Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!

To all,

First of all, as has been pointed out by numerous persons, very few people have the 1611 version of the AV but the 1769 revision which differs in hundreds of places from the 1611. Well they are minor differences we are told. However, when non-KJVO folks use these very same words "minor differences" they are told that this is a satanic deception and the smallest difference is from the lower regions of hell. "Things not equal to each other are different".

Secondly, when Jesus talked about the Torah He used these same kinds of words concerning (of all things), spelling. Words signifying Hebrew letters and not English letters which stands to this very day even in the KJV. Therefore if anything is to be the perfectly preserved Word of God it HAS TO BE in the original language, the language of Inspiration, the language in which God gave it in the first place. This guarantees that it will never change. That should be a no-brainer (IMO). Granted that the KJV is the very best English translation (which I believe because of the manuscripts from which it is derived) then the Greek and Hebrew underlying the KJV would/should be the focus of interest in terms of preservation and not the excellent (howbeit archaic) severally revised English text of the 1769 King James translation of the Holy Scriptures.

My opinion, of course.

HankD

[ May 18, 2002, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Dear Bartholomew,

When asked to identify the pre-1611 perfectly preserved Word of God you referred the individual to page 9 of the current thread. In this thread you said that it was contained in the Old Latin (old Itala) translation.
While I agree that the old Itala is good and ancient and the Bible of the persecuted Church, the Old Itala manuscripts have differences among themselves including the "comma" (1 John 5:7) and can not be (according to the KJVO definition of "perfect preservation") the perfectly preserved Word of God.
Again, this is according to the KJVO definition of "perfect preservation".

HankD

[ May 18, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

KJV1611only, thanks for the history lesson, I'm sure there are some reading here that learned something about the history of the Bible.

However, the historical account doesn't answer the original question. Were all those Bibles you listed "the word of God", even though *every single one* is different from the KJV?

- Isn't this totally contrary to KJV-onlyism, which is about word-for-word perfect preservation?
- Why was the KJV produced if the word of God already existed?
- If the KJV was just in the chain of many different Bibles that can be called the word of God, by what authority do you get to claim it is the last in the chain, that nothing after it can be called the word of God as well?

 

Please, Pastor Larry, understand what I said. I said that things being different doesn't make one right and the other wrong. For example, the account of the ressurection is different in Matthew than it is in Mark. But yet they're both absolutely correct. Just because the Old Latin is different to the AV, doesn't mean both can't be absolutely correct. And besides, you didn't answer my point: There are (I'm told), 10,000 Old Latin manuscripts that are completely unstudied - so how can you be so sure about what they say? And secondly, the ones we have aren't neccassarily the ones that were used - many of them will have fallen apart. And thirdly, I'm only suggesting that the word of God was in the Old Latin. As I'm not living pre-1611, how can I know for sure?

Using that logic, we may as well ask, "who has the correct ressurection account? Matthew or Mark?"

Please ellaborate. I know there are very minor differences between various editions, but I have never seen anything contradictory. If there really is, I'd like to see it.

But Larry, that doesn't answer the question. I always thought "innerant" meant it had no errors. So surely that means there is no Bible in your sceme, because there's nothing that doesn't contain errors?

True. And guess what? IT NEVER WAS. The words 'thee' and 'thou' were already out of common speach in 1611, but were retained because they were the ONLY way of faithully reproducing the difference between "you singular" and "you plural", as found in the original languages, which you think are so important. As for the few archaic words, why not just put their meanings in the margin? This argument about the language being different now is very weak - you know full well that the NASB changes a huge amount more than just the old-fashioned words. And going back to words we speak, how many times have you heard the word "justification" in ordinary speach? What about "salvation"? Or "grace"? These aren't ordinary words in the ordinary spoken language. Yet should we get rid of them? No, the job of a translation is to translate. If the word in question isn't usually used, it's the job of pastors, like yourself, to explain its meaning. Please don't go and change the Bible just because people can't be bothered to use a dictionary, or because their teachers can't be bothered either.

Say, are there any neutral readers out there? I just wondered, because I get the feeling that my most important questions have NOT been answered. Does anyone else get that impression? If my questions are old and well answered, why doesn't someone answer them?

