PDA

View Full Version : Why King James translators chose the Masoretic Text



gilgal
09-11-2011, 09:48 PM
Why is it that the King James translators chose the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament? The reason I ask this is because Psalm 40 has "Mine ear hast thou opened" instead of "A body hast thou prepared for me".

Is there a forward or a book which explains why the KJV translators chose this way?

Richard Amiel McGough
09-12-2011, 11:32 AM
Why is it that the King James translators chose the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament? The reason I ask this is because Psalm 40 has "Mine ear hast thou opened" instead of "A body hast thou prepared for me".

Is there a forward or a book which explains why the KJV translators chose this way?
What option did they have? There are not many ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Tanakh. As far as I know, the Masoretic text is what the Jews used and there really wasn't any other option.

gilgal
09-12-2011, 05:44 PM
What option did they have? There are not many ancient Hebrew manuscripts of the Tanakh. As far as I know, the Masoretic text is what the Jews used and there really wasn't any other option.
The Septuagint. They could have compared it. And other old translations.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-12-2011, 06:41 PM
The Septuagint. They could have compared it. And other old translations.
What makes you think they didn't compare with the Septuagint? It would have been a big mistake to try to translate directly from the Septuagint since that would have produced a translation of a translation but it also seems pretty stupid to ignore it altogetyer. And we also should remember that there are lots of obvious mistakes and mistranslations in the LXX.

gilgal
09-13-2011, 06:00 AM
What makes you think they didn't compare with the Septuagint? It would have been a big mistake to try to translate directly from the Septuagint since that would have produced a translation of a translation but it also seems pretty stupid to ignore it altogetyer. And we also should remember that there are lots of obvious mistakes and mistranslations in the LXX.
What do you think of Acts 12:4? Easter or Passover?

Acts 12:4 KJV - And [3739] [2532] when he had apprehended [4084] him, he put [5087] [him] in [1519] prison [5438], and delivered [3860] [him] to four [5064] quaternions [5069] of soldiers [4757] to keep [5442] him [846]; intending [1014] after [3326] Easter [3957] to bring [321] [0] him [846] forth [321] to the people [2992].

The Greek word for Easter is Pascha. But some reason the translators interpreted this as Easter rather than the usual Passover. But some explain this as actual pagan holiday because both Easter and Passover are known to be Pascha in Greek and the days of unleavened bread which begins on the 15th of the first month is past already. Passover would be the 14th of the 1st month which is past already.

Acts 12:3 KJV - And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Acts 12:4 KJV - And when he had apprehended him, he put [him] in prison, and delivered [him] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Acts 12:5 KJV - Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.

Then again the whole week is also considered Passover.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-13-2011, 07:54 AM
What do you think of Acts 12:4? Easter or Passover?

The Greek word for Easter is Pascha. But some reason the translators interpreted this as Easter rather than the usual Passover. But some explain this as actual pagan holiday because both Easter and Passover are known to be Pascha in Greek and the days of unleavened bread which begins on the 15th of the first month is past already. Passover would be the 14th of the 1st month which is past already.

Then again the whole week is also considered Passover.
I don't see any connection with either the LXX or "pagan holidays." The folks who claim things like "Easter is a pagan holiday" deliberately put in the Bible to worship the goddess Astarte are simply insane and should be ignored.

gilgal
09-13-2011, 12:11 PM
I don't see any connection with either the LXX or "pagan holidays." The folks who claim things like "Easter is a pagan holiday" deliberately put in the Bible to worship the goddess Astarte are simply insane and should be ignored.
That's not what I meant. A possibility is that Herod was a worshiper of Astarte. But it could also be an error in the translation. Why would Luke speak of Easter if the recipient is God-fearing. The man who thinks that Easter is speaking of the pagan holiday is Sam Gipp a known defender of the King James. But his argument on this is still not clear to me.

There was another man who had proven me on a few questionable things in the bible but I can't find his website anymore nor his email address:
Dr Thomas Holland.

