|
James White - Blind Bible Scholar This is a series of articles dealing with some issues Mr. White brings up in his book, and my conversation with him at an online discussion group. By
WILL J. KINNEY 3782 E. 106TH AVENUE THORNTON, COLORADO 80233 E-MAIL: willjkinney@comcast.net Web Page: www.geocities.com/brandplucked PHONE: 303.452.7591 Acts 10:11 "And saw heaven
opened, and a certain vessel dscending unto him, as it had been a
great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth"
Normally I would not even
address the minor textual issue brought up by examining Acts 10:11,
but since Mr. James White makes such a big deal of it in his book,
The King James Only Controversy, I feel I should address the issue.
In chapter nine of his book,
which is titled "Problems in the KJV", James lists
several silly objections to the language and text of the King James
Bible, all of which can easily be refuted. Of course he is "not
attacking the King James Bible", you understand, but is merely
pointing out areas where it contains errors or is based on what he
calls "inferiour texts". James White has no infallible,
inspired, complete Holy Bible to recommend to anyone, but sets himself
up as the voice of reason and authority in the midst of a complicated
and difficult issue. Let's get specific here and
look at one such example of the "superior scholarship" proffered
to us by the good doctor on page 236 of 'The KJV Controversy'. Mr. White writes: "The
KJV New Testament is not without its intriguing passages as well.
For example, Peter saw a vision that is described in the AV, "And
saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending UNTO HIM (caps
mine), as it had been a great sheet KNIT (caps mine) at the four
corners, and let down to the earth" - Acts 10:11. One could completely
miss the point here, for the KJV has "knit" for a term
that refers to the means by which the sheet was lowered, hence the
NASB, "lowered by four corners to the ground." Most people who read Mr. White's
book would automatically assume that he knows what he is talking about.
After all, James has gone to seminary, he knows Hebrew and Greek,
and surely he would not print something that was not true, would he?.
Actually James White is totally
in error at every point, and I am somewhat amazed that he would even
put such an example in his book. He must be really hard up for examples
of where the KJB supposedly dropped the ball. First of all, Mr. White is
woefully incorrect when he says the KJB has "knit" for a
term that refers to the means by which the sheet was lowered. No,
what has happened here is that there are two different textual readings,
one followed by all Reformation Bibles including that of Luther, the
Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, Coverdale, Tyndale, the Italian Diodati,
the Spanish Reina Valera, and the French Louis Segond; and another
different Greek reading followed by the modern versions which have
adopted the Westcott-Hort texts. How James White could miss this obvious
truth is the only thing that is "intriguing". The reading of "knit
at the four corners" or "bound at the four corners"
is found in the vast majority of all remaining Greek texts, as well
as P45 which dates to the third century and is older by at least 100
years than the reading found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, from which
the NASB, NIV, RSV were translated. So the NASB, NIV, RSV aren't even
following the oldest reading here, but a minority reading found in
the notoriously corrupt, confused, and contradictory Sinaiticus-Vaticanus
texts - as usual. The Traditional Greek Texts
says: kai katabainon ep auton skeuos ti ws oqonhn megalhn tessarsin
arcais dedemenon kai kaqiemenon epi ths ghs, while the Alexandrian
text underlying the NASB, NIV, RSV has: kai katabainon skeuos ti ws
oqonhn megalhn tessarsin arcais kaqiemenon epi ths ghs. The glaring differences between
these two different texts here is that the words for "knit"
and "upon him" are in most Greek texts but are omitted by
the few upon which the NASB, NIV are based. The information provided
by Mr. White is completely wrong. In his book, James White recommends
three different bible versions as being "reliable" - the
NKJV, NASB, and the NIV; Surprise!!! - the only one he doesn't recommend
is the Authorized King James Holy Bible. These three versions that
Mr. White recommends differ from each other in hundreds of verses
either in meaning or text. The NKJV is based on a very
different Greek text (5000 words worth of differences) than that of
the NIV, NASB. Yet, the NKJV which Mr. White recommends contains the
same reading as that found in the KJB which he criticizes! The NKJV
says: "and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet
BOUND AT the four corners, descending TO HIM and let down to the earth."
