Questions for those holding to KJVO Position

[JesusFan]

I'm going to assume the reason is because previous translations (like Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops') use it as well as the term being used by English Christians.

How about that they were and still are into infant baptism, and so chose to mistranslate the word in question due to their theological bias?

 

[Logos1560]

The edition of the KJV I use in the Pure Cambridge Edition, which was printed in the 1900's.

This revised KJV edition is the one supposedly protected or guarded by the elders [Craig Savige, Samantha Savige, Matthew Verschuur] of the Pentecostal Victory Faith Centre in Australia. Matthew Verschuur claimed: “As for variations in the Pure Cambridge Edition, these have also been settled and resolved by the Elders of Victory Faith Centre in their apostolic office of the guardianship of the Pure Cambridge Edition” (Revelation of the Pure Word). Concerning this edition, Matthew Verschuur asserted: “It was only identified between 2000 and 2004 by the Christian ministries at an Australian Church, and given that identifying name” (Vintage Bibles, p. 59). Craig Savige wrote: “It is no coincidence that this prophecy [by Pentecostal John G. Lake in 1914] came just after the final edition of the King James Bible—the Pure Cambridge Edition—had come” (King James Bible Only Position). Concerning this edition, Matthew Verschuur asserted: “Its appearance with the rise of Pentecostalism, especially Smith Wigglesworth (1907) is no accident” (Revelation of the Pure Word). Matthew Verschuur declared: “It was divine providence that revealed that God’s chosen standard was the Pure Cambridge Edition” (God’s Chosen Edition). In his conclusion, Matthew Verschuur claimed: “The Pure Cambridge Edition is correct to the very letter, and it is fully God’s will in English” (Pure Cambridge Edition). Matthew Verschuur asserted: “The Pure Cambridge Edition can always be shown to be correct” (God’s Chosen Edition). Some of these quotations are from unpaged books or articles posted at Matthew Verschuur’s web site.

Matthew Verschuur's human ex cathedra claims concerning this edition of the KJV have not been proven to be true and scriptural. In some places, another KJV edition has better or more accurate editing, spelling, or use of italics so that the claimed PCE has some inconsistencies and imperfections. What is claimed, assumed, or even proven to be true of twelve renderings used to identify a Pure Cambridge Edition cannot be assumed by use of the fallacy of composition or by use of the fallacy of begging the question to be true of all the renderings in that edition.

Just as “alway” and “always” were a spelling variation in the 1611 edition of the KJV, “beside” and “besides” were also likely a spelling variation in the 1611. The 1611 edition seems to use either form at random as interchangeable variant spellings. However, in the case of these two variant spellings, a difference in meaning developed. In present standard English, there is now a distinction in meaning between beside and besides. David Norton maintained that beside and besides “are two forms of what was one word in the KJB’s English” (Textual History, p. 138). David Norton asserted that “a distinction of spelling (something the translators were indifferent to) has become a distinction of meaning” (Ibid.). David Norton noted: "'Beside' has concrete, locative senses, 'by the side of' (Ibid.). Susan Thurman wrote: “Besides, beside: If you want the one that means in addition to, you want the one that has an additional s (besides); beside means by the side of” (Only Grammar Book, p. 10). At its entry for besides, the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defined it as “over and above; separate or distinct from,” and then it stated: “This word, though radically the same as beside, and a corruption of it, ought not to be confounded with it, for it is never used in the senses explained under beside, except in the second.” In its “Glossary of Usage,” the 1973 Warriner’s English Grammar noted: “Beside means ‘by the side of’ someone or something; it is always a proposition. Besides as a preposition means ‘in addition to’” (p. 191). Concerning Ruth 4:4 "there is none to redeem it beside thee, David Norton observed: "'beside' misleadingly suggests that there is no-one standing next to the kinsman who could redeem it, but the first edition's 'besides' gives the right sense, that there is no-other than the kinsman" (Textual History, p. 138).

Some KJV editions such as David Norton’s 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions and such as American Bible Society KJV editions more clearly and more consistently show this distinction in meaning between beside and besides than most of the post-1920’s Cambridge editions or the claimed Pure Cambridge Edition do. This could be considered an inconsistency or imperfection in the editing or printing of those Cambridge editions. The claimed Pure Cambridge Edition has not always been shown to be correct in all its editing decisions.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

how do you account for the hundreds of differences between the 1611 and 1769, and between them and the 1873 then?

I use the PCE. So like, I like to read the 1611, but I don't have to worry about the differences, because it was just typographical fixes.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

How about that they were and still are into infant baptism, and so chose to mistranslate the word in question due to their theological bias?

