New Heaven and New Earth
- Thread starter Hervey
- Start date
Dear Hervey,
Hervey:
Especially since parenthises never were around prior to the fifteen century ! So why did they use them, and how did they show up ? From outside of the original translation , or after the translation had been made ?
Jim:
I have no idea what youre talking about here. What youre describing here is the evolution of the English language, including punctuation, not the alteration of the Received Text. The Received Text has remained the same. If you compare the first, 1611 edition of the King James Version of the Bible with the present-day edition of the King James Version of the Bible, you see quite a difference in the language. What has happened? The English language has evolved. Has the Received Text changed? No. Has the translation changed? No. The English language has changed.
Hervey:
He also told you to do a comparison ! Did you ? Or are you just taking his words on this ? ?
Jim:
Yes. This information is found at the Interlinear Bible: click here. Just enter the passages (Acts 8:16, 1 Corinthians 9:21 and 2 Corinthians 5:7) into the search box and click [find].
Hervey:
He claims that parentheticals are normal punctuation. What a false statement that was ! ! Especially when there were never any punctuation in the Greek manuscripts to begin with !!
Jim:
Its normal punctuation for the English language, which is the language into which the Received Text has been translated in the King James and New King James Versions of the Bible. What dont you understand about that?
Hervey:
Not only did you not tell him which parenthetical you were talking about, but he gave you certain verses , that I ask myself that pertain to what ? Since he didn't even know which parenthetical you were talking about !! ??
Jim:
This is what I asked:
This entire debate about the significance of parentheses in the English Biblical text began on the fifth page of this thread, in the post dated 02/02/02, 05:46am, where you made this statement:
On the seventh page of this thread, in the post dated 02/07/02, 07:33pm, you said:
Sincerely,
Jim
Hervey:
Especially since parenthises never were around prior to the fifteen century ! So why did they use them, and how did they show up ? From outside of the original translation , or after the translation had been made ?
Jim:
I have no idea what youre talking about here. What youre describing here is the evolution of the English language, including punctuation, not the alteration of the Received Text. The Received Text has remained the same. If you compare the first, 1611 edition of the King James Version of the Bible with the present-day edition of the King James Version of the Bible, you see quite a difference in the language. What has happened? The English language has evolved. Has the Received Text changed? No. Has the translation changed? No. The English language has changed.
Hervey:
He also told you to do a comparison ! Did you ? Or are you just taking his words on this ? ?
Jim:
Yes. This information is found at the Interlinear Bible: click here. Just enter the passages (Acts 8:16, 1 Corinthians 9:21 and 2 Corinthians 5:7) into the search box and click [find].
The text inside the parenthetical punctuation is translated from the Received Text (the emboldened English text is translated from the Greek text [the Received Text], which is also emboldened), just as its surrounding text is. There is no alternative source material from which the King James Version of the Bible and the New King James Version of the Bible are translated; both New Testament English texts are translated exclusively from the Received Text.Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
oujdevpw ga;r h\n ejpj oujdeni; aujtw'n ejpipeptwkovß, movnon de; bebaptismevnoi uJph'rcon eijß to; o~noma tou' kurivou #Ihsou'
1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, * (being not without law to God, butunder the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
toi'ß ajnovmoiß wJß a~nomoß, mh; w^n a~nomoß qeou' ajll# e~nnomoß Xristou', i&na kerdavnw tou;ß ajnovmouß:
2 Corinthians 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
dia; pivstewß ga;r peripatou'men ouj dia; ei~douß
Hervey:
He claims that parentheticals are normal punctuation. What a false statement that was ! ! Especially when there were never any punctuation in the Greek manuscripts to begin with !!
Jim:
Its normal punctuation for the English language, which is the language into which the Received Text has been translated in the King James and New King James Versions of the Bible. What dont you understand about that?
Hervey:
Not only did you not tell him which parenthetical you were talking about, but he gave you certain verses , that I ask myself that pertain to what ? Since he didn't even know which parenthetical you were talking about !! ??
Jim:
This is what I asked:
The issue isnt what a particular verse of scripture means. The issue, as defined by you, is the significance of parenthetical punctuation in the English Biblical text.
This entire debate about the significance of parentheses in the English Biblical text began on the fifth page of this thread, in the post dated 02/02/02, 05:46am, where you made this statement:
Your view has been answered. Your view is incorrect.
On the seventh page of this thread, in the post dated 02/07/02, 07:33pm, you said:
You seem to have some respect for Mr. Ehrman. Perhaps you could E-mail him with this question. Even though Mr. Ehrman calls into question the legitimacy of the Received Text, Im confident that he would nevertheless give you the same answer regarding the significance of parenthetical punctuation in the English Biblical text that Thomas Nelson Publishers did. Maybe you could accept it coming from him.
Sincerely,
Jim
Upvote
0
Hi Ed and Jim:
Ed, the Word of God is within our translations, but we also have many additions and alterations. What we need to do, is sift through the things man has done to alter the Word of God, and cling to those things God has said.
If you continue to follow this conversation, for however long it lasts . I think some of your questions , just may be answered.
Jim:
There is always a reason for why anything was "added" within the translations. Punctuation, as well as parentheticals.
The translators were "men" , who translated from the Greek manuscripts . You will take special notice, that I said the plural, manuscripts ! The KJV was not translated from only one manuscript.
The KJV was taken out of the manuscripts that agreed mostly with each other. The translators did not agree on everything that should be added or left out of the translation from these many Greek manuscripts !
In order for the translators to finish the job of translating from the Greek to the English. They had to find a way in which their disagreements could be considered a compromise. The greatest compromises were made note of. The greatest disagreements about what should enter into this translation were given special types of quotes, or signs. These ended up with what we know of today , as parentheticals.
The Greek manuscripts that they used, agreed with each other, in about 95 % of the times. Those which agreed the most, were used, and the translation began, with the use of these most agreed upon manuscripts, which is where they came up with the translation of the KJV. A lot of the new translations of our day and time, took a lot of their translations from those manuscripts that are considered the lessor, or minority manuscripts , because of their higher percentage of disagreement with the major manuscripts that were considered in agreement.
Even with the use if these major manuscripts, the translators had problems agreeing with everything that should be entered into this KJV translation. Because of the disagreements , we today, end up with these parentheticals, which were "added" pieces of the manuscripts , which were a part of the compromise of the translators. Even in the 15 and 1600 's, there was a lot of disagreement about what the faith should and should not say, or what should or should not be believed. However, they had to compromise at times , and this is how we ended up with the KJV tranlsation.
These parentheticals were added by man, to emphasis that these words that did indeed come from these major manuscripts. But these words were not in agreement from within the so called - major texts. And that there was a disagreement among the translators. This puts a shadow upon those things which were allowed into the translation, and those things that were not allowed into the KJV translation.
The translators took from many manuscripts, which is like taking from 50 different writers, the same story , which they claim they all were transfering the same information from the same source. The reason we know that this was not from the same source, is because there were so many manuscripts to take your information from, before declaring that a certain piece of information is what would be declared as the Words of God.
Parentheticals, do not change what was in the manuscripts, but become a huge question mark in the authority of the those manuscripts that did not agree among themselves.
As complicated as this all is, there are still ways in which one can be sure , that certain parts from our translations, are not a part of the originals, even though the originals are not around to confirm or deny.
By not declaring any word or group of words as authentic. You then have to go and look at the Word of God from another perspective.
Consistency is a great tool, along with logic, and also by not adding anything yourself, to introduce another vison upon what has already been written.
These parentheticals in Romans 10:6 & 7 does not confirm consistency , nor does it contain logic, and the only way for one to make these parentheticals to fit, is to add one's own private interpretations to them, to try and make them fit !
This is what you did Jim, and thus declared your interpretation based upon your desire , to try and make something fit , when it is neither logical, nor consistent with the entire Word of God, as a foundation , based upon logical reasoning, which then changes the vision that is being given from those words outside of the parentheticals.
Whether or not you follow my reasoning, is totally up to you. But my imput into this thread, never intended to alter the Word of God in any way. Thus, throwing out the parentheticals, does not in any way change the consistency of the Word of God, nor does it make the Word an illogical new vision, that someone should render invalid , just because I threw them out ! Only those who change the consistency of the Word, and those who change the logic of the Word, into something that makes a new vision , should we considered, as what they have done, as nothing more than either "adding" to the Word, or "changing" the Word, or "omitting" the Word, which is exactly what the adversary did back in Genesis, in the garden , when he was talking to the woman !
Unbelievers are unbelievers, and Paul was not talking to unbelievers in Romans 10:6 & 7. Thus you must consider the logic and consistency of the Word to understand, that the parenthtetical is nothig more, than an addition to the original Words of God ! Other punctuations also change the meaning in scripture, and should not be considered in any way , a part of the Word of God. Nor should punctuation be used to specifically express what scripture is saying.
Jim, what is an interlinear, mean to you ?
If you ask, as to where the comma goes in this record, you will then be claiming by the puctuation , that the Word of God says this or that >
"Verily I say unto thee , To day shalt thou be with me in paradise"
Or
"Verily I say unto thee To day , shalt thou be with me in paradise"
Understanding is more important that the punctuation, but punctuation causes confusion.
Jesus Christ said in John 18:37 - "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born , and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice"
We are to whorship God , in Spirit and in truth, but those who hear his voice, is of truth, because they hear his voice.
