Well, I've recently read through most of the, "[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=9270&forum=36&176]Why Would Anybody Still Read the KJV Bible?[/url]" Thread... And I've listened to Chuck Smith teach about the whole textus receptus VS Alexandrian texts...

And I gotta say I am convinced... I believe the alexandrian texts were corrupted by the Gnostics and that the textus receptus is a better starting point for translating the Word of God.

Now, since KJV seems to be the best translation around when it comes to the Textus Receptus, I have a question...

In the first Tozer article quoted (inside the first post of the thread mentioned above), Tozer said that,

"I know its mistakes very well, its mistranslations and confused tenses; I should, for the Bible teachers are forever correcting it in public and the introductions to the new versions never tire of pointing out these flaws in the grand old English Bible."

My question is, where can I find these mistakes that the KJV translators made? So that I can get aquainted with both the Ups and the Downs of the King James Bible.

Thanks for your time
Adam

(PS. Stever, please do not take over this thread.
Please, feel free to post- just try to keep on topic.
I trust you will respect this request...)

_________________
Combat Chuck

Adam

In my opinion, there is no one on this site or anywhere, for that matter that can answer your questions honestly. To do so they would have to be at least as close to God as Paul, Peter, John, Etc. to recieve that insight. I have observed that people are more interested in studying, and quoting old obscure "documents" to support their particular stand, than in seeking God's guidence.
If you truly want those kind of answers, a time of fasting and prayer, with a sincere cry from your heart, and God's spirit will reveal what you need to know.

Blessings Greg

_________________
Greg

Combat_Chuck posted:

And I gotta say I am convinced... I believe the alexandrian texts were corrupted by the Gnostics and that the textus receptus is a better starting point for translating the Word of God.

Now, since KJV seems to be the best translation around when it comes to the Textus Receptus, I have a question...

In the first Tozer article quoted (inside the first post of the thread mentioned above), Tozer said that,

"I know its mistakes very well, its mistranslations and confused tenses; I should, for the Bible teachers are forever correcting it in public and the introductions to the new versions never tire of pointing out these flaws in the grand old English Bible."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's response:

The words you quoted from Tozer, are words that are taught in the majority of Seminaries and Bible Colleges in the world today. However, none of these "changes" are presented. The King James is put down, and minimized in order to replace it with the NIV and all of the newer Bible Versions.

I will respond to this in readable posts, hopefully not to long, over 8 or 9 posts, to document what these "changes" actually consisted of. The source for these posts is "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones.

I have this book in zip format and will be glad to email it to anyone. Just send me your email address.
xxxxxxxxx

[i][b]WHAT ABOUT ALL THE CHANGES IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE?[/b][/i]

It has often been asserted that the King James Bible has been revised four times in the past. This is offered as proof that no valid objection should be forthcoming to continued revision and endless new translations. The reality is that there have been several editions of the text but no revisions have been made. We shall elaborate and clarify on this important issue.

The printing press was invented in 1450 by the German Johann Gutenburg. Although this was 161 years before the 1611 KJB edition, the printing apparatus had changed very little. The type was set by hand, one character at a time. The process was quite slow, difficult and tedious, hence frequent errors resulted in all publications. The first edition of the King James also contained such printing errors, but these were not the kind of textual alterations which freely occur in modern versions. These were obvious and simple printing oversights. The second printing published later in 1611 corrected about 100 such textual differences. Of course, such errors do not render a Bible or any other book worthless – they merely need to be removed in subsequent editions.

The first two alleged "major revisions" of the King James Bible took place within 27 years of its first edition. The 1629 edition was but a careful correction of earlier printing errors. Only nine years later, a second so-called major revision was distributed. Dr. Samuel Ward and John Bois, two of the original translators, participated in both of these undertakings. However F.H.A. Scrivener (see footnote below) describes this as merely being a reinstatement of words, phrases and clauses overlooked by the 1611 printers – thereby amending these errors.

Thus, 72% of the approximately 400 textual corrections in the KJB were completed by 1638. Hence, we find that instead of two major revisions, there were two stages of a single process – namely, the purging of early printing errors. Similarly, the last two "major revisions" were but two stages in standardizing the spelling. Very few textual corrections were necessary for these two publications (1762 and 1769). Thus, the term "four major revisions" is a misnomer, and as such, is grossly misleading.
Much is made by the detractors of the KJB claiming as many as 75,000 changes in the King James Bible since 1611. At first glance, this does seem to be a problem. However, before citing examples, the reader is enjoined to keep in mind that the real issue at hand is that of final authority. Further, the reader needs to be appraised that the original King James Bible is very different in appearance than those published today. Were one to go to a museum to view an original, he would find that he could hardly read it. Indeed, many of the words that were legible would be strangely spelled. The changes fall into three categories (1) printing changes, (2) spelling changes and (3) textual changes.

