What is lacking?

Nevertheless, it can be historically proven (as I have attempted to show you) that the Apocrypha WAS included in the original edition of the 1611 KJV.

True, it was because of the influence of the RCC.
But this should be an indication of the spiritual discernment of those who authorised the original edition and bring into question God's involvement in the same.

I am both a former-catholic and a supporter of the KJV as the most worthy English translation of the TR today. More correctly a TRO advocate (Scrivener), as such I promote the KJV over the MV's (although I use them in research) but accept the facts concerning the weaknesses of the KJV.

The original edition of the 1611 KJV also contained marginal notes from the translators themselves explaining to the reader some of these weaknesses to which I refer.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967/isa14.htm

HankD

[ December 26, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

True, but it was between the testaments;not canonized in the old & new testaments like the Alexandrian/Vatican texts(from which ALL modern "better" bibles hail from),which was HOLY WRIT according to the POPE!!!

[ December 26, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

 

Agreed!

HankD

 

Just an observation:

The city of Alexandria is mentioned three times in the KJV but only twice in the NIV.

Of course, it is mentioned SIX times in the Catholic Douay-Rheims (and none of those in the Apocrypha).

Now I do not claim any of the above is significant in any way, just interesting.

Of course, I LIKE Alexandria for many reasons, not being the least its immense contribution to preserving human knowledge. Couple this respect with my location on Macedonia Road in Alexander, North Carolina and it's little wonder that I chose an Alexandria-connected trademark for our Alexander Books imprint years ago :



In our marketing, we say we're descended in spirit from the Great Librarians of Alexandria (and so we are). So guys, don't trash Alexandria as a generality. If you have a disagreement with the particular philosophy of certain persons from Alexandria and its influence upon Bible translation, be so kind as to specifically name them (likely Clement and Origen are the ones that really get the KJVonly crowd's dander up), but smile when you say "Alexandria," pard. There is a lot of honor attached to that name. A LOT.

--Ralph

 

Why don't you give us a source for this quotation so that we can check it out. Something smells really funny here; I think I know what it is. If you give the source, we can check it out.</font>[/QUOTE]It's already been checked out, and this "quote" is none other than one (two actually), of Riplinger's famous MISquotes, as appearing in the introductory chapter of her "New Age Bible Versions".

The first part of the quote comes from "The Holy Spirit" by Edwin Palmer (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1974), page 83. Looking at the context, the only conclusion is that those repeating Riplinger have *never* bothered to check the quote for themselves. Also, because the misquote conveys the opposite meaning of the words in their original context, I believe that Riplinger has deliberately and deceptively twisted the quote, for purposes of misrepresentation and slander. In context, Palmer is discussing that regeneration, the new birth, is first of all a work of God's Holy Spirit and not a work of man's faith. The "..." from Riplinger's quote was deliberately placed, removing key words. The quote fixed, replacing the "..." with the missing words, says "namely the error that regeneration depends upon faith AND NOT UPON GOD, and that in order to be born again man must first accept Jesus as Savior." Palmer is saying that regeneration depends upon God, and without God, no man can accept Jesus as Savior.

The second part comes from "The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation" by Kenneth Barker, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation, 1986), p. 143. The chapter the quote comes from was written by Palmer. But first, I would point out that the quote as it stands is actually true. There are few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. Palmer was discussing how the KJV blurs one of the few texts, and here is the quote with surrounding text, which Riplinger does not provide for obvious reasons:

"A striking case of where the KJV, following bad Greek copies of the original text, changed the originial is John 1:18. The KJV says: "No man hath see God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, without fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus "Son". Using the archaic language of the KJV, the verse should read: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Or to say it in a modern and elegant way: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (NIV)."

Despite Riplinger's quotes being deliberately deceptive and attempts at slander, I feel they are very appropriately placed in her introduction, for they help set the tone of the entire book.

 

Thanks Brian. I knew where it came from though I hadn't seen the conflation of it as coming from the "chief editor of the NIV." I wanted Steve to offer the citation so I could then ask him to do his homework and study Gail Riplinger to see if indeed she was honest or if she was lying. Of course, those who have done the homework know that GA Riplinger was lying. The quotes are easy to look up to verify that. It is a shame when that type of "scholarship" is what people rest their knowledge on ... and they call us uninformed.

Steve probalby has not looked up the sources to see if what she said was correct. Someone recommended the book to him, he read it and bought it hook, line, and sinker. Perhaps enough of these types of situations might be enough to pique his curiosity about what he has been told and get him to study more into it to see the charade that is being put forth.