He argued with James White on the Johannine Comma.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-13-2011, 12:47 PM
That's not what I meant. A possibility is that Herod was a worshiper of Astarte. But it could also be an error in the translation. Why would Luke speak of Easter if the recipient is God-fearing. The man who thinks that Easter is speaking of the pagan holiday is Sam Gipp a known defender of the King James. But his argument on this is still not clear to me.

There was another man who had proven me on a few questionable things in the bible but I can't find his website anymore nor his email address:
Dr Thomas Holland.

He argued with James White on the Johannine Comma.
Luke didn't speak of "Easter" - as you know, the word he used was "Pascha" (Passover). The word "Easter" is an English word that refers to the Christian celebration of Christ's death and resurrection which happened during the Jewish festival of Passover. So the words are essentially synonymous.

Obviously, the English translation of that word as "Easter" in the KJV has absolutely nothing to do with anything Herod was doing in the first century! He could have worshiped Astarte from morning to midnight - how would that have anything to do with a seventeenth century translation? Oh ... I get it now. This idea comes from the "King James Only" camp that thinks God Almighty inspired the translators to use "Easter" in that one verse to reveal the idolatry of Herod ... or some such nutty idea?

The KJV Only folks seem to me to be utterly nutterly ...

gilgal
09-13-2011, 02:39 PM
Luke didn't speak of "Easter" - as you know, the word he used was "Pascha" (Passover). The word "Easter" is an English word that refers to the Christian celebration of Christ's death and resurrection which happened during the Jewish festival of Passover. So the words are essentially synonymous.

Obviously, the English translation of that word as "Easter" in the KJV has absolutely nothing to do with anything Herod was doing in the first century! He could have worshiped Astarte from morning to midnight - how would that have anything to do with a seventeenth century translation? Oh ... I get it now. This idea comes from the "King James Only" camp that thinks God Almighty inspired the translators to use "Easter" in that one verse to reveal the idolatry of Herod ... or some such nutty idea?

The KJV Only folks seem to me to be utterly nutterly ...
Well now that I refer back to Sam Gipp...he gave a good reason why the King James is superior to the modern translations.


manuscripts;
not copyrighted;
second person in singular differentiated from the second person in plural (today you can be singular or plural. But thou, thy, thine are singular and you yours or ye are plural and are necessary for accuracy in the bible);


But Thomas Holland had answered me by email concerning some passages when compared between the books of Samuel and Kings versus Chronicles it seems contradictory but not really when you pay close attention.


2 Samuel 10:18 And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew [the men of] seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.

1 Chronicles 19:18 But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand [men which fought in] chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.

Now that I look at these verses they are self explanatory but the answer he had given was that the 7000 chariots (actually it says here 7000 men in brackets) but it could have been chariots outside the battle field.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-13-2011, 05:59 PM
Well now that I refer back to Sam Gipp...he gave a good reason why the King James is superior to the modern translations.


manuscripts;
not copyrighted;
second person in singular differentiated from the second person in plural (today you can be singular or plural. But thou, thy, thine are singular and you yours or ye are plural and are necessary for accuracy in the bible);


I don't think those are good arguments.



The manuscript evidence used by the KJV translators was very poor compared with what we know no. Indeed, the final verses of Revelation did not exist in the manuscript they used, so Erasmus had to back translate from the Latin Vulgate! This one point destroys the KJV Only argument.
Utterly irrelevant.
That would be an advantage if people understood the details of the King's English. But they don't - modern folks are totally confused by the differences between thee and thou and ye and you. So rather than being a help, this is a great detriment to the KJV.

gilgal
09-14-2011, 12:32 AM
I don't think those are good arguments.



The manuscript evidence used by the KJV translators was very poor compared with what we know no. Indeed, the final verses of Revelation did not exist in the manuscript they used, so Erasmus had to back translate from the Latin Vulgate! This one point destroys the KJV Only argument.
well it's true that the Dead Sea Scroll are discovered but the Westcott and Hort I believe is the base of most modern translations
Utterly irrelevant.Isn't there a limit to the amount of verses you can quote in a book?
That would be an advantage if people understood the details of the King's English. But they don't - modern folks are totally confused by the differences between thee and thou and ye and you. So rather than being a help, this is a great detriment to the KJV. See the difference it makes if ye, you thou, thy is replaced by you and your:

Genesis 18:3 KJV - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Genesis 18:4 KJV - Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
Genesis 18:5 KJV - And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-14-2011, 07:42 AM
I don't think those are good arguments.