The printing type used for the original edition was Gothic. The type style or font that the reader has before him and that with which he is familiar is Roman. Although the Roman type style originated fairly early, Gothic had been the predominate form for many years in most European countries. The printers of the original King James chose the Gothic because of its beauty and eloquence. Several of the letters are noticeably different in appearance.
The Gothic "s" looks like the Roman "s" when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word, but when it occurs as a lower case "s" at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks similar to our "f". Over 30,000 changes were of this kind, as in Mofes to Moses. The Gothic "v" looks like a Roman "u" and vice versa. Now we can see why our "w" is called a "double-u" rather than "double-v". The "v" was changed to "u" 45,281 times (i.e., Dauid to David, wiues to wives, vnto to unto). The Gothic "j" looks like our "i", hence Iudah becomes Judah, iudged to judged etc. Remember, these are not spelling changes – they are simply type style changes. These changes reflect a large percentage of the "thousands" of alterations in the KJB, but obviously such modifications do not corrupt or in any way harm the actual text.

As to the changes in orthography (spelling), we remind our reader that most histories date the beginning of Modern English around 1500. Hence, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present day English had already been firmly established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600's spelling was largely phonetic as standards had not yet been established. Even among the well educated, an author would spell the same word several different ways, often in the same book and even on the same page. It was not until the eighteenth century that spelling began to be uniform. Therefore, in the last half of that century, the spelling of the 1611 KJB was standardized.

Over 30,000 additional changes involved dropping the final "e" off of the old English spellings such as – sunne to sun, fowle to fowl, goe to go, shee to she, nowe to now etc. Double vowels and double consonants were more common such as mee to me and ranne to ran. Other changes included ftarres to stars, ynough to enough, moneth to month, yeeres to years grinne to grin; flying to fleeing; neezed to sneezed etc.

These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called "thousands" of alterations since 1611. Obviously none of them can be truly said to in any way alter the text. Thus they cannot honestly be compared with the thousands of actual textual changes which blatantly appear in the modern versions. The significance of this simply cannot be overstated.

As to the actual textual differences between the 1611 edition and our present editions, there are some variations – but they are not of the magnitude of a revision. Rather, they are merely the correction of early obvious printing errors. THEY ARE NOT TEXTURAL CHANGES MADE TO ALTER THE READING. This may be readily ascertained by (a) the character of the changes; (b) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible; and (c) the time the changes were made.

In the first printing, words were occasionally inverted. A plural may have been in singular form or vice versa, and at times a word was mis-written for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was inadvertently omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not portray the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

To be continued

God bless,

Stever :-)
]

Stever posts:

Part 2 of the changes in the King James Bible
(Continued)

Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener compiled a list of the variations between the 1611 edition and later printings.

#1
1611 Reading: this thing
Todays Reading: this thing also
Corrected date :1638
#2
1611 Reading : shalt have remained
Todays Reading: yew shall have remained
Corrected date :1762
#3
1611 Reading :Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik
Todays Reading :of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik
Corrected date :1762
#4
1611 Reading :requite good
Todays Reading :requite me good
Corrected date :1629
#5
1611 Reading :this book of the Covenant
Todays Reading :the book of this Covenant
Corrected date :1629
#6
1611 Reading :chief rulers
Todays Reading :chief ruler
Corrected date :1629
#7
1611 Reading :And Parbar
Todays Reading :At Parbar
Corrected date :1638
#8
1611 Reading :For this cause
Todays Reading :And for this cause
Corrected date :1638
#9
1611 Reading :For the king had appointed
Todays Reading :For so the king had appointed
Corrected date :1629
#10
1611 Reading :Seek good
Todays Reading :Seek God
Corrected date :1617
#11
1611 Reading :The cormorant
Todays Reading :But the cormorant
Corrected date :1629
#12
1611 Reading :returned
Todays Reading :turned
Corrected date :1769
#13
1611 Reading :a fiery furnace
Todays Reading :a burning fiery furnace
Corrected date :1638
#14
1611 Reading :The crowned
Todays Reading :Thy crowned
Corrected date :1629
#15
1611 Reading :thy right doeth
Todays Reading :thy right hand doeth
Corrected date :1613
#16
1611 Reading :the wayes side
Todays Reading :the way side
Corrected date :1743
#17
1611 Reading :which was a Jew
Todays Reading :which was a Jew
Corrected date :1629
#18
1611 Reading :the city
Todays Reading :the city of the Damascenes
Corrected date :1629