The voice I hear, tells me, that this parenthetical is not of the truth. Believe it or not, is up to you.
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Ed, the Word of God is within our translations, but we also have many additions and alterations. What we need to do, is sift through the things man has done to alter the Word of God, and cling to those things God has said.
If you continue to follow this conversation, for however long it lasts . I think some of your questions , just may be answered.
Jim:
There is always a reason for why anything was "added" within the translations. Punctuation, as well as parentheticals.
The translators were "men" , who translated from the Greek manuscripts . You will take special notice, that I said the plural, manuscripts ! The KJV was not translated from only one manuscript.
The KJV was taken out of the manuscripts that agreed mostly with each other. The translators did not agree on everything that should be added or left out of the translation from these many Greek manuscripts !
In order for the translators to finish the job of translating from the Greek to the English. They had to find a way in which their disagreements could be considered a compromise. The greatest compromises were made note of. The greatest disagreements about what should enter into this translation were given special types of quotes, or signs. These ended up with what we know of today , as parentheticals.
The Greek manuscripts that they used, agreed with each other, in about 95 % of the times. Those which agreed the most, were used, and the translation began, with the use of these most agreed upon manuscripts, which is where they came up with the translation of the KJV. A lot of the new translations of our day and time, took a lot of their translations from those manuscripts that are considered the lessor, or minority manuscripts , because of their higher percentage of disagreement with the major manuscripts that were considered in agreement.
Even with the use if these major manuscripts, the translators had problems agreeing with everything that should be entered into this KJV translation. Because of the disagreements , we today, end up with these parentheticals, which were "added" pieces of the manuscripts , which were a part of the compromise of the translators. Even in the 15 and 1600 's, there was a lot of disagreement about what the faith should and should not say, or what should or should not be believed. However, they had to compromise at times , and this is how we ended up with the KJV tranlsation.
These parentheticals were added by man, to emphasis that these words that did indeed come from these major manuscripts. But these words were not in agreement from within the so called - major texts. And that there was a disagreement among the translators. This puts a shadow upon those things which were allowed into the translation, and those things that were not allowed into the KJV translation.
The translators took from many manuscripts, which is like taking from 50 different writers, the same story , which they claim they all were transfering the same information from the same source. The reason we know that this was not from the same source, is because there were so many manuscripts to take your information from, before declaring that a certain piece of information is what would be declared as the Words of God.
Parentheticals, do not change what was in the manuscripts, but become a huge question mark in the authority of the those manuscripts that did not agree among themselves.
As complicated as this all is, there are still ways in which one can be sure , that certain parts from our translations, are not a part of the originals, even though the originals are not around to confirm or deny.
By not declaring any word or group of words as authentic. You then have to go and look at the Word of God from another perspective.
Consistency is a great tool, along with logic, and also by not adding anything yourself, to introduce another vison upon what has already been written.
These parentheticals in Romans 10:6 & 7 does not confirm consistency , nor does it contain logic, and the only way for one to make these parentheticals to fit, is to add one's own private interpretations to them, to try and make them fit !
This is what you did Jim, and thus declared your interpretation based upon your desire , to try and make something fit , when it is neither logical, nor consistent with the entire Word of God, as a foundation , based upon logical reasoning, which then changes the vision that is being given from those words outside of the parentheticals.
Whether or not you follow my reasoning, is totally up to you. But my imput into this thread, never intended to alter the Word of God in any way. Thus, throwing out the parentheticals, does not in any way change the consistency of the Word of God, nor does it make the Word an illogical new vision, that someone should render invalid , just because I threw them out ! Only those who change the consistency of the Word, and those who change the logic of the Word, into something that makes a new vision , should we considered, as what they have done, as nothing more than either "adding" to the Word, or "changing" the Word, or "omitting" the Word, which is exactly what the adversary did back in Genesis, in the garden , when he was talking to the woman !
Unbelievers are unbelievers, and Paul was not talking to unbelievers in Romans 10:6 & 7. Thus you must consider the logic and consistency of the Word to understand, that the parenthtetical is nothig more, than an addition to the original Words of God ! Other punctuations also change the meaning in scripture, and should not be considered in any way , a part of the Word of God. Nor should punctuation be used to specifically express what scripture is saying.
Jim, what is an interlinear, mean to you ?
If you ask, as to where the comma goes in this record, you will then be claiming by the puctuation , that the Word of God says this or that >
"Verily I say unto thee , To day shalt thou be with me in paradise"
Or
"Verily I say unto thee To day , shalt thou be with me in paradise"
Understanding is more important that the punctuation, but punctuation causes confusion.
Jesus Christ said in John 18:37 - "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born , and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice"
We are to whorship God , in Spirit and in truth, but those who hear his voice, is of truth, because they hear his voice.
The voice I hear, tells me, that this parenthetical is not of the truth. Believe it or not, is up to you.
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote
0
Hi Jim:
Here is the word "bring" that is used inside the parenthetical in verse 6 >
Strong's Number: 2609
Original Word Word Origin
katago from (2596) and (71)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Katago None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
kat-ag'-o Verb
Definition
to lead down, bring down
to bring the vessel from deep water to the land
to be brought (down) in a ship, to land, touch at
This word deals with water - #2 to bring the vessel from deep water to the land.
The words outside the parenthetical deals with ascending into heaven, not descending, especially down into water !
In verse 7 the word "deep" is this Greek word and its meaning >
Strong's Number: 12
Original Word Word Origin
abussoß from (1) (as a negative particle) and a variation of (1037)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Abussos 1:9,2
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ab'-us-sos Noun Feminine
Definition
bottomless
unbounded
the abyss
the pit
the immeasurable depth
of Orcus, a very deep gulf or chasm in the lowest parts of the earth used as the common receptacle of the dead and especially as the abode of demons
Bottomless - the abyss - the pit with no bottom = endless.
And in the parenthetical , the word "dead" >
Original Word Word Origin
nekroß from an apparently primary nekus (a corpse)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Nekros 4:892,627
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
nek-ros' Adjective
Definition
properly
one that has breathed his last, lifeless
deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell
destitute of life, without life, inanimate
metaph.
spiritually dead
destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins
inactive as respects doing right
destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative
It is extremely clear, that the words inside the parentheticals totally contradict the words outside the parentheticals !!!
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Here is the word "bring" that is used inside the parenthetical in verse 6 >
Strong's Number: 2609
Original Word Word Origin
katago from (2596) and (71)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Katago None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
kat-ag'-o Verb
Definition
to lead down, bring down
to bring the vessel from deep water to the land
to be brought (down) in a ship, to land, touch at
This word deals with water - #2 to bring the vessel from deep water to the land.
The words outside the parenthetical deals with ascending into heaven, not descending, especially down into water !
In verse 7 the word "deep" is this Greek word and its meaning >
Strong's Number: 12
Original Word Word Origin
abussoß from (1) (as a negative particle) and a variation of (1037)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Abussos 1:9,2
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ab'-us-sos Noun Feminine
Definition
bottomless
unbounded
the abyss
the pit
the immeasurable depth
of Orcus, a very deep gulf or chasm in the lowest parts of the earth used as the common receptacle of the dead and especially as the abode of demons
Bottomless - the abyss - the pit with no bottom = endless.
And in the parenthetical , the word "dead" >
Original Word Word Origin
nekroß from an apparently primary nekus (a corpse)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Nekros 4:892,627
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
nek-ros' Adjective
Definition
properly
one that has breathed his last, lifeless
deceased, departed, one whose soul is in heaven or hell
destitute of life, without life, inanimate
metaph.
spiritually dead
destitute of a life that recognises and is devoted to God, because given up to trespasses and sins
inactive as respects doing right
destitute of force or power, inactive, inoperative
It is extremely clear, that the words inside the parentheticals totally contradict the words outside the parentheticals !!!
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote
0
Hey Jim or Hervey:
This is charlesj.... I keep getting emails saying you two guys have replied to "New Heavens and New Earth," but when I click on the link, I only see a long thread that is between you two guys. What am I doing wrong? Send your reply to cjemeyson@satx.rr.com, otherwise I may not get it.
Thanks,
charlesj
This is charlesj.... I keep getting emails saying you two guys have replied to "New Heavens and New Earth," but when I click on the link, I only see a long thread that is between you two guys. What am I doing wrong? Send your reply to cjemeyson@satx.rr.com, otherwise I may not get it.
Thanks,
charlesj
Upvote
0
Dear charlesj,
I dont get E-mails from forums, so I dont know how it works. All I know is, if you have reason to think that there are some new posts on this thread, just click the last page of this thread on the thread index, and you should be taken to the most recent post(s). (The "last page" prompt will turn red when your cursor is properly positioned to click it.)
Sincerely,
Jim
I dont get E-mails from forums, so I dont know how it works. All I know is, if you have reason to think that there are some new posts on this thread, just click the last page of this thread on the thread index, and you should be taken to the most recent post(s). (The "last page" prompt will turn red when your cursor is properly positioned to click it.)
Sincerely,
Jim
Upvote
0
Hi Jim:
I am editing this post once again ! My original wording was correct in my post above. It is how one uses the words Major and minor , that creeps into one's head , and causes the mix up. The KJV use the manuscripts that agreed mostly with each other, while the more modern thanslations , used the manuscripts that disagreed with each other the most. Major - Minor ! I pray this helps !
