Using Proper Language

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Dr. Bob, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    In talking about various English translations, it would seem intelligent to make sure everyone understands some basic English.

    (1) There is no such thing as a 1611KJV. There is the 1611AV and then various revisions (which started immediately) that are classified as the KJV

    (2) There is no such thing as a KJB as in Bible. There are many KJV as in "versions" of the Bible. But look inside any revision you have and it will say it is a "Version".

    (3) Most who claim AV1611 don't really use one. They use one of the various revisions.

    (4) The AV1611 is NOT a "new" translation. Even its translators recognized that and 85% of the text/phrases etc of the AV1611 are from earlier English translations. It is not the "final", the "seventh", the "perfect". It is one in a chain of good English translations.

    Now I would think all 4 of these presuppositions would be obvious and agreed to by all. But I bounced these ideas off one of my grad students at church tonight and he bristled at 3 of the 4 (he's a #4 only)

    Can we agree here?
     
  2. Orvie

    Orvie
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Dr Bob, some would argue that God just didn't get it right until that magic year, the year of the dispensation of Bible Preservation:1611. :eek: And, yes, I agree w/ you!
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    ;) Orvie, don't really think any would say "God didn't get it right".

    But then they never do answer the question of what WAS the perfect, infallible Word of God in 1610!!
     
  4. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nawpe, my Cambridge 1762 printed by Local Church Bible Publishers has the inscription on the title page:

    "The Holy Bible

    containing the

    Old and New Testaments

    Translated out of the Original tongues and with the former translations Diligently compared and revised by His Majesty's command.

    Appointed to be read in churches

    The text conformable to that of the 1611 commonly known as the authorized or

    KING JAMES BIBLE"

    No mention of a version here.
     
  5. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Precepts: "No mention of a version here."

    Precepts: " ... my Cambridge 1762 printed by Local Church Bible Publishers ... "

    How then do you know that it is
    a "Cambridge 1762"? The "Cambridge 1762"
    is a version designation.

    I have half a dozen KJVs in my house
    that give no indication of which
    "edition" they are.
    I have a couple other KJVs that tell
    which edition they are.
    I think that to be real confusing.

    :confused:
     
  6. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was still somewhat scattered amongst the MSS and the Geneva, Tyndale, Wycliffe Bibles in 1610. !!
     
  7. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many KJV-only supporters ignore that question. Sometimes they answer it like the poster above: "scattered". Interesting. So no single Bible was "perfect" on its own, and yet God's promise of preservation was still true. No single Bible needed to be a "perfect preservation" on its own for perfect preservation to have taken place. Scripture that talks about the preserved word of God were true even though no single Bible was perfect unto itself. Hey, that sounds amazingly familiar, I wonder where I've heard that before.......
     
  8. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please don't be confused Ed, I know these people who print these Bibles from Bearing Precious Seed Ministries along with Local Church Bible Publishers.

    You're welcome to contact Brother Bob Ford with BPS:

    http://www.bpsmilford.org

    You can also contact Bro Dennis Deneau:

    http://www.biblebelievers.com
     
  9. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    Does anybody know when it went from KJV to NKJV?
     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where is the perfect, infallible Word of God in 2004?

    It is still somewhat scattered amongst
    the MSS and the NIV, NASB, KJV, NLT.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd rather be sure it was somewhat scattered before 1611, then perfect in 1611, than still wondering what the Word of God is in 2004.
     
  12. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    KJV-only supporters who say scripture was scattered in 1610 but then there was a perfect Bible in 1611 have no reason to believe the form of preservation changed. In fact, it requires that scripture that talks about preservation to *change meaning* during that timespan. A true interpretation of scripture does not become a false interpretation of scripture with the passing of a few days, or at all. If a "scattered" interpretation of "preservation" passages was the correct one in 1610, that interpretation is still the correct one in 1611, 1711, 1811, 1911, and 2011. Don't let KJV-onlyists change the meaning of scripture!
     
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please don't be confused Ed, I know these people who print these Bibles from Bearing Precious Seed Ministries along with Local Church Bible Publishers.

    You're welcome to contact Brother Bob Ford with BPS:

    http://www.bpsmilford.org

    You can also contact Bro Dennis Deneau:

    http://www.biblebelievers.com
    </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, i know you are sincere
    and you are trying to be helpful.
    I want to know how you are sure that
    you have a Cambridge 1762.
     
  14. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ed, it's the only Bible Local Church Bible Publishers print with their insignia on the outer bottom cover. Contact either of the above Brothers, they can tell you more about your question.

    So, how is it one gets his number of posts either stopped counting or reset?
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Precepts: I am interested
    in a conversation with you,
    not with strangers.

    How do you know that the Bible you
    have is the Cambridge 1762 Edition?
    How can i know which of the
    some half dozen KJV Editions I have
    at my house is the King James Bible?

    Precepts: "So, how is it one gets his number of posts either stopped counting or reset?"

    You aren't speaking of the BB phenomona
    that it may be 30 minutes before
    your post that got posted results
    in an increased post count -- are you?

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. I just noticed some one's posts amount does not equal what I am seeing as in the number of posts they make to line up.

    By your member number compared to mine hints a discrepency. I know I've posted a lot, but you've been around BB alot longer than I, but you seem to post almost as much as I do.

    As far as a definitive other than that is what they proclaim along with my resources that prove to be true that I do hold the Cambridge 1762 edition in my hands, I will have to contact them myself for a direct answer that I hope is suitable for you. Be back with you shortly on the matter.
     
  17. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Find it odd that some of the KJVO sect (may their tribe decrease) are printing copies of the KJV "without edition, version number, original date of changes, etc".

    And they are calling it the KJB "King James Bible" rather than its original title as "version".

    I guess one of my premises didn't take into account such blatant activity on the part of this sect in even RENAMING their translation!

    Should have expected it. Know of some KJVO who are working with "Bearing Precious Seed" and wondered about the tie-in to this duplicity?
     
  18. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
  19. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you make the same criticism of the NASB? I have two copies and both say "New American Standard Bible." But inside both also use the word "version" when describing the NASB.
     
  20. Precepts

    Precepts
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't find it odd, we call the Bible the Bible and yall call it a version, nothing odd about that.
     

Share This Page

Loading...