The italicized words in the King James Bible

[EdJones]

We have all heard that the italicized words in the King James Bible should be removed because they were added by the translators. Should they be removed?

[$cirisme]

No, it would make it impossible to understand.(oh, wait....)

[yxboom]

No. Keep the italicized letters and remove the KJV.

[EdJones]

Why doesn't any other version have italicized words? Isn't that dishonest?

[NSMinistries]

Yesterday @ 08:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357818#post357818)
EdJones:

Why doesn't any other version have italicized words? Isn't that dishonest?

Isn't dishonest to claim to know the mind of God by saying the KJV is His version?

[EdJones]

Does your 'bible' have italicized words? Why not?





.





1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

[Jaltus]

Actually, you should read the introduction to a specific translation. Some of them use italicized words (KJV, NASB) in order to show where there are words not from the original language. Some of them tell you in the introduction that in the midst of translation words needed to be added since Greek and Hebrew often use elision.

The only thing that is dishonest is someone claiming that a translation is more inspired than the original.

[NSMinistries]

Today @ 03:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358346#post358346)
EdJones:

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:

Now your catching on. Use a name like Natural Spirit Ministries and maybe pull in a crowd that wouldn't look at a Christian ministry before. Seems to do a great job to...:teeth:

[NSMinistries]

Of course Ed might not think that helping one soul find God is worth it because it never involed the KJV.

[Conductor42]

Yesterday @ 02:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357818#post357818)
EdJones:

Why doesn't any other version have italicized words? Isn't that dishonest?

Many other versions *do* have italicized words, or they use different means to show where they have added in words for clarity, like [brackets].

[yxboom]

yoshiah_ap:

Many other versions *do* have italicized words, or they use different means to show where they have added in words for clarity, like [brackets].

My boy Ed has had a sheltered life.

[NSMinistries]

Yesterday @ 11:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=358722#post358722)
yxboom:



My boy Ed has had a sheltered life.

I just wonder if he forgot there are many parts to the body of the church. (Body of Christ)

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 02:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=357775#post357775)
EdJones:

We have all heard that the italicized words in the King James Bible should be removed because they were added by the translators. Should they be removed?

Ed, as someone who uses and preaches from the KJV, I would say the words in italics serve a purpose, but must be used with care. Some of them just fill in words that are part of greek/hebrew words not expressed separately - ie pronouns, copulatives, etc, but others are "guesses" by the translators, trying to fill in the meaning. I preached on Zech 4.8-10 a week back, and the translators joined two hebrew sentances together with words italics in vs 10, rather than let it stand, to try and give some meaning to it. Not all their guesses where good.

[joelkaki]

Why doesn't any other version have italicized words? Isn't that dishonest?

The New King James does have italicized words.

Joel

[EdJones]

We find Him quoting a word that wasn't in the "originals". In fact, a word that only exists in the italics found in the pages of the King James Bible.
Read below, please, Deuteronomy 8:3.
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."
You will note that the word "word" is in italics, meaning of course, that it was not in the Hebrew text. Upon examination of Deuteronomy 8:3 in Hebrew one will find that the word "dabar" which is Hebrew for "word" is not found anywhere in the verse.
Yet in His contest with Satan we find Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 9:3 as follows in Matthew 4:4.
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
While quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 Jesus quotes the entire verse including the King James italicized word! Even an amateur "scholar" can locate "ramati", a form of "rama", which is Greek for "word", in any Greek New Testament.
So, just as critics of the Bible like to joke and say, "Well, the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul so it's good enough for me." A true Bible-believer can truly say, "Well, the King James was good enough for the Lord Jesus Christ, so it's good enough for me".

[$cirisme]

That is an asinine argument since most of the translations have the word 'word' in Deut.(even if they didn't, it still is asinine)

I would guess that ramati is in the LXX, but will have to look into it later.

[Socrates]

Today @ 08:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360085#post360085)
cirisme:

That is an asinine argument since most of the translations have the word 'word' in Deut.(even if they didn't, it still is asinine)

I would guess that ramatiin the LXX, but will have to look into it later.

