Toward a biblical definition of “prophet”

Prophet, noun. According to Merriam-Webster, may be (1) one who utters divinely inspired revelations; (2) one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight; (3) one who foretells future events. The third definition is probably that which comes most readily to mind to modern English speakers. What is a prophet, biblically defined?

The meaning of the word.

As we notice in the introduction, the English word “prophet” includes several different shades of meaning (e.g., 5 at Merriam-Webster, 7 at Dictionary.com). What about the Bible?

The primary Hebrew word for prophet is (נָבִיא nāḇî'). The word “seer” (הָרֹאֶה rō'ê/rā'â) is synonymous for prophet, according to 1 Samuel 9:9. The Hebrew word (הַחֹזֶה ḥōzêh) is also translated “seer.” In 1 Chronicles 29:29 all three of these Hebrew words are used (נָבִיא nāḇî') (הָרֹאֶה rō'ê) (הַחֹזֶה ḥōzêh).[i]

The primary Greek for prophet is (προφήτης prophētēs). Greek also has the word (ψευδοπροφήτης pseudoprophētēs) for a false prophet. Hebrew adds descriptors about prophets prophesying falsely rather than having a word “false prophet.”[ii]

The biblical use of the word.

The first use of the word “prophet” in the Bible is found in Genesis 20:7, where God calls Abraham a prophet. There it seems to primarily mean that Abraham is God’s spokesman or representative. The last use of the word “prophets” is found in Revelation 22, which seems to connect both the ideas of God’s spokesmen (v. 9) and the references to future events (v. 6).

God told Moses, “Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet” (Exodus 7:1). This also seems to emphasize the nature of the prophet as a spokesman (e.g. Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well…and Aaron spake all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses, Exodus 4:14, 30). In Exodus 15:20, where Moses’s sister Miriam is referred to as a prophetess, she took a timbrel in her hand and led the women in singing to the LORD – emphasizing the nature of forthtelling. Notice also that the musicians for the tabernacle and temple were considered prophets (1 Chronicles 25:1-3).

The Old Testament prophets spoke for God. In connection with this, some of them also dreamed dreams, saw visions, and foretold the future (Numbers 12:6; Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 28:9; Ezekiel 33:33). The word and its related work included “forthtelling” and “foretelling.” The commonality in all of this seems to be that of accurately presenting and representing God’s truth. Those who wrote the Old Testament Scripture, or at least many of them, were considered prophets.

Many times in the New Testament, the word “prophet” refers back to the Old Testament prophet (Matthew 1:22; 2:17; Acts 2;16). “The prophets” may also mean the Scriptures of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17; Luke 16:29; 24:27, 44: John 1:45).

However, prophets are also current/active in the New Testament. John the Baptist was a prophet (Luke 7:28), a spokesman for God who came before and announced the coming of the Christ.[iii] Those called prophets in the New Testament include Jesus; Agabus (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10); Barnabas, Simeon Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul (Acts 13:1); Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32).[iv] Though prophets and apostles were different – that is, all prophets were not apostles – it seems that by default the Bible considers all the apostles to be prophets, even while not specifically naming each of them them thusly (Acts 4:33; 1 Corinthians 13:2; Revelation 1:3; 18:20: 22:6).

Paul refers to those who speak in the Corinthian assembly as prophets, who could speak in a way to edify, exhort, and comfort (1 Corinthians 14:3-5). Though prophecy is a gift (Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 14:32), the prophets are not out of control. They can contain themselves from all speaking at once (1 Corinthians 14:26, 29, 40), and must speak so as to acknowledge that the inspired words of the apostles are the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37). (Therefore, they cannot claim a the Spirit made me do it excuse for bad behavior.)

In Titus 1:12, Paul applies the word “prophet” in a “non-biblical” or “non-Christian” sense, calling a spokesman for the Cretians “a prophet.”

Prophecy is a spiritual gift, as we see from Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:8-10; 28-31; 13:2; and 14:1-6. Those who prophesy, prophesy according to the proportion of faith with which they are gifted, within the place in the body the Spirit has placed them.

The rhetorical question of 1 Corinthians 12:29 indicates that all of God’s people are not prophets (cf. Numbers 11:29). Everyone should be a representative of God in witnessing to and sharing his truths. However, some are gifted to do so in a more official way.

Paul indicates that supernatural tongues, prophecy, and knowledge will cease with the close of the biblical revelation (canon), 1 Corinthians 13:8. “Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.”