#19
1611 Reading :now and ever
Todays Reading :both now and ever
Corrected date :1638
#20
1611 Reading :which was of our fathers
Todays Reading :which was our fathers
Corrected date :1616

xxxxxxxxxxxx

God bless,

Steve :-)

Stever posts:

Part 3 in a continuing post on the Changes in the King James Bible:

In the preceding chart you have seen 5% of all the textual changes made in the King James Bible in 375 years. Only one (#10) has serious doctrinal implications. Here, the 1611 reading of Psalm 69:32 has "seek good" where the correct reading should be "seek God". But the spelling similarity of the words "good" and "God" reveal the problem to be merely that of a weary type setter's having misread the proof. This error was so obvious that it was caught and corrected in 1617, only six years after the first printing and well before the first so-called 1629 revision. Dr. David Reagan reports (p. 11) that his examination of Scrivener's entire appendix resulted in this as being the only doctrinal variation.

Both the character and the frequency of the changes disclose them to be but printing oversights. Yet scholars, even fundamental conservatives, refer to the THOUSANDS OF MODIFICATIONS made to the 1611 over the years as if they were on a par with the changes in recent versions. They are not. Again, the overwhelming majority is either type style or spelling changes. The few that remain are clearly corrections of printing errors made due to the tedious nature involved in the early printing process. These few printing errors serve to demonstrate that God chose to preserve the text of His Word, not by continuous miracle, but providentially.

The sample list given heretofore demonstrates how meticulously Scrivener was in compiling all the variations. Yet, even with such great care only approximately 400 variations between the 1611 edition and the modern copies could be identified and listed by him. Remember, there were c.100 variations found and corrected between the first two Oxford editions which were both printed in 1611. The average variation (after c.375 years) is but one correction every three chapters. And as we have seen, these are "chief rulers" to "chief ruler", "And Parbar" to "At Parbar" etc. The early date at which they were corrected also bears witness that they were merely corrected printing errors.
Moreover, the great majority of the 400 corrections were made within a few years of the original printing. For example, from our sampling of the twenty corrections (see p. 1), one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. Hence, 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. Such is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions that the scholars would have us believe.

Another study detailing every other page of Scrivener's appendix revealed that 72% of the textual corrections had been made by 1638. Thus, there is no "revision" issue. As previously stated, the main purpose of the 1629 and 1638 editions was the correction of earlier printing errors. The main purpose of the 1762 and 1769 editions was the standardization of spelling.

To illustrate the import of all this, the 1638 edition of the entire book of Ecclesiastes reads exactly like our present edition. All that has changed in Ecclesiastes during the past 350 years is that the spelling has been standardized! By the time of the 1638 edition, all the printing errors in that book had been corrected and the Roman type applied.
To summarize, the character of the textual changes is that of obvious printing errors, not changes made to alter the reading. The frequency of the textual changes is meager, averaging only one every three chapters. The time frame of the textual changes is early, about three-fourths occurring within twenty seven years of the first printing. These particulars establish that there were no true revisions in the sense of updating the language or correcting translation errors. There were only editions which corrected early typographical errors.

Other such textual changes have been: saveth to "and he saveth"; to be joyful to "and to be joyful"; flix to "flux"; upon the house to "housetop"; unperfect to "imperfect"; have care to "have a care"; sometimes to "sometime"; forsomuch to "forasmuch"; such wrong to "such wrongs"; will fat to "fatten"; northwards to "northward"; cheweth cud to "the cud"; noondays to "noon day"; nor scales to "and scales"; disallow to "disallowed"; in power to "of power"; I start to "I started" etc.
Also, some later printing errors occasionally did creep in, e.g., "Printers" instead of Princes – Psa.119:161, 1701 edition; "place makers" instead of peace makers – Mat.5:9, 1807 edition; from "good" works instead of from dead works – Heb.9:14, 1807 edition, etc.
Over 5,000 of the remaining changes were in substituting periods for commas, colons for commas, semi-colons for colons and capital letters for lower case.