In one of my posts above, I stated that the minor manuscripts is where the new translations took their material from to do their translations. I had that information backwards. They took their information from the Major manuscripts, which had the greatest things that did not agree with one another. Sorry about that !
Here is another site, that could be considered helpful >
http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Bible/English_Translations.htm
Love IN Christ - Hervey
I am editing this post once again ! My original wording was correct in my post above. It is how one uses the words Major and minor , that creeps into one's head , and causes the mix up. The KJV use the manuscripts that agreed mostly with each other, while the more modern thanslations , used the manuscripts that disagreed with each other the most. Major - Minor ! I pray this helps !
In one of my posts above, I stated that the minor manuscripts is where the new translations took their material from to do their translations. I had that information backwards. They took their information from the Major manuscripts, which had the greatest things that did not agree with one another. Sorry about that !
Here is another site, that could be considered helpful >
http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Bible/English_Translations.htm
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote
0
To anyone reading this thread:
The reliability of the Biblical text, or at least portions of it, has been brought into question in this thread with references to The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (by Bart D. Ehrman) as evidence that the Received Text, on which the King James and New King James Versions of the Bible are based, does not accurately reflect the original autographs of the New Testament.
For a defense of the Received Text, please consider the articles found in the section entitled Bible Translations at this web page: click here.
Most of the articles are not very long and can be read in relatively little time. In my opinion, these articles present clear thinking and sound logic that lead to what I think is the obvious conclusion that it is not the Greek text known as the Received Text but the challenging Greek text that has been corrupted.
Sincerely,
Jim
The reliability of the Biblical text, or at least portions of it, has been brought into question in this thread with references to The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (by Bart D. Ehrman) as evidence that the Received Text, on which the King James and New King James Versions of the Bible are based, does not accurately reflect the original autographs of the New Testament.
For a defense of the Received Text, please consider the articles found in the section entitled Bible Translations at this web page: click here.
Most of the articles are not very long and can be read in relatively little time. In my opinion, these articles present clear thinking and sound logic that lead to what I think is the obvious conclusion that it is not the Greek text known as the Received Text but the challenging Greek text that has been corrupted.
Sincerely,
Jim
Upvote
0
Hi Jim:
This is what I believe is the most important information at this site. However, there is much more to learn than just this information, and Bart D. Ehraman , in his book - "The Othodox Corruption of Scripture " Can add to the final information needed to make certain conclusions, in one's mind.
The question is, did God keep His promise? The answer is, yes. There are over 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts, or fragments, of the New Testament known to exist today. Of these 5,000+ manuscripts, more than 95% are in virtual agreement. This 95% majority group of manuscripts is referred to as the "Majority Text," or the "Traditional Text." The remaining 5% are called the "Minority Text," or "Alexandrian Text." [This is because virtually all of the dissenting manuscripts came from Alexandria, Egypt.] These few manuscripts, while they are generally slightly older than the "Traditional Text" manuscripts, are vastly different. They are also vastly diverse among themselves. No two are alike. No two even resemble one another in many places. In fact, the two best known Alexandrian manuscripts, which are most often used to correct the KJV [Aleph & B], differ from each other in about 9,000 places in the New Testament.
The "Textus Receptus," [Latin for "Received Text"], which is the basis for the New Testament of the King James Bible, is a Greek edition of the New Testament which represents the consensus of the 5,000+ "Traditional Text" manuscripts. The "Textus Receptus" is not an ancient New Testament manuscript, as some people mistakenly believe. It was made about the time the King James Version was translated. It is simply a printed Greek edition of the New Testament made to represent the exact wording of the consensus of the vast majority of manuscripts of the "Traditional Text." The KJV translators worked from this type of printed Greek edition rather than individual ancient hand written manuscripts.
This type of Traditional Greek text was handed down from each generation of Separatist [non- Catholic] believers to the next. It was considered to be the inspired Word of God, and was treated and respected as such by true believers. The early Christians, in obedience to the Great Commission, translated this Greek text into many foreign languages, including Latin, Syrian, and Coptic, and guarded it from perversion, often at the cost of their lives.
Over the centuries Satan has tried his best to destroy the Word of God. From the very beginning, wolves in sheep's clothing intentionally altered and corrupted the true text to make it conform to their own heretical ideas, [2 Thes. 2:2, 2 Pet. 3:16]. In Alexandria, Egypt, New Testament manuscripts were altered to incorporate Greek and Eastern philosophy, and stripped of essential Christian doctrines.
Later, the Roman Church banned the private use of the Bible, and persecuted those who refused to comply. The Roman Catholic Church put countless believers to death for preserving, translating, and obeying the "Traditional Text." They burned them along with their non-Catholic Bibles. The "Traditional Text" is stained with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, who laid down their lives so you could have an accurate copy of the Word of God, [Psalm 12:6,7, Rev. 20:4].
The English King James Version is a product of the Reformation, and Gutenberg's invention, the printing press. There have been more King James Bibles printed than any other book in history. It began as a translation of the "Textus Receptus" by William Tyndale, who translated the "Newe Teftament," and part of the "Olde Teftament" while in hiding and on the run from the Catholic authorities. He was finally caught and murdered by the Pope's henchmen in 1536. The project was continued underground by John Rogers and Miles Coverdale. John Rogers, following in Tyndale's footsteps, was also burned at the stake for his crime. In 1604, the new Protestant King of England, James I, defied the Pope and granted permission to officially translate the Scriptures into English. The best of the best Protestant Bible scholars and language experts were assembled to undertake the task. The King James Version was translated from the "Textus Receptus," and was completed in 1611.
Some people point to the fact that the KJV was a revision of previous English translations beginning with Tyndale, as justification for modern versions which are said to revise the KJV. But, there is really no comparison to the revisions that took place between 1525 and 1611, and the revisions taking place since 1881. All of the translations made between Tyndale's and the KJV were made from the same Greek and Hebrew texts. Most people don't realize that the English language was developing and was in a fluid state. Tyndale's Bible was very accurate, but it was rather awkward in style, and lacked the beauty of Elizebethan / Shakespearian English. Tyndale himself was not satisfied with the English style of his Bible, and made a second translation of the New Testament before he was killed. The KJV was primarily a refinement of the English language used in the translations of Tyndale. It retained more than 90% of Tyndale's wording. It is the polished conclusion to what Tyndale had begun almost 100 years earlier. [ Click here to see a how the English language has evolved durring this period.] The modern versions today are based on entirely different Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. This is the reason they differ so dramatically from the KJV.
Love IN Christ - Hervey
This is what I believe is the most important information at this site. However, there is much more to learn than just this information, and Bart D. Ehraman , in his book - "The Othodox Corruption of Scripture " Can add to the final information needed to make certain conclusions, in one's mind.
The question is, did God keep His promise? The answer is, yes. There are over 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts, or fragments, of the New Testament known to exist today. Of these 5,000+ manuscripts, more than 95% are in virtual agreement. This 95% majority group of manuscripts is referred to as the "Majority Text," or the "Traditional Text." The remaining 5% are called the "Minority Text," or "Alexandrian Text." [This is because virtually all of the dissenting manuscripts came from Alexandria, Egypt.] These few manuscripts, while they are generally slightly older than the "Traditional Text" manuscripts, are vastly different. They are also vastly diverse among themselves. No two are alike. No two even resemble one another in many places. In fact, the two best known Alexandrian manuscripts, which are most often used to correct the KJV [Aleph & B], differ from each other in about 9,000 places in the New Testament.
The "Textus Receptus," [Latin for "Received Text"], which is the basis for the New Testament of the King James Bible, is a Greek edition of the New Testament which represents the consensus of the 5,000+ "Traditional Text" manuscripts. The "Textus Receptus" is not an ancient New Testament manuscript, as some people mistakenly believe. It was made about the time the King James Version was translated. It is simply a printed Greek edition of the New Testament made to represent the exact wording of the consensus of the vast majority of manuscripts of the "Traditional Text." The KJV translators worked from this type of printed Greek edition rather than individual ancient hand written manuscripts.
This type of Traditional Greek text was handed down from each generation of Separatist [non- Catholic] believers to the next. It was considered to be the inspired Word of God, and was treated and respected as such by true believers. The early Christians, in obedience to the Great Commission, translated this Greek text into many foreign languages, including Latin, Syrian, and Coptic, and guarded it from perversion, often at the cost of their lives.
Over the centuries Satan has tried his best to destroy the Word of God. From the very beginning, wolves in sheep's clothing intentionally altered and corrupted the true text to make it conform to their own heretical ideas, [2 Thes. 2:2, 2 Pet. 3:16]. In Alexandria, Egypt, New Testament manuscripts were altered to incorporate Greek and Eastern philosophy, and stripped of essential Christian doctrines.
Later, the Roman Church banned the private use of the Bible, and persecuted those who refused to comply. The Roman Catholic Church put countless believers to death for preserving, translating, and obeying the "Traditional Text." They burned them along with their non-Catholic Bibles. The "Traditional Text" is stained with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, who laid down their lives so you could have an accurate copy of the Word of God, [Psalm 12:6,7, Rev. 20:4].
