TRUTH and versions

I have never been asked to explain this.

I am not familiar with this group of people so I cannot answer for them.

These are textbook examples of Ignoratio Elenchi (ignorance of refutation). We would call them "red herrings" in today's vernacular.

 

Pastor_Bob: //These are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi (ignorance of refutation).
We would call them "red herrings" in today's vernacular.//

Actually in today's vernacular they are called "irrelevant conclusions".

Actually I wasn't trying to do logic so can't commit
a logical error.

Ed Edwards: //How often have you been asked to explain
why the 'U' and 'V' are backwards in the KJV1611 Edition?//

Pastor_Bob: //I have never been asked to explain this.//

I have. Perchance it is because I actually use the
KJV1611 Edition (well, a copy of it) in front of other
people. They want to know about the no 'J' and the
reversed 'U' and 'V' between the KJV1611 Edition and the
ever popular KJV1769 Edition.
So I suggest you don't use the KJV1611 Edition.
Why not? It is just the same as the KJV1769 Edition,
isn't it?

(I always have fun, back when the 'U' does 'V's job today
and the 'V' did 'U's job today - there developed a
new letter called at first the 'Double U' (we call it 'W' today)
and Yes it looks like a double 'V' today, but it was a
Double 'U' back then. Tee Hee. Nobody else seems to
ever tell about where the 'W' came from but looks like
a double 'V' )

Ed Edwards: //Why is the KJV1873 Edition NOT accepted by 98%
of the 'don't make up rules for me' Independant Fundamental
Baptists (IFBs)?//

Pastor_Bob: //I am not familiar with this group
of people so I cannot answer for them. //

Your Profile lists you as an IFB. But you don't know
about that group? Obviously communications has broken
down here. I suggest you also don't use the KJV1873
Edition and/or in your training you didn't get the
information OR use the information many claim
for you: The KJV1873 edition is eschewed by most
KJV1769 Edition users. I wonder why, aren't they
so close to being the same that it doesn't matter?

 

2 sides differ each other because of 2 different methods of textual criticism.

Edward F. Hills quoted:

For the KJV:

For modern versions:

 

That seems too simplistic...
To say that only KJV translators had faith is painting too broad.

I wish it was that simple... we could get rid of this crazy argument.

 

Well, I gotta agree with this.

AND to say that they didn't use reason is equally simplistic. Any time interpretation of a foreign language comes into play, so does reason. Or is it ok to use reason coupled with faith?

It also seems rather presumptuous to say that only the KJV interpreters had faith . . .

 

Are you taking about this on-line pamplet/book?

http://www.fbinstitute.com/Hill/

 

Yes, Sister Mcdirector - you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

First VorE? :

Second First VorE? :

Here 'VorE?' reminds us, is this a revision
or a version? Depends a lot on what one called a
'revision' or a 'version'. I know I got an E-mail notifing
me of a response 'first' then at 8:30PM the 'second'
version was on the board.

Thank you for softening your response, but was your
change a Version or an Edition?

 

Truer words were never spoken.

No, they are not the same. The 1769 is an updated revised edition of the 1611. The 1611 edition was written in Gothic type. The Gothic 'v' looks like the Roman 'u' and vise versa. The Gothic 'j' looks like the Roman 'i.' The Gothic lower case 's' looks like the Roman 'f.' The Roman type was introduced in 1612 and soon became the standard type in later KJV editions. (edited to correct)

I will gladly answer this question when you provide documentation for this statistic. I am interested to know how you arrived at the conclusion that 98% of Independent Fundamental Baptists do not accept the KJV 1873.

 

Brother PastorL_Bob:

Your statements appear to be untrue and possibly missleading.

There is a KJV1613 Edition for sale on e-bay at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Very-Rare-2nd-E...itemZ260101414504QQcategoryZ378QQcmdZViewItem

the 'buy now' price was $17,500.

It is in Gothic print, complete with the U/V switch,
the left bar only 'f' for all but terminal 's'es, no
distinction between the 'J' and the 'I' - Praise Iesus!

The difference is NOT the font, it is the English alphabet
has changed just before or soon after the KJV1611
Edition(s) were published.

My dictionary sez:

J,j
1. the tenth letter of the English alphabet:
formerly a variant of I,i in the 17th cent,
it became established as a consonant only
as in Julius, originally spelled Iulius.

(Recall the 17th Century was from 1601-1700)
Not being able to afford an actualy ancient Bible,
I bought the NELSON reprint: the text of the KJV1611
3rd Edition in a Roman (not Gothic) font.
I used to have a HENDERSON reprint as well,
I compared a lot of the verses - never found any
difference. I gave my HENDERSON KJV1611 Edition
reprint to a student preacher boy on the BB
who hadn't learned about the KJVs.
He left the BB. :godisgood:

 

Askjo:
2 sides differ each other because of 2 different methods of textual criticism.

Edward F. Hills quoted:


For the KJV: Faith

Faith in WHAT? BIBLICAL faith is substance and evidence. (Heb.11:1) The KJV doctrine lacks any of either, so there's no TRUTH in it.


For modern versions: Reason

JESUS gave the people many REASONS to believe in Him. He knew anyone could make the same claims...but only HE could PROVE them thru His miracles, powerful preaching, & the fulfillment of every prophecy about the Messiah...born in Bethlehem, called from Egypt, etc.

Nothing wrong with using reason against jive talk...Reason wins every time!

