Which Revision is Correct?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Dr. Bob, Apr 19, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Since another thread on the KJV hit 10 pages and closed, thought I'd start an easy one.

    KJVonly types say that the KJV is the only perfect, infallible, inspired Word of God for us today.

    Which one is now THE perfect one?

    Things that are different are not the same. As C4K and a host of others have pointed out, vast differences (150 MAJOR and 5500 minor changes) between the AV1611 first edition and the most common KJV used today - 1762 Cambridge or 1769 Oxford (I have both and THEY differ from each other)

    So IF they claim this new man-made doctrine as TRUTH, the answer should be easy to demonstrate.

    Which KJV revision (or first AV1611) is THE perfect one?

    Thanks.
     
  2. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Duh, the perfect one is the one I have...
     
  3. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you know of an online site where someone can examine these 150 major and 5500 minor changes?
     
  4. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is all I could find on those 150 Major changes you spoke of.

    http://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611an-illustration

    Amazing, nearly all of these "changes" are spelling changes. Many English words have undergone a change in spelling since 1611, but this does not mean they are a different word.

    For example, look at these changes shown in that article that is actually trying to prove the KJV is different today.

    apparell to apparel

    owne to own

    diddest to didst

    weepe to weep

    I'll let the reader judge for himself if these are "major" changes.
     
  5. annsni

    annsni
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,190
    Likes Received:
    373
    But if it's perfect and inerrant, why change the spelling? That means it was wrong before.
     
  6. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0

    How do you feel about changing Saviour to Savior? And if you feel that is wrong in a MV what's the difference?
     
  7. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    It has to be the 1611. *I* can still the old English, can't everyone else?? :eek: ;)
     
  8. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? You really wanna put a different spelling of a word as a MAJOR CHANGE? Dr. Bob, you're smarter than that (I hope).
     
  9. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do you honestly think spelling changes are the same thing as 2 different meanings such as this:

    KJV-

    Colossians 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

    NIV-

    Colossians 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions.
     
  10. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Not" is not in the Critical Text. The NKJV has a footnote about it, probably the rest of the MVs do as well.
     
  11. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, just to sum up so far:

    If it's a change in the KJV, spelling or otherwise, it's minor. And the fact that there are multiples mean nothing. Difference does not equal error.

    If it's not the KJV, then any change whatsoever means it's been negated. The premise of difference=erroneous applies here.

    Got it. Carry on. :tongue3:
     
  12. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    For clarity, you are quoting a letter that is part of an article. The article demonstrates the fallacy of what you quote.


    Dr. Wallace writes:
     
  13. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm aware of that. What's your point?
     
  14. Whowillgo

    Whowillgo
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Simple answer to the opening question

    "The one that is used to lead someone to the Lord"
     
  15. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    I knew that was an anti-KJV site, that's why I showed that article. The vast majority of these so-called changes were spelling changes counted over and over again. Changing the spelling of a word over time is not a change. Many English words were not standardized in 1611. As specific spellings were accepted for words, the spelling in the KJV was changed to fit the accepted and standardized spelling.

    Even to this day some words have more than one spelling, the English spell "colour" and here in the USA we spell "color", but everybody knows it is the exact same word with the exact same meaning.

    It shows those who want to discredit the KJV will go so far as to use dishonest and misleading arguments to fool the uninformed. Most folks don't bother to even check and just accept these big numbers anti-KJVs throw around, not knowing these thousands of changes are mostly spelling changes counted over and over again.

    Now there are some textual changes that were made in the KJV, when I get time I'll address that.
     
  16. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pot calling kettle black alert issued.

    Of course, no one's listening...:laugh:
     
  17. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Dr Tom Cassidy, long time member of the BB (and past president of the Dean Burgon Society, so a very pro-KJV guy) has verified these are very MAJOR changes. Not the minor spelling, grammar, thousands of small changed.

    I pointed one MAJOR issue out on another thread and the response was "only a minor change of a preposition".

    And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helpes in gouernmets, diuersities of tongues.

    And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues

    Yep. Minor change. Just change a list of 7 gifts of the Spirit to 8. No big deal.

    Which is correct? 7 or 8 (you can tell by the spelling the first was the AV1611 and second a later revision of the KJV)

    Even a SMALL preposition or comma can make a HUGE theological difference.

    BTW if you were taking a test in my theology class and said the Bible teaches "7" you would fail the question. The Bible (EVERY Greek MS) has 8. Translators made an error (so the 1611 cannot be "perfect") and corrected it some revisions later.​
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    In 1884, Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener, perhaps the greatest authority on the history of the "Authorized Version" (1611 KJV), aptly said concerning these changes the following

    "Most readers will be aware that numberless and not inconsiderable departures from the original or standard edition of the Authorized Translation as published in 1611, are to be found in the modern [KJV] Bibles."​

    Scrivener did a masterful collation of such CHANGES in the KJV occurring from the revisions of 1613, 1629, 1638, 1744, 1762, and 1769. Also, Dr. Benjamin Blayney, whose 1769 edition best represents the current KJV, said concerning his revision that "many errors that were found in former editions have been corrected, and the text reformed to such a standard of purity, as, it is presumed, is not to be met with in any other edition hitherto extant" [Scrivener, pg. 238, emphasis ours]. ​

    Most importantly, however, is a key reason for many of Blayney's 1769 "corrections" when he says, "Frequent recourse has been made to the Hebrew and Greek Originals" [Ibid.].​
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's actually a pro-Bible site. Seems to tick KJVOs off a lot because of it.

    I'd be curious to hear your explanation of the vast changes in the KJV, as Dr. Bob has pointed out, and why these don't fall under the "different=erroneous" label used for MVs.
     
  20. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Correction.Not anti-KJV; but anti-KJVO.

    Now that's a confession I din't think you'd make. I would be interested in seeing what you've got.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...