Is there any evidence?

Apparently? You mean like they "thought" that their preface was inspired, because they incuded it in the 1611? The Apocrapha was never included in the 1611 as scripture; it was inserted between the Testaments separately. The very word "Apocrapha" demonstrates that it was never thought to be scripture except in Roman Catholic Bibles. The KJB was never revised; only editions were made to it with certain corrections. -- Herb Evans

 

So in order to determine today which translations are valid, and which actual verses appear in your individual books of canonical scripture (1 John 5:7, for example) do you consult with the Roman Catholic Church, etc.?

 

Wrong quote

There must be gremlins in my computer. I don't how a quote from Robycop3 got in my post to Ed. Oh, well, that's the explanation why my preceding post is addressed to Ed with a quote from Robycop3.

 

Tell me what you know about the East Syrian Church.

What I was suggesting was NOT RCC but a consencus of
first Millinniam Chrisitians. Today each chruch can consider what
they think are valid books of canonical scripture.

 

Actual evidence suggests that many of the Church of England translators of the KJV had higher regard for the Apocrypha that you acknowledge.
The 1611 KJV had no clear disclaimer concerning the canonicity or inspiration of the Apocrypha. In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches. In addition, the cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority.

In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have “an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible” (Crowned, p. 94). Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“ Did the 1611 KJV indicate the same clear distinction or separation between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha as it indicated between the Old Testament and the New Testament with its separate title page?

D. A. Waite wrote: “I do not believe in a perfect situation with the King James Bible because of the original printing of the Apocrypha in 1611. If it had been perfect and spotless and if God was behind it, they never would have included that Satanic Apocrypha in the Old Testament” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 110).


Marion Simms maintained that "the Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, and KJV, all Episcopal in origin, gave a more favorable place to the Apocrypha than any other [Protestant English] Bibles" (Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). Probably aimed at the Geneva Bible, Archbishop Abbot, one of the KJV translators, issued in 1615 an order forbidding the sale of Bibles without the Apocrypha (Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman also acknowledged that Abbot "in 1615 forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Forever Settled, p. 183). Does this indicate that the official position of the "superior" KJV translators was that the Apocrypha should be published with the Bible? If George Abbot, who at least leaned toward or tolerated Puritan views, had such a high regard for the Apocrypha, the many KJV translators with High Church views had even more regard for it.

 

In other words, the only valid reason for adhering to 66 Book Onlyism is preference.

 

The claim of no revision is incorrect, as an examination of the facts would reveal. The 1828 Webster's Dictionary defined revision as "the act of reviewing; review; re-examination for correction; as the revision of a book." Roget's Thesaurus listed "revision" and "correction" as synonyms. Rodale’s Synonym Finder gave “revised or new edition” as a synonym for “revision“ (p. 1036). The word "revision" can be accurately used concerning the KJV. In his “Editor’s Introduction” to The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, David Norton [a leading present-day expert concerning the text of the KJV] observed that the 1769 KJV text and that of later editions “is not the translators’ text but has many readings changed according to the judgements of editors who had made it into a revised version: not a heavily revised version, but still a revised version” (p. viii). A good number of the renderings that were changed were the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves who had kept them from the Bishops' Bible. Later editors revised or corrected them based on their use of the original language texts. Are you saying that the correction of renderings for which the KJV translators themselves were responsible does not constitute a revision? David Lawton asserted that “the copies of the King James Bible that we now possess are very different from the original production” (Faith, p. 78). Glenn Conjurske pointed out: “The King James Version itself has been subjected to a number of minor revisions since 1611” (Olde Paths, April, 1993, p. 85). William Paul asserted that the 1769 “Oxford Standard Edition” became “popularly known as “Blayney’s Revision of the King James Version (Oxford, 1769)” (English Language Bible, p. 32).

 

Again, point F. did not address versions or language. It merely emphasized the attributes of the Bible then that are still with us in our present Bible. -- Herb Evans

roby: yes, in every valid version.

Again, the evasion! Roby cannot specifically define his "valid" versions. Obviously, versions that contradict one another that have verses missing cannot be pure, very pure, true, inspired, innerant, infallible. Roby refuses to address or diferentiate between such blatant differences. -- Herb Evans

It has nothing to do with language; it has to do whether something is scripture or not. Since you agree that the scriptures are pure, very, pure, inspired, true, you should have no problem with this point. -- Herb Evans

roby: i don't; the problem is with those who insist it's found in only one version, but who cannot back their assertions with EVIDENCE.

