The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[revrobor]

Like Joe, I believe the King James Bible is God's perfect Word in English, for English speaking people. In other words, the 1769 KJB that we hold in our hands today, is a perfect representation of God's Word in English, or, one could say; had God given His Word to mankind in English. Rather than the Hebrew and Greek, The KJB would be the Bible that He would have given.

In order to have the proper representation and support of all Bible doctrine, the KJB is the inspired, inerrant, and preserved Word of God.

More to come,

Jack

You're a comedy writer, right? The English in the KJV is NOT what we in America speak in America. There are several excellent new translations (including the New KJV) that are available and easy to understand without having to translate the translation. Many words used in the KJV are no longer in use by the English speaking world thus making it difficult for people to understand Scripture.

 

[Jack Koons]

I’ve mentioned several problems with the King James Version in previous posts.[bless and do not curse] Arguably the most significant set of problems has to do with the text that the translators were translating.[bless and do not curse] [bless and do not curse]Here I’ll stick with what I know the most about, the text of the New Testament.[bless and do not curse] [bless and do not curse]The brief reality is that in the early 17thcentury, Greek editions of the New Testament were based on very few and highly inferior manuscripts.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Only after the King James was translated did scholars begin to become aware of the existence of older, and far better, manuscripts.[bless and do not curse] For those of you who have read Misquoting Jesus, much of what follows will be a brief review.

Textual Problems with the King James: The Trinity ? Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

The above is a perfect example of the rhetoric used oftentimes as 'evidence' against the KJB. Take, for example, the phrase, "The brief reality is that in the early 17thcentury, Greek editions of the New Testament were based on very few and highly inferior manuscripts."
I must now ask, According to whom? This is subjective. The next phrase, "Only after the King James was translated did scholars begin to become aware of the existence of older, and far better, manuscripts."
This is misleading at best. Erasmus was very aware of Vaticanus, it is through him that other scholars became aware of it. The fact remains however, that even though Erasmus KNEW about Vaticanus, he chose NOT to use it.

Later in the above article, the author states, "As a result, translations into English of the Greek New Testament, based on Erasmus’s editions and those that replicated, more or less, his text, include translations of passages that were almost certainly not originally in the New Testament, but that had come to be added later by scribes.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Two of the most famous instances are the passage that tells the story of the woman taken in adultery and the one that gives the final twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] But the most famous of all is the so-called “Johannine Comma,” a reference to 1 John 5:7-8, the only passage in the New Testament that explicitly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity….."

There is very strong witness for the inclusion of both of these passages as being original. What then is the problem? The problem is that a so-called 'scientific' approach of determining what does, and doesn't belong in the Bible is being used by 'scholars; many of which, who do not even believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

Rather than actually researching the evidence ourselves, we take the word of scholarship against such passages. If one takes time to learn the facts, one wonders how these scholars ever have not been called out. The question is, has anyone here actually done any research, or are you all simply 'parroting' scholars, as is the author of the above article?

Jack

 

[tall73]

Like Joe, I believe the King James Bible is God's perfect Word in English, for English speaking people. In other words, the 1769 KJB that we hold in our hands today, is a perfect representation of God's Word in English, or, one could say; had God given His Word to mankind in English. Rather than the Hebrew and Greek, The KJB would be the Bible that He would have given.

In order to have the proper representation and support of all Bible doctrine, the KJB is the inspired, inerrant, and preserved Word of God.

More to come,

Jack

So just to be plain, you think that every word was perfectly rendered into English to reflect the autographs? I find that difficult to support, even without the existence of the autographs to compare.


One text I would like to review in this connection is John 10:16.

The KJV reads:

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The ESV for example reads:
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

The KJV renders that there shall be one fold, the ESV and others one flock. A fold refers to a building for sheep. Whereas a flock is a group of sheep.

In 10:16 there are two uses of the word "fold" in the KJV. Yet they are different underlying words in the Greek. The second usage which the ESV renders "flock" clearly refers to a flock in the Greek, not a building. This is true in the critical text, and true in the Textus receptus.

In the first clause, which both the KJV and the ESV render "fold" the underlying Greek term is αὐλῆς.

Here is all of the NT usage for the term, in the KJV:

Mat 26:3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas

Mat 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

Mat 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

Mar 14:54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

Mar 14:66 And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:

Luk 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

Luk 22:55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

Joh 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


Joh 18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

In each case the word clearly refers to a structure. This is also the way the word is used in the first part of 10:16 in the KJV:

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:

There are other sheep not of that pen, enclosure, fold, etc.

The second clause of John 10:16 uses a different Greek word, ποίμνη


KJV
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of thisfold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

ESV
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Here is the usage of this term, again in the KJV:


Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Luk 2:8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

1Co 9:7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

In all the other usage the KJV agrees with the usage of flock to denote the word, because it is talking about a flock of sheep. Yet in the second clause of John 10:16 it renders two different words as "fold" which removes the distinction between the two terms Jesus used.

So if there is no underlying Greek warrant to do so, why would they render the verse this way? The reason that seems most likely is that the translators of the KJV followed Wycliffe who translated his version from the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate renders both Greek terms with a single Latin term.

Some other English versions followed the rendering of "fold" as well, but it has no support from the Greek.

