The myth o f early revisions of the KJV of 1611

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Su Wei, Mar 4, 2005.

  1. Su Wei

    Su Wei
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    M'am, I've read that article before, as well as several others by Pastor Reagan, and I see they're mostly propaganda.

    Are you familiar with the origin of the modern KJVO myth? It was inadvertently begun by a SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST preacher/teacher/official, whose work was seized upon by two dishonest authors, J.J.Ray(1955) and Dr. D.O.Fuller(1970). Pastor reagan follows the "party line" established by those two, and kept alive my more modern authors such as Ruckman and Riplinger. They all hold several false beliefs in common, I.E. "The KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible version, Psalm 12:7 is about God's word, modern bibles water down dod's word", etc. These folks are sadly mistaken. They seek to LIMIT GOD, to confine Him to just one translation of His word in English. They deny His ability to present His very own word AS HE CHOOSES. Pastor Reagan is a typical member of this "party line".

    Here's a little article about the origin of the modern KJVO myth:

    http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/doug/kjvoroots.html

    As for his little article:

    He calls a revision a "correction". That's like calling a tuna a fish...just a word play. he simply will NOT admit that the common KJVs of today are a far cry from the AV 1611 of the 17th century.

    Don't believe it? If not, please sit down with a copy of the 1611 and with a current edition & just read & compare for yourself rather than paying any attention to our commentary from either side.

    If you don't have a repro AV 1611, they're available online, for about $30, USA. I have both a Nelson's printing copy and a Hendrickson's Publishing copy. they're both in modern print font and are word-for-word repros of the original, from the title page onward.

    Needless to say, we don't place much stock in Pastor Reagan's KJVO propaganda. One of our members, Logos 1560, with whom I've corresponded for years, is in the midst of a word-for-word comparison between the AV 1611 & the 1769 Blayney's Edition of the KJV. He will post his results in this board when he finishes. I place much more value in an honest comparison between editions than I do in KJVO propaganda such as that of Pastor Reagan's.
     
  3. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Have read this article before.

    Is God not powerful enough to preserve His perfect Word from typesetting, spelling, and similar errors?

    If there is a PERFECT English version, it must be prefectly perfect, otherwise ithas mistakes, and no mistake is small.

    Is there a KJV free of ANY typesetting, spelling, and grammatical errors? Is there ONE which is totally perfect, word for word, letter for letter, punctuation mark for punctuation mark?
     
  4. stevec

    stevec
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you seen David Spade's "Capital One" commercials? There's your answer.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Nope - I'm in Irealand ;)
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    No, nada, nyet, nein . . [​IMG]

    I, too, have read the compilation of error of this article.

    And back to the basic question: IF God did reinspire and give us HIS PERFECT WORD in English, which version is it?

    [See thread on "Omissions" to find basic differences between AV1611 1st edition and later KJV revisions]

    Well, which one is correct?
     
  7. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Psa 12:6) The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.

    (Psa 12:7) Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer. -1611 KJV


    So if the first KJV which is the AV1611 with the Apocrypha is not perfect then the above scripture can not be applied to the KJV.


    Let’s break it down and use the KJVO myth as our formula:

    (Psa 12:6) The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times.

    Psalm 12:6 says the words of the Lord ARE PURE WORDS not needing to be corrected or refined since them: God’s words are already pure.

    *Now keep in mind that the Apocrypha was included in the AV1611.

    Now let’s say KJVOism is right about Psalm 12:6. God’s words are pure therefore they can not be updated and/or corrected. God’s words are already perfect.

    Pastor Reagan seems to think that God’s pure Words needed to be refined a little. This creates a little problem with Reagan’s explanation about the KJV and its revisions.

    (Psa 12:7) Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer.

    “Thou shalt keepe them” simply means that God will keep His words (according to the KJVO myth that them refers to words even though the AV1611 translators has a marginal reading saying HEB : him) and the rest of the verse says that it is God who will preserve them(again keeping the KJVO myth about them being words) from now and forever. Here we see that it’s God’s job to keep and preserve His words which would include preserving them from evil printers and the pens of sinful man.

    So we can conclude that if the KJV is perfect and God somehow over saw it’s creation that the first KJV would be the perfect KJV. According to the KJVO myth about Psalm 12:6-7, it would be impossible for God to allow mistakes in the AV1611 because God’s words are PURE and God promised to KEEP THEM by PRESERVING them from the beginning to the end. The Psalm says nothing about God updating and corrected His perfection by allowing mistakes to be made and later corrected. The part of Psalm 12:6,” siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times” is in the past tense therefore His words are already pure or it can be viewed as simply showing us God’s perfection; this has nothing to do with a seven times purifying process that some KJVO myth makers advocate daily.