In stark contrast, the 36,191 changes we are supposed to accept in the new Greek texts of Nestle, Aland, and Metzger include attacks on the Deity of Christ (I Tim 3:16), the Virgin Birth (Luk.2:33), the Ascension (Luk.24:51-52), the Bible (Luk.4:4), and the Resurrection (Acts 1:3; see Ch. II). Significantly, the spelling (orthography) of Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus does not agree with that of first century Greek, yet even the tenth century Textus Receptus manuscripts do so concur.

Furthermore, the King James is by far the translation easiest from which to memorize because it is written in prose. It is most difficult to memorize Scripture from any of the other translations.

As to the KJB proper, there are problems. As to the problems and how significant they are depend upon whom one asks. The solutions run a gamut of incredible differences of opinion with no consensus in sight. The learned New Testament text critic Herman C. Hoskier claimed to know of only one serious problem. Hoskier said that the Greek word "poimna" (poimnh) should be translated "flock", not "fold", in John 10:16:
"This I consider to be the only matter of any great consequence which must be amended in any revision, but as everybody knows about this, it is not likely to mislead" (p. 697).
All other problems, this great scholar regarded as merely "academic".
The point we have labored to clarify is that the King James Bible has not been revised, only purified. We have no valid reason to doubt that the one we hold in our hands is the very Word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies neither in the original 1611 printing nor in the character of King James VI (I), the scholarship of the 1611 translators, the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, nor even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallibility of the English Bible lies in the promise of God to preserve His Word.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

God bless,

Stever :-)

Stever posts:

Part 4 in the thread of What Changes in King James Bible:

WHY THEN ARE NEW TRANSLATIONS THOUGHT NECESSARY?
The question should be asked, "Why in 1881 (and even today) did we need a new Bible?" There are at least five reasons for this rational:

1. The many archaic words, the "eth's" as in doeth, knoweth, heareth etc., and the "thee's" and "thou's";
2. The existence of the many variant (different) readings in the extant Greek manuscripts;
3. The finding of a significant number of ancient Greek manuscripts of the Bible in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries older than those used by Erasmus and believed, by many scholars, to be closer to the text of the apostles' autographs;
4. Itching ears – winds of doctrine; and
5. Greed for Money.
We shall address each of these five, the first three being the so-called "justification" for the "need" to modernize and revise the King James Bible.

(1) Archaic Words
There are only several hundred obsolete or archaic words remaining within the 1611 King James Bible – words such as "incontinent" (lack of self control, I Cor. 7:5) and "concupisence" (unholy desires, Rom. 7:8). These few could and should be brought up to date. The "eth" endings could also easily be changed ("doeth" to "do") although care must be taken as to its rendering else many times the actual meaning may be lost. This is due to Greek verb tenses which do not exist in English. For example, often the Greek word rendered "doeth" reflects continuous action. In such cases, a simple changing to "do" would not represent a faithful translation from the Greek. The "eth" ending which allows for such meanings thus has served a vital function in the King James Bible.
With regard to "ye" (plural), "thee" (singular) and "thou" (singular) which we find dispersed throughout the 1611 Bible, it is shocking to discover the great value that these 2nd person pronouns serve. O.T. Allis informs us that these were not contemporary words even in 1611!
"It is incorrect to claim that the 'thou' represents the usage of the 1611 period when the AV was prepared and that that usage is out of date and should be rejected for that very reason. Such a claim misrepresents the facts. The AV usage is not Jacobean or 17th century English. It is biblical English. The Greek of the New Testament like the Hebrew of the Old Testament distinguishes between the singular and the plural forms of the second person. The AV makes this distinction simply because NT Greek does so, and because that is the only way to translate the Bible correctly." (author's emphasis)

The second person in English is rendered "you" in both the singular and the plural. Thus, when "you" is employed in a modern translation, one does not know if it is to be understood as singular or plural. However, "you", "ye", and "your" are always plural in the King James Bible whereas "thy", "thou", "thee" and "thine" always denote the singular – how easy.
In Luke 22:31-32, for example, the King James Bible reads:
22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you [plural! all of the apostles] ... 32 But I have prayed for thee [singular - Peter] ...
Other translations if desiring to indicate such would have to supply a footnote to convey this, and the reader might well not notice it.