Ed's argument is indeed asinine. I can't check at the moment because I'm on holiday, but suspect that Cir is right. This would mean that the KJV translators could have translated the OT to fit in with the way Jesus quoted. It's the height of absurdity to think that Jesus quoted anything like the King Jimmy, which was written in a language that didn't even exist.

It's ironic, because many KJVOs vilify the LXX or even claim that it never existed. Yet the KJV translators praised it, not as greatly as the "originalls" [sic], saying that it was good enough in many places for the apostles to use. The LXX influence (via the Latin Vulgate, also commonly vilified by King Jimmy Onlies) is also shown in "firmament" in Genesis 1 (Vulgate firmamentum, LXX stereoma but Hebrew raqia = expanse) and "giants" (Vulgate and LXX gigantes, Hebrew nephilim probably meaning "fallen ones" from naphal = fall), "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 (Vulgate -- Hebrew heylel simply means "morning star", and indeed Luficer means "lightbearer").

[John Reece]

Yesterday @ 10:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360070#post360070)
EdJones:
. . . . .

We find Him quoting a word that wasn't in the "originals". In fact, a word that only exists in the italics found in the pages of the King James Bible . . .

You will note that the word "word" is in italics, meaning of course, that it was not in the Hebrew text. Upon examination of Deuteronomy 8:3 in Hebrew one will find that the word "dabar" which is Hebrew for "word" is not found anywhere in the verse.
Yet in His contest with Satan we find Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 9:3 as follows in Matthew 4:4.
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
While quoting Deuteronomy 8:3 Jesus quotes the entire verse including the King James italicized word! Even an amateur "scholar" can locate "ramati", a form of "rama", which is Greek for "word", in any Greek New Testament.

Did you locate "ramati" in any Greek New Testament?

That nonsense-word ("ramati") is not even an accurate English transliteration of the word in the Greek New Testament, which (as cirisme and Socrates have said) is from the LXX: rhmati.

rhmati is an inflection of rhma, which has a much wider semantic range than mere "word". It can have the sense of a saying, an expression, a speech, a sermon, a prophecy, a commandment, a thing, a matter, an event, an object, an order, a direction. Thus, in the context in which we find it in the LXX and GNT (in the phrase panti rhmati), it is an accurate rendering in Greek of the Hebrew word that occurs in Deuteronomy 8:3, כל = everything ("that proceeds from the mouth of the LORD").

[EdJones]

Look at Paul's quote of Deuteronomy 25:4 in I Corinthians 9:9. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
Deut 25:4: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
Here we find Paul quoting the words "the corn" just as if they had been in the Hebrew original even though they are only found in the italics of our Authorized Version!

[John Reece]

Today @ 02:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360590#post360590)
EdJones:

Look at Paul's quote of Deuteronomy 25:4 in I Corinthians 9:9. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
Deut 25:4: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
Here we find Paul quoting the words "the corn" just as if they had been in the Hebrew original even though they are only found in the italics of our Authorized Version!

That is NOT TRUE.

Paul did NOT quote the words "the corn".

There are no words in the Greek text of 1 Corinthians 9:9 (nor in the Hebrew text of Deut 25:4) that mean "the corn". There is a single word (alownta = a participle of the verb aloaw) in the LXX and Greek New Testament, which does not have any adjective/noun phrase = "the corn" as is found in English renderings. The text could be rendered, "You shall not muzzle the ox while it is treading". A noun for "grain" or "wheat" or "corn" may be implied, but is not explicit in the text.

The Greek text accurately renders the Hebrew text, an English rendering of which is "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading."

[EdJones]

...always correct the Greek with the English.

[John Reece]

Today @ 03:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360633#post360633)
EdJones:

...always correct the Greek with the English.

:smile:

[$cirisme]

John... did I ever tell you I love having you around? :smile:

[John Reece]

Today @ 04:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360761#post360761)
cirisme:

John... did I ever tell you I love having you around? :smile:

You have now, and you have made my day :smile: .

Many thanks,

John

[EdJones]

New Testament writers QUOTE from the italicized words in the Old Testament. Note the following:

Psalm 16:8 says: "I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved."

The words "he is" are in italics. When Peter quotes this verse in Acts 2:25 he also quotes the italicized words, but Luke doesn't write them in italics:

"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved."