This is an instance where the eclectic nature of the KJV project, including taking well-known readings from earlier English versions, causes the KJV to diverge from all of the Greek texts, making this quite unlikely to be the same reading as the autographs.

While some argue that the term fold could mean figuratively a group of sheep, the point is that rendering them both with the same word loses the distinction. It is one that can be important theologically. Jesus wants to make one flock of His sheep. However, the notion here of separate enclosures seems to indicate possibly the Jewish nation and the gentiles. Even though in some ways the Jewish believers in Jerusalem continued to be zealous for and keep the law, and live as Jews, though in Christ (see Acts 21 for instance), they became one flock with the gentiles.

Ultimately one Greek word reflects a building, and one word reflects a group of animals. They are not the same. And Jerome's choice to render them by one Latin word, brought into English by Wycliffe, may have caused the KJV to include an incorrect reading.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

So just to be plain, you think that every word was perfectly rendered into English to reflect the autographs? I find that difficult to support, even without the existence of the autographs to compare.


One text I would like to review in this connection is John 10:16.

The KJV reads:

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

The ESV for example reads:
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

The KJV renders that there shall be one fold, the ESV and others one flock. A fold refers to a building for sheep. Whereas a flock is a group of sheep.

In 10:16 there are two uses of the word "fold" in the KJV. Yet they are different underlying words in the Greek. The second usage which the ESV renders "flock" clearly refers to a flock in the Greek, not a building. This is true in the critical text, and true in the Textus receptus.

In the first clause, which both the KJV and the ESV render "fold" the underlying Greek term is αὐλῆς.

Here is all of the NT usage for the term, in the KJV:

Mat 26:3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas

Mat 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

Mat 26:69 Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.

Mar 14:54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

Mar 14:66 And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:

Luk 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:

Luk 22:55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

Joh 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.


Joh 18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

In each case the word clearly refers to a structure. This is also the way the word is used in the first part of 10:16 in the KJV:

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:

There are other sheep not of that pen, enclosure, fold, etc.

The second clause of John 10:16 uses a different Greek word, ποίμνη


KJV
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of thisfold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

ESV
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Here is the usage of this term, again in the KJV:


Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Luk 2:8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

1Co 9:7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

In all the other usage the KJV agrees with the usage of flock to denote the word, because it is talking about a flock of sheep. Yet in the second clause of John 10:16 it renders two different words as "fold" which removes the distinction between the two terms Jesus used.

So if there is no underlying Greek warrant to do so, why would they render the verse this way? The reason that seems most likely is that the translators of the KJV followed Wycliffe who translated his version from the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate renders both Greek terms with a single Latin term.

Some other English versions followed the rendering of "fold" as well, but it has no support from the Greek.

This is an instance where the eclectic nature of the KJV project, including taking well-known readings from earlier English versions, causes the KJV to diverge from all of the Greek texts, making this quite unlikely to be the same reading as the autographs.

While some argue that the term fold could mean figuratively a group of sheep, the point is that rendering them both with the same word loses the distinction. It is one that can be important theologically. Jesus wants to make one flock of His sheep. However, the notion here of separate enclosures seems to indicate possibly the Jewish nation and the gentiles. Even though in some ways the Jewish believers in Jerusalem continued to be zealous for and keep the law, and live as Jews, though in Christ (see Acts 21 for instance), they became one flock with the gentiles.

Ultimately one Greek word reflects a building, and one word reflects a group of animals. They are not the same. And Jerome's choice to render them by one Latin word, brought into English by Wycliffe, may have caused the KJV to include an incorrect reading.

The Greek word αὐλή (aul&#275 has two basic meanings: 1. an enclosed space without a roof (such as a place where a flock of sheep may be kept. 2. a complex used for a dwelling. The complex may be as great as a royal mansion, or as humble as a family farm. The English word ‘fold’ may refer to either an enclosed space without a roof, or to a flock of sheep. The Greek word αὐλή (aul&#275 never refers to a flock of sheep, but the Greek word ποίμνη (poimn&#275 does.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (KJV)

The translators here seem to be understanding Jesus to be saying that He owns a flock of sheep living in His fold, but that there are other sheep belonging to someone else living in a different fold, and that He will bring those sheep to His fold and that the other party’s fold will be empty. Hence there will be one fold (with sheep in it), and one shepherd (Jesus). The KJV is not as incorrect in John 10:16 as it is sloppy in translating two distinctly different Greek words using the same English word. This is only one of many examples that could be cited, but it proves that the KJV failed to preserve the distinction of the two concepts expressed by two different Greek words in John 10:16.

 

[tall73]

The Greek word αὐλή (aul&#275 has two basic meanings: 1. an enclosed space without a roof (such as a place where a flock of sheep may be kept. 2. a complex used for a dwelling. The complex may be as great as a royal mansion, or as humble as a family farm.

[/quote]

Agreed, as the usage shows. Each time though it indicates a structure, and not a flock of sheep.

The English word ‘fold’ may refer to either an enclosed space without a roof, or to a flock of sheep. The Greek word αὐλή (aul&#275 never refers to a flock of sheep, but the Greek word ποίμνη (poimn&#275 does.

Agreed again.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. (KJV)

The translators here seem to be understanding Jesus to be saying that He owns a flock of sheep living in His fold, but that there are other sheep belonging to someone else living in a different fold, and that He will bring those sheep to His fold and that the other party’s fold will be empty.