Concluding thoughts on the words and its meaning.

In the Bible, a prophet was a spokesman for God – one who conveyed a message from God to the people. The calling or work included foretelling (proclaiming God’s events and plan for the future) and forthtelling (publishing God’s will and truth in the present). Often this role of prophet combined these two features, for example, using warning of future judgment as a call to present repentance. Prophets guided the people concerning truth, faith, morality, and judgment (cf. Acts 24:25). His duty was not solely about predicting the future – and often not even primarily.

• The Bible reader should not just think “predicter of the future” when encountering the word “prophet.” A full picture is needed.
• The Bible reader should think of “spiritual gift” when encountering the word prophet, especially in the New Testament.

It seems difficult for the average modern English Bible student to think “prophet” and not think of someone who foretold the future. Yet, the common thread of all prophets is not that fact, primarily, but rather of being God’s sent spokesman. Perhaps these thoughts will help. What have I forgotten to consider? If something, please add in the comments.

---

[i] I have put these words in parentheses due to the tendency of the embedded “backward spelling” of Hebrew to go haywire in Microsoft Word, ending up at times in various crazy fashions.
[ii] The Old Testament calls five women prophetesses – Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Noadiah, and the wife of Isaiah (Isaiah 8:3). The latter may simply mean the wife of a prophet, and Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14) seems to be a false one, opposing the work of Nehemiah. The New Testament calls two women prophetesses – Anna (Luke 2:36) and Jezebel (Revelation 2:20). The first one is on God’s side, and the latter seems to only be one falsely so-called. Compare also Acts 21:9.
[iii] John the Baptist is evidence that a prophet did not necessarily perform miracles. “And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true” (John 10:41).
[iv] The emphasis of Judas and Silas as prophets was that they “exhorted the brethren with many words.”

Spirit and spirit in Acts 10 and 11

The chart below gives some history of the capitalization of Spirit/spirit, 1611-1769, in Acts 10:19, 11:12, and 11:28. It “proves” two things:

1. There is enough variation for anyone who wants to do so, to base some theological or orthographical view on it.
2. More seriously and more importantly, it illustrates the rules of capitalization in English were not fixed during this period of time.[i]

I hope the chart will be large enough to see; it appears to be kind of small. I think perhaps you can enlarge it on your computer. All of these Bibles are King James Bibles. The chart gives the Bible printing year and by whom it was printed (if known). A URL is provided for anyone who wants to check out the printings. I may have made some mistakes. After looking at one word that long, they can all start to look alike! Additionally, I discovered when I was using the tab in Excel, the program was “correcting” every entry to lower-case spirit. I believe I readjusted and corrected all those Excel “corrections.” If any readers find mistakes in the chart, please let me know.

When the entry has two years (e.g., 1640/39), that means the frontispiece of the Bible and the front of the NT had different dates.

---

[i] And I would add that they probably are still not as fixed as some people assume they are.

Thee, you, the resurrection, his resurrection

Acts 26:7b-8 ...For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

This is one of those verses “you” might miss in a modern translation. Paul begins by addressing Agrippa directly (“thee,” singular, vs. 2-3), but expands to the entire audience (“you,” plural, v. 8; cf. 25:23-27) when he brings up belief in the resurrection of the dead.

“The word ‘you’ is here plural, signifying that Paul here changes from addressing Agrippa only, and here includes all the Jews present, including those Sadducees who denied the doctrine of the future general resurrection of the dead. Paul is leading up to the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus (v. 23).” Stephen Mills Reynolds, The Purified New Testament, p. 311

Stephen Mills Reynolds was an ordained Presbyterian minister who served on the New International Version Committee on Bible Translation. He also created his own New Testament, which might be considered sort of a “niche” Bible. It takes and promotes the position on the translation of “oinos” in the as grape juice. Reynolds was observant and noted the change in the number of the pronoun in this text. However, he also “ad-libbed” an interpretation, adding the Sadducees to the group gathered to hear Paul. The text only identifies Roman officials.

Acts 25:23 And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city ... 26:30 And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them...

Doth not nature teach you?

1 Corinthians 11  ³ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. ⁵ But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. ⁶ For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. ⁸ For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. ⁹ Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. ¹⁰ For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. ¹² For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. ¹³ Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? ¹⁴ Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? ¹⁵ But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. ¹⁶ But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I thought I had posted on this before. If so, nevertheless I cannot find it. That is one of the problems with blogs. It is too much of an “in the moment” platform on which it can be hard to go back and find old material. Or perhaps I never created it to begin with. With that explanation (in case a similar post already exists and pops up), I proceed to consider some points about the woman’s head covering discussed in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.

