[Cody1611]

I got in a debate about the context of the 1611 and the King James Bible of today. Some guy posted these verses to prove that the context has changed...

1611 (e-sword):
Ezekiel 24:7 For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust:

1987 (from BibleGateway.com):
Ezekiel 24:7 For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;

----

1611 (e-sword):
Genesis 39:16 And she laid vp his garment by her, vntill her lord came home.

1987 (from BibleGateway.com):
Genesis 39:16 And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home.

----

1611 (e-sword):
Joshua 3:11 Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.

1987 (from BibleGateway.com):
Joshua 3:11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the LORD of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.

Also, I was told that the King James Bible translators sometimes used the Latin. Is this true?

[stephanos]

I don't see how the context of those verses has changed.

Concerning the Latin. Translators will use various 'versions' to corroberate a Greek text. Dr. Thomas Holland writes in "Crowned With Glory"

The second source for making a Greek text is the testimony of ancient versions. These versions, usually tranlated from Greek, are used as a source for establishing a Greek text. Like the Greek manuscripts, there are a variety of ancient versions that do not agree. Among these are the Latin versions (including both the Old Latin and Jerome's Latin Vulgate), Syrian (including the Old Syriac and the Peshitta), Coptic (Egyptian), Gothic (early German), Armenian, Ethiopic, and others. These are useful in demonstrating what the non-Greek reading world used.

So it was one of the tasks of the translators to establish their Greek by tracing it through all the translations that were based on their Greek text. The texts that went through Alexandria and then made their way through Rome, were corrupt. Thankfully, those texts were the minority. The majority of text types reflect the readings of the TR, with variations being few and far between.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Cody1611]

This is a quote by him concerning those 3 verses.

Let's see, in example one, did she pour it on the ground or not?
In example two, was it his lord or her lord?
In example three, is it "the ark of the covenant of the LORD of all the earth" or "the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth,"?

I would say in all three verses the meaning is changed by the added/changed wording.

[MC1171611]

Think about it: the only one whose meaning has changed is the first one: that was likely a typographical error. As far as the other two, what does the wording change? His/Hers, same difference. And God is the Lord of all the earth, so there's no problem with that at all. The later editions simply brought the syntax and grammar into line; there is no major discrepancy at all: this guy's just grasping at straws so he can ignore the Book and be his own Final Authority.

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Think about it: the only one whose meaning has changed is the first one: that was likely a typographical error. As far as the other two, what does the wording change? His/Hers, same difference. And God is the Lord of all the earth, so there's no problem with that at all. The later editions simply brought the syntax and grammar into line; there is no major discrepancy at all: this guy's just grasping at straws so he can ignore the Book and be his own Final Authority.

Pretty much. When folks attack the Bible on things like this it is clear that they're doing just what you said, grasping at staws.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[bibleprotector]

I got in a debate about the context of the 1611 and the King James Bible of today. Some guy posted these verses to prove that the context has changed...

Context (or interpretation) is not altered, because:

1611 (e-sword):
Ezekiel 24:7 For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust:

1987 (from BibleGateway.com):
Ezekiel 24:7 For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;

This was a typographical error in 1611, corrected in 1612.

1611 (e-sword):
Genesis 39:16 And she laid vp his garment by her, vntill her lord came home.

1987 (from BibleGateway.com):
Genesis 39:16 And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home.

Although 1611 matches to the Bishops' and Geneva rendering, I would say that the change was intended by the translators, but is an example of where the printer followed the Bishops' reading rather than the translators' alteration (there are plenty of examples of this happening by accident). It was corrected in 1638.

The first existing draft of the KJB is known as the Bodleian Manuscript. This is made up of sheets of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible which have been bound together to form a complete Bible. Several portions of this book are heavily annotated with handwritten corrections and possible alterations. This draft comes from one (or several) of the groups somewhere in the middle of their translating process. It is speculated by "experts" (and the most likely situation) that the final draft was also made in this form. Thus, a printer would have the Bishops' Bible with corrections written all over it, which could at times be confusing or cause things to be missed. Quite a number of printer errors in 1611 can be explained by this view, particularly unobvious errors that were corrected soon afterward.

1611 (e-sword):
Joshua 3:11 Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.

1987 (from BibleGateway.com):
Joshua 3:11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the LORD of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.

This was a typographical error in 1611, corrected in 1629, which also agrees with the former versions.

Also, I was told that the King James Bible translators sometimes used the Latin. Is this true?

They consulted Latin versions, yes. They did not write any Scripture in the KJB in Latin, though sometimes its effects in English may be noticed, but that is "good English", not Latin.
a. words like "sanctify" are English.
b. word order like "crown royal" is English.

