Question for the confessional KJVer

[Blueridge Believer]

"Anyway, blessings to all, and a mea culpa for any gracelessness and mischaracterization. I deeply respect the AV adherents on this board; I also deeply respect the non-AV "TR/MT" men (Rev. Greco, Mr. Farley in this thread, etc.) who either have problems with the language, or know people who do".


That was a wonderful read young man. Very good indeed. However I am an AV man. I just have a little tolerance for other versions as long as they are from the reformation text.

 

[Ravens]

Mr. Farley,

I hesitated to put that in, because I know you are an AV man. I just noticed that on this thread, you mentioned some people in your church having a problem with it. That's all. My point was, even good men (e.g., you), whose word you can rely upon, still know many "real life" people in "real life" churches who have problems understanding and digesting the AV.

I didn't mean to say you would endorse any of my conclusions.

You've been a great encouragement to me over the past, so the last thing I'd want to do is misrepresent you.

Warmly,

Joshua

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Mr. Farley,

I hesitated to put that in, because I know you are an AV man. I just noticed that on this thread, you mentioned some people in your church having a problem with it. That's all. My point was, even good men (e.g., you), whose word you can rely upon, still know many "real life" people in "real life" churches who have problems understanding and digesting the AV.

I didn't mean to say you would endorse any of my conclusions.

You've been a great encouragement to me over the past, so the last thing I'd want to do is misrepresent you.

Warmly,

Joshua

And you have been a great encourgement and help to me dear friend. I miss talking to you. Call me this saturday if you get a chance. I certainly took no offence at any thing you posted I assure you.

 

[KMK]

JD, I would also like to see the English speaking church unite and discuss an English language Bible based on the TR. I wish that had been done in the first place instead of different 'societies' splintering off and doing their own thing.

I still maintain, however, that it would not be possible to make a translation into 'modern' English without losing accuracy because 'modern' English is simply not a very precise language.

One cannot remove the '-eth' from words without losing accuracy. 'Believeth' does not mean the same thing as 'believe'. Nor does 'ye' mean the same thing as 'you'.

Any compromise that is made would necessarily be a compromise in accuracy. That would have to be understood going in.

 

[JohnOwen007]

It's not a simplistic matter of the English language "morphing sufficiently enough." That supposes there are levels to language development. There are not. Language is the expression of ideas. Ideas require context.

Matthew, I'm not quite sure what you mean here by "levels"; please excuse my ignorance. Latin eventually became French in one part of the world, and Spanish in another. Aren't they examples of different levels of language change?

So long as the context exists in which the AV is recognised as a standard of religious conservatism, the AV will continue to speak in the language of the day. If radicals get their way religious conservatism might become an antiquated term, and it might just be that such a morphology takes place that the language of the AV no longer speaks to the religious world. But not if religious conservatives have anything to do with it!

Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. However, isn't it more important to be educating church leaders (and interested laypeople) in Greek and Hebrew than KJV if we want to be truly conservative? At least, that's part of my vision in theological education.

On this point I so lament the loss of the study of the classical languages at school and Universities in our country. The earlier we can teach Greek, Latin, and Hebrew the better In my humble opinion.

 

[bookslover]

One cannot remove the '-eth' from words without losing accuracy. 'Believeth' does not mean the same thing as 'believe'. Nor does 'ye' mean the same thing as 'you'.

"Believeth" = "believes"
"ye" = "you" (plural)

See? That wasn't so hard!

 

[MW]

Marty, If we take into account the idea of "conquest" then there's no difficulty in adopting your idea of "levels." If the street people force us all out of our native land, then undoubtedly English will officially move to a new level in our country. But then wherever we go we will take our traditional English with us, so the language will live on.

I agree we should teach people Hebrew and Greek in order to train them for the ministry; but in their ministry they will communicate in English. They will do this either poorly or well. If they aren't trained to use the English language the likelihood is that they will do this poorly; and it is likely that they will pass on a poor translation of the Bible to the people they are teaching in order to accommodate this poor standard of English. It's simply a fact that education produces after its kind. Blessings!