Reasons for the woman’s head covering:

• 1. The headship of man, verses 3-6.
• 2. God’s order in creation, verses 8-9.
• 3. Because of the angels, verse 10 (power/ εξουσιαν).
• 4. All things are of God, verses 11-12.
• 5. A sense of propriety, verse 13.
• 6. The very nature of things, verses 14-15 (including the distinction between male and female, and the woman’s natural head covering).
• 7. The practice of all churches, verse 16.

Each of the reasons given for the head covering is taken from permanent facts. Paul writes nothing of period hairstyles or Corinthian social customs.

On 1 Corinthians 11:14. I don’t know about you, but I think most people, myself included, tend to hear “nature” and first think the world of the outdoors and the living things in it (trees, animals, etc.). However, other connotations of “nature” are meant, such as the character of things, the natural order of things, the very nature of things. Vincent’s Word Studies puts it this way – “Nature (φύσις) The recognized constitution of things. In this case the natural distinction of the woman’s long hair.” The general order of things is that normally & naturally the hair of women tends to grow longer & more luxuriant than the hair of men, that men normally & naturally are the more dominant physically, that women are normally & naturally more nurturing, and things like that. There can be exceptions to this natural order of things, but in general it is replicated over and over in the circle of life. Barnes puts it a little differently, speaking of a natural sense of propriety in mankind generally, which is expressed as common customs in cultures across time and geography. The view of Barnes may prove helpful, but if not careful it gets broken down by people just going along with the practice of their culture or society. Then, people wind up arguing that what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11 has no real application today, because he was just trying to get the church at Corinth to act acceptably within the Corinthian cultural standards. Whatever nature is, Paul puts it forth as a kind of universally & generally accepted truth or established fact on par with the five reasons he gives before it and the one he gives after it.

This word is for today. Once we know it is for today, we must wrestle with its meaning to discover how it applies in 2024.

King James Bible Pronouns, Updated Chart

The Amen

Amen is an interjection used at the end of a prayer or a statement to express assent or approval.

amen (interjection). Old English, from Late Latin amen, from Ecclesiastical Greek amen, from Hebrew amen “truth,” used adverbially as an expression of agreement (as in Deuteronomy xxvii.26, I Kings i.36), from Semitic root a-m-n “to be trustworthy, confirm, support.”

Common English meanings of the word amen include “verily,” “truly,” “truth,” and “let it be so.” It is also used colloquially, to express strong agreement – AMEN! Old Testament, see “amen” to the curses, Deuteronomy 27. | Greek αμην “so be it” “I agree” “Truth.”

Amen is used 27 times in the King James English Old Testament, and 51 times in the King James English New Testament. In contrast, in modern versions in the New Testament: the NIV 30 times, ESV 29, NASB 29, LEB 27, and NET 26.

Usually αμην is translated verily or truly when it begins a sentence, and amen when it ends a sentence. All four gospels, all of Paul’s epistles, both of Peter’s epistles, three of John’s epistles, and the epistle of Jude (a total of 24) end with “Amen.” The ones that do not are Acts, James, and III John.

Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Jesus Christ is the “Amen” in his very substance. Rev. 3:14. Jesus does not just say “Amen,” he is “the Amen.” He is the truth (John 1:17; 14:6; Rev. 19:11). He is the so be it (John 1:1ff. Genesis 1:1ff).

Jesus Christ is the “Amen” of his word. Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure… John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Jesus Christ is the “Amen” in his promises. 2 Corinthians 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. Psalm 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast. Matthew 8:13 And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

Jesus Christ is the “Amen” of salvation. John 3:3, 5 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God…Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Neither is there salvation in any other.)

You Again

Quoting two authors.

“It is true that Elizabethan English is more precise than modern English in its use of pronouns. Nevertheless I confess that, as a preacher, I would rather specify the exact meaning of the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then, than explain all the archaisms in the text of the KJV.” (Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, p. 98)

On the one hand, men like Carson insist that a Bible must be translated so that the reader can understand without the assistance of a preacher. On the other hand, here Carson admits he is willing that the readers be left out of understanding certain places. He picks and chooses what he desires to explain and what he does not.