The English King James Version is a product of the Reformation, and Gutenberg's invention, the printing press. There have been more King James Bibles printed than any other book in history. It began as a translation of the "Textus Receptus" by William Tyndale, who translated the "Newe Teftament," and part of the "Olde Teftament" while in hiding and on the run from the Catholic authorities. He was finally caught and murdered by the Pope's henchmen in 1536. The project was continued underground by John Rogers and Miles Coverdale. John Rogers, following in Tyndale's footsteps, was also burned at the stake for his crime. In 1604, the new Protestant King of England, James I, defied the Pope and granted permission to officially translate the Scriptures into English. The best of the best Protestant Bible scholars and language experts were assembled to undertake the task. The King James Version was translated from the "Textus Receptus," and was completed in 1611.
Some people point to the fact that the KJV was a revision of previous English translations beginning with Tyndale, as justification for modern versions which are said to revise the KJV. But, there is really no comparison to the revisions that took place between 1525 and 1611, and the revisions taking place since 1881. All of the translations made between Tyndale's and the KJV were made from the same Greek and Hebrew texts. Most people don't realize that the English language was developing and was in a fluid state. Tyndale's Bible was very accurate, but it was rather awkward in style, and lacked the beauty of Elizebethan / Shakespearian English. Tyndale himself was not satisfied with the English style of his Bible, and made a second translation of the New Testament before he was killed. The KJV was primarily a refinement of the English language used in the translations of Tyndale. It retained more than 90% of Tyndale's wording. It is the polished conclusion to what Tyndale had begun almost 100 years earlier. [ Click here to see a how the English language has evolved durring this period.] The modern versions today are based on entirely different Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. This is the reason they differ so dramatically from the KJV.
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dear Hervey,
Hervey:
The KJV was not translated from only one manuscript.
The KJV was taken out of the manuscripts that agreed mostly with each other. The translators did not agree on everything that should be added or left out of the translation from these many Greek manuscripts !
In order for the translators to finish the job of translating from the Greek to the English. They had to find a way in which their disagreements could be considered a compromise. The greatest compromises were made note of. The greatest disagreements about what should enter into this translation were given special types of quotes, or signs. These ended up with what we know of today , as parentheticals.
Even with the use if these major manuscripts, the translators had problems agreeing with everything that should be entered into this KJV translation. Because of the disagreements , we today, end up with these parentheticals, which were "added" pieces of the manuscripts , which were a part of the compromise of the translators.
Jim:
You have made claims, based on nothing more than what you have assumed to be true in the absence of any actual discovery of fact, that the translators of the KJV and the NKJV could not agree on whether or not to include the words encased in parentheses in Romans 10:7, and that they therefore used the parenthetical punctuation to signal to the reader their controversy regarding these words, thus giving the reader a green light to dismiss these words.
Thomas Nelson Publishers has already told you that parentheses in the English Biblical text are normal English punctuation, and that they do not signify textual variations or supplied words.
If parenthetical punctuation in the KJV and the NKJV translations had the significance that you claim it has, the translators themselves would have stated as much in the Preface to the NKJV. In this Preface, the translators identify italic print as their signal to the reader that they have supplied words to the English Biblical text not found in the Received Text, and they identify the footnote symbols NU-Text and M-Text as their signal to the reader that there are variations between the Received Text, on which the KJV and the NKJV are based, and the Alexandrian Text and/or the Majority Text. These are the only two signals to the reader that are mentioned by the translators in the Preface. The translators themselves say nothing about parenthetical punctuation being their signal to the reader that the words encased in this punctuation represent either supplied words or textual variation. Their silence regarding parenthetical punctuation in the Preface is proof that they do NOT use parenthetical punctuation to signal to the reader either supplied words or textual variation or anything else.
Parenthetical punctuation is normal English punctuation. Its a normal part of the English language. It is used to indicate that the encased text is the AUTHORS explanation of what HE (THE AUTHOR) has just said in the text immediately preceding the parenthetical text.
In a previous post, I suggested that everyone read a series of articles that defend the Received Text as the Greek Text that accurately reflects the original autographs of the New Testament. The author of these articles is much more knowledgeable regarding the source material of the KJV and the NKJV than either you are or I am. Ive been discussing this issue with this author. He has said two things to me that put your claims regarding the significance of parenthetical punctuation to rest: (1) The traditional text (the manuscripts on which the Received Text is based) and the Received Text (the various editions of the Greek New Testament on which the KJV and the NKJV are based) are so consistent that there would be no opportunity for translators to disagree on whether or not to include a particular clause in the English translation. (2) Although there are some variations between the Received Text and the Alexandrian Text and/or the Majority Text, the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7 is not one of them; the Received Text, the Majority Text and the Alexandrian Text all include the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7. Thus, there is no opportunity for controversy over this clause.
Thus, it appears that the only person challenging the legitimacy of the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7 is you, and you're making this challenge with statements of your own invention regarding the actions of the translators.
Sincerely,
Jim
Hervey:
The KJV was not translated from only one manuscript.
The KJV was taken out of the manuscripts that agreed mostly with each other. The translators did not agree on everything that should be added or left out of the translation from these many Greek manuscripts !
In order for the translators to finish the job of translating from the Greek to the English. They had to find a way in which their disagreements could be considered a compromise. The greatest compromises were made note of. The greatest disagreements about what should enter into this translation were given special types of quotes, or signs. These ended up with what we know of today , as parentheticals.
Even with the use if these major manuscripts, the translators had problems agreeing with everything that should be entered into this KJV translation. Because of the disagreements , we today, end up with these parentheticals, which were "added" pieces of the manuscripts , which were a part of the compromise of the translators.
Jim:
You have made claims, based on nothing more than what you have assumed to be true in the absence of any actual discovery of fact, that the translators of the KJV and the NKJV could not agree on whether or not to include the words encased in parentheses in Romans 10:7, and that they therefore used the parenthetical punctuation to signal to the reader their controversy regarding these words, thus giving the reader a green light to dismiss these words.
Thomas Nelson Publishers has already told you that parentheses in the English Biblical text are normal English punctuation, and that they do not signify textual variations or supplied words.
If parenthetical punctuation in the KJV and the NKJV translations had the significance that you claim it has, the translators themselves would have stated as much in the Preface to the NKJV. In this Preface, the translators identify italic print as their signal to the reader that they have supplied words to the English Biblical text not found in the Received Text, and they identify the footnote symbols NU-Text and M-Text as their signal to the reader that there are variations between the Received Text, on which the KJV and the NKJV are based, and the Alexandrian Text and/or the Majority Text. These are the only two signals to the reader that are mentioned by the translators in the Preface. The translators themselves say nothing about parenthetical punctuation being their signal to the reader that the words encased in this punctuation represent either supplied words or textual variation. Their silence regarding parenthetical punctuation in the Preface is proof that they do NOT use parenthetical punctuation to signal to the reader either supplied words or textual variation or anything else.
Parenthetical punctuation is normal English punctuation. Its a normal part of the English language. It is used to indicate that the encased text is the AUTHORS explanation of what HE (THE AUTHOR) has just said in the text immediately preceding the parenthetical text.
In a previous post, I suggested that everyone read a series of articles that defend the Received Text as the Greek Text that accurately reflects the original autographs of the New Testament. The author of these articles is much more knowledgeable regarding the source material of the KJV and the NKJV than either you are or I am. Ive been discussing this issue with this author. He has said two things to me that put your claims regarding the significance of parenthetical punctuation to rest: (1) The traditional text (the manuscripts on which the Received Text is based) and the Received Text (the various editions of the Greek New Testament on which the KJV and the NKJV are based) are so consistent that there would be no opportunity for translators to disagree on whether or not to include a particular clause in the English translation. (2) Although there are some variations between the Received Text and the Alexandrian Text and/or the Majority Text, the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7 is not one of them; the Received Text, the Majority Text and the Alexandrian Text all include the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7. Thus, there is no opportunity for controversy over this clause.
Thus, it appears that the only person challenging the legitimacy of the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7 is you, and you're making this challenge with statements of your own invention regarding the actions of the translators.
Sincerely,
Jim
Upvote
0
Hi Jim:
You said >Thomas Nelson Publishers has already told you that parentheses in the English Biblical text are normal English punctuation, and that they do not signify textual variations or supplied words.
What your source failed to tell you, and what you failed to challenge , and check out for yourself is this >
It is true, that the parentheticals were not added by the KJV translators ! I said - "translators". I did not specify which !
The translation , that the KJV and the NKJV took their words from , was the Stephen's text. This text was a compromise , of what was said in the Major texts that were hand written. There were literally thousands of Greek manuscripts that made up the Stephen's text - also called the "Traditional Text".
This is what came from you web page, which I pasted a couple of posts ago ! Here it is once again, and learn something this time, so I don't have to keep reminding you, as to where the KJV came from ! >>
The "Textus Receptus," [Latin for "Received Text"], which is the basis for the New Testament of the King James Bible, is a Greek edition of the New Testament which represents the consensus of the 5,000+ "Traditional Text" manuscripts. The "Textus Receptus" is not an ancient New Testament manuscript, as some people mistakenly believe. It was made about the time the King James Version was translated. It is simply a printed Greek edition of the New Testament made to represent the exact wording of the consensus of the vast majority of manuscripts of the "Traditional Text." The KJV translators worked from this type of printed Greek edition rather than individual ancient hand written manuscripts.
