Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Preservation and the KJV


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to their preface to the 1611 and according to their writings, I understand the KJV translators to maintain or teach that the preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

Would the scriptural teaching that no words of men were to be added and no words of God were to be omitted or changed relate to the doctrine of preservation and would they suggest that preservation directly concerned the original language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?  In translating the Scriptures, do translators sometimes have to add words in order for their translation to be understandable in the different language, suggesting that preservation may not directly apply to translations that add some words of men?  Would any words added by translators for which there were no original language words of Scripture be preserving actual words that proceeded out of the mouth of God to the prophets and apostles?  

What exactly or precisely is meant by the assertion that the KJV is the preserved word of God? 

Does it mean that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?  It is true that the KJV is a translation of the preserved Scriptures and is a revision of earlier English Bibles.

On the other hand, is it possibly intended to suggest that the KJV always has a literal, word-for-word translation of each original language word of Scripture so that it is claimed to preserve exactly the same number of words [without any addition or omission] as the number of words that God gave to the prophets and apostles along with preserving the same meaning of each word?  If preservation is directly applied to different words in a different language, would that possibly suggest that meaning or thought preservation is in effect being claimed instead of exact, specific word preservation?  Do the Scriptures themselves clearly and directly teach a preservation of different words than the exact, specific ones given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

How does the KJV directly preserve each and every specific word given by God to the prophets and apostles if there are at least a few times where the KJV translators themselves suggested in their marginal notes that they did not provide an English rendering for an original language word in their underlying text?

Are there different number of words in different editions of the KJV or do all editions of the KJV have the exact same number of words and have the exact same words?  Which of the varying editions of the KJV is the specific one that is claimed to have every preserved word of God?

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You are getting into the difference between translation methods; of which, there are three main methods...

  1. Formal or Literal (word-for-word)
  2. Dynamic (though-for-thought)
  3. Free (the idea behind or paraphrase)

The methods explain themselves.

If we want to know God's actual word(s), then we would want a Formal Equivalency (or Literal translation). Probably, the two most popular Literal translations are the King James Version and the English Standard Version (ESV). However, though both are a literal translation, one must also consider the underlying texts from which they are translated. 

Dynamic Equivalency gives what the translator's believe to be a translation based upon the overall "thought" of a passage. So, instead of translating the actual words of a text, they are translating what they think are the thoughts behind the texts. They may loosely follow the actual words, but the main thrust is the thought behind the text. Hence, the New International Version (NIV). Certainly, this type of translation method is prone to error since the translator(s) will be inserting their own interpretation.

Free translating...aka...paraphrasing is basically translating the idea behind the text...and is unhindered and unrestrained by the actual words of the text. Indeed, this type of translation method is more than prone to error. The Living Bible and The Message are two popular paraphrases. I personally refer to "The Message" as "The Massacre". :)

As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added. As such, their "additions" didn't actually add to the word of God. There will always be some type of addition needed when translating one language into another. In fact, if one has access to the Greek, and one is able to translate the Greek, one would see that the sentence structure is quite different than that of English sentence structure. So, whereas, the King James translates word for word, it also repositions words so as to make sense to an English reader. 

In my view, it comes down to this...

God told us to study his "WORD". We are to live by his "WORD". He magnifies his WORD above his name (Psalm 138:2). In light of this, I want to know...HIS WORD. With the help of the Holy Spirit and study, I can grasp the "thought" (Dynamic Equivalency) behind his actual word(s); I can grasp the "idea" (Free paraphrasing) behind his actual word(s). I don't need someone else telling me what THEY think God's thoughts were or what his ideas were. If I have his actual words, I can get that from him. ;)

Edited by No Nicolaitans
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

You are getting into the difference between translation methods; of which, there are three main methods...

  1. Formal or Literal (word-for-word)
  2. Dynamic (though-for-thought)
  3. Free (the idea behind or paraphrase)

The methods explain themselves.

