Home » Posts tagged 'Bible' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: Bible
Does the KJV Translate Hebrew and Greek Words Too Many Ways?
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only (KJV) debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Is this true? In part 10 of my review of the James White & Thomas Ross debate on the preservation of Scripture I point out the severe flaws in this argument by Dr. James R. White against the King James Version, and the KJVO position.
In our debate James White argued in the same way that he did in his book: “[T]he KJV is well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word … the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times” (James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? pgs. 288–289). The numbers White cites are inaccurate, and White fails to point out that in the examples he supplies where the Authorized Version (allegedly) translates words in too many different ways in English modern versions such as the ESV, ASV, NRSV, and NET actually have more, not fewer, different translations than does the KJV. James’ argument here (again!) is not serious scholarship, and only sounds impressive if one is either ignorant of Hebrew or does not own a good Bible software program that enables him to compare the KJV with modern versions. The fact that Dr. White wrote The King James Only Controversy in merely a few months comes through all too clearly. Learn more by watching debate review video #10 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
–TDR
Patristics Quote All New Testament Except for 11 Verses?
In evangelistic Bible study #1, “What is the Bible?” (see also the PDF here), I (currently) have the statement:
[A]ll but 11 of the 7,957 verses of the New Testament could be reproduced without a single manuscript from the 36,289 quotes made by early writers in Christendom from the second to the fourth century.
I also have this statement in my pamphlet The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible.
I cite this statement from what is usually a highly reliable and scholarly source, Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:
“[I]f we compile the 36,289 quotations by the early church Fathers of the second to fourth centuries we can reconstruct the entire New Testament minus 11 verses.” (Norman L. Geisler, “New Testament Manuscripts,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999], 532).
However, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, eds., in Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019), 228-238 have presented a strong case that this oft-repeated statement is not accurate. On the other hand, the following less specific statement is defensible:
Besides the textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic has available the numerous scriptural quotations included in the commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament. (Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 2005], 126)
While Metzger and Ehrman’s statement is defensible, unless new evidence comes to light to overturn Hixson and Gurry’s case, the more specific statement in Geisler’s book, which I reproduced in my evangelistic Bible study, is not defensible or accurate. The “11 verses” claim is too specific, and the 36,289 quotations is also too specific. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish a quotation from an allusion, a summarization, or other less specific types of reference. I intend to remove the 11 verses statement derived from Geisler’s fine encyclopedia (still a great book, despite this one mistake) from Bible study #1 and from The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible and replace it with the less-specific statement. (I have not gotten around to doing it yet, but that is on the agenda.)
I was wrong to (unintentionally) reproduce inaccurate information. God is a God of truth. Also, please do not use the inaccurate statement yourself, but the accurate one, in the future, and if you are using these Bible studies in your church, please start using the updated and accurate ones once they are available; if you have extra copies already printed that contain the inaccurate statement, you might want to clarify that it is not technically correct.
The overall case for the accuracy of the New Testament remains infallibly certain from God’s promises and overwhelmingly strong from a historical perspective.
–TDR
KJB1611 Marginal Notes = Modern Bible Notes? White Debate 9
In the James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Only debate, James White claimed that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible were the same as the textual notes in modern Bible versions. Supposedly the marginal notes in the KJV justified textual notes in modern versions attacking the Deity of Christ (1 Timothy 3:16), the Trinity (1 John 5:7), the resurrection (Mark 16:9-20), justification by faith alone (Romans 5:1), and other crucial Biblical truths. Thus, James White had stated that he believed “very, very firmly” that the KJV translators would be “completely” on his side in the debate. James White used what he called the “many, many, many, many marginal notes the King James translators themselves provided” as justification for the marginal notes in modern Bible versions like the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) and as an argument against the King James Only position. Dr. White made the same argument in his book The King James Only Controversy.
Do the marginal notes in the 1611 King James Bible justify notes such as the Legacy Standard Bible’s marginal note in Matthew 27:49, which teaches that Christ did not die by crucifixion, but by a spear thrust before He was crucified?:
Some early mss add And another took a spear and pierced His side, and there came out water and blood
The answer is a resounding “No!” Not one of the 1611 KJV’s marginal notes attack any doctrine of the Christian faith. Not one teaches the heresy that Christ died by a spear thrust before His crucifixion. Not one questions the resurrection or the resurrection appearances of the Lord. Not one attacks the Deity or true humanity of the Savior. Indeed, the KJV translators were following the following rule:
“No marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.”
Around 99.5% of the KJV marginal notes are not even arguably related to textual variation, and not one marginal note in the King James Version teaches anything like the heresy that fills the footnotes of many inferior modern Bible versions.
Learn more in 1611 KJV Marginal Notes = Modern Version Textual Footnotes? James White Thomas Ross Debate Review #9 by watching the embedded video below:
or by watching the video on FaithSaves.net, Rumble or YouTube.
–TDR
Sing John 3:16 in Koine / New Testament Greek: Ιωαννην 3:16!
Would you like to learn how to sing John 3:16 in Greek? You can sing these words in the very speech in which the Lord Jesus Christ originally spoke this blessed promise to Nicodemus!
You can learn to sing the infallible words of John 3:16, the most famous verse of the Bible in the video below from Rumble, or watch it on YouTube, or see it at Faithsaves.net.
John 3:16 Song: Koine Greek New Testament Language
Ιωαννην τρεις:εκκαιδεκα ωδή εν γλώσση Ελληνικη
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on Rumble
View John 3:16 Song in Koine Greek on YouTube
–TDR
The Hand of God on the KJV Translators: James White Debate 8
The King James Version translators did not claim that they wrote under the same kind of supernatural control that the apostles and prophets received to infallibly record Scripture in the original languages. But did they claim that God’s special providence, His good hand, was with them? Yes!
