[bibleprotector]

That is why modern versions cannot be cleansed, whereas the KJB has never been lost in history, nor corrupted to a state from whence it could not be recovered. However, we have been observing more and more deliberate and wrong changes being made in isolated editions of the King James Bible, such as, Webster's 1833, American Revisions of the 1850s, Scrivener's 1873, "The Bible Designed to be Read as Literature", KJ21, recent seemingly ordinary KJBs from certain American companies like World and Nelson, Norton's Cambridge revision, and so on. These all exhibit deliberate corruption of the King James Bible.

As for "honest mistakes", the King James Bible text is now available (thanks to computer software), free from any typographical errors at all.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

There are multiple problems with trying to use Scrivener's TR as a standard that is any way above the English of the King James Bible. Imho, #1 alone is sufficient to close the matter.

1) The text itself was simply reverse-engineered from the King James Bible, trying to find Greek word sources in various TR editions. Thus it was dependent upon the King James Bible, which was the master text.

2) F.H.A. Scrivener approached the text with much confusion personally. Matthew has discussed this some, with emphasis properly on the Revision, I will simply mention that Scrivener did not consider Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma as scripture, and thus was involved in the direct attack on God's word. Even if in many other places he defended the Traditional Text against corruptions.

3) The reverse-engineering attempt hits some snags, both in Greek text and in translation. You might look at a combination of the following sources to determine each one.

Matthew's writings,

Examples discussed similarly on solid KJB forums. Will and Teno have addressed this some.

Jay Green discussion
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Stud...green_j-p.html
Careful study, however, will show that this present text does not agree 100% with the text used by the KJV translators, though it virtually always does so

Some of the Jay Green concerns may be translational, e.g. words in italics that are implied in the Greek that do not require a Greek direct word source. I would double-check every example from Jay Green before using it directly in a post, as his own approach is also subject to scholarly and paradigm weaknesses.

Shalom,
Steven

The reason is very obvious. In Spanish one says that the sneaky deal was done under the water, but in English one says the sneaky deal was done under the table. They both mean the same, but the Spanish person understands the phrase if you use "under the water", and the English speaker understands the phrase if you use "under the table". If you translate the Spanish literally word for word into English, it won't be comprehended by English readers. So translating from one language to another is problematic. Word for word leaves much that is unintelligible, and thought for thought leaves doubt as to which is the correct thought precisely. The Hebrew word Chesed is translated mercy, but the word means more than a single English word can capture. Another thing the King James does is translate the same Greek word using a variety of English words. For example, In Romans 4, logizomai is translated counted, reckoned, imputed depending on the context. Correct translation in every one of those verses should have been consistent, whether Counted or Imputed or Reckoned, just one of those should have been used. In Greek there is only one word used for those verses. King James is my beloved study Bible along with a whole host of Greek and Hebrew helps, but I can not say it is perfect and remain honest. However, I believe it beats anything out there.

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by pshdsa

They both mean the same, but the Spanish person understands the phrase if you use "under the water", and the English speaker understands the phrase if you use "under the table". If you translate the Spanish literally word for word into English, it won't be comprehended by English readers. So translating from one language to another is problematic.

For human-authored works, it may be acceptable to re-phrase during translation, but we're talking about God-inspired Scripture.

The English language is full of Hebrew phrases precisely because the first English translations of the Bible took a strict functional equivalency approach to Bible translation. The book Crowned With Glory has a section on just this topic.

[bibleprotector]

Regarding pshdsa's post...

But there is no perfect flawless manuscript extant in Greek or Hebrew... how then can it be true that the Word of God is said to be present to the return of Christ (e.g. the Gospel that Christ said was to be preached before the end)?

Where is the Word of God in Greek or Hebrew, perfect in one volume? (Or, when will this occur before the end, and by what sure method can this occur?)

When are the inhabitants of the Earth going to hear this? (Will all nations have to learn Hebrew and Greek to hear and know the perfect truth of God?)

How can the perfect, all-powerful God fail to give the full sense of the Scripture to the Gentiles, and is God really so petty as to limit Himself to Hebrew and Greek, and really so weak as if He is unable to provide His Word perfectly, fully and utterly in English today?

Is sin, problems, imprecision really more powerful than God and His Word? Is the Word merely under man's control? Has Satan won, ensuring that the Word is not or cannot be sure, perfect, exact, flawless and right to the uttermost jot, tittle and sense in English today?

"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4).

[Steven Avery]

Hi pshdsa,

You essentially take two sides here against the middle.

Originally Posted by pshdsa

translating from one language to another is problematic. Word for word leaves much that is unintelligible ...... In Romans 4, logizomai is translated counted, reckoned, imputed depending on the context. Correct translation in every one of those verses should have been consistent, whether Counted or Imputed or Reckoned, just one of those should have been used.

pshdsa .. you seem to understand that words do not have only linear, static meanings (one reason why one-word-for-one-word translation attempts are so stilted and false and fail miserably). That context and structure is part of their usage and meaning, and the sense and scope and realm of a word will vary based on the very particular page, paragraph and sentence.

Thus you seem to understand that a varying target translation for the same source word will often be the correct result of pure translation. On the other hand you take the opposite view, in order to fabricate fault with the King James Bible.

Maybe you should rest and think this out some more, it seems there is something at work trying to confuse you from simple fully accepting the pure word of God in the King James Bible.

