The 1611 edition of the KJV did not use apostrophes to indicate possessive case. Did later editors use any consistent guidelines or principles when they added apostrophes to the text of the KJV? Did editors determine whether a noun was singular possessive or plural possessive based on its number in the original language texts or did they arbitrarily add them? Which edition of the KJV was the first to have all of the apostrophes placed correctly?
The 1611 edition of the KJV did not use apostrophes to indicate possessive case. Did later editors use any consistent guidelines or principles when they added apostrophes to the text of the KJV? Did editors determine whether a noun was singular possessive or plural possessive based on its number in the original language texts or did they arbitrarily add them??
We have seen on other issues raised that editing was very careful and that Blayney, as an example who had much influence in purification, consulted the source language texts. Such a consultation would be presumed to include all aspects of the translation, unless there are compelling counter-indications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
Which edition of the KJV was the first to have all of the apostrophes placed correctly?
If you want to claim that the PCE has incorrect apostrophes, you can surely try to demonstrate .. something .. by comparing within the PCE and to source language texts.
However comparing editions would be the same flawed methodology as you did with italics. Feel free to waste your time.
btw .. You have never demonstrated anything about "original languages". You appeal to others who used the phrase vaguely or improperly or in a different context (ie. received text or original sources for the translation).
The proper phrase is "source language" .. unless you want to assert and demonstrate that all the NT was written in Greek.
The 1611 edition of the KJV did not use apostrophes to indicate possessive case.
Apostrophes were not needed to do so. Only in standardised English, and, of course, standardised Biblical English, would this be accomplished by the presentation communicating most precisely the sense in English, a sense which was always there, even in the poorly printed, unstandardised copy of 1611.
Quote:
Did later editors use any consistent guidelines or principles when they added apostrophes to the text of the KJV?
Since the editors were not robots, nor necessarily following some arbitrary scheme of usage (as if it were so haphazard that it gendered chaos), the consistency of the editors is found in their labours according to overarching principles, out of which the final result was a purified edition, that is to say, a purified presentation.
Quote:
Did editors determine whether a noun was singular possessive or plural possessive based on its number in the original language texts or did they arbitrarily add them?
We cannot tell, but we can assume that many editors, e.g. copy editors, had no such standard as "original language texts" as they corrected and proofed the work, which was ordinarily done at various times. (It was so spectacular for Blayney to do so {with the italics} that he had to mention it in his description of his work.)
Quote:
Which edition of the KJV was the first to have all of the apostrophes placed correctly?
This is a matter of logic. I have said that there was a purification of editions resulting in the PCE. If we examine copies from various times, we would find that the PCE is different in at least one place to the 1769. Most of Scrivener's various changes in apostrophes are incorrect, because his changes tend to disagree with the standard or proper line of editions, especially the Pure Cambridge Edition.
According to the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, which KJV edition or editions are correct in their number [whether singular or plural] in the following examples?
We cannot tell, but we can assume that many editors, e.g. copy editors, had no such standard as "original language texts" as they corrected and proofed the work, which was ordinarily done at various times. (It was so spectacular for Blayney to do so {with the italics} that he had to mention it in his description of his work.)
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
We have seen on other issues raised that editing was very careful and that Blayney, as an example who had much influence in purification, consulted the source language texts. Such a consultation would be presumed to include all aspects of the translation, unless there are compelling counter-indications.
[bold added by this poster] Are the mere assumptions of Bibleprotector compelling counter-indications?
According to the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages
How could they be a "greater authority" to a sinner or to an average born again believer?
"Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." (1 Cor. 14:11).
How could they be a "greater authority" to a believing scholar or to a sceptical critic?
No single form of the Scripture in the original languages stands as absolute or exemplar. There is no universally attested to "perfect text". There is no final text. There is no settled text.
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen." (1 Timothy 6:20, 21).
Quote:
which KJV edition or editions are correct in their number [whether singular or plural] in the following examples?
The edition not listed, namely, the Pure Cambridge edition.
1 Samuel 2:13
priests' custom
There were multiple priests.
Ezra 2:59
father's house
Since each individual has only one father, and one house to belong to, each individual's father is said.
Psalm 44:26
mercies’ sake
The mercies are many.
Psalm 107:27
wits'
They (plural) have wits (plural).
Psalm 140:3
adders’ poison
There are many adders.
Proverbs 31:14
merchants’ ships
There are many ships belonging to various merchants.
Isaiah 59:5
cockatrice’ eggs
The last sound is not stressed when read, unlike "ass's", etc.
Ezekiel 44:30
priest's
"shall be the priest's: ye shall also give unto the priest" one priest (the representative) is mentioned.
Daniel 2:41
potters' clay
"potters' clay ... miry clay" meaning the kind of clay that is used by potters, its soft form. The form "potter's clay" in Isaiah 29:16 is because of the direct analogy to God, and to the specific, "shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?"
Malachi 3:2
fullers' soap
"for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap" since the article "a" limits the refiner as one, but there is nothing to limit the fullers, because they are plural. One reason for this may be because the same soap can be used by many at various times, unlike a fire.
Matthew 14:9
oath’s sake
Only one oath is given, as is plain from the context.
The proper phrase is "source language" .. unless you want to assert and demonstrate that all the NT was written in Greek.
Are you claiming that the KJV translators did not use the proper phrase and are you suggesting that you are correcting them?
I think that you know that the separate title page for the New Testament in the 1611 edition of the KJV stated: "Newly translated out of the Original Greek."
Only one oath is given, as is plain from the context.
Are you implying that the Holy Spirit was wrong to inspire Matthew to write a word in the original language that was plural in number? Are you claiming that making the rendering singular in number is an advanced revelation on the part of the editor or printer who first introduced it in the 1700's?
Rick is back to his literary incompetent mode. He goes in and out of this mode a couple of times a day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
We have seen on other issues raised that editing was very careful and that Blayney, as an example who had much influence in purification, consulted the source language texts. Such a consultation would be presumed to include all aspects of the translation, unless there are compelling counter-indications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coverdale
Are the mere assumptions of bibleprotector compelling counter-indications?
Since bibleprotector is very familiar with Blayney's writings and work, as well as that of other editors, and that knowledge and background was his main basis, your "mere assumptions" is simply typical Norris dishonest writing. An intelligent and scholarly conjecture is far more than a mere.
bibleprotector and I definitely agree that many editors would not have consulted original language source texts, since there were dozens of editors over the three centuries involved. We know Blayney did, and I see no reason why he would not look at an apostrophe at the same time as an italics. As for others, I will defer to the expertise of bibleprotector in conjecturing about various editors in the 1600s and 1700s and 1800s. We would expect the 1629 and/or 1638 to have consulted the original languages, and I would conjecture a number of others. Such consultation may be methodically deep, like Blayney, or it could be more cursory.
Are you implying that the Holy Spirit was wrong to inspire Matthew to write a word in the original language that was plural in number? Are you claiming that making the rendering singular in number is an advanced revelation on the part of the editor or printer who first introduced it in the 1700's?
The Holy Spirit did not inspire Matthew to give the sense of a plural number. I know this because I have an accurate translation called "The King James Bible", and it shows God's Word exactly in English.
Placing apostrophes properly does not change the sense, nor is it (English editing) done by inspiration. In fact, it is evident that those who misplace the apostrophes today are doing so AGAINST the pure Word as has been received today. Those who do so are doing despite to the Spirit. Yes, it is not God’s word at that place to have “oaths’”, since “oath’s” is God’s providentially supplied Word.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
Apostrophes and the KJV
over to apostrophe land
Linear Mode
