    /note that the TMB, an update of the KJV1611
    is generally mal-aligned with other "modern versions (MVs)"./

    [​IMG]
     
Loading...