THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS (Continued)
We have been discussing the influence of Erasmus, and some of his personal life as well, on the incipient Textus Receptus. We must remember that no work of Erasmus ever bore the moniker of �Textus Receptus.� This was a phrase coined years after the death of Erasmus and applied to the work of men who came after him.
The words �Textus Receptus� simply mean. �The Text Received,� or, �The Received Text.� The meaning is simply that this is the text which has been received by the churches from the providence of God acting upon older churches. We contend, as must be evident by now, that this preserved text is the God ordained text. God never lost control of, or allowed to remain hidden, His Words from His faithful churches and the men which made up their membership.
In today�s session we will be looking at some readings, from the Vulgate of Jerome, which were included in the work of Erasmus but are not included in the Traditional Text. This section will borrow heavily from �The King James Version Defended,� by Dr. Edward Hills. I would suggest that you obtain a copy of this book to examine the content of this session in more detail.
�Matt. 10:8 raise the dead, is omitted by the majority of the Greek manuscripts. This reading is present, however, in Aleph, B, C, D, 1, the Latin Vulgate [of Jerome] and the Textus Receptus.�
The rational for retaining this reading may be that the disciples were being sent out as agents of Jesus. They were to recreate His works in the world. One of these works was the rasing of the dead, such as which we see Jesus involved.
�Matt 27:35 that is might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted My garments among them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots. Present in Eusebius (c. 325), I and other �Casarean� manuscripts, the Harclean Syriac, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus. Omitted by the majority of the Greek Manuscripts.�
This reading is contained within the Old Latin. This was the �Vulgate,� common language translation of the people, before Jerome. Since this particular translation dates to about 157 A.D., it does bear the stamp of antiquity. This is an early translation which generally supports the Traditional Text. Also, this is a quotation of Psalm 22:18. Since this is a �Messianic Psalm,� a prophecy of Jesus, this also gives an air of authenticity to the reading.
�John 3:25 Then there arose a questioning between some of John�s disciples and the Jews about purifying. Pap. 66, Aleph, 1, and other �Caesarean� manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Textus Receptus read the Jews. Pap. 75, B, the Peshitta, and the majority of the Greek manuscripts read a Jew.�
The latter, �a Jew,� is the reading found in the Authorised, or King James, Version. Again, the Peshitta is an ancient Syrian translation from about 150 A.D. It favors the Traditional Text in its readings.
�Acts 8:37 And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou maysest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.� As J. A. Alexander (1857) suggested, this verse, though genuine, was omitted by many scribes, �as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the 3rd century [The Acts of the Apostles].� Hence the verse is absent from the majority of the Greek manuscripts. But it is present in some of them, including E (6th or 7th century). It is cited by Irenaeus (c. 180) and Cyprian (c. 250) and is found in the Old Latin and the Vulgate. In his notes Erasmus says that he took this reading from the margin of 4ap and incorporated it into the Textus Receptus.�
The citation by Irenaeus gives credence to this verse. Irenaeus was an ancient source. He was a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John the Revelator. Added to this is the testimony of the Old Latin.
Also, as a testimony to the veracity of this reading is the fact that there is ample reason as to why the reading may have been deleted. There is no compelling reason as to why it would have been inserted. Thus, common sense would also argue for this reading.
�Acts 9:5 it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. This reading is absent from the Greek manuscripts and in the Latin Vulgate known to Erasmus. It is present also at the end of Acts 9:4 in E, 431, the Peshitta, and certain manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate. In Acts 26:14, however, this reading is present in all the Greek manuscripts. In his notes Erasmus indicates that he took this reading from Acts 26:14 and inserted it here.�
Once again, the strongest evidence for this reading is its inclusion in the Peshitta.
�Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do� and the Lord said unto him, This reading is found in the Latin Vulgate and in other ancient witnesses. It is absent, however, from the Greek manuscripts, due, according to Lake and Cadbury (1933) [The Beginnings of Christianity], �to the paucity of Western Greek texts and the absence of D at this point.� In his notes Erasmus indicates that this reading is a translation made by him from the Vulgate into Greek.�
This reading comes under the heading of �Jonah Faith� for me. I�ll explain that later. The �other ancient witnesses� do not really impress me. That is, basically, the same argument made for the wholesale changes of Hort and Westcott in 1881 which have been incorporated into most of the modern English language versions. While it is reasonable that this sort of conversation would have taken place under these circumstances, that is not enough to calm all my doubts.
