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!

MUST we have only one text?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Mexdeaf, Dec 13, 2011.

  1. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Welcome to the BB, marke.

    Since you brought this up, can you explain to me why Paul makes his argument based upon the case number (singularity or plurality) of the word "seed"?

    The Hebrew word used in Genesis with Abram is zera' (Strong's #2233) and in the 220+ times it occurs in the KJV it is never translated as "seeds" (that is, with 's' as the last letter) even when the context would indicate that the word "seed" could be representing a plural. Take these verses for examples (KJV) --
    And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, [then] shall thy seed also be numbered. (Gen. 13:16)

    And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. (Gen. 15:5)

    And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (Gen. 17:9)
    Do not the words in these verses like "numbered", "number them", and "their generations" imply a multitude of seeds? The comparisons to the dust and the stars doesn't make much sense if there is only one seed; and there wouldn't be much point in the numbering of it (rather than "them") if there was merely one seed. Certainly in the KJV translation, the word "seed" seems to mean more than one seed. One dictionary states that the English noun 'SEED' can be defined as "Seeds considered as a group".

    [Help requested: Can some one confirm the singular case of zera' in the above Hebrew texts?]
     
    #61 franklinmonroe, Dec 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2011
  2. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    What you are arguing is that the power is not in God's word, but the preacher. I disagree with this.

    Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    The scriptures declare themselves alive and powerful.

    One of the most powerful sermons I ever heard was by an Indian preacher who could barely speak English. He very simply presented the Word of God from the Bible. I will never forget that sermon, I was literally brought to tears.

    And I don't know about cooks, but I am a musician, and your instrument makes a huge difference. You are not going to sound as good playing a $100 beginners guitar through a cheap solid state beginners amp as you will with a $3000 Les Paul through a Marshall Plexi. No way.
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You had just said that ithe TR is not a translation --then you say it is the most accurate of all English translations. Strange,it's written in Greek.

    If it "stands alone" then it is not "among most its peers."


    The use of italics was limited in the 1611. The usage of italics increased as time went along. Who is right?

    What do you say about the times when the TR is not based upon any Greek mss?
     
  4. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,205
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The printed editions of the Textus Receptus that were available to the KJV translators are not lost. The KJV did not translate or follow any one edition 100% of the time, but that is not evidence that those editions are not known.

    What was lost and may have been destroyed in a London fire is the original manuscript for the text or the printed edition of the Bishops' Bible with the handwritten changes made by the KJV translators that was used for the printing of the KJV.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,205
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is true that the KJV was not translated 100% from any one edition of the Textus Receptus that was available to them. The KJV is based on more than one edition. Since the KJV is actually more of a revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles than a new translation, some of the places where the KJV does not follow any one edition may actually come from the KJV translators following English renderings in one of the pre-1611 English Bibles that was translated from a different edition of the Textus Receptus than the 1598 Beza edition that the KJV translators usually followed.

    It is incorrect to suggest that those all those editions of the Textus Receptus that were available to them are lost to history. I do not know that any of those editions that were in print in that day are actually lost to history. Scrivener was able to compile his 1800's edition from those printed editions. I have reprints of a couple of the TR editions that were available to the KJV translators. Some scholars have examined the TR editions that were available to the KJV translators, which is why they could state that the KJV translators did not follow one or the other in certain places.
     
  6. marke

    marke New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    It might help if we make an important observation here at the outset before proceeding. The Bible makes the claim that it is the Word of God in written form. In Rev. 22 we are clearly warned that God will curse anyone monkeying with His written word, by taking away or adding or editing words or passages, for example. The reason the KJV translators italicized many words can be traced right back here to Rev. 22, a fact I admire about the KJV translators.

    Having said that, let me say that God said He did not use the plural word "seeds" when making His promise to Abraham (Gal. 3:16), but specifically chose the singular word "seed" for one reason. God never promised to bless the earthly children of Abraham at all, apart from their adoption into the family of God in Christ Jesus by the faith of God. Jesus told some Jews once that they only thought they were God's children when in fact they were the children of the devil. Here is the key: The seed of the devil in Gen. 3 is composed of all the wicked people born in Adam's sin, while the seed of the woman is Jesus Christ, the virgin-born Son of God. You get out of the devil's family by being born by faith into God's family.

    Modern translations which do not make the clear distinctions between the singular and the plural "seed" in God's blessings upon Abraham and all nations of the earth (recorded several times in Genesis), are guilty (unwittingly or otherwise) of removing the key element in the promise, The Lord Jesus Christ, without Whom there is no promise of blessing to anyone anywhere.
     
    #66 marke, Dec 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 16, 2011
  7. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,205
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    inconsistencies in KJV's italics

    Many of the italicized words in present KJV editions were not italicized by the KJV translators themselves. The KJV translators failed to put in italics many words that they added. Later editors in the 1638 Cambridge, in the 1743 or 1762 Cambridge, in the 1769 Oxford introduced much of the italics found in present KJV editions, and those uses are still inconsistent in some cases.

    For example, the 1769 Oxford removed proper use of italics at Proverbs 9:8 that should have been kept just as it was at Proverbs 9:9.

    Proverbs 9:8 [see also wise man at Prov. 9:9]
    wise man (1679, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1873 Cambridge] {1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1722, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
    wise man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    Again at Isaiah 29:8, the 1769 Oxford introduced an inconsistency in the use of italics.

    Isaiah 29:8 [compare hungry man in this same verse]
    thirsty man (1679, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1768, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1804 Oxford) [1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1660, 1711, 1747, 1750, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772, 1879 London} (1722, 1756, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855 ABS) (1826, 1828 Boston) (1827 Smith) (1832 PSE) (1846 Portland) (1854 Harding) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB) (1842 Bernard)
    thirsty man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

    At Luke 10:30, "man" was incorrectly put in italics in the 1743 Cambridge and in the 1769 Oxford when there was a Greek word for man in the text.

    Luke 10:30 [see Luke 14:2] [Greek word for man--anthropos in text]
    A certain man (1675, 1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1928 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1873, 2005 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1672, 1711, 1795 London} (1638, 1722, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
    A certain man (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]
     
  8. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    The fact that there are errors and inconsistences using italicized words in the KJB does not bother me, it is actually to be expected, especially in the past when printing was extremely laborious and primitive. What is important is that the KJB translators showed they had added words to clarify the translation. It's not like I take a marker and blot out the italicized words and try to read my Bible like that.

    The only thing you demonstrate with your posts is how much you hate the KJB.
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But the point is,the KJV revisers did not show all the words they added. And now,even though a lot more words have been italicized,all added words are not shown.

    He has always labored to demonstrate facts. And those facts often run counter to the views of KJVO folks.
     
  10. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    You misunderstand me. The power is not the Preacher or the Book but the Holy Spirit.
     
  11. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thanks for the correction.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,205
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Your accusation is false. Perhaps you jump to hasty and wrong conclusions based on your KJV-only assumptions, speculations, or opinions. I do not hate the KJV. How is attempting to provide accurate information about the KJV supposedly evidence of hatred towards it? Disagreeing with the modern KJV-only view that is not stated in the Scriptures also does not suggest that believers hate the KJV. It seems that KJV-only advocates often want to close their eyes to the truth as they throw out accusations against believers who disagree with KJV-onlyism.

    The fact remains that the KJV translators did not always show where they added words to clarify the translation. As already pointed out, later editors added much of the italics that you see in present KJV editions.
     
  13. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240

    So the view of KJVO on this regarding viewing the word of God subjectively appears to be a liitle karl barth, with a dash of ole charasmatic "wisdom/revelation" mixed into the soup?
     
  14. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Going through every publication of the KJB looking for errors is nothing but nit-picking and looking for fault. The KJB was printed by printers, not the translators. It is a massive volume of work and folks make errors. Sometimes it took years to even spot an error and correct it. This was especially common in the early years of printing, and is not unusual at all.
     
  15. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    And I would say that if the scriptures do not speak to your heart and conscience there is a problem. The word of God declares itself quick and powerful and able to pierce the heart and soul. Read in Acts 2:37 where it says the Jews who heard Peter's preaching were "pricked in their heart". Read Acts 7:54 where the Jews were "cut to the heart" when they heard Stephen preach. Read Jn 8:9 where the men who brought the woman caught in adultery were "convicted by their own conscience" when they heard Jesus's words.

    If your Bible does not speak to you this way, maybe you need to get another one.
     
  16. marke

    marke New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I meant to say is that I understand the Textus Receptus is a compilation of all extant manuscripts at the time of the KJV translation, including copies of the originals as well as other translations. The KJV was translated into English from the TR.

    The KJV is the most accurate of all English translations.

    Whoever understood the need to be extremely careful to not add or take away even one piece of one word of the original word of God.

    If the KJV translators judged a particular reading to be suspect, then I believe they had good reason. I am glad they sorted all of those things out back then so modern Christians are not stuck with the task. I don't trust the modern textual critic crowd who think they know it all and who give us all these conflicting multiplied opinions of what is the best reading of what manuscript and all that junk. There are so many of these critics and their opinions are so different that we'd never know what God said if we didn't already have the KJV.
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,205
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Where is the documented evidence for your assertion that modern textual critics think that they know it all?

    It would seem that KJV-only advocates assume that the KJV translators were infallible textual critics who knew it all. On what consistent basis do you suggest that Church of England scholars in 1611 [who actually believed some incorrect Church of England doctrinal views and who persecuted believers for their faith] should be trusted completely in their textual decisions and in their interpreting/translating decisions?
     
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,205
    Likes Received:
    405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You miss the point. It was not suggested that the Scriptures cannot speak to people's hearts.

    KJV-only posters implied that their personal, subjective experience or feelings should be considered a proof for their claims for the KJV when experience is not the proper standard for determining truth.

    God speaks to the hearts of believers who read many translations of the Scriptures whether the 1560 Geneva Bible, the KJV, the NKJV, or some other translation.
     
  19. DiamondLady

    DiamondLady New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0
    Individually, no they were not infallible. If you understood the careful process used, the length of time they took, the research and time the education of the scholars, ....then yes, I believe the KJV is an accurate translation. No modern translation used the same level of process, scholars, time, research or come even close to the KJV.
     
  20. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Nor were they infallible as a group. Perhaps with modern technology there is no need for taking that length of time to produce a translation of equal quality to the KJV. Of course, "quality" lies in the eye of the beholder.
     
Loading...