Why did Peter quote these words and why did Luke write these words if they weren't in the original manuscripts? Should we omit the italics? Not according to Peter and Luke!

In Deuteronomy 25:4, the word of God says:

"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

The words "the corn" are in italics, which the sceptics claim should be omitted. However, we find Paul quoting these words in I Corinthians 9:9:

"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?"

If these words do not belong in Deuteronomy 25:4, why did Paul quote them?

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360761#post360761)
cirisme:

John... did I ever tell you I love having you around? :smile:
:clap: Amen to that! :banana:

[Socrates]

Today @ 01:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360633#post360633)
EdJones:

...always correct the Greek with the English.

Right, correct what God breathed through Paul, Luke et al. with one of the versions of the KJV? The KJV translators would be spinning in their graves at the thought that they could improve on God's Word.

And note that after John Reece refuted Ed's latest claim with first-class scholarship of the original languages, Ed moves on to his next furphy without conceding.

[EdJones]

In the third edition of the UBS "Greek New Testament," the introduction to which states, "The letter A [next to a passage] signifies that the text is virtually certain, while B indicates there is some degree of doubt. The letter C means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading [note: "the superior reading" is not the same as "the correct reading"!], while D shows there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text." Apparently the scholars change their mind from year to year as to which "readings" are genuine; how else do we explain the "more than five hundred changes" between the second and third editions of the UBS "Greek New Testament"?

[EdJones]

.

[EdJones]

Apparently the scholars change their mind from year to year as to which "readings" are genuine; how else do we explain the "more than five hundred changes" between the second and third editions of the UBS "Greek New Testament"?

[Conductor42]

Yesterday @ 11:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=364360#post364360)
EdJones:

Apparently the scholars change their mind from year to year as to which "readings" are genuine; how else do we explain the "more than five hundred changes" between the second and third editions of the UBS "Greek New Testament"?

While I'm not promoting either edition, it seems no different than the changes between versions/editions of the KJV.

[AcousticJS]

Ed

Are you seriously trying to argue that Jesus and the authors of the New Testament had a KJV translation of the Old Testament scriptures that they used in their teaching and writing?

:doh:

That has to be the single most non-sensical, illogical, impossible argument I have ever heard. It is irrefutable historical fact that the KJV only existed after 1611, so how could Jesus and his first century followers have a copy of it?

The KJV is only the word of God in as much as it is an accurate translation of the original Greek and Hebrew writings that make up the Scriptures. Just like any other translation.

God bless
Jon

[EdJones]

No, but that God has preserved, without error His w-o-r-d-s for us today in the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

[Bib Lit Major]

01-01-2004 @ 04:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360085#post360085)
cirisme:

That is an asinine argument since most of the translations have the word 'word' in Deut.(even if they didn't, it still is asinine)

I would guess that ramati is in the LXX, but will have to look into it later.

Hey Cirisme! Long time no see!

Yes, rhmati is in the LXX, which I do not believe is the text the KJV is based on.

Heres the Greek of the LXX in Deut 8:3:

ouk ep artw monw zhsetai o anqrwpoV all epi panti rhmati tw ekporeuomenw dia stomatoV qeou

And here's the Greek of Matt 4:4:

ouk ep artw monw zhsetai o anqrwpoV all epi panti rhmati ekporeuomenw dia stomatoV qeou

The only difference is Matthew omits the definite article tw "the." The identical quotation everywhere else, including rhmati seems extremely likely that Jesus and/or Matthew used the LXX here.

Of course, The Hebrew literally says, every proceeding from the mouth of YHWH. One would assume that "word" is the missing element, so even if Jesus (and/or Matthew) didn't use the LXX, he could have still added it. He didn't read a document written almost 1600 years after Him.

BTW... I love the new Greek font! :thumb:

[John Reece]

Today @ 06:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=366383#post366383)
Bib Lit Major:

. . . . . .

. . . . . Of course, The Hebrew literally says, every proceeding from the mouth of YHWH. One would assume that "word" is the missing element, so even if Jesus (and/or Matthew) didn't use the LXX, he could have still added it. He didn't read a document written almost 1600 years after Him. . . . .