Shalom,
Steven

You brethren are very silly. The King James Bible is the Word of God. So are the Spanish Bibles, the Russian Bibles, the Chinese Bibles, the modern Bibles, the traditional Bibles, the Geneva Bible, the Septuagent. Now no one insists that the Septuagent is a perfect translation of the Jewish Old Testament into Greek, but it was the Word of God for a long long time. In modern times the Geneva Bible was the odds on favorite of the people. Then the King James supplanted that. Now modern Bibles based on the questionable critical text are easier to read. Yet they are all the Word of God and God uses all the versions to convict, bring to repentance, and give us desires to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, which is true faith in Him. And God desires all men to be saved (1Tim 2:4)
and He uses all the versions to get the job done by his servants who do not spend their time arguing which version is the best. Instead they are on their knees praying for a Church that needs repentance and a world that needs saving. I want people to read the version they find easy to read so they can be saved. So as the Lord sends me into the streets of my town, I make it simple for them. My Spanish Gospels of John are the NVI, and the English are the New King James. Privately I prefer the King James but I never grieve the Spirit by making an issue of it. Heck, the Word of God is so intricate and clever, that you can even lead someone to Christ with a Jehovah Witness Bible. But oh how I pray for revival in our churches. The fire is gone. And oh how the Spirit desires to save people. Leave off of these wranglings and get out in the street and carry your cross following our Lord.

[bibleprotector]

that you can even lead someone to Christ with a Jehovah Witness Bible

Which Christ?

Leave off of these wranglings and get out in the street and carry your cross following our Lord.

Who is doing the "wrangling"? Was it not pshda who said, "The Hebrew word Chesed is translated mercy, but the word means more than a single English word can capture. Another thing the King James does is translate the same Greek word using a variety of English words. For example, In Romans 4, logizomai is translated counted, reckoned, imputed depending on the context. Correct translation in every one of those verses should have been consistent, whether Counted or Imputed or Reckoned, just one of those should have been used. In Greek there is only one word used for those verses."?!?

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

3) The reverse-engineering attempt hits some snags, both in Greek text and in translation. You might look at a combination of the following sources to determine each one.

The real problem, Steve, is that Scrivener was establishing the text followed by the KJV 1611 not the KJV 1769 or beyond. He started with the Beza 1598 Greek text as his base text, and took all the printed editions that would have been available to the King James translators and compared them to the KJV of 1611, and where Beza 1598 was the best match he left it there and where it was not, he replaced it with Stephanus 1550 or whatever matched better. Thus he established the Greek text followed the 1611. But the 1769 is a revision of the 1611 that brought our modern KJVs into conformity with the Stephanus 1550 in various verses where previously they didn't agree exactly with that text, and as the italics were changed to reflect English words that don't exist in Stephanus as being italicized. Hence in comparing the modern KJV to Scrivener's text you will have a hard time in some passages, but no in comparing the actual 1611 to Scrivener. And of course, the one issue that KJVOs who really love to dog on Scrivener's text always complain about saying Scrivener messed up royally is that his text of Hebrews 10:23 says "hope" whereas the KJV says "faith." But all Greek text say faith, and this is not really a textual issue but translational. Hope and faith are synonyms in some contexts and this is not a verse for anyone to complain about for any reason.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

2) F.H.A. Scrivener approached the text with much confusion personally. Matthew has discussed this some, with emphasis properly on the Revision, I will simply mention that Scrivener did not consider Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma as scripture, and thus was involved in the direct attack on God's word. Even if in many other places he defended the Traditional Text against corruptions.

Scrivener's text being referred to is a re-construction of the text followed by the KJV of 1611, not an opinionated "these are the verses that I like" type of text like Nestle-Aland, so your objection here is a lie. Now, what you say may be true in one sense, but it is a lie in another because you are implying that Scrivener's "The Greek text underlying the Authorised Version of 1611" leaves out Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma, which of course it does not.

This all brings us back to the question that started the thread, 1611 or 1769? The name of this board is "AV1611 Bible Forums" and indeed most KJVO websites, forums, publications and whatever have themselves named something to do with AV1611 or 1611 KJV or KJV 1611, but do they really bash the 1611 in favor of the 1769? The 1611 did not have "amen" at the end of Ephesians. I have seen Steven Avery in the past bash Scrivener's "The Greek text underlying the Authorised Version of 1611" for leaving out "amen' at the end of Ephesians. He said something like (paraphrase from memory) "Scrivener really botched up when he left 'amen' out of the last verse of Ephesians. Go look at your KJV! It has 'amen' there! But Scivener who was trying to back-engineer the Greek text followed by the KJV left out the word 'amen' from the end of Ephesians." Ummm. You are mistaken. The 1611 of the KJV, the AV1611 after which this forum is named, that's what left out 'amen' at the end of Ephesians, and Scrivener in establish "The Greek text underlying the Authorised Version of 1611" (note that last bit there, "of 1611", and note well that it says "of 1611", and once again that is "of 1611," because it says "of 1611) left it out because the 1611 left it out. So, if leaving out 'amen' at the end of Ephesians is an error, then it is not Scrivener but the King James version of 1611 that made it. And so we go back and forth now, 1611 or 1769? How about either one is fine with me, and so is Scivener's text and any accurate translation based on it? Just curious here, but everyone who agrees with that position, raise your hand.