Members Genevanpreacher Posted September 10, 2016 Members Share Posted September 10, 2016 Not trying to cause controversy, but really wanting to know your individual thoughts. Having a 1611 edition of the King James Bible in facsimile, as well as the reprint in modern Roman type, and seeing the vast differences between them and the modern edition commonly used by Baptists on OB, does it make any difference to anyone here, that the 'jots and tittles' have changed? I am aware you all know my preference of scriptures. That's not what this is about. Just wondering. My purpose is not to discredit the KJB, just wanting to know your thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MountainChristian Posted September 10, 2016 Members Share Posted September 10, 2016 I too wonder the same thing. Genevanpreacher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted September 10, 2016 Members Share Posted September 10, 2016 (edited) My understanding is that the changes (including changes in punctuation marks) were due to how the English language has changed since 1611. Edited September 10, 2016 by No Nicolaitans Genevanpreacher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Popular Post Pastor Scott Markle Posted September 10, 2016 Members Popular Post Share Posted September 10, 2016 2 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said: Not trying to cause controversy, but really wanting to know your individual thoughts. Having a 1611 edition of the King James Bible in facsimile, as well as the reprint in modern Roman type, and seeing the vast differences between them and the modern edition commonly used by Baptists on OB, does it make any difference to anyone here, that the 'jots and tittles' have changed? I am aware you all know my preference of scriptures. That's not what this is about. Just wondering. My purpose is not to discredit the KJB, just wanting to know your thoughts. Brother "Genevanpreacher," First, I understand and respect your purpose of curiosity in this thread discussion. Second, I myself do NOT hold to any form of "secondary inspiration," wherein the English "jots" and "tittles" were somehow directly inspired by God the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the original Hebrew and Greek "jots" and "tittles." Third, I am not overly bothered by the English "jot and tittle" changes in spelling and punctuation from the 1611 King James translation to the 1769 King James revision. The only places wherein I would be "challenged" by these changes would be in those places where the changes created a difference in the grammatical and contextual "flow of thought." Then I would have to study that change more closely in order to "choose a side." (Note: I also own a facsimile edition of the 1611 King James translation, as well as of the 1526 Tyndale New Testament translation, the 1537 Matthew's translation, and the 1560 Geneva translation.) heartstrings, HappyChristian, Alan and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted September 10, 2016 Members Share Posted September 10, 2016 I just remembered...David Cloud had a recent article about this. I can't vouch for its accuracy, but I have no reason to doubt it either. http://www.wayoflife.org/reports/is_17th_century_british_english_holy.html Pastor Scott Markle and Alan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted September 11, 2016 Author Members Share Posted September 11, 2016 6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said: (Note: I also own a facsimile edition of the 1611 King James translation, as well as of the 1526 Tyndale New Testament translation, the 1537 Matthew's translation, and the 1560 Geneva translation.) I do too - all 4 of them. Isn't that interesting? You and I having the same old texts...kinda cool, I think. Pastor Scott Markle 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted September 11, 2016 Members Share Posted September 11, 2016 18 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said: I do too - all 4 of them. Isn't that interesting? You and I having the same old texts...kinda cool, I think. My position on the matter of translations is more of a textual conviction then even a translational conviction. Indeed, I do hold to the King James translation for present day English readers. However, I have an even greater conviction toward the Masoretic textual tradition for the Hebrew and toward the Received (Byzantine) textual tradition for the Greek. All four of those older translations are from those textual traditions of the Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, I believe that all four of those older translations are worthy of my respect. Genevanpreacher and No Nicolaitans 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted September 13, 2016 Members Share Posted September 13, 2016 Here is a nice little article on the "changes". https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration here's an example of how John 3:16 was "changed" https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/King-James-Bible-English/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Genevanpreacher Posted September 13, 2016 Author Members Share Posted September 13, 2016 8 hours ago, heartstrings said: Here is a nice little article on the "changes". https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration here's an example of how John 3:16 was "changed" https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/King-James-Bible-English/ Interesting article. Those who call changes to the KJB from the original 1611 to now, and use the font as proof of differences, are lacking some brains. As for punctuation - many people I use to associate with would proclaim the KJB SO perfect, even down to the jots and tittles - the periods and punctuation they say - and swear the exactness as God breathed. They no longer hang around me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted September 13, 2016 Members Share Posted September 13, 2016 Well...my understanding is that the "jots and tittles" are referencing the small parts that make up some of the Hebrew alphabet's letters...not the punctuation. In fact, in my further understanding, the Hebrew (nor Greek) had punctuation marks. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. So...to correlate "jots and tittles" to our understanding and using English as the example, it would be like someone who wanted to ensure that their orders were carried out with no misunderstanding...they would say to make sure to dot every "i" and cross every "t". The dot of the "i" and cross of the "t" being the jots and tittles so to speak. Without them, they're not those letters. Pastor Scott Markle, Alan and Rebecca 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Popular Post Alan Posted September 14, 2016 Members Popular Post Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said: Well...my understanding is that the "jots and tittles" are referencing the small parts that make up some of the Hebrew alphabet's letters...not the punctuation. In fact, in my further understanding, the Hebrew (nor Greek) had punctuation marks. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. So...to correlate "jots and tittles" to our understanding and using English as the example, it would be like someone who wanted to ensure that their orders were carried out with no misunderstanding...they would say to make sure to dot every "i" and cross every "t". The dot of the "i" and cross of the "t" being the jots and tittles so to speak. Without them, they're not those letters. No Nicolaitans is correct. The Lord Jesus clearly said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." A jot and tittle is not punctuation or even related in any fashion to punctuation. If you follow the links in the following article, the punctuation alleged problem becomes very clear: http://gptsrabbi.blogspot.tw/2011/10/punctuating-bible.html Modern Hebrew has added punctuation marks; original Hebrew did not have punctuation marks. One interesting note. The Chinese language is the same way. Old Chinese books (manuscripts), do not have punctuation marks and the sentences run together. Coupled with the Chinese language being written top to bottom, and other grammatical differences, it makes some interesting discussions on what was originnaly meant. Furthermore, I am of the persuasion that this whole post is to cast doubt on, find fault with, discredit, and find alleged problems with the King James Version (any date), of the preservation of the scriptures. I find no fault with the King James Version (any date), for any reason. To the soul that loves the scriptures, Proverbs 27:7 has a lot of spiritual meaning to the scriptures, "The full soul loatheth an honeycomb; but to the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet." Proverbs 27:7 The scriptures are like an honeycomb. Ask any beekeeper about the problems with handling bees and you will discover some rich spiritual truths in an honeycomb. But, to the soul that is hungry for the nourishment within the honeycomb, every bitter problem associated with the honeycomb is sweet. The analogy of Proverbs 27:7 and the preserved word of God, the King James Version, any date, is amazing. Every hard aspect, or bitterness, or problem, or punctuation, or archaic words, of the King James Version is fine with the hungry soul for the words of God. I love the archaic words of the King James Version and the punctuation alleged problem is an non-issue with me. Alan Edited September 14, 2016 by Alan spelling (twice) grammer busdrvrlinda54, No Nicolaitans, John Young and 3 others 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MountainChristian Posted September 14, 2016 Members Share Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) I think when I do my daily Bible reading I'm going to tracking the changes. Edited September 14, 2016 by MountainChristian Genevanpreacher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted September 14, 2016 Members Share Posted September 14, 2016 Today "Jot" is actually pronounced "yod", or so I was told by a modern first language Hebrew speaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted September 14, 2016 Members Share Posted September 14, 2016 The "jot" is the smallest Hebrew letter (by written size), and it is indeed pronounced more like the following - "yodh" (with a long "o"). The "tittle" is a small "hook" on a particular Hebrew letter that distinguishes the letter from another Hebrew letter that is close in appearance to it. No Nicolaitans 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted September 14, 2016 Members Share Posted September 14, 2016 On 9/10/2016 at 11:37 AM, Genevanpreacher said: does it make any difference to anyone here, that the 'jots and tittles' have changed? Now, I think that you may have received your answer(s)...and others may still yet chime in. Even so, may I do a "turnabout is fair play"? I don't remember which copy of the Geneva Bible you use, but I know there were many...including one (somewhat recently) which uses modern language. I have the 1587 Geneva Bible on my Bible program...simply because that's the only one that was offered. Do the revisions of the Geneva Bible bother you; in that, they did make changes? IF my understanding is correct, the first Geneva was done in 1557 (a New Testament), and the full edition of 1560 (Old and New Testaments) had revisions even from the New Testament done only 3 years earlier. I further understand that there were over 100 revisions to the Geneva Bible. I don't know its history, nor do I claim to...but it has undergone many more revisions than the King James. Which do you use? It can't be the 1557, because that was just the New Testament. The New Testament was changed in subsequent editions (if I'm correct). Does that not bother you that you don't use the original from 1557? Isn't the 1599 version the most popular...and it came after many revisions. Those are serious questions and not meant to stir up strife. busdrvrlinda54, Genevanpreacher and Alan 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.