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

HankD - have you read all those Old Latin bibles? Do you know what they all say? I don't deny that there are some bibles that will be corrupted - just like the 1611 edition of the AV had a few printing errors in it, though they were soon put right - but I argue that God will preserve the innerant readings. There is no reason for the innerant readings to be found in Old Latin Bibles any more (though I bet you would find them!), because God is no longer working in the past international language (Latin), but the present international language(English). Note that this explains why he originally inspired the New Testament in Koine Greek - for that was the international language of the 1st century. And on that point, I have a book at home about the history of English. Guess when it says English began to become the international language? During the reign of JAMES I. Well, that is interesting...,
So, God preserved the Old Latin, and he also preserved the AV. But bear in mind that most of the Old Latin Bibles probably no longer exist, and so we can't make direct comparrisons. But again, this is only a sugestion as the where the word of God was! Wherever it was, I know where it is now!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

I think you'll find that there were several editions. The first few were done during the lifetime of many of the translators, and some of them even worked on these editions. They were neccassary for the correction of printing errors caused by the infancy of printing technology. The late changes were to standardize spelling, which wasn't standardized in 1611. These changes are nothing like the changes in the NIV, etc.; nor do they stop the original AV from being perfect. And remember - I am arguing God's word is that which is preserved.

You are right - that is one of the arguments sometimes used. But it is not one of the arguments I have ever used. Please see my previous posts.

But HankD, the Bible is not paper and ink, but INFORMATION. That same information can be taken from language to language, or from paper to stone, or from voice to tape recorder or whatever. The medium is irrelevant. The information is what matters. So there is no reason to think God couldn't have taken his word into another language. In fact, there are MANY translations within the bible! For example, did Pharoh speak Hebrew? Yet his words are recorded in Hebrew. Did Jesus speak Greek? Yet his words are recorded in that language. God can and does translate his word - as is proven by what the apostles did on the day of pentecost. I believe you are mistaken to say his word must be kept in the original languages - even those arguing against the AV on here say they don't believe that.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Dear Bro Bartholomew,

Any of your rebuttals of the posts I directed towards you are so general that they can be used to rebut your own rebuttals. For instance you rebut the statement that I made concerning the Old Itala mss by asking if I had read all the Old Latin Bibles and know what they say. Well, have you read all of the KJ Bibles? You may or may not assume that they all say the same thing, but according to your own argument you cannot know for sure they all say the same thing. Therefore until you have read them all you can not say for certain whether they are all the perfect word of God. Your rebuttal can't be true for me but not for you.

In addition there is a textual apparatus in most of the published original language collations and one can see the differences between the families of texts. Such is the case with 1 john 5:7 (John's comma). While the Comma is present in most Old Itala MSS, it differs greatly amongst them and sometimes comes AFTER the 1 John 5:8 (The earthly witnesses).

Personally I possess both the Greek and Hebrew texts from the Trinitarian Bible Society. These are the texts which underlie the English of the KJV1611-1769. This is where I put my faith as to God's preserved text. Others have another faith position and I respect their views including yours (although I am now a bit confused as to your position concerning the KJV1611-1769).

Finally, Jesus said not ONE HEBREW YOD would pass from the Torah, so spelling errors do make a difference with HIM, they are not minor differences to Jesus. Therefore you must now decide which of the several revisions of the KJV1611-1769 is the perfect one according to Jesus view. Why could God not protect the KJV printers from making mistakes from the beginning?

Also how do we know the correct revisions have been finally made? The KJV translators were long dead by the time the 1769 version came about. Were these revisers also inspired from God? If the 1611 men were inspired by God in their translation (apart from the printer errors), then how come there were mistakes which required more revisions? How do we know there are not more to come?

Your view (if you are indeed KJVO) can really only hold water if you focus on the original language texts underlying the KJV since the KJV English was changed hundreds of times from 1611 to 1769 but the Hebrew and Greek is exactly the same. There is something to be said for a "dead" language. It NEVER CHANGES.

HankD

 

But which KJV? The "he" or "she" bible? That difference is neither spelling nor punctuation nor typeset. There is a clear difference between "he" and "she" and the KJV at times in history has read both. Which is the word of God and how do you know?