�Acts 20:28 Church of God. Here the majority of the Greek manuscripts read, Church of the Lord and God. The Latin Vulgate, however, and the Textus Receptus read, Church of God, which is the reading of Aleph, b, and other ancient witnesses.�
My problem with this passage is as to whether or not the Textus Receptus phrase �Church of God,� or the majority reading, �Church of the Lord and God,� is most friendly to the concept of the Deity of Jesus. But, major problem, that is MY reasoning. The Holy Spirit have never asked my suggestions.
�Rom. 16:25-27 In the majority of the manuscripts this doxology is placed at the end of Chapter 14. In the Latin Vulgate and the Textus Receptus it is placed at the end of Chapter 16, and this is also the position it occupies in Aleph, B, C, and D.�
A casual reading of the ending of Chapter 14 and the beginning of Chapter 15 would suggest that this doxology would be out of place is inserted in this position.
�Rev. 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of this book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life. According to Hoskier [Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse], all the Greek manuscripts, except possibly one or two, read tree of life. The Textus Receptus reads, book of life, with the Latin Vulgate (including the very old Vulgate manuscript FO, the Bohairic version, Ambrose (d. 397), and Haymo (9th century). This is one of the verses which Erasmus is said to have translated from Latin into Greek. But Hoskier seems to doubt that Erasmus did this, suggesting that he may have followed Codex 141.�
In the Old Testament Book of Jonah we see that Jonah never did get around to accepting that God was right. After the �specially prepared fish,� and Jonah as specially prepared fish food, Jonah ceased to disobey. But, he never agreed with that which the Lord asked of Him. Jonah disagreed but did not disobey.
That�s what I call �Jonah faith.� When we can argue against a thing with all our might and finally say, �O. K., God. If that�s what You want.� Some of the arguments used above to include variant readings in the Textus Receptus, sound suspiciously like the arguments of some to take things out of the Textus Receptus. At this point I become nearly Ruckmanian. I look at the way in which God has blessed the propagation of His Words and Grace into the world by the four hundred year application of the Textus Receptus and say, �God, I do not understand. But, I do accept.�
As you can see, I do have problems with these specific textual readings. I wouldn�t be honest with you if I withheld that little piece of information from our studies. Nonetheless, I continue to hold that the Traditional Text, nearly identical to the Textus Receptus, is the preserved record of the inspired Words of God.
The Authorized, King James Bible, was not translated from the work of Erasmus. I have spent quite a bit of time talking about Erasmus because he is generally identified with the King James Bible. Even the Textus Receptus is not solely the work, as many have supposed, of Erasmus. We will begin to touch upon that fact of history in our next session.
Before I close for today, I would again encourage you to obtain a copy of Hill�s �The King James Version Defended.� It is a book well worth the small cost. I won�t agree with him in every instance (don�t know which of us that little facts makes wrong!) but it is a very good reference book, especially on the topic of today�s discussion.
11 January 2008
THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS (Continued)
We continue this session with our study of the Textus Receptus. I�ve said it before, but it bears repeating: the term �Textus Receptus� simply means �The Text Received.� It is an edition of the preserved Words of God which were current among the Bible exalting churches.
Fuller (Counterfeit or Genuine) tells us that there are at least 25 editions which carry the name of Textus Receptus. These do differ slightly one from another.
�Since the Traditional Text is not to be found in any one edition of the Textus Receptus and since the designation Byzantine text implies that the Traditional Text is only a local text, the best title to designate the Traditional Text is the �Majority Text.�
A quick word of caution here. There is a text on the market that is called �The Majority Text;� it is not. This text uses but a small portion of the available evidence and takes the name �Majority� only by appealing to the various, to use the words of Hort and Westcott, text families. Since the true majority resides in the 85% to 95% of the available evidence, to put the other text variants equally into the mix is to �cook the books.� Also, many sources were simply not addressed by this text.
Although somewhat different, Hills (The King James Version Defended) argues that the Traditional Text and the Textus Receptus are virtually identical.
As to the history of the Textus Receptus, Hills (Believing Bible Study) gives this response. �The printed text is commonly called the Textus Receptus (Received Text). It is a text which was used by the Protestant Reformers during the Reformation and by all Protestants everywhere for three hundred years thereafter.�
Thus, this is the text which glorified the inspired and preserved Words of God. It was the text used by those who sought to restore the purity of the early churches of Jesus to a world overrun by the Constantineized Western Church. This was the text of missionary endeavor and revival. This was the text used by those who wrote, and lived, the life of a follower of Christ into the civilization of the renaissance. In a real sense, since this was the text which led to the soul freedom of belief, it could be argued that this was the text which led to the renaissance.
