Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... I support the correcting of typographical errors. ...

Evidently, you do not.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... The King James Bible does not say "oaths". You are pointing to an edition with no apostrophes in it. But since there are now apostrophes properly placed throughout, we accept the apostrophes. ...

My KJB says "oaths". I do not have to accept the apostrophes of printers.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... So, how will you resolve the issue? On what basis do you claim that "oath's" must be altered to a plural form? ...

How do you resolve the issue? Do you accept some man's word. What is the man's name that put the apostrophe before the s? My 1611 KJB came first, it is your Bible that is the altered one.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... First, there is no final Greek text to appeal to as a perfect standard. ...

There are no perfect Greek manuscripts or texts. Correct, but so what? The manuscripts were some ancient believers' (imperfect) Bibles. From those MSS many printed Greek (better, but imperfect) texts were made, and then early English (imperfect) translations. Is there any doubt among the Greek texts that the word translated by the KJB men should be "oaths"?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... Second, various people have various opinions on what Greek words mean. ...

Among people that understand Greek, is there any disagreement that the word translated "oaths" is plural in Greek here?

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... Thirdly, by taking this approach, you are essentially rejecting that the KJB men, the proper KJB editors and many Christians who used and supported the KJB were right. ...

Nope. I am rejecting that the printers got it right.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... It is significant indeed to reject the KJB as it stands. It is significant that you seek to match up to the standard of Greek, and to the standard of an edition which clearly contains numerous typographical errors, spelling irregularities and the like. ...

You reject the 1611 KJB as it stands. If you sit in judgement of the 1611 KJB without any evidence, you're just guessing.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... How can you claim this? If what you were saying was true, you would have to show us what you think they are, ...

Well, I tried to show you this one (actually two) but you won't accept it.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... otherwise we do not have the knowledge of the Scripture to the jot and tittle today, and that we are somehow being "mislead" when we have doctrines which might hinge upon what you claim is a printer's mistake in present editions! ...

Don't be riduclous. The printers' errors don't change doctrine.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

... That question "which edition?" must be answered.

1611, duh.

[bibleprotector]

I do not have to accept the apostrophes of printers.

This is a rebellious attitude. After all, Psalm 68:11 talks about the publishing of God’s Word. Do you reject the publishers? Printers are part of that publishing.

In fact, how do you even know God’s Word in English, except for printers and editors? If you reject them, you are denying the godly work of correcting typographical errors which they performed!

How do you resolve the issue?

The issue is resolved by relying upon Divine Providence.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

The Scripture lays out the doctrine of providence in the supply of what we should receive.
1. The KJB is the final form of the Received Text, and the Word of God given to the whole world.
2. There is a line of proper editions which bring us to the purified presentation of the KJB. The same text and translation is found throughout the proper lineage of the editions of the KJB. One edition in this is the end, whereafter no more “improvements” can be made.

There are several reasons why the 1611 Edition cannot be upheld as the standard form, and why we must stand for a certain present edition as the final form.

For example, it is well reported and historically known that there were printer’s mistakes in the first edition of 1611. Therefore, the second edition must be better than the first where it corrects the first, but it also contained other printer’s mistakes, which then raises the question whether these were also corrections or not.

Therefore, we must accept the revision 1629 Edition as superior, and the revision of the 1638 Edition more so. This is because the editors included some of the surviving translators. The master copy of the translators was in the possession of the Cambridge printers at that time. There was afterward testimony from various quarters as to superiority of the 1638 work, which also brought in better uniformity in spelling, and so on.

The 1769 Edition must also be accepted, for the great improvements in the standardisation of the language, which have been so widely recognised, and that it has become the basis of all modern editions. The 1769 cannot be rejected, or called illegitimate.

My 1611 KJB came first, it is your Bible that is the altered one.

That is the very argument of those who support Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Now, the truth is that proper editorial work has taken place in the history of the KJB, and that the alterations are actually right, because they are bringing the correct text and translation of the men of 1611 to presentational perfection. You cannot claim that the first 1611 edition is perfect in its presentation.

There are no perfect Greek manuscripts or texts. Correct, but so what? The manuscripts were some ancient believers' (imperfect) Bibles. From those MSS many printed Greek (better, but imperfect) texts were made, and then early English (imperfect) translations. Is there any doubt among the Greek texts that the word translated by the KJB men should be "oaths"?

The doubt you have is based on wrongly going to the Greek. Do you know that King James Bible ONLY means that the English is correct and final authority. And it should be obvious that in practice, the editions from 1769 are held to be portraying the Scripture in the most accurate English form. Why would you be trying to say that the 1611 printing, which clearly meant “oath’s”, is somehow different to the present KJB, which actually has “oath’s”.

Among people that read Greek, is there any disagreement that the word translated "oaths" is plural in Greek here?

You are asking a true King James Bible onlyist this question. The answer is that the King James Bible is correct. The King James Bible states “oath’s”. To say otherwise is to corrupt the King James Bible.

Note, you cannot have the apostrophe-less form of “oaths”, as this does not make grammatical sense. The contention is between where the apostrophe should be placed. You cannot argue — please think honestly and critically here — that the 1611 edition is showing where to place the apostrophe, because it does not use them. Therefore you are relying upon your present knowledge of Greek. In other words, you are just trying to twist the KJB to your own opinion.

1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

Nope. I am rejecting that the printers got it right.

The origin of “oath’s” is not merely with printers, but with learned editors.

You reject the 1611 KJB as it stands.

I accept the 1611 KJB as it stands. It clearly is against what you are claiming.

If you sit in judgement of the 1611 KJB without any evidence, you're just guessing.