It's not a simplistic matter of the English language "morphing sufficiently enough." That supposes there are levels to language development. There are not. Language is the expression of ideas. Ideas require context.

Matthew, I'm not quite sure what you mean here by "levels"; please excuse my ignorance. Latin eventually became French in one part of the world, and Spanish in another. Aren't they examples of different levels of language change?

So long as the context exists in which the AV is recognised as a standard of religious conservatism, the AV will continue to speak in the language of the day. If radicals get their way religious conservatism might become an antiquated term, and it might just be that such a morphology takes place that the language of the AV no longer speaks to the religious world. But not if religious conservatives have anything to do with it!

Again, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. However, isn't it more important to be educating church leaders (and interested laypeople) in Greek and Hebrew than KJV if we want to be truly conservative? At least, that's part of my vision in theological education.

On this point I so lament the loss of the study of the classical languages at school and Universities in our country. The earlier we can teach Greek, Latin, and Hebrew the better In my humble opinion.

 

[bookslover]

I lean towards adhering to the TR, but also see some value in the MT position; and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure where one starts and the other begins.

Unless I'm really misunderstanding you (always possible!), this sentence seems to say that you equate the TR and the MT; that you think the TR and the MT represent the same thing. Actually, the MT (Masoretic Text) is the underlying Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the TR (Textus Receptus) is an underlying Greek text of the New Testament.

 

[Pilgrim]

I lean towards adhering to the TR, but also see some value in the MT position; and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure where one starts and the other begins.

Unless I'm really misunderstanding you (always possible!), this sentence seems to say that you equate the TR and the MT; that you think the TR and the MT represent the same thing. Actually, the MT (Masoretic Text) is the underlying Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the TR (Textus Receptus) is an underlying Greek text of the New Testament.

He is no doubt referring to the Majority Text (MT) and not the Masoretic Text.

 

[Ravens]

Mr. Poe,

Thank you; I was referring to the Majority Text.

Rev. Klein,

I agree with you regarding "you" and "ye". I think they should be retained in the interests of greater accuracy. Are you sure that the -eth, -th meanings really add anything to the accuracy of the translation? I am not good at English grammatical terms, but I'm assuming those are something along the lines of present participial endings? Or something to that effect?

I don't see any difference between, "He that believes..." and "He that believeth"; I don't think an update in the area would entail a loss of accuracy.

And that still leaves all of the wot's, wit's, staves, leasing, et al.

Anyway, I'm out of my league in this discussion; I just don't like to see more divisions than are necessary.

 

[Iconoclast]

Once again, can anyone give an example of a passage in the KJV that is difficult to understand because of the Elizabethan English? Maybe I am so used to the sound of it I don't notice it any longer.

Kmk, i use the KJV, but several years ago this passage was offered to me as an example of how the old english sometimes obscures an Idea to a modern reader,2Cor6;

11O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.

12Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

13Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

If you think about it however, when a passage has to be explained it can be helpful to open up or unpack the meaning, by going to the root word in the greek or Hebrew, as pastors do during a sermon.
I find the verses dealing with the judgment of God , or the doctrines of grace are very clearly and plainly put forth by the KJV,or any of the similar versions already spoken of here.
Some of the modern translations have lowered the bar, or rounded of the edge that is given with the older translations

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Joshua,

Thanks for an excellent post (your #30). Incidentally, I am not a Rev., but a ruling elder who has been functioning as a teaching elder/pastor (these are those entitled to the designation “Rev.”) for maybe 4 years on this foreign mission field. I would gladly step down and relinquish my de facto office if someone qualified were to come on board. The bottom line for me is, the gospel needs to be proclaimed here according to the Reformed faith, that a faithful witness to the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ be heralded.

You probably have seen this, but there is a significant difference between the TR and the MT (Majority Text), as I noted in the first post of the thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/. That said, I nonetheless use the excellent research and hypothesizing of the MT advocates, such as Maurice Robinson, Jakob Van Bruggen, Wilber Pickering, etc., when making my defense of the TR. (I know that Dr. Robinson, for one, disavows the TR/KJV position.) They posit some of the best critiques of / defenses against the CT and ET (Eclectic Text) views.

