Are differences in editions concurrently correct?
Posted: 26 May 2014, 22:46Are differences in King James Bible editions like “or” versus “and” at Joshua 19:2, “she” versus “he” at Ruth 3:15, “flieth” versus “fleeth” at Nahum 3:16, or “further” versus “farther” at Matthew 26:39 all concurrently correct?
To say that the version-text and the translation of 1611 is correct does not mean accepting that all the variations in King James Bibles are all correct. That would mean that the typographical errors were true. Moreover, it would mean that God is the author of confusion, and that he is a liar.
Take for example Exodus 23:23. Some editions have the word “and”, and some do not. It may not seem to affect the meaning very much, but it is a word difference, and every word matters according to the various Scriptures.
While there may be an overlap of meaning between “further” and “farther”, or “flieth” and “fleeth”, they are still separate words with separate meanings. This is plainly clear from examining both the Bible and the Oxford English Dictionary, and nothing reasonable has been presented to even begin to refute this. Running off to the Hebrew or Greek or Webster’s Dictionary to attempt to “prove” otherwise only results in foolishness. It would mean that God is a God of “yea” and “nay”. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Those who promote the King James Bible and yet agree that differences are really the same are in this much more advanced than the worst of the modern versionists.
Take Ruth 3:15, where the word “she” obviously means something very different to “he”. It is a change to the Word of God itself to go one way or the other. No appeal to the Hebrew or other versions is going to justify allowing both renderings as correct: it has to be one or the other. People might try an explain how both renderings are applicable, but it is evident that only one word belongs, only one is right, and so it comes down to a choice of one.
All these examples, and many others, are of clear differences, things which cannot both be right. The zealousness for this is for the words of God, and that it is reasonable to see that there is a right edition.
To say that the version-text and the translation of 1611 is correct does not mean accepting that all the variations in King James Bibles are all correct. That would mean that the typographical errors were true. Moreover, it would mean that God is the author of confusion, and that he is a liar.
Take for example Exodus 23:23. Some editions have the word “and”, and some do not. It may not seem to affect the meaning very much, but it is a word difference, and every word matters according to the various Scriptures.
While there may be an overlap of meaning between “further” and “farther”, or “flieth” and “fleeth”, they are still separate words with separate meanings. This is plainly clear from examining both the Bible and the Oxford English Dictionary, and nothing reasonable has been presented to even begin to refute this. Running off to the Hebrew or Greek or Webster’s Dictionary to attempt to “prove” otherwise only results in foolishness. It would mean that God is a God of “yea” and “nay”. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Those who promote the King James Bible and yet agree that differences are really the same are in this much more advanced than the worst of the modern versionists.
Take Ruth 3:15, where the word “she” obviously means something very different to “he”. It is a change to the Word of God itself to go one way or the other. No appeal to the Hebrew or other versions is going to justify allowing both renderings as correct: it has to be one or the other. People might try an explain how both renderings are applicable, but it is evident that only one word belongs, only one is right, and so it comes down to a choice of one.
All these examples, and many others, are of clear differences, things which cannot both be right. The zealousness for this is for the words of God, and that it is reasonable to see that there is a right edition.