We cannot know what the translators thought exactly, but I would think on one point they might disagree with the above:

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Joh 10:16 καὶ ἄλλα πρόβατα ἔχω, ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης· κἀκεῖνά με δεῖ ἀγαγεῖν, καὶ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούσουσι, καὶ γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν.

Jesus already owned both sheep. He indicated, "I have". He does not reference other owners.

But the sheep to this point were not one flock, and since He is likely referencing the Jewish and Gentile divide, regarded each other as foreign. There is also the implication that the Gentiles to date, though they belonged to the Shepherd, did not follow Him, or know His voice, yet He was going to remedy that shortly. He would cause them to follow Him as well and hear His voice, uniting them with the other flock as one flock, under one shepherd. The emphasis in the context is on the shepherd of the sheep. It is the sheep that Jesus is laying down His life for. The emphasis is not on the enclosure, but the sheep who are not yet one, but would be soon, as they both belong to Him.

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.


Also ἄγω, here rendered bring, also has the meaning "lead" which in the case of a shepherd and sheep analogy where the sheep know the shepherd's voice, seems a better translation. I must lead them also, and they will listen to my voice.

The analogy is not being pushed too far likely. Is Jesus going to unite Jews and Gentiles in the Jewish pen? I suppose people would debate that. Or is it simply that they become one flock?

Hence there will be one fold (with sheep in it), and one shepherd (Jesus). The KJV is not as incorrect in John 10:16 as it is sloppy in translating two distinctly different Greek words using the same English word.

If they intended fold to mean a flock as the English word could mean that, then it would be the same intended meaning as the Greek, but a poor word choice to maintain the Greek distinction. However, if they intend fold to mean an enclosure with sheep in it, then that would not be reflecting the Greek, because it is translating the word that you acknowledge references either a building or an open air enclosure.

Either way the choice of words by the KJV, as you indicated, is sloppy, for a couple of reasons. Jesus used distinct words in the Greek, and if the KJV is to represent the originals perfectly this distinction should be maintained. Also the meaning of the Greek word in 16b is always a flock of sheep. In every other instance of translating that word the KJV used "flock". So they were well aware that flock was the best translation of that word to avoid ambiguity. While the English word can mean either, the Greek cannot. So if their goal was to faithfully translate the Greek they should select the word that does so best, and maintains the two terms Jesus used, and maintain the term they had used to translate the word in all other contexts.

The fact that they did not do this indicates they had other reasons for rendering it the way they did. Likely the phrase was so common in other English Bibles due to the Vulgate, that it was retained.

Or some have even proposed that they wanted to depart theologically from the Geneva Bible on this point as some interpreted this verse in a more modern context (at the time). Some saw the folds as a reference to denominations, so that there could be one flock in multiple folds.

Whatever their reasons one cannot argue that taking two distinct Greek words and rendering them into one English word was the correct translation.

This is only one of many examples that could be cited, but it proves that the KJV failed to preserve the distinction of the two concepts expressed by two different Greek words in John 10:16.

Which was my point. And if they did not claim that it was the perfect rendering of the autographs into English that would be a minor point to make. Yet, it cannot represent the autographs perfectly here.

 

[Jack Koons]

So just to be plain, you think that every word was perfectly rendered into English to reflect the autographs? I find that difficult to support, even without the existence of the autographs to compare.

Tall, this is what I said,

Like Joe, I believe the King James Bible is God's perfect Word in English, for English speaking people. In other words, the 1769 KJB that we hold in our hands today, is a perfect representation of God's Word in English, or, one could say; had God given His Word to mankind in English. Rather than the Hebrew and Greek, The KJB would be the Bible that He would have given.

In order to have the proper representation and support of all Bible doctrine, the KJB is the inspired, inerrant, and preserved Word of God.

More to come,

Jack

I am fully aware that “every word” was not rendered from the source language to the target language. Greek, for example, uses the “article” in a manner which it is not used in English. This means that translators must be aware of the idioms of both languages in order to properly translate from the source, to the target language.

There are two issues that must be dealt with in this matter: 1) The methodology involved in compiling an eclectic Greek text (such as what Erasmus did, or what Westcott and Hort did); and 2) The methodology involved in translating the eclectic text, (such as what the translators of the King James Bible did, as well as what Westcott and Hort did).

Preservation deals also deals with God keeping the text pure in all ages; which we disagree as to the meaning of this as well. I completely understand that God allowed the variants; but I also understand that He has always had a plan, and method for dealing with those variants. That is where we get into issue (1) above.

The King James translators used ‘verbal formal’ equivalence to translate from Greek into English. While this is NOT an exact “word for word” translation as I have already stated, (because that is impossible), it is the perfect rendering in English, for what is written in the Greek.

By the way, when officials such as the President of the United States of America use translators, this is exactly what they do, and how they do it. They use verbal formal equivalence, and each side has a translator, to verify that the one doing the translating is doing it properly. Both translators are aware of both the idioms and vernacular of both languages, and therefore, arguing over what officials say rarely, if ever happens.

So if officials can do it, why can’t Bible scholars?

By the way, I’m not going to get into a verse by verse comparison, once that starts, it never stops. Faith must kick in somewhere along the way.