Re the Beelzebub issue, this is what I ended with:

Reading in Dr. (& pastor) Kirk DiVietro’s Where the King James Bible Leaves the Greek Text of Theodore Beza 1598 I found more on Beelzebub.

It was laid upon the AV translators to observe fifteen rules* pertaining to their work. DiVietro has a table in his book examining the variants between Beza and the KJV, and regarding Matthew 10:25 he says,

The name Beelzebub as opposed to Beelzeboul can be explained by Rule #2 which stated The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.**​

The name Beelzebub had been established in English usage and so became the acceptable translation of [size=+1]beelzeboul[/size].

So it is possible Beelzebub was not in Erasmus’ edition, as it was not in Stephen’s or Beza’s, but rather was made a translation instead of a textual issue for those working on the new AV. [size=+1]beelzeboub[/size] does appear in Scrivener’s TR/1894 in Matthew 10:25, but not in 12:25, where [size=+1]beelzeboul[/size] is the reading.

So we can understand why the word was translated as it is in the King James, and appears as it does in Scrivener's TR Matthew 10:25…

Today, in the modern world, if one were to write a play and term it ‘Beelzebul,’ would anyone (except Bible students) know what it was about? But if they called it ‘Beelzebub,’ that name is commonly recognized. It seems that may have been the translation choice of the early Reformation Bibles, and for the same reason.

--------

* To see the rules: Brief History of the King James Bible by Dr. Laurence M. Vance (scroll down a bit). Note: Although Rule #1 said, “The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit”, it turned out that the new translation “agreed much more with the Geneva than with any other.” [K.D.]
** “The second rule requires that the mode then used in spelling the proper names should be retained as far as might be.” [K.D.]

It is a nuanced subject, and godly wisdom would be needed in any updating of the AV. There have been updates before, and these pertained mostly to spelling.

John Burgon, and also E.F. Hills, were of the mind that a faithful updating of the King James Bible would be a good thing. (This was the commission and intended purpose given to the Revision committee in 1871, but which Westcott and Hort violated and subverted with a text and agenda of their own, contra the specific instructions of the Church of England.) So two of our premiere Traditional Text defenders agree with you, Joshua. Note, though, that Burgon was not a KJV man, but a Majority Text proponent. Hills discusses this in his book, The King James Version Defended.

Ken brought out the differences between ye and you – the only clear English equivalent would be the South’s y’all. Other seeming archaisms are actually more true to the meaning of the Greek grammar than the modern renderings.

Re the Protestant Dutch Bible, the Statenvertaling, one could reckon it almost equivalent to the AV, with but minute deviations, as in Romans 7:6 (one of the readings where E.F. Hills preferred the Dutch reading [in the Greek]).

I would welcome – just for the record – an updated-language AV, as long as the meanings, and the majestic (Hebrew-Greek language-structure rendered into) English was retained. Jakob Van Bruggen’s lesser-known work, The Future of the Bible (available from Russ Spees <[email protected]>, along with all of Ted Letis' works), deals extensively and in great depth on the translation issue, as well as some textual matters. This is an excellent book.

I would no doubt keep and exclusively use my AV, though an updated form of it would be most welcome, and I could well use it in the church.

Re the Titus 2 and 2 Peter 1 readings (see thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/titus-2-13-2-Peter-1-1-granville-sharp-18634/#post232768) I would stay with the AV’s readings, for there is a richness of meaning the supposedly clearer / more accurate modern versions neglect. But these are small points, and ones, if retained as the AV reads, would not hinder modern folks from accessing the text.

“Compromise” or “concede” are not necessarily evil words in this matter (to some they no doubt will be). I would be willing to compromise insofar as agreeing that an update could be helpful; for those who are aghast at the direction the CT and ET Bibles are going to have a contemporary version faithful to the AV around which they could rally – this would be a good thing. It will not happen with the AV itself. I am a purist, yet if there were a contemporary version which remained pure it could do wonders for the church.

Steve

 

[KMK]

Mr. Poe,

Thank you; I was referring to the Majority Text.

