View Single Post
  #5  
Old 02-27-2008, 07:03 AM
bibleprotector's Avatar
bibleprotector bibleprotector is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 587
Default

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.

Quote:
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.
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.