The NASB says: "and he
beheld the sky opened up, and a certain object like a great sheet
coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground." Notice that
this reading entirely omits both "knit" (or bound) and "upon
him". Not only does the King James
Bible say "descending UNTO HIM, as it had been a great sheet
KNIT AT the four corners" but so also do the Tyndale 1525, Coverdale
1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation,
Green's MKJV 1998, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium
Bible. The NKJV, as well as Young's, and Darby say: "descending
UNTO HIM...BOUND AT the four corners." James White has committed
another blunder in his vain attempts to overthrow the authority of
God's pure words as found in the King James Bible. He has no Final
Authority but his own mind and would like very much for you to join
him and his merry Bible of the Month Club Band to find out what God
REALLY said. "Little White Lies" In his book, The KJV Only
Controversy, on page 152-153 Mr. James White actually says: "Every
one of the papyrus manuscripts we have discovered has been a representative
of the Alexandrian, not the Byzantine text type" and "The
early Fathers who wrote at this time did not use the Byzantine text-type"
and "the early translations of the New Testament reveals that
they were done on the basis of the Alexandrian type manuscripts, not
the Byzantine text-type" and "the early church fathers
who wrote during the early centuries give no evidence in their citations
of a familiarity with the Byzantine text-type". These are such huge whoppers
I could not believe he actually wrote this totally false information
in his book. There is tons of evidence that even the early papyrus
manuscripts, all of which came from Alexandria Egypt, were a mixed
bag and there are many Byzantine readings found in them where they
agree with the KJB readings and not the Westcott- Hort Alexandrian
copies of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Furthermore, concerning the
church Fathers, Dean John Burgon compiled over 86,000 citations and
quotes of the church Fathers and found that not only did the Textus
Receptus exist but it predominated. The early versions like the
Old Latin contain many Traditional Text readings not found in Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus as does the Syriac Peshitta. And both of these predate
Sinaiticus Vaticanus by 150 years. Even Dr. Hort of the famed
Westcott Hort text said: "The fundamental Text of late extant
Greek MSS generally is beyond all question identical with the dominant
Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the second half of the 4th century." (Hort, The
Factor of Gene- ology, pg 92 --- as cited by Burgon, Revision Revised, pg
257). Dean Burgon immediately comments: "We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament, --- the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short --- is, according to Dr. Hort, `BEYOND ALL QUESTION the TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.' In other words, at the very
time Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were penned, the Byzantine texts were
already the predominate texts of the Christian church! Then the "scholar in
residence James White" seems to contradict himself in discussing
John 1:18 where the KJB says "but the only begotten Son, which
is in the bosom of the Father, hath made him known". Here
the NASB says "the only begotten God", which is heresy,
while the NIV has three different readings depending on which NIV
you happen to buy. Here James White says: "the
reading for 'the only begotten Son" (he puts it in Greek) is
very great indeed. It is, obviously, the majority reading of both
the manu- scripts, the translations, and the Fathers (though some
Fathers show familiarity with more than one reading). Then he goes
on to tell us that the reading found in the NASB, NIV "command
little manuscript support". For an much fuller discussion
of John 1:18, its meaning, and the multitude of conflicting modern
versions renderings, see my article here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Jn1-18.html What do other equally trained
and "competent scholars" have to say regarding the papyrus
manuscripts, the early translations and the church fathers? The NKJV
editors (which, by the way, Mr. White recommends as a "reliable
translation") tell us THE EXACT OP- POSITE of what Mr. White
so boldly and confidently states. The following quotes are found
in the 1982 edition of the NKJV. Keep in mind that these men are not
King James Bible onlyists. In the preface of the NKJV,
which was translated by some of the same men who translated the NIV,
it says on page vii "The manuscript preferences cited in many
contemporary translations are due to recent reliance on a relatively
few manuscripts discovered in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. Dependence on these manuscripts, especially two, the Sinaitic
and Vatican manuscripts, is due to the greater age of these documents.