And when the Baptists tried to translate it as immerse, it never caught on. Baptism is just a transliteration; therefore, it's fine.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

This revised KJV edition is the one supposedly protected or guarded by the elders [Craig Savige, Samantha Savige, Matthew Verschuur] of the Pentecostal Victory Faith Centre in Australia. Matthew Verschuur claimed: “As for variations in the Pure Cambridge Edition, these have also been settled and resolved by the Elders of Victory Faith Centre in their apostolic office of the guardianship of the Pure Cambridge Edition” (Revelation of the Pure Word). Concerning this edition, Matthew Verschuur asserted: “It was only identified between 2000 and 2004 by the Christian ministries at an Australian Church, and given that identifying name” (Vintage Bibles, p. 59). Craig Savige wrote: “It is no coincidence that this prophecy [by Pentecostal John G. Lake in 1914] came just after the final edition of the King James Bible—the Pure Cambridge Edition—had come” (King James Bible Only Position). Concerning this edition, Matthew Verschuur asserted: “Its appearance with the rise of Pentecostalism, especially Smith Wigglesworth (1907) is no accident” (Revelation of the Pure Word). Matthew Verschuur declared: “It was divine providence that revealed that God’s chosen standard was the Pure Cambridge Edition” (God’s Chosen Edition). In his conclusion, Matthew Verschuur claimed: “The Pure Cambridge Edition is correct to the very letter, and it is fully God’s will in English” (Pure Cambridge Edition). Matthew Verschuur asserted: “The Pure Cambridge Edition can always be shown to be correct” (God’s Chosen Edition). Some of these quotations are from unpaged books or articles posted at Matthew Verschuur’s web site.

Matthew Verschuur's human ex cathedra claims concerning this edition of the KJV have not been proven to be true and scriptural. In some places, another KJV edition has better or more accurate editing, spelling, or use of italics so that the claimed PCE has some inconsistencies and imperfections. What is claimed, assumed, or even proven to be true of twelve renderings used to identify a Pure Cambridge Edition cannot be assumed by use of the fallacy of composition or by use of the fallacy of begging the question to be true of all the renderings in that edition.

Just as “alway” and “always” were a spelling variation in the 1611 edition of the KJV, “beside” and “besides” were also likely a spelling variation in the 1611. The 1611 edition seems to use either form at random as interchangeable variant spellings. However, in the case of these two variant spellings, a difference in meaning developed. In present standard English, there is now a distinction in meaning between beside and besides. David Norton maintained that beside and besides “are two forms of what was one word in the KJB’s English” (Textual History, p. 138). David Norton asserted that “a distinction of spelling (something the translators were indifferent to) has become a distinction of meaning” (Ibid.). David Norton noted: "'Beside' has concrete, locative senses, 'by the side of' (Ibid.). Susan Thurman wrote: “Besides, beside: If you want the one that means in addition to, you want the one that has an additional s (besides); beside means by the side of” (Only Grammar Book, p. 10). At its entry for besides, the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defined it as “over and above; separate or distinct from,” and then it stated: “This word, though radically the same as beside, and a corruption of it, ought not to be confounded with it, for it is never used in the senses explained under beside, except in the second.” In its “Glossary of Usage,” the 1973 Warriner’s English Grammar noted: “Beside means ‘by the side of’ someone or something; it is always a proposition. Besides as a preposition means ‘in addition to’” (p. 191). Concerning Ruth 4:4 "there is none to redeem it beside thee, David Norton observed: "'beside' misleadingly suggests that there is no-one standing next to the kinsman who could redeem it, but the first edition's 'besides' gives the right sense, that there is no-other than the kinsman" (Textual History, p. 138).

Some KJV editions such as David Norton’s 2005 and 2011 Cambridge editions and such as American Bible Society KJV editions more clearly and more consistently show this distinction in meaning between beside and besides than most of the post-1920’s Cambridge editions or the claimed Pure Cambridge Edition do. This could be considered an inconsistency or imperfection in the editing or printing of those Cambridge editions. The claimed Pure Cambridge Edition has not always been shown to be correct in all its editing decisions.

At some point, one has to just place their finger on one and say they trust it by faith. I am not dogmatic about things such as capitalization or those sorts of things (e.g., spirit vs Spirit in 1 John 5:8), but things such as "ye" vs "he" in Jeremiah 34:16 are important because the Hebrew text is second person plural, not a third person singular. Another example being in Nahum 3:16 "flieth" vs "fleeth". The Hebrew is flieth, and thus I find that the PCE is more faithful than other editions. Or like in Joshua 19:2, where certain editions create a contradiction by changing "or Sheba" to "and Sheba."

 

[37818]

That's an assumption that flies in the face of the clear preservation language that Scripture uses to tell us who and where the OT would be kept. Please address Matthew 5:18, Romans 3:1-2, and the fact that Paul considered himself a Pharisee even as a Christian. Because all the biblical evidence points to the Jews (the Pharisees) being God's tool in preserving the law.

You didn't deal with Psalm 40:6 LXX being older than the Hebrew copies that differ.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Was my English teacher lying to us when we were taught perfect tense in high school?

got an example?

Google it. I found plenty of examples. None of them count? What standard of English are you using?
I can say, “There have been no bugs in my yard.”

thats not really perfect tense is it?

You might not recognize the reality of the sentence, but your denial of the sentence doesn’t scratch it’s existence.

again, example.

