The Origin of the KJV

Newp...just TRUTHFUL. If ya can't see how false his 'purification' doc is, you got a problem. He made it all up. If ya believe God's words were pure the instant He spoke them, why would they then needta be purified 7 times?

Feel free to waste money on his worx & believe his guesswork if ya wish, to help him continue to live large.

However, even HE appears to be almost right on the stuff deacon quoted above. Seems I once heard that QE1 had allowed the Anglicans to assemble the translation committee shortly before her death. I'm trying to find out now just how true that is.

 

Freud was a fruit who slipped upon his own bowl of cherries.

 

Nothing "made up" about purifying the word of God in the English language, unless you insist upon the impure renderings using corrupt MSS, then some one simply needs to flush.

Still searching, huh?

 

You know that those "corrupt" manuscripts were some early Christians' 'bible'. There are now thousands of discovered MSS (and thousands more we'll never recover) and not one of them is textually perfect. Most of those Christian's didn't have all canonical books either (but maybe had some of the non-canonical ones instead). If all those Christian's could live their lives with incomplete and imperfect 'bibles', then I will get by just fine with what I got.

 

My, my, my, Salamander. Such blatant hypocrisy you constantly show! What big teeth you have, Grandma! And your insulting nature does not in any way exemplify how a Christian should behave. Hmmmmm...

Your "doctrinal reasoning," the error of the KJVO stance you stubbornly hold despite being shown the truth, is not doctrinal at all. It is mere opinion based in ignorance and error.

As for your reference to "wrongly dividing the word of God," you were obviously looking in a mirror when you said that. It is the errant KJVO position that is wrongly dividing the word of truth, the reference I believe you were referring to (2 Timothy 2:15), not the "freedom reader" position.

God graciously provided His inerrant word, the plan of salvation, for English-speaking people. You can hold it in your hand. It is one of the KJVs. It is the NASB. It is the NKJV. It is the NIV and the HCSB. Those who follow the KJVO myth are the ones who constantly, consistently and vehemently attack the word of God. You and others who follow the error of the KJVO myth vehemently deny the veracity of God's word except in one particular English Bible version. You are confused, and this confusion is not from God (1 Corinthians 14:33). You don't believe God is able to inerrantly preserve His word, the message of salvation, without being bound to a particular set of English words found in a mere translation of God's word. God's word, the plan of salvation as He has given it to us, is not limited to a particular set of English words as you errantly believe. The meanings of words in a living language change, but the word of God, the plan of salvation, does NOT change. It is the message God intended to inerrantly preserve, not a particular set of English words. If God had intended to preserve a particular set of words, why did He not preserve the words that were originally written? Those words, Salamander, were the Hebrew, the Aramaic and the Greek of the original autographs, not the English words of a mere translation of God's word as you errantly believe.

Salamander, please tell us just how it is that these manuscripts are corrupt. Do any of them teach another plan of salvation? Do any of them teach that Jesus was not born of a virgin? Do any of them teach that we must pray to a rock, a tree or the sky? Of course they don't! Your "corruption" is not corruption at all - it is mere human error just like the human error you so readily accept as "printing errors" in the various KJVs. When you find a biblical manuscript that teaches the same things as Buddhism or Islam, then you can talk about a corrupt manuscript. Otherwise you speak of manuscripts that have only minor differences you so easily accept as "printing errors" in English and as "corruption" in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Your "accept it in English but don't accept it in the original languages" attitude is absolutely inconsistent, Salamander.

BTW, Salamander, when you mention the "Origen of the KJB" do you possibly mean the origin of the KJV? The origin of the KJV can be a topic of discussion. Origen was a person. And an attack on your person is a physical attack, Salamander. You and I have never been in the same room so this is a false accusation you have made. Was that done intentionally or out of ignorance, Salamander? Any supposed attacks here or anywhere else on the internet or in the print media are not at all on your person, but on your errant beliefs. You really need to get your facts straight before you go around making such false accusations, Salamander. Christ never made false accusations and neither should we as Christians do so, Salamander. When you make such blatantly false accusations, Salamandrer, you not only damage your witness, but your credibility as well. I am praying for you. I am also praying that the error of the KJVO myth will eventually be destroyed and that the truth will win out during our lifetime. I pray that God will put a stop to the vehement attacks on His word made constantly and consistently by members of the KJVO sect. I pray that an acceptance of and a reverence for God's word in any legitimate English Bible version will soon be the order of the day.

Watch out for that banana peel you just dropped, Salamander!

 

William Tyndale's NT, Coverdales Bible, Bishops Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Luther's German Bible all used one edition or another of Erasmus' TR. Are you saying that the TR edition they used is corrupt and should be flushed?

 

Don't confuse the issue with facts, TC! Some people can't handle the truth.

 

Thanks for the source that mentions John Row. I am interested in reading that article. I had looked for sources with information about Henry Jessey, John Row, and others.

David Norton noted that Henry “Jessey conceived it ‘our duty to endeavour to have the whole Bible rendered as exactly agreeing with the original as we can attain‘” (History, p. 98). Norton suggested that Jessey “eventually became one of a group of revisers appointed in the latter days of the Long Parliament (1652 or 1653)“ (p. 98). The House of Commons Journal of January, 11, 1653, recorded that it be “resolved, that Mr. Scott do bring in a Bill for a New Translation of the Bible out of the original languages and that he present the names of persons fit to be employed in that service to the House, for their consideration.” B. R. White confirmed that Jessey throughout the 1650’s was engaged in “producing a new translation of the Bible with a committee including, among others, John Owen and John Row” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). Price indicated that [Brian] Walton was also on this committee (Ancestery, p. 280). The Dictionary of National Biography noted that an order in council (1652) appointed Jessey “one of nine (including [Ralph] Cudworth and [John] Owen) whose approval was required to sanction the publication of any new translation of the Bible” (X, p. 808). This same source confirmed that John Owen “was placed on the commission for licensing translations of the Bible” (XIV, p. 1318). This source also pointed out that in 1656-7, Ralph Cudworth “considered with a committee of the House of Commons a proposed revision of the translation of the Bible” (V, p. 271). Price observed that “the reasons that lay back of the bill were in part errors, mainly printers’, and some in translation, and also the so-called prelatical language of the version” (Ancestry, p. 280). The Cambridge History of the Bible indicated that this committee often meet at the home of Bulstrode Whitelocke, who had been assigned care of this project (pp. 363-364). Whitelocke wrote: “This committee often met at my house, and had the most learned men in the oriental tongues to consult with in this great business, and divers excellent and learned observations of some mistakes in the translations of the Bible in English (Memorials, IV, p. 284).

 

No, Salamander. Nothing to worry about here, for just as you, I have nothing in my attic. :laugh:

Now as to what skeletons one can find either in your closet or in my closet, how about we both leave the other 8,478 members of the BB totally in the dark on this one? :smilewinkgrin:

Ed

 

Oops!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Missed this, as I just got back into reading the thread.

Ed

 

Where did you get that info?