Collecting Bible Versions

I believe that the 1611 had printing errors that were corrected shortly after 1611 and then finalized in 1769, this is what I believe.

 

Think about what you are proposing.

You have attributed the 40-50 men who translated the KJV of the Bible with a kind a secondary-inspiration.

You have by implication assigned the prophetic-apostolic authority of inspiration to these Church of England priests and scholars.

The first problem with this view is that these same churchmen discovered errors in the text, both their own and typographical. The next two centuries were spent purifying the text.

But, even at that, granting that somehow the Spirit of God allowed mistakes in the original English text and allowed the heretical Apocrypha to be included and cross-referenced to be read in the churches in their work, what then does this make the Church of England which BTW, at one time or another, denied all the Baptists distinctives, baptised and still baptises babies, ordained and still ordains sacerdotal "priests", celebrated and still celebrates the Eucharist (an Anglo-Catholic version of the mass) and has persecuted and even killed our non-Anglican brethren?

But, if you still insist that God has granted this awesome apostolic power of re-"Inspiration" of the Scriptures to the King of England and whomsoever he appoints as the titular head of the Church and you really believe this, why aren't you an Anglo-Catholic or for that fact a Roman Catholic, a member of the Church or Rome, who claimed this power first for Jerome's Latin Vulgate?

HankD

 

RaptureReady wrote:

Along the same lines of reasoning as your question: Question, why would He not inspire the NASB? What makes you think He stopped at the originals? (This question makes just as much sense, and is just as valid, as your question.)

There were other English translations before the KJV; just as there are other English translations after the KJV. With what Scriptural proof (or any other evidence for that matter) do you arrive at 1611 as the date of the re-inspiration you suggest?

 

But you still have not answered my question. True, there were printing errors (a letter missing or a word misspelled), and many of those were corrected. But that is not what we are dealing with in the examples I gave. They could not have been printer's errors. They are completely different words. The words were changed. So, again, was the 1611 WRONG when it said "LORD" instead of "GOD?" Was the 1611 wrong when it said "children" instead of "men?" Was the 1611 wrong when it said "the shearer" instead of "his shearer?" And was the 1611 wrong when it said "helps in governments" instead of "helps, governments?"

And, again, how do you know which one is right and which one is wrong?

 

So you agree with the Mormon doctrine of progressive revelation? If you agree with that then you must agree to not have a closed canon or a canon at all.

 

If one presumes perpetual translational inspiration, then either all faithful translations are inspired, not just one. However, there is nothing in Scrpture that supports perpetual translational inspiration. To assert a perpetual translational inspiration doctrine is to add doctrine to scripture. Besides, if one presumes such, then when the translation digresses from the source texts, then which has greater authoritative wieght? The translation, or the source texts?

 

As I have said before, I do believe that the men were inspired to write the KJB. I know that they said that they were not, would not you do the same, but even John did not believe that he was Elijah, but he was. Those mistakes were of printing and spelling, which was completed by 1769.

Where in the bible does it mention the Apocrypha?

Not the King, but the translators.

 

The King James Bible was written for the English speaking people. Therefore, another English version was not necessary.

Psalm 12:6,7, says that God will preserve his word forever. I believe that preservation is found in the KJB. What scripture do you have that says otherwise?

 

Actually, the history surrounding the KJV is different. Before it, King Henry VIII and Queen Elezabeth I had also come out with English translations on the Bible. When King James came out with his, it was not veiwed with any great welcome at all. Some liked it, some didn't. Many criticized it for using language that was too outdated, even for that time. Those who did prefer the more Elizabethan language tended to stick with their Geneve Bibles. King James had become so frustrated at the mixed reviews that he issued a decree, that anyone who possessed a bible other than the Authorized King James version was subject to imprisonment. It was only after this decree wa issued that the KJV became the standard bible translation for England. Meanwhile, some religious groups, like the Puritans, decided that this was the straw on the camels back in the crown restricting their religious practice. They continued to use the Geneva Bible, which they smuggled in and hid. Many were imprisoned. Ultimately, the Puritans decided to leave England for the New World to found a new colony, where they could practice their religion freely. Yes, the Bible they brought here with them was the Geneva, not the KJV.

This verse in no way supports single-translationism.

 

IMO, There are several flaws with this thinking RR.
First they didn’t “write” the KJV as if it was a fresh beginning, they translated it from mss which did not agree with each other and often gave the alternatives in the margin of the first few editions. Anyway, I would rather believe their proven personal testimony than the second guesses of the KJVO.

Second, they made mistakes, admitted and proved it by correcting both typographical errors and errors in judgment. That they corrected their work proves that their testimony of non-inspiration is true. Either that or we must then believe that the Spirit of God was unable to keep them and/or the printers from making mistakes.