You have a problem, but you avoid it. Bibles that radically differ cannot all be pure or true. You are in denial!-- Hreb Evans

roby:In the OP of this thread, I asked for any evidence to support ANY One-versionism, and not necessarily the KJVO myth alone. So far, we've seen NONE. Dr. Evans, you're gonna hafta do a LOT better than just stamping yer foot & saying, "The KJV is superior because it's better". That aint exactly convincing evidence, ya know.

evans:Well, not being able to talk about the other ones on this forum makes for a mighty big handicap.

roby: You are free to talk about any other One-Versionism myth you wish. Why didja believe you were restricted? But why not talk about EVIDENCE? That's what this thread's asking for.

You know that I am not allowed to talk about specific MV's on this thread to prove my evidence of purity versus non-purity. Who are you trying to kid? Or are you trying to bait me into doing it? -- Herb Evans

evans:Herb Evans has provided more evidence than Roby has and without the evasion or ambiguity.

roby: WHERE? WHAT? we've seen only OPINION & GUESSWORK.

You have it right next to your OPINION and GUESSWORK regarding your mystical Bible of all the "VALID" translations and mss, right near the empty spot called "WHERE and WHAT." -- Herb Evans

Roby has absolutely no emperical evidence but demands it of Herb Evans.

roby: EVANS has the doctrine to try to prove; I need nothing to reject it. I'm not trying to hawk any new doctrine; the One-Versionists are.

To pretend you do not have a doctrine of "there are errors in all bibles, including the Hebrew" and "all bibles are inspired and preserved" is to insult the readers. That is a doctrine but not of Christ, Paul, or the apostles and prophets. What you are saying is that herb Evans must prove his allegations but Roby does not have to prove his. -- Herb Evans

If an atheist demanded emperical evidence from Roby that there ever was an inspired, inerrant, infallible Bibe, Roby would be in thr same situation and would have to do a LOT better than just stamping his foot and saying as he below: -- Herb Evans

“The body of writings considered by worshippers of God to be sacred, authoritative, and either spoken by God to His chosen writers, or written by men under His influence, chosen by Him to be part of His word to mankind." – Roby Quote

I wonder why Roby did not address this exchange? -- Herb Evans

KJO's meet Roby's criteria in regard to the KJB and nothing else in English since, because they considered it so! -- Herb Evans

roby: But their lack of proof for the veracity of their view keeps it in opinion/guesswork mode.

Then your quote as to what the scripture are is in the opinion/guesswork mode, and the question still boils down to what the scriptures are. If we cannot agree on what the scriptures are we have no common thread for discussion. I guess you did not mean what you said in your quote. --Herb Evans

Roby would also have to get beyond the ambiguity of this statement of his: -- Herb Evans

“I have given the definition of a valid version umpteen times. Second parta de question...NIV, NASB, NKJV, HCSB, ESV, 1769 Edition of the KJV. Bible of choice...depends upon what I'm doing.” -- Roby

The valid verson, according to Roby, depends on the source, which Roby has neither defined nor located. -- herb Evans

roby: Repetition gets old.

Yes, repeated evasion and avoidance gets old as well. Name the valid versions and give us "EVIDENCE" of them! If KJO's are demanded evidence of their claims, why are you excused for providing evidence of your claims? -- Herb Evans

What Roby has named have different sources. Roby will have to be satisfied with my faith evidence. -- Herb Evans

roby:WHAT faith evidence? I see neither substance nor evidence in your "faith".

I see neither evidence or substance or faith in your evasion or allegations. What are the sources of the "valid" versions that you named? -- Herb Evans

. . .and my logical evidence. -- Herb Evans

roby: Ya mean, "illogical opinion/guesswork".

Well, can they be any less valid than your illogical opinions and guess work? -- Herb Evans

. . . as I must evidently be satisfied with his ambiguity and lack of evidence to error claims of Christ, the apostles, the prophets, and the Psalmists. I trust them much more than I do nay sayers. The scriptures themselves express complet confidence in themselves. -- Herb Evans

roby: You just can't get your stories straight. And you've proven to us in other matters that you're not overly hesitant in departing from the TRUTH. This is just another example of your departing from it. Now, JUST WHERE did I say JESUS OR THE APOSTLES made any error in what they said or wrote? My statements were about the various English translations. If you're gonna tell fishing stories Herb, don't say it was a trout yesterday and a bass today.