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The Greek word αὐλή (aul&#275 has two basic meanings: 1. an enclosed space without a roof (such as a place where a flock of sheep may be kept. 2. a complex used for a dwelling. The complex may be as great as a royal mansion, or as humble as a family farm.

Agreed, as the usage shows. Each time though it indicates a structure, and not a flock of sheep.



Agreed again.



We cannot know what the translators thought exactly, but I would think on one point they might disagree with the above:

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Joh 10:16 καὶ ἄλλα πρόβατα ἔχω, ἃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης· κἀκεῖνά με δεῖ ἀγαγεῖν, καὶ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούσουσι, καὶ γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν.

Jesus already owned both sheep. He indicated, "I have". He does not reference other owners.

But the sheep to this point were not one flock, and since He is likely referencing the Jewish and Gentile divide, regarded each other as foreign. There is also the implication that the Gentiles to date, though they belonged to the Shepherd, did not follow Him, or know His voice, yet He was going to remedy that shortly. He would cause them to follow Him as well and hear His voice, uniting them with the other flock as one flock, under one shepherd. The emphasis in the context is on the shepherd of the sheep. It is the sheep that Jesus is laying down His life for. The emphasis is not on the enclosure, but the sheep who are not yet one, but would be soon, as they both belong to Him.

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.


Also ἄγω, here rendered bring, also has the meaning "lead" which in the case of a shepherd and sheep analogy where the sheep know the shepherd's voice, seems a better translation. I must lead them also, and they will listen to my voice.

The analogy is not being pushed too far likely. Is Jesus going to unite Jews and Gentiles in the Jewish pen? I suppose people would debate that. Or is it simply that they become one flock?




If they intended fold to mean a flock as the English word could mean that, then it would be the same intended meaning as the Greek, but a poor word choice to maintain the Greek distinction. However, if they intend fold to mean an enclosure with sheep in it, then that would not be reflecting the Greek, because it is translating the word that you acknowledge references either a building or an open air enclosure.

Either way the choice of words by the KJV, as you indicated, is sloppy, for a couple of reasons. Jesus used distinct words in the Greek, and if the KJV is to represent the originals perfectly this distinction should be maintained. Also the meaning of the Greek word in 16b is always a flock of sheep. In every other instance of translating that word the KJV used "flock". So they were well aware that flock was the best translation of that word to avoid ambiguity. While the English word can mean either, the Greek cannot. So if their goal was to faithfully translate the Greek they should select the word that does so best, and maintains the two terms Jesus used, and maintain the term they had used to translate the word in all other contexts.

The fact that they did not do this indicates they had other reasons for rendering it the way they did. Likely the phrase was so common in other English Bibles due to the Vulgate, that it was retained.

Or some have even proposed that they wanted to depart theologically from the Geneva Bible on this point as some interpreted this verse in a more modern context (at the time). Some saw the folds as a reference to denominations, so that there could be one flock in multiple folds.

Whatever their reasons one cannot argue that taking two distinct Greek words and rendering them into one English word was the correct translation.



Which was my point. And if they did not claim that it was the perfect rendering of the autographs into English that would be a minor point to make. Yet, it cannot represent the autographs perfectly here.



Very well said. I agree with you.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The King James translators used ‘verbal formal’ equivalence to translate from Greek into English. While this is NOT an exact “word for word” translation as I have already stated, (because that is impossible), it is the perfect rendering in English, for what is written in the Greek.

How can “it” be “the perfect rendering in English, for what is written in the Greek” when other translations translate the Greek New Testament much more accurately using words with distinctly different meanings?

By the way, I’m not going to get into a verse by verse comparison, once that starts, it never stops.

“It” never stops because there are hundreds of examples where it can be proven from word usage in ancient Greek literature* that the Greek New Testament is much more accurately translated in the authorized revisions of the KJV than it is in the KJV of 1769.

Faith must kick in somewhere along the way.
Jack

“Faith” in what is not true is not faith at all—it is unwarranted presumption, the very basis of KJOism.

* By the early 1900’s, the new studies in the lexicography of Koine Greek had become so great in number and significance that Erwin Preuschen published his Greek-German lexicon in 1910. Upon his death in 1920, the revision of his lexicon was entrusted to Walter Bauer and this revision was published in 1928 as the second edition. In 1930, James Hope Mouton and George Milligan independently published The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. A thoroughly revised edition of the Preuschen lexicon was published in 1937 with only Bauer’s name on the title page. Bauer realized, however, that his lexicon, although a huge improvement over Thayer’s in terms of accuracy and completeness, needed to be thoroughly revised and updated and therefore undertook a thorough search of all Greek literature down to the Byzantine times to determine more precisely the meaning of the words found in the New Testament. This resulted in the publication of the monumental work, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur in 1949-1952. An English translation (by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich) of this lexicon was published by the University of Chicago in 1957 with the title, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature and became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon.” A second edition was published by the University of Chicago in 1979. A thorough revision by Frederick William Danker was published by the University of Chicago in 2000. It is very commonly referred to simply as “BDAG” and this name appears on the title page in parenthesis below the full title.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Tall, this is what I said,



I am fully aware that “every word” was not rendered from the source language to the target language. Greek, for example, uses the “article” in a manner which it is not used in English. This means that translators must be aware of the idioms of both languages in order to properly translate from the source, to the target language.

