The following is a sequel of sorts to my previous post as I wanted to share even more variations between the original KJV and the current edition.
Again, my question to KJV-Onlyists is this: How do you determine what is perfect or not? If you had a 1611 KJV in your hands, would you be holding the perfect Word of God? Why or why not? At what point did the KJV become the perfect Word of God? Was it in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, or 1769? The KJV was edited a bit in each of those years. Is the 1769 edition perfect? Why? Which: the Oxford edition or the Cambridge edition? Why? What about the Modern King James Version or the Comfort-able King James Version?
Was there a perfect Word of God in English in 1768? If so, why was it edited a year later?
Most importantly, I would like to ask this: if the 1769 edition of the English Bible is perfect, what was the perfect Bible a year before that? Clearly it couldn’t have been the KJV ’cause it was still in need of editing.
KJV-Onlyism is a divisive tradition full of more holes than a bowl of Cheerios. May the Lord open the eyes and ears of all those trapped by this stronghold, just as He did for me.
Here are some more changes between the 1611 and the 1769 editions of the KJV. You can see that the changes in some instances affect the meaning of the context quite significantly!
- Deuteronomy 26:1 – “which the Lord giueth” vs. “which the LORD thy God giveth”
- Joshua 13:29 – “tribe of Manasseh, by” vs. “tribe of the children of Manasseh by”
- Ruth 3:15 – “he went into the citie” vs. “she went into the city”
- Psalm 69:32 – “seeke good” vs. “seek God”
- Jeremiah 49:1 – “inherit God” vs. “inherit Gad”
- Matthew 16:16 – “Thou art Christ” vs. “Thou art the Christ”
- Mark 10:18 – “There is no man good” vs. “there is none good” (note that now “there is” is marked as being added by the translators for clarity)
- 1 Corinthians 4:9 – “approued to death” vs. “appointed to death”
In addition to all of those variations, there is another interesting one at Jeremiah 34:16.
Modern versions of the KJV (the Oxford edition and the Cambridge edition) vary on this matter. The Oxford ed. says “…whom ye had set at liberty…” while the Cambridge ed. says “…whom he had set at liberty…”
Which is correct?
If the KJV alone is our authority, how on earth would we ever figure it out? However, thankfully, the preserved manuscript evidence is our authority, not a translation from that preserved evidence. The Hebrew in that passage is plural, and so “you” (or, as the KJV would read, “ye”) is the correct translation. But if all you have in your hands are two KJVs — one Oxford and one Cambridge — how could you ever come to any sort of conclusion? Even if you had the Hebrew text there, certain forms of radical KJV-Onlyism, such as that of Dr. Ruckman and his supporters, would prohibit using the Hebrew text — especially if it would override what the KJV says (or, in this instance, what the preferred edition of the KJV says).
Thank the Lord that He has preserved His Word through a mass of manuscripts which allow us to know His Word thoroughly rather than a singular translation which limits our studies to the interpretations of fallible men (i.e., “God forbid” is an interpretation — the word “God” doesn’t even appear in the Greek in those passages, but if you are forbidden to look at the Greek by an Onlyist doctrine, how would you ever know‽).
The above information is from the excellent work The King James Only Controversy by James R. White, which I recommend to anyone curious about whether modern Bible versions are trustworthy or not.
The variations between the 1611 & the 1769 editions of the KJV can be verified using e-Sword which has both Bibles available for download freely.
30 replies on “More Changes Between the 1611 and the 1769 Editions of the KJV”
My question in addition to the above:
Most KJVOs argue that the translation process was inerrant, but the printing process was not. But in what other form has the KJV existed other than printed form? Pre-printed? The pre-printed KJV, considered by many to be inerrant, perished in the Great Fire after being purchased by Barker (the printer). Based on what were the corrections after the year 1666 (most KJVs published today are post-1666 editions) made? Other errant prints? A third revision revelation?
If God willed for us to have a perfect translation in English, why would he go through all the trouble of translating inerrantly only to have man goof up when printing the very first copy in 1611. And the second. And the third, and so on… When did the KJV become perfect?
The Bible supports clearly and precisely that God gave man His word. It also supports clearly and precisely that it is our responsibility to spread that word. And we have been, are, and will continue to do this. But nowhere in the Bible does it even hint toward the possibility of Gods hand in a second revelation, or His hand in a single inerrant translation. This is all a man-made doctrine, fabricated by those wanting to guess how God works, and what God prefers.
Psalms 119:89 does not say “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in the KJV”.
I have chosen to remove KJVO from my faith because it has no scripture backing it. It leaves a path of hatred and division that is really sad to see in our churches today. The translation we choose should not be an excuse for hatred or separation simply because it’s not the KJV.
I use the New Scofield Reference Bible-the 1967 edition. It is better to my mind but by no means infallible! The original manuscripts were! I heard a KJO person say that the KJV translators make the KJV bible better! that my friends is about as bad as it could get! I use the bible that I do because I used it for over thirty years in my ministry!
To Morris, Rick and all commentators critical of the KJV:
I begin with some famous words of our Savior
Matthew 4:4
“It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (quoted by Christ from Deut.8:3)
Every spoken word of God is inerrant, and now appears as scripture inspired by His spoken dictation of the words to the minds of autograph writers. To illustrate, dictation to Moses is the only explanation for words of the creation account spoken before men existed; it continues through- out scripture, being emphasized by words that the text indicates are spoken by God to Old Testament men like Moses & David, and words that the text indicates are spoken by God Himself in the person of Christ.
Now if we today are to live by every inerrant word from God’s mouth, they must all be preserved in their inerrant state, and in the language we understand, English in our case. Further, living by God’s Word applies to the entire era endowed with His written Word, so traditional texts alone will preserve His Words. We conclude that our traditional KJV and its Greek & Hebrew/Aramaic basis preserve inerrancy of God’s Words spoken in dictation inspiration of the autographs. In the English, a KJV-only position can really be considered as a God’s-Word-only position that today is attacked relentlessly, as it has been throughout text history.
Now modern critical Greek texts are based mainly on Alexandrian manuscripts highly variant among them- selves in textual & doctrinal matters, and lost to churches for ~1400 years before being restored by scholars in the 19th century A.D. Clearly, the critical texts can’t possibly be the source of every inerrant word from the mouth of God by which mankind has always been required to live throughout the New Testament era, and can’t be part of God’s plan for His Word in His church.
Now we must understand the nature of biblical inerrancy as the product of both divine & human factors since God bestows & preserves His Word through men. Thus we can expect variance in text literality due to the human factor, while the divine factor ensures against any actual error that distorts the teaching. Clearly, different words can be utilized to state a given truth, and the 1611 KJV translators exclaimed this in their preface. What results is an exact contextual equivalence in manuscripts of the traditional Greek & Hebrew/Aramaic textual basis, an equivalence also exhibited by a translation God has ordained through scholars that He calls to this kind of work, and not just any scholars who assume they have the right to translate.
