Words, DO matter

I am glad to see that you realise that it is possible to have faith in a translation that contains human word errors without it affecting your devotion to the word of God. That is a vital point in 'still learning' about how God preserves His word. God is not reliant on translators, copiers, or printers to preserve His word. He does it despite human error.

However - I must call your statement above into question. Is that based on a Biblical truth or on human reasoning? Were the KJV translators unbelievers or Bible deniers when they said that a variety of translations was profitable?

 

From Your OP

Were you being honest?

 

In The Beginning by Alister McGrath.

"With Laud out of the way,[he was executed in 1645 --Rip] serious opposition to the King james Bible gathered momentum.calls for the revision of the translation became increasingly frequent and strident. In a sermon delivered before the House of Commons,assembled at the church of St. Margaret's, Westminster,on August 26,1645,John Lightfoot (1602-75) argued the case for a revised translation,which would be both accurate and lively." (p.285)

McGrath goes on to say that "more seriously,questions concerning the accuracy of the translation" was brought to the fore. (p.286)

The King James Bible "was still regarded with some misgivings at the opening of the eighteenth [century]. A.M. goes on to say that :"It is virtually impossible to point to any defining moment or event that crystallized the perception that this was indeed a great work of religious literature;...perhaps around 1750,such a perception settled around the work,and would remain in place until the end of the First World War.If the first 150 years of its history were encumbered with hints of discontent,criticism,its next 150 years were characterized by something at times approaching uncritical adulation...Perhaps familiarity dulled the senses to the weaknesses of the translation..." (p.289,290)

Dr.McGrath said that in the 19th century folks had the impression that the 17th century "was a Golden age of biblical learning and translation.An increasing historical distance,not to mention a certain lack of knowledge of the early history of the translation,allowed this heady nostalgia to settle over the reputation of the King James Bible." (p.302)

 

I already quoted Alister McGrath on this earlier. I'll quote Philip W.Comfort now from his book :Essential Guide To Bible Versions:

"For nearly two hundred years,it [Geneva Bible --Rip]was the most popular English Bible --until it was superceded by the popularity of the King James Version in the mid-1700s." (p.141) That's a bit less than 200 years 1750--1920.

 

Saying prayers for you.

 

It seems that you are trying to misdirect our attention by implying that we have been discussing the nebulous "accuracy" of Bible translations & if a Bible translation can be "trusted"; but I will remind us all of your words from your own introduction of this topic --

You had established the edict for this thread: we were to be discussing Bible translation at the level of its "words". We were not debating an opinion of what should be considered "accurate" or a subjective concept of trustworthiness. Objective words: has a Bible translation removed some, and/or have any been changed?

Now, to "remove them or change them" is an exercise of comparison. However, you were not clear what two Bibles we were to be comparing "words"? A Bible translation with another Bible translation? or A particular Bible translation to other editions of itself? or The Bible translation with some original language text? (and then Will one be somewhat held as the 'standard' by which the other will be measured?)

Therefore, you received responses to all three types of comparison (principally Rippon on translation-to-different translation, C4K on translation-to-self editions, and David Lamb on translation-to-sources); and you engaged all three.

Your reply to C4K concerning KJV-to-KJV revisions was --

This was a very unlearned assertion and erroneous. He then supplied you with the problem of two missing words at 1 John 5:12 in the 1611 edition which have been added to later KJV editions (thus, a clear change within the KJV text; there are others). You have essentially brushed this aside citing it must not have been "deliberate" (like a "typo"). But you have no evidence of its being a mistake; you merely presume. So, now you say --

It was at this point I supplied just one example of an intentionally untranslated word in Matthew 18:6 (that you admit is a clear change from the Greek text [there are many other examples]). Yet, you have virtually dismissed this problem by claiming that king's revisers had the justification of 'redundancy' to exclude original source words in their English text. You seem to think you get this idea of redundancy from Gill's commentary on the verse.

 

I completely fail to see how stilllearning could draw his "redundant" conclusion based on John Gill's commentary alone. I would guess that many folks were not inclined to read it carefully earlier, so let's now take a close examination of what Gill actually did write (but to make it easier to follow I have broken the long citation into segments & enhanced some text) --

“The mill stone, in the original, is called mulov onikov, which may be rendered "the ass mill stone," ...​

Gill acknowledges that a full rendering would include the adjective before "mill stone". Clearly, there is nothing said or implied about it being "redundant" in the above quote. Gill will now give one of three possible meanings of the untranslated adjective --

being either the nether mill stone, as some think, which was called "the ass," because, like an ass, it bears the chief of the weight and burden; ...​