“How often does your inability to distinguish singular ‘you’ and plural ‘you’ trip you up in your daily English reading or conversation? Almost never. Context almost always distinguishes the two sufficiently...” (Mark Ward, Authorized, p. 100)

Carson calls this problem “the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then,” and Mark Ward tells us the indistinct “you” trips you up “almost never.” However, this is not the whole truth, and our experiences with modern English tell us otherwise.

Two brief points.

For a Bible study in 2021, I quickly put together a list of two dozen verses to illustrate how significant the ye/thee distinction can be. (See some of them Here.) Did Jesus tell Nicodemus you must be born again, or did he tell him you must be born again? Which is it? Rather than the “the odd ambiguous pronoun now and then,” there are hundreds of places in the Bible where the use of “you” for either second person singular or second person plural can make it difficult to understand the passage.

Our own practices belie the claim that the number of “you” is not a problem. We know instinctively that we need to make the distinction between singular and plural “you,” even though our modern language has betrayed us! We modern – yea, even educated – English speakers, despite what they teach otherwise in schools, have devised numerous ways to let our hearers know we mean “you plural” – y’all, you’uns, youse, and you lot, for examples.

These difficulties should not be brushed aside. They, like other interpretational difficulties, should be met and overcome through prayer and Bible study. Additionally, we who use the King James Bible have an interpretational tool built right into the text, when it comes to you and you.

Daniel 5:9-11 - Did the queen or the queen-mother speak to Belshazzar?

Q. In Daniel 5:9-12, who spoke to the king? What was her relationship to the king?

Daniel 5:9-12 Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied. Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed: There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father,[i] made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers; forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.

A. The Aramaic word מַלְכְּתָ֕א malketa/malkah means and is properly translated “queen.”[ii] A few modern Bible versions have changed here from a translation to an interpretation. It is “the queen mother” in the Good News Translation, New English Translation, New Living Translation, and The Living Bible. It is “the king’s mother” in the Easy-to-Read Version, International Children’s Bible, New Century Version.[iii] These glossators seem to think the word “queen” must be limited to a reigning king’s wife.

However, the English word “queen” has a broader semantic range than that. For example, it can mean a female monarch/sovereign (the female equivalent of a king), the wife of a king, or the widow of a king (and quite a few other things not relevant to this text in Daniel [iv]).

“Queen” is the correct translation – with the meaning in the sense of a widow of a king, derived from the context. Belshazzar’s wives and his concubines were already present at the feast (5:2-3). The person mentioned came into the banquet house (v. 10). Therefore, this queen was not already present; she was not one of the kings wives (who were already present). That she just came in and began to speak to the king (v. 11) suggests she is a person of high respect. That she knew the facts about Daniel and Belshazzar did not indicates a person of an older generation – either Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter or his widow. My opinion (and this is just an opinion) is this queen is the widow of Nebuchadnezzar.[v]  Describing this woman as the queen is correct, since “widow of a king” is within the range of meaning of the English word “queen” (and the Aramaic word means “queen”). However, based on the context of Daniel chapter 5, she was not Belshazzar’s wife.

---

[i] Here “thy father” is used in the sense of ancestor, or perhaps as the head of the dynasty. Compare such usage in Luke 1:32.
[ii] This word מַלְכְּתָ֕א malketa/malkah is translated βασίλισσα in the Septuagint. βασίλισσα also means queen.

[iii] That she is a “queen mother” is contextually correct, but not an exact translation. That she was the king’s mother may or may not be correct – since, for example, she might be the king’s grandmother. A suggested timeline of the succession may be this. Evil-Merodach reigned as heir of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jeremiah 52:31-33 and 2 Kings 25:27-29). Nabonidus assassinated Evil-Merodach and also married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar was their son, a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar on his maternal side.
[iv] Such as a chess piece, playing card, a female insect, or effeminate male homosexual.
[v] Josephus calls her Belshazzar’s grandmother: “Now when the King’s grandmother saw him cast down at this accident, she began to encourage him…” Josephus, Antiquities Book X, Chapter 11, Section 2.

Do minor changes make the KJV an imitation? Conclusion.

I hope supporters of the King James translation of the Bible can find common ground, proceed with caution in unclear areas, promote a Bible that is consistent from its initiation, to the present, and for the future,[i] and leave the theatrics for the purveyors of the ever-changing modern critical text of the Bible.
 
There is no doubt that orthography has a place of interest and usefulness. Capitalization or the lack thereof – especially for modern readers’ expectations – may cause us to find or miss divinity in a passage. Punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence. For example, a comma and the lack thereof might make things serious (or humourous).