Now the statement by Christ on living by every word from God’s mouth is likely best interpreted as meaning to live by the effect of every word on the context of every biblical teaching. Thus in translation it is necessary that no word or group of words subtract from, or add to, the sense of the context, and a good example of this is the rendering of the Deut.8:3 Hebrew by Christ in the Greek of Mat.4:4; the forms of the two renderings, as they appear in the KJV, are as noted below.
Mat.4:4 “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
Deut.8:3…man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.
The words “shall & alone & God” in Matthew differ from the words “doth & only & Lord” in Deuteronomy, yet the sense of each word is the same in both verses, so exact equivalence applies here. Further, the words “doth man live” at the end of the Deuteronomy quote, though not in Matthew, don’t add anything to the context of the teaching in Matthew, so inerrancy in the form of exact equivalence in the Greek & Hebrew appears here, and it’s preserved in KJV English. It appears that Christ Himself teaches exact-equivalence as the form of translation inerrancy.
Regarding printing error, it is interesting that some error of this type produces truth that supports the contextual teaching, as in the cases of Ruth 3:15, Ps.69:32 & Jer.34:16, noted in my commentary below. Thus God seems to take note of printing error, but has an unspecified goal when He does not intervene in this matter. For printing error in general, I suggest you consider this type of human error as the means by which God shows that His direction is usually confined to the translators. People in general are required to be concerned about such error, demanding a correction as part of their devotion to God’ Word. It is for mankind in general that teaching of the Word is intended, and when nations display indifference, their text will be marred for the long term, in recognition of their error. In regard to the KJV, we note the famous case in which the word “not” was omitted from the command, “thou shalt not commit adultery,” an error for which the printer was very heavily fined to show that England wouldn’t tolerate such error in the sacred text; this is one way that people in general can show their high regard for God’s Word, to witness to the unbelieving world in general.
Note to Rick: the concept of exact equivalence applies to various examples of differences in wording in the 1611 & 1769 KJV that you have noted above, and that I pointed out in my initial commentary noted below. You should study textual concepts before continuing to criticize the KJV, and in doing so, you might like to consult my website, KJVTextualTechnology.com that expounds on above-noted concepts & others.
Hoping for your conversion to Bible-based faith,
Lawrence Bednar
P.S. Rick: To be a bit more comprehensive regarding my examples of equivalence, I should point out that, while the 1769 edition maintains equivalence with the 1611, a primary goal was to maximize literality agreement with the Hebrew or Greek. To illustrate this, I refer back to some of your earlier-noted cases of renderings that you think of as error in one edition or the other. A few such cases are reviewed below, with the 1769 rendering appearing after that of the 1611, as in your listing.
1. Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
Here context emphasizes that the Lord Himself is among the people of Israel, as in verse 10 particularly, and the 1611 emphasizes this aspect, saying in effect, “Ark of the covenant, even (of implied) the Lord” (“of” can’t be rendered once “even” is chosen). There is no difference in the contextual teaching of the the editions. The 1769 simply follows the Hebrew more literally.
2. Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
Here context emphasizes that the Lord will bless Israel, which is particularly noted in verse 11, so it is obvious that the goodness that will be conferred is that of the Lord so that absence of “my” in the 1611 has no contextual effect. Again, the 1769 simply follows the Hebrew more literally.
3. Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwelling places”
Here “their” in the 1611 refers to men of Babylon, while “her” refers to the nation of Babylon (that is of feminine grammatical gender) named in the same verse, and the two pronouns are equivalent in referring to this enemy of Israel. Again, the 1769 simply follows the Hebrew more literally.
4. Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
Here the pronoun “him” in the 1611 refers back to the “house” (of Jerusalem) in verse 3, “house” being a grammatically masculine term, and “them” in the 1769 refers to the people of the city, so the two renderings are contextually equivalent, with “them” being more literal in regard to the Hebrew.
Regards,
Lawrence Bednar
Actually, my Pitt Minion Cambridge edition has “whom ye had set at liberty…” for Jeremiah 34:16, which you list above as being the Oxford variant. I have noticed that even among Cambridge editions, there are some variations in some verses, including italics in Scrivener’s work where they are lacking in the Pitt Minion and the Concord. I use Cambridge editions in the (possibly naive) hope that I am coming close to a 1769 revision of the AV. Surely (one would hope) the Cambridge people have had the opportunity to maintain a good continuity in AV text since they’ve been publish English bibles since the late 1500s…but it appears that even at the pivotal point of 1769 there is more than one English text afoot.
Thank you for addressing this difficult topic.
John Rochelle, Gray, Tennessee
I’ve been rolling back a copy of a Cambridge printing to read like the 1611 version, with a few potential changes marked in the notes based on evidence – experience in 16th/17th century English, comparison with earlier translations, etc., to preserve the exact 1611 text in modern spelling and at the same time a reconstructed text based on my conjecture and based on the newer printings.
It will be a long time before I get anywhere :/
The “which edition?” question is answered from a KJBO view on my bibleprotector website.
Bible Protector: Commenting in a way that does not add to the conversation at all but instead solely advertises your own site is spam, so I’m removing your link. Curious users can find you via Google.
The challenges which arise due to editions and revisions of the King James Version pale in comparison to various other issues Onlyists must face.
Which edition is correct? Easy: They are all correct.
Obviously you don’t understand at all how preservation works.
And you evidently have no idea how “truth” works; the editions contradict each other. If they’re all correct, which truth is more, well, true?
Understand. The Book is fruit from the “Tree of Knowledge” so that the children of Adam and Eve may know the difference between good and evil. Correct conclusions can be drawn from most ANY edition.
The important part is that you read it and learn from it!
