C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV

Please pray tell direct us to a copy of the original text of the KJV 1611. And don't forget to include the footnotes!

 

Was the 1611 or 1769 rendering of 1 John 5v12 in error?

 

I don't see any error in 1 John 5:12, if there is one, it is only in the failure of some to understand it. If that simple verse poses a problem, I would hate to see what modern scholars would do with the rest.

 

Did you look at the difference between 1611 and 1769? If so, which is correct and which is in error. If you like I can post the difference for you.

 

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

Ed
[/FONT]

 

I see no difference, except that which I said, the terrible spelling of 1611, which the 1769 corrected.

 

For the lack of something better to do for the next 10 minutes, I decided to respond to this post of Samuel Owen. I will do so only with the use of different colored print, by using red to denote erroneous statements; blue for opinion only; statements that are partially, but not entirely accurate in orange; and green for when the post is entirely accurate and factual.

Unfortunately, I do not find a single clause, in context, in this post that warrants any use of "green."

And I have used editions of the King James the great majority of my Christian life, including the exclusive use of one particular copy for more than 27 years, no less.

Ed

 

You might have been better off raying: for him for 10 minutes.








(just kidding!):laugh:

 

Quoted by Samuel Owen:
"The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction."

Quoted by C4K:
"Was the 1611 or 1769 rendering of 1 John 5v12 in error?"

Quoted by Samuel Owen:
"I don't see any error in 1 John 5:12, if there is one, it is only in the failure of some to understand it. If that simple verse poses a problem, I would hate to see what modern scholars would do with the rest."

Quoted by C4K:
"Did you look at the difference between 1611 and 1769? If so, which is correct and which is in error. If you like I can post the difference for you."

Quoted by Samuel Owen:
"I see no difference, except that which I said, the terrible spelling of 1611, which the 1769 corrected."

Quoted by Language Cop:
"It is rather apparent to me that I should offer to provide lessons in reading comprehension of the English language!"

Quoted by EdSutton:
Right you are, L.C.! Either that, or still yet another individual is claiming to have read something, while he or she could not be bothered to actually take the time to read!

Samuel Owen, have you ever actually read what you are claiming to have read, here? Is this a question of comprehension, or is the question one of honesty??

FTR, there is no "terrible spelling" in the 1611 for I Jn. 5:12! The spelling is correct, as these English words were spelled in 1611, and there are no 'typos' in the verse, either.

Calling C4K!!

You're on!

Ed

 

Why are you kidding? It is probably true! :tear:

Ed

 

Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. 1611
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1769

Ok the difference here is the omission of God in 12b. This does not constitute a retranslation, but a simple edit. Actually if you read the adjoining versus, you don’t need the word God here, it is more than assumed who is being talked about.
And who is to say it was not a type set error, discovered in 1769. Remember printing was in its infancy in 1611. This was easily a fault of the printer, more than the translators. I imagine you will find this, in the first edit of 1629.
Correction of printing errors does not constitute a retranslation, as the MV’s do. But some people pick their teeth, after drinking water too.

 

You know, he's right! In fact, it seems that the whole book is about God. Why repeat it so often? Now with Samuel Owen's permission, we can just eliminate all those superfluous words (like "God") from the Bible.

 

I am really glad you said that. Since all the MV's leave out the word God, and Holy Spirit, in many more versus than this one instance; in the original 1611 KJV.

So yes! you have my permission to read all the modern versions, you want. :laugh:

 

A question:

I wonder if the Baptist Board has ever considered selling 'pap' as well as advertising space?

I suggest the BB could make a rather tidy income, in doing so, at least on this forum.

Ed

 

Hmmm...I thought that things that were different were not the same...

But, keep in mind...if an MV did this, it would be accused of "taking God out of the Bible."

Word picture for you:

standard standard

:thumbs:

 

clarifying a verse is not exactly changing it, at least it replaced what was probably a typeset error as I said above.

I really don't see, how it was really missed by the translators of 1611. I know some really corrupted versions were printed in the 1670's, due to typeset errors. I forget where this was done exactly, but that to was corrected.

As for the MV's, removing the name of God, that is one of the biggest complaints. Also the name of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus in numerous versus, throughout the text.

I own about 90% of all the translations that are available, and have pointed out this fault many times. But I also say if you can't understand it, read something you can, the differences can be worked out later. But it takes a pretty big illiterate, to not be able to read the KJV. It only takes about an eight grade education.

Oh!, I forgot surveys state, that 90% of the high-school graduates can only read to a 6th grade level.

 

Oh! You mean you actually finally read the verse?? Amazing!