Don't tell me that the parentheticals were not added by man ! I know that they were ! You don't want to believe me, fine !
But after all of this information, and what is said in Bart D. Ehrman's book - The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. You will find that man has entered many of their thoughts into every piece of work that deals with the Word of God ! !
Everything from the copiests copies of the Greek manuscripts , and into the Stephen's Text , which is where the KJV comes from , man has entered their own private additions to the wordings that they dealt with ! To say that they didn't, makes a claim that God's word is a lie, that every man is a liar ! Let God be true, not man !
You might want to hang onto those parentheticals, but not me ! They do only one thing, and that is to cause confusion, and alter what God is truly saying in these passages ! !
Love IN Christ - Hervey
You said >Thomas Nelson Publishers has already told you that parentheses in the English Biblical text are normal English punctuation, and that they do not signify textual variations or supplied words.
What your source failed to tell you, and what you failed to challenge , and check out for yourself is this >
It is true, that the parentheticals were not added by the KJV translators ! I said - "translators". I did not specify which !
The translation , that the KJV and the NKJV took their words from , was the Stephen's text. This text was a compromise , of what was said in the Major texts that were hand written. There were literally thousands of Greek manuscripts that made up the Stephen's text - also called the "Traditional Text".
This is what came from you web page, which I pasted a couple of posts ago ! Here it is once again, and learn something this time, so I don't have to keep reminding you, as to where the KJV came from ! >>
The "Textus Receptus," [Latin for "Received Text"], which is the basis for the New Testament of the King James Bible, is a Greek edition of the New Testament which represents the consensus of the 5,000+ "Traditional Text" manuscripts. The "Textus Receptus" is not an ancient New Testament manuscript, as some people mistakenly believe. It was made about the time the King James Version was translated. It is simply a printed Greek edition of the New Testament made to represent the exact wording of the consensus of the vast majority of manuscripts of the "Traditional Text." The KJV translators worked from this type of printed Greek edition rather than individual ancient hand written manuscripts.
Don't tell me that the parentheticals were not added by man ! I know that they were ! You don't want to believe me, fine !
But after all of this information, and what is said in Bart D. Ehrman's book - The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. You will find that man has entered many of their thoughts into every piece of work that deals with the Word of God ! !
Everything from the copiests copies of the Greek manuscripts , and into the Stephen's Text , which is where the KJV comes from , man has entered their own private additions to the wordings that they dealt with ! To say that they didn't, makes a claim that God's word is a lie, that every man is a liar ! Let God be true, not man !
You might want to hang onto those parentheticals, but not me ! They do only one thing, and that is to cause confusion, and alter what God is truly saying in these passages ! !
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote
0
Dear Hervey,
Why would you quote as an element of your argument a paragraph from an article authored by the very person who has stated that your position regarding the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7 is incorrect?
The thread in which I discuss with the author of that paragraph your position regarding the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7 is found here: click here. Read it for yourself (the author of the paragraph you quoted is Tim).
Sincerely,
Jim
Why would you quote as an element of your argument a paragraph from an article authored by the very person who has stated that your position regarding the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7 is incorrect?
The thread in which I discuss with the author of that paragraph your position regarding the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:7 is found here: click here. Read it for yourself (the author of the paragraph you quoted is Tim).
Sincerely,
Jim
Upvote
0
Hi Jim:
I read comment after comment from the conversations you were having with Tim. I also noticed the conflic with some comments made at another site. Which by the way does not interest me anyways. But thought you might want to know that I did indeed read your questions and Tim's comments.
Tim seems very knowledgeable. However , he is still only telling you part of the picture.
If you truly believe that the parentheticals are a part of the Word of God, then why do they contradict the very words surrounding them ?
And why does someone have to explain these parentheticals with their own pirvate interpretation , in order for them to make sense to those who like to turn the meaning around in such a way to make them say , what they want them to say ? ? ?
After everything we have said to one another on this thread, you still fail to explain the obvious ! You make your claims from one source. Why can't we claim that your source (Tim) , is not telling you all of the truth ? Easy ! He is backing a type of belileving ! And will not tell all the truth, as it would expose the lies. Am I calling Tim a liar ? NO ! Lies are carried around on the tongues of good men, which were planted by others , from as far back as nearly 2,000 years ago.
Here is another quote from Bart's book >
"Once I have established - or at least contended for -- one form of the text as antecedent to the others, I evaluate the variant reading in relation to the christological debates of the second and third centuries . Given my concern to see how these debates affected the manuscript tradition itself, I will consider only those textual variants that appear in the manuscripts. Among other things , this means that I will not evaluate readings that are found only in patristic sources ; this kind of data may indicate how the text was quoted by the church fathers, but not, necessarily , how it was transcribed . Nor will I take into account variant modes of punctuation that prove christilogically significant, as these cannot be traced back to the period of our concern, when most manuscripts were not punctuated" pg . 31 - "About the Study"
I did not bring this statement up pertaining to the punctuation, as it just happen to be in this statement by Bart. But is worthy of note. However, you can see, that there are many ways in which variants of words or wordings can enter into writings, and thus be added , and accepted wordings by certain sects. Bart is only concerned with the textual variants, that do appear in the manuscripts. This book will clear up many things, and is "NOT" one sided, as it is only a history of the way in which the manuscripts could possibly have been , within their day, been made to say certian things because of the influence of that day and time. The manuscripts were hand written, and passed on, and re-written , etc. The KJV is no better than the people who take from certain sources and then make certain claims about their sources. Leaving you half blind to the facts.
The manuscripts "had no punctuation" in them ! Parentheticals first came about in the fifteenth century. No one can tell me that punctuation is common to the scriptures ! ! No one can tell me, that certain words inside of a parenthetical, was not added by man. I am just not that ignorant about man, and what he will do ! ! And , I am not ignorant of the overall vision of the scriputres !
Those who ascend, is God's business !
Those who descend, is God's business !
Don't ask in your heart -- Who ascends or who descends ! (?)
God would not let the elders of Israel into the promise land , because of unbelief. That is why they roamed around in the desert for 40 years. God let the elders die, before he brought the children of Israel into the promise land !
Romans 10:6 & 7 is unto believers, not unbelievers !
Do you have anything to add to this conversation Jim ?
Love IN Christ - Hervey
I read comment after comment from the conversations you were having with Tim. I also noticed the conflic with some comments made at another site. Which by the way does not interest me anyways. But thought you might want to know that I did indeed read your questions and Tim's comments.
Tim seems very knowledgeable. However , he is still only telling you part of the picture.
If you truly believe that the parentheticals are a part of the Word of God, then why do they contradict the very words surrounding them ?
And why does someone have to explain these parentheticals with their own pirvate interpretation , in order for them to make sense to those who like to turn the meaning around in such a way to make them say , what they want them to say ? ? ?
After everything we have said to one another on this thread, you still fail to explain the obvious ! You make your claims from one source. Why can't we claim that your source (Tim) , is not telling you all of the truth ? Easy ! He is backing a type of belileving ! And will not tell all the truth, as it would expose the lies. Am I calling Tim a liar ? NO ! Lies are carried around on the tongues of good men, which were planted by others , from as far back as nearly 2,000 years ago.
Here is another quote from Bart's book >
"Once I have established - or at least contended for -- one form of the text as antecedent to the others, I evaluate the variant reading in relation to the christological debates of the second and third centuries . Given my concern to see how these debates affected the manuscript tradition itself, I will consider only those textual variants that appear in the manuscripts. Among other things , this means that I will not evaluate readings that are found only in patristic sources ; this kind of data may indicate how the text was quoted by the church fathers, but not, necessarily , how it was transcribed . Nor will I take into account variant modes of punctuation that prove christilogically significant, as these cannot be traced back to the period of our concern, when most manuscripts were not punctuated" pg . 31 - "About the Study"
I did not bring this statement up pertaining to the punctuation, as it just happen to be in this statement by Bart. But is worthy of note. However, you can see, that there are many ways in which variants of words or wordings can enter into writings, and thus be added , and accepted wordings by certain sects. Bart is only concerned with the textual variants, that do appear in the manuscripts. This book will clear up many things, and is "NOT" one sided, as it is only a history of the way in which the manuscripts could possibly have been , within their day, been made to say certian things because of the influence of that day and time. The manuscripts were hand written, and passed on, and re-written , etc. The KJV is no better than the people who take from certain sources and then make certain claims about their sources. Leaving you half blind to the facts.
The manuscripts "had no punctuation" in them ! Parentheticals first came about in the fifteenth century. No one can tell me that punctuation is common to the scriptures ! ! No one can tell me, that certain words inside of a parenthetical, was not added by man. I am just not that ignorant about man, and what he will do ! ! And , I am not ignorant of the overall vision of the scriputres !
Those who ascend, is God's business !
Those who descend, is God's business !
Don't ask in your heart -- Who ascends or who descends ! (?)
God would not let the elders of Israel into the promise land , because of unbelief. That is why they roamed around in the desert for 40 years. God let the elders die, before he brought the children of Israel into the promise land !
Romans 10:6 & 7 is unto believers, not unbelievers !
Do you have anything to add to this conversation Jim ?
