"No words ever changed, just the spelling"

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by try hard, Sep 5, 2002.

  1. try hard

    try hard
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Back when I was a KJV only person, I used to say this alot about the revisions to the KJV. I don't think a lot of KJVO know this, so I will show them some changes :D :

    KJV 1611: Deut.5:29 "My commandments"
    KJV 1629: "all my commandments"

    KJV 1611: Duet. 26:1 "the Lord"
    KJV 1629: "the Lord thy God"

    KJV 1611: I Kings 8:61 "the Lord your God"
    KJV 1629: "the Lord our God"

    KJV 1611: I John 5:12 "hath not the Son"
    KJV 1629: "hath not the Son of God"

    This is a revision. I can't believe they corrected the KJB1611 :eek: !!!!

    [ September 05, 2002, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Tri Hard ]
     
  2. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, all of those can be attributed to the correction of typos and printer's errors. That is not to say there were not some changes made between 1611 and 1762/1769 which cannot be so attributed, just that the above are not. :D
     
  3. try hard

    try hard
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I wouldn't jump to a conclusion so quickly. :D The fact remains that these were errors, typos or mans, that had to be corrected. It seems to me that if God directly inspired every Word of the KJV 1611, that would have to include these errors. :eek:
     
  4. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't aware you were making such a specious claim. You were talking about changes, not inspiration of the English. I responded to what you said, not to what you thought you should have said. [​IMG]
     
  5. try hard

    try hard
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    DocCas,
    Did God directly inspire these changes or is the 1611 inspired? Can you see how inspiration and changes have to be linked if you are a KJVO person?
     
  6. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think an "error" is an "error", but I'm curious as to how you know these were printing errors and not another type of error?

    [ September 06, 2002, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]
     
  7. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, and no. And I think, for the most part, the changes are used as a straw man. There are some radical KJVOs who ignore the corrections/changes, but for the most part they are acknowledged as printer's errors which were corrected. No KJVO that I know of, or any other Christian, for that matter, would consider a printer's error capable of negating inerrancy.
     
  8. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    The question is not "is an error an error" but "did the translation committees make the error or was it a typesetters error." If we allow typesetters errors to negate the doctrine inerrancy, we have no bible at all. :(
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn't you say the same about translator's errors? I am not convinced these two can be placed in separate categories.
     
  10. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, translational committee errors do not negate the doctrine of inerrancy. Yes, I'm asking you how you know it was a typesetting error and not a translational comittee error.
     
  11. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    &lt;sigh&gt; Just look at the errors!
    Left out the word "all."
    Left off the words "thy God."
    Superfluous "y."
    Left off "of God."

    By championing such ambiguous "errors" you play right into the KJVOs hands by opening yourself up to ridicule for not recognizing what to them is obvious. If you are going to point to changes from the 1611 to the 1762/1769, point to ones which cannot be so easily dismissed as printer's errors!
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did look at the errors, the first time they were posted. Looking at them again does not explain that the printers misprinted what was given to them. I agree things were "left off", but electronic sighing doesn't show that it was the printers that left them off instead of the translators. [​IMG]
     
  13. try hard

    try hard
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2001
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    I totally agree! :D
     
  14. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    did i sense an implicit claim/appeal for inerrancy on the part of the Translators?

    so what if the Translators made a mistake rather than the Printers?

    [ September 10, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...