I assume you were there to note this?? "A simple edit" is actually highly unlikely, here. What is the far more likely, is that this was actually imported directly from either the D-R, which reads "He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life.", or was perhaps even taken from the TR-1598 edition as edited by Dr. John Calvin's brilliant and able successor, Dr. Theodore Beza (pronounced as "Bāz") who was not above occasionally 'editing' the text, to 'improve' the 'meter' or even because something appeared to "make sense" and "sounded" better.?

By comparison, here are some earlier translations of the English Scriptures (plus the Vulgate and TR-1550) which did not seem to have any "edit" questions, here. (You might remember that the Geneva, Bishop's, et. al., were there 'side-by-side' with the KJV, 1611 for the so-called, self-styled 'scholars' to compare with, which incidentally, the very title page of the KJV says was done.)

Most of the older versions plus the Mace and Wesley versions "got it right!"

Uh- did you happen to notice exactly which other English version, which predates the KJV, reads almost identically as the KJV-1611? Horrors!! Could it possibly be the official Bible of the Roman Catholic church, the D/R?? Could this possibly be because a couple of the KJV translators eihter had previously worked on the D/R, in some manner, even if only proof-reading, or were very close co-workers of those who actually did translate the D/R?? Naw! Surely not! [Unfortunately, this 'smilie' is the best (or worst)I can do, here.]

You actually claim to be able to decide what needs to be in the text of the Scripture?? Unbelievable!! And after this statement, then you actually have the unmitigated gall to speak disparagingly of the efforts of scholars, with whom you do not agree, simply because they do not "rubber stamp" your own preferred Bible version???? IMO, this is really :tear:

This is "cut from whole cloth" which is the best I can offer to these sentences! No, this was not any accidental "type set error" that was found in 1629, at all, but rather a deliberate choice of wording. There were already several different printings (with accompanying proof-reading and corrections) made by then. The first 'major' lesser revision was done in 1629.

I believe, if you actually do the research (as opposed to blithely, merely taking another's word to be true), that you will find that this wording was kept in the KJV, until the revisions of the friendly competitors Drs. Thomas Paris of Cambridge [(1762) - How is it that you are not familiar with the Cambridge revision of Paris of 1762?] and Dr. Benjamin Blaney (Oxford - 1769) both of which were done under the auspices and at the direction of the Anglican Church and the English Crown, and both of whom, with an attack of conscience, insisted on restoring these words they both knew to properly be in the Greek texts. But yet you would posit that no one could see the difference when it was right in front of their face, for 150 years?? With all respect, this requires straining credulity beyond the 'breaking point,', here.

Agreed! And I have never said otherwise.

This is only partly true, at best, at least for most of the 'standard' versions. The same thing can be said for the KJV, as well. The KJV is simultaneously a new translation and a revision of extant translations. (Read the intro to the KJV, and the story of the charge given to the KJV translators, by the authorizers during the Hampton Conference.) There is a very large influence from Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, et al., still present in such versions as the GEN, KJV, YLT, DARBY, ASV, RSV, MLB, NIV, NASB, NKJV, and HCSB to name several. The YLT is from precisely the same textual lineage as the KJV. The NKJV is from the same textual lineage, as well. There are multiple updated versions done recently which utilize the same Greek and Hebrew texts as does the KJV, as far as anyone can tell (The actual original texts, manuscripts and notes of the work of the KJV Conference were apparently lost in the Great London Fire of 1666.), including such as the KJII, KJ21, KJIII, LitV, and so on.

Which has absolutely zero to do with any question at hand!

Ed

 

"Really corrupted versions"?!

Guys like Franklin,Logos and others could shed more light on the errors in this post of yours.But I'll give some brief comments.

Bible versions are not known as "corrupted";that term refers to certain parts of some manuscripts.

Yeah,there were typeset mistakes in some English Bibles of several hundred years ago.But that has nothing to do with "corrupted texts".

Were there removals or were they corrections?Some scribes expanded some phrases to sound better,to harmonize with other passages or if they thought that the passage was too short and abrupt.

This was asked by others -- but how do you respond to the fact that modern versions have 'God', 'Christ Jesus', and 'Holy Spirit' when the KJV left them out in a number of places?

Perhaps you don't read your modern versions too well.

Maybe you'd like to rephrase."However,only over-sized illiterates are not able to read the KJV.":laugh:

I think it's generally acknowledged that a KJV reader would have to have a 12th grade education.

But it's one thing to be able to read the KJV and quite another to understand what is being read.That's why having some quality modern versions on-hand is suggested.

Perhaps you'd like to reword that :"Oh,I forgot to say that 90% of high-school graduates are able to read at a 6th grade level."