No. I do not see any problems with the "different editions" of the King James that are going around.
This is just going to turn into an argument over whether or not the different editions are actually revisions of error in translation or printing errors that were fixed. which is different.
I really don't feel like having this argument over and over here on the BB.
Where is God's preserved word?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Jordan Kurecki, Feb 3, 2014.
Page 4 of 5
-
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
-
-
Simply answer the following once and for all and be done with it!
Which of Scrivener's several GNTs is the one published by the Trinitarian Bible Society? (publisher and date)
Which edition of the Masoretic Text holds the same status for you as Scrivener's edition above? (publisher and date)
When and by which publisher were both of these editions first put "in any one place" (your words)?
As you said that "the King James Bible" is a faithful translation of the above texts (one of which [MT edition] we still don't know and the other of which is anachronistic since Scrivener's editions were published more than 250 years after the KJV translators' work), which edition (year and publisher) of the KJV is letter perfect? -
Yes, men make copies, men make mistakes. Mistakes in copying are correctable.
The Spirit beareth witness of the Word. Hearing of the Word brings faith in Him.
The Scripture, no matter what language, is my final authority.
In English, the AV is the culmination of all of the previous English Translations of the Holy Scriptures, and is the Final Authority to the English speaking people.
Any genuine updates to the AV are welcomed, as change in language occurs.
The M.V.s, that include readings from the CT are not the same Scriptures, not an update, and not a final authority, but rather a partial authority, due to tampering. Since this tampering was spelled out by Wescott and Hort, and available for all to see, these partial truth versions are not as faithful to God's Word, and undeserving of the title: final authority.
This is what I believe to be true. -
-
-
"I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207). [/quote]He says here that he rejects the word infallibility, he believe(as he said in the parts of the sentence left out, that he believes in the absolute truth of the Scriptures.
My dear Hort - I am very glad to have seen both your note and Lightfoot's - glad too that we have had such an opportunity of openly speaking. For I too "must disclaim setting forth infallibility" in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favor of the absolute truth - I reject the word infallibility - of Holy Scripture overwhelming. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve."
So the "of Holy Scripture overwhelming was to the part of absolute truth, not infallibility.
Remember, if what you are arguing for is true, you don't have to change peoples words in order to support the view. Now, I'm sure you didn't change the words. You just copied someone else slander just because it supported your view. Hope no one does that to you. It would be a shame for someone to call you an unbeliever after misquoting you. -
Prophet:
-
-
Now, did you study the TRUE quotes of W or H from the link I posted?
And I see you are STILL failing to answer my question about one-version-only doctrines. You're AFRAID to answer it, arent you? You KNOW the CORRECT answer is that there's NOTHING FROM GOD supporting any one-version-only doctrines, don't you? -
-
God's Word is the Final Authority, to answer the OP, and I believe the KJV to be God's Word in English.
I read Wycliffe, Tyndale, Darby, Webster,as well as several Native American toungues.
I can't stomach the effect of Nestle-Aland on the post Civil War versions.
Especially after reading Wescott and Hort's own letters and hearing their own admission of heresy, doubt, unbelief, and witchcraft. -
-
:
"The Holy Bible containing the OT and the new
newly translated out of the original toungues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised by his majesty's special commandment...."
Your condescension is all the more revolting, when you are completely wrong. -
-
Really?
It's a direct quote....from the title page...
Are you so unwilling to admit your own error, that you would deceptively call an abbreviation "false"?
Maybe you are a habitual liar...you seem haughty and defensive.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, until they make an obvious blunder, and won't admit it, when shown.
Apparently now you are just forum stalking me, saying 'nuh-uh' to every post I make.
Get back to me, when you can actually contribute to the debate. -
Jordan Kurecki Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I have time and time again explained this to you and you just simply refuse to acknowledge the doctrine of perservation.
The King James Only position is based on a the principle of perservation.
Just like the bible doesn't specifically say that smoking pot is wrong, but most of us (I Hope) are aware that it violates biblical principles. -
-
No one Hebrew OT text before 1611 and no Greek NT text before 1611 matches the KJV entirely so a KJV-only position advocates that a new text was in effect created in 1611; therefore, contradicting the claimed basis on preservation.
Page 4 of 5