“ However, in spite of their
age, some scholars have reason to doubt their faithfulness to the
autographs, since they often disagree with one another and show other
signs of unreliability. On the other hand, the great
majority of existing manuscripts are in substantial agreement. Even
though many are late, and none are earlier than the fifth century,
MOST OF THEIR READINGS ARE VERIFIED BY ANCIENT PAPYRI, ANCIENT VERSIONS,
AND QUOTATIONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. This large body of manuscripts
is the source of the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. It
is the Greek text used by Greek-speaking churches for many centuries,
presently known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, of the New
Testament. Then on page 1231 the NKJV
editors say: "The Byzantine Text. This text was largely preserved
in the area of the old Byzantine Empire, the area which is now Turkey,
Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, and Yugoslavia. OVER EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT
of the extant manuscripts belong to the Byzantine text type. Also,
from the oldest to the most recent manuscripts of this type, there
is greater homogeneity than among the manuscripts of any other text
type. The King James Version is based largely on a Byzantine type
Greek text." Here are a couple of quotes
from Kurt Aland, one of the chief editors of the modern UBS, Nestle-Aland
texts upon which most modern versions are based, regarding the Greek
manuscript issue. Mr. Aland remarks, “…the greatest number of manuscripts,
comprising the bloc of Majority text witnesses in most instances,
are always the same --- they are manuscripts with a Byzantine text.
The representatives of this text type are extremely homogeneous, exhibiting
a high ratio of agreement among themselves (Aland, The Text of the
NT, p. 323).” Notice what Aland observes
immediately after that – “For manuscripts with the fewest Majority
readings, that is, most of the early manuscripts, exactly the opposite
is true. Even the MOST CLOSELY (caps mine) related among them generally
show agreement ratios of between 60 and 70 percent (Ibid, p. 323).”
Dr. Jeffrey A. Young, Ph.D,
writes in his article "An Examination of Modern New Testament
Text Criticism Theory and Methods": The Peshitta (a translation
into Syrian) was produced early in the second century. It is possible
that this translation was in the hands of Saint John. There are 350
copies extant of this translation, and they support the traditional
text. The old Latin translation that was in use when Jerome prepared
the Vulgate was translated much earlier than 300 A.D. because 50 copies
are still extant dated between 300 and 400 A.D. This translation is
also a witness, prior to the fourth century, that testifies to the
authenticity of the traditional text." His entire article can be
found here: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/ examinationof.htm Dr. H. A. Sturz has collected
lists of readings found in Papyri dated between 100 and 300 A.D. that
contradict the major premise of Westcott and Hort. His first list gives 150 different
readings of the traditional text, that Westcott and Hort rejected
because they were found in neither ALEPH, nor B, nor D. A second list
of Sturz contains 170 readings found in the traditional text that
were confirmed by early Papyri, but were rejected by Westcott and
Hort because they were not found in ALEPH or B but were found in D. A third list contains 80 readings
found in the traditional text that were confirmed by early Papyri,
but were rejected by Westcott and Hort because either ALEPH, or B,
or D did not contain the reading. - The Byzantine Text-Type &
New Testament Textual Criticism, H. A. Sturz, H. A. Thomas Nelson,
NY 1984. One of many examples of James
White's hypocrisy - "Word" and "Turn " In his book, The King James
Only Controversy, chapter Nine, which is titled "Problems
in the KJV", on page 231 "resident scholar" Mr. James
White states: "Jack Lewis notes that the KJV is also well
known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the
same word. Now certainly there are many times when one will wish to
use synonyms to translate particular terms, and context is vitally
important in determining the actual meaning of a word, but the KJV
goes beyond the bounds a number of times." He continues: "For example,
the Hebrew term for "word" or "thing" is rendered
by EIGHTY FOUR different English words in the KJV! Another term, "to
turn back" is rendered in one particular grammatical form by
SIXTY different English words! Those who have attempted to
follow the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek term through the
AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the inconsistency of
the KJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder."
