Featured Final Authority and Final Canonization

1841 London English Bible

In my earlier reply, I already mentioned examples. It would only take one example to show your earlier assertion to be incorrect.

Are you unaware of John Wesley's 1755 English Bible?

Are you unaware of the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists and other believers?

Are you unaware of the 1866 American Bible Union Version?

Are you unaware of a 1841 edition of the AV that made 20,000 emendations to it?
The Holy Bible containing the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments with many Emendations. London, 1841.

In the New Testament of this 1841 London edition of the KJV with emendations, it has “food“ in place of “meat“ (Matt. 3:4), "immediately" in place of "by and by" (Matt. 13:21), "the prophet Isaiah" in place of "the prophets" (Mark 1:2), “tablet“ in place of “writing table“ (Luke 1:63), “enrolled“ in place of “taxed“ (Luke 2:1), "their purification" in place of "her purification" (Luke 2:22), “honour“ in place of “worship“ (Luke 14:10), "concerning it" in place of "thereabout" (Luke 24:4), "gave thanks" in place of "blessed it" (Luke 24:30), "testimony" in place of "record" (John 1:19), "flock" in place of "fold" (John 10:16), "his office" in place of "his bishoprick" (Acts 1:21), "Passover" in place of "Easter" (Acts 12:4), “its own accord“ in place of “his own accord“ (Acts 12:10), "Holy Spirit" in place of "Holy Ghost" (Acts 13:52), "Simon Peter" in place of "Simeon" (Acts 15:14), "saith JEHOVAH" in place of "saith the Lord" (Acts 15:17), "robbers of temples" in place of "robbers of churches" (Acts 19:37), "church of the LORD God" in place of "the church of God" (Acts 20:28), “deaconess“ in place of “servant“ (Rom. 16:1), “love“ in place of “charity“ (1 Cor. 13:1), "behaviour" in place of "conversation" (Gal. 1:13), "By no means" in place of "God forbid" (Gal. 2:17), "fruit of the light" in place of "fruit of the Spirit" (Eph. 5:9), "plaited" in place of 'broided" (1 Tim. 2:9), "not quarrelsome" in place of "no striker" (1 Tim. 3:3), "evil spirits" in place of "devils" (1 Tim. 4:1), "descendants" in place of "nephews" (1 Tim. 5:4), "Joshua" in place of "Jesus" (Heb. 4:8), “holy furniture“ in place of “worldly sanctuary“ (Heb. 9:1), "confession of our hope" in place of "profession of our faith" (Heb. 10:23), "those who have presided over you" in place of "them which have the rule over you" (Heb. 13:7), “fervent“ in place of “effectual fervent“ (James 5:16), "cleansing" in place of "sprinkling" (1 Pet. 1:2), "chief" in place of "beginning" (Rev. 3:14), "living creature" in place of "beast" (Rev. 6:3), and "those who wash their garments" in place of "they that do his commandments" (Rev. 22:14).

​

​

​

 

Are you suggesting that you would accept the above English Bibles as being Scripture or the Word of God in the same way or in the same sense that you claim for the KJV?

 

You have revealed your true colors. "Dr." Riplinger has been discredited, debunked and even disowned by most of the KJVO clan for her outright lies and dishonesty regarding this issue.

 

I would contrast her qualifications in regards to textual criticism to the Alands, Kurt and barbara, and would say that the 2 MV that were Satanic inspired per her, NASB/NIV actually show jesus as lord even more so than the KJV does!

 

Nice quotes. Thanks!

 

I do not find that the definitions in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary match the use of all words in the KJV "completely."

Where is the evidence that proves your broad-sweeping claim to be a supposed fact?

In his entry for devil in his 1828 Dictionary, Noah Webster pointed out that in the English New Testament (KJV) the word devil "is frequently and erroneously used for demon." In his introduction to his 1833 translation of the Bible, Webster wrote: "I cannot think a translator justified in such a departure from the original, as to render the word [daimon] by devil. The original word for devil is never plural" (p. xi).