Rev. Klein,

I agree with you regarding "you" and "ye". I think they should be retained in the interests of greater accuracy. Are you sure that the -eth, -th meanings really add anything to the accuracy of the translation? I am not good at English grammatical terms, but I'm assuming those are something along the lines of present participial endings? Or something to that effect?

I don't see any difference between, "He that believes..." and "He that believeth"; I don't think an update in the area would entail a loss of accuracy.

And that still leaves all of the wot's, wit's, staves, leasing, et al.

Anyway, I'm out of my league in this discussion; I just don't like to see more divisions than are necessary.

I am out of my league as well, but doesn't -eth mean that the underlying Greek word is a participle? By simply changing 'believeth' to 'believes', aren't we losing the sense of the participle?

 

[Thomas2007]

Joshua,

I wanted to take a minute this afternoon and address your post, thank you for taking the time to express your thoughts.

I think I understand your frustration with Biblical English expressed in the Authorized Version, however, I do not agree with your argument. The reason is that it is presuming that modern English is in some way more simple, when it is merely your training in the latter, and lack thereof in the former, which is at issue. A little training in Biblical English and anyone can not only understand the Authorized Version, but can do so consistent with the meaning of the underlying original tongues. In turn, if Confessional unity is established in terms of it, much of the arguments continually raised about the Greek simply no longer exist, and stronger bonds are built in terms of the Truth of Scripture you are able to know instead of what you are not able to know.

I do not know precisely how much learning you have in terms of the textual debate, but you do seem to express an understanding that has been gained by some considerable study. In doing so you have had to learn a lot of technical language, references, and concepts inherit in the discipline. This has required many hours of study, whereas people like myself and Elder Raflasky have invested years into this that I actually disdain because I would be much better off putting that time into doctrine and other theological pursuits, but it is simply a necessity in order to be able to defend certainty in my faith, which has been unfortunately assaulted by the Church itself.

The very definition of belief requires trust in the witness of another, the veracity of that witness is necessarily presumed, hence to have strength of faith it requires one to defend the veracity of the witness in whom they believe. It is alarming, that in the Reformed community as a whole, that the foundational premise of this principle has become mystical wherein the veracity of the witness in which one believes does not require trust or defense, but is really rather blind. The textual issue is not now nor has it ever been one of texts, it is an argument concerning Authority, and so is translation. I'll elaborate and relate more on that in a moment.

First, though, please consider that every area of study requires precision and develops in terms of its own subset a language to express its ideas. For example, we use the term Trinity to express a Biblical doctrine of Scripture's revelation about the ontology of the Deity. While this is not a word derived from Scripture, it expresses the precision of meaning concerning a Scripural doctrine, when you use it everything contained within that expansive meaning in incorporated therein by reference. So, it is with all language, this is simply not simplistic thinking - but very complex thinking.

You're plea for simplicity in translation is actually a quest for tremendous complexity, because you aren't taking into full account the expansive utilization of language and the means in which you interpret it within the culture you live. English is a very complex language, it is quite different in its philological and etymological orientation than Hebrew or Greek, and consists of Anglo Saxon, French, Latin, Spanish and other languages, today it is even more influenced, especially in great degree from the drug culture, African culture and a tremendous amount of pornographic influence. People speak with one another in terms of something being "cool," but not cold, "mind blowing," but no physical or mental damage to the brain &c, you interact with this on a daily basis with simplicity and ease because you are raised in it, not because it is simple, indeed linguistically it means the exact opposite of what the words are utilized to mean - you have simply been trained to interpret its complexities. Hence, you interpret it's complexities with ease, and thus presume it is simple, concluding that the linguistics of the precision of the Biblical English of the Authorized Version need to be made similarly simple.

For example, you make an argument concerning "believeth," but if you'll do a search on BibleGateway.com, you'll find that believe, believeth, believest, believed, and believing are all in the Authorized Version - not just "believeth." Likewise, you make an argument against "leasing," (Psalm 4:2) to mean lieing, but the Saxon original of "leasing" from leasunge, is quite different than the meaning of lie, which is generally understood in terms of a verbal falsehood on its face. We also use the term lie, to mean lay down, so if you changed that Scripture are you certain it will be interpreted to mean uttering falsehoods, or will others possibly interpret it to mean being lazy?