If we want to know God's actual word(s), then we would want a Formal Equivalency (or Literal translation). Probably, the two most popular Literal translations are the King James Version and the English Standard Version (ESV). However, though both are a literal translation, one must also consider the underlying texts from which they are translated. 

Dynamic Equivalency gives what the translator's believe to be a translation based upon the overall "thought" of a passage. So, instead of translating the actual words of a text, they are translating what they think are the thoughts behind the texts. They may loosely follow the actual words, but the main thrust is the thought behind the text. Hence, the New International Version (NIV). Certainly, this type of translation method is prone to error since the translator(s) will be inserting their own interpretation.

Free translating...aka...paraphrasing is basically translating the idea behind the text...and is unhindered and unrestrained by the actual words of the text. Indeed, this type of translation method is more than prone to error. The Living Bible and The Message are two popular paraphrases. I personally refer to "The Message" as "The Massacre". :)

As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added. As such, their "additions" didn't actually add to the word of God. There will always be some type of addition needed when translating one language into another. In fact, if one has access to the Greek, and one is able to translate the Greek, one would see that the sentence structure is quite different than that of English sentence structure. So, whereas, the King James translates word for word, it also repositions words so as to make sense to an English reader. 

In my view, it comes down to this...

God told us to study his "WORD". We are to live by his "WORD". He magnifies his WORD above his name (Psalm 138:2). In light of this, I want to know...HIS WORD. With the help of the Holy Spirit and study, I can grasp the "thought" (Dynamic Equivalency) behind his actual word(s); I can grasp the "idea" (Free paraphrasing) behind his actual word(s). I don't need someone else telling me what THEY think God's thoughts were or what his ideas were. If I have his actual words, I can get that from him. ;)

This explanation by NN is spot on. And it becomes extremely relevant when translating the Bible into a foreign language today, or judging an old translation that you find on the foreign field. I ran into this in Papua New Guinea several years ago.

Where this whole subject becomes iffy, in my own un-asked-for opinion, is when a native English-speaking person today is looking for an academic, intellectual, scholastic proof that the KJV is worthy of their faith in it's inerrant perfection. For in the end, proof will never be fully found in such a manner. For the born-again Christian, the foundation of everything is, and will always be, faith. "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin". If I ultimately will solely trust my intellect to discern and decide what is of God and what is not, I have in the end set myself up as judge. This is actually the very foundation of humanism. You can NOT discern the perfect Word of God by human study and intellectual exercise. For who can ever know the things of God (such as the Words of God) unless they are revealed to him by the Spirit of God? The KJV has the power of God on it. That has been proven for the last 400 years. It is alive. It speaks to people and smites their hearts with a divine power that no other English translation has ever shown.

There have been English speaking illiterate dirt farmers, simple pioneers and settlers, ex-drunks and un-churched prostitutes, simple itinerant preachers and harried housewives that have for centuries known the this Bible is the living Word of God. They know nothing of manuscript evidence or dynamic equivalency, and have never heard of Tyndale, Wycliffe or the Textus Receptus. But they know full well where they got the Word that was quick and powerful and sharp, and that cut their hearts clean down to the dividing of their soul and spirit.

Sometimes, for us educated to know more, we actually have to be able and willing to "know" less. This is the beginning of the journey from human knowledge into Godly wisdom.

He that hath ears to hear...

Edited by weary warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Eloah pluralized is Elohim. How is Elohim translated into English? Singular. God. In Hebrew we know more than one God is creating, Elohim. Sadly this is lost in English. Maybe the modern translations have corrected this, but I do not know. So LORD God becomes Yahweh Elohim or Yahweh Gods, talk about the Trinity. That's shouting ground for hillbillies. Want to really shout, look up Deuteronomy 6:4, the Trinity in the Law.

That's just one example how the English doesn't live up to the Hebrew. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

Eloah pluralized is Elohim. How is Elohim translated into English? Singular. God. In Hebrew we know more than one God is creating, Elohim. Sadly this is lost in English. Maybe the modern translations have corrected this, but I do not know. So LORD God becomes Yahweh Elohim or Yahweh Gods, talk about the Trinity. That's shouting ground for hillbillies. Want to really shout, look up Deuteronomy 6:4, the Trinity in the Law.