Nowhere. Therefore why did they include it? Better yet why did they later remove it?
Though the Church of England has always insisted that it is non-canonical, In the 1611 First Edition they included the Apocrypha, included it in the daily reading “scripture” guide, and cross-referenced it the margins of the Old and New Testaments. They also called upon the writings of “saint” Jerome (of RCC fame) to state that “the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine". Why then include such writings that promote heresy in the Holy Bible?

In 1534 Henry the Eighth broke with the Church of Rome and took upon himself one of the titles of the Pope “Supreme head of the Church” which is retained to this day

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Act%20of%20Supremacy%201536

As such all authority of the Church of England flows through the reigning monarch.

HankD

 

The King James Bible was written for the English speaking people. Therefore, another English version was not necessary.

Psalm 12:6,7, says that God will preserve his word forever. I believe that preservation is found in the KJB. What scripture do you have that says otherwise? </font>[/QUOTE]In reference to your first reply above:

"The [insert name of any English Bible version prior to the KJV] was written for the English speaking people. Therefore, another English version [i.e. the KJV] was not necessary."

According to your reasoning, what was wrong with the Geneva Bible or the Bishop's Bible? Weren't they written for "the English speaking people"? Why do you believe that the KJV ("another English version") was necessary to replace them?

In reference to your second reply above:

You make the quantum leap from these verses (which you are using out of their actual context anyway)- to saying that such preservation resides only in the KJV? I'm sorry, your "I believe", without any Scriptural proof, doesn't exactly cut it for me.

 

RaptureReady, are you going to answer me?

 

quote of Ed:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, the variation is in the Hebrew Source
also, some Hebrews Sources being "he" sources
and some Hebrew Sources being "she" sources.
But everybody should be happy to know that
both he and she finally made it into town
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rapture Ready: "Since we do not have the original source,
this is all speculation."

You do not need the original source to prove what I said.
I can show the variation in the Hebrew Sources from the
footnotes of some Modern Versions (MVs). As for my
second contention both he and she
when to town the next day is found in Ruth 3:16 - 4:1 in nearly
every version.

Rapture Ready: "I do not accept the 1873"

Your non-acceptance of the KJV1873 Version invalidates your
whole version stance. In Ruth 3:15 the KJV1611 Version translators
("the 50" though there were only 48 by the time the work was done)
had "she" in the source. The KJV1769 Version translator performed
textual analysis and determined that the "he" source
was superior. The KJV1873 translator performed textual analysis
and determined that the "she" source was superior.

Meanwhile, back on topic, which is the collection of various
Bibles for personal use:
In my collection i have two KJV1611 Edition facsimilies
(with Roman format characters instead of the origional Gothic
characters). I must have a dozen of the various editions of
the actualy authorized by the Anglican Church KJV1762
actually authorized by the Church of England KJV1769,
and the family of American rip-offs of the two (these I collectively
call the "KJV1769" to make my sentences shorter). I also have
a copy of the KJV1873 with the original KJV1611 footnotes restored.

 

These are two very good questions that I have not yet seen addressed. Poking fun at the "modern versions" does not answer these two questions at all!

 

Also, have you noticed, Larry, Craig, Ed, Skan, Declare, Hank,& others, that many threads here have been allowed to die with the last post being a rebuttal of some KJVO notion? It appears the KJVOs, when cornered, simply try to vanish from those particular threads & re-appear in a new one, presenting the same ole garbage from another dumpster, somehow hoping we won't notice. You'd think that after some 30-odd years of failure that they'd at least try to come up with something new. Truth is, they don't have anything new to come up with, so they simply try to present the same ole, same ole, worded slightly differently each time. Why they wish to cling to a man-made myth that's been disproven at every turn is beyond me.

 

I'd like to discuss this matter with you,
Brother Robocopy3, but i'm busy in a dozen
other topics

My answer to the topic's qustion still
is: The best Bible to collect is the
King James Version, 1611 Edition (KJV1611).
You probably already have several
of the KJV 1611 AV, which is the KJV1769
ripp-offs of the Crown's KJV1769 or KJV1762,
which our revolting-against-the-crown
of England forefathers stole the words.
There being no copyright observed, our
revolting forefathers did their own spelling
correction. Hardly one edition is like the
next. It would take a fortune just to
collect a few hundred different editions
which i collectively call KJV1769.

At least it is easy to get a KJV1611 facsimilie
from Nelson or from Henderson.
I think Henderson is even still making some
new copies, the number being bought is
still high enough to support that. The Nelson
can apparently only been bought used.

 

One thing is certain, the first thing I do after I become KJVO is join the Anglican Church.