There are two issues that must be dealt with in this matter: 1) The methodology involved in compiling an eclectic Greek text (such as what Erasmus did, or what Westcott and Hort did); and 2) The methodology involved in translating the eclectic text, (such as what the translators of the King James Bible did, as well as what Westcott and Hort did).

Preservation deals also deals with God keeping the text pure in all ages; which we disagree as to the meaning of this as well. I completely understand that God allowed the variants; but I also understand that He has always had a plan, and method for dealing with those variants. That is where we get into issue (1) above.

The King James translators used ‘verbal formal’ equivalence to translate from Greek into English. While this is NOT an exact “word for word” translation as I have already stated, (because that is impossible), it is the perfect rendering in English, for what is written in the Greek.

By the way, when officials such as the President of the United States of America use translators, this is exactly what they do, and how they do it. They use verbal formal equivalence, and each side has a translator, to verify that the one doing the translating is doing it properly. Both translators are aware of both the idioms and vernacular of both languages, and therefore, arguing over what officials say rarely, if ever happens.

So if officials can do it, why can’t Bible scholars?

By the way, I’m not going to get into a verse by verse comparison, once that starts, it never stops. Faith must kick in somewhere along the way.

Jack

Jack, I do much appreciate your diligence and excellent method and manners in trying to get anti-preservation of God's word believers to see that they are wrong in doubting God's desire and ability to give us His word without error in the only language which has come close to being universal since the Lord divided the languages at the Tower of Babel. I learn from reading your posts. I studied everything you are saying in college 25 years ago and have forgotten most of it, but you are reminding me of those things and I love it. In my intellectual laziness (watch the "scholars" hang me over that one) I have chosen to develop a more simplistic approach to defending God's word which is the same approach I was taught shortly after I got saved. Back in the day when Peter Ruckman was the big name in exposing fraudulent versions as imposters of the Bible, one of his followers opened the Bible and showed me a few of the verses that say God's word is pure and cannot be changed so there can only be one English translation of God's word. When I got saved, I got saved the same way a child gets saved (I was 22) by realizing I was a sinner who deserved to die and burn in Hell and believing Jesus is God who died in my place and rose bodily from the dead offering me forgiveness for my sins which He died for, I called on God in His name to save me and He came into me, His Spirit gave me a new heart and I became a child of God. Suddenly, those words in the Bible were alive, leaping off the page as I soaked them up knowing the Author had given them to me so I can know Him and get to know Him more. It is this same childlike simplicity by which I met God personally through Jesus Christ and became born of His Spirit which tells me to obey God according to His word and not doubt His word. Many people who doubt that God preserved His word and gave it to us in English are truly born again and godly believers. My much missed and beloved mentor was one of those. Charles Stanley is another. My beloved mentor was an associate of the Sutera twins who were used of God as key instruments in the Canadian Revival which swept through (I believe it was Saskatchewan and Ontario) Canada and the east Coast and parts of the Midwest in the 70's.

Before I get into this only mildly more mature line of thought which in my renewed simplicity I prefer to avoid but do enjoy pointing it out because modern-version supporters try to insist it is based on lies (which is it not) and is not important (which it is) even if it is true, I want to say I believe all of the
people discussing in this thread are fine Christians with honest desire to help other Christians be good Christians and I appreciate them for their efforts in communicating their beliefs.


Many people who fight against the concept of God's hand in guiding the translation of His word into English to give us His word exactly as He gave it to the original authors are like many of the editors of the modern versions, ungodly people with beliefs contrary to Biblical doctrine because they are were not guided by God's Spirit to understand His word. Some of those editors were homosexuals who focused on softening the word of God's hard condemnation of same-sex fornications. Some of those authors believed in evolution and made sure to insert key changes in doctrine to allow more room for skepticism regarding how the Bible says God spoke everything and every creature into existence. Some of those authors were regular bar flies who bellied up for relaxation like monkeys who had evolved to develop drugs to ease the pains of life's emotional challenges.


Officials and Bible scholars cannot accurately translate God's Word if God is not guiding the translation. To accurately translate God's word, the translator must know not only the idioms of each language for "verbal formal" equivalence, but they must first know God in a relationship of holiness....without holiness no man shall see the Lord. The word of God is not understood by human intelligence, logic, or reasoning. If we do not have the Spirit of God in us and guiding us, we cannot understand what His word actually says and cannot possibly translate His word from one language to another because the idiom's of the different languages will obscure the actual intent of God's message which is spiritually discerned and not discovered by intellectual pursuit.

There is a reason anti-preservation folks do not like to discuss William Tyndale's conviction that God had called him to bring a conclusive translation of His word into English and gave his life for that cause, knowing he was a marked man while opposed by the Calvinists who loved the Geneva Bible and the Catholics who left the Calvinists alone in Geneva where John Calvin had fortified the city by brutalities of dictatorship. The Catholics still had a lust for blood unsatisfied by the Inquisition, and were accustomed to torturing and killing "heretics" who dared to challenge the Pope's power by publishing God's word in English. When Tyndale earned the title of The Hero of the Reformation after he prayed aloud "Lord, open the King's eyes"
while burning at the stake for his crime of making a better English translation free of Calvinistic coercions of doctrine through directive footnotes, God heard his prayer and against the wishes of hundreds of religious leaders of the day commissioned the official translation of the Bible into English under his authority to give us the King James Authorized Bible.
It was God's hand in bringing us the King James Bible, and His Spirit guiding the translators under the King God had placed as the authority of England, the King of the people through which the English language by God's grace became probably the only and last thing anywhere close to a universal language before the anti-Christ sets up his dominion in a worldwide dictatorship.