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote
0
Hi Jim:
I also noticed, in your conversation with Tim, that you mentioned to him, that I was one who believed in soul sleep. This of course is not what I believe, and never expressed to you , that I believed in soul sleep.
Here is the best way I can explain , at this time, what the soul is, and what happens to it after you die.
To begin with, we read in Genesis 2:7 , that after God made man from the dust of the earth (earth has life in it), God then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".
God breathed , is also used to express His Word - Job 37:10 -- Acts 17:25
Breath = soul
God has a soul, because he has breath. Speaking figuratively of course. But what breath life is, is the "mind". To have the mind of Christ, is to have the soul of Christ, which is the breath of life.
When God made man out of the dust of the earth, man had life, but he did not have soul life.
Matthew 10:28 tells us that the soul can not be killed. IT can however be destroyed - Matthew 10:28 also.
The soul , is the mind, and the mind can be destroyed, but not killed. Our minds, are what is in our remembrance. In order for Adam , the first man, to be able to name all of the animals, he had to have a reference from which to name the animals. This reference is the soul, that God breathed into man. Man became a living soul. This tells us, that the man "became" what the soul (mind) had in it for reference (remembrance).
When mankind dies, it is the body that dies, not the soul. The soul remains, until such time, that God raises that which is corruptible, and raises it unto incorruption. Christians sleep, because what they have is greater than the soul. They have Christ in them, which is the spirit of God's son, in them. This is mortal, and it will be raise unto immortality. (ref. I Corinth. 15).
Our bodies are like a car. The gasoline is the soul, and only needs a spark to ignite the soul (gasoline), thus rendering the soul (gasoline) to be able to perform its remembrance. God is the spark in mankind. And he sparked His breath , into the man who was made out of the dust of the earth, and this man became a living soul (gasoline that has been ignited). The potential is always there, but a spark is needed. God being that spark, also sparks all those who ever lived , at one of the two resurrections. Your gasoline (soul) remains with you in death. What we put into our minds (souls) after we have been sparked into life, can be water, or more gasoline (God's breath). God's Word is the breath of life. If we water down the breath of life, then we no longer have the pure Word of God, which is God breathed.
God told Adam to not eat of the tree of good and evil, for in the day thereof that thou eatest, thou shalt shurely die ! He did eat, and he did die ! His soul ? NO ! The soul can not be killed !
We are going to give an account of ourselves, at one of the two judgement seats. We will be able to do this, because our "souls" will be reactivated by God putting a spark to the gasoline (soul). We will remember, because God wants us to remember .
The "soul" is "breath life", that came from God, who breathed into the nostriles of the first man Adam. Man then started to remember that which is in his soul (mind). Adam did not go to school to learn, God taught him, and he was to remember what God had told him in his soul (mind).
Love IN Christ - Hervey
I also noticed, in your conversation with Tim, that you mentioned to him, that I was one who believed in soul sleep. This of course is not what I believe, and never expressed to you , that I believed in soul sleep.
Here is the best way I can explain , at this time, what the soul is, and what happens to it after you die.
To begin with, we read in Genesis 2:7 , that after God made man from the dust of the earth (earth has life in it), God then breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".
God breathed , is also used to express His Word - Job 37:10 -- Acts 17:25
Breath = soul
God has a soul, because he has breath. Speaking figuratively of course. But what breath life is, is the "mind". To have the mind of Christ, is to have the soul of Christ, which is the breath of life.
When God made man out of the dust of the earth, man had life, but he did not have soul life.
Matthew 10:28 tells us that the soul can not be killed. IT can however be destroyed - Matthew 10:28 also.
The soul , is the mind, and the mind can be destroyed, but not killed. Our minds, are what is in our remembrance. In order for Adam , the first man, to be able to name all of the animals, he had to have a reference from which to name the animals. This reference is the soul, that God breathed into man. Man became a living soul. This tells us, that the man "became" what the soul (mind) had in it for reference (remembrance).
When mankind dies, it is the body that dies, not the soul. The soul remains, until such time, that God raises that which is corruptible, and raises it unto incorruption. Christians sleep, because what they have is greater than the soul. They have Christ in them, which is the spirit of God's son, in them. This is mortal, and it will be raise unto immortality. (ref. I Corinth. 15).
Our bodies are like a car. The gasoline is the soul, and only needs a spark to ignite the soul (gasoline), thus rendering the soul (gasoline) to be able to perform its remembrance. God is the spark in mankind. And he sparked His breath , into the man who was made out of the dust of the earth, and this man became a living soul (gasoline that has been ignited). The potential is always there, but a spark is needed. God being that spark, also sparks all those who ever lived , at one of the two resurrections. Your gasoline (soul) remains with you in death. What we put into our minds (souls) after we have been sparked into life, can be water, or more gasoline (God's breath). God's Word is the breath of life. If we water down the breath of life, then we no longer have the pure Word of God, which is God breathed.
God told Adam to not eat of the tree of good and evil, for in the day thereof that thou eatest, thou shalt shurely die ! He did eat, and he did die ! His soul ? NO ! The soul can not be killed !
We are going to give an account of ourselves, at one of the two judgement seats. We will be able to do this, because our "souls" will be reactivated by God putting a spark to the gasoline (soul). We will remember, because God wants us to remember .
The "soul" is "breath life", that came from God, who breathed into the nostriles of the first man Adam. Man then started to remember that which is in his soul (mind). Adam did not go to school to learn, God taught him, and he was to remember what God had told him in his soul (mind).
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dear Hervey,
Hervey:
If you truly believe that the parentheticals are a part of the Word of God, then why do they contradict the very words surrounding them ?
Jim:
The parenthetical text in Romans 10:6-7 does not contradict the surrounding text. Your claim that there is a contradiction is uniquely yours. The reason you refuse to accept the logic of what is expressed by the entire text in Romans 10:6-7 is that it is in conflict with your view that Christs soul did not descend into the abyss when He died.
Hervey:
And why does someone have to explain these parentheticals with their own pirvate interpretation , in order for them to make sense to those who like to turn the meaning around in such a way to make them say , what they want them to say ? ? ?
Jim:
The only explanation that was required to enable me to understand what was expressed by the entire text in Romans 10:6-7 was the fact that Paul was quoting Deuteronomy 30:12-13. Once that information was introduced to me, the entire text in Romans 10:6-7 made sense to me.
Hervey (quoting Bart D. Ehrman):
Given my concern to see how these debates affected the manuscript tradition itself, I will consider only those textual variants that appear in the manuscripts. Among other things , this means that I will not evaluate readings that are found only in patristic sources; this kind of data may indicate how the text was quoted by the church fathers, but not, necessarily , how it was transcribed .
Jim:
Mr. Ehrman appears to be restricting himself to an evaluation of the transcription (not translation). A transcription is a copy. Prior to the invention of the printing press in 1450, the existing Greek manuscripts dating back to the fifth century had been manually transcribed, or copied. Mr. Ehrman appears not to have been interested in how the early Church fathers quoted scripture, but only in how scripture was manually transcribed from manuscript to manuscript.
Hervey (quoting Bart D. Ehrman):
Nor will I take into account variant modes of punctuation that prove christilogically significant, as these cannot be traced back to the period of our concern, when most manuscripts were not punctuated" pg . 31 - "About the Study"
Jim:
This does not appear to be referring to variation in the text. It appears to be referring to variation in punctuation in the English translation (such as where to place a comma), which can effect the meaning of the English translation. Theres nothing in this quote that indicates that Mr. Ehrman thought that there was any kind of punctuation that signaled a variation in the Greek text itself. (Notice that my use of parentheses in this paragraph to encase explanatory words does NOT indicate that the words inside the parentheses do not have the same author that the words outside the parentheses have, as I myself am the source of all of the words.)
Hervey:
However, you can see, that there are many ways in which variants of words or wordings can enter into writings, and thus be added , and accepted wordings by certain sects. Bart is only concerned with the textual variants, that do appear in the manuscripts.
Jim:
What youre expressing here is Mr. Ehrmans side of the controversy regarding the differences between the less recently discovered Greek manuscripts (about 4750 manuscripts) and the more recently discovered Greek manuscripts (about 250 manuscripts). The manuscripts discovered later did not include some things that were included in the other manuscripts. Since there is a difference between these two bodies of manuscripts, somebody altered the text somewhere. (Notice that I'm the source of all of the words in this paragraph too.)
Mr. Ehrmans side of the controversy is the theory that people added to the less recently discovered Greek manuscripts things that the original autographs did not say. The other side of the controversy is the theory that people subtracted from the more recently discovered Greek manuscripts things that the original autographs did say.
Tim makes what I think is a convincing argument in favor of the latter theory at this web page: click here.
Hervey:
Parentheticals first came about in the fifteenth century. No one can tell me that punctuation is common to the scriptures!
Jim:
English punctuation evolved. Not only was there a time when parentheses were not used, there was also a time when commas and periods were not used and when the first letter of the first word of a sentence was not capitalized. All of these things evolved in the English language.
English punctuation has nothing to do with Greek text. A parenthesis no more signals a variation in Greek text than a period, a comma or a capital letter does.
It is the translators who translate Greek text into an English translation. It is the translators who decide when to use a capital letter, a comma, a parenthesis or a period in order to most clearly express in the English translation the meaning which they find in the Greek text. Its their decision when and how to use English punctuation. If they had decided to use a specific English punctuation mark to signal to the reader that a portion of the English translation was translated from a variation in the Greek text, they would have said so in the Preface, which they didnt.
