An attempt to answer the multi-KJV issue

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by NaasPreacher (C4K), Jul 15, 2004.

  1. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/revisions.html

    Here is an attempt to answer the issue of multi-KJV's.

    Here is a brief quote
    So the KJV1611 had to be corrected? If it had to be corected was it perfect?

    What think ye?
     
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The currently-used editions of the KJV are certainly different from the AV 1611 in many ways.

    "Revised", "corrected", "updated"-It's all just a matter of semantics.
     
  3. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing but a smoke screen in attempts to justify the changes the "oldest and best" and their fruit(NIV,NWT,NAS{B},et al) made to the Protestant texts and their fruit(KJB,Geneva,et al).The four Gospels do not match word for word,does that mean their not correct?
     
  5. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know, everyone talks about the KJB being in old English and that the modern versions try and update that language. My question is, why did they not just do that? Why change and sometimes leave entire verses out?
     
  6. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    THe fact is, that is done.
    But the KJVO, throw out "the MVs that do"
    baby with "the MVs that don't" bathwater.

    It really bothers me that the New King
    James Version (nKJV) of the early 1980s was
    built to specifications written in the
    late 1970s by the KJVOs of that era.
    Yet the KJVOs of the early 2000s distain
    the specs of the KJVOs of the early 1980s.
    Go figure. My conclusion is that KJVOs
    like to gripe and will gripe no matter what
    anybody does.

    Well here is a MV-user gripe thread:

    Ed's Catalogue of KJVO Doubles

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the 'MVs" (as many like to call them) are not attempting to update the language, but to provide new translations of the original languages.

    Why do they leave out some verses? Because some verses are not in all manuscripts. The King James was translated from a rather unique manuscript(s), and this source material had some things that other families of manuscripts don't. Only problem is that we don't know if these things were omitted from some manuscripts or if they were added to others.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  8. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice of you to add your own version of things, A-A. You really have a way with words.

    Actually, if you were honest with yourself, you would have to admit that anything that is corrected was imperfect to begin with. This holds true with the various 'editions' of the KJV, each with their own corrections.

    No, it does not mean that they are incorrect, just written by different people with different viewpoints. But, as I said, the Gospels were written by different people, and at different places, for different reasons, at different times, based on different sources.

    What excuses can you offer for multiple 'editions' of corrections on ONE translation? Was each edition written by different people? No, the same basic translation was used in each. How about different places? Yes, but, again, the same translation. Differnet reasons? No, same reason (the Church of England wanted it). Different times? Yes, but the same translation (again). Different sources? NO, the same translation (again, again).

    So, A-A, tell me...exactly how did you want to compare the Gospels with the King James? I just don't see it...

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  9. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oops...I guess I got a little too impatient...
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Askjo:Nothing but a smoke screen in attempts to justify the changes the "oldest and best" and their fruit(NIV,NWT,NAS{B},et al) made to the Protestant texts and their fruit(KJB,Geneva,et al)

    Can YOU justify the changes made from the Geneva Bible to the AV 1611? You might start with one of the KJVOs' fave verses:psalm 12:7. The GB reads, "thou shalt preserve **HIM**...".


    .The four Gospels do not match word for word,does that mean their not correct?

    Four different writers, four different perspectives, same principles that apply to the various mss-each was written by a different writer, different time, different place. Since I believe all the Gospels are correct, as well as samuel, Kings, & Chronicles, I believe all the known Scriptural mss are correct until someone can prove any of them wrong with empirical evidence.

    Rapture Ready:You know, everyone talks about the KJB being in old English and that the modern versions try and update that language. My question is, why did they not just do that?

    It HAS been done, but for whatever reason, these editions didn't catch on with the public. One reason was that the publishers did little to promote them.


    The commonly-used KJV editions such as the 1769 Blayney's edition is a half-hearted partial update which modernized much of the AV 1611's spelling, while partially updating the English so that it's neither Elizabethan English nor the style current for the late 18th century. (Just compare it with contemporary works!)


    Why change and sometimes leave entire verses out?

    Because most newer versions are made from different sources than the older Bibles were. No one can prove whether certain verses were omitted in certain verses or added to others.

    As for the changes, please see what I wrote above to Askjo.
     
  11. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be careful and examine everything carefully on AV1611 I know personally they have misinterpeted facts about other Bible versions.
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    What about the NKJV? I am comfortable in saying I believe the KJV unknowingly added some verses in because they did not have near the number of available manuscripts as we have today.
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The King James translation of the Bible HAS BEEN REVISED since 1769. I have a copy of such a revision. The title page reads:

    THE HOLY BIBLE

    CONTAINING THE

    OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

    TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES

    BEING THE VERSION SET FORTH IN A.D. 1611

    COMPARED WITH THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES AND REVISED

    A.D. 1881-1885

    Newly edited by the American Revision Committee

    A.D. 1901

    __________________________________________________________________

    This Bible is, of course, a copy of what is now known as the American Standard Version. Can anyone on this message board prove that this revision of the KJV is inferior in ANY way to the earlier editions? No, they can not. And VERY MUCH evidence has been posted on this message board showing that this revision is superior to ANY of the earlier editions of the KJV.
     
  14. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is not a "revision" of the KJB,but rather the reinstatement of the dark-age Jesuit "bible" of 1582.
     
  15. Ed Edwards

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

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The new hymnology contains this
    hymn for children :D

    Yes, Jesus loves me!
    Yes, Jesus loves me!
    Yes, Jesus loves me!
    Jack Chick tells me so!
     
  16. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    Taking into account that the Jesuits came into existance after the end of the Dark Ages. I'd say there can't be such a thing as a dark-age Jesuit "bible".
     
  17. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    But what mss did they use for their "bible"?
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322
    If you mean the Douay-Rheims, the Latin Vulgate was used which contains the Apocrypha.

    Oops, so did the 1611 KJV and OBTW the KJV translators also used the Vulgate in their translation work.

    HankD
     
  19. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Minoque, although I disagree with Anti-Alexandrian, his dates are, for the most part, correct. The bible he refers to was dated 1582 and the Society of Jesus was founded in 1540 by Ignatius Loyola. The term "dark ages" is, of course, from an historical standpoint, a meaningless term. There is no fixed dates for the beginning and ending of the so-called "dark ages." Some historians insist the "dark ages" ended in the 11th century, others in the 12th century, but many include the 15th century and believe the "dark ages" did not end until the "middle ages" began in the late 15th century. And, of course, the school of thought which brought about the official founding of the Society of Jesus existed for some time prior to 1540. [​IMG]
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,165
    Likes Received:
    322

Share This Page

Loading...