Did God Die In 1611?

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Craigbythesea, Jun 24, 2004.

  1. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Did God die in 1611, or did He just fall asleep for almost 400 years?

    There are “Christians” who believe that God “perfectly preserved” “His Word” from the moment that it was first penned till the time that it was delivered to the printers in 1611. But then countless errors were introduced in one printing after another. And today we have a multitude of “King James Bibles” that read differently from each other on every page. And the perfectly preserved manuscript from which the printers printed the King James translation of the Bible—where is it? Did God preserve it in somebody’s attic or basement where no one can read the only perfect copy of the perfectly preserved words? Or did God allow it to be thrown into the fire to heat the printer’s shop on a cold and damp winter afternoon? Or did God simply get fed up with the whole human race and lie down and die in 1611? :D
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This is a question I raised earlier. If God could divinely preserve His word in the translators, was He not capable of doing so for the printers and typesetters?
     
  3. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    1611 or 1762 or 1769 or 1873???????? Which date did God stop His Word?

    I guess the printers and typesetters are products of the RCC conspiracy to destroy the KJV! You know it might be a conspiracy coming from Egypt! Who knows! It's very clear that the KJVO Camp is clueless on this one.
     
  4. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, that's me. [​IMG]
    Yes, printing errors did occur, but were fixed as printers advanced.
    A KJB that is derived from the 1611 is not different. You mean the modern versions differ on every page when compared to the KJB.
    Lost. Thank God my KJB is perfectly preserved.
    Don't know, it's lost, if you find it, let me know. [​IMG] In the meantime, I will use my perfectly preserved KJB.
    As in the words of a modernist, "God can do anything."
    And your point to all this babbling?
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Homebound, what PROOF do you have that your KJV is perfectly preserved? Is it any more perfectly preserved than the Geneva Bible is?
     
  6. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, the Geneva was around before the KJV. Was the Geneva not the Word of God?
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Homebound:Yes, printing errors did occur, but were fixed as printers advanced.

    Could not GOD have prevented them in the first place??


    A KJB that is derived from the 1611 is not different. You mean the modern versions differ on every page when compared to the KJB.

    BUUZZ!
    The AV 1611 and the currently-used KJV editions begin to differ in spelling and punctuation in Genesis 1:1. If the AV 1611 is perfect, then any change whatsoever, including punctuation & spelling, makes that next edition IMperfect. If the AV 1611 wasn't perfect, then what makes it any more "official" than any other version? And WHICH EDITION is perfect, and why?


    Lost. Thank God my KJB is perfectly preserved.

    Proof, please??????

    Don't know, it's lost, if you find it, let me know. In the meantime, I will use my perfectly preserved KJB.

    Hou do you *KNOW* your KJV is perfectly preserved? WHICH EDITION is "YOUR" KJV? Where's your PROOF it's perfectly preserved?Is it a genuine AV 1611? Does GOD say it's perfectly preserved?


    As in the words of a modernist, "God can do anything."

    And He leaves PROOF of what He's done, and He does nothing w/o first telling His servants the prophets.(Amos 3:7) Where does God tell any of His prophets that He's finalizing His word in a language that doesn't then exist, some 2600 years in the then-future?


    And your point to all this babbling?

    To tell the truth. The whole truth. Nothing but the truth.(Speaking for myself. Craig is well able to answer for himself.)
     
  8. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    HomeBound, I have asked you this question three times in other threads but you never answer it. Can I assume the reason you never answer it is that you can't answer it because it proves your "perfect preservation" theory is untrue?

    "HomeBound, which KJV is perfect? The original edition of 1611 or the one you use, the 1762/1769? You are aware, are you not, that there are differences?

    I will just post a couple for you, and you can tell me which reading is the perfect word of God.

    In 2 Chronicles 28:11 which is correct, "LORD" or "GOD?"

    In Ezra 2:22 which is correct, "children" or "men?"

    In Acts 8:32 which is correct, "the shearer" or "his shearer?"