• Let’s eat, grandpa.
• Let’s eat grandpa.[ii]
  

Sometimes these things seem clear-cut. On the other hand, there are fluid standards and/or the fluid interpretation of standards. Sometimes what someone insists is the only correct punctuation really does not change what people read and understand. The way I was taught punctuation when I was in school often appears to be outdated by today’s standards. I (generally) use commas more often than recommended by current standards.
 
The approach of folks like Verschuur and Kizziah, however well-intentioned, ultimately leads people to doubt their King James Bibles rather than have confidence in them. Believers may begin to agonize over minutiae where they once with simplicity confidently read and trusted their Bibles. This new approach makes readers dependent on some authority or authority figure – we must accept what someone else has researched and claims to be true.[iii] Perhaps there are some slight differences that ought to be cleaned up in some printings of the King James Bible, but I do not think any of this is widespread enough to cause us to worry about whether we have the word of God.
 
Let’s not belittle this kind of discussion, as do others. The Bible is the most important above all other books. We ought to look at the issues carefully. We ought to be sincere and thoughtful. When possible, as a group of King James supporters, can we agree on some orthography that should be fixed? If so, let’s do it. However, let’s not divide over how the same word can be spelled in different ways. And let’s not look through a 21st century lens to find problems where there are none.

---

[i] That is, consistent in meaning & application, not exact orthography from 1611 to the 21st century.

[ii] In reality, unless the reader lived in a cannibalistic society, the reader would likely understand what the writer really meant – while laughing about the obvious mistake in punctuation!

[iii] We complain about this when someone tries to make a priest over the believer in other situations.

Do minor changes make the KJV an imitation? Part Three.

Unlike Matthew Verschuur, who is very specific in recommending which Bible he thinks is the “pure” edition of the King James translation, Nic Kizziah leaves us hanging. He uses very strong language to condemn counterfeit Bibles, but then does not tell us to “buy this one.” At the end of his composition he writes, “The best place I know to purchase a good Bible at a reasonable price is at Bearing Precious Seed Ministry.” I agree and recommend Bearing Precious Seed Bibles. However, I have checked my Bible that I purchased and found some of the very “errors” that he says makes a Bible counterfeit. His trumpet gives an uncertain sound.[i]
 
“Just give us the text that has established itself as the standard text of the Holy Bible, an old fashioned, Christ exalting, devil kicking, Authorized King James Bible,” Kizziah writes. But which one is that? He continues, “To the best of my understanding this is the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible with a few minor printing errors and spellings corrected along the way in the 1800’s.” But how many claim to follow the 1769 edition? Which printing errors and spellings were corrected, since all editions from the 1800’s are not exactly the same?
 
In his treatise Kezziah further advises, “All the common ordinary Bible believer wants is the same Bible that his grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had etc. that’s all.” I agree. I believe he is right about that. What he is wrong about, though, is thinking that these grandmothers had the same concern about minute orthography as do some 20th and 21st century King James advocates. They did not.
 
Here is the sum and substance of it all. To find the right and wrong Bible, one must have and consult his “Quick Check List When Buying a King James Bible?” Those poor grandmas were out of luck! Here is the “Check List.”

Kizziah’s check list proves too much. In Genesis 11:3, the “Real Bible” must have throughly, but the 1611 printing has thorowly. Genesis 23:8 should have intreat, but 1611 has entreat.[ii] Genesis 41:38 should have a capital “S” (Spirit), but 1611 has a lower case “s” (spirit). Exodus 25:30 should have shewbread and alway, but 1611 has Shew-bread and always. Leviticus 25:9 should have jubile, but 1611 has Jubile. Numbers 10:25 should have rereward, but 1611 has rere-ward. 1 Samuel 18:6 should have musick, but 1611 has musicke. Psalms 149:6 should have twoedged, but 1611 has two edged. Isaiah 59:17 should have cloke, but 1611 has cloake. Matthew 1:19 should have publick, but 1611 has publique. And if we would create a hill to die on with the “seven-letter” Saviour, it might be worth noting that the 1611 typography is Sauiour, not Saviour. I realize that this can be considered nit-picking. However, it is nit-picking the nits picked by the pickers. If the 1611 printing of the new translation has “cloake” – do we really need to differentiate between “cloke” and “cloak” to identify a “real” Bible from a counterfeit? Pfft.
 
