9 + 1 = 7 ?

You are absolutely correct, Logos 1560. There are more than 6 previous English Translations before the KJV1611; however, when I read about the theory for the first time, the KJVo crowd did a typical "pick and choose" to determine which particular translations that they claimed.

They claim that only certain Bibles are part of the "family" that became the KJV and the Geneva is not included in that. Obviously, because of the Puritan acceptance of the Geneva, against the desires of the KJV.

According to the book "God's Secretaries" the translators were ordered to look at existing translations and determine what upgrades could be made. Thhis is obvious since the KJV is word for word on many verses or parts of verses of the Bishop's and other previous translations.

First, no matter how much you try to read into this theory, it is the longest stretch I think any of us have seen for the KJVo to claim perfection in the KJV.

Besides, which VERSION of the KJV was perfect. If it was not the 1611, then obviously the purification process took more than 7 tries.

 

Don't forget the Church of Rome Douay-Rheims (DR). The 1611 KJV NT is at least 80% word-for-word compared to the 1582 Rheims NT (a translation of the Latin vulgate) even to the extent of reproducing translation errors.

Example:

1582 DR Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

1611 AV Matthew 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

Which was later corrected in the KJV to include the definite article "the" before "Christ".

1769 KJV Matthew 16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The reason probably being that the DR is a translation of the Latin Vulgate.
Latin does not make use of the singular definite article whereas koine Greek does.

"thou art the Christ" in the Vulgate is: "tu es Christus"
but in all Greek mss is "Su ei o Xristos".

The Douay-Rheims still omits the English definite article for "Christ" in Matthew 16:16.

An interesting sideline is that the KJVO have ear-marked "The Christ" ("Christ" with the definite article) as being a "New-Age" shibboleth.


HankD

 

Logos1560: "A second problem is that the KJV is not
the seventh English translation"

On pages 133-134 of Riplinger's IN AWE OF THY WORD,
quotes 1 Thessalonians 2:13 from 8 English Bibles
produced 1395-1611.

1. Wycliffe 1395
2. Tyndale 1530-1534
3. Coverdale 1535
4. Greeat Bible 1540]
5. Matthews 1549
6. Bishops' 1568
7. Geneva 1599
8. King James Version 1611

Strangely the actual KJV1611
edition is quoted .

 

Obviously you have NOT been
exposed to the TRINITY of of 7 purifications.

1. English is the 7th language in which the Bible has been purified.
2. The King James Version is the 7th Bible
in English in which the Bible has been purified.
3. The KJV1769 Edition is the 7th KJV
in which purification has taken place.

 

This is part of the KJVO "acrostic math", while the only math ACTUALLY employed is a "DOUBLE" STANDARD.

The KJVO picks-n-chooses while denying the opposition the same right.

 

I am curious about the presence of the Wycliffe Bible on the list, considering that it wasn't translated from the same texts as the others.

 

Good Ed......

 

Exile, the Wycliffe version is still considered the first complete English translation. There had been partial translations before, far back as the 600s AD, but Wycliffe's had the whole Bible all in one work. This version cannot be sneezed at; it was a pioneering work.

 

Sorry I wasn't specific enough. I wasn't trying to diminish the Wycliffe Bible, only wondering why KJVOs would consider it a good (albeit imperfect) version, since it wasn't translated from the TR.

 

since it wasn't translated from the TR.

It was translated from the Vulgate which, as I recall, is generally considered an evil Cathlick Bible by the KJV-onlyists.

 

KJV-only author provides a "Chronological List of Complete English Bibles (604 years -- 1388 to 1991)" in Appendix A of his book "Defending the King James Bible". Here is a portion of that list, from 1388 to the last Bible before 1881 (ie. the start of "modern translations"). Note where the 1611 KJV is in the list (number 17), and how many editions of the KJV he lists as well (with 3 in 1611):

That was the list of complete English Bibles before 1881. Here is the list of just NTs, note that there are 28 listed before 1611:

 

The Vulgate is considered evil by the KJV-onlyists?

This is suprising since not only history shows that the Vulgate was used to fill in all of the spaces where there was confusion in the 1611 edition.

Not only history proves this fact, but a study of the Vulgate compared to the 1611 text itself does.

Do the KJVo's think that there is a single TR laying around somewhere, before the edition that was put together by Stephens (or something close to that)?

Don't they even realize that much of the KJV came directly out of these old translations. Otherwise, they would not have been able to complete the translation process in time?

(See "God's Secretaries" The history of the translation of the King James Version of 1611).

 

It doesn't matter phillip. This offers no problem to the KJVO. God was behind the scenes orchestrating the events of history to bring about the King James Bible.

Knowing the pitfalls of this view and the attendant logical holes certain of the KJVO leadership have resorted to logic defying explanations in their desparation to retain their self-appointed status as defenders of the Word of God.

Example: For several centuries before the English langauge existed, Acts 12:4 used the unmistakable word "pascha-Passover" in the Greek language. In 1611 God apparently decided to change this and caused the KJV translators to turn Passover into "easter" a word derived from the name of a Pagan goddess "ishtar".

The KJVO chief spokesman admits that this indeed was an actual error on the part of the King James translators. However he maintains that the error was nonetheless inspired claiming that the Spirit of God thrust Himself into the work of the translators to give us an "advanced revelation"

He also added another amazement in KJVO logic:
that the 17th century English now corrects the Greek and Hebrew of the Prophets and Apostles.

In fact he has found at least 200 such "inspired" errors and has written a book about them.

The plot thickens. If you didn't already know he (en ex catherdra) moved the date for the closing of the canon of Scripture from 90AD to 1611AD to accomodate for these "new" and "advanced revelations".

This KJVO fantasy has taken upon itself a life of its own reminiscent of "The Emporer's New Clothes" (which only the KJVO can see) with these several contortions in logic (such as "inspired" errors and "advanced revelation", English corrects the original writings of the Prophets and Apostles, etc, etc).

All this in an attempt to revise history to fit their hokum and disregard the simple truth that the KJV (as good as it is) is a translation of The Word of God which has its human flaws evidenced by an extensive history of correction and revision.

HankD

[ November 14, 2004, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

You say she's never been wrong...what is her middle name, Dr. Bob?

Yes, I know, I stand in the corner for that. Just say, "somebody" made me do it.

 

Some KJVO rocket scientists try to trim the list to fit their statements. This is like trimming the dog's tail to fit the master's standard for the length of the tail.

This is just another flop(replete with falsehoods) in the KJVOs' endless quest to find something...ANYTHING...with which to justify their myth.

 

I agree Robycop3, it is MORE than just a flop. It is an utterly ridiculous attempt to prove something that they cannot prove with scripture.

When I first heard it, I thought it was a joke. Really!!! Let alone someone slamming eduction, some of the things I've been seeing posted lately are making me wonder what happened to plain "common horse sense".

OH, Robycop3, being an engineer myself, I am going to disagree with you on a statement. Usually, we are in full agreement, but it is my opinion that a true "Rocket scientist" will never be a KJVo.

 

Interestingly enough, the smartest man I have ever personally met (IMHO) was not even a professing Christian. Sadly, it was a time when I was out of fellowship with God, so the non-Christian thing didn't even bother me. Of course, when I look back on it now, I realize just how foolish he was for not believing in God. Thankfully, 'man's' knowledge and understanding is not a prequisite for the work at hand. If so, I would be pretty much at a disadvantage.