There is no "missing element" in the Hebrew text of Deuteronomh 8:3.

In Deuteronomy 8:3, the sense of כל is not "every"; rather the sense of כל in that context is "everything".

Consult the Halot and see if it is not comparable to the concise edition edited by William L. Holladay, in which the entry for כל (when it occurs without some following noun) is totality: - 1 . . . . ; b) . . . ; b) כל : a) everything.

It seems to me that the English versions of Deuteronomy 8:3 are rendering the LXX panti rhmati tw ekporoemenw dia stomatoV Qeou, rather than the the Hebrew כל מוצא פי יהוה = everything that proceeds out of the mouth of YHWH.

Remember: The LXX is a rendering of the Hebrew, not vice versa.

[AcousticJS]

01-06-2004 @ 11:49 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=365894#post365894)
EdJones:

No, but that God has preserved, without error His w-o-r-d-s for us today in the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Fair enough. I might disagree with you, but at least you're not arguing what you appeared to be.

[Solly]

Those of us whop use the KJV without being KJVOs do so because we believe the underlying greek and hebrew texts are reliable. Oh for a better translation though. TR/MT wedded with the ESV translation would be the ideal for me, then I wouldn't have to keep explaining why the translators used/added/conflated such a word when another would have been better.

[Ian Potts]

Today @ 12:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=367808#post367808)
Solly:

Those of us whop use the KJV without being KJVOs do so because we believe the underlying greek and hebrew texts are reliable. Oh for a better translation though. TR/MT wedded with the ESV translation would be the ideal for me, then I wouldn't have to keep explaining why the translators used/added/conflated such a word when another would have been better.

Agreed, it's the Greek/Hebrew text below which we support, as being that which was penned by those men of God as inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit.

Certainly though God guided those translators of the KJV (especially Tyndale beforehand) in their work and has preserved His word throughout hundreds of years, but that doesn't make the translation 100% accurate, and in fact I'd question whether it is really possible to do a 100% accurate translation into English given the differences between the languages and the tensions between the need for word-for-word literal translation, and readability.

If a better translation were done though I would hope that it would be done by a man, or men, of God raised up especially for the work, such as Tyndale, rather than some paid committee of men, sponsored by some Bible society, whose ultimate aim (whether they like to admit it or not) is often money making.

Sadly I feel the likes of Tyndale are rare and certainly conspicuous by their absence in our day and age. We need men of God raised up who will spend and be spent in God's service, even to the point of death. If someone like that produced a new translation I for one would certainly take it seriously.

[Bib Lit Major]

Yesterday @ 08:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=366611#post366611)
John Reece:



There is no "missing element" in the Hebrew text of Deuteronomh 8:3.

In Deuteronomy 8:3, the sense of כל is not "every"; rather the sense of כל in that context is "everything".

Consult the Halot and see if it is not comparable to the concise edition edited by William L. Holladay, in which the entry for כל (when it occurs without some following noun) is totality: - 1 . . . . ; b) . . . ; b) כל : a) everything.

It seems to me that the English versions of Deuteronomy 8:3 are rendering the LXX panti rhmati tw ekporoemenw dia stomatoV Qeou, rather than the the Hebrew כל מוצא פי יהוה = everything that proceeds out of the mouth of YHWH.

Remember: The LXX is a rendering of the Hebrew, not vice versa.

Yes, John, you are correct, sorry I wasn't clear and that translation of the Hebrew did not occur to me until I was pretty much done with the post. Sorry about that. (I only have one semester of Hebrew so far...so I probably shouldn't have even tried my hand at it and ignored that part. :frown:) Good to see you again John!

Kevin

[John Reece]

Today @ 05:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=368063#post368063)
Bib Lit Major:

Yes, John, you are correct, sorry I wasn't clear and that translation of the Hebrew did not occur to me until I was pretty much done with the post. Sorry about that. (I only have one semester of Hebrew so far...so I probably shouldn't have even tried my hand at it and ignored that part. :frown:) Good to see you again John!

Kevin

It's a pleasure to read your posts, Kevin.

Thanks for inadvertently providing me a chance to do a little amateur exegesis, which is always for me a fun learning experience.

Blessings,

John