That's just one example how the English doesn't live up to the Hebrew. 

I politely disagree. In English we are told "Let us make man in our image", and that's a pretty clear plurality. The trinity in the law may have been made clearer for the Hebrews in their language, but that was because they didn't yet have anything but the law. We have I John 5:7 et al. By your logic, would our verses given to us but not to the Hebrews not then make the scripture in the Hebrew language inferior to the English? By the time English language came along centuries later and we had received the scriptures, all had been made clear. God saw to it that the dumb hillbilly got the exact same information in his language that the Hebrew scholar had received in his 4000 years earlier. The English is not behind the Hebrew, anymore than the Law is behind grace. Each had their own individual place and purpose designed by God. They are each separately perfect in their own form and function and time. There is never a problem until we try to cross-pollinate them. Remember, we were told in I Corinthians 13:8, which was not written in Hebrew, that "when that which is perfect is come (the completed Word of God) then that which is in part shall be done away with". The completed word of God has been deemed perfect by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

 

As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added.

I think that it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the use of italics to indicate words added by translators.  The KJV is not the only present English version that uses italics for added words. 

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators put some of the words that they added in a different smaller type.  It was later editions of the KJV that would use italics as was used in the 1560 Geneva.  The KJV translators may not have been as specific as you suggest.  Later editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford more than doubled the actual number of words in the KJV that are in italics when compared to the number of words in a different type in the 1611 edition.

  Would it be suggested that the KJV translators were less than 50% honest and forthright since they put in a different type less than half of the added words that are actually in italics in many present KJV editions?   I don't think so.  You seem to be crediting the KJV translators for all the words in italics in many present KJV editions when it was later KJV editors who were likely responsible for more than half of them. 

For example, in his 1888 book entitled Old Bibles: An Account of the Early English Bible, J. R. Dore maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 43 words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew while the 1629 Cambridge edition has 165 words in italics, the 1638 Cambridge edition has 224 words in italics, and the 1762 Cambridge edition has 352 words in italics (p. 340).      

Some editions of the KJV through the years have been printed with no words in italics.  I know of one such edition printed in London in 1795.  There are also a few present KJV editions that have no words in italics.  I have copies of at least three to five such present KJV editions with no words in italics.  The 2005 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton do not have any words in italics.

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I think that it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the use of italics to indicate words added by translators.  The KJV is not the only present English version that uses italics for added words. 

Well, I did say, "that I know of." Whether other English versions incorporate italics or not is a moot point if they're translated from the wrong texts. That's my opinion though.

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators put some of the words that they added in a different type. 

I used the word "italics" simply so people would know what I was referring to.

It was later editions of the KJV that would use italics as was used in the 1560 Geneva.  The KJV translators may not have been as specific as you suggest.  Later editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford more than doubled the actual number of words in the KJV that are in italics when compared to the 1611 edition. 

I don't know if that's true or not, so I won't comment on it.

Would it be suggested that the KJV translators were less than 50% honest and forthright since they put in a different type less than half of the added words that are actually in italics in many present KJV editions?   I don't think so. 

Nor would I.

You seem to be crediting the KJV translators for all the words in italics in many present KJV editions when it was later KJV editors who were likely responsible for more than half of them. 

No sir, this is all that I said...

Quote: As to adding to God's word; the King James translators were very specific in italicizing any words that they added...words to give a clearer meaning to the text. No other version (that I know of does this). At least they were honest and forthright in what they added. As such, their "additions" didn't actually add to the word of God. End quote.

I spoke only of the translators...nothing was said about anything else.

For example, in his 1888 book entitled Old Bibles: An Account of the Early English Bible, J. R. Dore maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 43 words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew while the 1629 Cambridge edition has 165 words in italics, the 1638 Cambridge edition has 224 words in italics, and the 1762 Cambridge edition has 352 words in italics (p. 340).      