Interesting also, when claiming that ensample means something different than example – why not look at the Bible itself? 2 Peter 2:6 uses “ensample” and Jude verse 7 “example” with the same meaning regarding the same historical incident.
 
Whichever edition is the one of which Nic Kizziah speaks, “It is basically the same Book that rolled off the printing press in 1611.” Basically, but not exactly.  “The only differences being,” he writes, “it was changed from Gothic type to Roman type, printer’s errors were corrected and spelling was stabilized.” It becomes the one that Nic Kizziah says it is. We just have to accept that!
 
As concluded yesterday, good honest Bible believers who happen to buy and use a King James Bible with some variant spellings should not be charged with using a Bible that is “counterfeit.” This practice causes confusion and dissension, sets up a select few as authorities over us all, and turns fellow KJV supporters into opponents rather than allies. Lord, help us to avoid such a course of action.

---

[i] For example, Kizziah proclaims, “The rules of English grammar may change but the King James Bible is fixed in a moment of time (the 1800’s, the 1900’s and for ever more) and is unchangeable. This is the standard text and there is no other.” How is it fixed in a moment of time, when you say it was being fixed from the 1600’s to the 1900’s. Which one is the standard text? Be clear. (He sort of seems to say, “There is a standard text; I am just not sure which one it is.”)
[ii] There can be a difference in the words “entreat” and “intreat,” according to the context. Sometimes entreat means to treat in a certain way, as in Matthew 22:6, et al. However, in the English language “entreat” and “intreat” are also variant word spellings with the meaning “to ask earnestly” (e.g. Exodus 10:18). Using the spelling variant “entreat” instead of “intreat” (or vice-versa) does not make a Bible “counterfeit.” However, it is best leave “intreat” where it is and “entreat” where it is, already in the King james translation. The variant spellings can then function as a cue to the possible difference in meaning.

Do minor changes make the KJV an imitation? Part Two.

Matthew Verschuur has committed a great deal of research to the orthography of the Bible. The effort and extent of his research is commendable.[i] Verschuur offers the following examples (see below) of how to know you have a “pure” King James Bible. According to him, “It is important to have the correct, perfect and final text of the King James Bible, since there are correctors (e.g. publishers) who have changed some aspects of King James Bible texts. The final form of the King James Bible is the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900), which conforms to the following:”
 
1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8
 
Notice the following comments about Matthew Verschuur’s examples.

• No. 2. 2 Chronicles 33:19 in the 1611 printing has neither “sin” nor “sins”. The word there is “sinne”, which agrees with the PCE in number but not in spelling. 
• No 4. Jeremiah 34:16 in the 1611 printing has “whome yee”. The word “yee” agrees with the PCE in number but not in spelling. 
• No. 5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” Ezekiel 11:24 in the 1611 printing has both “the spirit” and “spirit of God” with a small “s”, which disagrees with the PCE.[ii]
  
• No. 8. Matthew 26:39 in the 1611 printing has “further”. Further and farther are variants and/or synonyms, but can also have a different connotation. According to Merriam-Webster, “Further is the older of the two, with farther originating from it as a variant in Middle English. For much of their history the words have been used interchangeably. As adverbs, they still are interchangeable when applied to distance (of the spatial, temporal, and metaphorical varieties).” Few if any people will get a different understanding from either word, in context.
• No. 9. Matthew 26:73 in the 1611 printing has “bewrayeth”. There is some difference in the connotation of these words, though betray is used as a synonym for bewray. 
• No. 12. 1 John 5:8 in the 1611 printing has a capital “S” “Spirit”, disagreeing with the PCE. The context shows that a capital “S” is correct (that is, as far as we understand capitals today). Notice that verse 6 says Jesus the Son of God “came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” These are the same three elements of verse 8 – water, blood, and the Spirit. The Spirit in verse 6 is the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit. The three mentioned in verse 8 are the same as the three in verse 6, and the capital “S” would be right, signifying the Holy Spirit. The 1611 printing has all three words of verse 8 with capital letters – “And there are three that beare witnesse in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood: and these three agree in one.”

There are disagreements of the 1611 printing of the Bible with the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) in four examples that are given above.[iii] Thorough research of the two Bibles would yield even more. It is neither consistent nor useful to establish one’s own “perfect orthography” of the Bible and demand others acquiesce to it. The decisions are quite arbitary as to what is an acceptable change and what is not.
 