Bynum (Use the Bible God Uses) has a caution for those who misunderstand the Textus Receptus as a �new� text only edited first in the time of Erasmus..
�Those who would trace the text of the KJV only back to Erasmus make a serious mistake. While it is true that Martin Luther chose the text of Erasmus to translate his German Bible, it is not true that this was the first Bible with the same reading. The Waldensians, who first mistook Luther for a friend, came down out of their mountain strongholds to compare their Bible with Luther�s. They found them to be the same.�
Hills (The King James Version Defended) gives a brief history of the editions which led to the Textus Receptus. He notes that Erasmus died in 1536. After Erasmus, Robert Stephanus (1502-59) published his own editions of the Textus Receptus in 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551. In 1550 the pressure from the Catholic Church caused Stephanus to move his base of operations from Paris to Geneva. The most important of Stephanus� editions was his third (although the first was the first to be divided into verses.) �In the margin of this edition [his 3rd, he] entered variant readings taken from the Complutensian edition and also 14 manuscripts, one of which is thought to have been Codex D. In text the 3rd and 4th edition of Stephanus agreed closely with the 5th edition of Erasmus.�
MacGregor (The Bible in the Making) points out that the name �Textus Receptus� had still, in the time of Stephanus, been given to any edition. �The first edition of what came to be regarded as the �received text� was not published till 1624.�
It might be good at this point to recall that the first edition of the King James Bible was in 1611. This was thirteen years before the �Textus Receptus.�
Hills (The King James Version Defended) continues with a brief history of the text of the �Textus Receptus.� Bonaventure Elzevir, his brother Mather (and later Abraham, his nephew) published editions of the Textus Receptus in 1624 and 1633.
�The Textus Receptus really was the text received by all. Its reign had begun and was to continue unbroken for 200 years. In England Stephanus� 3rd edition was the form of the Textus Receptus generally preferred, on the European continent Elzevir�s 2nd addition. Admittedly there are a few places in which the Textus Receptus is supported by only a small number of manuscripts, for example, Eph. 1:18, where it reads, eyes of your understanding, instead of eyes of your heart; and Eph. 3:9, where it read fellowship of the mystery, instead of dispensation of mystery.�
Fuller (True or False) says of the King James Bible in reference to it being published before the name �Textus Receptus� had been applied, that this is simply a matter of semantics.
�While this justly famous edition (the Textus Receptus) is later by some years (1624) than the publication of the A. V. (1611), the differences between it and its immediate predecessor, the Stephanus edition, are so few and unimportant that the two may be regarded for all practical purposes as one and the same.�
The purpose of this study has been to understand the transmission of the text of the New Testament. A special purpose under that general theme is that we examine the superiority of the King James (The Authorized) Bible over the modern day English language versions which use and eclectic text which denies that God has preserved His Words. Since we have mentioned the Complutensian Polyglot a few times, it would be good to read Fuller�s words (Counterfeit or Genuine) on the subject of this edition.
�Kenyon [Handbook to Textual Criticism of the New Testament] points out that the preface and dedication to the text [of the Complutensian Polyglot] was derived from manuscripts loaned by Leo X from the Vatican Library. The editors indicate that they used the best possible manuscripts available, which may imply they exercised some selection and critical judgment. There is no evidence that manuscript B was used.�
Despite this citation, I still maintain that the Douay-Rheims (1582) Catholic edition of the Scripture does contain readings which are found in B. These readings are those which are accepted in the modern English language versions and rejected by the committee of translation of the King James Bible.
In our next session we will look at the providential preservation indicated by the Textus Receptus.
18 January 2008
THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS (Continued)
We�ve been looking at the Textus Receptus in our past few sessions. In this session we�d like to consider the Textus Receptus with regard to the doctrine of providential preservation.