What about the difference between "he" and "ye" in Jeremiah? (I can't recall the passage immediately). The present editions of the KJV have divergent readings. Which one is right?

In these, and many other cases, the KJV is simply not sufficient to solve these problems. You must appeal to something outside the KJV to establish the Word of God and that is all that we are suggesting.

KJV1611Only give a brief history of translation and proves my point. Since none of those versions he listed are identical to the KJV, then by his definition, only one of them can be the Word of God. Which one is he willing to stake his position on?

Your questions are well answered in numerous places in print and publication, both scholarly and popular.

 

this is what history says about your so called revisions of the 1611..

Although the printing press had been invented in 1450 by Johann Gutenburg in Germany (161 years before the 1611 printing), the equipment used by the printer had changed very little. Printing was still very slow and difficult. All type was set by hand, one piece at a time (that’s one piece at a time through the whole Bible), and errors were an expected part of any completed book. Because of this difficulty and also because the 1611 printers had no earlier editions from which to profit, the very first edition the King James Version had a number of printing errors. These were not the sort of textual alterations, which are freely made in modern bibles. They were simple, obvious printing errors of the sort that can still be found at times in recent editions even with all of the advantages of useless, but they should be corrected in later editions.

The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found. In the same vein the King James critics can find only about 400 alleged textual alterations in the King James Version after 375 years of printing and four so-called revisions! Something is rotten in Scholarsville!

 

For proper examination, the changes can be divided into three kinds: printing changes, spelling changes, and textual changes. Printing changes will be considered first. The type style used in 1611 by the KJV translators was the Gothic Type Style. The typestyle you are reading right now and are familiar with is Roman Type. Gothic Type is sometimes called Germanic because it originated in Germany. Remember that that is where printings were invented. The Gothic letters were formed to resemble the hand-drawn manuscript lettering of the Middle ages. At first, it was the only style in use. The Roman Type Style was invented fairly early, but many years passed before it became the predominate style in most European countries. Gothic continued to be used in Germany until recent years. In 1611 in England, Roman Type was already very popular and would soon supersede the Gothic. However, the original printers chose the Gothic Style for the KJV because it was considered to be more beautiful and eloquent than the Roman. But the change to Roman Type was not long in coming. In 1612, the first King James Version using Roman Type was printed. Within a few years, all the Bibles printed used the Roman Type Style.

Please realize that a change in type style no more alters the text of the Bible than a change in format or type size does. However, the modern reader who has not become familiar with Gothic can find it very difficult to understand. Besides some general change in form, several specific letter changes need to be observed. For instance, the Gothic s looks like the Roman s when used as a capital letter or at the end of a word. But when it is used as a lower case s at the beginning or in the middle of a word, the letter looks like our f. Therefore, also becomes alfo and set becomes fet. Another variation is found in the
German v and u. The Gothic v looks like a Roman u while the Gothic u looks like the Roman v. This explains why our w is called a double-u and not a double-v. Sound confusing? It is until you get used to it. In the 1611 edition, love is loue, us is vs, and ever is euer. But remember, these are not even spelling changes. They are simply type style changes. In another instance, the Gothic j looks like our i. So Jesus becomes Iefus (notice the middle s changed to f) and Joy becomes ioy. Even the Gothic d is shaped quite differently from the Roman d with the stem leaning back over the circle in a shape resembling that of the Greek Delta. These changes account for a large percentage of the "thousands" of changes in the KJV, yet they do no harm whatsoever to the text. They are nothing more than a smokescreen set up by the attackers of our English Bible

 

Another kind of change found in the history of the Authorized Version are changes of orthography or spelling. Most histories date the beginning of Modern English around the 1500. Therefore, by 1611 the grammatical structure and basic vocabulary of present-day English had long been established. However, the spelling did not stabilize at the same time. In the 1600’s spelling was according to whim. There was no such thing as correct spelling. No standards had been established. An author often spelled the same word several different ways, often in the same book and sometimes on the same page. And these were the educated people. Some of you reading this today would have found the 1600’s a spelling paradise. Not until the eighteenth century did the spelling begin to take a stable form. Therefore, in the last half of the eighteenth century, spelling of the King James Version of 1611 was standardized.