Even though alternate spellings still mean the same thing, I prefer that we not go rambling through the Bible to find spellings to update. On the other hand, good honest Bible believers who happen to buy and use a King James Bible with some variant spellings should not be charged with using a Bible that is not “pure.” This causes confusion and dissension, sets up a select few as authorities over us all, and turns fellow KJV supporters into opponents rather than allies. May we avoid such pitfalls.

---

[i] Recognizing that, however, does not require others to accept all of his conclusions.

[ii] Interestingly, Ezekiel 11:1 has a capital “S” – though Verschuur does not take notice of that verse. Overall, I suspect that there is some type of theological disagreement behind some of the conclusions about the capitalization of the word Spirit/spirit.

[iii] It is my understanding that there are some typographical differences even in the first two printings of the new translation by King’s Printer Robert Barker.

Do minor changes make the KJV an imitation? Introduction.

As a pastor and supporter of the King James translation, I am asked about certain debates over mistakes, so-called, in various editions or printings of the King James Bible. These “mistakes” are usually in reference to spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For example, some have advocated that only the Pure Cambridge Edition is an exact presentation of the word of God. Others advocate in a similar manner, but come to different conclusions on spellings, capitalizations, and so forth. For example, Nic Kizziah offers a short check list of orthography (scroll to the bottom of his page),[i] which is some cases differ with the conclusions advocated by Matthew Verschuur (Pure Cambridge).
 
We should take printing of the word of God seriously. We want the Bible to be printed accurately, and have a right to question why changes are made. However, we should be reasonable and consistent in assessing them. To radically reject a King James Bible because it has some modern spelling updates, changes in punctuation, capitalization, etc. works against rather than for the support of the King James Bible. There are NO modern printings (i.e., barring replicas) of the King James translation that reproduce the spelling exactly as found in 1611.
 
We have a problem reading our own modern ideas of spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and so forth back into discussing and deciding this issue. The modern education system, for many years now, has worked to systematize that which was not originally systematized in the English language.[ii] Today, the standards include sentence case (capitalization at the beginning of a sentence), with other words being in lower case. The main exception to this is proper nouns – persons, places, “I”, religions/churches (John, Texas, Christianity, Islam, Baptist, Catholic, Methodist), brand names (Pepsi, Skil saw), days and months (Sunday, January). I do a lot of historical research, and in old writings the use of capitalization and spelling does not conform to our modern ideas on the subject. This can be seen regularly – words we would capitalize that are not capitalized, or words that we would not capitalize that are capitalized. We cannot assume that because we would now capitalize or not capitalize a word, that the same was true in 1611 when the new translation was printed.
 
The Declaration of Independence provides a good historical secular example. If Thomas Jefferson had turned that paper in to some of the old English teachers I had, there would have been all kinds of red marks on his “improper” use of capitalization. See also, for example, the first lines of the U. S. Constitution and notice the now-uncommon capitalization.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[iii]

The poem “This Is My Letter to the World” by Emily Dickinson shows the general capitalization of nouns (even some pronouns) was still common in the U.S. in the 1860s. The common capitalization of substantives (nouns) seems to be rooted in the Germanic background of the English language, or German typography, with a gradual decline of such usage. Some capitalization was simply individual aesthetic – the capitalization of words the author thought to be important. We cannot judge the orthography of the Bible simply by 20th and 21st century standards. 
 
The King James Bible itself warns us off of over-worrying about consistent spelling. Take, for example, Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34, where Matthew and Mark spell what Jesus said on the cross in slightly different ways – “Eli” vs. “Eloi”. Surely they are referring to exactly the same thing, while spelling the word differently. The difference in spelling does not change what Jesus said! In those same passages in the 1611 printing, there are some other spelling differences. Matthew 27:46 has “cried” and Mark 15:34 has “cryed”. Matthew 27:46 has “loud voice” and Mark 15:34 has “loude voice”. Matthew 27:46 has “mee” and Mark 15:34 has “me”. These spelling differences did not make the original 1611 printing impure or a counterfeit! (These differences can verified in a 1611 printing HERE.)
 
Over the next two days, I want to interact with the positions of Matthew Verschuur and Nic Kizziah – which are the same but different!

Part Two
Part Three

---

[i] “Orthography” is a noun meaning, “The art of writing words with the proper letters, according to accepted usage.”

[ii] I consider this standardization generally to be a good thing. Nevertheless, it is a human standard, and human standards change.

[iii] And “spell-check” will complain about defence, advising its change to defense.