While not identical, the Textus Receptus agrees very closely with the Traditional Text. It is so close as to be described as a form of the Traditional Text. This is a text which has been derided by the modern critics. It has been called outmoded because of recent archeological discoveries. And yet, as Hills (Believing Bible Study) would note about these discoveries, there have been many �Greek New Testament manuscripts ... [which] have been discovered since the days of Erasmus and the Protestant Reformation, approximately 90% of these manuscripts are of the Traditional or Textus Receptus type.�
Bynum (King James Fans) agrees with the other writers I have studied when he says that, �The Textus Receptus is the text type of 85% to 95% of all Greek Manuscripts.� Even when I�ve consulted some of the modern critics who dismiss the text which underlies the King James Bible, I�ve found that the low end estimate is that 85% of the available evidence agrees with this text type. This means that, at the most, only about 15% of the available evidence would agree with the newer versions - except, of course, where they do agree with the Textus Receptus.
Another thing which Bynum points out is that �This text type was the Bible of the Greek and Byzantine churches.� When one considers that these are the areas where the native tongue is Greek, the estimation must be made that they would have the closest ties to the originals. The pine cone doesn�t have to fall very far from the fir tree to be recognized as what it is!
Besides this testimony, Bynum also notes that this was the text type of the Italic (except the Roman) churches, the Gallic churches which were from the South of France, and even the Celtic churches which inhabited Great Britain. Thus the text which underlies the King James Bible could not be called a �local� text. It was spread across the world among the Bible believing churches.
Bynum, again, says of the Traditional Text, of which the Textus Receptus is a close variant, �It was the text type of the Waldensian churches (Baptist), going all the way back to the first Century.� He also notes that this was �the text of the Reformers, including Luther, Calvin, and all the others.�
As for our English language tradition, Bynum says that this �...was the text type used by Tyndale and all the other early English translators...�
Bynum, once more, states the obvious when he says that the text type of the Textus Receptus �...reigned supreme until the advent of the Westcott and Hort Text of the 1800's.� I would like to note that this was only true of those who gave high priority to the Bible as a rule of faith and practice. There were those of the intelligenceia who doubted that man could have kept the Words pure. Tischendorf, for example, was searching for older copies when he found Aleph at a monastery. He was interested in tracing the Words back to the original with this ancient text. The opinion was, again, that the current text was a corrupted text which needed correction.
As an aside, much of this activity took place about the time, and shortly thereafter, that Darwin published his book. It seems that the evolutionary mode was believed to seep into all disciplines, including that of Bibliography.
It somehow seems strange that the faith in a God of power and love would suggest that His Own Message to humanity was corrupted and lost in time.
Hills argues that the editors of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir�s) were under the Guiding hand of God in their endeavors. �...they were guided by the manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to them.�
Hills also says that �...they were guided by the providential circumstances in which they found themselves.� They were guided by the common faith of the Christians who made up the membership of the Bible believing churches.
This last, the comment about the �Bible believing churches,� is so obvious as to be overlooked. Those who believed the Bible are prone to accept the Words therein as preserved since those Words are of God.
Today we see many �Bible believers� who doubt the Bible. They would argue, of course, that they do trust the Bible. But, I would ask how full trust could be placed in a document which is felt to be prone to error, gloss and deletion? I question how long, and we see it already begun, these �Bible believers,� and those who study under them unto the second and third generations, before the inevitable slide into apostasy occurs as faith in the preserving power of God has been replaced with faith in the �reconstructing power� of man.
Hills speaks of this incipient doubt.
�It is customary for naturalistic critics to make the most of human imperfections in the Textus Receptus and to sneer at it as a mean and almost sordid thing. These critics picture the Textus Receptus as merely a money-making venture on the part of Froben the publisher. Froben, they say, heard that the Spanish Cardinal Ximenes was about to publish a Polyglot Bible. In order to get something on the market first, it is said Froben hired Erasmus as his editor and rushed a Greek New Testament through the press in less than a year�s time. But those who concentrate in this way on the human factors involved in the production of the Textus Receptus are utterly unmindful of the providence of God. For in the very next year, in the plan of God, the Reformation was to break out in Wittenberg, and it was important that the Greek New Testament should be published first in one of the future strongholds of Protestantism by a book seller who was eager to place it in the hands of the people and not in Spain, the land of the Inquisition, by the Roman Church, which [was] intent on keeping the Bible from the people.�
One of the first principles of Scriptural prophecy is to realize that God works upon men, even men who would deny Him, to direct His Own goals.
Also, just to make a point, every single one of the modern English language versions is �protected� by a copyright notice. Have you not noticed that every single verse citation in any Christian article is identified as to just which version it is from - except from the King James Bible?