I have already shown how we can find out what is the purified presentation of the KJB. The 1611 Edition cannot be used to counter the fact that “oath’s” was meant then, as it is correctly presented now in all our Bibles today.

Well, I tried to show you this one (actually two) but you won't accept it.

So you admit to rejecting the KJB as it stands, and to corrupting it.

Don't be riduclous. The printers' errors don't change doctrine.

Then you will accept that the word “oath’s” is correct, because to say otherwise is to change doctrine, i.e. teaching of Scripture.

And now... That question "Which edition?" must be answered.

1611, duh.

Which 1611 Edition was the right one? In Ex. 21:26 “them” is found for “him” in some copies of the first issue, as is “he” for “she” in Song of Sol. 2:7.

A far more logical view is to believe that our present editions are superior, and that they are all correct with “oath’s” at Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26.

Rejecting the King James Bible in favour of the Greek is an untenable position.

Deceptively arguing concerning the 1611 Edition is utter vanity and foolishness.

[greenbear]

Does God have respect unto a man who approaches Him with the attitude that he will believe what God says about Himself if it agrees with what the man believes God should be like? Of course not. A man should learn what God says about Himself and form his opinions based on God's revelation of Himself to man.

Does God have respect unto a man who approaches His word with the attitude that he will believe a particular translation, in a particular language, at a particular point in time is His pure, perfect, complete word only if He accomplished it in the way that man believes it should be accomplished? Of course not. A man should examine the internal evidence that that translation is indeed the pure, perfect, complete revelation of Himself to man then search to discover the means by which God has accomplished it.

CT, you are requiring of God that He would have preordained the use of apostrophes at that time and that He would have caused there to be no printing errors and that the spelling of names were standardized. Why require that of God to believe? Search for internal evidence to support your historical interpretation of God's preservation and refinement of His word down to the present time, not the other way around.

If you determine the KJB is not His perfect, pure, complete word that He has promised He would preserve then please tell us what is? Or perhaps in your case, which versions are? The point of your argument seems to be that the AV1611 was full of errors that had to be corrected so we are hypocrites to say the KJB is the only standard today, not one of many.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Matthew 14:9
And the king was sorry:
nevertheless for the oath's sake,
and them which sat with him at meat,
he commanded it to be given her.

At least one very important point was not covered above, and lest readers get misled by some uncritical thinking, a little more exposition is in order.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Among people that understand Greek, is there any disagreement that the word translated "oaths" is plural in Greek here?

A Greek plural form .. definitely .. a plural of number when translated into English .. most assuredly not. (This is similar in concept to all those places in Hebrew, familiar to many, where a plural form is not 'number' and translates to a singular in English.)

First, note that three learned historical commentators (I only looked up three, three of quality and depth, and four as Matthew Henry references Henry Hammond), all extremely Greek-savvy and all at times departing from the King James Bible, fully and completely took Matthew 14:9 as one (singular) oath.

Matthew Henry
Herod’s grant of this demand (v. 9); The king was sorry, at least took on him to be so, but, for the oath’s sake, he commanded it to be given her. Here is, [1.] A pretended concern for John. The king was sorry. Note, Many a man sins with regret, that never has any true regret for his sin; is sorry to sin, yet is utterly a stranger to godly sorrow; sins with reluctancy, and yet goes on to sin. Dr. Hammond suggests, that one reason of Herod’s sorrow was, because it was his birth-day festival, and it would be an ill omen to shed blood on that day, which, as other days of joy, used to be graced with acts of clemency; Natalem colimus, tacete lites*We are celebrating the birth-day, let there be no contentions. [2.] Here is a pretended conscience of his oath, with a specious show of honour and honesty; he must needs do something, for the oath’s sake.

(continues with more discussion of the singular oath)

Albert Barnes
For the oath's sake -
Herod felt that he was bound by this oath; but he was not. The oath should not have been taken: but, being taken, he could not be bound by it. No oath could justify a man in committing murder. The true principle is, that Herod was bound by a prior obligation - by the law of God - not to commit murder; and no act of his, be it an oath or anything else, could free him from that obligation.

John Gill
Nevertheless for his oath's sake;
that he might not be guilty of perjury, chose rather to commit murder; though it would have been no iniquity in him, to have acted contrary to such a rash promise, and wicked oath; which would have been better to have been broke, than kept;

In fact, Jeffrey Nachimson in one article even shows a more modernist Greek grammarian viewpoint on this, including "Zerwick calls it pluralis categoriae", and discusses verse examples where the Greek plural does not have to be an English plural of number. Max Zerwick (1901-1975) was the author of " A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament", which was likely the reference. I will forego for now going into any additional technical stuff.

As an aside, this is one of the dozens of "hard errors" in many modern versions .. however not due to the alexandrian text, simply mistranslation.

Oh, there are some ironies here. This is one of the few Daniel Wallace NetBible non-blunders. Following the proper grammar and the context consistency the NetBible has the singular 'oath', "Although it grieved the king, because of his oath". And the NKJV, not surprisingly, blunders away with the errant "because of the oaths". (Suggestion: keep that handy for the NKJV error listings.)

=======================================

One other comment on the thread above.

I simply cannot agree with looking some of the 1611 changes that were discussed as: "extremely high degree of probability" (Matthew) of typographical error. In some cases, as I indicated in my post on page 1, I believe it very possible that the 1611 had a flaw that was corrected, most especially in the two revisions that were done in the early 1600s, the latter one definitely including two of the original King James Bible translators. Yes, it is possible that each and every such flaw was a "typographical error", however I see no "extremely high probability" of this. Personally, I see no difficulty in the purification process continuing beyond 1611 unto perfection in the Bible in our hands.

Shalom,
Steven Avery