View Single Post
  #14  
Old 06-30-2009, 07:52 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

In itself using a defined KJB edition is not a problem, though I personally would not utilise such a work. I believe the problem is where people think it is permissible even occasionally to define the words of the English Scripture according to supposed meanings of the Greek or Hebrew words, or else to try and define the roots to English words etymologically, that is to say, this English word comes from Greek, and in Greek this word means _____. The problem with that is that we are dealing with English words, not Greek ones, and whether or not they came from Greek, and had a certain meaning, is beside the point, since the English words as they stand have an English meaning.

A classic example is the Scripture in Matthew 5:18 which states, "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." People have tried to argue that the jots and tittles are Greek words, and that they apply to Hebrew lettering. They might say that jot means iota which means jod. What they have utterly failed to appreciate is that jot, iota and jod are entirely different words, and that the word "jod" appears in Psalm 119! Moreover, the word "tittle" comes from Latin, so it cannot be somehow a reference to Hebrew and/or Greek exclusively! The truth is that "jot" and "tittle" are English words, with English meanings listed in English dictionaries. These words can (and really, must) apply to the words of Scripture as they are communicated in our English Bible.

As for various words in the Bible not in common use, this does not mean that such a word is "archaic". The reality is that many words may be not be commonly used, whether names "Hamath", theological terms "propitiation", items "ephod", etc., yet we should see these as particular. No less should words like "tires", "wimples" or "taches" be thought "archaic", as the Scripture presently uses them, so they should be retained, and if needed, explained.

As for the Bible using the language of the day in 1611, clearly, we are observing Bible English, one that is intelligible to believers today as much as then, because of the conduciveness which exists between Bible English and the various times and places of English since 1611. The KJB therefore has some sort of lasting impact, a continuing relevance, despite the ebb and flow of present opinions (and definitions).

In all this, I think that Waite has done the best he could do according to his beliefs. If a person upholds a modern construction of the Greek TR as being more authoritative than the English, there is a flaw. For example, his opinions include that he does not “like to use the word ‘inerrant’ of any English (or other language) translation of the Bible because the word ‘inerrant’ is implied from the Greek ... which means literally, ‘God-breathed.’ God Himself did not ‘breathe out’ English ... He did ‘breathe out’ Hebrew/Aramaic [sic], and Greek. Therefore, only the Hebrew/Aramaic [sic] and Greek can be rightly termed ... ‘inerrant’! It is my personal belief and faith that the Hebrew/Aramaic [sic] and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible have been preserved by God Himself so that these texts can properly be called ‘inerrant’ as well as being the very ‘inspired and infallible words of God’!” He goes on to state that people apparently cannot “take over completely 100% of what He has there [in the Hebrew and Greek]. I think the King James translators, when they took the Hebrew or Aramaic [sic], putting it into English, and the Greek, putting it into English, that they matched up one of the Hebrew meanings, or one of the Greek meanings, as they translated it into the English language. There are many other choices in English they could have used ...” (Defending the KJV, pages 239, 240).

In other words, he does not believe the Word of God is fully 100% sense for sense in English, and this implies that the authority of Scripture ultimately is not in English. Of course, no one can show absolutely where the final correct form of the Scripture is in Greek, and even Scrivener’s critical Textus Receptus has issues where it does not match the English properly. (Another problem is that "Aramaic" is the wrong word, in that it should be "Syriack".)

If we ask, "Where is the book of the LORD (see Isaiah 34:16) we are supposed to read?" it cannot be in Greek, which is now a vastly unknown tongue, uncommon, only containing a New Testament tradition (the Greek Old Testament is accepted by no one as perfect!), and it requires too much leaning on the world and unbelievers to interpret. This is quite the opposite to the time of Tyndale, where now we must rely upon the English Bible we have received, not the field of original language studies, and good-but-INCOMPLETE sense English Bibles... I believe the KJB gives the full text of the entire Bible as well as the full sense of every word.

Last edited by bibleprotector; 06-30-2009 at 08:08 AM.