Very Simple Question

Good luck, Christ4Kildare. I'm afraid that all you're gonna get is spin, though.

While it is true that God preserved His word through the translation committee, it is also true that He preserved it through the translation committees of the ASB, NASB, NKJV, NIV, CEV, WEB, etc, etc, ad nauseum. That He preserved His word is a given.

That He re-inspired it is a joke, though.

The answer to your question boils down to this: God PRESERVED His word through the committee, AND the typesetters, AND the printers, errors and all.

God did not inspire ANYONE in regards to the KJV, either in the compilation of the TR, the translation committee, the typesetters, the printers, nobody.

Orvie has it right. The KJVO crowd has taken what God intended as a means of salvation (a translation of His word) and turned THAT into an idol to be worshipped (Nehushtan, the bronze serpent of Moses).

And they wonder why we fight them over this...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Amen, Brother Christ4Kildare -- Preach it!

But it behoves us to find out how to
share our Bible with others.

Proverbs 11:30 (TMB = Third Millennium Bible)

The fruit of the righteous
is a tree of life, and
he that winneth souls is wise.

 

I wish I was smart like michelle & the others are. See, I don't understand what it is you are asking, so please don't laugh. In my mind, I believe the Lord put the men together at the time He did to make a final Bible. I believe His word was there all thru the ages & different ones kept it going.

I also believe the devil had his copy going. What I have came from God. Those others out there, well.... while I've never read one, I just sense there's something wrong there. What is meant by typesetters? Men are human & no doubt some typos have been made.

I found this out when one of our children was reading & a word in mine was different from theirs; so I figured there's a spy in every camp, and that the Lord can right a wrong. I still trust that what I have is perfect in every way & that the Lord did it.

 

Well, we can agree to disagree, Granny. But, then which one is the final? the original, in 1611, or one of the revisions? Which one?

I'm not trying to poke fun, or stir anything up. A clear, concise definition is most helpful (right, Ed?).

God didn't retire in 1611. He still speaks, and He uses His word, in its many different translations, to do so.

Well...what? You think that anything other than the KJV is of the evil one? Sorry, but i've done my homework and studied them side by side. While there are some really sorry excuses for a translation out there, there are many more really good ones.

You're like my wife. She just HATED cheesecake, couldn't stand it. One day I finally got her to take a bite of it. Guess what? She found out that cheesecake is wonderful! Same thing with crab legs. And lobster. And chinese food (well, I'm still working on that one).

But the point is, you've never read any other translation, but you are willing to condemn them on the word of others and write them off as the work of Satan. You are better than that, much better.

Not a problem. Just don't try to force that on us. You are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, just like the rest of us.

I like Fords. All I own are Fords. I swear by them. My mother-in-law likes General Motors. that is what she drives. Am I right, and she wrong? No, we just haev our personal beliefs and opinions. Now, I have had a few cars that werenot Fords, adn they hauled my backside around just fine. And my mother-in-law has had a couple that weren't Chevy's (she loved my wife's 1996 Taurus). So, see, no one HAS to be totally exclusive.

Love ya, Granny. When's dinner?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

av1611jim:I think granny is right. You folks don't really want answers, ya'll jes wanna show off how smart you think you are.
OTH I am simply a one bible man.
Jim

Actually, he's wanting to know the answer to a simple question, not to show how smart HE is, but how smart the KJVOs here are. The KJVOs have presented us a doctrine and he wants EVIDENCE that it's true, or something to be dismissed.

 

GrannyGumbo: "What is mean by typesetters?"

In the early 1500s the movable type printing press
was invented. One of the first things printed on it
was Luther's translation of the Bible.

In 1611 the movable type printing press was used
to print the newly translated King James
Version (KJV).

The type consists of a 3-inch long bar of metal.
At one end about 1/3 an inch of the top of the bar that
is not the letter is cut away. That end of the
bar is dipped in ink and it is pressed on a
sheet of paper. Thus a letter gets printed on a
paper. The movable type system has a lot of pre-formed
metal bars with the letters and puncuation on them.