Godly Christians will lay these arguments to heart in fear of God. Some of them will continue to believe the Bible has errors, but they will give serious consideration to these arguments defending God's desire and ability to give us His Word exactly as He meant for us to have it in our own language. Godly Christians question the veracity of the King James Bible with a bit of fear in there hearts for the possibility that their own personal translation may be erroneous and in their error they would misrepresent God and incur His wrath.
Ungodly translators have no fear of God in their translation.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Princeton Guy
"Either way the choice of words by the KJV, as you indicated, is sloppy, for a couple of reasons. Jesus used distinct words in the Greek, and if the KJV is to represent the originals perfectly this distinction should be maintained. Also the meaning of the Greek word in 16b is always a flock of sheep. In every other instance of translating that word the KJV used "flock". So they were well aware that flock was the best translation of that word to avoid ambiguity. While the English word can mean either, the Greek cannot. So if their goal was to faithfully translate the Greek they should select the word that does so best, and maintains the two terms Jesus used, and maintain the term they had used to translate the word in all other contexts. "

And you think the translators of the King James Bible were so simple-minded that they did not understand this? The thing you are leaving out is the Spirit of God in directing the translation of His word, the same as He directed the original authors to write it down even in the many instances where they could not possibly have understood what they were writing, why they were writing it (other than obedience to God who was commanding them), or what it meant. God cares about what He said, and He cares about how people might misunderstand or misinterpret it, and He cares about how people might change it by erroneous or misguided (self-willed) translation and those people who give erroneous or fraudulent translations will be held to stricter judgment and punishment by God as false teachers. I suggest you investigate the doctrines implied by what you are accusing of being a questionable or erroneous translation before you assert the translation is or may be wrong.
By your own words you show the doctrine can vary if the translation varies, and that is the whole issue in the preservation of Scripture. The doctrine of God cannot vary, and we know His doctrine in English by His word in English which cannot vary. It's about knowing God through His word, and God cannot lie. If you don't understand the doctrine, you don't (well, you might but I sure won't) go saying the word needs to be changed to make it clearer or easier to understand.....it's us, you and I both, who need to be changed to be conformed to the image of God's Son.
The goal of the translators was to be used of God to bring His word to the English speaking world. God did the work, and He used the translators to do it. That's the sticking point which you are denying by which many have made a career out of selling their intellectual prowess as something they should be paid for. I'm not buying it.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The Greek word αὐλή (aul&#275 has two basic meanings: 1. an enclosed space without a roof (such as a place where a flock of sheep may be kept. 2. a complex used for a dwelling. The complex may be as great as a royal mansion, or as humble as a family farm.

I do enjoy your lengthy exposition of Greek here, as long as you are not referring to anything which the minority text contradicts compared to the majority text. Honestly, many people would be interested enough to buy your work, so why not just white out the translation of the King James Bible in this area and replace it with your lengthy explanations and do it throughout the whole Bible and make your own Bible and get it copyrighted? By your skill and eloquence, I believe you could compile a very entertaining read in a new version and probably make is a best-seller to eclipse the NIV. You could advertise it as having these colorful and descriptive explanations of the meanings in historical contexts that may have been forgotten in modern English. I do enjoy the picturesque historical references, and have a few books in my library about life in Bible times which your long explanation of one Greek word would fit very well.
You could thank me for giving you the idea in the book's introduction, but don't ask me to endorse it if in any way you say the King James Bible is wrong in the tiniest word or punctuation mark.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Princeton Guy
"Either way the choice of words by the KJV, as you indicated, is sloppy, for a couple of reasons. Jesus used distinct words in the Greek, and if the KJV is to represent the originals perfectly this distinction should be maintained. Also the meaning of the Greek word in 16b is always a flock of sheep. In every other instance of translating that word the KJV used "flock". So they were well aware that flock was the best translation of that word to avoid ambiguity. While the English word can mean either, the Greek cannot. So if their goal was to faithfully translate the Greek they should select the word that does so best, and maintains the two terms Jesus used, and maintain the term they had used to translate the word in all other contexts. "

And you think the translators of the King James Bible were so simple-minded that they did not understand this? The thing you are leaving out is the Spirit of God in directing the translation of His word….

The translators of the KJV did, in many place, a sloppy job—and many examples of this sloppiness has been documented in this and other CF threads over the past 15 or so years. Members of the KJO crowd have, as you have above, attempted to place the blame for this sloppiness right in God’s lap in the person of the Holy Spirit by claiming that the Holy Spirit inspired the sloppiness.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

You're a comedy writer, right? The English in the KJV is NOT what we in America speak in America. There are several excellent new translations (including the New KJV) that are available and easy to understand without having to translate the translation. Many words used in the KJV are no longer in use by the English speaking world thus making it difficult for people to understand Scripture.

