|
|
-
Question #11 -
QUESTION:
I've heard that the italicized words in the King James Bible
should be removed because they were added by the translators.
Should they be removed?
ANSWER:
If we remove any of the italicized words
we must either remove them ALL or accept them ALL as Scripture.
EXPLANATION:
Following are the problems with removing the italicized words from
the Bible:
1. Anyone who has ever translated from one
language to another knows that words MUST be
added to the finished work to complete the sentence structure of
the new language.
All translators do this when
translating the Bible. The King James translators were men of
integrity so they put the added words in italics.
Example #1
Psalm 23:1 reads "The LORD is my
shepherd" in the King James Bible. The word "is"
was added by the translators to complete the sense of the
sentence.
Psalm 23:1 in the New International Version
reads, "The LORD is my Shepherd."
So it is plain to see that both
sets of translators added the same word to complete the sentence.
Yet the King James translators put the word in italics to inform
the reader that they had added it.
Example #2:
John 1:8 reads, "He was not that Light,
but was sent to bear witness of that Light" in the
King James Bible.
John 1:8 reads, "He was not that light,
but was sent to bear witness of that Light"
in the New King James Version.
Again both sets of translators
have added words to their translation so that it would make sense.
In this case it is the phrase "was sent." Yet again, it
is the King James translators who put their addition in italics
for clarity.
Thus we see that the translators of our Bible
should be commended on their integrity and ethics for their
addition of the italicized words instead of castigated for a
practice which all of our modern "would
be" scholars follow routinely.
2. Critics of the Bible, fundamental or
otherwise, claim that the italics can be removed, but NEVER remove
them all. Usually they are stumped by a passage such as the word
"unknown" in I Corinthians 14. Since they cannot explain
the passage with the italicized word in
the passage they make the thoughtless statement reproduced above
and remove the problem word.
But this opens a tremendously large "can
of worms"! For if we say that italicized words do not belong
in the text, we cannot say that one italicized
word should be removed from the Bible, but we must say that ALL
italicized words must be removed from the Bible. Even the casual
student of Scripture knows that the Bible will make no sense at
all if ALL italicized words are removed.
To remove one italicized word
and leave another in is to claim Divine Inspiration
in knowing which words should go and which words should stay.
Regardless of how great a preacher,
soul-winner, or scholar might be none of us are going to bow our
knees to them with the claim that they are Divinely
inspired to reject or accept words in the Bible. If we
are so foolish as to exalt a man's opinion in such a way, who
should we exalt? There are hundreds of Bible critics who would vie
for the office of "Official Divinely Inspired Bible
Corrector". Who would be the lucky person? How would we
choose him? And WHO would be so naive as to think
that all Christians would follow his decrees? Yet without
his decrees we have NO WAY OF KNOWING which
italicized words belong in the Bible and which ones do not.
So we see that overcoming problem passages will
require prayer and Bible reading instead of carelessly removing a
troublesome word.
3. One of the classic defenses for leaving the
italicized words alone is found in II Samuel 21:19.
"And there was again a battle in Gob with
the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaaroregim, a
Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff
of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."
By omitting the italicized words we have the
Bible saying that Elhanan killed Goliath. Of
course everyone knows that I Samuel 17 says that David killed
Goliath. So we finally have the Bible that all lost men love to
refer to when they say, "The Bible has contradictions in
it".
Of course, our "Divinely Inspired Bible
Corrector" would probably say the italics in II Samuel 21:19
do not need to be removed. But then who's to know which
words to remove or which ones to keep in unless God
"appeared" to them and told them.
4. Our fourth and best reason for not meddling
with God's choice of words for His Bible comes from none other
than the Apostles Peter and Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself.
First, take a Bible (King James, of course) and
read Psalm 16:8. I have set the LORD always before me: because he
is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
You will notice that the two words "he
is" are in italics. Yet when we find the Apostle Peter
quoting this verse in the New Testament in Acts 2:25 we find it
says:
"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:"
So here we find the Apostle Peter quoting Psalm
16:8 italicized words and all! You would almost
believe that God wanted them in there wouldn't you?
Now it might be pointed out that Peter was an
unlearned and ignorant man (Acts 4:13) and so, lacking the
"benefits" of a Bible college education, he blindly
accepted the Bible (King James?) as every word of God. But let us
look at the same phenomena concerning the Apostle Paul and the
Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul, as did other New Testament writers, often
quoted from the Old Testament in his writings. In doing so, he
quoted as did the others directly from the Hebrew Text. We have
several of Paul's quotes which contain words not found in the
Hebrew original.
In Romans 10:20 Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1.
Romans 10:20: "But Esaias is very bold,
and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made
manifest unto them that asked not after me."
Isaiah 65:1 "I am sought of them that
asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not:
I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by
my name."
Yet we see that the words "them that"
which Paul quoted as though they were in Isaiah
65:1 exist only in the italics of the King James Bible.
The same is true of I Corinthians 3:20,
"And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that
they are vain." which is a quote of Psalm 94:11, "The
LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are
vanity." where we find the word "are" supplied by
the translators.
But the most unexplainable is 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!
If one were to argue that Paul was quoting a
supposed Greek Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew, our
dilemma only worsens. For now, two perplexing questions present
themselves to us. First, if such a Greek translation ever existed,
(which is not documented in history) by what authority did the
translators insert these words? Secondly, if they were added by
the translators, does Paul's quoting of them confirm them as
inspired?
While you ponder these important questions, we
will note that Jesus also quoted from what
appears to have been a King James Bible.
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 Apostles Peter and Paul and for the Lord Jesus
Christ, so it's good enough for me".
So we see we have three options on what to do
with the italicized words in the Bible.
(1) Remove All of them.
(2) Exalt one of our fundamental Bible critics
to the office of "Official Divinely Inspired Bible
Corrector" and then give his decrees all the weight and
allegiance that we would give to Jesus Christ.
(3) Leave all the words in our
divinely inspired Bible alone, and trust that just maybe
Jesus Christ is correct.
It's as though we had a
choice.
Back
to The Answer Book Index
|
|
|