The manuscript evidence used by the KJV translators was very poor compared with what we know no. Indeed, the final verses of Revelation did not exist in the manuscript they used, so Erasmus had to back translate from the Latin Vulgate! This one point destroys the KJV Only argument.
well it's true that the Dead Sea Scroll are discovered but the Westcott and Hort I believe is the base of most modern translations
Utterly irrelevant.Isn't there a limit to the amount of verses you can quote in a book?
That would be an advantage if people understood the details of the King's English. But they don't - modern folks are totally confused by the differences between thee and thou and ye and you. So rather than being a help, this is a great detriment to the KJV. See the difference it makes if ye, you thou, thy is replaced by you and your:

Genesis 18:3 KJV - And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
Genesis 18:4 KJV - Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
Genesis 18:5 KJV - And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.






Actually, the modern translations put an emphasis upon the "oldest and best" manuscripts as opposed to the "majority text." It has very little to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls (which only contain OT mss.).
There is a limit to how many verses you can quote without permission from the owner of the copyright. But this gives absolutely no support to the KJV Only claim that the KJV is itself an "inspired translation" or that it is somehow "superior" to other translations.
I don't see how that answers my point. I very much doubt that one in ten readers could explain the difference between "you" and "ye" in that passage. And besides, the word "ye" is used either as a plural or a singular depending on context. Did you know that? Given this degree of confusion, it seems absurd to argue that the KJV is superior on this point. And besides, this whole line of argument is really an argument for the KJV, it is an argument for Shakespearean Early Modern English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English) over the modern English language which does not distinguish between the singular and plural in second person pronouns.

gilgal
09-14-2011, 11:24 AM
I don't see how that answers my point. I very much doubt that one in ten readers could explain the difference between "you" and "ye" in that passage. And besides, the word "ye" is used either as a plural or a singular depending on context. Did you know that?

Like where? I know prophets often change their person which they're addressing to such as they speak as they, and then switch to ye and then to thou...

Richard Amiel McGough
09-14-2011, 11:40 AM
Like where? I know prophets often change their person which they're addressing to such as they speak as they, and then switch to ye and then to thou...
I don't know where in the Bible - it's what I read on the wiki article on Early Modern English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_English) that I linked:

In Early Modern English, there were two second-person personal pronouns: thou, the informal singular pronoun, and ye, which was both the plural pronoun and the formal singular pronoun.
But I think this is very instructive - you are an advocate of the KJV on the basis of the difference between "ye" and "you" but you did not know about this fact about the language. And I must say that it seems pretty likely there are lots of other facts about Early Modern English that you don't know, such as when to use "est" vs. "eth" (as in speakest vs. speaketh). And I am pretty sure that you would not know the correct definitions of many of the words since they have changed so much since that time. All of these facts contradict the idea that the KJV is superior for modern readers.

gilgal
09-14-2011, 12:21 PM
But I think this is very instructive - you are an advocate of the KJV on the basis of the difference between "ye" and "you" but you did not know about this fact about the language. And I must say that it seems pretty likely there are lots of other facts about Early Modern English that you don't know, such as when to use "est" vs. "eth" (as in speakest vs. speaketh). And I am pretty sure that you would not know the correct definitions of many of the words since they have changed so much since that time. All of these facts contradict the idea that the KJV is superior for modern readers.
I don't think it matters what I know or don't know. It matters to realize how to use what you know. I told you that the modern English doesn't show any distinction of the the 2nd person in singular and plural. But the KJV does so it's more accurate. There's less confusion.

Can you give me a few examples where you can credit the modern translations? I want to know.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-14-2011, 02:16 PM
I don't think it matters what I know or don't know. It matters to realize how to use what you know. I told you that the modern English doesn't show any distinction of the the 2nd person in singular and plural. But the KJV does so it's more accurate. There's less confusion.