What kind of spelling variations can you expect to find between your present edition and the 1611 printing? Although every spelling difference cannot be categorized, several characteristics are very common. Additional e’s were often found at the end of the words such as feare, darke, and beare. Also, double vowels were much more common than they are today. You would find mee, bee, and mooued instead me, be, and moved. Double consonants were also much more common. What would ranne, euill, and ftarres be according to present-day spelling? See if you can figure them out. The present-day spellings would be ran, evil, and stars. These typographical and spelling changes account for almost all of the so-called thousands of changes in the King James Bible. None of them alter the text in any way. Therefore they cannot be honestly compared with thousands of true textual changes which are blatantly made in the modern versions

 

Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present edition and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision. They are instead the correction of early printing errors. That this is a fact may be seen in three things: 1) the character of the changes, 2) the frequency of the changes throughout the Bible, and 3) the time the changes were made. First, let us look at the character of the changes made from the time of the first printing of the Authorized English Bible.

The changes from the 1611 edition that are admittedly textual are obviously printing errors because of the nature of these changes. They are not textual changes made to alter the reading. In the first printing, words were sometimes inverted. Sometimes a plural was written as singular or visa versa. At times a word was miswritten for one that was similar. A few times a word or even a phrase was omitted. The omissions were obvious and did not have the doctrinal implications of those found in modern translations. In fact, there is really no comparison between the corrections made in the King James text and those proposed by the scholars of today.

The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major revisions. The King James Version we have today has not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.

 

Spiritual declension rarely begins in the pew, the failure is generally found first in the pulpit. It is easy to point to the negative influence of liberal theological colleges and the godless faculties in secular universities in the training of pastors and preachers. What is rarely so quickly recognised is the extent to which evangelical seminaries and institutions professing a commitment to the proclamation of God’s Word have moved away from the truth. The doctrine where a fraying at the edges first occurs is that of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. A fairly typical statement of belief would read something like this:

"We believe in the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures as originally given, their verbal inspiration by God and their supreme authority as the only rule of faith and practice."

What these people are really saying is that, whilst the words originally written down by the prophets and apostles were free of error and inspired, the Bible we have in our hands today has errors in it and so cannot be relied on completely, and some parts are not inspired. Now, of course, they see themselves as the ones able to instruct us in these matters, which is why we need to go to their colleges! Whilst professing to believe the Bible, they deny it. They are facing in two directions at one and the same time.

The AV1611 that I have in my hands right now.

I gave a breif history not of all the Bibles but only those in line with the 1611..the NIV is NOT of that line at all. nor is the NEB, RSV, or any of the other modern translations.

 

You should attribute your information. I have read all that before and it does not answer the question -- and neither did you.

In the above listed passages, one historical and one contemporary, which is the "Word of God" and which is a perversion? And how do you know which is right? These are two out of dozens and dozens of passages I could list that simply talk about the errors in the English translation. How do you reconcile this?

The difference between "he" and "she" is not a spelling error. It is not about punctuation. It is not about typesetting. FHA Scrivener made a list of dozens of changes to the KJV over the years. If you look at the list, you will see that there are some of the same kind of changes that the MVs are charged with.

With all of these things above, are they errors? Are the current differences between the KJVs that you can buy at your local store errors?

Now the question is this: If God is able to preserve his word perfectly so that what you now have is perfect, then why wasn't God able to control the printers' hands? We have a God who can calm the sea but can't get typeface in the right place? We have a God who can raise the dead but can't spell? We have a God who can create the world in six days but needs 6 or 7 editions over 400 years to get his Word right (and still hasn't finished the job yet). Even if I grant that all the changes are of the type you listed--which they clearly are not--but even if I grant that, you still have a very weak position simply based on the history you volunteered above.

It is amazing the lengths to which you will go to deny the facts.

[ May 19, 2002, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Larry,Why do you question God? Just believe him.I really wish you could be at Victory Baptist Church this week and hear Bro. Mitch L.Canupp. He is one of the greatest KJV1611 defenders of all time. You need it man. I will be talking to him all week. Got a question for him I'm glad when I read my bible I know I have the word of God in my hand. You can know that also I wonder do you stand up in your church and say "Today we will be reading from the word of God,at least I hope it is the word of God". That would be bad not to know if you had the word of God or not.