Another example is in Acts 13:47.
Tyndale knew of such subtleties, and he deliberately revived words that had already passed from common usage to handle faithfully the translating into English. In doing so, he actually created a special variety of English – a Bible English – for the purpose of clearly conveying the precise meaning. Tyndale thereby elevated the English usage by Scripture rather than accommodating Scripture to the English vernacular.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

God bless,

Stever :-)

Stever posts:

Part 5 of Changes in the King James Bible:

(2) Variant Readings
It was Luther's translation of Erasmus' Greek text into German that was the main weapon which the Holy Spirit used in bringing about the Reformation. The impact of the written Word was devastating to the teachings and traditions of the Roman Church. The 16th century Reformers placed their faith in the precious truths contained in these Living Words and the battle cry "Sola Scriptura" (Scriptures alone) became, as it were, their creed and rallying point upon which they rested for final authority. God had breathed these Scriptures. Now each man could read them, and account to God for himself without the dogma and rituals of Rome. In matters of conduct and faith the Word of God was the final court of appeal – not the priest or Pope. Indeed, as McClure rightly reminds us:
"The printing of the English bible has proved to be by far the mightest barrier ever reared to repel the advance of Popery, and to damage all the resouraces of the Papacy."

This aggressive, vigorous move by the Protestants placed Roman Catholicism on the defensive resulting in its having to rethink many issues and regroup. It was forced to define itself at the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

Eventually, as the Greek manuscripts came under close scrutiny by its Catholic opponents, it became clear that they differed somewhat in text and that variant readings existed. This gave the Roman Church the impetus it needed to launch a counter offensive to recapture the minds and allegiance of its own as well as those who had departed – "there are variants in your Sola Scriptura – therefore return to Sola Pope." Placed on the defensive by this assault, the 17th century Protestant church was forced into defining itself. This resulted in the doctrine of Providential Preservation of the text based upon God's many promises to preserve His Word. That which emerged from this point-counterpoint scenario was a clarification delineating the antithesis between the two positions. The defining process forced both sides to their logical conclusions.

Initially, all of the various Protestant Confessional statements (such as the Westminster, the Philadelphia etc.) containing statements concerning the preservation of Scripture were written in response to text critical problems and challenges. These creeds descriptively appealed to the consensus of history for determining the boundaries of the texts of Scripture. Two examples are the Helveticus Consensus and the Philadelphia Confession, as follows:

THE HELVETICUS CONSENSUS (1675 A.D.)
"God, the supreme Judge, not only took care to have his word, which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, committed to writing by Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care ever since it was written up to the present time, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man."
THE PHILADELPHIA CONFESSION (Baptist - 1742 A.D.)
"The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them" (taken from the 1646 Westminster Confession, I, 8 - author's emphasis)
The texts these confessions had in view as "authentical" were the Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus New Testament.

It is important that the Christian understand that the previously mentioned struggle continues behind the scenes in textual criticism today. At the same time we must keep in mind that the battle over final authority began with Lucifer's rebellion (Isaiah 14, Ezek. 28) followed by his attack on God's Word in the Garden of Eden.
Yet one may inquire, "just what is the nature of this providence, and how did it actually operate in manuscript transmission?" Some of the more important and vital canons included in the "doctrine of preservation" are:

(a) As God promised many times to preserve His Words, by faith in God's Character we trust that He has kept His word.
(b) As God used the priesthood to preserve His Word in the Old Testament, He has done likewise in New Testament times through the priesthood of born again believers.
(c) By multiplying copies to such a large number it would be impossible for anyone to corrupt them all, willfully or by negligence.
(d) The familiarity with Scripture by people from all walks of life assured that any alterations in wording would have been detected.
(e) Students (especially of Hebrew) were conscious of every letter of the texts.
(f) Unanimity exists of Old Testament readings in the Mishna, Gemara and the Talmud with the Masoretic text.
(g) Jesus accused the Jews of His day of many sins, but not once did He charge them with corrupting their copies – rather, He attested to their purity (Mat.5:17-19).
(h) The checks and balances that the Jews and Christians afforded each other would prevent corruptions.

Basically, God's method of preservation may be summed up in that there are many common readings which must and should be accepted as correct because they exist in hundreds and even in several thousand copies. This occurrence of common readings is found because God has providentially intervened in the scribal copying of Scripture, unlike the copying of non-Biblical literature.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

God bless,

Stever :-)

Stever posts:

Part 6 of the Changes in the King James:

(3) Ancient Greek Manuscripts
It is true that several thousand mss have been discovered since 1611. This is the major factor that has been used to justify to the church at large the need for a major revision of the King James. It seems logical that if a vast amount of data not available to the King James translators has been brought to life – these new materials must be considered. This especially seems reasonable as some of these mss were dated between 350-380 A.D. whereas Erasmus' five mss were from the 10th to 15th centuries.