    According to the KJVO myth ever KJVOist on the planet who uses anything other than thet AV1611 is using a tainted KJV that is unpure. Psalm 12:6-7 according to the KJVO myth demands that every KJVO only use the AV1611. God’s words are PURE and according to the KJVO the KJV is pure therefore God got it right the first time in the AV1611. It’s time for the KJVO to put down that corrected KJV and stop rebelling against the AV1611. Study Psalm 12:6-7 and apply to KJVO myth to it and you will understand that ONLY THE AV1611 is the pure KJV. God does not make mistakes and God has the power to keep printers from making mistakes. After all if God moved over the making of the AV1611 with the Apocrypha then God moved over the printing press!

    Pastor Reagan and the rest of the KJVO Camp have a huge problem. It’s time that they pick up that AV1611 and become real KJVOist or simply admit that KJVOism is a false man made myth.

    I have more respect for a true AV1611 KJVOist than I do for a wishy washy modern day KJVOist who claim to be AV1611 and use a 1762/1769/1873 KJV.
     
  8. stevec

    stevec
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Briefly, Spade works for a (fictional) credit card company that is not Capital One. Customers call asking if they can do certain things with their cards and he finds dozens of different ways to say "No" (e.g. I predict a "no" storm, Let me talk to our CEnO...). The idea being Capital One says "yes" when all the others say "no".

    In short, the answer to your original question is....no.
     
  9. Spoudazo

    Spoudazo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    *Off-Topic*
    For clarification of the commerical, Spade was replying to their question(s), "Can I use my earned miles on this day?" and of course all of them they asked for were "black-out" days or whatever the term is [​IMG]

    As for the beloved KJV and that article: Have you read their review of _God's Word in our Hands_, which is basically the sequel to _From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man_ book? I have read that review and several others and it almost appears that they have either

    (1) not read the book they're reviewing
    (2) so already settled in their own opinion that they cannot objectively look at the evidence.

    It's quite sad indeed.

    My point is (and no I'm not using the above as a red-herring) that several articles on that website (which used to be my home page!) are very surface-level and don't review the evidence on both sides of certain issues. I am glad, however, that he did openly refute some of Riplinger's work.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    My comparison is of the 1611 edition of the KJV and of the present Oxford edition of the KJV as found in the Scofield Reference Bible. One reason that I used these two editions is because they are the same two editions used by D. A. Waite in his comparison. The present Oxford edition is not 100% identical to the 1769 Blayney's edition. So far, I have a list of over 1800 differences of the type that Waite was listing (he only listed 421). It is at least 38 pages long which is too long to post here.

    Here is a sample from the first nine chapters of the book of Numbers:

    Num. 1:2 poll (1611) polls (Oxford)
    Num. 1:18 poll (1611) polls (Oxford)
    Num. 1:20 poll (1611) polls (Oxford)
    Num. 3:13 mine they shall be (1611) mine shall they be (Oxford)
    Num. 3:35 Northwards (1611) northward (Oxford)
    Num. 3:46 more then (1611) more than (Oxford)
    Num. 4:40 houses (1611) house (Oxford)
    Num. 5:20 hath (1611) have (Oxford)
    Num. 5:20 lien (1611) lain (Oxford)
    Num. 6:14 one lamb (1611) one ram (Oxford)
    Num. 7:31 & 7:55 charger (1611) charger of the weight (Oxford)
    Num. 7:61 a silver bowl (1611) one silver bowl (Oxford)
    Num. 9:13 from his people (1611) from among his people (Oxford)
    Num. 9:13 in the tents (1611) in their tents (Oxford)
     
  11. Askjo

    Askjo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
  12. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same old Same old.

    "There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors."

    How many times have we heard this to our question of word-for-word translations.

    If God promises to preserve every jot and tittle, can he only do it with the translator, but not the printer? Give me a break. I think God is a little more powerful than that.

    The problem is he promised to preserve every "jot" and "title" of the "LAW". By the way, has anybody figured out that we do not live under the law?

    Now, Is this supposed to mean the Penteteuch is preserved jot and title?

    What an excuse for KJV versions.....What a myth...... :rolleyes:

    Can't KJVo's evey read plain (Elizabethean) English?
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,137
    Likes Received:
    320
    Main Entry: re·vise
    Function: verb
    1 a : to look over again in order to correct or improve
    &lt;revise a manuscript&gt;
    1 b British : to study again : REVIEW
    2 a : to make a new, amended, improved, or up-to-date version of
    &lt;revise a dictionary&gt;

    Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    HankD
     

Share This Page

Loading...