As a final note, I would not say,

His/Hers, same difference.

Now, I know some KJB people try to say that his and her differences don't matter, because it could read true both ways, or could be the same Hebrew word... HOWEVER, since we have a jot and tittle accurate Bible, and the provision of a perfect God, and the words "his" and "her" do change meaning, we must be certain that only one meaning is actually right and intended by God.

This is not a case of the translators saying one thing in 1611, and then everyone since 1638 saying another thing, as though either the translators or the editors were wrong: the situation is clear, the printers in 1611 really did mess things up quite a lot. A typographical error is not a "change" nor a "true reading" in the KJB.

Those who try and make a case out of this against the KJB are grasping at vacuum.

[bibleprotector]

So it was one of the tasks of the translators to establish their Greek by tracing it through all the translations that were based on their Greek text. The texts that went through Alexandria and then made their way through Rome, were corrupt. Thankfully, those texts were the minority. The majority of text types reflect the readings of the TR, with variations being few and far between.

Actually, the Latin texts were in much abundance, not minority, and they do not match very well with the Minority Greek Text. For example, the Latin has much testimony supporting various Majority readings, as well as 1 John 5:7 (which is apparently in minority even in the Majority, though rightly judged it is actually in, not out).

While the Traditional Majority Greek Text is reflected in the TR, the TR is greater because it takes into account the Latin (called the Western Family) and also takes into account the testimony from the Minority Text Family, which it knows (or rather, which its editors knew) was a corrupted. The great deception of Westcott and Hort was to favour one particular manuscript (B) of the Minority Text against all other witnesses (though probably except when Aleph was worse). This equals most modern versions.

Another deception is to follow the majority of the Majority Family only, but to have a bias toward the Minority as well, which equals the NKJV.

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Actually, the Latin texts were in much abundance, not minority, and they do not match very well with the Minority Greek Text. For example, the Latin has much testimony supporting various Majority readings, as well as 1 John 5:7 (which is apparently in minority even in the Majority, though rightly judged it is actually in, not out).

While the Traditional Majority Greek Text is reflected in the TR, the TR is greater because it takes into account the Latin (called the Western Family) and also takes into account the testimony from the Minority Text Family, which it knows (or rather, which its editors knew) was a corrupted. The great deception of Westcott and Hort was to favour one particular manuscript (B) of the Minority Text against all other witnesses (though probably except when Aleph was worse). This equals most modern versions.

Another deception is to follow the majority of the Majority Family only, but to have a bias toward the Minority as well, which equals the NKJV.

Yeah, I was just reading this in Dr. Hollands book (he talks about the Western unofficial text type etc). What I meant was is that the Alexandrian texts are the minority.

Anywho, thanks for clarifying that.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

While the Traditional Majority Greek Text is reflected in the TR, the TR is greater because it takes into account the Latin (called the Western Family) and also takes into account the testimony from the Minority Text Family, which it knows (or rather, which its editors knew) was a corrupted.

Amen.

I would avoid the term Western Family because at times "Western" is used for a supposed Greek text-line (one that was more Latin influenced) of a handful of manuscripts. They come up with this type of stuff.

And the Textus Receptus takes into account early church writers (a huge evidence) and also the variety of factors of internal logic, grammar, external truth, consistency. Also even the Syriac evidence might have contributed a bit. By combining all the elements properly we receive the Reformation Bible, unto the pure and perfect King James Bible. Greek Majority is a major component, yet by itself has many deficiencies (Johannine Comma, Acts 8:37, 'her purification' Luke 2:22 and much more will be faulty in a Greek majority text).

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The great deception of Westcott and Hort was to favour one particular manuscript (B) of the Minority Text against all other witnesses (though probably except when Aleph was worse). This equals most modern versions.

You could say they used Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) in a "proof-text" fashion. If they agreed, if the reading was not totally absurd, that was their text no matter what. Today it is not much different with NA and UBS derivative texts, which are behind all the modern versions. Keep in mind that the modern version English Bibles mask a lot of their Greek text corruptions, e.g. changing "which" or "who" to "he" in 1 Timothy 3:16 and including the true ending of Mark, the resurrection accounts of the Lord Jesus, in the text while claiming it as the tampering of man. Hypocrisy, thou art no jewel.

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Another deception is to follow the majority of the Majority Family only, but to have a bias toward the Minority as well, which equals the NKJV.

While the NKJV has many inferior translations and sickly footnotes throughout, in almost all cases it will follow in the text a TR reading against the Majority Text, where they differ. In my experience exceptions are few, especially if we are just talking NT.

Shalom,
Steven Avery