Errors in 1611: from printers or translators?

It makes to difference. This is a smokescreen argument set by the KJVO to take our eyes off of their past blunders.

The KJVO originally claimed that the AV1611 were the "pure" and "perfect" flawless word(s) of God in the English language come down from heaven.

However unknow to them, spelling, typos and other flaws had already been discovered and the first "Bible correctors" were none other that the KJV translators and Church of England churchmen.

In addition, two versions of the King James Bible were released in 1611AD. One from Oxford, one from Cambridge which differed from one another.

When they (KJVO) found out that there were hundreds of differences between the 1611 (Oxford-Cambridge) and the 1769 revision they (actually "he") equivocated and extended the myth to include some kind of refining process in a "furnace".

As they continually back up and try to unravel and knit back together this convoluted fable they only make matters worse with their absurdities.

The latest revelation which supposedly straightens all of this out from the Pope of KJVO is: yes there were errors in the AV1611, but they were inspired errors of "advanced revelation".

We are all waiting for the answer to "which one"?
Which one (1611-1850) is the real KJV refined in the furnace?

The KJVO are the ones who brought it down to the "jots" and "tittles" )which BTW do not exist in the AV1611).

Since things which are different are not the same (we had been told over and over again), then only one of the revisions can qualify as the "pure" and "perfect" Word(s) of God.

Of course that is using logic and reason which the KJVO claim as useless (unless of course one uses KJVO approved logic).

No one here hates the KJV and I certainly get no pleasure in revealing the human flaws involed with the KJV translation. All post-apostolic translations of the Word of God are flawed.

While I partially agree with the more moderate KJVO and do not accept the W&H brand of higher crticism, what cannot be tolerated are the superstitious fables attached to any translation of the Scriptures not just the KJV.

Similar superstitions developed concerning the Latin Vaulgate.

These KJVO fables are being peddled at the expense of the brethren and if that were not enough, strife and division follow them wherever they go. Most KJVO are proud of this and wear it as somekind of badge of honor for defending the Word(s) of God (as if He needs our help).

Fable #1 The Holy Spirit completed the one-and-only NT Scriptures in 1611AD not in 90AD (which transformed Passover into "easter").

Fable #2 The Holy Spirit inspired the textual errors of the KJV translators awaiting a certain someone to reveal them (Passover/Easter as "advanced revelation".

Fable # 3 The KJV is not copyrighted.

Fable # 4 (never mind).

And many others.

While many/most KJVO deny following the KJVO number 1 man, they repeat almost word-for-word his arguments supporting these myths not realizing his own equivocations.

Why do we bother? The KJVO emporer's new clothes have been exposed (pardon the pun).

They will only rant, rave and throw their holier-than-thou tantrums if you throw wood on the fire.

HankD

[ October 23, 2004, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Interestingly, you also point out by example that the basis for the KJV1611 appears to be the Bishops' Bible.

Which is considered historically correct by many scholars.

 

Logos1560: " She [Gail Riplinger in
IN AWE OF THY WORD] even implied that all
the correction of typographical errors was
taken care of in the 1629 and 1638 editions
and that the 1762 and 1769 editions only
involved the standardization of spelling.

In Hebrews 9:5 the "cherubims" over the
mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant are
mentioned in the KJV1769s that I've seen.
This does not correct the error in the KJV1611
which also says "Cheribums". I have no
idea what "Cheribums" are. A Cherub is a
high order of angels. "Cherub" comes from
the Hebrew and the plural is "Cherubim".

The term "cherub" is found 20 places in
the KJV1769.
The term "Cherubim" is not found in English
Dictionaries. Nobody but some KJV Translaters
knows what it means. Well, oops, The
Geneva Bible has "Cheribum" also

The"Cheribum" error in the KJV was
not corrected in the KJV1873 edition either.
The nKJV and HCSB both correctly use
"cheribim" in Hebrews 9:5.

 

Ruckman has written a Book in which he admits to "errors" in the King James translation such as "Easter" instead of "passover" in Acts 12:4 and "churches" instead of "temples" in Acts 19:37. In fact he has found 200 (to date) of these inspired errors in the KJV.

These he claims are still inspired words because they are "advanced revelation" (which seems to have an elusive definition).

His conclusion is the colossal absurdity that the translated text can correct the text from which it was translated.

I repeat, the spelling error issue is a smoke screen to hide the real issue of "advanced revelation".

HankD

 

Ruckman is quite a man of integrity to steal the wife of one of his students.

"In 1959, he was divorced from his wife and subsequently married the wife of one of his students, a matter that has brought personal criticism from some Christian leaders."

Source http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/ruckmanism_or_wreckmanism.htm

One thing that could be said about him. He is consistently causing division and strife.

 

Interesting Both my 1611 and my 1769 have "cherubims".

A month or two ago a KJVO BB member went on a rant about how correct "cherubims" is/was.

HankD

 

Dr. Bob:Funny how the only sect DISAVOW LOUDLY Ruckman's filth and infidelity, but STILL HOLD his doctrinal error. Oh, they say they are not "extreme" like Peter, but hold the exact same second (advanced) inspiration.

I believe most KJVOs adhere to the "party line" created by Wilkinson, Ray, and Fuller, and followed up by the numerous later authors, many of whom have added their own material to the mess. However, the old basics are still there, such as their insistence that Psalm 12:7 is about God's preserving His words...IN THE FACE OF THE AV TRANSLATORS' OWN MARGINAL NOTE IN THE 1611!

Making this worse is the fact that MANY other verses CLEARLY state God has preserved His word. Shoot, we anti-Onlyismists believe likewise, so why do the KJVOs insist on Ps 12:7 as the "preservation" verse, and why do they ARGUE for preservation when we, their opponents, believe likewise? The ONLY logical explanation is that they've swallowed the old KJVO party line which was proven false before many of them were born.

Ruckman, Riplinger, and other contemporary KJVO authors still follow this old party line. It's the framework for their literature. Basically, it's the same old garbage, mixed in with new garbage, repackaged in a new, more colorful garbage bag.

If more KJVOs would TAKE THE TIME TO INVESTIGATE THE ORIGIN OF THE KJVO MYTH, THEY'D DROP IT LIKE A HOT POTATO! Its roots are from a known cult official and two dishonest authors. Now, while I'm all for anyone using the KJV only from personal preference, there's simply no basis nor any Scriptural support for the myth that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation. That whole idea is STRICTLY MAN-MADE, and has absolutely NO FOUNDATION IN FACT.

KJVO, please check out what we've said here!

 

According to Ruckman, all such "errors" are "advanced revelation", inspired errors if you will.

Errors inadvertantly made by the translators without their conscious knowledge, the result of having been moved by God to do so.

"Advanced revelation" waiting for someone to discover them.

Can you guess who that was?

HankD