Is some Bible-correcting in effect accepted by believers?

[Logos1560]

What consistent, sound, just measures are used to determine what constitutes Bible correcting?

Is some Bible-correcting in effect accepted by any believers who read a Bible translation?

Some seem to view all Bible-correcting as negative and wrong, ignoring that some Bible-correcting could be positive and right in that it would be following scriptural instructions from God. When a hand-written copy of the Scriptures is made, correcting any omissions, any additions, and any copying errors introduced by man would be in agreement with scriptural truths. When a printed copy of the Scriptures is made, correcting any omissions, any additions, or any errors would be in agreement with scriptural truths.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing soever I command thee, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:6
Add thou not unto his words, let he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

The truth is that some things that would be considered Bible-correcting were involved in the process of the making of the twenty to thirty textually-varying Textus Receptus editions and in the process of the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles and of the 1611 KJV. Do KJV readers inconsistently accept the Bible-correcting of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, the Bible-correcting of the makers of the KJV, and the Bible-correcting by post-1611 editors/printers? The makers of the KJV did not follow any one printed NT edition solely and completely so that they in effect corrected their primary NT text edition with readings from other editions or sources.

Probably all Bible translators make some corrections to their own Bible-translating work. The makers of the KJV approved of the making of corrections to Bible translations.

According to what consistent, sound measures/standards applied justly would Bible-correcting be assumed right before 1900 and wrong after 1900?

According to what consistent, sound, just measures/standards, can it be assumed that all the actual Bible-correcting involved in the process of the making of the KJV is right and any Bible-correcting involved in the process of making another English translation is wrong?

Adding words, omitting words, and changing the actual words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles would be wrong according to the Scriptures. Correcting the additions of words, the omission of words, and the changing of words would be right according to the Scriptures. It has not been demonstrated that the correcting of errors introduced by men in a copy of the Scriptures or in a translation of the Scriptures would be wrong.

 

[Logos1560]

Some believers seem to use the term "bible-correcting," which they do not clearly define nor explain what they mean by it, as a very negative, derogatory accusation or smear. Do they demonstrate that they apply consistent measures/standards justly in their use of this term?

Would those who suggest or think that there are errors (bible-correcting) in all modern English Bible translations besides the KJV and that in effect accept the "bible-correcting" involved in the process for the making of the KJV be hypocritical to throw out this allegation against believers who disagree with a modern KJV-only view?

Perhaps some do not realize that they may in effect be guilty of the same thing of which they accuse others.

Has it been demonstrated from the Scriptures that the advocating of the correcting of additions, omissions, and errors introduced by men in a copy of the Scriptures or in a translation of the Scriptures would be wrong?

Would advocating that there was an error at Exodus 20:14 [Thou shalt commit adultery] in the 1631 London KJV edition of the holy Bible and accepting the bible-correcting of it be wrong?

 

[Logos1560]

Well EVERY post on this forum you have made since I have been here........ is about correcting and casting doubt on the Bible.

Would advocating the following of scriptural instructions or truths actually be casting doubt on the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

 

[Forever Settled]

Would advocating the following of scriptural instructions or truths actually be casting doubt on the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

It’s a shame you don’t have an authoritative Word of God.
All you do is bash and tear down with your synthesized robotic posts.

 

[Logos1560]

It’s a shame you don’t have an authoritative Word of God.

I may have the exact same authoritative word of God that you have.

I read and accept the KJV as what it actually is. I even defend the KJV as what it actually is. I answer those who try to claim that the KJV is something that they do not prove it to be.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV.

According to scriptural truths, actual errors introduced by men in KJV editions or in other Bible translation editions would not be authoritative. The preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the greater authority and are authoritative above the derived authority of Bible translations. I may have the same authoritative word of God that the KJV translators used in the making of their translation and that later KJV editors used in making corrections to the 1611 edition.

The name of the wrong king "Jehoiachin" at 2 Kings 24:19 left uncorrected in the 1611 edition of the KJV from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible was not authoritative. While this error was likely the fault of the printer in the 1602 edition, it became the responsibility of the KJV translators when they did not correct it in the 1611.

The name of the wrong person "Zithri" as the last word of Exodus 6:21 introduced in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV (likely by the printer from the last word of Exodus 6:22) was left uncorrected in many Oxford and Cambridge editions of the KJV for over 100 years. It was corrected back to "Zichri" in Scrivener's 1873 Cambridge edition although the error still remained in a 1880 Oxford KJV edition and in a 1887 Cambridge KJV edition.

 

[Logos1560]

All you do is bash and tear down with your synthesized robotic posts.

I leave it to you to do the attempted bashing and tearing down.

I try to focus more on verifiable facts and scriptural truth instead of unproven allegations.

 

[Yeshua1]

It’s a shame you don’t have an authoritative Word of God.
All you do is bash and tear down with your synthesized robotic posts.

His point is well made, as there has NEVER been ANY translation in history that was made without any errors or mistakes in it as compared to the Originals, so we should always strive to get as close as possible back to those originals! if we have better source to use than the 1611 team had to use, should we not be using them?

 

[Forever Settled]

His point is well made, as there has NEVER been ANY translation in history that was made without any errors or mistakes in it as compared to the Originals,

How do you know that ?