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #8 looks at the fact that the KJV translators claimed that the “good hand of the Lord” was “upon” them in their translating work, referring to this language in Ezra and Nehemiah for the special providence of God.
In other words, the KJV translators referred their translation work neither to merely the general providence of God—they are stronger than that—nor to a series of continual miracles—that is more than they affirm—but to the special providence of God, so that the Word is by “his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages” (London Baptist Confession of 1689).
Furthermore, Scripture teaches that God’s providence is by no means imperfect; He can preserve a “pure Word … in all ages” through special providence without the active intervention of one or more miracles after the miracle of dictating the original manuscripts, as the book of Esther, for example, makes very clear.
Learn more by watching the video below:
You can also watch debate review video #8 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Were the KJV Translators KJV Only? James White KJVO debate 7
Continuing the debate review videos on the James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text, review video #7 examines whether the KJV translators were KJV Only. (Note that to avoid the historical fallacy discussed in review video #2 obout whether the KJV translators would have been KJV Only today or supported modern versions–as James White claims–I am dealing in review video #7 with actual historical facts, based on actual information, not speculating on what woulda coulda shoulda happened if people who are not alive today were alive in a counterfactual world in my own imagination.) What does the “Translators to the Reader” says about the Authorized Version in comparison to earlier English Bibles?
The KJV translators were thankful for the earlier Textus Receptus-based English Bibles, but, building upon their foundation, they view the KJV as “better.” Variations from the Textus Receptus, even the relatively minor ones in the Latin Vulgate, were viewed as inferior to any Textus Receptus based Bible. How much worse, then, would a modern version that varies far more from the Received Text have been viewed? Find out in the video below!
You can also watch debate review video #7 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble.
Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
James White-Thomas Ross Debate Review 6: LXX & Latin Vulgate
It was a blessing to debate James White on the King James Version / Textus Receptus vs. the Legacy Standard Bible / Nestle-Aland text. The debate when well. I have been continuing to add additional debate review videos. Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been completely against their own translation and in favor of modern versions based on the minority Greek text. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #6, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and what it claims about the LXX and the Latin Vulgate. What the KJV translators say is exactly what I argued for in the debate with Dr. White, and exactly the opposite of what James White argued. His claim about the KJV translators is invalid, and painfully so.
You can watch debate review video #6 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Creationism & KJV: James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 5
Should creationists, advocates of young-earth creationism, use the King James Version? Dr. Henry Morris certainly thought so. When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been “completely” on his side in our debate, standing for modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and opposing the Received Text and their own translation. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #5, examines the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader,” where evidence is provided that the KJV translators were young earth creationists–something that a very high percentage of modern Bible version translators are not, and something that positively impacts the translation of the King James Bible.
You can watch debate review video #5 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, Rumble, or YouTube. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Ruth 3:15: “he” or “she” went into the city? 1611 & 1769 KJV
Ruth 3:15, in the widely-used 1769 revision of the King James Bible, reads:
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”
However, the 1611 edition of the KJV reads:
“And he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
Scrivener’s 1873 edition of the KJV likewise reads: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city” (The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873], Ru 3:15.)
The New King James Version-which is not just a new King James Version, and which here does not follow the 1611 KJV’s reading-has “she”:
Also he said, “Bring the shawl that is on you and hold it.” And when she held it, he measured six ephahs of barley, and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. (NKJV)
Other modern Bible versions are likewise divided between “he” and “she.” For example, the NIV and NRSV read “he,” while the ESV, LSB, and NASB read “she.”
Which is correct? How do we know? We have discussed various features of the Hebrew Massoretic text on this blog before, such as whether the Hebrew of the name “Jehovah” hints at the incarnation of the Son of God. What do Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew printed texts read? What about the LXX, the various editions of the Latin Vulgate, other ancient sources, and English Bibles before the KJV? The picture below, from the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the Masoretic text edited by the Hebrew Christian Jacob ben Chayyim, gives the answer (Matthew 5:18):
While both readings in Ruth 3:15 are doubtless factually accurate, since both Boaz and Ruth actually entered the city, the inspired reading, the one dictated by the Holy Spirit to the original penman of Scripture, is “he,” not “she.” Why? Please read my analysis of the passage in this link to find out, and feel free to comment upon it here (but please read it first before commenting). Thank you.
–TDR
James White / Thomas Ross Debate: KJV Translators & KJVO (4)
When I recently debated James White on the preservation of Scripture, Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators would have been “completely” on his side in the debate, were they alive today. I have produced a number of review videos examining this claim, as part of a video series which will, Lord willing, go through the entire debate. In video review #4 we begin to examine the “Translators to the Reader,” KJV prefatory material, and compare what the translators actually believed to what James White claimed for them. This examination uncovers that the KJV translators believed things about the inspiration and preservation of Scripture that are consistent with the Bibliology of verbal, plenary inspiration and preservation of the KJV-only and Confessional Bibliology movements, but are not consistent with the anti-inspiration and anti-preservation views that brought us the Nestle-Aland Greek text. Believing Scripture on its own inspiration and preservation leads by good and necessary consequence to the superiority of the Textus Receptus to the modern Nestle-Aland text. The “Translators to the Reader” also favors English translational choices in passages such as John 5:39 that are supported by the context and are found in other Reformation-era Bibles but are rejected by modern English versions. Thus, the KJV translators would favor their own translational choices, also found in other Reformation-era Bibles, to translational choices found in modern English versions. The KJV translators would view their original language base and translational choices as superior to those of modern versions.
The weakness of James White’s arguments explain why debate reviewers generally claimed that the perfect preservationist side came out ahead in the debate.
You can watch debate review video #4 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. If you like the content, please “like” the videos, and consider subscribing to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Recent Comments