Jim posed an excellent question. There are indeed today at least one and possibly two annotated Bishop’s Bibles that were used by the Translators to take notes and effect changes where necessary. There is also in existence one notebook which was the work of one of the translators on the Pauline Epistles. That was discovered in the 1950’s in a public library in England which one of the Translators founded. Also, there are printed editions that were made to correct printing errors from editions that had flooded the market from foreign printers as well as public. So, if the scholars can collate the appropriate text, then why can’t the KJV printers? Is that not a double standard? Absolutely. So, manuscript evidence actually shows that there were editions printed with the proper text at certain printers throughout the entire process. Maybe all of them did not occur at Cambridge in subsequent printings. Maybe all of them did not occur in subsequent printings in Oxford. However, the fact is that there is a testimony out there. In short, the “major” differences of the 1769 edition and the 1611 edition often came down to 12 variant readings caused by a misprint and which were easy to find the correct reading by collating the text. The daftness of some people thinking scholars can collate some 5,000+ Greek Manuscripts, the thousands of translations, hundreds of thousands of quotes by Christians from the early centuries and other such issues to produce a proper Greek reading but they cannot do it with less than 500 variants caused by a misprint. On top of that, how can they not do it when there is proof that in all reality only 136 variants were the issue. Add to that the fact that the 1769 edition and 1611 edition vary in almost twelve places only due to misprints. Wow, and I thought normal people could be ignorant. The thought of being able to do all of that scholarly work in the Greek and Hebrew yet not being able to figure out 12 readings that have already been taken care of. So, when it is all said and done, even if you are not KJVO, what is the issue? If you picked up your Bible and there were a mere 12 misprints would it not be the Bible? Has the pure Word of God then been polluted? After all if it said: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Sun, that whosoever believeth in him should perish, but have everlasting wife; any person would know Sun should be Son, begotten is missing between only and Son, not is missing in between should and perish and wife should be life. Ridiculous, I know, but now you see the context of your wisdom. In that one instance, if another edition were printed correctly that one verse would make the two editions disagree four times, one-third of what the 1769 and 1611 edition did. Try studying these things more in full before just blundering about through passages. Remember, don’t bash people who do not use the KJV, but don’t bash people who do. Bash the scholars who misrepresent the truth to supply their side with a stacked deck. Also, the fact that English-speaking people do not know what the differences are between an edition and a revision is sad. Editions have to do with editing, and editing is the process whereby the work is ensured as adhering to all of the rules of grammar, usages, punctuations, spellings and other such things. However, a revision is the work whereby the writer rearranges thoughts, ideas and details in the work, along with structuring of sentences, paragraphs and words used to convey what is intended. The restructuring of words would have to do with a complete rearranging and not with a correction of words that may have been left out. A revision, by definition, deals with significant changes. Editing only takes place after revision and deals with correcting something overlooked. So, a revision is not the same thing as an edition. If editions contradict each other, the question is not which text is true, but which printing is true. So, my question would be, which revision of the NIV is true? Is it the NIV, NIVi, NIrV, TNIV? When children dabble in a grown ups arena they always find themselves corrected and sent away sullen. That is the case with today’s KJVO crowd as well as those who oppose the KJVO crowd. Everyone needs to do more studying before making ignorant statements. That is all. Have fun! : )
Chad, what do you think of the translation errors in the 1769 KJV? For instance, John 1:12 where the word for CHILDREN is translated SONS. We are born into the family of God as children. Sons has to do with adoption! In Heb. 10:23 the Greek word for HOPE is translated FAITH. There is a big difference between faith and hope. All I am saying is that the KJV is not a perfect translation! I use it because of the fact that I believe it is based on the manuscripts that are the true word of God!
To Morris:
1. Faith or hope? Hebrews 10:23 in the KJV is said by so many commentators to be mistranslated that the time to respond is overdue. The KJV verse says, “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)”
Seminary dean & professor, Dr. William Combs, says “faith” in this verse is an incorrect rendering of the Greek, the proper one supposedly being “hope.” However, faith is what our hope is all about, and the two terms are intertwined so that either can apply in a given context. Indeed, the lexicon meanings for “hope” (Gr. elpis) include terms like “trust” and “confidence” that are equivalent in sense to faith (Gr. pistis), and related spelling of the two Greek terms is indicative of a common etymology or derivation.
The KJV here says “Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;” the proper rendering of the Greek here is supposedly “hope,” but faith is what our hope is all about, and the two terms are intertwined so that either can apply in a given context. Indeed, lexicon meanings for “hope” (Gr. elpis) include terms like “trust” & “confidence” that are equivalent in sense to “faith” (Gr. pistis), and related spelling of the two Greek terms is indicative of common etymology or derivation.
Most scholars today seem to have lexicon definitions so fixed in their minds that they don’t apply language to its full extent. “Faith” is the better choice in Hebrews 10:23 that speaks of a profession since profession or confession of faith is what we are to give without wavering, hope being the power behind that faith. We profess/confess our faith to those outside the faith, but our hope applies inwardly. This fits with the sense of faith as the substance and evidence (what we profess) in response to our hope in Heb.11:1 that says faith (pistis) is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 1 Peter 3:15 says…”be ready always to give a reason of the hope that is in you,” and giving that reason is the profession of our faith
Further, context here favors “faith” over “hope” in that Heb. 10:22 speaks of the assurance of faith, and it is the assurance of faith that leads to our profession of it, so faith is the logical subject of our profession in Heb.10:23. Furthermore, the rendering “faith” in the first clause of verse 23 logically relates to the latter clause, “for he (God) is faithful that promised,” our faith being a response to the faithfulness of God. That is, because God is faithful we are exhorted to hold fast to the profession of our faith without wavering.
KJV translators normally rendered “hope” for the subject Greek term, as seen in many verses (e.g. Acts 23:6 & 26:7, Rom.5:4, 12:12 & 15:13, 1 Cor.13:13, etc., so it’s clear that they knew the basic meaning of the term. They made an exception in Heb.10:23, obviously because the two terms are so close in the sense of meaning, and contextual language favors the sense of faith. This is a case of fine tuning in translation work indicative of KJV scholarship notably superior to the modern brand.
2. Sons or children? Jesus Christ our Savior is the primary subject of John 1:1-18. Speaking of Him, verse 12-13 in the KJV says “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
The Greek term for “sons” is more comprehensive than the term “children” preferred by modern translators, being indicative of the general sense of “descendants.” Either “sons” “children” or “daughters” has this sense grammatically, and each can apply in a given context. However, “sons” is contextually required here in John, and most translators of modern versions overlook this.
Morris, you say we are born into the family of God as children, but that is the earthly sense descriptive of our human limits of faith, love & wisdom. Verse 13 speaks of a birth, not of blood, nor of flesh, but of God. This refers to God-given power to become descendants of God, meaning in the likeness of Christ, who is masculine, so “sons of God” is the correct term in verse 12. Male and female descendants of God are those who are given a degree of likeness to our divine Father through His only divine Son, who is the very image of the Father (see 1 Jn.3:2 & 1 Cor.13:12). God the Father sees His Son’s image in male & female redeemed ones. This can be one reason that Christ said those of the Resurrection do not marry, being like the angels in this matter (Mt.22:30).
Oh, and for anyone who wants the Pure text, since that is what everyone is driving at, try looking into the 1900’s Cambridge Pure Edition which was indeed the final edition of the KJV where all of the textual variants made due to printer’s errors have been refined. In that case, if I were to argue the KJVO point, the 1611 was perfect from the beginning till some muckity-muck with a hankering for a buck started cranking out misprinted Bibles and that faithful men using collation finally got them all weeded out around the same time that printing became “modernized”. Now we have digitalized printing. That should be a hoot in about twenty years!
Ricky, you are a 100% bonified pervert.
You would change the word of God and question the word of God and sit in judgment against the very words of God.
May the LORD rebuke thee!
Ruth 3:15 —
“he went into the citie” vs. “she went into the city”
In Ruth 3:15 the original King James edition had the word “he” and not “she” as our current popular King James version reads it today. In fact, this supposed error was fixed or changed from the word “he” to “she” in the subsequent second edition in just 1613. However, despite this change, I believe the use of either “he” and “she” is still an accurate description of truth of this passage and actually enriches our understanding of it when we consider both of them to be true. How so?
Well, first it is important to point out that according to the NLT footnotes on Ruth 3:15, most Hebrew manuscripts contained the word “he” and that the word “she” appeared in the Latin Vulgate. Also, according to the transliteration by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton in 1997 the Septuagint in 350AD contained the word “she” in Ruth 3:15, as well. So it appears that the different ancient manuscripts say that it was both “he” and “she”.