By this translation and the development of Biblical English they intended to move the meaning of the underlying tongues into English as well as maintain continuity with ancient catholic orthodoxy - which is critical. Modern translations have little or no concern with maintaining theological continuity, they are attempting to maintain continuity of God's word with the culture, not with theology. There are many more examples I can give, but I think you get the point, if you can interpret cool to not mean cold, then you can learn the meaning of leasing, or shambles to mean marketplace as in 1 Corinthians 10:25 &c. If just a fraction of the time you have invested to study the text critical debate was applied to learning how to understand the Authorized Version, you would have it mastered, and no longer suffer confusion.

However, any field of study that is not the lowest common denominator will work toward precision of language. If you studied law, medicine or any of the sciences, for example, you'd have to learn a lot of Latin and specialized words. If you had to have an operation, would you want your doctor to instruct his nurse to hand him that really cool looking dohickey, no no, that ultra cool dohickey, so he can remove your appendix? Theology and the study of Scripture and its precision is more important than medicine, for it has to do with your spiritual health and the life of your immortal soul. In law, many things in life require a license, this is because the activity without it would otherwise be a crime, a tort or a trespass. I bet you have a drivers license, do you know what a tort is?

If not, your obedience was not preconditional upon a demand for total perfection of your knowledge, neither would you successfully demand that complex areas of life, such as law or medicine, must linguistically present themselves to the lowest common denominator of language skills or vocabulary of culture at large. If you think about it for a moment, there isn't any specialized area of study in life that you can make this kind of a plea in regard to its language or vocabulary and be taken seriously. Why should Scripture or theology be any different?

Many Reformed people like the Geneva Bible, it has wonderful notes, but it was created by disenfranchised middle class refugees trying to escape persecution of Bloody Mary. While this became the accepted standard in Puritan England, that was not the case in Puritan Colonial America (1), as they began taking seriously the concept of Sola Scriptura in it's expansive sense that the word of God apply to all of life, they sought continuity with the Reformed doctrine of Authority recognized by a tripartite representation of the social order consisting of feudal heads of families, ecclesiastical leadership and the civil magistrate. This is consistent with the teaching of Theodore Beza in Rights of Magistrates and Duties of Subjects, Rutherford in Lex Rex, and Vindicae Contra Tyrannos among other Reformed works. Hence, the Authorized Version became the standard in America because it was, as against the commoners Geneva Bible, an establishment Bible with a high estate and impeccable intellectual credentials. It was a Bible that could provide the foundations of a Christian Commonwealth with continuity in terms of Authority between private, public and religious life, consistent with Reformed teaching on the tripartite recognition of Authority and bringing all of life under God's Word.

American's today, have little concept of the difference between estate and class, this was not so from the 17th through the late 19th century. This is a modern development and it coincides with the low view of Scripture, a result of abandonment of its lofty estate, adopted by the Church. If you look at our social order, it is incredibly complex, multiple governments, multiple jurisdictions and multiple legal statuses. There are, in fact, nineteen different legal status's (e.g., estates) that you can have under the United States Constitution, are you a freeman, a landowner, a slave, a woman, an indian &c? Americans today only think in terms of class and they define it in terms of economics, this was not intended to be so, a minister of the Gospel used to have a high estate, even if he was economically of the meanest class. This is no longer the case today, at least in the modern mind, it is actually still a legal reality that people are just ignorant of, those who aren't are able to live in terms of a different estate than the common man.

While some words could use updating much like the 1769 update of the Authorized Version, the people themselves have to have the attitude and desire for knowledge of truth and to live in terms of continuity of life, to be able to receive the Scripture in the high estate it exists in American jurisprudence first. Generally, most Christians today are more than happy to be of the lowest possible estate and only want Scripture in terms of their class as disenfranchised refugees.