In the Preface to the NKJV, the translators of the NKJV state that they italicize supplied words and that they footnote (with NU-Text and/or M-Text) textual variation. However, Romans 10:6-7 is neither italicized nor footnoted in this manner. The translators say nothing in the Preface about parentheses, which they would be obliged to do if their use of that punctuation mark differed from its normal use in the English language. Thus, the translators themselves have twice proven your claim to be incorrect: (1) They say nothing about parentheses in the Preface. (2) They neither italicize nor footnote (with NU-Text or M-Text) Romans 10:6-7.
Hervey:
No one can tell me, that certain words inside of a parenthetical, was not added by man. I am just not that ignorant about man, and what he will do
Jim:
Your convictions regarding the heart of man are irrelevant to this discussion. The only relevant issue here is the significance of the translators use of parentheses in the English translation of the New Testament. As the translators of the NKJV themselves have proven, their use of this punctuation does not differ from its normal use in the English language. Not only is your claim regarding the significance of the translators use of parentheses in the English translation unsupported, it is refuted by the translators of the NKJV themselves.
Sincerely,
Jim
Hervey:
If you truly believe that the parentheticals are a part of the Word of God, then why do they contradict the very words surrounding them ?
Jim:
The parenthetical text in Romans 10:6-7 does not contradict the surrounding text. Your claim that there is a contradiction is uniquely yours. The reason you refuse to accept the logic of what is expressed by the entire text in Romans 10:6-7 is that it is in conflict with your view that Christs soul did not descend into the abyss when He died.
Hervey:
And why does someone have to explain these parentheticals with their own pirvate interpretation , in order for them to make sense to those who like to turn the meaning around in such a way to make them say , what they want them to say ? ? ?
Jim:
The only explanation that was required to enable me to understand what was expressed by the entire text in Romans 10:6-7 was the fact that Paul was quoting Deuteronomy 30:12-13. Once that information was introduced to me, the entire text in Romans 10:6-7 made sense to me.
Hervey (quoting Bart D. Ehrman):
Given my concern to see how these debates affected the manuscript tradition itself, I will consider only those textual variants that appear in the manuscripts. Among other things , this means that I will not evaluate readings that are found only in patristic sources; this kind of data may indicate how the text was quoted by the church fathers, but not, necessarily , how it was transcribed .
Jim:
Mr. Ehrman appears to be restricting himself to an evaluation of the transcription (not translation). A transcription is a copy. Prior to the invention of the printing press in 1450, the existing Greek manuscripts dating back to the fifth century had been manually transcribed, or copied. Mr. Ehrman appears not to have been interested in how the early Church fathers quoted scripture, but only in how scripture was manually transcribed from manuscript to manuscript.
Hervey (quoting Bart D. Ehrman):
Nor will I take into account variant modes of punctuation that prove christilogically significant, as these cannot be traced back to the period of our concern, when most manuscripts were not punctuated" pg . 31 - "About the Study"
Jim:
This does not appear to be referring to variation in the text. It appears to be referring to variation in punctuation in the English translation (such as where to place a comma), which can effect the meaning of the English translation. Theres nothing in this quote that indicates that Mr. Ehrman thought that there was any kind of punctuation that signaled a variation in the Greek text itself. (Notice that my use of parentheses in this paragraph to encase explanatory words does NOT indicate that the words inside the parentheses do not have the same author that the words outside the parentheses have, as I myself am the source of all of the words.)
Hervey:
However, you can see, that there are many ways in which variants of words or wordings can enter into writings, and thus be added , and accepted wordings by certain sects. Bart is only concerned with the textual variants, that do appear in the manuscripts.
Jim:
What youre expressing here is Mr. Ehrmans side of the controversy regarding the differences between the less recently discovered Greek manuscripts (about 4750 manuscripts) and the more recently discovered Greek manuscripts (about 250 manuscripts). The manuscripts discovered later did not include some things that were included in the other manuscripts. Since there is a difference between these two bodies of manuscripts, somebody altered the text somewhere. (Notice that I'm the source of all of the words in this paragraph too.)
Mr. Ehrmans side of the controversy is the theory that people added to the less recently discovered Greek manuscripts things that the original autographs did not say. The other side of the controversy is the theory that people subtracted from the more recently discovered Greek manuscripts things that the original autographs did say.
Tim makes what I think is a convincing argument in favor of the latter theory at this web page: click here.
Hervey:
Parentheticals first came about in the fifteenth century. No one can tell me that punctuation is common to the scriptures!
Jim:
English punctuation evolved. Not only was there a time when parentheses were not used, there was also a time when commas and periods were not used and when the first letter of the first word of a sentence was not capitalized. All of these things evolved in the English language.
English punctuation has nothing to do with Greek text. A parenthesis no more signals a variation in Greek text than a period, a comma or a capital letter does.
It is the translators who translate Greek text into an English translation. It is the translators who decide when to use a capital letter, a comma, a parenthesis or a period in order to most clearly express in the English translation the meaning which they find in the Greek text. Its their decision when and how to use English punctuation. If they had decided to use a specific English punctuation mark to signal to the reader that a portion of the English translation was translated from a variation in the Greek text, they would have said so in the Preface, which they didnt.
In the Preface to the NKJV, the translators of the NKJV state that they italicize supplied words and that they footnote (with NU-Text and/or M-Text) textual variation. However, Romans 10:6-7 is neither italicized nor footnoted in this manner. The translators say nothing in the Preface about parentheses, which they would be obliged to do if their use of that punctuation mark differed from its normal use in the English language. Thus, the translators themselves have twice proven your claim to be incorrect: (1) They say nothing about parentheses in the Preface. (2) They neither italicize nor footnote (with NU-Text or M-Text) Romans 10:6-7.
Hervey:
No one can tell me, that certain words inside of a parenthetical, was not added by man. I am just not that ignorant about man, and what he will do
Jim:
Your convictions regarding the heart of man are irrelevant to this discussion. The only relevant issue here is the significance of the translators use of parentheses in the English translation of the New Testament. As the translators of the NKJV themselves have proven, their use of this punctuation does not differ from its normal use in the English language. Not only is your claim regarding the significance of the translators use of parentheses in the English translation unsupported, it is refuted by the translators of the NKJV themselves.
Sincerely,
Jim
Upvote
0
New Earth?
"behold, I have made everything new..." - Rev 21:5
"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." Ecc 3:11
Nothing is going to be created. But everything will be made new - transformed perfect - remade into what it was meant to be originally! It will be Eden again, Paradise lost now will be Paradise restored and with a lot more inhabitants!
"behold, I have made everything new..." - Rev 21:5
"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." Ecc 3:11
Nothing is going to be created. But everything will be made new - transformed perfect - remade into what it was meant to be originally! It will be Eden again, Paradise lost now will be Paradise restored and with a lot more inhabitants!
Upvote
0
Hi Jim:
You said >It is the translators who translate Greek text into an English translation. It is the translators who decide when to use a capital letter, a comma, a parenthesis or a period in order to most clearly express in the English translation the meaning which they find in the Greek text. Its their decision when and how to use English punctuation. If they had decided to use a specific English punctuation mark to signal to the reader that a portion of the English translation was translated from a variation in the Greek text, they would have said so in the Preface, which they didnt.
Of course they didn't ! They didn't have too ! No one stood over them with a gun. Also they could have done just about anything they wanted, as long as they used the materials subscribed to them. A , look at this, but don't look at that mindset, that could have easily been enforced.
You need to get Barts book and read it for yourself. I would have to do too much typing to make what he says worthy of what he has said. I am not about to retype the entire book for you ! First, that would be fraud, and second, the book is over 300 pages long. It is a book about the "history" of the writings of the church, starting, mainly from about 330 AD, until now. But he does not deal with the newer translations in this book. He deal primarily with how the scriputres came to us, and how, and why.
And as I expected, you based what you believe the parentheticals say, is based upon what it says in Deut. , thus declaring that what it says in Romans 10:6 & 7 is written unto the unbelieving Jews. So be it !
And you can believe what you want about punctuation and its influence or there being no influence upon the scriptures. I believe that the adversary of God will try by "any means " to alter what God is saying. Thus saith the Lord - II Corinth. 11:3
Love IN Christ - Hervey
You said >It is the translators who translate Greek text into an English translation. It is the translators who decide when to use a capital letter, a comma, a parenthesis or a period in order to most clearly express in the English translation the meaning which they find in the Greek text. Its their decision when and how to use English punctuation. If they had decided to use a specific English punctuation mark to signal to the reader that a portion of the English translation was translated from a variation in the Greek text, they would have said so in the Preface, which they didnt.
Of course they didn't ! They didn't have too ! No one stood over them with a gun. Also they could have done just about anything they wanted, as long as they used the materials subscribed to them. A , look at this, but don't look at that mindset, that could have easily been enforced.
You need to get Barts book and read it for yourself. I would have to do too much typing to make what he says worthy of what he has said. I am not about to retype the entire book for you ! First, that would be fraud, and second, the book is over 300 pages long. It is a book about the "history" of the writings of the church, starting, mainly from about 330 AD, until now. But he does not deal with the newer translations in this book. He deal primarily with how the scriputres came to us, and how, and why.