 

[ December 26, 2002, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Hey Pastor Larry, I was thinking of simply asking you if that's what you were intending, because I agree with you that it is much more beneficial for someone to do their own homework - people tend to learn more readily if they do the digging themselves. I guess I should have not provided the details so soon, but at the same time I figured many on this forum would not have easy access to the books, even if they knew where the quotes came from.

Didn't Steve earlier say he was an author or something? Perhaps then he will be more careful about checking his sources more carefully in the future.

 

Thats it kiddies just like someone else I know.
Ye hath Gail said Pathetic is the only word that comes to mind with your post or possibly unregenerate and can't see truth. hmm I wonder?

 

I think this is a distinction without a difference. To say that it wasn't "canonized" by them is not all that helpful. It was there.</font>[/QUOTE]I *personally* believe the KJV translators didn't include it as canonized scripture, but I am unable to find any hard evidence of this. Nowhere (that I can find) did they ever state any opinion on the inspiration of the apocryphal books. Being Anglican, they probably didn't consider it inspired. However, I do find it interesting that they spent *considerable* effort to translate it so it could be included, and then later made it illegal to publish an English Bible that *didn't* have the apocrypha.

 

So are you admitting that you know Riplinger lied and you quoted her anyway? Are you backtracking out of embarassment from not having known something you should have, something that anyone can look up? What exactly are you saying Steve?

Why are you questioning my salvation? Time after time, I have used Scripture to refute you. Yet you persist. Why will you not bow your mind to Scripture. Are you better than that? Do you know too much to accept the simplicity of God's word?

 

Author,
You ignore the fact that the KJV did have a copyright. Just because it was restricted to Great Britain does not negate the fact that it was copyrighted. And this was done in an English speaking country.

At one point Great Britain controlled most of the English speaking world, so if you wanted to use verses out of the KJV at that time you could only do so with the permission of Cambridge University.

 

Not everything which came out of Alexandria was bad: Athanasius The "father of orthodoxy" and the theologian who formulated the primitive doctrine of the orthodox defintion of the Trinity was an Alexandrian (350AD or thereabouts). In fact he was the Bishop of the Church in Alexandria during his life here on Earth.

HankD

 

I'm not ignoring it, Terry, it just does not apply to the point I was making. Besides, it was more like a royal patent then the intellectual property copyright laws today. The English law was not protecting the publisher's right but the privilege of the king. And what the King (or Queen) of England wants has not applied to us here for over 200 years.

Anyway, I'm happy just knowing that my company or any one else in America can publish a KJV Bible if we are so inspired. I am just not so inspired. I much prefer the World English that we are publishing. On the other hand, if we published the NIV, we'd be in court for years. Luckily, I am just as inspired to publish the NIV as I am the KJV.

--Ralph

 

Is this attitude really necessary? I monitor these discussions in the Bible versions forum and especially the KJV discussions. I love the KJV, but it is a translation. I have recently switched to the ESV. Now am I a Bible hater? Absolutely not. I love the Word of God (Psalm 119:103). This whole subject (KJVO) has caused me great distress for well over two years. And in that time I have only found bitter, hateful arguments from the KJVO camp. On this board I have found the same thing for the most part (not Pastor Bob). If you love the KJV, then fine use it. But you CANNOT force others to. And carrying on railing personal attacks is not Christ-like at all. I am very disappointed to see Christians act like this. No wonder the lost are turned off to Christianity, and no wonder some Christians are turned off to the KJV. It is an excellent TRANSLATION and worthy to be studied and used, yet you hurt your own position by the way that you act. Truly I do not see the fruit of the Spirit in these arguments.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

Those defending MV's display this much more than the other side, especially the longsuffering part!

Just some insight from an onlooker who is disappointed with what he sees. I think that we should use some of this zeal winning the lost rather than bashing brothers and sisters.

Neal

 

Why would anyone who doesn't know what scripture is appeal to scripture? I have a bible it is called KJV. I see a trend in people who question whether everyone else is lying.That trend is they are a liar.You have been given DOCUMENTED truth and called it lies repeatedly therefore niether are due the respect of a respone.

 

Who are you talking to?

 

Is Steve K. for real or is he making these posts as a put-on? If he is sincere, I have not seen such unchristian-like hate and venom spewed on this board. My King James Bible says in Philippians 2:3 "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves."