Textual Criticism

"I wonder, since the weather seems to be getting pretty cold here , if PCC might perhaps have any seasonal openings in their "Thought Police" Dept.? Just a 'thought'!"

Signed, Language Cop

 

Yes, but beach-going is frowned upon. Plus according to PCC code your icon lacks the proper mode of dress.

 

Not totally true. PCC has a beach they use for students - of course boys and girls go at different times.

 

KJV-only author Bob Steward wrote: "In John 5:29 the NKJV translators changed the word 'damnation' to 'condemnation'" (Close Look at NKJV, p. 25). Haak’s 1657 English translation already has “condemnation” at John 5:29. KJV-only advocates imply that this is a change from a strong word to a weaker word. The 1895 Sunday School Teacher's Bible noted the following concerning "damnation, or condemnation" in its list of obsolete or ambiguous words in the KJV: "These words were used as equivalent terms when the A. V. was made." KJV-only author Jack Moorman wrote that “there is not a great deal of difference between ‘damnation’ and ‘condemnation.‘ As ‘damn’ comes from the Latin damnare, so ’condemn’ does also” (Conies, pp. 7-8). Concerning this word at 1 Timothy 5:12, Vincent commented: “It should be said for the translators of 1611 that they used damnation in this sense of judgment or condemnation, as is shown by the present participle having. In its earlier usage the word implied no allusion to a future punishment” (Word Studies, IV, p. 263). Several of the early English Bibles had "damnation" at Luke 23:40, John 5:24, Romans 5:16, Romans 8:1, and James 3:1 while the KJV changes it to "condemnation." Coverdale’s has “damnation” (2 Cor. 3:9) where the KJV has “condemnation.“ At James 5:9, the Geneva and KJV revised some of the early Bibles’ rendering “damned” to “condemned.“ Wycliffe’s Bible has “damned” (Matt. 12:37, Heb. 11:7) where the KJV has “condemned.” Wycliffe’s has “undamned” (Acts 16:37, 22:25) where the KJV has “uncondemned.“ Instead of “judgment,“ Whittingham’s and Geneva have “damnation” (Rev. 17:1). Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Great have “damnation” (Heb. 10:39) instead of “perdition.“ At Romans 9:22, Philippians 3:19, and 2 Peter 2:1, Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Great Bibles have “damnation” while the KJV has “destruction.“ Would KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV tones down or weakens the rendering of the pre-1611 English Bibles in any of these verses? Would they claim that the KJV removes the word from those verses where some of the pre-1611 English Bibles had it?

 

Mea culpa. How was I supposed to know that there was a PCC beach, of all things! Although with their own publishing company, church, radio station, etc.- why not? :laugh:

 

How can "Servant" be considered a much weaker word when the KJV itself was willing to use "Servant" in references to the Messiah in the Old Testament and to Jesus in the New Testament?

In her tract, Gail Riplinger implied that the "NKJV copies Jehovah Witness Version" and "demotes Jesus Christ" at Acts 4:27 and 30 with its rendering "holy Servant Jesus" while the KJV has "holy child Jesus." In his KJV-only tract entitled "Which Bible," David Hoffman listed Acts 4:27 and 30 as verses to check for "major doctrinal changes." Doug Stauffer asked: ""Does your version reduce Jesus to God's servant rather than His Son in Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, or 4:30" (One Book, p. 297)? In his tract "A Careful Look at the NKJV," M. H. Reynolds claimed that the NKJV translators at Acts 4:27 "inserted erroneous words and meanings from corrupted modern Bible versions into the NKJV text." Lloyd Streeter maintained that the NKJV "weakens the deity of Christ, for example, in Acts 3:13, 26; Acts 4:27, 30" (75 Problems, p. 42). Gary Miller claimed that “the New King James version demotes Jesus from being the exalted Son of God to a lowly servant, like any sinful human” (Why the KJB, p. 42). In his tract "A Critique of the NKJV," Peter Ruckman cited the NKJV rendering at Acts 4:27 as "another attack on Christ's Deity, which omitted 'child.'" Ruckman also wrote: "If the Greek text has made the mistake of writing a word in Acts 4:27 which could be translated 'Servant' or 'Child,' the Holy Spirit will resolve the ambiguity with 'thy holy child Jesus,' giving Him the preeminent place as God's Son; not 'servant'" (Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, p. 136). Al Lacy claimed: "The NKJV translators have slapped Jesus in the face by lowering Him from God's CHILD to God's SERVANT" (Can I Trust My Bible, p. 262). Streeter contended that "'servant' weakens the incarnation and deity of Christ" (75 Problems, p. 193).

This same Greek word found at Acts 4:27 and 30 was also used of Jesus at Matthew 12:18a where it was translated "servant" in the KJV. However, it was translated "child" in Wycliffe's, 1534 Tyndale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles and as "son" in 1526 Tyndale's. Why is this difference important in Acts 4:27 and 30 but unimportant in Matthew 12:18? Concerning Acts 4:27 but not concerning Matthew 12:18, Morton asked: "Which exalts the Lord Jesus Christ the most, being called God's servant or God's child?" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 43). Would Ruckman claim that the KJV rendering at Matthew 12:18 was "another attack on Christ's Deity?" Riplinger claimed that the NKJV translators took the "Sonship away from the Lord Jesus Christ" and made him merely a "servant" (Which Bible is God's Word, p. 42). Would Morton, Riplinger, Stauffer, and Ruckman claim that the KJV translators took away the Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ at Matthew 12:18 and made him merely a "servant?" The prophet Isaiah had referred to Christ as the servant of the Lord (Isa. 42:1-4, Isa. 52:13). Did the 1885 translation by John Nelson Darby, 1897 Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker Berry, or the 1901 ASV copy the 1950's Jehovah Witness Version with their rendering "holy servant Jesus" at Acts 4:27 and 30?


The Companion Bible has this note for "child" at Acts 4:27: "child=servant, Greek pais, as in v. 25" (p. 1585). The 1657 English edition of The Dutch Annotations has the following note for "thy holy child Jesus" at Acts 4:27: "or servant, minister, See Acts 3:13, 26, see also Matthew 8:6 compared with Luke 7:2 and here verse 25." Concerning Acts 3:13, A. T. Robertson noted: "This phrase occurs in Isaiah 42:1; 52:13 about the Messiah except the name 'Jesus' which Peter adds" (Word Pictures, III, p. 43). Concerning Acts 3:13 in his 1851 commentary as edited by Alvah Hovey in the American Baptist Publication Society's American Commentary on the N. T., Horatio Hackett (1808-1875) wrote: "pais, not son=huios, but servant=Heb. ebhedh, which was one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. (See Matt. 12:18, as compared with Isa. 42:1). The term occurs again in this sense in v. 26; 4:27, 30" (pp. 59-60). Concerning Acts 4:27, John Gill noted: "Unless the word should rather be rendered servant, as it is in verse 25 and which is a character that belongs to Christ, and is often given him as Mediator, who, as such, is God's righteous servant" (Exposition, VIII, p. 176).

 

'Jehovah' appears as the name of a place here:

Genesis 22:14 (KJV1611 Edition):
And Abraham called the name of that place Iehouah-ijreh, as it is said to this day, In the Mount of the LORD it shalbe seene

Recall that the custodians of this name (the Rabbis) consider the name so Holy they do not write this name down lest it be misused by the ignorant or G-d deniers. Anyway, It only appears 4 times in the as a simple word and 3 more times as a compound word. The Rabbis tend to say 'Hasheem' which mean: 'the Name'.

All Praise be unto Hasheem! Amen!

Anyway, the 'Jehovah' missing (if you had read the Bible instead of some Bible Bashing web site) in the nKJV is NOT missing. Here is Gen 22:14 quoted from the nKJV:

Genesis 22:14 (nKJV)
And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; F31 as it is said to this day, "In the Mount of The Lord it shall be provided."
FOOTNOTES:
F31: Hebrew YHWH Yireh

Apparently the custodians of the Holy Name of the Lord don't really like the letter 'J' as it does NOT appear in the Hebrew. The name of my Lord in a more Hebrew sounding mode is: YESHUA son Yoseph of Nazereth.

 

The typical verse cited by KJV-only advocates in complaining about the use of "faithfulness" is Galatians 5:22.

Gail Riplinger claimed: "All new versions, in their attempt to present a 'works' based salvation mistranslate pistis as 'faithfulness'" in Galatians 5:22 (New Age Bible Versions, p. 257). Riplinger suggested or implied that the NKJV supported "works salvation" because of its rendering "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22 (Language of KJB, p. 149). Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles all had "faithfulness" at Galatians 5:22. Is Riplinger suggesting that William Tyndale, in effect the primary translator of the KJV, and Miles Coverdale were attempting to present a works-based salvation? Was the KJV a revision of earlier Bibles that supported "works salvation?" KJV-only advocates fail to consider how their claims apply to the English foundation that underlies the KJV.

 

On her cassette entitled "Detailed Update," Gail Riplinger stated the following about the NKJV: "Every time they change from the King James to something different they follow the New World Translation of Jehovah Witnesses." In her book, she suggested that the rendering "disobedience" at Romans 15:31 and Hebrews 4:11 and the rendering "obey" at John 3:36 are doctrinal errors from the Jehovah Witness Bible (New Age Bible Versions, p. 255). The 1560 Geneva Bible has "disobedience" at Hebrews 4:11 and "disobedient" at Romans 15:31, and the KJV translators even listed it in the margin of the 1611 as an acceptable translation. Were the KJV translators recommending a Jehovah Witnesses' reading as an acceptable alternative translation? Whittingham's New Testament also has "disobedient" at Romans 15:31 but has "stubbornness" at Hebrews 4:11. At John 3:36, Whittingham's and Geneva Bible have "obeyeth not" where the KJV has "believeth not." Burton claimed that the NASB rendering "does not obey the Son" at John 3:36 teaches "salvation is by obedience" (Let's Weigh the Evidence, p. 30). Robert Baker implied that translations which have "disobedient" or similar words at Romans 11:30-32 and Hebrews 3:18 "change justification by faith to salvation through works" (Another Bible, p. 9). At Romans 11:30-31, the margin of the 1611 KJV has "Or, obeyed" as an acceptable alternative translation for "believed." At Hebrews 3:18, the Great and Bishops' Bibles have "that were not obedient" while Whittingham's and the Geneva Bible have "that obeyed not."

On the other hand, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's Duoglott, Great, and Bishops' Bibles have "believeth not" at Romans 10:21 while the Geneva and KJV have "disobedient." In addition, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Coverdale's Duoglott have "children of unbelief" at Colossians 3:6c while the KJV has "children of disobedience." "Children of unbelief" was also the rendering at Ephesians 2:2 in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's and Great and the rendering at Ephesians 5:6 in Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's.

The KJV has "children of disobedience" at both verses. Wycliffe's Bible had "sons of unbelief" (Eph. 2:2, 5:6). Romans 15:31 and Romans 10:21 have the same Greek word while Hebrews 4:11, Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:6 have the same Greek word with both of these words coming from the same Greek word. At Acts 5:37, Tyndale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles have "believed" where the KJV has "obeyed." "Believe" is the rendering of Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Whittingham's at Galatians 3:1. "Obey" is the KJV's rendering for this verse. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, and Bishops' Bibles have "believe not" at 1 Peter 2:7 while the KJV has "be disobedient." At 1 Peter 3:1, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and Matthew's have "believe not" while the KJV has "obey not."

Concerning 1 Peter 2:7-8 in his commentary on Peter, Gordon Clark noted: "While the participle here is etymologically unbelievers, the King James Version is not incorrect in saying the disobedient. The verb has both meanings, for the very good reason that unbelief or distrust is an idea not far removed from disobedience. The man who distrusts Christ will not obey him, and the man who disobeys does not believe" (p. 83). Would the claim of Riplinger consistently applied suggest that the KJV changed the good renderings of the good earlier Bibles to Jehovah Witnesses' renderings at Romans 10:21, Ephesians 2:2, Colossians 3:6, 1 Peter 2:7, and other verses? Would KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV teaches salvation by obedience in these verses? It seems fair to suggest that KJV-only advocates should check their information before they jump to their hasty and inconsistent accusations.

 

My brother (or sister), I honestly believe you don't "get it".

Even I have a hard time with it, at most times.

For most advocates, the only thing consistent with the KJVO position is "the 'real' King James". That doesn't include any single edition of the King James, however - just the "'real' one". For most that is the "1611-King James", of which most have never so much as seen even a facsimile copy, let alone the genuine article. It also must be an American 'counterfeit' printing, since "'The KJV' is the only Bible which was never copyrighted.". (The crown copyright of England does not count, here.) One must support, at every stand, all the great English versions which preceded the KJV, while simultaneously denying each and every one, where their renderings happen to differ with the renderings of the KJV. The KJV is, was, and and always been 'perfect' and without error, in any manner whatsoever, and has never changed, in 'the real King James'." This does not include the Apocrypha, for it is not inspired and is not to be found in "the 'real' King James". Ergo, any Bible that includes the Apocrypha is not a "'real' King James", even if it is a 1611 edition, but of course that simultaneously is "the 'real' King James". There are no errors in any "'real' King James" but "Printer's errors". which of course, do not exist in the first place, since they have all been corrected. Any observed differences, in any edition, do not exist. And on and on, it goes. yet? BTW, the KJV is entirely based on the 'received text' which was and is the Majority text, of the church. If and when the Majority text does not agree with the 'TR' (never mind that there would actually be no such thing as the Textus Receptus for many years) and "the 'real' King James, one has to go with "the 'real' King James", since it is "the 'real' King James" Spelling had to be updated in"the 'real' King James", but even the spellings cannot be changed as they are providential, to begin with.

In short, the only thing consistent, is inconsistency which of course, does not exist for the advocates of "the 'real' King James". Clear, now??

Let no one think I am making fun of the KJV. I have used an actual "real" KJV, (Oxford Copyright, no less, and acutally currently possess two other 'Oxfords', the first of which is falling apart, from my own use, for several yeras, early on, in addition to the Bible I use regularly) for most of my adult Christian life, and even in my teen-aged years, with short intervals where I actually used another version, for varied reasons, including theft, and for the last three weeks when I actually accidentally left my Bible in our church building, and was not able to find it [even after extensively looking twice, through the church building, until this past Sunday morning, when I was actually in no shape to even drive (pulse rate of 51, and I was staggering around like Noah), yet drove anyway, arriving late. I did not physically think I was up to climbing the stairs to the balcony, so snuck into the back of the building, and in the second pew from the rear, in the left alcove, in the rack was my Bible, stuck in a place I had not even been near for at least two months. How it got there, I'll never know. Had I not been so 'woozy" and entered the balcony, as I would usually have done, at the hour I arrived, I would still be without it.] I have checked, for now about the fourth time, just to make sure. Yep! It still says King James, right there on the cover!

Incidentally, let me urge one to get a Bible with a good binding. It will be the best investment one could make, as I have more than one King James that has literally fallen apart from use, including the one of my late mother.

And I'm going to take this oportunity, to make one further statement. I never discount most Bible manuscripts. Every one of them we possess, was someone's or some group's Bible, and was all they likely had, given the difficulties of hand copying, etc. I am not perfect, by any means, even though my alter ego is Language Cop, and I am a graduate of a Bible College, as well. However, I am virtually sure, that were I attempting to hand copy a Bible manuscript, whereALLTHELETTERSWERERUNTOGETHERWITHNOBREAKSFORSENTENCESORPU
NCTUATIONdespite my best efforts
THEREWOULDBEFARMOREVARIANTSANDMI STAKESTHANARESEENTODAYFROMONEMANUSCRIPTTOANOTHER

Ed

 

Your error is atrocious! No one who holds to the KJB is schismatic, only the "which version of the day" advocates cause any schism about versions. we're settled! Now if you said we cause others to be settled on what is the word of God, then you would not have made such an error.

What you say in God not holding one "guiltless" means anyone, in your opinion, is lost who holds to the KJB as the Bible for all English speaking peoples!

Of course you're in THAT position to judge evreryone with whom you don't agree!

 

:laugh: :thumbsup: Isn't removing repentence just once from these "gospel verses" enough?

 

I didn't say what you thought, I was asking what you thought.

 

If you are so 'settled' then- great, we have nothing further to discuss with you and you can just ignore this forum from now on.

 

That's a good summary, Ed. The only consistent thing about the KJVO position IS its inconsistency.

Who would ever think you're making fun of the KJVs, Ed? BTW, if I were you I'd get that BP cheked out if you haven't already. My BP goes the other way, but as long as I'm on my meds it remains in an acceptable range. I've never had if go as low as yours - at least not that I know of.

Good point, Ed. It's only reasonable to believe that hand-copied manuscripts were imperfect because humans aren't perfect. The manuscripts we have, whether of the Majority Text or otherwise, are no exception. And since these manuscripts are imperfect, it's only reasonable to believe the translations mader from them also have human errors. But a human error here and there makes today's translations no less the word of God than translations of the past. They all teach the message God preserved for us.

 

As always, you're wrong, Sal. The church was doing just fine with God's word in its various translations until the schismatic and divisive KJVO teaching appeared. The error is yours, not Dr. Bob's.

 

Do certain verses "remove" a word that probably wasn't in the original texts, Sal, or do they preach "another gospel" altogether?

 

Sal's form of textual criticism is widespread.

It is used commonly used by KJVO advocates.
It says to determine the ‘proper’, ‘correct’, ‘pure’ words of Scripture one needs to consider what ‘sounds right’ or what ‘strengthens a teaching’.

This is the earliest form of textual criticism.
The theory is: that this method was used very early in the history of the church and contributed to the formation of the Byzantine text-type, essentially the basic Greek text of the KJV.

Rob