(End of quote.) Most people who read this
in Mr. White's book would think something like: "Oh, that nasty
KJV. What a lousy translation it is. How unscholarly! Why would anybody
want to use that?" Most people would never take
the time to verify if there is any validity to what Mr. White quotes
from a certain Jack Lewis here; they would just accept his "scholarly"
statements as facts. James White now works for
the New American Standard Bible organization. He knows both Hebrew
and Greek and professes to be an expert in textual matters. He either
didn't check the validity of the claims of Jack Lewis, or he is deliberately
misrepresenting the facts to bolster his attacks on God's preserved
words in the King James Bible. In either case, his hypocrisy is simply
inexcusable. The Hebrew word for the English
"word" or "thing" is #1697 Dabar. I only counted
78 different meanings found in the King James Bible, but I'll give
Mr. White the benefit of the doubt and let him have his 84. A simple look at the complete
NASB concordance shows that the NASB has translated this single word
Dabar in at least NINETY THREE very different ways while the NIV has
over 200 different English meanings for this single Hebrew word. Among the 94 different English words the NASB uses to translate this single Hebrew word are: account, act, advice, affair, agree- ment, amount, annals, answer, anything, asked, because, business, case, cause, charge, Chronicles, claims, commandment, compliments, concerned, conclusion, conditions, conduct, conferred, consultation, conversation, counsel, custom, dealings, decree, deed, defect, desires, dispute, doings, duty, edict, eloquent, event, fulfillment, harm, idea, instructed, manner, matter, message, nothing, oath, obligations, one, order, parts, pertains, plan, plot, portion, promise, proposal, proven, purpose, question, ration, reason, records, regard, reports, request, required, rule, said, same thing, saying, so much, some, something, songs, speaks, speech, talk, task, theme, thing, this, thoughts, threats, thus, told, trouble, verdict, way, what, whatever, word and work. As I said, the NIV has over
twice this amount of different meanings - well over 200 - as compared
to the KJB's 84. The second word mentioned
by Mr. White is "to turn back" and it is # 7725 Shub, and
in this case Mr. White is correct in that the King James Bible does
translate it some 60 different ways. However what James forgot to
mention is that his favorite NASB has translated this same single
Hebrew word at least 104 different ways, while the NIV again has over
200 different meanings! What makes the hypocrisy of
both James White and Mr. Jack Lewis all the more astonishing, is the
fact that Jack Lewis himself is one of the principal NIV translators.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! This is the type of scholarship
men like James White and Jack Lewis employ to discredit the truth
of the King James Bible. A Person to Person Conversation with James White At RealTruthAudio on the internet
James White came on to discuss these matters with me. Here is his
answer at this site. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/64
I had posted: Most people who read this in Mr. White's book would think
something like: "Oh, that nasty KJV. What a lousy translation
it is and how unscholarly. Why would anybody want to use that?"
Then James
White says: "Really? They would think
that? Well, that's amazing. Why they would think that is beyond me. It is again a simple statement of fact. If facts are bothersome to you, you might consider
what that means. But please note: your ascription of devious purposes
to me (replete with unfounded insults) is the creation of your own
imagination. Some of us can
tell the truth without adding conspiracies to it just to "spice
things up." My response to James: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ realtruthradio/message/69 >>>>Really? They would think that? Well, that's amazing. Why they would think that
is beyond me. It is again a
simple statement of fact. If
facts are bothersome to you, you might consider what that means.<<<<<
James, this is exactly what
I mean by hypocritical. That
was exactly your intention. Why
else would you quote the guy saying: "the KJV goes beyond the
bounds a number of times. ... Those who have attempted to follow the
usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek term through the AV know how
difficult such a task can be, and the inconsistency of the KJV in
translating terms only makes the job that much harder." Since I pointed out that the
NASB, NIV and the NKJV too all do the same thing and even much more
so, why then this criticism of the KJB?
