WAS THE 1611 KING JAMES BIBLE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WE HAVE TODAY?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by This Little Light, Mar 30, 2002.

  1. This Little Light

    This Little Light
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    EVer heard the old saying Things that are different are not the same. Since the KJV has been updated, then it is not the same ... at least that is what your side constantly says.

    If God is able to preserve his word perfectly, why did it take him four tries to get it right (4 is not the actual number but since you brought it up)? Why could not he get all the printer's errors kept out of it? You would have us believe that he kept his word free from copyists errors for 1600 years (which he didn't) and then couldn't keep the printer's errors out of it.

    You would have us believe these are minor changes. Yet is the subtraction of God's name a minor issue? I hardly think so. Was the adding of words to Scripture a minor issue? I hardly think so ... at least by the arguments of your side.

    Furthermore, your source names only 136 real changes. Say what you want but 136 is a whole bunch of changes for a "perfect word." Apparently it wasn't so perfect after all. If something is perfect, then it doesn't need to be updated or changed. Something that needs updating or changing or correction cannot be perfect by definition.

    Your side is fond or arguing that we do not need to update the language in the KJV. To cite from your article, They were largely a correction of printing errors, an updating of italics, spelling, and punctuation, and modernizing of some obsolete words. Yet we are constantly told that anyone can understand the language of the KJV1611. If anyone could understand it, why was there a need to modernize obsolete words? And if there was a need to modernize obsolete words, then when did that need stop? It seems to me that we still have that need.

    Can you not see the lunacy involved in this type of argument? To argue that the KJV is perfectly preserved Word of God and then to argue that it needed 136 changes of substance and 214 changes of spelling or printer's errors is a contradiction in terms and a slap at God's ability to preserve his word. He could control 1600 years of human copying but suddenly could not control a printer's press? If he couldn't control a printer's press, what evidence is there to believe that he controlled the copyists? You have boxed yourself into a untenable position.
    Lastly I would call your attention to the last paragraph from the article you post: Distributed by Way of Life Literature's Fundamental Baptist Information Service. These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites or sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print.

    Why are you so unwilling to follow the wishes of the author? It is unethical to do as you have done.

    Reading this post brought a smile to my face because it is truly funny what is being said today. At the same time it breaks my heart because there are so many well meaning people who desire to know God who are duped by this teaching.
     
  3. Chris Temple

    Chris Temple
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    With the exception of changes in type face, punctuation, spelling, and the correction of printers errors, the 1611 and 1762/1769 editions of the KJV are virtually the same. Of the 421 changes you would notice listening to it being read, most are of form only, and of the remainder only 6 can be called real changes, and even then the words are synonyms of the choices of 1611. If both sides would do a little study instead of repeating what they have "heard" this discussion would make a lot mores sense!
     
  5. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scrivener's list of differences numbers much more than six. Even your friend D. A. Waite lists 130 some changes. For the person arguing for the perfect preservation of the KJV (which is not directed at you, Thomas), they cannot legitimately admit even one error of any kind (printer, spelling, puncutation, etc) because it ruins their premise. One error is all it takes to ruin perfection (cf. the principle of James 2:10). To admit an error is to admit imperfection. Thus, to use their own line of reasoning, God's ability to preserve his word is compromised. At least that's what they say when a version they don't like makes a change; when a version they do like makes a change, they just call it "printing," "spelling," "punctuation," "obsolescence," etc. Thus, they hold a double standard.

    Which leads me to my original statement (that doesn't apply to you since you don't hold to perfect preservation): Why did it take God four times (which is actually more than four) to get a perfect Word? Could he not have prevented printer's errors in the first place? This is a point of inconsistency in the arguments of the KJVOnly movement. They argue that God has perfectly preserved his word through 1600 years of human copyists but admit that he could not perfectly preserve it through one printing in 1611. Thus various changes were needed.

    Once they have admitted the need of correcting human errors, they have arrived at the position of the eclectic or Majority text proponents, namely that we must survey the evidence to ascertain the most likely original reading. When you stop and look at the situation they are in, they have not helped themselves at all. They have a "Perfect Bible" and "Final authority" that took several tries to get it right.
     
  6. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    Thank you Thomas Cassidy for your comments! I am no Greek or Hebrew Scholar and surely don't practice the art of Textual Criticism! Let those who want to argue do so as that seems to be a good bone of contention! One side will never convince the other so what is the beef? I will just read my KJV and let others glean truths from their versions! Keep your nose in the word of God more and you wouldn't have time to argue!... Brother Glen [​IMG]
     
  7. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas Cassidy said:

    With the exception of changes in type face, punctuation, spelling, and the correction of printers errors, the 1611 and 1762/1769 editions of the KJV are virtually the same.