    In 1 Corinthians 12:28 which is correct, "helps in governments" or "helps, governments?"

    Please tell me which reading is correct, and thus the perfect word of God, and how you know which one is correct.

    If you can give me a definitive answer that conforms to the facts of both scripture and history, I will convert to KJVO.

    Thank you."
     
  9. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, he could. But as he let Moses destroy the original Ten Commandents, he allowed the printers to make printing errors.
    I agree with the spelling, but the punctuation, I don't believe is.
    [qb]God's message is perfect. Why the printers are not, I don't know. We can go back as far as when the prophets and disciples penned the scripture for the first time. Where are they today? I don't know. All I know is, I believe that the King James Bible is God's last edition of his word. All other books, versions, or what have ya should be matched up to the KJB.
    Would it matter if I had the originals? Probably not, because you would deny it to. Since I'm not a scholar or anything like that, all I offer is my faith in the King James Bible. Just think, put your faith in the KJB and you don't have to worry about whether or not a new version is correct or not.
    I have a 1769 printing of the AV1611. Again, by faith I believe it. Yes, the Holy Spirit bears witness to the truth.
     
  10. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I use a 1769 edition. This edition as corrected the spelling and printing errors.
    LORD
    men
    his
    helps, governments.
    I have given you the answer from the word of God, do you deny it?
     
  11. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    Homebound, you didn't answer how you know which is the correct Word of God. You say you use a 1769 corrected version. Do you know there was at least one more correction after 1769? In other words some errors still slipped through.

    John Burgon circa 1880 said that there were still "errors" in the English text of the AV and he was a champion of the TR and the AV. True his complaint was that W&H used what he considered flawed mss to make the corrections, nevertheless, he saw the need for more correction to both the TR and the AV in his day.

    So the AV 1769 you are using still needs refining.

    Just to repeat something HB, the KJV is not the object of the disdain here but the errors of KJVOism.

    HankD
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Still no answer.

    Why did God not preserve the work of the typesetters and printers?
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Where in the Bible does it say that the 1769 edition of the King James translation of the Bible is perfect, and all the other editions of the King James translations of the Bible contain errors?

    Answer: It does NOT!

    And I can prove that the 1769 edition of the King James translation of the Bible includes at least one printing error:

    Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. (KJV, 1769)

    In this verse in the 1769 edition of the King James translation of the Bible, the word “at” is a printing error. The correct word is “out.” The editors of the 1769 edition of the King James translation of the Bible left that error in the text because the error had been become a part of the heritage of the translation. Yes, the editors of the 1769 edition of the King James translation of the Bible placed more emphasis on human culture and preferences in this verse than it did on the word of God.

    Why do modern printings of the King James translation of the Bible leave in their text this human error? Because radical extremists would falsely accuse them of “changing” the “Word of God” if they corrected the error.
     
  14. amixedupmom

    amixedupmom
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    -Lea butts in-

    As long as your Bible has the same 66 books mine does, It's perfectly preserved :D . If not -scratches head-

    I dunno what your reading :eek:

    But, seriously People who use the KJV1611 believe that was the first time the scirptures were compiled correctly. And, they can believe that. That is their right. Personally I do not agree. I think that anyone who is schooled in the languages can translate the Bible. I'm sorry, But I do. The only thing that CAN come from using just one translation, is to keep people from getting lost. That is the only advantage of having one Bible.

    Personally I like a Bible that I can understand, So I can get into the scriptures easily. That way I do not have to ask every other word for meaning. I'm able to do it myself. And, if i'm correct, I think that is why the 1611 was created. So that the common man would have a Bible to read at their own pace
     
  15. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    LORD</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?
    men</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?
    his</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

    helps, governments.</font>[/QUOTE]So, you are saying the AV1611 had an error that had to be corrected. How do you know which one is in error? How do you know the 1762/1769 is correct and the 1611 is wrong?