What version did this guy use?
If you yourself recommend the NASB, NIV, NKJV and they all
are "guilty" of doing the same thing, is this not the dictionary
picture of an hypocrite? These facts should be bothersome to YOU.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/82 I again posted: The second word mentioned by Mr. White is "to turn back"
and it is # 7725 Shub, and in this case Mr. White is correct in that
the KJB does translate it some 60 different ways. However what James
forgot to mention is that his favorite NASB has translated this same
single Hebrew word at least 104 different ways! while the NIV again
has over 200 different meanings! Then I said: "This whole point in your book should never have been
made. It is totally hypocritical and it seems your only desire was
to make it sound as though the KJB is extremely inaccurate and sloppy
when it comes to translational issues. If you had said rather "The
inconsistency of the NASB, NIV, NKJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder"
you would have been more accurate and would have left a very different
impression on the minds of the "lay people" for whom you
say you wrote the book. This sir, is hypocritical, and to call it by any other name would not be accurate. You should have done your homework and compare the other versions you were recommending people use, like the NASB, NIV and NKJV, before you gave such a badly thoughtout slam on the KJB. James White
then responds>>>: "A "lie" is something intentionally
presented. You do not know
me, hence, you would have to prove, from my writings, that I am specifically
attempting to spread untruths." Then I said>>> Well, one example might well be your saying that
the above example is not one of hypocricy. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/106 From: "will j. kinney" Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 9:18 am Subject: Searching for some Reality James, why is it so hard for you to come right out and just give us a straight answer about where God's preserved, infallible words are today? By my count I have asked you three times about this, and you seem to think you have already given us an answer. You even assume I haven't read your book very closely or I wouldn't be asking this question. In reality, it is precisely because I have read your book at least 3 times that I do ask the question. You are a very slippery guy and hard to pin down on a lot of things. Here is our past correspondence
regarding this question, and I confess, I must have missed where you
specifically answered the question about where we can all get a copy
of God's preserved words. James>>>> Of course,
you play your hand when you speak of "God's preserved words in
the King James Bible." That
is your starting point, and anything that does not fit with that starting
point is going to be attacked and rejected.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Will >>> Yes, James, that is my starting point. I readily admit that. And your position is that
there never was nor is now any inspired, infallible, perfect, preserved
words of God we can hold in our hands and really believe every word
(Please correct me if I am wrong). James>>> You are
wrong. Anyone who has read
my book knows you are wrong. Why
you refuse to see the words on a page I leave to you to figure out.
Will>>> I speak
of God's preserved words because I really believe God kept His promises
to do so. You do not have all
the preserved words of God, do you?
You did not answer the main question I twice asked you.
Would you care to give it a shot, or will this "play your
hand" too much? James>>> Asked and answered, and any honest person who
has read the work you seek to criticize well knows it. Will>>> Do you believe
there ever was or is now an inspired, infallible, pure Bible on this
earth, or is the best we can hope for a series of different bible
versions which contradict each other in both texts and meanings in
literally hundreds of verses, all of which claim to be the latest
and best in scholarship? James>>> I'm sorry
you have not seemed to read the book you are critiquing, sir. :-) If
you had, you would not even ask the question, let alone ask it in
such a flawed fashion. Did
you actually read the book, or were you just looking for things you
could take out of context, attach to the terms "liar and hypocrite,"
and fire off in e-mail? It is the standard MO of KJVO's that I've been
seeing for eight years now. God gave His precious Word
to us at a time when the English language did not yet exist. Obviously, then, we are faced with the issue
of translation. You may not
like facing those issues, and as a result, choose to irrationally
grab a particular translation and make it your standard, but that
does not change the reality of the situation. Will >>> Or will you tell us we have many "reliable translations",
whatever that might mean? James>>> Yes, we
have many reliable translations, from the KJV through the ASV, NASB,
NIV, NKJV to the ESV. In fact,
we have too many, in my opinion. I
do not support the "each publishing house gets its own translation"
movement that has begun over the past decade. It's worthless. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/72 Will>>> From what
I know of you, you have no inspired, infallible, complete Holy Bible. I have heard you "correct" even the
NASB for whom you presently work. James>>> Those who
have read my book well know the answer to this fallacious charge. Let me retranslate your assertion into something
rational: "You have no inspired, infallible English translation
of the Bible, and you are even consistent enough to criticize the
NASB's renderings at points."
