 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
There is a fatal flaw in the notion that we have, in the KJV(pce, or "pure Cambridge edition"), an inspired and inerrant translation of the words of God in the form of an English "Bible". This fatal flaw in this dogmatic position is that they claim both that the Textus Receptus is a "pure" text and that the KJV(pce) is a "pure" text. For anyone who takes the time to study and learn Greek and who also knows English it is possible to compare the "pure" texts to see if the English is faithful to the Greek (since Greek came first). And it becomes obvious pretty quickly that the pce English misconstrues the Greek in multiple places. The proponents of this position would have been better off to have never accepted the Textus Receptus as "pure" than to posit the "purity" of both texts. So, since this is the fatal flaw, it is "put up or shut up" time. Can it be demonstrated that the translators "blundered" in their translation of the "pure" Textus Receptus?
Well, let's see. The first thing we have to establish is "what constitutes a blunder?" If, for example, a particular Greek word is used in over 600 verses in the Textus Receptus and the translators choose to translate it in one verse in the pce in a way unique to that verse and use an English word that does not give its meaning, would that be a "blunder"? Or, if a verb is used in the Textus Receptus and it is in the passive voice, would it be a blunder for the translators to insert an English word as the subject of that verb that is not in the "pure" Textus Receptus and then translate the passive voice verb as if it were in the active voice? What constitutes a blunder? Is the text of the pce "pure" if the meaning of the text of the Textus Receptus is misrepresented? Is God into "inspiring" blunders? This is not, technically, a matter of "interpretation"; it is, rather, a matter of "translation". And if the "translation" is flawed, how can the "interpretation" be accurate to the level of divine inspiration?
So, let's consider Mark 1:4 . This verse is actually part of a larger sentence. The beginning of the sentence is given in 1:2 with the adverb "As..." (all quotes of English texts are from the KJV(pce)). The "periods" at the end of 1:2 and 1:3 in the pce are errors of punctuation; neither 1:2 nor 1:3 are legitimate sentences in English. Verse 4 picks up the point Mark is making after the prophecies have been recorded in 1:2-3 with "John did baptize...". In English 101, or whatever they called it back in the day, we were instructed to analyze sentences by locating the subject, the main verb, and any direct or indirect objects involved, and then drawing lines from those main elements in the sentence to every "connected thought" expressed in words and phrases. In the sentence before us (including every word from the beginning of 1:2 to the end of 1:4) everything following the "As..." (of 1:2 ) falls into the category of an adverbial phrase until we get to the "subject" of the sentence, which is "John" (the first word of 1:4 ). Then, immediately following "John" we have the main verb, which is translated "did", though, for a "pure" translation, it is surely an error as we will endeavor to show shortly. After the "did" we have what is actually two "defining" participial phrases. The first one is introduced by the participle "baptizing", though the pce translators attempt to make it a part of the main verb by translating it "did baptize". The second one is introduced by the participle "preaching", though the translators, again, attempt to make it a part of a compound verb ("did baptize...and preach..."). So, we are off to a rocky start already. To clear things up, let's look at the "pure" Textus Receptus text and compare it to the "pure" pce text.
The Textus Receptus text for Mark 1:4 reads as follows (it is a must that a Greek font is installed to be able to follow):
egeneto Iwannh" baptizwn en th erhmw/ kai khrusswn baptisma metanoia" ei" afesin amartiwn
The KJV pce text for Mark 1:4 reads as follows:
John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins
An "interlinear" of these two verses would read thus:
egeneto Iwannh" baptizwn en th erhmw/ kai khrusswn baptisma metanoia" ei" afesin amartiwn
did John baptize in the wilderness and preach baptism of repentance for remission of sins
Here is where the problems are several. First , the prior text (the Textus Receptus preceded the pce as the text precedes the translation) is not ambiguous at all . The "subject" of the sentence is "John" ( Iwannh" ). The main verb is ( egeneto ), which the pce translates "did". The two participles that "attend" the main verb are "baptizing" ( baptizwn ) and "preaching" ( khrusswn ).
Second , the translation of " egeneto " as "did" is flawed in more than one way. The first way is that the word " egeneto " is, according to a concordance search, used in 636 verses of the New Testament. It is translated "did" only one time (Mark 1:4). In none of the other 635 verses is the word given the meaning "did". There is a good reason: " egeneto " never means "did". Thus, the translator(s) failed to properly render the word according to its meaning.A second way that the translation of " egeneto " as "did" is flawed is easily seen in Mark 1:6 where the translator(s) used the word "did" with the verb "eat" in the phrase "...and he did eat locusts...". It is beyond obvious that the translators used the helper English word "did" when it was used to put a verb into the past tense . In other words, "did eat" would be translated "ate" in the vernacular of modern English speech. In that same way, the translators gave their readers a false sense of the words by saying "John did baptize...and preach..." because all of their readers would make the mental adjustment in their own use of English and understand "John baptized...and preached...". But, this mental adjustment would be in error because both of the attending participles (baptize and preach) are present tense . This is why better translations of Mark 1:4 than the KJV pce would read "John came baptizing...and preaching..." because that is exactly what the Received Text says . Those who are willing to look into the facts will quickly realize that " egeneto " has the general sense of "to come upon the scene of history", or something like it. It is translated with multiple English words to attempt to convey that meaning with a single word or two, but the general idea is that a person "came" onto the scene. Thus, the translators of the KJV pce "did blunder". This is not a "pure" translation; it is a seriously flawed translation.