Secondly, Boaz going to the city and Ruth going to a city would both be true statements according to the context of the story. Boaz went to a particular city to take care of the matter of finding out if the next of kin was interested in her or not (Ruth 3:13) and Ruth went to the city where she and Noami lived to tell her the news of what had recently happened with Boaz (Ruth 3:16-17).
Thirdly, this deepens our understanding of the passage when we consider that the passage is true between “he” and “she” thru out the various different manuscripts or editions. For the whole book of Ruth is about the uniting of a man and a woman becoming one flesh in marriage. Ruth and Boaz are on the path of becoming one (i.e. he/she); And what does a marriage of a man and woman represent? Well, it represents Christ or God uniting with His bride (i.e. the church). So as we (i.e. the bride) go to our city to tell the good news, Christ up in Heaven prepares a place for us in His Holy city.
Now, you may not choose to see the preservation of God’s Word in this way, but I take it by faith that God is true to His Word in every detail and word thru out time and it has been a very rewarding experience for me in my life.
Psalm 69:32 —
“seeke good” vs. “seek God”
The 1611 says seek “good” while the 1769 version says seek “God”.
Again, both of these statements within both editions are 100% true. In fact, when we examine both of them it gives us a deeper understanding about the nature of God. How so?
Well, if we were to look at Matthew Chapter 19, we would be able to read this passage…
Matthew 19:17 – “And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:”
Wow. Do you catch that? For there is none good but God. In other words, God is the equivalent or the very embodiment of all that which is good. So according to Scripture, when you use the word “good” you are essentially talking about “God”. For there is none good but God. For our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). It is only God’s righteousness working thru us that reconciles us to Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). For if we did not have God, then there would be no good. For all that which is truly good comes from God!
Jeremiah 49:1 —
“inherit God” vs. “inherit Gad”
In the 1611, Jeremiah chapter 49 says “inherit God” and the 1769 edition says “inherit Gad”. While this appears to be a corrected printing error at first glance, one must also consider the possibility that if both editions might be true then it opens up some interesting theological perspectives for us. Was this an accident or a coincidence? I will explain below and I will let you decide for yourself.
In Jeremiah 49:1, Jeremiah’s first accusation (as a declaration from the Lord) is that the Ammonites moved into Israel’s territory when Assyria took the northern kingdom captive in 722 BC. The Ammonites took Gad and other cities, as though the Jews would never return. The phrase “their king” in Jeremiah 49:1 and 3 can be translated Molech, which is the name of the chief god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5, 7, 33). They boasted that their god was stronger than the God of Israel, but one day Israel will “drive” the Ammonites out of the land (Jeremiah 49:2).
Jeremiah 49:1-2 NLT – “This message was given concerning the Ammonites. This is what the LORD says: “Are there no descendants of Israel to inherit the land of Gad? Why are you, who worship Molech, living in its towns? In the days to come,” says the LORD, “I will sound the battle cry against your city of Rabbah. It will become a desolate heap of ruins, and the neighboring towns will be burned. Then Israel will take back the land you took from her,” says the LORD.”
In other words, the land of Gad was representative of God’s chosen nation of Israel and the Ammonites wanted to inherit this land that was of the real God and then replace it with their fake god (i.e. king) named Molech. Thereby, they believed they would be inheriting God (i.e. the blessings or the territory of God) as they had wanted to see Him and not for who He really was by taking over the land of Gad with their own god Molech.
Another thing to consider is that Gad is the third tribe among the 144,000 mentioned in Revelation chapter 7. Why is this significant? Well, if you were to study Biblical Numerics, you would know that thru out the Bible the constant reoccurrence of the number 3 is a representation of the resurrection and the trinity (i.e. the Godhead). In other words, we know that Jesus chose to rise from the grave three days later as a way of letting us know that He was God Almighty in the flesh. I believe in this way that Gad was special in being representative of God. For Gad was known to being obedient to God: “We your servants will do as our Lord commands” (Numbers 32:25b).
Anyways, if you want to learn more about Gad, check out this article here…
http://www.gotquestions.org/tribe-of-Gad.html
Oh, and if you want to learn about Biblical numerics that glorify God (i.e. Not Numerology that attempts to tell the future), please check out these links here…
http://www.differentspirit.org/evidence/numerics.php
http://www.hiddenhillssgbaptistchurch.org/images/Articles%20by%20Subject/Books/G.%20E.%20Jones/That%20Ye%20May%20Marvel%20or%20The%20Significance%20of%20Bible%20Numbers.pdf
1 Corinthians 4:9 —
“approued to death” vs. “appointed to death”
In the 1611 version the word “approved” is used and in the 1769 edition the word “appointed” is adopted instead. Now, isn’t it true that “approved” and “appointed” each have two different meanings?
Well, if we were to look at the origin of the word “appoint” at etymonline we would be able to see that one of the definitions for it is to “agree”.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?…wed_in_frame=0
And the word “approve” is defined as to agree.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/approve
See how simple it is to resolve such matters when we seek the truth?
Matthew 7:7 – “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:”
Sorry about the broken link. Here is the link from Eytmonline.com in my previous post.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=appoint&allowed_in_frame=0
Rick,
To follow the opinion of textual critics is to be caught up in humanism that offers no hope in regard to eternity. Critics seem more interested in trying to find error in God’s Word than fostering confidence in it as our guide in life. It’s easy to get locked into their opinions to the degree that people just dismiss reasonable disagreements. Critics themselves don’t realize how poor their scholarship can be as they try to dismiss accuracy of the KJV and its Greek & Hebrew/Aramaic textual basis. The scholarship producing these texts is far superior to that of today, as verified by looking at what critics call error in the KJV (see also “The learned Men,” Article 25. Trinitarian Bible Society). I’ve offered two examples of error by critics, one simple and one complex, indicating that scholars today often miss complex or simple truths. I’ve also commented on your contrast of the KJV 1611 & 1769 editions. As a college/seminary instructor and textual consultant, I’ve spent many years studying these issues. By the way, offering of textual comment would be greatly facilitated if your site-builder offered italicizing & underlining to readers.
1. Simplistic scholarship – 1 Timothy 6:10 – The love of money
KJV: For the love of money is the root of all evil…
NIV: For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil…
The KJV is joined by the RSV and REB in rendering this verse, and the NIV by the NASV and NKJV. The disagreement arises because in the Greek there’s no article with root to show whether love of money is the root of all evil or a root of many evils. There’s no indefinite article “a” in Greek, though it’s usually implied in such cases, but the rendering is made certain only by reasoning from context. The NIV committee and its supportive translation committees apparently reasoned that the KJV assigns too much evil to the love of money, there being many evils due to other causes. Actually, this is incorrect interpretation, for the KJV does not say every act of evil ever committed is caused by love of money. It says love of money is the all-evil root, the only one from which grows every evil known to man (the root of all evil equals the all-evil root, the only one). That is, there’s no evil not propagated by love of money, and no other sin has such universal adverse effect. Thus, as the KJV has it, “the” and “all,” not “a” and “all kinds,” are correct English renderings. This love of money is not just one root among others that grow all other sins, but the only one that grows them all. And love of money is the root of all evil since it produces all sin, not just the all kinds of evil of the NIV.