Can you give me a few examples where you can credit the modern translations? I want to know.
I find it absurd to suggest that there is "less confusion" in the KJV. If folks can't understand the language, how could it cause anything but more confusion?

As for modern versions, here are a couple examples:

KJV Acts 28:13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:
What does "fetched a compass" mean? You don't think the modern translations are superior?

And what about this one?


KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
Shall not prevent them from what?

And on and on it goes. Most 21st century folks would find the KJV very difficult to understand.

So what really is driving you to argue that the KJV is superior? Do you think it is an "inspired translation?"

gilgal
09-14-2011, 10:57 PM
I find it absurd to suggest that there is "less confusion" in the KJV. If folks can't understand the language, how could it cause anything but more confusion?

As for modern versions, here are a couple examples:

KJV Acts 28:13 And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli:
What does "fetched a compass" mean? You don't think the modern translations are superior?

And what about this one?


KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
Shall not prevent them from what?

And on and on it goes. Most 21st century folks would find the KJV very difficult to understand.

So what really is driving you to argue that the KJV is superior? Do you think it is an "inspired translation?"

Yeah but how big of a deal is that? Am I going to lose my faith over that?

Richard Amiel McGough
09-15-2011, 06:45 AM
Yeah but how big of a deal is that? Am I going to lose my faith over that?
I don't understand why you changed the topic. We were not talking about you losing your faith because of a bad translation. We were talking about whether or not the KJV is a better translation. I gave evidence that it is not better because it is very hard for most modern people to understand the old style English. Do you now agree with me on this?

gilgal
09-15-2011, 07:57 AM
I don't understand why you changed the topic. We were not talking about you losing your faith because of a bad translation. We were talking about whether or not the KJV is a better translation. I gave evidence that it is not better because it is very hard for most modern people to understand the old style English. Do you now agree with me on this?

Ok can you explain me this one because it's important:

KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Richard Amiel McGough
09-15-2011, 10:33 AM
Ok can you explain me this one because it's important:

KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

What is there to explain? What don't you understand about it?

gilgal
09-15-2011, 11:15 AM
What is there to explain? What don't you understand about it?
What does it mean shall not prevent?

Besides. What's the argument on this verse?

Richard Amiel McGough
09-15-2011, 11:28 AM
What does it mean shall not prevent?

Besides. What's the argument on this verse?
Tell me what you think it means, and then I'll give my explanation.

gilgal
09-15-2011, 01:24 PM
Tell me what you think it means, and then I'll give my explanation.
What problem is there in translation then? Why did you bring it up?

Richard Amiel McGough
09-15-2011, 02:16 PM
What problem is there in translation then? Why did you bring it up?
You have not answered my question. I asked you what "shall not prevent" means in 1 Thess 4:15 as an example of why the KJV is not as good as modern translations.

So what do you think it means?

gilgal
09-15-2011, 05:21 PM
You have not answered my question. I asked you what "shall not prevent" means in 1 Thess 4:15 as an example of why the KJV is not as good as modern translations.

So what do you think it means?
Prevent means "not let".
But I think the verse is referring that:

KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
We that are alive will not go before those who are dead.

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
10-09-2011, 04:08 PM
This is a related topic, but not exactly on the topic of the choosing of the Mazoretic text.

On a paper written by a judge which detailed some conspiracies and ulterior intents of the workings of religions and govt he included this observation about the KJV.


The King James Version of the Bible was concocted by the King under the guidance
of Pope Innocent III. [This is the same King who was convinced by the Pope, that the Pope
was God’s representative on earth!] This collaboration was kept secret to conceal the truth
of their manipulation of the prophet’s written word. If you can locate an ancient manuscript
of the Bible, which predates the King James Version; you will discover that [during the
crucifixion of Christ], it is written in the ancient text that Jesus said: 'Forgive them NOT,
for they know what they do!' In the King James Version, it is written that Jesus said:
'Forgive them Father, for they know NOT what they do.' The King James
interpretation represents a passive version and is in keeping with the purpose and the
accolade mentioned in Article 3 of the Treaty of Verona.