    And with the exception of being younger, taller, heavier, having less hair, not being an actor, being Canadian, never appearing in Risky Business, never being married to Mimi Rogers or Nicole Kidman, and never being a Scientologist, I and Tom Cruise are indistinguishable. [​IMG]
     
  8. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are both slightly less than average intelligence with homosexual tendencies? If you say so, it must be true.
     
  9. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas Cassidy said:

    You are both slightly less than average intelligence with homosexual tendencies? If you say so, it must be true.

    Thank you for the not-so-subtle insinuation about my sexuality, Dr. Cassidy, and I note that you didn't actually disagree with the point of my analogy.

    [ April 01, 2002, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
     
  10. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alright Thomas, that's a little out of bounds. Let's keep the gloves up.
     
  11. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ransom/TomVols. Ransom said he was indistinguishible from Tom Cruise. If you had been reading the tabloids faithfully you would have noted that both have been alledged regarding Tom Cruise. If Ransom doesn't want to be identified with Tom Cruise he shouldn't make such comparisons.
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    :rolleyes: Sorry Thomas, I don't read the tabloids faithfully. Why do you?
    :eek: Now we know what your problem is! :D

    [ April 01, 2002, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  13. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    The point of my analogy, which Cassidy so artfully sidestepped, is to point out that things that are different are not the same. He wrote:

    In other words, the 1611 and 1789 revisions of the KJV are "virtually the same" - as long as the person making this claim gets to decide what constitutes a difference. The four exceptions listed above are extensive enough to render the "virtually the same" claim meaningless.

    Since Cassidy has frequently expressed his distaste for ad hominem remarks, I am sure he actually intended to comment on the relevance of my analogy to his faulty argument, not to mock me personally.
     
  14. DocCas

    DocCas
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    My problem is with people who continue to lie and misrepresent the facts. This straw man has been shot down so many times it is as full of holes as a colander, but some people just don't seem to get it!

    If these same people would bother to pick up a 1611 and compare it with a 1762/1769 they could also see (if they are intelligent enough to read with at least a 5th grade comprehension level) that the words of the KJV of 1611 and the words of the KJV of 1762/1769 are the same with the exception of those I already noted.

    Why do these same people decry the dishonesty of the KJVO crowd while engaging in exactly the same type of deceit and distortion?

    How can Christ be Lord of a person completely lacking in honesty?

    [ April 01, 2002, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]
     
  15. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no question that the KJV of 1611 and the present day KJV is different. No one in their right mind questions that. The question is how different, and how significant are the differences. Some say they are significant, some say they aren't.

    Now, can we act like adults and post some relevant information/discussion? If not, I'm shutting this thread down.

    [ April 01, 2002, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: TomVols ]
     
  16. Forever settled in heaven

    Forever settled in heaven
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2000
    Messages:
    1,770
    Likes Received:
    0
    hope this is relevant: famous "4fold superiority" KJB defender D.A. Waite has made the claim that there are no fewer than "135 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES that were different words" or "136 real changes" between the 1611 and the 1769 KJB revisions http://www.post1.com/home/amarillo/revDKJB.htm

    this is important because this source is somehow more credible to KJBOists than a quote from, say, Westcott or Metzger.
     
  17. Pastor Larry

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

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thomas,

    YOu must understand that this is a straw man in your eyes but it is not for those who hold a KJVOnly position. There are those who say that the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God. Therefore, they must deal with changes to perfection. It doesn't matter how many changes there were. The number is immaterial. If there is one change than it is different. Then we must say either it was imperfect before and perfect now that the one change has been made; or it was imperfect before and perfect now that the change has been made. When you multiply this by 6 (as you claim) 135 or 6 (as Waite claims) or several thousand as the real number probably is (since printer's errors, punctuation, etc are "real changes), you exacerbate the problem. The issue is that while the KJV of today is substantially the same over the whole, there are significant differences that, if they appeared in a MV, the KJVOnly crowd would decry them with vehemence as changes to the preserved word of God.

    Furthemore, not one KJVOnly person has yet answered the question of why God couldn't get the printer's errors, the punctuation, the spelling and all that right the first time? They want us to believe that God perfectly preserved his word through 1500 years of hand copying but couldn't manage to overcome a printer's slip.

    I agree that we need to get past the intellectual dishonesty. Let's do it.
     
  18. KEVO

    KEVO
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I am just going to believe that the kjv is the word of God.I will never change my position on that.I mean,am I hurting myself spiritually if I believe that God has perserved his word in the kjv?I don't believe I am.I do believe that I am hurting myself spirtitually if I continue to waste my time talking about the issue with a bunch of people who will never change their position.
     
  19. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    KEVO said
    KEVO I too read and study the KJV but hey this is the Baptist Board and you will be challenged but don't take it to hard when you been around the block a few times you develop a thick hide and mine is French Morocco Leather... Brother Glen :D

    [ April 02, 2002, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]
     
  20. KJVTIM

    KJVTIM
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    I highly recommend biblebelievers.com
     

Share This Page

Loading...