Admittedly this rhetoric seems very compelling. However, of the several thousand manuscripts discovered since 1611, the great majority (90-95%) agree with the Greek text of those five mss which Erasmus used. Nevertheless, the new translations are rife with footnotes informing the reader that "the oldest, the best manuscripts read such and such" as opposed to the King James. But is it not devastating to realize that what has been kept from the church at large is the fact that the vast majority (c.90-95%) of these more recent finds read the same as the Traditional Text which underlies the Reformers Bibles and the King James translation?
The Alexandrian manuscript ("A") arrived in London in 1627. Consequently, we often hear how unfortunate that was for the King James translators as it arrived sixteen years too late for their use. Being untrue, this serves as an example of the unreliable manner in which most of the history concerning the Authorized Version is reported. In the first place, Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph were well known not only to translators of the King James but to Erasmus. The Old Testament portion of Vaticanus was printed in 1587 so the King James translators in 1604 knew all about Vaticanus insofar as the Old Testament was concerned.

Thus the men working on the 1611 publication of the King James Bible knew the variant readings in Vaticanus B and since they knew about B, they already knew about Sinaiticus and its variant readings even though the first portion of it was not discovered until 1844 (the remainder in 1859) as the two of them read so similarly. In fact, the translators of 1611 had available all the variant readings of those vaunted manuscripts – and they rejected them!

They also knew the readings of the codices of Alexandrinus A, B, C and D (the "old uncials"), where they differed from the Received Text and they denounced them all. How can this be so? The readings of those much boasted manuscripts recently made available are essentially the same as Jerome's Latin Vulgate which finds its foundation in the works of Origen. The Reformers knew all about the variant readings of the Vulgate and they rejected them which is the same thing as rejecting Origen. In rejecting Origen, they rejected Codex Vaticanus as it was copied from his work. Thus, the Reformers had all the material necessary for the task at their disposal.

As to the oft heard claim that since much of the newly discovered material was older than that used by Erasmus and subsequently the Reformers, they were more reliable, the reader is reminded that the mighty Apostle Paul testified to the corruption of the Word in his day. Hence "oldest" is not necessarily the best. This point will be more thoroughly dealt with later in our exposé (pp. 1 ff.).

Furthermore, Erasmus was in regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant readings which he desired. In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus (a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent Erasmus 365 selected readings from Vaticanus B as proof of its superiority to the Textus Receptus. He offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the TR. However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct. Thus Erasmus knew about Vaticanus nearly one hundred years before the King James Bible ever saw the light of day!

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

God Bless,

Stever :-)

Stever posts part 7 of the changes in the King James:

(4) Winds of Doctrine
A fourth reason Christendom is drawn to the new translations is that of its having "itching ears". Sadly, man does not want to believe the Bible – he wants a "bible" that he can believe – and he will keep searching until he finds one. The Spirit of God has warned:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves ... 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. ... 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived (II Tim. 3). ... For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; ... (II Tim. 4:3).

Letis reminds us that Bible publishers are always advertising that the Reformers wished to put the Bible in the "language of the people" ... in a "tongue they could readily understand". However, the Reformers did not mean that the Bible should be in "conversational dialect" or in the language of the street; rather they meant that the Bible should be available in the spoken languages of the European nations and not merely in the Liturgical Latin of the Roman Catholic Church.

The King James translators make this very clear in their dedicatory to King James, where they intended for "God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people," whom the Roman Catholic Church desired "still to keep in ignorance and darkness." These men desired the Bible be accessible in German for the Germans, in French for the French, in Dutch for the Dutch etc. – not just restricted to Latin, as it was no longer "the language of the people." Those with vested interest in promoting "plainer and more relevant" (and more fleeting) translations always present this out of context to justify the latest, easier-to-read (and to forget) translation.