In his introduction to his 1833 translation, Noah Webster noted that the word discover now usually means "to find, see, or perceive for the first time," but that in its usage in the KJV the intended meaning was "uncover, make bare, or expose to view." At Micah 1:6, Webster pointed out that "the all-seeing God had nothing to find or see for the first time" and that "the sense of the word is to uncover, to lay bare" (p. ix). At his entry discover in his 1828 Dictionary, Webster observed that "we discover what before existed, though to us unknown." Can the eternal, all-knowing God discover what before existed?

In his 1828 dictionary, Noah Webster gave the following as the first definition for the word church: "A house consecrated to the worship of God, among Christians; the Lord's house. This seems to be the original meaning of the word."

 

Makahiya, are you an "insincere" amateur intellectual who invents or engineers your own theories concerning the KJV from the writings of Gail Riplinger and Peter Ruckman?

What entitles you in effect to attack the honesty of believers who may disagree with your unproven, non-scriptural theories?

 

Proof that you believe in the unscriptural view of "double inspiration". Only the originals were inspired- period.

No one here says that except you- implying that the KJV itself is inspired by God. And even the various KJV's do not agree 100% with each other.

And the KJV matches NO EXISTING Greek text today- NONE!

So where does that leave you?

 

dishonest KJV translators according to your claims?

Again your unproven claims attack the honesty of the KJV translators and their view of the Scriptures.

Are you claiming that the KJV translators were dishonest and untrustworthy since they referred to "the original Greek," "the Greek text," etc.?

According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.“ The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.“ Lancelot Andrewes, a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.“

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted: "No cause therefore why the words translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibility, had not their hand?"

In effect, according to their own words, the KJV translators clearly denied that their translation was and could be perfect.

 

You make no clear, consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for your theory.

 

In other words, you are claiming that an imperfect translation such as the 1535 Coverdale's Bible is the word of God in the same sense and way that the KJV is.

In his introduction to a facsimile reprint of Coverdale's Bible, S. L. Greenslade noted that though in 1535, Coverdale "normally says repent, or sometimes amend, he ten times has '(do) penance'" (p. 15). The rendering "penance" can be found in Coverdale's Bible at Matthew 3:8, 12:41, Luke 10:13, 11:32, 15:7, 10, 16:30, Acts 3:19 and 26:20. In his prologue to his 1535 Bible, Coverdale wrote: "Be not thou offended therefore (good Reader) though one call a scribe, that another calleth a lawyer; or elders, that another calleth father & mother; or repentance, that another calleth penance or amendment." Can KJV-only advocates explain the Holy Spirit’s role in this rendering “penance” being in this earlier English Bible of which the KJV was a revision?


From the Latin Vulgate, Coverdale's Bible has the rendering "lamies" at Lamentations 4:3. From the influence of the Vulgate, Coverdale’s has “Alexandria” instead of “No” (Jer. 46:25). Instead of "mown grass" at Psalm 72:6, Coverdale's has "fleece of wool." At Psalm 28:8, Coverdale's has "strength of his people" in agreement with the LXX, Syriac, and Latin Vulgate while the KJV has only "strength." At Psalm 13:6, Coverdale's has a sentence that is not in the KJV: "Yea, I will praise the name of the LORD the most highest." Coverdale's Bible has "upon me" after "call" at Psalm 20:9 that is not in the KJV. Coverdale's Bible adds "before him" after "rejoice" at Psalm 2:11. Does Coverdale’s Bible have any “foreign matter?“ Instead of "balm" at Jeremiah 8:22, Coverdale's has "treacle." In agreement with LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate, Coverdale's reads "the God of Gods appeareth unto thee in Zion" in the second half of verse seven of Psalm 84. "A cock ready to fight" is Coverdale's rendering at the beginning of Proverbs 30:31. Coverdale's rendered Daniel 3:25 as follows: "the fourth is like an angel to look upon." At Matthew 1:23, Coverdale's Bible reads "maid" rather than "virgin."

 

"Or forbidden to be current" is something that should be noted. Miles Smith was right on.How far have the KJVO folks departed from the thoughts of the KJV revisers!