Some editions of the KJV through the years have been printed with no words in italics, and there are a few present KJV editions that have no words in italics.  I have copies of at least three to five such present KJV editions with no words in italics.  The 2005 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton do not have any words in italics.

Okay. Italics or not...I'd still trust a non-italicized King James version over any other English version...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
11 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I think that it was the 1560 Geneva Bible that first introduced the use of italics to indicate words added by translators.  The KJV is not the only present English version that uses italics for added words. 

In the 1611 edition of the KJV, the KJV translators put some of the words that they added in a different smaller type.  It was later editions of the KJV that would use italics as was used in the 1560 Geneva.  The KJV translators may not have been as specific as you suggest.  Later editions of the KJV such as the 1629 Cambridge, the 1638 Cambridge, the 1743 Cambridge, the 1762 Cambridge, the 1769 Oxford more than doubled the actual number of words in the KJV that are in italics when compared to the number of words in a different type in the 1611 edition.

  Would it be suggested that the KJV translators were less than 50% honest and forthright since they put in a different type less than half of the added words that are actually in italics in many present KJV editions?   I don't think so.  You seem to be crediting the KJV translators for all the words in italics in many present KJV editions when it was later KJV editors who were likely responsible for more than half of them. 

For example, in his 1888 book entitled Old Bibles: An Account of the Early English Bible, J. R. Dore maintained that the 1611 edition of the KJV has 43 words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew while the 1629 Cambridge edition has 165 words in italics, the 1638 Cambridge edition has 224 words in italics, and the 1762 Cambridge edition has 352 words in italics (p. 340).      

Some editions of the KJV through the years have been printed with no words in italics, and there are a few present KJV editions that have no words in italics.  I have copies of at least three to five such present KJV editions with no words in italics.  The 2005 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible and the 2011 KJV edition of the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton do not have any words in italics.

Aint' that something, or is it? Imagine if you actually believed the Bible was preserved? Then imagine if you were a doer of the Word instead of a hearer only. What a wonderful eternity you could have.

Based on your posts, it appears you have nothing to add to this forum except the nonsense fed to you by someone's merchandise. Put your energy into the Word and drop the trivial, intellectual speculation you attempt to portray friend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
15 minutes ago, wretched said:

 Imagine if you actually believed the Bible was preserved?

 

My opening post in this thread made it clear that I do believe that the Bible was and is preserved.  My belief would be based on exactly what the Scriptures themselves state.

I stated: "From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles."

Do you clearly demonstrate that your beliefs concerning the preservation of the Scriptures are any more consistent, sound, and scriptural than mine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Tyndale said:

I stated: "From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles."

The problem is, many of us have been around for a long, long time. And we've seen this silly game played for many years. And we've seen it played by those who are better and more clever at it than you have been, at least on here. I guess what gets my goat is not that you would try this lawyer-talk shell game on here so much as the fact that you seem to actually believe we are foolish and shallow enough to not see through it. It's actually kind of insulting.

I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Yeah, we know. It's the tired, old "original manuscripts" argument presented in a sloppy, quasi-intellectual underhanded manner. I don't even care that you believe that. Everyone has the right to be as obtuse as they choose. We are just all getting just a little weary of your childish word games. We are trying to be courteous and patient (some more than others), but you're not making it very easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 0:39 AM, Tyndale said:

Do the Scriptures teach word preservation or do they teach thought or meaning preservation?   Terms relating to Bible doctrine should be defined and explained.

From my reading and study of the Scriptures, I see the Scriptures teaching a preservation of the exact, specific words that proceeded out of the mouth of God by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.  According to their preface to the 1611 and according to their writings, I understand the KJV translators to maintain or teach that the preservation of the Scriptures concerned the original language words given to the prophets and apostles.