Talking about comedy, and calling the NKJV an excellent translation less difficult to understand than the King James Bible, the following should be a barrel full of laughs for you...it sure is giving me a good dose of laughter which doeth good like medicine; the idea that you think translations other than the King James Bible are "excellent" and/or easier to understand.

Let's look at some of the differing translations in the New King James Version compared to the King James Bible and with a straight face tell me which is more difficult to understand. I'm trying not to laugh too much as I make these comparisons...seriously now, the hard translation first in all comparisons, and the easy translation immediately after....then at the end guess which one is the NKJV which they sold to you by making you believe it is easier to understand:

DO NOT CHEAT BY LOOKING UP THE VERSES BEFORE YOU GUESS WHICH IS THE NKJV BASED ON BEING THE TRANSLATION THAT IS EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.


I left out references to Hell which in the NKJV for some odd reason is always changed to hades in the entire New Testament. That one would show too easily which column is actually the NKJV.

Psalm 43:1 Vindicate vs. Judge
Romans 14:13 resolve vs. judge
Joshua 22:24 descendants vs. children
Hebrews 7:8 mortal men vs. men that die
John 6:7 denarii vs. pennyworth
Ezekiel 31:4 rivulets vs. little rivers
I Kings 10:28 Kevah vs. linen yarn
1 Samuel 13:21 pim vs. file
Isaiah 2:16 sloops vs. pictures
Lamentations 5:3 waifs vs. fatherless
Acts 27:17 Syrtys Sands vs. quicksands
Matt 5:40 tunic vs. coat
Matthew 20:2 a denarius vs. a penny
Matthew 27:7 garrison vs. a band of soldiers
Psalm 139:23 anxieties vs. thoughts
Isaiah 34:6 overflowing vs. fat

OK, NOW BASED ON WHICH TRANSLATION IS THE EASIER TO UNDERSTAND, GUESS WHICH IS THE NKJV.

Did you make a wise purchase based on which version is easier to understand, or did you fall for a bill of goods and buy into a lie?

As for the NKJV being an "excellent translation", let's compare some of it's variance with the King James Bible and try to keep a straight face as we ask ourselves which translation shows itself to be "excellent" in ascribing excellency to the Most Excellent One, Our Savior and KING. In the following verse comparisons, chose the excellent translation and then guess which is the NKJV, the former or the latter in each comparison:

DO NOT CHEAT BY LOOKING UP THE VERSES TO SEE WHICH IS THE KJV (though this quiz is easier to guess)


The Bible on the "excellency" of Jesus Christ

Luke 13:8................. Lord vs. Sir
Matthew 18:26............and worshipped him, saying, Lord vs. before him saying, Master
Matthew 20:20 ...........worshipping him vs. kneeling down
John 8:35...................The Son vs. a son
Isaiah 66:5.................(omitted) vs. he shall appear

Now considering the excellency of Jesus Christ as God incarnate, guess which side of the "vs." is from the excellent translation. Only one translation can be "the" excellent one, so which translation is THE excellent one based on the above comparisons? Would it not be the one which ascribes the highest excellency to our Most Excellent Savior?

This is an extremely brief and incomplete comparison between the NKJV and King James Bible showing the lie that the modern version is "excellent" or "easier to understand". Those lies are used as selling gimmicks and somebody who owned a Circus said something about people who will buy gimmicks....I forget exactly who it was or what they said, but I do remember it was funny.

This detailed and undeniable exposer can be done on any and all modern versions compared to the King James Bible. All modern versions prove by their own words that they cannot be the word of God, and a careful examination proves that none of them make the word of God easier to understand so they are not even useful as paraphrases and the changes in them obscure the teaching of God who glorifies His Son.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

The translators of the KJV did, in many place, a sloppy job—and many examples of this sloppiness has been documented in this and other CF threads over the past 15 or so years. Members of the KJO crowd have, as you have above, attempted to place the blame for this sloppiness right in God’s lap in the person of the Holy Spirit by claiming that the Holy Spirit inspired the sloppiness.

I don't believe God is guiding you in translation, sorry. Maybe others will believe God is guiding you in your translation, I will not because you are trying to cast doubt on God's word, and in the minds of some people you may be succeeding. I'm not one of those you can succeed with, sorry. God gave me His word in English, that's a fact I cannot deny. You do not give me God's word in English because you are not God. Sorry, no offense intended, I'm only stating facts. I know whom I have believed and it's not you, sorry.

 

[tall73]

Preservation deals also deals with God keeping the text pure in all ages; which we disagree as to the meaning of this as well. I completely understand that God allowed the variants; but I also understand that He has always had a plan, and method for dealing with those variants.

Why would this method only come about around 1611?

By the way, I’m not going to get into a verse by verse comparison, once that starts, it never stops.

You don't have to get into them. However, we will post them if we feel they are valid. Whether you respond is of course up to you.

However, I am not sure how convincing you will be if before you have even spelled out the evidence for your view you state that you will not address any specific examples in the text that may challenge your view.

 

[tall73]

Tall, this is what I said,



I am fully aware that “every word” was not rendered from the source language to the target language. Greek, for example, uses the “article” in a manner which it is not used in English. This means that translators must be aware of the idioms of both languages in order to properly translate from the source, to the target language.

