Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Different punctuation...


Recommended Posts

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...