Relevant to the duties, techniques, and responsibilities of the translator, the following excerpts extracted from an article by Dr. F.R. Steele, himself trained by "one of America's outstanding scholars in the field of Assyriology" and an experienced translator of Babylonian and Sumerian documents, are instructive sober truths worthy of reflection:
"A translation should convey as much of the original text in as few words as possible, yet preserve the original atmosphere and emphasis. The translator should strive for the nearest approximation in words, concepts, and cadence. He should scrupulously avoid adding words or ideas not demanded by the text. His job is not to expand or to explain, but to translate and preserve the spirit and force of the original – even, if need be, at the expense of modern colloquialisms – so long as the resultant translation is intelligible. ... there is a vast difference between translating a Sanscrit poem and the Bible into English. In the former case we are dealing primarily with ideas, cast in an alien mold, which may best be conveyed in English by a rather free translation. In the latter case we are dealing with a document whose language and vocabulary were specially chosen by the Holy Spirit for the communication of particular truths. No translator – least of all an evangelical Christian who holds to the inspiration of the Scriptures – dare ignore that fact. Not just ideas, but words are important; so also is the emphasis indicated by word order in the sentence.

"... when translating the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek text into English, we are not faced with serious problems of cultural extremes. The physical and social background of the ancient Near East is much closer to our general European society and economy than to either a tropical culture of Central Africa or the arctic culture of the Esquimaux (i.e., Eskimo, author). ... By and large, the pastoral of urban society of Bible times can be transferred directly and in its own terms into intelligible English. Moreover, the past four centuries of acquaintance with the Bible have introduced into our common speech many words and ideas originating in the society of Bible lands (such as 'crucifixion,' animal sacrifices, and so on) which though initially strange to the European scene, are now quite familiar. This makes the task of translating the Bible into English simpler than into the language of a people with an opposite or primitive culture. It is therefore easier to achieve a nearly word for word transfer which the nature of the inspired text deserves." (author's italics)
For many of us who have been contrarily "informed" over the years, Dr. Steele's words take on a near "too good to be true" character. They capture our attention and fire the soul. He continues with the following which depicts one of the outstanding features rendered by the King James translators but lacking in the modern versions:
"Anyone familiar with word studies in the original languages can testify to the amazing consistency of employment of particular terms throughout the Bible. ... men violate a basic principle of translation when they choose to substitute for individual words or short phrases long 'homiletic' passages of private interpretation. ... Frequently the full weight of meaning conveyed by repetition of the same Greek root word is lost in translation, since different English words are used where one word consistently used could have preserved the original force intact."
To illustrate this point, Professor Steele gives an example from II Corinthians 2:16-3:6 in which over this seven verse span four Greek words are encountered which are all similar forms and are derived from one root of the same word (hikanos, iJkano"). The King James Bible rendered the English of these four as "sufficient", "sufficient", "sufficiency", and "sufficient" thereby allowing the reader to pick up on the similarity between their relationship as well as the continuity of thought in the original language. Other translations, however, do not exhibit this constancy. Instead, they choose several different words (usually adding others for which there is absolutely no textual evidence) and thus lose both the force and connection which the repetition would have preserved. The result is often misleading to one who "seeks the words of the Author." Dr. Steele continues:
"... it is impossible to make a perfect transfer from one language to another ... the translator must make choice of those words in the second language which he thinks best convey the thought of the original. But frequently the translator appears to forget that the original words were chosen purposefully, and ... cast the sentences into new molds which convey the idea in a significantly different spirit or emphasis. He thus unnecessarily robs the text of at least some of its original import. This practice may be justified in some fields of literature, but it is inadmissible when one is dealing with the inspired Word of God.

"Certainly many words and even passages in ... the Bible will benefit from a more extended treatment. But such treatment belongs in a commentary, not in a translation."
To these last two observations by Dr. Steele, this author adds a resounding "amen". The final citation is given to provide – from one who is eminently qualified to so warn – a grave caution to us all.

"Moreover, it is doubtful if all the new translations provide the correctives they profess. Not infrequently they simply substitute their own confusion for that which they claim to have dispelled. This is especially true in their claim to the title 'Translation'. Few recent works have any right whatever to that title." (author's emphasis)

How often we hear from the pulpit or from the Sunday School teacher, "I like the way the xxxxxxx translation says it". But who cares what man prefers. We do not gather together to hear the personal opinions and whims of men. The only question is – What saith the Lord? What saith the Holy Scriptures?

The new Bible translations appeal, not because they are faithful to the original text, but because they have placed the ability to communicate over and above fidelity to the actual Words of God. The obvious reason for this being foisted upon the public is ...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

God bless,

Stever :-)