Next, Gill treats another possible understanding of this Greek word with similar examples --

or else respects such mill stones as were turned about by an ass, in distinction from those that were turned by the hand; for that it was usual with the Jews to make use of asses in grinding, as well as other nations, is certain: hence we read {a} of ayxyr armx "the ass of mills," that were employed in grinding in the mills, and of one that turned his mill with wild asses {b} : ... ​

So far, there has been nothing about redundancy in translation. Gill follows these two with a third alternative --

but it is further to be observed, that mention is made {c} of dy lv Myxr lv rwmx, "the ass of an handmill": which the commentators say {d} , was a beam on which an handmill was fixed, and was called "the ass." ...​

Still nothing about redundancy. Gill now gives us his best speculation about the three possibilities of meaning --

Now, I should rather think that this is meant than the other. It does not seem likely that a nether mill stone, or one that required an ass to turn it, should be tied to a man’s neck, in order to drown him, when cast into the sea; for our Lord must be thought to refer to a practice somewhere in use: but rather, that such a beam, or log, of an handmill, so called, were wont to be put about the necks of malefactors, in drowning them. ​

So, Gill seems to prefer that the solution be the third option ("this") rather than the previous two he offered. No trace of redundancy in the above. Finally, Gill would paraphrase the meaning of the passage in this manner --

Our Lord’s sense is, that it was much better for a man to endure the severest temporal punishment, rather than by offending, and evil treating any of his disciples, expose himself to everlasting destruction. The phrase of having a mill stone about the neck, I find, is sometimes used to denote anything very troublesome and burdensome {e} .” ​

There was just one more paragraph in Gill (not included in stilllearning's post) which helps explain the last sentence above; plus the endnotes for this verse --

"The tradition is, a man that marries a wife, and after that learns the law, R. Jochanan says, wrawub Myxyr, "though a mill stone is about his neck," yet he must study in the law: that is, though his worldly circumstances are narrow, and his wife and family are as burdensome as if he had a mill stone about his neck, he must continue his studies."

{z} Misn. Sanhedrim. c. 7. sect. 1. {a} T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 1. 10. 2. Maimon. Hileh. Yom Tob, c. 8. sect. 15. {b} T Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 16. 2. {c} Mish. Zabim. c. 4. sect. 2. {d} R. Maimon. R. Sampson. & R. Obadiah Bartenora, in. ib. {e} T. Bab. Kiddusbin, fol. 29. 2. ​

My gratitude goes to Gill for his excellent work. Perhaps, there are just these three possible ways to understand our Lord's word as recorded by His faithful gospel writer. Indeed, Gill may be correct that this Greek word indicates a wooden post.

Ironically, the more learned Gill believes contrary to the KJV text: Christ did NOT mean that a mill stone would be placed upon the neck but rather a mill log. But even if the word's exact meaning remains unknown or ambiguous to us, so be it (it would not be the only).

But Gill in his commentary says nothing at all about this inspired word being "redundant" if translated. (BTW, aren't phrases such as "Verily, verily" and "answered and said" redundant?) All this leaves stilllearning without a legitimate 'redundancy' reason for the word to have been excluded in English.

 

You really don't believe that God can provide translation of His word for English speakers in the 21st century?

Since you have admitted that the 1611 edition was not perfect, which revision of the KJV are we stuck with?

 

The making of the English Revised Version of the 1880's had as much to do with the work of Satan as the work of the KJV revisers in the early 17th century ... i.e. none.

You're in violation of BB rules for saying that sort of drivel.

 

I would be very, very careful about ascribing God's work to Satan- Matthew 12, Luke 3, Mark 11.

Satan does not need to do any monkeying around with the Bible. He rather seeks to undermine the truth through lies lived out in the lives of those who profess to be Christians.

Apply as needed.

 

I totally disagree. Satan has been twisting God's words since Adam and Eve.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, has God said, you shall not eat of every tree of the garden?


Do you really think that Satan wasn't behind the NWT?



When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, Jesus quoted scripture to him because it is the truth. Satan wants us to believe lies. What better way than through the mishandling of God's printed word?

No, I'm not KJVO.

 

Yea, He hasn't made just one...He's made hundreds of them!!
Got the latest, greatest new edition?

*insert sarcasm here*


Seriously, how many " Bible versions in the modern language" do we need anyway? It gets a little ridiculous after awhile.

 

I'm sorry, but this should be enough to ban you. Attributing the work of people to satan is totally uncalled for. I'm not sure why they will let you post here with your continuous postings like this. Disagreeing with modern versions is fine. Beleive the KJV is best or only translation that should be used is fine. I don't agree, but that's fine. But attributing satan to the work of translation of the Bible is totally uncalled for and completely ignorant. There are very good people that are kjv only, and I have high respect for them. You however are one example of those that give the good kjvo a bad name!

 

I would agree that we have way too many.

 

So you only use an Oxford Bible with UK spellings and you reject all American KJV Bibles?