Footnotes in Translations: Good or Bad?

The essence is there!

Cheers,

Jim

 

That's my preference too.

That's damaging against the KJVO position,if not "the" silver bullet.

But I have learned that the most reasonable objections against King James Onlyism are met with nonsense responses.

 

Any objection against KJVO is met with unreasonable responses

 

Here's my point since noone in this thread can apparently follow the discussion. I think it is stupid to leave out an entire verse from the bible and then place it in via a footnote. If you didn't think the verse is authentic and should be included in the actual text of the bible, why put it in a footnote?

And, by the way, I again stress that I didn't begin by bringing up the KJ nor am I arguing for a KJVO position. In fact, I mentioned that other older english translations have it essentially the same as the KJ. As far as I know, the typical KJVO position is that the KJ is the only valid english translation. Pointing to older english translations really goes against the KJVO position. But, when one objects at all to a single modern english translation or one of the practices of their translators, he/she is automatically cast as a staunch KJV Onlyist spewing out their rhetoric.

 

There are different kinds of footnotes. If a footnote simply gives a modern word to explain an archaic word, I have no problem with that type of note as long as it is accurate.

But footnotes that say things like "older manuscripts omit this verse" or "better manuscripts omit this verse" do nothing but introduce doubt. We are to live by faith, we are to believe the scriptures by faith. How can you have faith in scripture if you do not know for certain whether it should be there or not? You can't. It causes doubt, it causes confusion, and God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33).

Several times in the scriptures God warns not to add or diminish from his words. This strongly implies that God's exact words can be known and identified. How could you possibly know if you are adding or diminishing from God's word unless you could know his exact words? You can't. So, these verses show God's exact words can be known.

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you

Deut 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


I don't care if the original KJB had footnotes like this, I personally do not like them. It was footnotes like this that caused me much doubt and confusion when I was a young person and led me to search for God's preserved and pure word. I did believe God's promise that he would preserve his pure word to all generations, so I started with the presupposition that God's pure word exists and can be identified. I came to believe the RT and the KJB which came from it is that word.

 

OK, then answer this question, should the last twelve verses of Mark 16 be there or not? This is a simple yes or no question.

 

And I say that is stupid. If they felt there was reasonable doubt to warrant not including it in the actual text, why place it in a footnote? If a translator comes to the conclusion that a verse is not authentic and shouldn't be placed in the text of the bible, he/she has come to a huge conclusion. Here the NIV translators are saying that 1 John 5:7 isn't authentic enough to be included in the text. They should have, therefore, left it out of the translation altogether.

 

You have just proved my point, you have no idea if the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are authentic or not. Therefore you cannot possibly place faith in them.

 

This is just one example of many verses left out of the CT.

Here is a very important difference that affects doctrine, Matthew 1:25.

KJB- And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NIV- But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Notice the NIV omits the word "firstborn". Is that important? Yes, because it shows Mary had children with Joseph after Jesus was born. This refutes the false Catholic teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

You might argue, Yes, but in other verses the NIV shows Jesus had brothers and sisters. And you would be correct, it does, but is easily explained away by the Catholics. This from a Catholic site;

Now we can see how important the word "firstborn" in Matthew 1:25 is, because the Catholics can explain away Jesus's brothers and sisters mentioned elsewhere simply by saying they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage.

So, the versions based on the CT chip away at doctrine.

 

There is a huge difference between leaving a verse out of the bible because you do not believe it to be authentic and placing alternate renderings in the margin.

All this does is reinforce the fact that textual criticism is a total and complete mess and is unable to give us the answers to the truly difficult questions. The best answer textual criticism can give to a problem like the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 is "make up your own mind." That's not much of an answer for a so-called scientific process to have given.

 

Yes, it turns reading the scriptures into a guessing game. Should this verse be here or not?

And for someone to argue this does not affect their faith is beyond absurd.