To see how love of money is the only evil giving rise to all other types of evil, we consider what is in involved in love of money. And we must not confuse it with the far-less serious, stinginess, which can be due to a motive like insecurity. We see how love of money adversely affects all areas of human life when we see that it is the means for all self‑gratification, the universal basis of evil. Money is a means of power over others, and love of money fuels the fires of self-gratification and a desire for power over others. We see this as we see the extremes of sin to which men will go for money. Love of money leads men to fulfill all the depravity of self‑gratification accompanying this love, and progression into all evil is broken only by death or salvation. An example of this is seen in the case of drug dealers. It seems to be love of money promising the easy life and control of others that leads drug dealers to disregard the welfare of innocent children and exert a power of drug addiction on them. They start children on a life of crime, fornication and slavery to support their desire for money and power, showing how love of money produces every evil imaginable, down to the most hideous depths of depravity.
Other evils are not so all‑encompassing. For example, the self-gratification of ego satisfaction causes slander that easily leads to more slander, assault and murder, but not necessarily to fornication, stealing, or gambling. And self-gratification causing pornography easily leads to fornication or promiscuity, but not necessarily to stealing, selling dope or murder. On the other hand, love of money motivates all types of self-gratification and can begin with gambling or stealing, that in turn leads to selling dope for easy big money (and loss of conscience), which in turn leads to using addiction to get power over people, which leads to enslavement of people in fornication, and to the murder of those who interfere.
Sin is like a tree with self‑gratification as the trunk and specific sins as the branches. The branches are related to each other only through the trunk. Each branch can survive without another, as in pruning, but none without the trunk. And the root love of money nurtures the self‑gratification trunk, and thus all the branches. The root is the medium by which the trunk thrives, and the trunk in turn allows each branch of sin to flourish, despite a lack of any direct relationship among the branches. Growth that develops from the root is the trunk of self‑gratification, followed by the branches of all sin. Thus we see how love of money is the root of all sin. There are other trees with other roots, but none is so large and all‑inclusive as that whose root is the love of money.
Indeed association of love of money with the first sin from which all sin was hatched is evident. Self‑gratification was the original cause of all sin when Eve yielded to the appeal of forbidden fruit to the senses. There was no legitimate need met in having this fruit, the only inducement being temptation by the devil. Self‑gratification was the cause of the first sin. But in that first era, every human need was met by God, and there was no money system, something necessary in an interdependent society to meet needs of workers specializing in individual trades. In later society, money became the means to supply all needs & self‑gratification. Thus money became the means by which every type of self‑gratification was realized. It was then that love of money became the basic sin giving rise to, and nurturing, all types of self‑gratification, and thus the one root that produces every branch of sin known to man.
But to see how love of money is the root of all evil, not just some, we contrast ugly self‑gratification with beautiful self‑sacrifice (charity in its biblical sense). We view love of money from the perspective of the respectable man who is allured by a spirit that suggests to him that power arising from money is a very desirable means of self-protection and advancement. If this spirit is allowed to develop into a love of money that seeks self‑gratification associated with power over others, an unavoidable progression into all depravity begins. This happens because the birth of this love begins an eventual total opposition to God, the source of all light and good. This love can easily take up residence in a life without being recognized and is thus a threat to all, including those who once never dreamed of sins like slander, assault or promiscuity.
But how does the love of money put us in total opposition to God and lead us into all sin? In scripture charity refers to sacrificial giving out of every area of our resources, including talents, time, patience, encouragement, compassion & money, and at times life itself, all for the sake of others. It’s illustrated best in the sacrifice of Christ who gave Himself fully for our salvation. Money is only the smallest part of our charity, or divine love. We must give far more, and in the spirit of personal devotion to the welfare of others, to fulfill God’s standard of charity. But if we entertain a spirit of love of money due to the power and self‑gratification it confers so that we covet even this smallest expression of charity, we give nothing of ourselves to God. This puts us on a path of total self‑gratification and total opposition to God’s standard of charity, the standard of self‑sacrificing divine love. Love of money defines a spirit of antichrist totally opposed to God’s standard of perfect divine charity. This love covets everything for itself and eventually produces a heart that is totally self-gratifying, totally out of cooperation with God and totally in cooperation with satan.
From a root love of money rises every kind of stealing, or “anticharity.” A willingness to defy God by stealing money, the least of our charity, indicates a willingness to steal anything of greater value that can be manifested at any time. Love of money leads to covetousness (stealing our money gifts that should go for God’s glory), and this leads us away from God and into other stealing. Covetousness leads to larceny (stealing more money), ambition (stealing opportunities of others for riches), belittling (stealing others’ dignity to advance self-importance), lying (stealing others’ reputations to advance self), cruelty (stealing kindness & encouragement), hard‑heartedness (stealing our own purity of soul from God’s possession and giving it to satan), promiscuity (stealing purity of soul of others in an attempt to create a fellowship of misery), etc., etc. When we love and covet money, we are candidates for all associated evils endorsed by satan, for we’ve stolen the last small vestige of charity due to God who expects total charity, His divine standard, from all His people. Indeed charity is the self‑sacrificing essence of the spirit of Christianity. Love of money is love of ever‑progressive self‑gratification that is the essence of the spirit of Satan, the author of all evil.
Thus the KJV (and RSV, REB) reveals the comprehensive evil of love of money that gives rise to all evil since it marks a spirit of Satan opposed to everything godly or charitable. Love of money marks a beginning of the work of a spirit of evil in a man that ultimately leads him to a rebellion of self-gratification against every moral standard of God. Love of money is the root of all evil since it’s the only evil leading men into all other evils and is the one universal evil easily able to enter the life of every man, from the vilest to the noblest. Unfortunately, the inadequate rendering of some modern versions de-emphasizes this teaching, missing implications of the love of money. This causes people to miss the full importance of the evil of love of money. No other evil is so universally troublesome, and as the one that seems least harmful to the respectable man, it’s the one most able to destroy him.
2. Complex scholarship – Psalm 12: Preserving God’s Word or His people or both?
Modern scholars reject the traditional interpretation of Psalm 12 as speaking of preservation of God’s Word, suggesting it speaks of preserving people. Careful study reveals that it speaks of both, with preservation of the Word being the primary factor, the one ensuring the welfare of the people involved. The matter is not resolved as simplistically as scholars suggest, but an analysis of the different renderings clarifies it.
KJV
1. Help Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail…
2. They speak vanity every one with his neighbor: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4. Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5. For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7. Thou shalt keep them O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (to eternity).
8. The wicked walk on every side when the vilest men are exalted.
NASV
(5) Now I will arise,”says the Lord; “I will set him in the safety for which he longs.” (6) The words of the Lord are pure words…(7) Thou O Lord, wilt keep them. Thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever.
NIV
(5) I will now arise,” says the Lord. “I will protect them from those who malign them. (6) And the words of the Lord are flawless…(7). O Lord you Will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.