 

Ed Edwards: //Why is the KJV1873 Edition NOT accepted by 98%
of the IFBs?//

Brother Pastor_Bob:

Feel free to put your own number in and please
answer the question.
Everybody should know that 87.654% of all
stats are MADE UP while typing. Then somebody quotes them on the
internet and by the time Google shows over 100,000 hits,
the stat becomes a FACT

20 questions (answer the one you want to answer):

1.Why is the KJV1873 Edition NOT accepted by all
of the IFBs?

2. Why is the KJV1873 Edition NOT accepted most
of the IFBs?

3. Why is the KJV1873 Edition NOT accepted some
of the IFBs?

Here 'all' = 98%
'most' = 51%-97%
'some' = 2%-49%

BTW, I have four different Bibles that are
'Versions or Editions' of the KJVs that
postdate the popular set of KJV1769 editions.
I'm aware of several others (several can equal '1')
of which I don't have a personal copy.

Do we really want to start comparing them
against some 'version/translation' determination test?

 

Brother Pastor_Bob:

Today, 5 April 2007, a Google of "KJV 1611" gives
36,700 hits.

Back about 1990, an inquiry (that was probably pre-Google)
using "KJV 1611" gave only about 320 hits.

Back then I was looking for the text of the KJV 1611 Edition,
I didn't find it among the 320 hits. For it was the KJVOs
who spake of 'KJV 1611' and I never did find anybody
who had the KJV1611 text then. Now you can find it
on-line (I used the e-Sword KJV1611, it is stored in my
computer & when I can't surf the web I can surf
God's inerrant Holy Written Word).

Google //"Independent Fundamental Baptist" 1873//
and you find 75 hits, mostly old IFB churches.

Google //"Independent Fundamental Baptist" 1611// and
you find 16,000 hits.

Google //"Independent Fundamental Baptist" 1769// and
you find 199 hits.

I think it reasonable to suspect that my question:
Why is the KJV1873 Edition NOT accepted by 98%
of the IFBs?
is close if not RIGHT ON.

 

You have 16,274 total KJV users (hits). Of this, .005% prefer the KJV1873 (75 hits). By this method, you would also have to conclude that only .01% accept the KJV1769 (199 hits). Are you willing to be consistent with your formula?

 

I personally believe that they are neither. However, if it is proved to be untrue, I assure you that it was most certainly not intentionally misleading. I have several (several = more than two) sources which offer the information, in varying degrees, that I stated above.

 

I understand.
I get forwards of Urban Legends.
I just don't forward them to someone else.

Other Bible Version facts that get withheld a lot:

1. The KJV1611 Edition translator footnotes show
that there are more than two sources for the New
Testament available to the translators of the
King James Version, 1611 Edition

2. The translator footnotes are a lot more
'inspired' than are the comentary notes
(such as say: Schofield's notes)

3. Most IFBs talk about the KJV1611 but use
the KJV1769 Edition.

4. The implication of 'Authorized Version' by
many IFBs is that God aughorized.
In fact, God didn't authorize any of
the KJVs any more than many of the MVs.
King James Authorized the KJV1611 Edition;
King James didn't authroize the KJV1769 Edition,
he was quite dead at the time.

In the 13 British Colonies in American, in 1775 they
were in open rebellion against the King of Enland
and his 33% Bible Tax on the KJVs.

5. /I'm out of time, not details/

 

I verified that.

The above untrue statement I found here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...ooks+like+the+Roman"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

The untruth of it is found on the same page.
the same pages contains two copies of the
text of Matthew 1:18-20. The 'Dauid' is spelled
the same in the Gothic as in the Roman.
Thus the very same page that makes the
statement also disproves it.

A copy of a mistake is itself in error.
Making copies doesn't automatically correct
errors. I speak as one who worked for eight years
in Software Engineering as a Quality Assurance Adviser.

 

My process was much more complex than the way
I hinted at it. Believe if you will the guess theory.
BTW, one can become a Doctor of Theology and
know but a bit of math beyond the Arithemetic of Probibility.
One can become of Doctor of Philosophy and
know nothing but maths. Neither of the Doctors
can fathom God.

You also missed the part where I couldn't find a
copy of the KJV1611 Edition until about 1996
cause the people in 1990 who talked about the KJV1611AV
were talking about the KJV1769 Edition
and didn't know or didn't show.

If one isn't totally confused by this time, then one doesn't understand
a thing I've said.

For you see, the TRUTH isn't a fact, isn't an opinion, isn't
a profound statement - the TRUTH is Messiah Yeshua,
aka: Lord Jesus.

 

Mexdeaf: //
The biggest problem with the versions issue
is the lack of complete honesty and
truthfulness ON BOTH SIDES.//

Reminds me of Doctors.
30 years ago you couldn't find a MD who could say
"I don't know". Now that is all they say except:
"See the receptionist on the way out".
Why do you think they call what an MD does
'a practice'? You really don't think they do it
for real?

For you see, the TRUTH isn't a fact, isn't an opinion, isn't
a profound statement - the TRUTH is Messiah Yeshua,
aka: Lord Jesus.

 

Herein is a truth.
But who will hear it?

--------------------------------------------
Here is God's words on individual salvation.
But you will be hard pressed to get God's message unless
you know a bit of Western Apache.

Romans 10:9 (Western Apache):
Nize'di', Jesus sheBikehn hoshdlaa,
nniiyugo, la'iiBik'ehgo'ihinan Jesus daztsaadi'
nayihilna'ii nijii yune' hondlaayugo hasdannah doleel.

(Western Apachee has three different 'a' symbols
two of which are not distinguishable in the internet
character set. So i've use the same 'a' symbol
for all three.)
--------------------------------------------

So there you are, Comrades in Christ - what is the truth there?