Jeremiah 32:5 with a question mark
 

It is very important for us to have the exact presentation of the King James Bible, and I believe that this is the Pure Cambridge Edition. There are various King James Bible only teachers who at least prefer the Cambridge, and there are some who say that the Oxford has errors. I believe that the Oxford Edition does contain impurities, and that it is best if we all use the same thing, and that the pure and perfect presentation of the Bible in English is in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.

It is important because every word matters: “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5a).

It is important because every letter and punctuation mark matters: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18).

The Pure Cambridge Edition has, at Jeremiah 32:5, “And he shall lead Zedekiah to Babylon, and there shall he be until I visit him, saith the LORD: though ye fight with the Chaldeans, ye shall not prosper?” But the Oxford Edition has “prosper.” This seems like a minor difference. But it is major. It is major because the very correctness of the Word of God is at stake.

Now, the reason why the verse should end with a question mark is because in verse three we read that Zedekiah said, “Wherefore dost thou prophesy, and say ...” and then the reset of verse three to the end of verse five is his quote of the prophecy, but he is asking “Wherefore”, that is, Why do you say this?

Since “Wherefore” is the beginning of the question, the end of the question should have a question mark, as is given at the end of verse five.

All the editions which do not have a question mark at the end of verse five are impure presentations. That includes the 1611 Edition. The Word of God is pure, but obviously it took some time before the King James Bible was being printed exactly correct in regards to all the spelling and little printer's mistakes.

If you look at Luke 6:3, 4, you will see that Jesus asked a question, and that He quoted the Old Testament in His question, so at the end of the quotation, which is the end of the question, there is a question mark "?".

See also Matthew 19:4, 5.

According to Jeremiah 32 the king is asking him why he made that prophecy, and then states the prophecy.

"For Zedekiah king of Judah had shut him up, saying, Wherefore dost thou prophesy (in other words why are you saying this), and say, ......

So I don't think it needs to end with a question mark and I also don't believe that if the other editions disagree with that, that they are wrong.

Another thing Bibleprotector I'm not for sure if God is into the preservation of punctuation, since He said "the WORDS of the Lord are pure words..... Thou shalt keep THEM (speaking of the words) from this generation for ever. the verse you used which spoke of the "jot or tittle" I don't believe it is speaking of punctuation, I believe it is speaking of the entire prophecy and that every part of it shall be fulfilled. God only inspired the originals (which we don't have) and according to ancient findings they did not have punctuation. So was God all that concerned about it? Don't get me wrong it needs to be there but I would not say that all the punctuation is perfect because that would change with the translation as words were added to make it flow from Greek or Hebrew to English.

Jots and tittles implies every last detail, and this includes the punctuation. This is because the punctuation is a part of the language, and changing punctuation at any place alters something, and can change ideas quite drastically. For example, Luke 23:32.

I assume this is referring to the words in italic typeface. Actually, people misunderstand this area completely. Italics have two uses: they are used to indicate where only a small amount of textual evidence for those wordings is found, and they are used to indicate where the same concepts or implied sense of the originals not expressed by actual words needs to be actually expressed with English words. This is because it may take more English words to say the same thing than the original languages. In no way are the translators actually adding to the inspiration. Let me explain:

We know that ideas are expressed by words, and that there is a group of words which, in the Autographs, were exactly expressing God's message. We know that these words were preserved in the collective of many copies, and that if the same message is to be given in English, it may well take a few extra English words to convey the exact same message. Therefore, we cannot say that the translators were just adding English words to the Scripture, just to make it make sense as it came from a different language. In fact, they were giving the actual translation, even with the italic words.

In English, we can say, "I am typing posts for this forum on my computer, and you are also typing posts." Yet, the last part of the message is implied, which I could add in "italics", "you are also typing posts on a computer." But I didn't say "on a computer", but that is what I meant. That in some way explains how the Hebrew or Greek may mean something, and yet because of the Biblical English, there is a requirement to use more English words to convey the same sense.

John Burgon wrote, "the plain fact being that the men of 1611 — above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them — produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English" (Revision Revised, page 167).

And, "we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English." (page 190).

It is obvious that the italic words are just as much the Word of God as those set in roman type. We then do not have "additional" words with the italics, but "every word of God".

Since the words of the Lord are pure words, we should expect that the letters are pure too. Why would the words be pure and not the punctuation? Surely the God who has with his power preserved and provided for us a word perfect Bible is also going to make sure that the punctuation is right as well!