The KJV 12:5 says of the oppressed godly man “…saith the Lord, I will set him in safety…” 12:6 says God’s words are pure (true), and 12:7 says He keeps (performs) them forever. Deliverance of the godly is stressed, but that’s only an object of God’s words ensuring deliverance (and our very existence), and the main emphasis is on what “saith the Lord,” His words that promise deliverance. 12:7 stresses God keeping and preserving “them,” His words certifying His care of the righteous, not only in David’s time, but forever. The declared eternal preservation emphasizes the written form of His words certifying deliverance of the righteous today and forever.
It’s said 12:7 “them” is 12:5 people, but “them” loses its certainty of meaning if it’s separated from its immediate antecedent “words” in 12:6, for if people were meant, the text would confuse the pronoun reference (12:6 shifts the emphasis from people to words). Those who say “them” is people dismiss the antecedent factor, saying gender discord denies a reference to “words,” for in 12:7 “them” (verb suffix) is masculine, and 12:6 “words” (substantive) is feminine. Hebrew pronouns & antecedents usually agree in gender, but Gesenius says, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives.(1) Waltke & O’Connor say, The masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent.(2) Dr. T. Strouse, Emmanuel Baptist Seminary, CT notes normal gender discord in Ps.119:111,129, 152, 167.(3) God’s Words, “testimonies” (f), link to “they/them” (m) [The present writer views this as designed gender discord (4) relating our need of God’s Word for sustenance (f) to His power as provider (m), which is how churches relate to Christ by His Word]. Examples of common gender discord are “midwives” in Ex.1:21, “daughters” in Is.3:16 and “wells” [f] in Gen.26:15 that are antecedents to masculine “them.”
Hebrew gender discord is fairly common, but antecedent discord is not, as needed to avoid much confusion of sense. And in Hebrew, passage sense takes precedence over grammar issues like gender discord,(2) and the Psalm 12:6,7 sense ties “them” to “words” in the immediate context.*
* NOTE: It’s said chiastic-inversion parallelism links 12:5 & 7 as like verses on the godly man, separated by dissimilar 12:6 on God’s Words, but that causes pronoun ambiguity and style isolation of verses 5-7, and the entire Psalm is chiastic (see below), not just a few verses. And the language is too dissimilar to link separated verses this way, due to mismatch of 12:5 “him” to the first 12:7 “them,” different 12:5 & 7 speakers, and “him” protected once in 12:5 but “them” kept & preserved in 12:7, and there’s no reference to God’s arising and its cause in 12:7 or generation/eternality aspects in 12:5. Further, the proposed inversion doesn’t fit in any of the evident Ps.12 parallelisms noted below.
A basic Ps.12 parallelism, couplet clauses within each verse, offers no possibility of the proposed chiastic inversion. Another basic parallelism is couplet verses, one verse stating an action, and the next stating the cause of it, and this too denies the proposed chiastic inversion.
Chiastic and contrasting cause/effect verse pairs (1/8; 2,3/6,7; 4/5) isolate 12:5 & 7. Verses 2,3 pair with 6,7 and 2,6 & 3,7 are contrasting pairs. 12:1 notes a cause of trouble for the godly, and 12:8 notes a potential evil effect. 12:2,3 expound the cause of trouble, evil men’s impure/vain/temporal intent to harm the godly, in contrast with a 12:6,7 effect of God’s pure/reliable/eternal promise to defend them. In 12:4 evil ones intend to act, saying “We will,” causing a 12:5 contrast as God says, “No, I will.” Treating each verse pair 2,3 & 6,7 as a unit reveals chiastic inversion in Ps.12 structure, in a poetic style isolating 12:5 from 7 to deny a link of “them” to people.
In summary, poetic style isolates 12:5 & 7 to deny “them” is people, and it ties gender discordant “them” & “words,” the 12:5 godly man (m) being delivered by God’s 12:6 words of compassion (f), and 12:7 them being words also of power (m) to deliver. And 12:5 & 7 differ by speaker & pronoun number to deny a link by a common reference to people, but 12:6 & 12:7 link “words” to “them” in both ways to affirm a reference to “words.”
In the Hebrew poetic parallelism of Psalms, a theme repeats in related wording, and 12:7 repeats a 12:6 theme on purity of God’s words. 12:6 likens the purity to that of truly refined silver to stress that they are not idle words, but pure ones that will be kept. The initial clause in 12:7 repeats the theme, stressing God’s word-keeping to link 12:7 “them” to 12:6 “words,” and these (2nd them) are preserved forever to signify being kept forever. 12:7 further stresses purity, noting God as word-keeper by making “Thou” in the first clause a separate word in Hebrew, a device for emphasis, “thou” normally being limited to a prefix on a Hebrew imperfect verb here (KJV Thou and O Lord in the first clause retain the emphasis in English style). The major purity theme directly relates to God’s words, His people being simply the objects of His pure words (Eph.5:26, Jn.15:3).
Word-keeping emphasis grows as Hebrew-text gender discord ties “them” to “words” in a gender discord by design. A masculine pronoun with a feminine antecedent reflects Hebrew use of masculine gender to signify power/greatness and the feminine to signify compassion/sustenance. (5) Ps.12:6,7 ties masculine “them” to feminine “words,” relating almighty God’s power to keep His word, to His compassion (stressed in 12:5) applying the power (relates to Hebrew prior-gender masculine language inclusive of both natural genders (6) – e.g. the Psalm 12 godly man signifies men & women). And in compassion God preserves His words forever to certify that He obligates Himself to keep/perform them forever. Correct pronoun and antecedent use in the KJV emphasizes God’s power and compassion that ensure the word-keeping on behalf of the people.
In the NASV an initial “them” suggests “words,” but “him” in lieu of the second “them” implies people as objects of preserving, when they’re objects of word-keeping, and teaching on words certifying deliverance of people is lost. Further, “him” ties to “them,” mixing the singular and plural in ambiguity of sense (here “them” can be words or people). Actually “him” misses the grammar, being good Hebrew but poor English; this 3rd-person/singular/masculine pronoun signifies, not people, but 3rd-person/singular/masculine “word”* Hebrew lacks neuter gender, “him/he” often signifying neuter terms called “it/that” in English (e.g. in Num.22:20 God speaks, the Hebrew saying, “the word that I shall speak to you, him (it / that) you shall do.” Thus the Psalm 12:7 Hebrew says, “Thou shalt keep thy words (them) O Lord, thou shalt preserve thy word (consisting of thy words) forever.” Thy word is thy words, and “them” rightly signifies “word” for clarity, “it/that” being awkward and confusing. Psalms number discord, usually a poetic-style factor, is didactic here, stressing God’s written words preserved forever. “Words” is spoken or written scripture, but “word” stresses the written (we have God’s word on it, His written words). His words are preserved for us, requiring the written form, and He preserves them forever to show us He obligates Himself to keep them forever (by the Living Word). The KJV second “them” doesn’t lose the purpose of the shift, for the declared eternal preservation (for us) establishes the written form.
* NOTE: Another NASV error involving him is, “safety for which he longs.” The sense of the Hebrew is the KJV “puffeth,” a blast of evil men’s breath, not a godly man’s longing. The NIV has the right sense, but word choice is inadequate.