In history we recognize certain men above others, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Owen, Rutherford, Westminster Divines &c they are in terms of the Reformed Faith, high points in an uptrending Christian culture - the Authorized Version was a literary high point in terms of their work, and it became a juridical high point as a result of the American War for Independence. Since that time we still recognize certain men above others, such as Warfield or Machen, but unfortunately they are high points in a downtrending Christian culture. It is much more important to work in terms of changing this trend, instead of continually re-translating Scripture to coincide with a new downtrend. You have to have continuity in terms of life in order to be able to do that, presently the foundations of our Christian Commonwealth are still intact, we will have to fight to regain lost ground, but it's something we can attain in a generation or two. If, however, we continue with this low view of Scripture propagating discontinuity of our lives, we will again fall under a millennium of spiritual darkness more heinous than our Reformed fathers escaped.

I mean this in no way demeaning to you or your post, but please consider the nobility of the estate of King Jesus, His entitlement to be Lord of our lives in a totality, and work towards bringing every one of your thoughts captive, instead of His words and rising to live in terms of your high estate in His Kingdom and not the low estate of the arrogant and self styled "high class" commoners, that don't understand the difference of these things.

The Authorized Version provides you much more than just the Word of God, as beautiful as it is, in your native tongue, it provides you the power of that Word in its high estate and establishment in the culture in which you live. (1 Corinthians 4:20) Learn how to put on the whole Armour of God's Word as Providence has delivered it unto you, and utilize that so He can use you to pull down strongholds and overcome spiritual wickedness in high places, so you may be able to stand.

Finally, beware of the Scribes, that would strip you of that power with craftiness appealing to your sensual and fleshy desires for simplicity and will leave you standing naked, with a Bible you may be able to understand more easily, but no armour to protect you in the evil day.

In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas

--------------------------
Notes:

(1) See, Harry Stout, "Word and Order in Colonial New England," in eds., Nathan O. Hatch and Mark A. Noll, The Bible in America (New York, 1982), 19-38.

 

[Ravens]

Mr. Weddle,

First off, let me say that I read with some interest your various posts on this board, and, while I do not agree with you on everything (for instance, your posts on dispensationalism as related to Chalcedon), I do appreciate your insight on many of the topics on which you write.

It was that measure of respect for you that kept me from responding. I appreciate that you disagree with me on some particulars, but in the main, I felt like I got a response that went over most of the foundational issues of authority and translation on which I already agree.

You're plea for simplicity in translation is actually a quest for tremendous complexity

I don't recall arguing for "simplicity in translation" as a principle in and of itself. Rather, I just called for the updating of archaic words that nobody uses anymore, or even words that have come to have a somewhat contrary usage today (e.g. "prevent"). If that's not a sufficient example, there are many more. As I've stated before, when the "Bible for Today" society publishes "Defined" King James Bibles, and hardcore Authorized Bible preachers like David Silversides (I love his ministry and listen to two sermons a week from him, if not more; I respect many of the men who endorse the AV) have to clarify the language of the AV in their own sermons, and many ordained elders in Reformed churches have problems with the language, then, in my opinion, I take it that it could be upgraded.

I would argue that, in fact, you agree with me in principle when you say:

While some words could use updating much like the 1769 update of the Authorized Version

So you agree that words can be updated, and have been updated to the betterment of the version. So our only disagreement is on whether or not that point has been reached. I confess that, though I agree with you on many of the issues of authority, the effect of television and visual communication on the mind, the state of the people, etc., I don't see how your post was that revelant to the gist of what I was saying.

Take care.

 

[Ravens]

Mr. Rafalsky,

Thanks for your response! If I understand what you have written correctly, you believe the "TR" to read Beelzebul, and that the Authorized version translators rendered it as Beelzebub so as to allow the populace to understand that it referred to Satan. Is that correct? (I hadn't read your explanation in a couple of days, and as I didn't reply promptly, I'm wanting to make sure I remembered it correctly).

If so, then that makes sense, and I understand their rationale for translating it that way. I was working off the assumption that the different T.R.'s, or the one to which you held, had "Beelzebub" in the Greek.

Anyway, I don't know if this has been made clear, but I actually agree with you that the "ye's" should be kept. They enhance clarity and more closely align with the grammar of the autographa, so I would hope that any update would keep them.