It is really irrelevant whether or not there was or was not punctuation in the original languages. The fact that the Scripture promises to come to the Gentiles, and that it comes to them in English, and that English has commas and full stops requires that God's Word in English would include commas and full stops.

It is not beneath God to be concerned about the punctuation: since He is perfect, he would want the Bible to be punctuation perfect as well.

Actually, this passage states that all Scripture IS inspired - that includes translations and copies, which Timothy had - he was not reading the originals:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

No, jots and tittles does not refer to punctuation. Study out what those two words mean: jots is basically referring to things like the dotting of i's, and tittles are accent marks that affect the meaning of a word. I do believe that if someone plays around with punctuation it will change the meaning of the passage - but the original Hebrew and Greek do not have punctuation. It is the translators' wisdom (hopefully directed by God) that determines how a passage is punctuated.

Wait a moment! There are no "accents" in the English. How can "tittle" mean an accent mark, when the King James Bible has no accent marks? Surely, the real meaning of the word tittle is obvious from Scripture itself, as is also attested to in the Oxford English Dictionary, that the word means small strokes, including the punctuation.

If we are just relying on man's wisdom on how the Scripture is punctuated, then by chance it may be right or wrong. But if we rely on the truth that God is caring for His Word to the very details, including its presentation (see Habakkuk 2:2), then we know that it is the Spirit who in His superintendence over history has ensured that things have worked out in such a way so that the translators and subsequent editors were able to get the punctuation in the King James Bible perfectly right and proper. There are no "multiple valid ways" for presenting the punctuation of any passage. (There is no wrong punctuation use in the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible.)

Jots and tittles refer to the Hebrew Old Testament - Jesus was saying God will preserve His Word and all of it will be fulfilled. The reference is to the OT, the application is to the whole Bible - but you can't take that and change the meaning of jots and tittles to make them directly refer to the English, because they do not.

Oh, but "jot" and "tittle" are English words in the English Bible, which is the Word of God which the promise applies to anyway. Otherwise the promise is restricted to only the Hebrew. But it isn't. But it is best and finally fulfilled with the KJB. I said that "jot" and "tittle" are English words, and you only have to check the Oxford English Dictionary to see this.

As for promises concerning the purification and truth of the Word, of course there is a direct relation between when it was said and written and that it is in the King James Bible. Not only generally, in the sense that any true Bible version is right, but also that there is a specific inference throughout Scripture as concerning the KJB. For example, when the promise was given that "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." (Isaiah 28:11), it is prophesying of English. We know that various references in this prophecy have not yet come to pass, and since the Gospel is to come to the Jews in power in the last days, we may already see it, if we examine the providences:
1. We have the Gospel and a perfect Bible and speak English.
2. The Jews are becoming ripe for conversion, and can speak English.
Therefore, not using their language (Hebrew), but another (English), we should preach to them the Gospel using the KJB.

Let me study this out a little more guys and then I'll get back with you later. You have produced thought and I appreciate it guys! thanks again!

Isaiah 28 was directly referring to their captivities - which would make those languages Assyrian and Babylonian. Then Paul makes an application in the NT to the gift of tongues.

My Cambridge Bible is without the question mark, an old Collins KJV that I have has the question mark. None of the examples shown below have the question mark.

I dont see Gods pure word being altered by the use or not of the question mark. The word "wherefore" still indicates a question and the sense of the passage is not altered either way, in my opinion.

This is not at all like the issue of the placement of the comma in Luk 23:43.

I wouldnt know Hebrew from Zwahili, so can anyone tell me how the passage was structured in that language? Was there a form of punctuation or was the question made obvious in another way?

(Bishops) And Zedekias shalbe caryed vnto Babylon, and there shall he be vntyll the tyme that I visite hym saith the Lorde: but if thou takest in hande to fight against the Chaldees, thou shalt not prosper.

(Geneva) And he shal lead Zedekiah to Babel, & there shall he be, vntil I visit him, saith ye Lord: though ye fight with the Caldeans, ye shall not prosper.


(KJV-1611) And he shall lead Zedekiah to Babylon, and there shall he be vntill I visit him, saith the Lord: though ye fight with the Caldeans, yee shall not prosper.