Have you seen the Originals......held them...read them......where are they ?

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you know that ?

Have you seen the Originals......held them...read them......where are they ?

Not here any longer....

 

[Forever Settled]

Not here any longer....

Thats my point .......the Bible correctors dont know ONE thing about the Originals.
But they want to refer to them constantly.

 

[Logos1560]

Thats my point .......the Bible correctors dont know ONE thing about the Originals.
But they want to refer to them constantly.

Perhaps you misrepresent Bible correctors such as the KJV translators. Are you condemning the KJV translators for referring to the original Greek?

Bible translators including the KJV translators do know much about the originals since many original-language copies of them have been preserved.

What Bible translators including the KJV translators actually refer to as the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of Bible translations would be the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that do exist on earth instead of the original autographs that have not been found on earth.

 

[Forever Settled]

What Bible translators including the KJV translators actually refer to as the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of Bible translations would be the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that do exist on earth instead of the original autographs

I find it funny that people ....believe God is ONLY able to preserve words in a couple of languages.

Yet God promised his words to FUTURE generations who he KNEW would NOT speak the same languages as the elusive Originals.

 

[HankD]

Actually there were two major editions of the 1611 KJV (Oxford and Cambridge) which are different.

The KJVO groups are divided as to which edition is valid.

Some say the Cambridge edition is a counterfeit:

At any rate I had bought the Bible I thought I wanted. It had been published by Cambridge. They have always been the giant in the industry. In fact they are the oldest Printer and Publisher in the world. They are supposed to be the gold standard for dependability according to many King James Bible believers. This Bible had a nice black French Morocco leather cover with golden coloured gilt edges. It was very nice on the outside but when I started checking out the inside I was shocked. This particular edition of the Cambridge Bible that calls itself a King James Bible is not genuine. IT'S A COUNTERFEIT! It's not the Bible of my forefathers!

'Believers Beware of Counterfeit King James Bibles'

Whereas others say the Cambridge is pure and superior to the Oxford:

Those who are knowledgeable about the King James Bible agree that the Cambridge Edition is superior to the Oxford, Nelson or any other edition.

Pure Cambridge Edition

Then there were hundreds of corrections made by the Church of England to the 1611 (which is actually rare) resulting in the 1769 edition.

My preference is the 1769 Oxford if you can find one.

 

[Logos1560]

I find it funny that people ....believe God is ONLY able to preserve words in a couple of languages.

Yet God promised his words to FUTURE generations who he KNEW would NOT speak the same languages as the elusive Originals.

Do you understand the meaning of the word preserve? What kind of preservation are you suggesting that God promised: exact word preservation or some vague, dynamic-equivalent meaning preservation in different words? Do you ignore or avoid scriptural statements that would indicate that preservation concerned the words written by the prophets and later the words written by the apostles and NT prophets?

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2). The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets.

The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets.

The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? It is sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them. Do the Scriptures teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration. For when a king [or whoever] copied them, he would have needed to make an accurate, exact, and complete copy of them to be able to “keep all the words” (Deut. 17:18-19).

 

[Forever Settled]

Do you understand the meaning of the word preserve? :

No I have no Idea.

But I do have faith in Gods promises to preserve his word to FUTURE generations.......shame you don’t.

 

[37818]

Textual variants are either accidental or intentional. The intentional are the problem.

 

[Logos1560]

No I have no Idea.

But I do have faith in Gods promises to preserve his word to FUTURE generations.......shame you don’t.

I actually believe God's promises consistently and soundly without reading non-scriptural KJV-only opinions of men into them.

You incorrectly try to put words in my mouth or in my mind that are not true since I do have faith in God's promises to preserve His word to future generations.

God was just as faithful to keep His promises concerning preservation before 1611 as after 1611 so that God's promises are not tied or limited to 1611. You make no case for trying to limit God's promises to the textual criticism decisions, Bible-revision/Bible-correction decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

You dodge saying what kind of preservation that you understand God to have promised. Do you claim that God promised word preservation or do you claim that God promised meaning or thought preservation?

You did not answer nor refute the scripturally-based observations concerning preservation that I acknowledged.

The KJV translators clearly pointed out that they did not translate (preserve) every original-language word in their underlying texts since they noted that they did not give an English rendering for some of them. They gave examples in their 1611 marginal notes where they omitted providing an English word for original-language words. The KJV translators also acknowledged that they added many words for which they had no original-language words of Scripture.

 

[Forever Settled]

You dodge saying what kind of preservation that you understand God to have promised.

His promises to FUTURE generations are easy to understand.
Unless one limits God to Hebrew and Greek.

I have faith in his promises to future generations... you don’t......you think our generation has a word of God that is untrustworthy and riddled with error.

 

[Logos1560]

His promises to FUTURE generations are easy to understand.
.

You do not show that you understand God's promises concerning preservation since you will not say what kind of preservation that you claim God promised.

Are you suggesting that God was unclear about what kind of preservation He promised?

Many KJV defenders argue for word preservation, but their own non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning fails to be consistent in considering what preservation of the actual exact words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles would mean.

 

[37818]

Textual variants need to be addressed individually.