[Biblestudent]

Last week, I was teaching some Bible students (Filipinos) to pronounce the verses well. Some have problems of not pronouncing the "s" at the end of a word. Reading from 2 Corinthians 11:28, the student said "beside". I told him to say "besideS". Later on, we found out that the Bible (KJV) I was looking at says "besides", but his (KJV) says, "beside".

Is there anyone who can help?

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Biblestudent

Last week, I was teaching some Bible students (Filipinos) to pronounce the verses well. Some have problems of not pronouncing the "s" at the end of a word. Reading from 2 Corinthians 11:28, the student said "beside". I told him to say "besideS". Later on, we found out that the Bible (KJV) I was looking at says "besides", but his (KJV) says, "beside".

Is there anyone who can help?

Every Cambridge printing I examined, plus an Oxford Scofield I have, read "Beside."

[bibleprotector]

Beside and besides, while appearing to be synonymous, are not. The meaning of beside can be “in addition to”, or “next to”, "along side", “except for”, etc., whereas “besides” is only used with numbers, meaning something like “more in addition to”.

Clearly, confusing the use of them is against the jots and tittles of the Word as it has come through the process of purification. Sometimes it was wrongly printed in 1611. (It is possible that the distinction of "besides" and "beside" only came clear with the standardisation of the language from around the 1750s. No matter the case: the 1769 to present editions are correct in this matter.)

Here is a quote from my book:

The Oxford English Dictionary shows that “besides” has all the meanings of “beside”, except that “besides” specifically means “in addition, over and above, as well”, “Introducing a further consideration: As an additional or further matter, moreover, further” and meaning “Other than mentioned, otherwise, else”.

Therefore, the cases in which “besides” appears, must relate to the specific meaning as laid out above, “And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place” (Genesis 19:12). This case can easily be substituted for the words “in addition”. The case is even clearer where mathematics is actually used: “All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six” (Genesis 46:26).

The same case can be made for the other verses which contain “besides”, and which conveys a specific concept, which information would otherwise be absent from the English Bible. Thus, when Paul said, “And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.” (1 Corinthians 1:16), it relates to a numerical accounting of how many Paul baptised, or again, Paul uses numerical and quantitative terms, “I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.” (Philemon 1:19).

Scrivener made a tirade about the use of “beside” and “besides”, and yet it is so clear that there are distinct and proper meanings to these words, that it is even more amazing that there has been so little overt rejection of Scrivener’s poor and blind scholarship in this regard, though the general and tacit historical rejection of his work is plain enough.

[Will Kinney]

Hi Peter. Thanks for the little study on these two words. I wasn't aware of this subtle distinction. I made a copy of it for further use.

Thanks again,

Will K

[bibleprotector]

Every word in the KJB is important. That is why the edition issue comes into play, because the differences are so exact, accurate and distinct, that it requires even a proper presentation:

Here are some examples of different words with different usage/meanings/applications:
"throughly" and "thoroughly"
"vail" and "veil"
"plow" and "plough"
"recompense" and "recompence"
"alway" and "always"
"afterward" and "afterwards"
"divers" and "diverse"
"glistering" and "glittering"
"sometime" and "sometimes"
"stablish" and "establish"
"yea/nay" and "yes/no"

The problem is that many have granted Webster more authority than what he should have.

There is structural, grammatical and metrical accuracy in the King James Bible. There is conceptual exactness in the very order of the wording as it is. To change one jot or tittle (which are English words and apply to parts of English writing/typeface) would be to bring in some spot or wrinkle to the Word of God.

[pbiwolski]

A similiar issue occured when students in the Christian school I teach at came to me with a question. One of their memory verses was Luke 16:23, and the word in question was lift.

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Two students had King James Bibles that read, and in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments... The publisher was Holman if I recall correctly. This spurred some thought on my part and the students wanted an answer as to which was right.

After a few minutes I authoritatively stated that lift was the correct reading (I went with the majority, 28 out of 30 students were in agreement.).

Actually, I looked at the tense of the other verbs in the verse, and determined that being and seeth were both present tense, therefore, I determined that lift should match in verb tense.

In doing so, the present tense (although it does not match the previous verse) matches the current condition of the rich man, for he is still in hell lifting up his eyes being in torments, etc.