There are two issues that must be dealt with in this matter: 1) The methodology involved in compiling an eclectic Greek text (such as what Erasmus did, or what Westcott and Hort did); and 2) The methodology involved in translating the eclectic text, (such as what the translators of the King James Bible did, as well as what Westcott and Hort did).

Whether you take a word for word or verbal formal equivalence is not so much of a concern to me. The thing I am wondering about is how you can demonstrate that the KJV is always employing the best translation and the best manuscripts that reflect the autographs.

The example already given shows that they did not keep distinct terms as were in the Greek when describing the fold and flock. That was not the best translation, whether word for word or otherwise.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Whether you take a word for word or verbal formal equivalence is not so much of a concern to me. The thing I am wondering about is how you can demonstrate that the KJV is always employing the best translation and the best manuscripts that reflect the autographs.

The example already given shows that they did not keep distinct terms as were in the Greek when describing the fold and flock. That was not the best translation, whether word for word or otherwise.

God gave me His word in English and I believe Him, I don't believe you, sorry.

I think the example you are using only shows that you do not understand the doctrine so you cannot understand what the correct translation is. I believe God so I know what His word is. If I can't understand what He is saying, I'll ask Him to change me so I can understand His word, not try to change His word to make Him fit my limited understanding. You can do whatever you choose as long as God permits.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

"Why would this method only come about around 1611?

You don't have to get into them. However, we will post them if we feel they are valid."




Joe answered:

The devil felt, and probably still does feel, his rebellion against God is valid...our feelings do not justify our beliefs, our beliefs do not justify our feelings. Only God can justify us. Feeling something is valid does not make it valid. Only the Word of God makes anything or anybody valid. That's why it's good to know God preserved His word. By His word we know what is valid. All rebellion against God is invalid. All casting of doubt on His word is invalid.

 

[tall73]

Princeton Guy
"Either way the choice of words by the KJV, as you indicated, is sloppy, for a couple of reasons. Jesus used distinct words in the Greek, and if the KJV is to represent the originals perfectly this distinction should be maintained. Also the meaning of the Greek word in 16b is always a flock of sheep. In every other instance of translating that word the KJV used "flock". So they were well aware that flock was the best translation of that word to avoid ambiguity. While the English word can mean either, the Greek cannot. So if their goal was to faithfully translate the Greek they should select the word that does so best, and maintains the two terms Jesus used, and maintain the term they had used to translate the word in all other contexts. "

And you think the translators of the King James Bible were so simple-minded that they did not understand this?

No, in fact the opposite was stated. They did know it as reflected by their other usage, which means they have a different reason for translating against the Greek, probably following a popular English translation, Wycliff's after the Vulgate.

The thing you are leaving out is the Spirit of God in directing the translation of His word, the same as He directed the original authors to write it down even in the many instances where they could not possibly have understood what they were writing, why they were writing it (other than obedience to God who was commanding them), or what it meant.

Except the Greek manuscripts all agree on this point, that it refers to a flock, not a fold, and they accurately translated it as such in all other instances. So if God inspired the original, and they departed from the original, then they are not in fact following the original.

The doctrine of God cannot vary, and we know His doctrine in English by His word in English which cannot vary. It's about knowing God through His word, and God cannot lie. If you don't understand the doctrine, you don't (well, you might but I sure won't) go saying the word needs to be changed to make it clearer or easier to understand.....it's us, you and I both, who need to be changed to be conformed to the image of God's Son.

Huh? So if all the Greek texts have one word and they translate it to mean something else, then it is the reader who points that out that is changing what God said?

No.

The goal of the translators was to be used of God to bring His word to the English speaking world. God did the work, and He used the translators to do it. That's the sticking point which you are denying by which many have made a career out of selling their intellectual prowess as something they should be paid for. I'm not buying it.

Notice you made no compelling argument at all why the word for a group of animals should be translated by a word that means a structure. Nor did you address why in the text two different Greek words are used, but they are conflated into one English word.

You just said that you believe the KJV is God's word in English, so anything that goes against it, even all the readings of the Greek which are all we have left of the original autographs, must be wrong.

You have posited your view and support it only by saying you are convinced of it. And then you say any other view is against God's will and we should conform. You haven't shown it was God's will. You have only shown it is your view.

 

[tall73]

God gave me His word in English and I believe Him, I don't believe you, sorry.

I think the example you are using only shows that you do not understand the doctrine so you cannot understand what the correct translation is. I believe God so I know what His word is. If I can't understand what He is saying, I'll ask Him to change me so I can understand His word, not try to change His word to make Him fit my limited understanding. You can do whatever you choose as long as God permits.

Unless God changed His word between the copying of all the Greek texts and the translation of the KJV then the KJV is not the word of God in that verse, because it does not agree with the Greek in that verse. The Greek used two distinct terms with two distinct meanings. The KJV does not.

And in case you didn't notice we are not dealing with a textual variant here. All the Greek texts agree on that underlying word. And the KJV translators translated it correctly every time but that one, with no textual support from the Greek at all.

You have been talking about preservation this whole time. Well this is one place where all the Greek manuscripts that have the verse agree on that word, and you still won't accept what they say because you have committed yourself to a translation that differs.

That is not advocating for preservation of God's word.