 

Sorry Larry I am denying nothing....

F. H. A. Scrivener, in the appendix of his book, lists the variations between the 1611 edition of the KJV and later printings. A sampling of these corrections is given below. In order to be objective, the samples give the first textual correction on consecutive left-hand pages of Scrivener’s book. The 1611 reading is given first; then the present reading: and finally, the date the correction was first made.

this thing - this thing also (1638)
shalt have remained - ye shall have remained (1762)
Achzib, nor Helbath, nor Aphik - of Achzib, nor of Helbath, nor of Aphik (1762)
requite good - requite me good (1629)
this book of the Covenant - the book of this covenant (1629)
chief rulers - chief ruler (1629)
And Parbar - At Parbar (1638)
For this cause - And for this cause (1638)
For the king had appointed - for so the king had appointed (1629)
Seek good - seek God (1617)
The cormorant - But the cormorant (1629)
returned - turned (1769)
a fiery furnace - a burning fiery furnace (1638)
The crowned - Thy crowned (1629)
thy right doeth - thy right hand doeth (1613)
the wayes side - the way side (1743)
which was a Jew - which was a Jewess (1629)
the city - the city of the Damascenes (1629)
now and ever - both now and ever (1638)
which was of our father's - which was our fathers (1616)

That is not the same as what is happening in Modern versions today at all.. lets' have a look and see if it is the same....

Matt 8:2

KJV " and behold, there came a leper and [worshiped] him"....
NIV " a man will leprosy came and [knelt before him]

there is a vast difference between " worshiped" and "knelt" one might kneel before a king but they do not worship him.

It would appear that the authors of the NIV had all kinds of trouble translating the Greek word [proskuneo] "worship" nearly half the time it aplied to Jesus..yet it had no trouble at all translating the same word "worship" when it was used for worshipping a fellow servant (rev.19:10) false religion (John 4:20, 22) Idols (acts 7:43) an angel (rev. 22:8) the image of the beast (rev 13:15, 16:2, 19:20) the beast ( rev 13:3,8,12)The beast and the image ( rev. 14:9, 11; 20:4) devils and idols (rev. 9:20) and even the dragon ( rev13:4)

John 13:23 the scene at the last supper where John is ...

KJV " leaning [on Jesus' bossom]..."
the NIV completly changes the scene
NIV " reclining [next to him]"

Concerning Jesus's death, Peter said while quoting the psalmist: acts 2:27

KJV " thou wilt not [leave my soul in hell]
NIV " you will not [abandon me to the grave]

since when is hell the grave?? the NIV has complelty changed the verse.

I can't belive you made such a wild statement Larry.. CLEARLY what the MV's are being charged with is not the same at all...

we have a God who can control the seas who can save man from hell but it is impossible for Almightly God to have preserved hispure infallable Word, without error in ONE book alone, for the common man to read, in his language... that is what is really impossible for you to conceive.

you have not yet taken a stand on which book you believe to be the absolute pure word of God without error. but i guess you saying that all bibles are the word of God was an attempt to dodge the question..They can't be from the same God becasue they all don't READ THE SAME

"God is not the author of confussion"

 

Amen Brother Kevo!

 

Dear Bro KEVO,

Your quote...

Do you believe the KJV (any of the revisions between 1611 and 1769) English Bible supercedes the underlying Greek and Hebrew text which the KJV translators used which I have and am holding in my hand?

For instance I have a Book "The New Testament - The Greek Text Underlying The English Authorised Version of 1611" published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. BTW,
This is the Greek text which Dr Peter Ruckman uses in his expository preaching.

It has no revisions.

This IMO is the Preserved Word of God in the language He originally gave it,
not the KJV English text of 1611 or 1769 or anything in between.

Your focus upon a translation (no matter how good) in my opinion is misplaced.
This is evident by the inability of KJVO folk to explain the several revisions to the 1611 English text.

The "proof of the pudding" is that while you claim the 1611 publication is the Perfect Word of God you quote from the 1769 revision which is different in several hundred places.
"Things not equal to each other are different".

HankD

[ May 19, 2002, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]