Has anyone a copy of an 'ancient manuscript' which reflects the words of Jesus from the cross as stated here.... Those who crucified him were indeed given the rest of their lives to come to faith, but in the end, if they did not, their lives were demanded of them...

EndtimesDeut32/70AD
10-09-2011, 04:43 PM
This is a related topic, but not exactly on the topic of the choosing of the Mazoretic text.

On a paper written by a judge which detailed some conspiracies and ulterior intents of the workings of religions and govt he included this observation about the KJV.

Has anyone a copy of an 'ancient manuscript' which reflects the words of Jesus from the cross as stated here.... Those who crucified him were indeed given the rest of their lives to come to faith, but in the end, if they did not, their lives were demanded of them...

The Wycliff, the John Purvey bible [a friend of Wycliff], the Tyndale, the Geneva, and the KJV all read the same. I take note that the saying is directed towards and in the context of the soldiers who were casting lots for his clothing.

If there is a difference in Luke 23:34 from how it is translated it would have to be in the original languages or Latin.

Here (http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html)is a link to the Geneva bible homepage. There is a pdf file of a parallel version of Wycliff, Purvey, Tyndale, Geneva, KJV's new testaments by Clayton G. Porter. It is a 21 meg file.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-09-2011, 04:55 PM
You have not answered my question. I asked you what "shall not prevent" means in 1 Thess 4:15 as an example of why the KJV is not as good as modern translations.

So what do you think it means?
Prevent means "not let".
But I think the verse is referring that:

KJV 1 Thess 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. We that are alive will not go before those who are dead.
That's right. I asked the question because the modern meaning of "prevent" as "not let" is different than the meaning of that word in the KJV. This means that every modern person who does not have this knowledge will stumble over that verse. And that's one of the reasons the KJV is not the best version for readers of modern English (which was the point I was trying to make).

Richard Amiel McGough
10-09-2011, 05:09 PM
This is a related topic, but not exactly on the topic of the choosing of the Mazoretic text.

On a paper written by a judge which detailed some conspiracies and ulterior intents of the workings of religions and govt he included this observation about the KJV.


The King James Version of the Bible was concocted by the King under the guidance of Pope Innocent III. [This is the same King who was convinced by the Pope, that the Pope was God’s representative on earth!] This collaboration was kept secret to conceal the truth of their manipulation of the prophet’s written word. If you can locate an ancient manuscript of the Bible, which predates the King James Version; you will discover that [during the crucifixion of Christ], it is written in the ancient text that Jesus said: “Forgive them NOT, for they know what they do!” In the King James Version, it is written that Jesus said:
“Forgive them Father, for they know NOT what they do.” The King James
interpretation represents a passive version and is in keeping with the purpose and the accolade mentioned in Article 3 of the Treaty of Verona.Has anyone a copy of an 'ancient manuscript' which reflects the words of Jesus from the cross as stated here.... Those who crucified him were indeed given the rest of their lives to come to faith, but in the end, if they did not, their lives were demanded of them...
King James in cahoots with Pope Innocent III? That's nuts! They lived in different centuries. And I have access to plenty of ancient manuscripts that predate the KJV, and not one of them has the variation claimed in that quote. Do you have a source for this? It smells like a typical lunatic conspiracy theory based on total ignorance of both Bible and history.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-09-2011, 05:11 PM
The Wycliff, the John Purvey bible [a friend of Wycliff], the Tyndale, the Geneva, and the KJV all read the same. I take note that the saying is directed towards and in the context of the soldiers who were casting lots for his clothing.

If there is a difference in Luke 23:34 from how it is translated it would have to be in the original languages or Latin.

Here (http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html)is a link to the Geneva bible homepage. There is a pdf file of a parallel version of Wycliff, Purvey, Tyndale, Geneva, KJV's new testaments by Clayton G. Porter. It is a 21 meg file.
Most early manuscripts omit that saying altogether. I have not seen one that has the variation claimed. It's just a nutty rumor picked up by the fringe anti-Semites it seems to me.