Yes, exactly. I do not
believe God inspires translations, whether we are referring to the
Septuagint, or Vulgate (both of which had those who defended them
as inspired), or the KJV. I believe God inspired the Scriptures as they
were given to us by prophets and apostles.
I do not believe God then began inspiring "versions"
of those Scriptures. It is
the Scriptures them- selves that are theopneustos, not the translations
made by men. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/110 From: James White Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:18 am Subject: Re: [realtruthradio] Searching for some Reality
James>>> You wrote:
This is a real question, James. I'm not trying to be funny or superficial
or rhetorical. I would appreciate a straight, clear, up front answer
from you so we can all see exactly where you derive your final authority
from. James>>> I wish I
could believe you, sir. But you hold my book in your hand, and anyone
who has, in fact, read it, knows the answer is as plain as day. I
shall not play games when I have given clear and cogent replies in
the book you hold in your hands. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/realtruthradio/message/111 Will >>> Hi James, I would suggest in the name of being fair, you get
to ask me about one verse or "error" in the KJB and then
I, in turn, am allowed to ask you one.
You posted a whole bunch of questions and I tried to answer
some of them, but I think it is time that you address just one of
the very many I also have for you, OK? James >>> No thanks, Mr. Kinney. My
position is well known. You
claim to have read it. Will >>> James, I
want to thank you for making your position clear on the Bible version
issue. At least we can see what the "whaterist" position
is. You have no final authority, no final standard but your own mind.
You recommend we learn Hebrew and Greek. Of course you don't always
accept the Hebrew texts, but, Hey, it couldn't hurt to learn it anyway.
Even if we learned Greek, what good would that do us. According to
your view, we still wouldn't know which readings were correct or how
to translate them. You recommend several versions,
ASV, NASB, KJB, yada, yada, but these all differ radically from each
other in both texts and meanings in hundreds of verses. You still condemn the KJB
for using 40 plus words to translate as "destroy". Have
you ever searched out the other versions you recommend to see what
they do? I checked the NASB just tonight.
It is a long, boring process, but I was pretty sure I would find this
to be another hypocritical criticism, just like the one found in the
KJV Controversy. The NASB uses 44 different
Hebrew words to come up with the words Destroy, or Destroyer, or Destroyed,
just in the O.T. I could list all the numbers if you wish,
but that is very tedious. In the N.T. the NASB uses 12 different Greek
words and translates them as "destroy". So, this totals
out to 56 different words all translated as "destroy". I'm
so glad to find out your "sound criticism" is just another
unfounded case of hypocrisy - just like your book. Isaiah 19:10
"all that make sluices and ponds for fish." Bible Critic James White posted
this example at one of the Bible clubs I belong to. He attempts to
prove some kind of an error in the King James Bible by trying to tell
us that a particular word came from the Latin Vulgate rather than
from the Hebrew texts. This is blatant hypocrisy on the part of Mr.