It is a must!
Hills again states the obvious when he sees that �One of the leading principles of the Protestant Reformation was the sole and absolute authority of the Holy Scriptures. The New Testament in which the early Protestants place such implicit reliance was the Textus Receptus (Received Text)...�
As to the Old Testament, we understand that it was preserved, humanly speaking, by the Priesthood. They copied and recopied the text faithfully. Hills (Believing Bible Study) sees this example of God�s principles and applies it to the New Testament. The New Testament recognizes the office of the Priesthood of the Believer. It is this priesthood which has preserved the New Testament text. Faithful copies made by faithful Christians and recognized by faithful Christians have preserved the true New Testament text. This text is found in the Traditional Text rather than in aberrant texts which were lost to those same Christians and churches for hundreds of years.
It has been argued by some that the modern English language versions are in essence Catholic Bibles. This is because these versions rely so heavily on two very old Catholic manuscripts (B and Aleph). One has to consider this when it is noted that so many of these versions are now adding the Apocrypha to their base texts.
Another reason to suggest this is that the Bible can not be a final authority when there is doubt as to the veracity of the words therein. If the Words are not sure, the message surely cannot be sure. Even among the Protestant bodies in our day we are told that we can not trust the Bible unless the words are first sifted through the efforts of the �experts.� The concept of God preserving His Own Words is dismissed as �unlearned.� We must consult the expert.
It is not a far walk from this concept to one where only the �expert� is able to give us the meaning of the passages. This is more so when one considers that there is a growing argument among the �experts� that the �Words� were not preserved, �only the concept.� Who is to decide just what the �concept message� is saying?
How far down the path before we are assured that it is in our spiritual interests to trust church tradition and church teaching as the final arbitrator of what is, and isn�t?
MacGregor (Bible in the Making) also addresses this point. �In principle Rome was against the indiscriminate accessability of the Bible to the common people.� However, so greatly was the Bible available in England that Rome could not make inroads there. Thus it seemed necessary that there be an English translation, favorable to Rome, with �...such notes as would help its English-speaking adherents to hold their own in the course of ... Theological controversy.�
MacGregor, of course, was talking about the Douay-Rheims of 1582. But, the comparison of historic fact and current fancy are too evident to completely ignore.
This isn�t the place to go into the modern English language versions. We�ll save that for a later session. However, as Bynum (Use the Bible God Uses) has said, �None of the popular new versions are translated from the Textus Receptus...�
One final word on the Textus Receptus. There are, as we have noted, several editions which bear this name. Are the differences among them a concern? Hills (The King James Version Defended) compares these differences with the differences among the texts used as the basis of these modern English language editions.
�According to Hoskier [A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium], the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19 times. Codex B, on the other hand, disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. What a contrast!�
This will complete our session on the Textus Receptus. In our next session we will begin to consider some of those �old� King James words.
25 January 2008
THOSE �OLD� KING JAMES WORDS
In this session we will begin to look at the King James Bible. Our purpose in this study is, primarily, to be a defense of the Traditional Text. In doing this we must also, since very few among us are able to read the New Testament Scripture in the original languages, consider the situation among the various versions and translations on the market. To the best of my knowledge, only the Authorized, King James, Version is translated from the Traditional Text. That is the base text of this version.
All, or nearly all, of the modern day English versions are translated from a base text which is eclectic. It is a �pick and choose� text which has been cobbled together with only one primary doctrinal thesis: God either did not, or could not, preserve His originally inspired Words. It is the duty of man to pour over the available manuscripts and determine what man believes is the correct text - or as close to that text as man can, in his great wisdom, restore.
What a �faith basis� on which to establish the eternal destiny of one�s immortal soul!
Although I would agree that the �old� words of the King James Bible are often unfamiliar to the ears of modern man, I would have to agree with Reynolds (Modern Versions are Dangerous) when he says, �...it will be far better for us to expand our vocabulary in order to understand the terminology than to attempt to continually re-write the Bible.�
That is what is being done in the modern versions. They are guilty of re-writing the Bible. The last half chapter of Mark is out. The woman taken in adultery is out; well, she has to at least move! The �Lord�s Prayer� is miswritten. II Peter is a suspect Book. On and on, and on goes the litany - Trust the Word, well, what of it you can trust.