Biblical singular and plural you

In his book Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible;, Mark Ward wrote a good deal about “false friends.” In this context, a “false friend,” loosely, is a word that you expect to mean something that it doesn’t.

I have never noticed any supporters of modern Bibles or detractors of the King James Version call out their own very false friend – the English second person pronoun “you.” Unlike some of the so-called false friends that appear randomly in the King James Bible, the false friend “you,” is repeatedly strewn throughout modern translations from front to back, from Genesis to Revelation.

As our English language “progressed,” where it once distinguished between second person singulars and plurals,[i] it devolved into a morass of “yous” which are indistinguishable. On the one hand some dismiss this as an irrelevant concern. As one man recently told me, “You can tell by the context.” While that may be true on occasion, in fact very often we cannot tell by context. Perhaps we can tell better in face-to-face conversations than when reading – but even then our own practices belie that claim. We modern English speakers, despite what they may teach us in school, have created numerous ways to let our hearers know we mean “you plural” – y’all, you’uns, youse, and you lot, for examples. We know instinctively that we need to make the distinction, even though our modern language has betrayed us.

So, when modern translations are made, they extend that betrayal to us once again. You, you, you, you, and we don’t know which you! Unlike my friend who brushed it off nonchalantly, Greek scholar Bill Mounce admits the problem. Writing about “You” and “You” - Singular or Plural he says, “I wish modern English had a different form for ‘you’ plural. It would solve some sticky translation problems.”[ii] In portraying this problem, Mounce provides an example from John 1:50-51 in the New International Version:

Jesus said, “You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You will see greater things than that.” He then added, “Very truly I tell you, you will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.” 

Speaking of a shift from second person singular to second person plural, he explains “There is no way you would pick that up from the English.”[iii]

Examples of verses

Below are some examples of verses where we lose the singular-plural second person distinction in modern language, but are noticeable in the King James translation. Take a look at these and see whether you have caught the distinctions before.[iv]

Exodus 3:12 And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.

Exodus 4:15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.

Exodus 29:42 This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee.

2 Samuel 7:23 And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeemedst to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods?

Deuteronomy 6:14-15 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (for the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

Job 42:7 And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Psalm 27:8 When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek.

Isaiah 7:11,14 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above…Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Malachi 1:8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts.

Matthew 26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

John 1:50-51 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1 Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1 Corinthians 8:9-12 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

2 Timothy 4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.

Titus 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.

Philemon 1:21-25 Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say. But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you. There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

A quick explanation of the “ye’s” and “thee’s”

There are ten second person pronouns used in the Early Modern English of the King James Version of the Bible.

The words beginning with “T” are second person singular:

• Thou = Nominative case (as in “Thou art”)
• Thee = Objective case (as in “to thee,” “of thee”)
• Thy = Possessive (usually used before a noun that begins with a consonant, as in “thy brother”)
• Thine = Possessive (usually used before a noun that begins with a vowel or vowel sound, as in “thine eyes”; or in place of a noun, as in “this is thine”)
• Thyself = Reflexive singular pronoun (used as the direct or indirect object of a verb or the object of a preposition)[v]

The words beginning with “Y” are second person plural:

• Ye = Nominative case (as in “Ye are”)
• You = Objective case (as in “to you,” “of you”)
• Your = Possessive determiner (used in front of a noun, as in “your generations”)
• Yours = Possessive pronoun (used in place of nouns, as in “all things are yours”)
• Yourselves = Reflexive plural pronoun (used as the direct or indirect object of a verb or the object of a preposition; or as an emphatic appositive, see Luke 13:28)[v]

---

[i] As do the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament, and even many modern languages. 

[ii] Like many who dismiss the possibility of English-speakers learning a bit about Early Modern English, Mounce quips, “I guess we all have to learn some Greek.” 

[iii] That is, the English of the NIV. The English of the KJV makes it clear (for those who understand the “thee” and “you” pronouns). “Jesus answered and said unto him [Nathanael], Because I said unto thee [singular], I saw thee [singular] under the fig tree, believest thou [singular]? Thou [singular] shalt see greater things than these. And he [Jesus] saith unto him [Nathanael], Verily, verily, I say unto you [plural], Hereafter ye [plural] shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” 

[iv] Some examples have both “ye” and “thee” in them, while a few are examples of only one – but in a place where the number matters to the interpretation. What some decry as archaic (or obsolete) is really a great boon to Bible study.

[v] In modern English, this form is distinguished by “yourself” and “yourselves.”