White in that he now works for the NASB committee and his own NASB
UNDOUBTEDLY OFTEN REJECTS the clear Hebrew readings. This can easily
be proven by dozens of clear examples. Here they are if you care to
see them. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html and http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html In spite of all these undeniable
examples of the deficiencies of the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard
and others, James White continues his crusade to prove that there
is no such thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any
language on this earth today, and so he writes: Isaiah 19:10
And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices
and ponds for fish. (KJV) Isaiah 19:10
And its foundations will be broken. All who make wages will be troubled
of soul. (NKJ) Isaiah 19:10
And the pillars of Egypt will be crushed; All the hired laborers will
be grieved in soul. (NASB) Isaiah 19:10
The workers in cloth will be dejected, and all the wage earners will
be sick at heart. (NIV) James White
>>> "Quite a range of translations, but the most obvious
difference is that the KJV has "fish," following Jerome
and the Latin Vulgate, rather than the Hebrew text. Is it your contention,
sir, that "fish" is the inspired reading, and that it was
maintained in the Latin Vulgate, while the Hebrew text was corrupted?"
My answer
to Mr. James "No Bible is inerrant" Let's compare several versions
and see if we can determine whether the King James Bible reading comes
from the Latin Vulage, as Mr. White asserts in no uncertain terms,
or if it comes from a legitimate interpretation of the Hebrew text.
KJB - "And THEY SHALL
BE BROKEN IN THE PURPOSES THEREOF, ALL THAT MAKE SLUICES AND PONDS
FOR FISH." This is also the reading of
the Wycliffe Bible 1395, the Bishop's Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation,
the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 1950 Douay
Version. Not only do these English translations render the Hebrew
phrase found here as "fishes" but so also do the Spanish
Reina Valera versions of 1909, 1960 and 1995. Both the 1569 version
and the 1999 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras (Holy Scriptures) also reads
as does the King James Bible. They say: "porque todas sus redes
serán rotas; y se entristecerán todos los que hacen viveros para PECES."
- FISH. If you don't know Spanish, you might recognize the similarity
to Pices, or the sign of the fish. Likewise the 2004 Reina Valera
Gomez translation reads like the King James Bible with: "porque
todas sus redes serán rotas: y se entristecerán todos los que hacen
viveros para peces." The Modern Greek translation
is similar to the King James Bible in that it says: "all who
make gain from FISH ponds." (ixthuotropheioon) Now, let's take a look at
the wide variety of "reliable translations" found in the
multitude of conflicting, more modern versions that men like James
White recommend we use instead of that old fashioned King James. NKJV - " And ITS FOUNDATIONS
will be broken. ALL WHO MAKE WAGES WILL BE TROUBLED OF SOUL. NASB - "And THE PILLARS
OF EGYPT will be crushed. All the HIRED LABORERS will be grieved in
soul. NIV - "The WORKERS OF
CLOTH WILL BE DEJECTED, and all WAGE EARNERS WILL BE SICK AT HEART.
The 2001 ESV - "THOSE
WHO ARE THE PILLARS of the land will be crushed, and all who work
for pay will be grieved." NRSV 1989 - "Its WEAVERS
will be dismayed, and all who work for wages will be grieved. The 2001 Easy to Read Version
- "The PEOPLE THAT MAKE DAMS TO SAVE WATER will have no work,
so they will be sad." Lamsa's 1933 translation of
the Syriac - "And all those WHO MAKE STRONG DRINK FOR THE DRINKING
OF THE PEOPLE shall be humiliated." Geneva Bible 1599 - "For
their nets shall be broken, and all THEY THAT MAKE PONDS shall be
heavy in heart." Bible in Basic English 1961
actually omits words reading: "And the MAKERS OF TWISTED THREAD
will be crushed, and those who ... will be sad in heart." The 1970 New English Bible
- "Egypt's SPINNERS shall be downcast, and ALL HER ARTISANS sick
at heart." See how true the saying by
men like James White is who tell us by reading and comparing a variety
of translations we can clear things up? Now let's see what some other
Bible commentators, who are not KJB onlies, have to say. Adam Clarke - All that make
sluices and ponds for fish-"All that make a gain of pools for
fish." This obscure line is rendered by different interpreters
in very different manners. I translate gain, and which some take for
nets or inclosures, the Septuagint is "And all THEY THAT MAKE
BARLEY WINE shall mourn, and be grieved in soul." Jamieson, Faussett & Brown
- all that make sluices, —"makers of dams," made to confine
the waters which overflow from the Nile in artificial FISH-ponds [HORSLEY].