    I have given you the answer from the word of God, do you deny it? </font>[/QUOTE]You have claimed the AV1611 is wrong! But you haven't given me a reason to believe the AV1611 is wrong. How can you say the AV1611 is wrong? The word of God, the AV1611, says the opposite of the words you say are correct. Are you saying the AV1611 is a "perversion" of scripture?
     
  16. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig, do you understand what this verse is talking about? The passages talks about basically looking at the small stuff while the big stuff passing by. The correct word is "at", not "out." Place "out" in the sentence and see if it makes since to you.
     
  17. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    And He allowed the translators to make mistakes, and He allowed the copyists of manuscripts to make mistakes, and He allowed other mistakes. And all Bible scholars know this. But, not being a Bible scholar, and not knowing the facts, you place your faith in the words of foolish men who have told you that one of several hundred editions of the King James translation of the Bible is “The Word of God,” rather than place your faith in God and His revelation to man through the Bible.

    Most Christians know that all people make mistakes and that all translations of the Bible are made by people who make mistakes. Some translators are more knowledgeable than others, and some are more careful than others, but they are all human and they all make mistakes. Therefore, those of us who place a very high value on the word of God spend very much time studying the Bible in order to be able to recognize the errors and know the correct wording. This involves countless hours studying Greek and Hebrew lexicons and grammars, pouring over the manuscript evidence, and reading what others have learned over the centuries. We could just take the word of a pastor who has never bothered to study these things for himself, but we are not lazy “slow bellies,” we burn the midnight oil studying the evidence for ourselves to learn “whether those things were so.”
     
  18. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    No, this verse is talking about filtering out the little contaminates, and leaving in the very large ones. The word “at” is a printing error; this is an absolute fact. The Textus Receptus and all the other Greek manuscripts prove this to be the case.
     
  19. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Homebound,

    Are you saying that the 1769 can correct even the AV1611? Prove this to me.

    Can the 1769 KJV correct the manuscripts that where discovered after 1611 that date back further than those used by the AV1611 translators?

    So you mean to tell me that the first AV1611 was tainted until 1769! Wow! The AV was not perfect! I see your hole is getting deeper by the day!

    I guess Ex Cathedra feel upon Blayney in 1769! What a leap of faith!

    I'm with Skan in that if you can provide proof I will once agian become a KJVOist!

    So please list the evidence and MOST OF ALL LIST THE SCRIPTURE TO PROVE 1769KJVOism. What good is your statement without the scriptures to back up what you are saying. I don't care what Chick, Ruckman, Waite, Cloud, Gipp, G.(god and) A. Riplinger, Marrs, Ray, and Fuller have to say about the subject; tell me and show me where God said in His scriptures that the KJV is the be all end all of all bibles(also show me where He said that He would allow the AV1611 to be created with errors and inspire Blayney to correct them over a 100 years later.)

    How can you claim perfection if according to you God could not get it right the first time! Is not Psalm 12:6-7 in the AV1611? So what you are saying is that God lied in 1611! Well, that is what you are flirting around with when you uphold the 1769 the way that you do.

    What if another KJVOist said the 1762?

    What if another KJVO said the 1873?

    What if another KJVO said the AV1611?

    Things that are different are not the same. God is not the author of confusion and it seems that the KJVO Camp is terribly confused!

    Without double standards what is KJVOism anyway?
     
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Further evidence that the word “at” in Matt. 23:24 in the 1769 edition of the King James translation of the Bible (and almost all other editions of the same translation) is a printing error:

    Matt. 23:24 in the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible reads,

    Ye blinde guides, which straine out a gnat, and swallowe a camell.

    Matt. 23:24 in the William Tyndale New Testament (1525/1530) reads,

    Ye blinde gydes which strayne out a gnat and swalowe a cammyll.

    Matt. 23:24 in the John Wycliff Bible (1395)

    Blynde lederis, clensinge a gnatte, but swolewynge a camel.
     

Share This Page

Loading...