Brother Tyndale,

A question if I may (indeed, an honest question for information) -- What Hebrew and Greek texts or textual families, do you believe, represent God's work of preserving "the exact, specific words" that proceeded out of His mouth "by inspiration to the prophets and apostles"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, weary warrior said:

I politely disagree. In English we are told "Let us make man in our image", and that's a pretty clear plurality. The trinity in the law may have been made clearer for the Hebrews in their language, but that was because they didn't yet have anything but the law. We have I John 5:7 et al. By your logic, would our verses given to us but not to the Hebrews not then make the scripture in the Hebrew language inferior to the English? By the time English language came along centuries later and we had received the scriptures, all had been made clear. God saw to it that the dumb hillbilly got the exact same information in his language that the Hebrew scholar had received in his 4000 years earlier. The English is not behind the Hebrew, anymore than the Law is behind grace. Each had their own individual place and purpose designed by God. They are each separately perfect in their own form and function and time. There is never a problem until we try to cross-pollinate them. Remember, we were told in I Corinthians 13:8, which was not written in Hebrew, that "when that which is perfect is come (the completed Word of God) then that which is in part shall be done away with". The completed word of God has been deemed perfect by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The whole Bible was written by Hebrews, the biggest part in Hebrew, then Greek, finally some in Arabic. God gave us no Bible without using a Hebrew and God Himself came to earth in the Hebrew family of David. When God returns He will rule the earth from the Hebrews homeland. That puts them far above us English speaking people because God chose Abram. 

Hebrew - Elohim plural, English - God singular. That's not the same. God can never change, His word can never change. There is a change there. Plural is not singular. Man done that. We are still like Eve in the Garden of Eden. Its a safe change because the three Gods are One. Its within the doctrine of the whole book but its still a change. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, weary warrior said:

 And we've seen this silly game played for many years

this lawyer-talk shell game on here

 argument presented in a sloppy, quasi-intellectual underhanded manner. I don't even care that you believe that. Everyone has the right to be as obtuse as they choose. We are just all getting just a little weary of your childish word games. We are trying to be courteous and patient (some more than others), but you're not making it very easy.

I wonder how it would be being courteous, kind, and patient for some posters to seem to attempt to attack personally my integrity, my faith in God, and my acceptance of what the Scriptures teach.  Perhaps the criticism is because it is thought that I may not blindly accept certain non-scriptural opinions of men that some may add to their doctrine of the Bible.

I do not consider learning or stating the truth a silly game or nonsense. 

Would the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, guide believers to accept all truth or would He guide to accept only some truth while dismissing or avoiding other truth?  Why would presenting actual true facts concerning the KJV and concerning editions of the KJV seem be attacked by those who would claim to stand for the truth?  Would it be wrong to attempt to be faithful and true in what some may consider to be the least important details and facts concerning the KJV?

Luke 16:10

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much

 

Edited by Tyndale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, MountainChristian said:

The whole Bible was written by Hebrews, the biggest part in Hebrew, then Greek, finally some in Arabic. God gave us no Bible without using a Hebrew and God Himself came to earth in the Hebrew family of David. When God returns He will rule the earth from the Hebrews homeland. That puts them far above us English speaking people because God chose Abram. 

Hebrew - Elohim plural, English - God singular. That's not the same. God can never change, His word can never change. There is a change there. Plural is not singular. Man done that. We are still like Eve in the Garden of Eden. Its a safe change because the three Gods are One. Its within the doctrine of the whole book but its still a change. 

MC,

I understand your point of view and concerns.

I was taught that each instance of the word "God" (in the Old Testament) refers to all three members of the godhead, just as each instance of the word "LORD" refers to the Father.

Now, I haven't looked up every instance to see if that's true, but I have looked at many instances, and it was true in those cases.

I can't answer for the translators, but as Christians, we know and understand that there are three members of the godhead...yet they are one. 

Therefore, it seems to me that the translators were accurate in not only referring to the three members of the godhead as one (God), but the fact that they did it consistently also secures my assurance. In that one word, they translated a simple (yet deep) spiritual truth and doctrine...one that the Hebrews rejected even though they had the obvious plural word.

Edited by No Nicolaitans
spelling
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...