(KJVR) And he shall lead Zedekiah to Babylon, and there shall he be until I visit him, saith the LORD: though ye fight with the Chaldeans, ye shall not prosper.

fundy

I agree with you fundy that in this passage does it really matter about the question mark. I don't think it's going to make much of a difference either way. I understand the principle of changing punctuation should not be made a habit but what is the big deal in this case? I believe God had a hand in the insertions of punctuation but I don't believe He inspired it. Because again punctuation will change as you make one translation into a different language such as translating the English into French or into Spanish and I think God was aware of that. I believe God only inspired the writing of the originals. I believe that the KJV is perfect because a preservation of a perfect book is perfect.

Present Cambridge printings of the KJB are without the question mark, but the older ones have it.

While the punctuation issue at one place seems like a small issue, it is much larger, because there are multiple differences of words between KJB editions as well.

Surely there should be one right way of punctuating the KJB, just as there would be one right edition. If not, then there is no standard by which we may resist all the new changes that the KJB printers are silently and not so silently introducing.

I personally have not studied out the differences between the Cambridge and the Oxford, but if they are just spelling changes then I would not say that someone who does not have a Cambridge has a impure or corrupt text. Yes punctuation is important, but I'm just not 100% sure that God inspired it.

I look at inspiration as this - A man can sit at a table with a blank sheet of paper and a pen and God literally works through that man to write what He wants. I know that the word inspiration means "God breathed."

All I'm saying is I believe God had a hand in the translation of the King James Bible, but I do not believe He worked through the men as He did in the originals. Could He? Yes He could if He wanted too. But I think if the KJV was INSPIRED by God (according to my defintion of inspiration) then the translators would not have needed to have the other translations there in the room with them, because God would have given it to them anyway.


Whether God INSPIRED it or not, we both have the same outcome - The KJV is perfect.

Look at the cover page of your KJV - it says "translated out of the original tongues with previous translations diligently compared and revised." The KJV is inspired by God because it is Scripture - though it was not reinspired. God inspired the words, not the writers or the translators.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Amen Jerry. I never noticed that before. The words are inspired and the people who wrote them down were moved by the Holy Ghost. So, the said could be said about translations. That is why I contend there are translations being made "by the will of man" and that is why they are in error.

Hey Jerry,

I must disagree. Sometimes when you say things out loud it just doesn't make sense.

"The KJV is inspired by God because it is Scripture - though it was not reinspired. God inspired the words, not the writers or the translators."

I'll attempt to get out of the way and let God speak.

Jeremiah 36:4 Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.
Jeremiah 36:23 And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.
Jeremiah 36:27-29 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, 28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned. 29 And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast?

That is reinspiration! Webster's 1828 (Reinspire, v.t. [re and inspire.] To inspire anew.)

Was your Bible written by "the will of man" or by "holy men of God"?

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

I don't mean to come off too strong. I believe God is in the whole process of preserving his words, if he is not...well, that doesn't leave us in a very good position!

In Christ,

Jot&Tittle

Just to clear up any misunderstandings (noting that I could have not been clear in my communications), I wish to state that the Words of the Bible are inspired by God and the writers (whether originally or a translation) were moved by the Holy Ghost to write them down. Since 2 Timothy 3:16 says “all scripture IS…”, that is present tense. So, the Scriptures are always inspired, but not everyone who writes them down (as in translating) is inspired to do so unless moved by the Holy Ghost. I don’t see any proof that new-version translators were moved by the Holy Ghost.

By that reckoning, there are translations of the Scriptures that were done by “the will of man” and are therefore full of errors. God doesn’t contradict Himself.

I’ve been questioned many times as to why I believe the KJB is God’s inspired Word. Simple. Faith, longevity and fruit. Name another English Bible that comes close to the KJB in longevity and fruit. And to reiterate, they can’t all be correct. And, God isn’t dead, broke or out of Gas. He’s able to preserve them, since He gave them in the first place.

Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This is how I understood Jerry's statement.

Re-inspiration is inspiring something again. Those manuscripts were destroyed, not un-inspired. God did not RE-inspire the words, He gave them again. If the manuscripts were not destroyed, the words on them would be just as inspired as they were originally.

My Scofield Oxford Edition from 1917 has "prosper." at Jeremiah 32:5. I have an Oxford edition from about 1950 or so, and it has "proper?" My Cambridge editions from the nineteenth century have "prosper?" This issue existed before the Pure Cambridge Edition came about circa 1900.