What remains a complete mystery to me is that those who cobble together these eclectic texts will throw out between 85% and 95% of the available witnesses. Since this is the amount of the available witness which agrees with the Traditional Text, it is presupposed that these must be wrong. �After all,� we are reminded �The words were not preserved.�
Another problem is that of the paraphrase. I like, and probably shouldn�t admit it, that I am very comfortable with the timbre of the language of the �Living Bible.� It sounds good to my ears. But, it is not the Word of God. I can�t use it for devotional study. I can�t use it for in depth study. In effect, although it is pleasing, I can�t use it. If I want to spend time with God, this is not the �house� where I am going to find Him.
It seems a good neighborhood. But, inside there is a dearth of the truly spiritual because God is not in residence.
Not too many realize that the New International Version, probably the most popular on the market, is also a paraphrase. Not only is the base text weak, so also is the translation method employed.
Cloud (Dynamic Equivalency - A Frightful Influence on Fundamental Translation Work) has commented on this method of translation. The term �Dynamic Equivalency� is a �code word� for paraphrase.
�...this principle [translating by Dynamic Equivalency] is in error because of the simple fact that the Holy Scriptures are not written in such a low literary standard. ... It is impossible to translate a Bible throughout on a low literary level and have it be accurate.�
In II Peter, if we be allowed to reference this Book, Peter tells us that the Scripture is not always easy to understand. He is speaking of the writing of Paul, as Scripture, in this passage.
�As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.� (II Peter 3:16-18)
Notice what Peter was saying. He said that there are passages which are hard to understand. Some people wrestle with them to their own destruction. The purpose of a wrestling match is to find a winner. We do not �win� over The God of the Scripture. We submit to Him. To attempt to take His Good Word and �dumb it down� is a sin. It God made it hard, He did it for a purpose. It is better that we seek the purpose than that we attempt to defeat that purpose. This applies even to a translation committee which might believe that they are handling the Words of God.
Peter also warns us to be wary lest we are led astray by such as these.
Paul gave us some advice for our spiritual life. Since he wrote this via the medium of inspiration, we must be accurate and realize that God gave us a commandment. �Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the words of truth.� (II Timothy 2:15)
Asvitt (Getting the Most From Your KJV) apparently agrees with Paul.
�...some English words in the King James Version are no longer in current use, or have changed their meaning over the years. ... This is nothing to become discouraged about. We can enrich our knowledge by adding new definitions to our words.�
It is true that the purpose for which the translations and versions exist, no matter what language group one may consider, is so that an accurate representation of those originally inspired Words may be made available, in an intelligible way, for people in their own speech pattern. This is one of the purposes stated for the mass of new Bible translations which are now flooding the English market.
Another stated reason, unstated is the opportunity to make a little coin by marketing new versions, is that these �Bibles� come from translating committee�s whose spiritual mindset is that the Words were lost for centuries. They are attempting to reconstruct what God has, apparently - in their view, allowed to be lost.
This means, if they are wrong - I believe that the evidence of both faith and fact show them to be wrong, is that they are not presenting the Words of God. They are presenting their view as an accurate (sometimes) record of man as to what they think God might have said!
It is also true, it is obvious, that most of the words with which we claim to have difficulty in the King James Bible are easily understood from the context of the narrative.
Any reasonably good commentary will enlighten our understanding of the meaning of those hard to understand words. The problem with this is that so many of the commentaries are written from the same faith point as are the modern English language versions. They would consider the probability, or more likely certainty, that the Words were lost, by God, in history only to be approximated by the works of man.
I have an even better way to find the meaning of those old King James Bible words. For any reader of the KJV today, I would recommend �The Defined King James Bible� (The Bible for Today Press, Collingswood, New Jersey). Those God, and time, honored words of the King James Bible are in the text of the Scripture. Those words which might cause confusion are highlighted with footnotes and are explained below, on the same page. The narrative still flows as God intended. Answers to questions about the wording of the text are immediately available - all without commentary or comment. God is allowed to speak His Own Words.
Folks, in the interest of full disclosure, I don�t get one penny (And would refuse it if offered, quite obviously!) from the sale of this edition. I do know the editor and greatly respect his ability, dedication and Godliness. I have no �dog in the hunt,� so to speak, in this edition. I do know, however, that you will profit greatly if you obtain a copy of this Bible edition. I use it myself as I write these pages. It is often a great help.
So much for advertising, although I am happy to do so in this instance. So ends, also, this session. In our next session we will delve a little deeper into this same subject.