Lastly, you say:

Re the Protestant Dutch Bible, the Statenvertaling, one could reckon it almost equivalent to the AV, with but minute deviations, as in Romans 7:6 (one of the readings where E.F. Hills preferred the Dutch reading [in the Greek]).

I suppose that's one of the issues where I see some fuzziness either in myself, or in the Authorized version camp. It seems as if some Authorized version proponents affirm that the AV is the result of God's "singular care and providence" functioning in such a way that the very jot's and tittle's are preserved. And, indeed, that verse is often quoted in these debates.

I had assumed the Continental and Dutch Bibles were very similar, with only minor discrepancies. But the "rub" for me is that those "minor discrepancies" amount to a handful of jot's and tittle's. Which brings me back to my original query: How is it not nationalism, or simply an educated guess, to affirm that God's singular care and providence functioned only in the Bible of the English church, while leaving the Dutch church in error as to a handful of jot's and tittle's?

That isn't asked in "haughtiness" at all. Its one of the genuine questions I have when the "Protestant Bible" is talked about, since there were other Protestant countries other than England, and other Protestant languages than English.

Anyway, on most other things I think we are in agreement, and I deeply respect your effort and work in this area, as in others.

Blessings Steve!

 

[Ravens]

Mr. Weddle,

I'm going to work today, and wanted to apologize for the snarkiness of the post. I went back to edit it, but in my hurry I can't figure out how to edit it for tone while, at the same time, leaving in the substance of my point, that, namely, the laying again of foundations when I largely agree with you (whether you agree that I agree with you is, I suppose, a different matter altogether), and am only saying that an update would be profitable.

I'll also agree that "lying" was a poor choice for "leasing", and that most translations use "deception" if I'm not mistaken. That wasn't meant to be the best example of old language; I had just been thinking about the 4th Psalm, so it was fresh in my mind.

Regardless, my only point is, that many words can use updating, which is why Cambridge Bibles, Thomas Chain Reference Bibles, (I would assume) most Authorized Version Study Bibles, Defined Bible For Today bibles, etc., all come with a "list of archaic words" in the back with their modern English equivalent.

I would agree that tearing out "theological words" like justification, sanctification, etc., is, indeed, simplifying the text in an improper way. But I don't agree that updating that long list of words that most AV Bibles come with would be inappropriate or improper.

Anyway, that being said, blessings to you sir!

 

[Ravens]

One more thing, and then I'm done for the day; could you give me an example (and you might be able to; this isn't a "challenge") how the -th or -eth add anything to the text that an -s wouldn't? In terms of clarity?

Take Lazarus. Is "He stinketh" not adequately covered by "He stinks" or "He is stinking"? "He that believeth" by "He that believes"? As it stands now, I think any argument that they are substantially different is just straining gnats, though I am willing to be proven wrong. And if they aren't integral (like the distinction between you and ye: That is integral) then I don't see why they should be retained.

Anyway, off to work.

Take care brother.

 

[Davidius]

No, the -eth ending does not necessarily signify a participle in the original. It is a 3rd person singular, present indicative active ending (in other words, a regular verb, such as ours ending in -s/-es). A participle is not a verb. It is a verbal adjective (adjective made from a verb). In English, a present participle ends in "-ing," e.g. "the running man." Sometimes a Greek participle requires an entire clause with a regular verb in order to be translated in a way that sounds normal in English, but this would be the only case in which the "-s/-es" ending would be somewhat different grammatically from the original, but that's how it is with "-eth." My point is, those two endings are the same in English.

 

[MW]

The "s" ending is the modern alternative to "eth." BTW, it was in the 17th century when the AV was written. But if one is going to adhere to the older pronominal distinction for the purpose of accuracy then "est" and "eth" is necessary baggage.

 

[KMK]

The "s" ending is the modern alternative to "eth." BTW, it was in the 17th century when the AV was written. But if one is going to adhere to the older pronominal distinction for the purpose of accuracy then "est" and "eth" is necessary baggage.

From Wiktionary:

pronominal verb: (in some languages) A form of reflexive verb that has an attached pronoun