"Makers of gain," that is, the common people who have to
earn their livelihood, as opposed to the "nobles" previously
[MAURER]. John Gill - "All that
make sluices and ponds for fish; or, "all that make an enclosure
of ponds of soul" ; or for delight and pleasure; that is, not
only such shall be broken in their purposes, ashamed and confounded,
and be dispirited, mourn and lament, whose business and employment
it is to catch FISH (caps are mine), or make nets for that end, and
get their livelihood thereby; but even such who enclose a confluence
of water, and make FISH ponds in their fields and gardens for their
pleasure, will be disappointed; for their waters there will be dried
up, and the FISH die, as well as in the common rivers." John Wesley tersely comments
on this verse saying: "They shall lose their hopes; for the FISHES
in them shall die for want of water." John Calvin comments on Isaiah
19:10 saying: "Where FISHES are very abundant, they are also
preserved in pools and ponds; because the fishers would otherwise
be constrained to sell them at a very low price. Besides, when they
throw a net, they are not always successful. He therefore follows
out the same subject, “It will not be possible either to take or to
preserve FISHES. Pools will be of no use.” On the other hand, Bible critic
James White says: "Quite a range of translations, but the most
obvious difference is that the KJV has "fish," following
Jerome and the Latin Vulgate, rather than the Hebrew text." Mr. White is mistaken in his
understanding. The word renderd "fish" in the KJB (nephesh)
has a great variety of meanings even in the NASB, NIV and other modern
versions. For example, some of the meanings
given in the NASB for this same Hebrew word include "a living
being, a life, appetite, body, breath, corpse, CREATURE, desire, heart,
feelings, hunger, men, mind, number, passion, people, soul, person,
slave, strength, thirst, throat, will and wish". Likewise the NIV renders this
same word as "life, soul, heart, people, appetite, CREATURES,
spirit, body, corpse, needs, desires, hunger, members, being, feel,
greed, perfume, slave, throats, wishes and zeal." The Hebrew
word can have a great variety of meanings depending on the context.
The context is clearly talking about FISH - Verse 19:8 reads: "The
fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks
shall lament, and they that spread nets upon the waters shall languish."
Then we have verse 10 "And they shall be broken in the purposes
thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for FISH." Once the
context is determined to refer to "sluices and ponds", we
then can reasonably conclude that the creatures which live in the
ponds are FISH. As has been shown, other Bible
commentators have expressed the reading of the King James Bible as
being derived from the Hebrew text itself, and not from the Latin.
The Latin Vulgate has nothing
to do with how the King James Bible translates the text, but rather
they translated the Latin Bibles directly from the Hebrew text in
this place. It is a matter of different interpretations and understanding;
not a difference of the Hebrew versus the Latin texts. If the Latin
bibles say "Christ died for the ungodly" are we to claim
they got it wrong? I trow not. By the way, both the Latin of 425 A.D.
and Jerome's earlier Latin translation of 385 A.D. both refer to the
FISH in the ponds. They got it right way back then even when today's
scholars can't agree even among themselves what the verse might mean.
Again, not only does the King James Bible render this word as "fish" but so also do the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, 1960 and 1995; Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 and 1999, the 2004 Reina Valera Gomez, the Douay version 1950, Wycliffe 1395, Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's 1833 translation, the Modern Greek translation, the 1994 KJV 21st Century, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible. U |
|
|
|