Word differences: 1611 vs. newer KJVs

Wow, I was a KJVO once too! I was of the TRO variety for about a decade, thanks to getting only one side of the issue from the Trinitarian Bible Society and Jack Chick, which led me to dump my NIV in favor of the NKJV, KJV, MKJV, and Green's and Berry's interlinears.

My TRO position just couldn't hold up while reading both sides in James White's book. Reality was later further reinforced reading Bruce Metzger and other authors.

 

Chet,

I answer, especially where long replies are needed, either where I think I can be of the most help to others or where I more urgently need some information to aid me and my family. Other threads, which I think are likely going nowhere, get less priority, especially in situations where it appears to be me versus the multitudes. Every post takes several minutes, some take a half hour or more. As a result, some replies will be days in coming. I think there is some value in my time spent posting on this board, so for now I will continue to do so.

As far the unchristlike behavior goes, we're all guilty, of course. But In this case I feel Pastor Larry unfairly assumed the reasons for my silence and made public and false accusations as a result.

"You keep refusing to answer my question about the differences between them." ... "Please do not keep ignoring this question."

First of all, these accusations are contradictory. But in any event I haven't ignored his question, nor refused to answer it.

 

timothy 1769 said:

You're the one making the claim, brother, so you should be the one to back it up.

There are no extant editions of the 1611 Authorized Version with those words in the text. No copy of the AV1611 exists with that phrase.

That is a brute fact beyond dispute.

Therefore, by KJV-only logic, the doctrine of preservation is a sham since those words, amongst others, were not preserved in the AV and had to be restored (i.e. added to the Word of God).

 

timothy 1769 said:

These are variations among the various printings of the KJV?

Did I say they were, or are you just being, er, a little "creative" with what I said here?

 

I know Jesus never sinned because the Bible tells us so (Heb. 4:15, any version). However, the Bible says *absolutely nothing* about God preserving His word in one and only one 17th century English translation.

What about changes of substance based on we-know-not-what? That's my point -- the *words* of the KJV were changed long after the KJV translators had died, and we have no idea why or on what basis. So without consulting the original language texts from which the KJV was translated, we have no way of knowing which version/edition of the KJV is correct.

 

I read James White's book. I realize that he is wrong. One man from Europe confronted him by asking him some questions. James is incapable to answer these questions because the fact shows that James is not a scholar. I have this information from this man confronting James White.

 

What specifically is he wrong about?

 

What specifically is he wrong about? </font>[/QUOTE]And what are these questions he supposedly couldn't answer?

 

interesting, tell us more about dis man fr Europe, willya?

 

interesting, tell us more about dis man fr Europe, willya?

</font>[/QUOTE]F.S.I.H.: I doubt you'll get a specific, concrete answer to this question; it's these sort of vague, nebulous slanders that KJVOism thrives on.

Kind of like Gail Riplinger's complete trashing of B.F. Westcott's character in her book "New Age Bible Versions". After several chapters of heresay & conjecture regarding Westcott, she eventually makes a concession to her readers (buried DEEP within her footnoted material) that is something akin to "Oh, by the way, I may have confused some of the actions attributed to B.F. Westcott with those of a W.W. Westcott" (a completely different man contemporary to B.F. Westcott)!!

 

Askjo said:

One man from Europe confronted him by asking him some questions. James is incapable to answer these questions because the fact shows that James is not a scholar.

So we're supposed to believe White is discredited because he didn't answer questions you don't list from a man you don't name?

I heard a guy say some stuff about the KJV once, so I don't use one.

 

Or to quote R. DeNiro

"I heard tings about chu"

HankD

 

Peace and love to you in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,

Have any of you ever heard of printing errors? Do you understand that printing methods in those days have greatly improved? Did it ever occur to you that those things might possibly have been errors due to printing? And that God, in his providence saw that those things were eventually fixed? This is quite a different thing to compare to those things that are being done purposely in the modern versions today.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Larry,

You quoted:

Kind of like Gail Riplinger's complete trashing of B.F. Westcott's character in her book "New Age Bible Versions". After several chapters of heresay & conjecture regarding Westcott, she eventually makes a concession to her readers (buried DEEP within her footnoted material) that is something akin to "Oh, by the way, I may have confused some of the actions attributed to B.F. Westcott with those of a W.W. Westcott" (a completely different man contemporary to B.F. Westcott)!!

--------------------------------------------------

I am not sure which footnote you are speaking of, but I have Gail Riplingers book, which is very well documented. Is the footnote you are referring to on the bottom of pg. 676 and top of pg.677 footnote #128 in chapter 30?

May the Lord richly bless you all.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord,
michelle

 

Michelle:Have any of you ever heard of printing errors? Do you understand that printing methods in those days have greatly improved? Did it ever occur to you that those things might possibly have been errors due to printing? And that God, in his providence saw that those things were eventually fixed? This is quite a different thing to compare to those things that are being done purposely in the modern versions today.

And God, in His providence, sees to it that WE have His word in OUR language, same as He did the English of the 17th century, in the language of THEIR day.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Pastor Larry,

--------------------------------------------------
Pastor Larry quoted:

Both of these men are demonstrable liars and therefore poor sources. But be that as it may, notice how he admits 421 changes. That is a lot of changes for "perfect."
--------------------------------------------------

Please provide proof that David Cloud from Way of Life ministries is a liar. That accusation is a serious one and unfounded.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle: " ... but I have Gail Riplingers book,
which is very well documented."

I respectfully disagree.
There are a lot of footnotes.
This is NOT the same as "well documented".

The one note I can very as being true is this:
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS (AV Pubs, 1993, 1994), page
unnumbered, the copyright page.

"Note to the reader: 1) ...
2) the NIV and NASB do not have identical wording
because each is copywritten.
Space permits only one example, often that
of the NASB, but the heresy occurs in other versions
as well, worded in a slightly different way."

Admission that she disses the New King James Version (nKJV)
by citing errors in the NASB. This is poor scholarship.

 

Riplinger's review is correct. You guys are blinded by the devil's spirit.

Stop putting down God's word and pick it up.