Correction on the KJV Position

Pardon me, do you believe that Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint?

 

WHY was it in a waste trash? What reason is it to be in a trash?

Ehud’s point is right. It was kept, NOT burned.

 

I don't know for sure I wasn't there.:laugh:

But from what I understand most of the NT quotes of OT scriptures are from the Septuagint except for the occasional paraphrase or partial verse reference.

Here is an interesting site about the subject matter-

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

and in particular-

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Pines/7224/Rick/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm

 

I dunno for sure...I wasn't a monk at St. Cathy's in the 1840s. But it COULD have been the hand of God, making it conspicuous so Tischendorf saw it. that's as likely a possibility as any other. And it evidently had been at St. Cathy's for awhile, as that monastery wasn't on too many people's "Must-See' vacation spots in Egypt.

As for Vaticanus...the Vatican officials certainly deviated from their usual practices by NOT burning it. Again, one cannot dismiss the possibility that GOD coulda providentially preserved it.

 

Ehud, there's a fairly large elephant in the room here, and that is that until you answer the challenge to post some actual quotes from the books that you started this thread with, the whole thing is meaningless, and JoJ's claim that KJVO'ism in its current form started with a Seventh Day Adventist looks pretty well established.

Remember, they need to prove not that people defended the AV--of course people did--it's a great translation. They need to prove that people believed what current KJVO's believed. If you can't do that, what's the point of keeping this thread open?

 

Personally, I don't have a dog in this race. I do my best not to take sides on the KJVO vs. MV debates in public for various reasons. One reason is that I've been abused by both sides, and I see no point in that, especially on an Internet forum where scholarship is often an afterthought.

I'm just trying to be historically honest here. If someone can give me a writer before Wilkinson who influenced the defense of the KJV as the sole version we ought to have, and was quoted by the leaders of the movement I'd be happy to listen. Until then I'll stick with Wilkinson as the first influence of the KJVO movement, and go tsk tsk at David Otis Fuller for being foolish enough to stick SDA Wilkinson in his book Which Bible? I mean for crying out loud, he had some great writers in the rest of the book, genuine textual critics like Zane Hodges and Edward Hills, along with a chapter of quotes from Burgon, who predated Wilkinson!

Now Burgon had influence on the founding of the KJVO movement, I'll grant that. Fuller and Ruckman both quoted him. But he was pro-Maj/Byz/TR, not KJVO. His books defended the traditional Greek text, not the English. If he had started a movement it wouldn't be KJVO, and he would have loved the Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont Greek NTs! :type:

 

Not only was the Authorized Version [Exactly which so-called 'authorized' and/or King James version(s) are you either allegedly or really referring to, here? Bishop's? Great? KJV-1611? KJV-1629? KJV- 1762 (Parris)? KJV- 1769 (Blayney)? the KJV- 1781? KJV- 1783 - Scrivener? R.V. 1881? among others? Why not one of the definitely UN-Authorized English vesions - Wycliffe? Tyndale? Matthew? Coverdale? Geneva? Webster? Young? Darby? ASV? Or some other language versions such as Luther? Reina Valera (any flavor)? And in fact, all the 'American' KJVs are definitely UN-authorized!] here before I had any 'real' choice, so were many others.

This is not a case of "The chosen one" against all the others, as you are attempting to make it appear! (Incidentally, By What Standard? should The Church of England have the determination to choose what this Baptist reads, anyway??)

So:

No, that is not what I'm saying. I did not say "Authorized Version camp", at all. You are attempting to put words in my mouth, which incidentally happens to be a very bad trait for any wannabe teacher!

As do several here, I prefer the basic textual basis that underlies the KJV. Most of the Bibles I use or have used on an everyday basis, except for a few very short periods of time are and have been some 'KJV'. And as I have said multiple times on the BB, when my 1967 KJV Scofield, with wide margin and larger print, was taken from my cab, and I was not able to find that exact printing available at that time, and even with all the versions easily available, to me today, I still preferred the KJV, so I went out and bought me a new one.