And as I expected, you based what you believe the parentheticals say, is based upon what it says in Deut. , thus declaring that what it says in Romans 10:6 & 7 is written unto the unbelieving Jews. So be it !
And you can believe what you want about punctuation and its influence or there being no influence upon the scriptures. I believe that the adversary of God will try by "any means " to alter what God is saying. Thus saith the Lord - II Corinth. 11:3
Love IN Christ - Hervey
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dear Hervey,
Jim (previous post):
If [the translators of the NKJV) had decided to use a specific English punctuation mark to signal to the reader that a portion of the English translation was translated from a variation in the Greek text, they would have said so in the Preface, which they didnt.
Hervey:
Of course they didn't! They didn't have too!
Jim:
There are two things that the translators of the NKJV actually DO SAY in the Preface that prove that your claim regarding Romans 10:6-7 is incorrect:
(1) The fact that the translators of the NKJV did not display the words of Romans 10:6-7 in italics is proof that the words in Romans 10:6-7 are not supplied by the translators themselves but are translated from the Greek text, as the translators specifically state in the Preface that they display in italics those words in the English translation which they themselves supply.
(2) The fact that the translators of the NKJV did not display footnote references (either NU-Text or M-Text) in Romans 10:6-7 is proof that there is no variation between the source material (the Received Text) of the English translation of these two verses and the Alexandrian Text or the Majority Text, as the translators specifically state in the Preface that they display such footnote references in those verses where such variation in the Greek text occurs.
These two things by themselves prove that your claim regarding Romans 10:6-7 is incorrect. Thus, in stating that Romans 10:6-7 contains either supplied words or textual variants, you are directly contradicting what the translators of the NKJV themselves have explicitly stated.
Nevertheless, you have adopted a view of Romans 10:6-7 that directly contradicts what the translators themselves have explicitly stated, and you have done so on the basis of an unstated, unsubstantiated, yet assumed action on the part of the translators themselves (regarding their use of an English punctuation mark) that defies what the translators themselves have actually stated regarding Romans 10:6-7, which is this: that if Romans 10:6-7 contained either supplied words or textual variants, this would have been signified either by italicized print or by footnote references (NU-Text and/or M-Text) in Romans 10:6-7, which it isnt.
What is your response? Your response is that an unstated, yet understood rule supersedes the two explicitly stated rules regarding the identification of either supplied words or textual variants. This is the flow of your logic regarding Romans 10:6-7:
The translators of the NKJV used parentheses in the English translation to identify either supplied words or textual variants, you say. We therefore know that the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:6-7 consists either of supplied words or textual variants, you say. How do we know this? Because its understood, you say. But why didnt the translators mention this unusual use of this punctuation mark in the Preface? They didnt have to, because its understood, you say. But according to what the translators of the NKJV actually say in the Preface, either italicized print or footnote references (NU-Text and/or M-Text) would appear in Romans 10:6-7 if it contained either supplied words or textual variants. Since neither of these indicators appear in Romans 10:6-7, according to what the translators themselves have specifically stated in the Preface, these two verses do not contain either supplied words or textual variants. That doesnt matter, you say. Why doesnt it matter? Because its understood, you say. Whats understood? Its understood that the understood rule supersedes the stated rules, you say. Wherever the understood rule applies, the stated rules do not apply, you say. But how do we know that this is so? Because its understood, you say. But the translators didnt mention anything about this superseding rule in the Preface. They didnt have to mention it, because its understood, you say. But how do we know its understood? Because it is, you say. And so it goes.
Ive provided facts from the translators of the NKJV themselves that prove that Romans 10:6-7 contains neither supplied words nor textual variants. Your response has been to cite an unstated, yet understood (you say) rule that supersedes the stated facts. Youve never provided one fact in support of your position. Instead, your approach has been to simply chant the unsubstantiated claim that the translators used parentheses to identify supplied words or textual variants. But where does it say that they did this? It doesnt have to say it anywhere, you say. Its understood that they just did, you say.
The fact is, parentheses are a normal part of English punctuation. This punctuation mark evolved to signify to the reader explanatory words of the author that explain the words of the author that immediately precede the explanatory words. Thats all parentheses are, and thats all they mean, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Punctuation in the English language evolves. Whereas the KJV uses a lot of colons and semicolons, the more recent NKJV uses commas and periods instead. Whereas the KJV uses parentheses in Romans 1:2, the more recent NKJV doesnt. Whereas the KJV does not use parentheses in Romans 4:19, the more recent NKJV does. Whereas the KJV does not use parentheses in Romans 10:8, the more recent NKJV does. Whereas the KJV uses parentheses in 2 Corinthians 5:7, the more recent NKJV doesnt. Punctuation is merely a tool which the writer (in this case the translator) uses in an effort to clearly communicate ideas to the reader. Punctuation says nothing about the legitimacy of the words.
Sincerely,
Jim
Jim (previous post):
If [the translators of the NKJV) had decided to use a specific English punctuation mark to signal to the reader that a portion of the English translation was translated from a variation in the Greek text, they would have said so in the Preface, which they didnt.
Hervey:
Of course they didn't! They didn't have too!
Jim:
There are two things that the translators of the NKJV actually DO SAY in the Preface that prove that your claim regarding Romans 10:6-7 is incorrect:
(1) The fact that the translators of the NKJV did not display the words of Romans 10:6-7 in italics is proof that the words in Romans 10:6-7 are not supplied by the translators themselves but are translated from the Greek text, as the translators specifically state in the Preface that they display in italics those words in the English translation which they themselves supply.
(2) The fact that the translators of the NKJV did not display footnote references (either NU-Text or M-Text) in Romans 10:6-7 is proof that there is no variation between the source material (the Received Text) of the English translation of these two verses and the Alexandrian Text or the Majority Text, as the translators specifically state in the Preface that they display such footnote references in those verses where such variation in the Greek text occurs.
These two things by themselves prove that your claim regarding Romans 10:6-7 is incorrect. Thus, in stating that Romans 10:6-7 contains either supplied words or textual variants, you are directly contradicting what the translators of the NKJV themselves have explicitly stated.
Nevertheless, you have adopted a view of Romans 10:6-7 that directly contradicts what the translators themselves have explicitly stated, and you have done so on the basis of an unstated, unsubstantiated, yet assumed action on the part of the translators themselves (regarding their use of an English punctuation mark) that defies what the translators themselves have actually stated regarding Romans 10:6-7, which is this: that if Romans 10:6-7 contained either supplied words or textual variants, this would have been signified either by italicized print or by footnote references (NU-Text and/or M-Text) in Romans 10:6-7, which it isnt.
What is your response? Your response is that an unstated, yet understood rule supersedes the two explicitly stated rules regarding the identification of either supplied words or textual variants. This is the flow of your logic regarding Romans 10:6-7:
The translators of the NKJV used parentheses in the English translation to identify either supplied words or textual variants, you say. We therefore know that the parenthetical clause in Romans 10:6-7 consists either of supplied words or textual variants, you say. How do we know this? Because its understood, you say. But why didnt the translators mention this unusual use of this punctuation mark in the Preface? They didnt have to, because its understood, you say. But according to what the translators of the NKJV actually say in the Preface, either italicized print or footnote references (NU-Text and/or M-Text) would appear in Romans 10:6-7 if it contained either supplied words or textual variants. Since neither of these indicators appear in Romans 10:6-7, according to what the translators themselves have specifically stated in the Preface, these two verses do not contain either supplied words or textual variants. That doesnt matter, you say. Why doesnt it matter? Because its understood, you say. Whats understood? Its understood that the understood rule supersedes the stated rules, you say. Wherever the understood rule applies, the stated rules do not apply, you say. But how do we know that this is so? Because its understood, you say. But the translators didnt mention anything about this superseding rule in the Preface. They didnt have to mention it, because its understood, you say. But how do we know its understood? Because it is, you say. And so it goes.
Ive provided facts from the translators of the NKJV themselves that prove that Romans 10:6-7 contains neither supplied words nor textual variants. Your response has been to cite an unstated, yet understood (you say) rule that supersedes the stated facts. Youve never provided one fact in support of your position. Instead, your approach has been to simply chant the unsubstantiated claim that the translators used parentheses to identify supplied words or textual variants. But where does it say that they did this? It doesnt have to say it anywhere, you say. Its understood that they just did, you say.
The fact is, parentheses are a normal part of English punctuation. This punctuation mark evolved to signify to the reader explanatory words of the author that explain the words of the author that immediately precede the explanatory words. Thats all parentheses are, and thats all they mean, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Punctuation in the English language evolves. Whereas the KJV uses a lot of colons and semicolons, the more recent NKJV uses commas and periods instead. Whereas the KJV uses parentheses in Romans 1:2, the more recent NKJV doesnt. Whereas the KJV does not use parentheses in Romans 4:19, the more recent NKJV does. Whereas the KJV does not use parentheses in Romans 10:8, the more recent NKJV does. Whereas the KJV uses parentheses in 2 Corinthians 5:7, the more recent NKJV doesnt. Punctuation is merely a tool which the writer (in this case the translator) uses in an effort to clearly communicate ideas to the reader. Punctuation says nothing about the legitimacy of the words.
Sincerely,
Jim
Upvote
0
Similar threads
