9 + 1 = 7 ?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Logos1560, Nov 13, 2004.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Is the KJV-only math that claims that the KJV is the seventh English translation correct?

    Several KJV-only authors have made this claim, but they usually make a list that has different translations on it, but one that also ends up with the KJV listed as the seventh.

    For example, William Byers claimed that the KJV is the seventh translation in the English language from the pure text and is thus "purified seven times" (HISTORY OF THE KJB, pp. 9, 23, 97-98). Timothy Morton wrote: "Each of these Bibles was (and still is) a valuable trasnlation, but the King James of 1611 is the purest--the seventh and final purification" (WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD YOU TRUST, p. 9). Doug Staffer also claimed that "the King James Bible became the seventh purification of the English translation in fulfillment of this prophecy" [Ps. 12:6] (ONE BOOK STANDS ALONE, p. 282). Gail Riplinger has also claimed that "English Bible was 'purified seven times' and that "the KJV is the seventh and final purification" (IN AWE, p. 131).

    One problem with such claims is the misinterpretation of Psalm 12:6. The phrase
    "purified seven times" does not indicate that the Scriptures had some impurities and needed to go through an improvement process of seven purifications in seven English translations. God's Word was 100% completely and perfectly pure when given by God.

    A second problem is that the KJV is not the seventh English translation. It seems clear that KJV-only authors start with the assumption that the KJV is the seventh and pick out six others to fit their assumption. The various KJV-only authors pick different translations to make up the six. Some start with Wycliffe's. Some say that they are only counting "major" English translations, but they do not define what constitutes a "major" English translation and they still disagree in their lists.

    William Bradley made two lists of seven in two consecutive paragraphs in his book, but he ended up listing a total of eight English translations:
    [Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Geneva, Bishops', KJV] (PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, p. 116). On one page, William Byers claimed that the Geneva Bible was the "sixth translation" (HISTORY, p. 9), and on another page, he claimed that "Geneva is five" (p. 97).
    In her book, Riplinger listed: "The Gothic, the Anglo-Saxon, the pre-Wycliffe, the Wycliffe, the Tyndale/Coverdale/Great/Geneva, the Bishops, and the King James Bible" (IN AWE, p. 33, see also pp. 131, 843, 852). Thus, Riplinger counted four English translations {Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Great, and Geneva] as being only one.

    William Grady wrote: "We marvel at the King James Bible being erected upon the sevenfold foundation of Wycliff, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles" (FINAL AUTHORITY, p. 160). Thus, Grady contradicts other KJV-only authors and in effects makes the KJV the eighth English Bible.

    On the other hand, David Daniell wrote: "There were ten new English versions of the Bible or New Testament between Tyndale's first New Testament in 1526 and the famous King James or Authorised Version of 1611, and all were influential" (THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH: ITS HISTORY AND INFLUENCE, p. 126).

    A list of some English translations:
    1380's Wycliffe's Bible, Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's Bible, 1537 Matthew's Bible, 1538 Coverdale's English N. T., 1539 Great Bible,
    1539 Taverner's Bible, 1549 Coverdale's revision of Tyndale's N. T., 1551 Bishop Becke's Bible, 1552 Richard Jugge's N. T., 1557 William Whittingham's N. T., 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Lawrence Thompson's N. T.,
    1611 KJV
     
  2. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    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
     
  4. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 .
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  7. Exile

    Exile
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good Ed...... [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  10. Exile

    Exile
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. natters

    natters
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:

     
  13. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).
     
  14. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,074
    Likes Received:
    102
    "The Vulgate is considered evil by the KJV-onlyists?"

    Depends upon the KJVO.

    For those who do, it's odd that they accept the the Vulgate readings that have survived in the KJV.

    Or maybe it's not so odd.
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    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 ]
     
  16. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Okay, even SHE denies the AV is the 7th? Then what is the fuss. Gail has never been proven wrong on anything she's an expert on.

    Home economics comes to mind . . . HAve you tried her chocolate chip cookies? It's a good thing.
     
  17. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    You say she's never been wrong...what is her middle name, Dr. Bob? [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Yes, I know, I stand in the corner for that. Just say, "somebody" made me do it. [​IMG]
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  19. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. [​IMG]
     
  20. williemakeit

    williemakeit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...