To typeset this post, a typesetter would take
a capital "G" bar, put it on a line holder.
BTW, the bar itself has the letter reversed from
what you see printed. Then the typesetter would get
a little "r" and place it to the left (i told you
it was backwards) of the capital "G". To get a page
like you see on your CRT (cathode ray tube, unless
you happen to have a flat screen) in less than 1/1000th
of a second takes a typesetter a full work day
to set.

The typesetting process is very prone to error.
The full page can print about 1,000 copies,
maybe 2,000 and then a typesetter must make a new
page. On a high print item like the King's own authorized
copy of the Bible, several presses will be busy
round the clock. The typesetting will have to be
done every couple of days on each of the presses.
Everytime, the type is set, errors can occur.

In Eureka, Arkansas, is a museum for Bibles.
It has severl error prints of the Bible.
My favorite is the Adulter's Bible where it
says: "Thou shalt commit adultry."
Oops, somebody forgot the "NOT"

Today, on computerized typesetting, if an
error is made, it can be edited out and
not exist in the next print. This is far different
from the way things were done in 1611.

 

Ephesians 4:4-6 (HCSB = Holman Christian
Standard Bible):

There is one body and one Spirit,
just as you were called to one hope
at your calling;
5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of all,
who is above all and through all and in all.

Ed, still searching the scrpture for that
one that says "ONE BIBLE".

 

Granny Gumbo:Okay now...let's see if this works: I've got myself a fine mister who's been the love of my life for 40 years......

Apples & oranges, M'am. God says only one spouse, but He's never said one BV.

No one should dispute your choice of BV as that's between you & God, but then no one should dispute MINE either, but some do. If you were to choose to use only the "good as new" version, that's really not my business, but when some tells me I'm wrong for using other BVs besides the KJV, that's a declaration of war because I *KNOW* they're WRONG. Same with publicly proclaiming the KJV or this-n-that version is the ONLY valid BV. As A Christian and a Baptist committed to defending God's word against any and all false doctrines, I do what I can against THIS false doctrine. KJVO is clearly a false doctrine.

 

I believe he preserved his Word through providence. The translation committee was only part of a process.

I don't know.

It wasn't until 1647, that the Westminster Confession of Faith listed the exact 66 Books (with no additions in Daniel or Jeremiah) now recognized by conservative, fundamental Christians. Why did god "wait" all those years to get the exact 66 books right?

I don't know.

Why did he wait 4000 years to reveal his Christ perfectly? Why did he wait 3 days to resurrect Jesus perfectly? Why did God have Jeremiah "add" words to his second "original" in Jer 36:32?

I don't know.

My question to you is what does that matter? What does it change? How does it advance your argument that there is no perfect Word in English, Greek, Hebrew, Swahili, etc?

Lacy

 

That's funny. (I have tye-setting errors every Sunday morning when I try to tie the stupid thing . . . I think neck-ties are a possible satanic ploy!)

Anyway, to answer your question, I guess it depends. What if the "error" causes the book to match the autographs? We'll never really know.

We can only go by the fruit of the book. I have maintained this all along.

Lacy

 

As far as the text is goes,NO!

The whole premise of you original question is ridiculous at best.I have seen PLENTY of Alexandrian "bibles" have dozens if not more printing errors,WHY?

The printing conditions in 1611 were horrible,you know that;BUT,the text that we use today(from the 1611 edition) has been preserved perfectly.


I've seen this question before from those of the Alexandrian persuasion,it is nothing--I repeat--NOTHING but slipshod skullduggery fabricated in atempt to "trip up" the Bible believer.

 

He could have made purple camels too.


Lacy

 

I have a KJV(printed a year or so ago) that has numerous printing errors in it,big deal!

I also have one that has shoddy binding(it's crooked at the spine).Whoopdie doo!!

I guess I should just throw them out,they are tainted and cannot be trusted.God goofed!!!!

 

Remember when?

Maybe a new thread should be started called REMEMBER WHEN?

Remember when we were told daily

HankD

 

I've already got it:

---208 - In KJVs: things that are different are the same; in MVs: things that are different are not the same