The NIV, like the extant Septuagint text, has a wrong “us” for each 12:7 “them.” “Us,” wrong by definition in the first use and by pointing in the second, incorrectly makes people objects of keeping & preserving, for they’re objects only of word-keeping. “Us” can’t fit passage sense unless language is altered, and using “such people” serves to justify use of “us.” Both terms serve to mask interpretation nonsense if “them” signified people, a sense of eternal preservation of godly men from one generation of evil men in David’s time that can’t live forever. This sense would be invoked by using “us” in conjunction with the correct “this generation,” making the incorrect “such people” necessary. Linguistic error of this approach further shows “such people” is poor translation, “from” people being poor language; “this generation” is that of David and joins “from” and “to/for” to note a period from that time to eternity (the Hebrew says this), or for ever. And “this” acts as a relative pronoun,* so “such” is poor; i.e. we read “from the generation this (which) is, to forever,” not “from the generation such is to forever.” But eternal preservation of words in God’s written Word is entirely logical here, with no linguistic problem or faulty sense.
*NOTE: Gesenius says the Masora teaches this, 2nd Eng. ed. 1910. Clarendon. para 126y.
Scholars omit God’s role in preserving scripture, likely because they feel the New Testament text was lost for ~1400 years. They say God’s Word is scattered among manuscripts, and men must decide what is or isn’t genuine, which only ensures error. They feel the Psalm 119:89, “For ever O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven,” means preservation exists only in heaven. But the sense of the Hebrew here is that preservation is supervised/verified in heaven to make truth available to all, for there is no confusion there. Passage context supports this, earthly word preservation being why the writer can obey God’s testimonies (Ps.119:88) and why earth endures by God’s laws (119:91). 119:96 notes an end, a limit, to earthly perfection, but calls God’s commandments, His words, “exceeding broad,” meaning that their perfection is unlimited, so God’s words known on earth are fully preserved. The KJV respects this Hebrew-text perfection and achieves perfect translation, despite the grammar differences.
End Notes
1. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Ed. Kautzsch, E.. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 2nd Eng. Ed, Cowley, A.E. 1910. Paragraphs135 o, 144 a.
2. Waltke, B.K. & O’Connor, M.P. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Eisenbraums. Winona Lake, IN. #16.4b, p302.
3. Strouse, T.M. A Critique of “God’s Word in Our Hands:” The Bible Preserved for Us. The Burning Bush. 11/1 June 2005. p28
4. Gesenius. Op, Cit. paragraph 110k on Nahum 3:15
5. Gesenius, Op. Cit. paragraph 122h – see footnote #3.
6. Gesenius, Op. Cit. paragraph 122g
Rick,
Below are some comments on your view of variant wording in the 1611 & 1769 KJV editions. Your treatment of this matter overlooks some important concepts, like the fact that editing is always part of text perfection, and in the case of Ruth 3:15, the best wording was delayed a little until after the first edition. The change occurred very shortly after the first 1611 edition, not in the 1769 edition.
1. Ruth 3:15 – “he went into the citie” vs. “she went into the city”
In the KJV first edition “he” (Boaz) went into the city after Ruth’s marriage proposal, but in the next two editions “she” (Ruth) did. Scholars can’t decide this issue, but “she” fits context best and is in today’s KJV. Yet the text says both went into the city, Ruth to tell Naomi results of the proposal (3:16), and Boaz to be a kinsman redeemer (4:1). After the proposal, both went into the city, so both renderings are correct.
The change is one of editing, normal in translation work, and delayed briefly until after the first edition. Providentially, truth & accuracy were never lost in the KJV, and the right rendering soon prevailed.
Another important factor is recognition of Greek and English lexical variance that can affect a reading.
2, Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
The KJV Matthew 14:9 reads “And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it (John’s head) to be given her.” The KJV Mark 6:26 says “for his oath’s sake…”Oath’s” is right, for context reveals one oath stated once in Matthew and twice in Mark (Mt.14:7, Mk.6:22,23). Critics claim error since in both verses the Greek is, plural, saying, “because of the oaths.” But the Greek notes one oath spoken twice, while the KJV uses the singular sense of the one oath. This is just Greek/English lexical variance, and the English is preferred in the KJV. But the Greek is fine if there’s no confusion of sense, and the 1611 KJV used plural “othes (oaths) sake” (same as “sake of the oaths” – older English uses no apostrophe for singular or plural possessive, as in Col.3:6). Another case of this lexical variance is the KJV Gal.6:11 where Greek grammasin (letters) is “letter,” context showing Paul wrote one letter, and the Greek noting letters (writings) in that letter.
Comparing the Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV
3. Timothy 2:2 “heard from me” vs. “heard of me.” No error of any kind
The Greek preposition used with the genitive of “me” here has the sense of “from,” and that’s exactly how the word “of” is used here. Context makes the sense of “of” clear. When Paul says to Timothy “the things that thou hast heard of me,” he is not talking about things pertaining to himself. He is talking about things Timothy has heard from, or of, Paul about the faith that are to be committed to faithful men. This use is like someone saying, “You have heard of me all that will prepare you for your work.”
4. Jeremiah 34:16 “whom ye had set” vs “whom he had set” – Printer error, yet no error in context.
KJV Oxford and Cambridge editions differ slightly here. The Cambridge has “…every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty…” The Oxford is identical, except that “he” replaces “ye,” and both preserve text sense. The people are indicated by “he” or “ye.” In the Cambridge, “ye” is the people, and in the Oxford, “every man…he” in, “every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty,” is the people. Ye is correct Hebrew, and he is printing error, yet the text sense is preserved in either case, so even printing error doesn’t prevent an equivalence.
Mildly different readings that are equivalent in meaning
To indicate that changes between KJV 1611 & 1769 editions deny accuracy & inerrancy of translation is to be overly restrictive. Many phrases or words in the 1769 are equivalent to their 1611 counterparts, and accuracy & inerrancy are retained by equivalence since minor differences in literality do not affect accurate teachings. Such changes are meant to make the text follow the Hebrew/Aramaic & Greek as literally as possible, or to clarify the English sense as well as possible, and there’s no significant change in the sense of what is taught in these cases. Your examples illustrating this are listed below.
5. Deuteronomy 26:1 – “which the Lord giueth” vs. “which the LORD thy God giveth”
-the LORD and the LORD thy God are equivalent in terms of identification.
6. Joshua 13:29 – “tribe of Manasseh, by” vs. “tribe of the children of Manasseh by”
-Manasseh refers to the same people that children of Manasseh does.
7. Matthew 16:16 – “Thou art Christ” vs. “Thou art the Christ”
– Christ is also called the Christ, and both are indicative of a title that became a name.
8. Mark 10:18 – “There is no man good” vs. “there is none good” (note that now “there is” is marked as being added by the translators for clarity). The term “No man” is a generic equivalent of “none,” the term “man” being used in the sense of “mankind.”
9. 1 Corinthians 4:9 – “approued to death” vs. “appointed to death” The two terms are equivalent since, to be appointed to death equates with approved to death, both resulting in death.
10. Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord” To say “even the LORD” is another way of saying “of the LORD” in this verse.
11. 2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD” It is very evident that the temple spoken of is the temple of the LORD.
Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD” “The LORD” in context is another term for God
12. 1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath” “Sonne” in this context can only refer to the Son of God.
13. Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace” The adjective “fiery” includes the sense of “burning fiery,” especially in this context.
14. Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness” Context plainly reveals that the goodness spoken of is that of God in both cases, so the pronoun “my” is not actually needed, but adding it makes the rendering more literal.
Several of your examples are indicative of printing error, and a perfect translation by God’s chosen men is not automatically transmitted to a secular printer, especially as early as the 17th century. Indeed, correction of printing error is the means by which accuracy is extended to copies in general.
Printing error is indicated at times by the closeness of spelling or wording between what the translators rendered and the form appearing in the English printed text, as seen below.
15. Psalm 69:32 – “seeke good” vs. “seek God.”
16. Jeremiah 49:1 – “inherit God” vs. “inherit Gad”
17. Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned (t)he(i)r dwelling places”
18. Ezekiel 24:5 – “let (h)i(m) seethe” vs. “let t(h)e(m) seethe”
19, Ezekiel 48:8 – “which th(ey) shall” vs. “which ye shall”+
20. Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
21. 1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments.”
It would be very easy to accidentally insert a preposition as small as “in” in an early printing process. It is possible that this is a temporal translator error; if so, correction by editing should have been very early, given the great conscientiousness of KJV translators.
22. 1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
Printing error also results from carrying a series of phrases too far, as in the case of 1 Cor.15:6 where the introductory phrase “And that” incorrectly follows use of the phrase in the two preceding verses.
23. Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
Printing error involving omission of the word “not” is known to have occurred in the past.
Use of non-literal renderings like “God forbid.”
Rick, I recall that in one post you objected to KJV use of “God forbid” that isn’t a literal rendering of the biblical language, and another example would be “God save the King.” Actually these are idioms common to language, and translators constantly deal with Hebrew or Greek idioms that, if rendered literally, would often be inadequate, or make no sense, in other languages. In such cases translators should express the text with their idioms, those that make the best sense in their language, equivalent sense being the crucial matter. To use plain language would likely miss the special emphasis characterizing idioms. The meaning of the Hebrew for “God forbid” is “to the profane,” which would make little sense to any average reader. The NIV uses a contemporary idiom like “far be it from” (me or you), or an inadequate “Not at all,” or “Never,” which are not as emphatic as “God forbid,” and the Hebrew is meant to be very emphatic, as in Joshua 22:29 and 1 Samuel 20:2. The related Greek term means the very emphatic, “Let it never exist,” and it applies in various emphatic passages, like Romans 3:4 and 1 Corinthians 6:15. These uses illustrate that older English often presents a superior way to express a matter.
Two problems that face the translator in every age (from the LXX in the 3rd century BC) to the latest glossy covered NT in the book store:
1. words have different breadth between languages; e.g., if you look in Strong’s concordance at nephesh (soul, life, &c) you will discover that it has been translated by something like 20 different English words — the translator’s job is to choose the right one for each context — and the Bible gives us no assurance that any translator has Divine inspiration. Nevertheless, the NT quotes the LXX, a translation, as authoritative! (It is over 65 years ago that my grandfather began teaching me Hebrew, and it was about 10 years later I began to learn Greek; I have struggled through other languages, principally Latin and French and have discovered that there is no one to one correspondence of words or even idiom between languages. The so-called perfect translation of the Bible just does not exist. That is why my study of the Bible nearly always goes back to the original languages.)
2. words — especially English — have changed in meaning through time, and they also change according to nation and culture. Eg., ‘baptism’ was understood to mean ‘dippe’ in the 15th century (see OED, and 1561 and other exx.), but it does not have that meaning for many people in many places today; in fact it means many quite different things.
This is a divisive debate fueled by Satan to split the people of God and I chose not to argue about it, nor about the perfect original text — the Bible is God’s revelation of how man can come to God, and, it seems that no translation, nor faulty copying of its text, can spoil its power to be used by the Holy Spirit to achieve that purpose.
Dear Sir,
An article is posted @ AV1611.org with this title: “Haven’t there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?”
Interesting reading.
Good points. Although I am not “KJV Only” I am (for English, which is my only language) “KJV, Geneva, Tyndale, et al. only.” Why? Because different manuscripts were used that are supposed as older and therefore better–but which crumble under scrutiny. (See the excellent 3-hour documentary TARES AMONG THE WHEAT.)
The modern 20th and 21st century translations and paraphrased Bibles are the worst ever and use those false manuscripts to sow doubt where there need be none; exclude words like “holy” hundreds of times, change terms such as from “God’s Son” to “God’s servant” when referring to Jesus, eliminate the name of Lucifer in the passage about his fall in Isaiah, and the list goes on and on.
When I want to get alternative translations I go between the King James Bible (the 1789 or whatever that later year was), the Geneva Bible 1599 (published in modern lettering and spelling by Tolle Legge in 2006–hurrah!–as it was translated by scholarly Early Reformers who gathered in Geneva, Switzerland to translate since many other places they could so easily be burned at the stake for what they were doing, the Catholic Church willing to kill to maintain its near but incomplete control over Christendom) and Study Bibles including The Companion Bible with voluminous footnotes giving alternate translations of the Hebrew and Greek, edited by E.W. Bullinger). They are my treasure chest!!!
This sentence should have read (caps are the updated edit):
Because different manuscripts were used FOR ALL THE NEWER TRANSLATIONS that are supposed as older and therefore better–but which crumble under scrutiny.
The 1769 KJV was Not the Last Revision of the 1611 KJV .. there was actually One More Revision in 1873. I know this to be a Fact because, in my “New Hendrickson Parallel Bible” which has the 4 Translations: KJV – NKJV – NIV – NLT(2nd edition), this KJV is the 1873 Revision. The KJV began with the 1611 Version then, the 1st Revision of 1629, the 2nd Revision of 1638, the 3rd Revision of 1762, the 4th Revision of 1769 and, the 5th Revision of 1873! The 6th Revision of 1982 is the NKJV!
Why on earth do you say “May the Lord…” in your article when you don’t even believe in the Lord anymore?
Hypocrite!
How is that hypocrisy? I believed in God when I wrote the article, so I spoke in a way which reflected it. I don’t believe in God now, but the article from 2007 still exists. Do you even know what “hypocrisy” is? Because I don’t think you do.
I just love that God has chosen only the English to speak to the world in today….. I’ve had people tell me God’s word is in no other language on earth….really?? Isn’t it just peachy that most who hold this view just happen to speak English…… How arrogant can we be with such a ridiculous argument…God help us. I’ve also seen people say that the differences in the revisions of the KJV between the 1611 and other were just corrections of “Spelling” mistakes….really, I wonder if these folk have actually looked at a KJV 1611…..that was the way Early Modern English was spelled…… people who post stuff like that just show their ignorance!