Which Revision is Correct?

1. People are given demerits for not following the rules.

2. Would you like some cheese with your whine? :laugh:

 

Agree or disagree, I would think a "moderator" would be a little less insulting than this. Sad.

 

That was a weak insult- usually mine are much stronger. Of course, I'm not a moderator so I don't know how to moderate (mitigate, modulate, measure- isn't English fun?) my responses. :smilewinkgrin:

 

OK maybe so, but still, which edition is it?

There is ample evidence on the web that our KJVO brethren who are willing to answer are split concerning this question.

Some of those who say the 1769 Edition use the following for their Scripture evidence:

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

This of course leads to the question "why wasn't it perfect right off the 1611 presses?

Those promoting the 1611 (Ruckman) say that the "errors" in the 1611 are "advanced revelation".

Some time ago, someone claiming to be Peter Ruckman contacted me and asked me not to make direct quotations from his books
so I have to paraphrase.

In his book Manuscript Evidence, p. 127 he claims that these so called errors were actually coincidences by design, advanced light, advanced revelation, given unawares to the 1611 committees.

Many direct quotations can be found by doing a google on "advanced revelation ruckman"

Unfortunately there are many elements of Dr Ruckman's life which, if true, are unpleasant. Even if they are true, please give him some slack.

Psalm 130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?​

HankD​

 

It is also poor etiquette/netiquette for any forum member to air any warnings/infractions they receive. One does not cancel out the other but Tom responded better than I would have. I am an Administrator on a different site and would have either issued another infraction/demerit for it or would have dressed him down publicly.

The forum rules are there for a reason. Anyone who breaks them should receive discipline for it. No one, even the staff, are above the rules established here on the BB. Were Tom to be addressed about this none of us would ever hear it... which is the way it should be with everyone else.
==================================================

As to the OP... good luck getting a simple, straight-forward answer.

 

Your questions are legitimate. It is known there were errors in the first printing of the 1611 translation, that is historical fact. But the vast majority of these were typographical errors due to printing, not the translation. The translation was correct, the printing contained errors. And since that time there have been various editions with typographical errors. This does not mean that the original translation was an error. And the very fact that errors could be spotted and later corrected shows that an inerrant standard existed.

Now, there have also been textual changes from the original 1611 edition. This is more serious. Here I will get a little lazy and print part of an article by Pastor David F. Reagan on the subject.

Now, you may or may not agree with this. Right now I have a Cambridge and Oxford KJV. The Oxford does contain the three typographical errors Pastor D.A. Waite pointed out in an article I showed earlier. But these typos are the printers fault, not the translators. The original translation is correct.

You may have wondered why I highlighted two sentences above in red. These are obvious typographical errors, the very type of error we are speaking about. If you notice these sentences are repeated. Whether the author did that on purpose to emphasize his point or these were genuine printing errors I do not know.

 

Perhaps I've misunderstood the term "moderator". To me, a "moderator" is supposed to be an un-biased, impartial, go-between for two opposing viewpoints. I didn't think they were supposed to publicly mock a person from one side or the other. And certainly, that is not a Christian thing to do. I guess that's not the case here, so I'll cease my posts. Still think it's sad, though. JMHO.

 

From my observations, the majority of mocking insults come from moderators, not those who are not moderators.

 

My presumption then is that you align with the 1769 people.

I agree to a point, but I don't believe it to be "perfect".

For me "perfection" requires faithful alignment to the Greek and Hebrew as the KJV translators attested before King James and the general public that this indeed was their very own requirement in their introduction To The Reader:

There are many things which I believe to be flaws in that alignment.
True most are somewhat subjective but there are also some which go beyond into the realm of the objective:

e.g.

KJV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

The original Greek language has “in water” and “in the Holy Ghost”

The koine preposition is en not meta.

The reason seems evident: the KJV translators chose the instrumental rather than the locative since (being Anglo-Catholic) they were sprinklers as well as paedo-baptizers while also presuming John the baptist to be speaking of believer's water baptism (which doesn't matter because the preposition is still en) rather than the Jewish Mikva.

The ASV gets it right
ASV Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:

I am disappointed with the NKJV and most other translations as well which also follow after this instrumental rendering.

Ironically, the Douay-Rheims (Catholic AD1582 English version) uses "in".

Although the general context of this passage is misunderstood, this prepositional issue also has a greater impact on the future baptism of the Holy Spirit spoken of in this passage. “With” rather than “in” has given rise to modern error.

There are others, but this will suffice to make the point that no translation is perfect. Stay with the original Koine.

HankD

 

Re: Textual changes

I suggest that if you will be patient with the NIV, ESV, NAS, etc. translators for 150 years they might be able to produce a "perfect" Bible also.

 

Wow - never thought about that before. Isn't it fair to give the other translations that same amount of time that the KJV had to get it right?

 

Not knowing Greek, I am in no position to argue Matt 3:11 with you. However, Strongs translates the word "with" as;

A primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between εἰς (G1519) and ἐκ (G1537))

1) in, by, with etc.

So, Strongs seems to be a little flexible on this word.

But now, here is the difference between you and I, I believe God was behind the translation of the KJV. I can't prove this, but I believe history especially has bore this out. At the same time that the KJV was published and quickly dominated the other versions, England became the world's first truly global super power. England had colonies on every continent and took the Word of God, primarily through the KJV to every nation on earth. I myself believe this is a fulfillment of prophesy.

Matt 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

As I said, this is personal belief, I have no proof for this. But I believe the evidence shows the KJV to be the true Word of God that would facilitate taking the gospel to all the world. The MVs cannot claim this (well, they can, but there is no comparison that can be made).

 

I don't mind your comments as when you said you found KJVOs "sickening" in another thread at all. I find it very revealing. And I am sure others do too.

 

Why is a person or even a group of persons holding to the KJV damaging? What do you care that I believe the KJV is the only preserved version in English? How does that harm you?

It's not like we are some cult teaching a damnable heresy like the Mormons. A person can learn of Jesus Christ in a KJVO church, accept Christ and have everlasting life. They can learn sound doctrine through the KJV. So, how is this damaging to others?

 

Holding to the KJV isn't damaging (you make it out like you've never attacked anyone)

It's holding to it alone and the subsequent denials of God's Word that's damaging. I do believe this is a damnable heresy.

Can someone be saved, learn sound doctrine from a MV, Winman?