[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.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hi p. As I understand it, both lift and lifted are past tense. English has several verbs like this that have two forms for the past, or past perfect.

'lift' is used as a past tense in places like Genesis 18:2; 21:16, and yet 'lifted' is used in the same way in places like Gen. 13:10 and 22:4.

The passage is rendered as 'lift' in Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops', and Geneva Bibles. Most modern versions have 'lifted', or having lifted, or he looked up.

I'd go with what you said too.

Will K

[bibleprotector]

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.).

And what if, in time, publishing continued making alterations unhindered, and it was 20 "lifted" to 10 "lift", would then the so-called authority of the majority induce people to accept "lifted"?

Unless there is a defined standard that we hold to we might be tossed to and fro.

For example, note the following: "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." (2 Tim. 4:16). Would this prove that Paul was wrong because only a few people stuck with him?

The real problem is that among the present use of 30 King James Bibles, you might find that there are all kinds of variations between them, e.g. the word "and" or "or" at Joshua 19:2, the word "spirit" or "Spirit" at 1 John 5:8, etc.

We know that there is a correct usage for the word "lift" and for "lifted" in the King James Bible.

Not only is it the tense, but also various senses of the verb.

Since the standardisation of the English language took place long after Tyndale or the 1611 Edition of the KJB, it is not the failsafe principle to trust them in this regard.

Also, while it can take a few minutes to accept the received text on the subject, it would take more than a few minutes to study and understand the grammatical use itself.

[pbiwolski]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

And what if, in time, publishing continued making alterations unhindered, and it was 20 "lifted" to 10 "lift", would then the so-called authority of the majority induce people to accept "lifted"?

...and what if you quoted me in context, noticing the notion of "majority is authority" was in jest? But then you wouldn't have had a reason to post, would you?

If you have an explanation, or defense for lift, then let's hear it!

Will,

I also noticed the use of lift/lifted in those passages you mentioned after the fact. It made me wonder about my "solution" as well. I'm all ears.

[Brother Tim]

Brother, did you have a little too much coffee this morning? A little edgy aren't we?