Now, my point is not that the pce is dangerous in this translation; it is simply a flawed translation that destroys the notion of an "inspired translation". There is nothing particularly harmful about this flawed translation except that it leads the reader to miss the point Mark is trying to make. But the harm done is minor and the fact is, John did baptize and preach. The translators wrote "truth" with their translation; but they did not translate accurately and did set up a person to be misled to a minor degree.
Thus, the pce translation of Mark 1:4 is not accurate and, therefore, cannot be "pure" (jot and tittle accurate). Anyone who can read Greek well, if given this sentence to read:
egeneto Iwannh" baptizwn en th erhmw/ kai khrusswn baptisma metanoia" ei" afesin amartiwn
would translate it,
"John came, (or "appeared") baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance unto forgiveness of sins".
Now I recognize that this raises the question of the level of scholarship of the translators of the pce, but I have no information about that. All I can do is point out where they failed to render the Greek text in a good English way.
Now let us consider Romans 10:10 . The text of the "pure" Textus Receptus reads thus:
kardia gar pisteuetai ei" dikaiosunhn stomati de omologeitai ei" swthrian.
and the text of the "pure" pce reads thus:
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
An "interlinear" of these two verses would read thus:
kardia gar pisteuetai ei" dikaiosunhn stomati de omologeitai eis swthrian
with heart for believeth unto righteousness with mouth and confession is made unto salvation
The problems are several. First, the "pure" Textus Receptus has no word for "man" in it, so the "man" in the "pure" pce is an interpretive insertion that God is supposed to have "inspired", but did not. Second, the "pure" Textus Receptus uses two verbs that are widely used in the New Testament so we have many helpful contexts to consider. The first of those verbs is " pisteuetai ", which the pce translates "believeth", and the second of those verbs is " omologeitai ", which the pce translates "confession is made".
Let's consider " pisteuetai ". This verb is widely used to indicate "believing" in the New Testament. A concordance search reveals it can be found in 220 verses of the New Testament. However, the particular form of this verb in this text is what is known as, "a verb; present, passive, indicative, third person, singular". When this particular form of this verb is "searched", only one time in the entire New Testament is it found as a "passive" verb. What "passive" means is that the verb is in the "passive" voice as opposed to the "active" voice. That "to believe" is only used one time in the entire New Testament in its "passive" form is not only interesting, arresting, and significant, it is also a "red flag" that its author was trying to say something very important. Ignoring "red flag" issues in translation can easily lead to a flawed translation, unless, of course, God is inspiring the translation. The bottom line here is this: this present, passive, indicative, third person, singular verb should be translated in this context, "he is being believed", and would have been if God were inspiring the translation. But, the pce translator ignores this very unique occurrence of this passive voice form of the word " pisteuetai " and simply translates it as if it was in the active voice and, to do that, has to insert the word "man" into the translation even though the Textus Receptus does not have the word "man" in this text.
Now, " omologeitai ". This verb is used, according to a concordance search, in 21 verses of the New Testament. And, like the preceding verb " pisteuetai ", it is "a verb; present, passive, indicative, third person, singular". And, also like " pisteuetai ", it is in the passive voice this one time out of the 21 New Testament verses in which it is found. Unlike " pisteuetai ", the translator makes an attempt to indicate the "passive voice" by rendering the verb, "confession is made". However, this is clearly wrong. The verb in the active voice, third person, singular is translated "he is confessing"; thus, in the passive voice, third person, singular it ought to be translated "he is confessed", and would have been if God was inspiring the translation. "Confession" is not the subject of the verb "to confess".
Let's pull this together. If a person who reads Greek well was presented with the sentence,
kardia gar pisteuetai ei" dikaiosunhn stomati de omologeitai eis swthrian,
he/she would naturally (and surely under divine inspiration) translate,
"for with [the] heart he is believed unto righteousness and with [the] mouth he is confessed unto salvation".
Now, outside of its context, this translation might be considered a bit difficult, but it is not outside of its context. The immediately preceding verse says,
"...if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved".
This makes the following words very clear:
"for with [the] heart He [God Who raised Jesus from the dead] is believed unto righteousness and with [the] mouth He [the Lord Jesus] is confessed unto salvation".
So, again, we have an uninspired translator who simply did not understand the meaning of the words he was translating and, thus, "blundered".
Let me repeat myself. I am not saying the translation is "dangerous". It is "truth" and anyone who accepts its "truth" will not be seriously harmed in any serious way. But, the translation is "wrong". It diminishes Paul's meaning. Paul wished to hammer the twin truths home that if God is believed in His claim to have raised Jesus from the dead, and Jesus is confessed to be "the Lord", the person so believing and confessing will be saved. He said what he meant and the Textus Receptus records his words, but the pce does not, and manages to mangle the verbs in the process.
Thus the pce translation of Romans 10:10 is not accurate and, therefore, cannot be "pure" (jot and tittle accurate). Anyone who can read Greek well can see that my argument, though not "inspired by God", is still true.
The fact is: the pce translation of the Textus Receptus has a good many more examples of poor translation that I am not going to go into at this point because there would be no point. An argument for divine inspiration is destroyed by a single legitimate example, so multiplying examples is to no point. This is why I have called this "the fatal flaw".