Read my lips. I did not say that you said that; that is your straw man to avoid the question. I am asking you where they wrote like you in regard to errors in the translations AND the Hebrew (which you are on record as citing errors therein); did they cite errors as you do? Where are their error claims? Of course, there are none, and that is the point. -- Herb Evans

This whole argument boils down to what is scripture and what is not, and Roby insists that it does not matter if the candidates for scripture radically disagree or contradict one another. KJO's say that it does matter. Saying that all the texts and all the translations are inspired and preserved is the "MYTH" here! -- Herb Evans

roby: Wrong.

This whole "argument" boils down to the fact that in the OP of this thread, I asked if there was any EVIDENCE supporting ANY One-Versionism view. Ample time and space has been provided for any One-Versionist to present his/her case(s), regardless of which version he/she thinks is "The One". So far, all that's been presented is OPINION AND GUESSWORK. Like the original myth, this O/G has absolutely NOTHING to sustain it. We still have ASCRIPTURAL views of SCRIPTURE, which means that to a Christian who believes Scripture is the highest written authority, these views are simply false.

Back to Square One, ne-Versionists!

Wrong! Unless Roby defines the scripture that is the highest authority, he has no scripture. We will give him another chance to define the scripture and will duly note his opinion and guesswork on that. Back to square one, where Roby demands evidence but refuses to give any in this one sided discussion. All, he must do is nay say and deny. -- Herb Evans

 

Do you believe there is a God-ordained canon of scripture? A canon whereby if someone added to it or subtracted from it, they would be wrong? If you do, what is the evidence for it?

When you answer these questions, then I will understand the nature of the evidence you are asking for in support of a "one-versionist" doctrine.

 

While the slightest correction can be called a revision by virtue of its change, the subsequent KJB's are NOT "revisions;" they are "editions." To be a revision, it would have to have a different name, like the New King James Bible. Even the NIV has its various editions but is basically the same Bibe with some corrections. I think you are playing on a nuance of English here. Herb Evans

 

Well, I am happy to know that a consensus is allowed in the discussion. Since there is a consensus among Bible Believing KJO's. The only thing that has to be known about a consensus is the doctrinal credibiltiy of those who make up the consensus. But what you seem to be saying is pick a Bible, any Bible, and every man shall do what is right in his own eyes.-- Herb Evans

 

Can't type much but... a hearty Amen here!

 

Mike, Roby does not answer these kind of questions specifically. If he would give you a "yes, God ordained the canon" on this, the next question would be what is your evidence to that. He would then find himself in the King James Only situation that he tries to put them into, and he wants to stay as clear from that as he can. The double standard here is obvious. Still, if he says, "No, God did not ordain the canon of Scripture, he will then be allowing the Catholic Bible to be part of his "valid" bible collection. --Herb Evans

 

What does a Bible version have to do with someone doing what is right in his own eyes. There are KJVOist that do what is right in their own eyes and not according to Scripture. Just becuase someone uses a KJV of the Bible, that does not somehow mystically protect them from this.

 

That is true. Some people use the KJV as a talisman, like the Israelites used the ark in 1 Samuel 4. Having a perfectly preserved bible in English doesn't do much good if you believe it was written to Jews in the tribulation.

 

Well, what have we here Jim? two Kingdom exclusionists, one is a one Booker and the other is not?

But Jim, your transparent attempt to slip in the Kingdom exclusionist view that certain passages of the Gospels are not to the Jew in the tribulation is a vain attempt. Such kingdom Exclusionist stuff to goad Herb Evans is not for this thread, try 1-8, where you were posting it. Thanks! C4 is too sharp a moderator to fall for that. -- Herb Evans

 

No, I think maybe we should start a new thread where Herb can explain the dangers of using a bible other than the KJV. I'm sure they are very similar to the dangers of believing in accountability at the judgment seat of Christ. If there is nothing for Christians to fear, they hardly need fear using the wrong bible.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herb Evans
Well, what have we here Jim? two Kingdom exclusionists, one is a one Booker and the other is not?

But Jim, your transparent attempt to slip in the Kingdom exclusionist view that certain passages of the Gospels are not to the Jew in the tribulation is a vain attempt. Such kingdom Exclusionist stuff to goad Herb Evans is not for this thread, try 1-8, where you were posting it. Thanks! C4 is too sharp a moderator to fall for that. -- Herb Evans

C4, the moderator, is going to get you. Trust me! -- Herb Evans