There are several of this camp (who prefer some KJV, as do I) (especially a "large print" edition ) here, as well as elsewhere that do not say this. It is the "Only" part where this arises, and where I disagree, as well.

'Rome' had the Old Latin versions well before she had the Vulgate.

'England' (or the English speaking world, anyway) had Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, 'Matthew', Great, Bishop's, and Geneva well before she had any flavor of the KJV. She has also had many after the publication of the KJV in 1611, including the many English editions and versions, both good and bad, that have appeared in the 20th Century alone, which is well over 200, if I recall.

You have given, in fact, no indication of even which one of your alleged preference you "picked", merely decrying others for doing exactly the same thing. However, unlike you, apparently, I do not play the game of insinuation, sans evidence.

Ed

 

Before any KJVO movement could really begin, its authors needed newer versions to criticize. Once some were made, the madness began. Pro-KJVO boox began popping up like weeds in a garden. A few churches started placing "KJV" somewhere in their beliefs & doctrinal statements. And a few people went about preaching that jive.

The one FACT they overlooked in their zeal is that there's not one quark of Scripture in the KJV itself supporting KJVO by the slightest implication. There's just no getting around the truth that KJVO is entirely MAN-MADE.

IMO, those who accept such a man-made premise as KJVO are in the same boat with the Roman Catholix, whose religion is built almost entirely around man-made doctrines which aren't even hinted at in Scripture.(Mariolatry, infallible Popes, etc.)

God said not to subtract from, nor ADD TO His commands & teachings, while Jesus blasted some Pharisees for doing just that...replacing some of the COMMANDS OF GOD with the TRADITIONS OF MEN, thus both adding & subtracting from the things from God.

That's why I am so down on KJVO; it's merely a MAN-MADE ADDITION to the commands & teachings of GOD. We have had all these things from God before us from the gitgo, while KJVO is no more than some 78 years old. Now, if one prefers to use the KJV alone from PERSONAL PREFERENCE, fine, but when one sez that the KJV is the ONLY valid English version out there, then he/she has a major-league problem.

 

Among other things which I don't understand about this movement -- The 1611 Anglican Bible was a version. It was not a stand-alone kind of a deal. It's a version -- a form of others which preceded it.And since that time other versions of that version have come out.

 

Buy them or burn them? These B and Aleph MSS were not burned because you thought it was God’s hand – God providentially preserved them.

God providentially preserved His Words in earliest TR and later Bible translation, ie, Tyndale Bible and God designed the martyrdom. Tyndale was a martyr because of Tyndale Bible. R/C monks burned him and his Bible. Why did T/C monks not approve Tyndale Bible and favored B manuscript over Tyndale Bible?

 

I hope that isn't your drift that offends my nostrils!:laugh:

Demanding a word for word translation is ridiculous of you to expect. But forgetting we have the Bible already translated into the perfectly understandable KJB is more thatn ridiculous.

It takes utter nonsense of the scholars to intermittantly suggest there are alternative definitions of the very words of God, to no profit nonetheless, which go contrary to the very context we already have then in!

 

Um, ever consider the Septaugint to have quoted ealrier MSS that are the right MSS?

 

I think Tischendorf fits the definition of the current term "dumpster-diver":laugh:

 

Um, the "current form"?:laugh: I find nowhere that the stand on God's word to have mutated. Well, except where new versions came into the mix I do!

 

No abuse here, but I think that maybe you're implicating too much credence upon mere men when it comes to as where to stand on the versions issue.

I'll admit many are very well studied, but they are still fallable men.

 

If it's the "Anglican Version" as you presume, then why do we have so many verses that expose the Anglican Church for its errors within this "Anglican Version"?

Are you misusing your nose-hair trimmers again? Y'know, like cutting off your nose to spite your face?:laugh:

 

Before determining my position on this issue of preservation and Bible versions, I read the entire KJV Bible through, marking every single passage where the Bible talks about itself. I then compiled what I learned into an 18 page outline. Is that enough dependence on Scripture for you?

 

And I find nowhere to indicate that you understand the question. Is your response really the best that can be mustered?

Frankly, you need not reply at all; I was hoping for some follow-through from Ehud.