I have been saved.

in the english by itself. I could say I was saved.. but it has no bearing on my future. or really the present if we really get down to it. Thats why people see the words have been saved, and still believe this salvation can be lost. because they were saved (past tense) but they were not perfectly saved (perfect tense.)

Here’s a link for you. It is not related to what I learned in school as far as I know because the internet has not been around that long. Given that my high school education and common knowledge corroborate the idea that English does have a perfect tense, I would give you an opportunity to explain why I have been misguided in my education.

English has a basic perfect tense. But in reality it is really a past tense. I went to the store could be seen as perfect. because it was a past action, and it was completed.

its not the same however. as the greek.. Again, I have given my example multiple times now.

 

[Logos1560]

At some point, one has to just place their finger on one and say they trust it by faith.

Blind faith in Matthew Verschuur's human ex cathedra claims or someone else's claims concerning this edition of the KJV is not biblical faith in what God actually stated in Scripture.

Teaching cannot be truly taught as an actual Bible doctrine of God when it is based on blind faith in human tradition and opinions that are not taught in Scripture. Blind faith in blind leaders would not be sound faith in God and in what God stated in the Scriptures. The Lord Jesus Christ asked: “Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?” (Luke 6:39). Jesus stated: “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fail into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14). Believers should not be blind or mindless followers of blind leaders.

 

[JesusFan]

I use the PCE. So like, I like to read the 1611, but I don't have to worry about the differences, because it was just typographical fixes.

was not though the 1873 Cambridge text Kjv claimed to be the final perfected edition though?

 

[JesusFan]

And when the Baptists tried to translate it as immerse, it never caught on. Baptism is just a transliteration; therefore, it's fine.

Its fine even though as doctrine held by Their churches but not by Baptists?

 

[Conan]

The KJV translators were off in their historical accounts. I do not believe that the LXX originally contained the entire OT, but rather that it was a gradual process. And then later people took the NT and inserted it into the OT, which is where we get the LXX we know today. I'm not aware of any LXX manuscripts in the DSS that are not either Torah or Apocrypha (that's presuming that it originally had the Apocrypha as well).

So what do you do when the New Covenant quotes the Old Covenant and the New Covenant matches the Septuagint, or comes closer than the Hebrew Old Covenant reading? Sometimes the Old Covenant reading in the KJV is the one that is mistaken.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

You didn't deal with Psalm 40:6 LXX being older than the Hebrew copies that differ.

That's assuming the Psalms from "the" LXX are old. They simply aren't older than the NT. The truth of the matter is that based upon God's own promises, and the fact that it seems evident the LXX was changed after the composition of the NT, I think it is safe to conclude that both readings are original—only one is for the OT, and another for the NT.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

Blind faith in Matthew Verschuur's human ex cathedra claims or someone else's claims concerning this edition of the KJV is not biblical faith in what God actually stated in Scripture.

Teaching cannot be truly taught as an actual Bible doctrine of God when it is based on blind faith in human tradition and opinions that are not taught in Scripture. Blind faith in blind leaders would not be sound faith in God and in what God stated in the Scriptures. The Lord Jesus Christ asked: “Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch?” (Luke 6:39). Jesus stated: “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fail into the ditch” (Matthew 15:14). Believers should not be blind or mindless followers of blind leaders.

Well, I disagree with the idea that he is somehow blind. Maybe very confused doctrinally, but not blind. He claims to believe on Christ, and because of that, I have no reason to doubt his salvation.

However, I came to the PCE position merely because of those examples I've shown. I looked at what they listed as differences (I've read very few actual things written by PCE defenders), and compared it with the Hebrew and context, and it seems the PCE is superior than others. That's why I use the PCE. Not because some man said something.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

was not though the 1873 Cambridge text Kjv claimed to be the final perfected edition though?

Not that I'm aware of, unless Scrivener did say that. If he did, then he may have believed truthfully what he was saying.

Its fine even though as doctrine held by Their churches but not by Baptists?

I cannot understand this, but I will attempt to. If you're asking why it's fine "with their doctrine, but not Baptist doctrine," I never said that. I think immerse is a valid translation choice. I was simply saying that it never caught on in English, and that Baptism is just a transliteration (not a translation) of the Greek. So I see no issue with either in all sincerity.

 

[37818]

That's assuming the Psalms from "the" LXX are old. They simply aren't older than the NT. The truth of the matter is that based upon God's own promises, and the fact that it seems evident the LXX was changed after the composition of the NT, I think it is safe to conclude that both readings are original—only one is for the OT, and another for the NT.

The New Testament OT original quotations would be inerrant.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

So what do you do when the New Covenant quotes the Old Covenant and the New Covenant matches the Septuagint, or comes closer than the Hebrew Old Covenant reading? Sometimes the Old Covenant reading in the KJV is the one that is mistaken.

Well, I hold to inspiration by dictation, as taught by Dr. Phil Stringer in his book The Unbroken Bible. I believe that when God inspired the Scriptures, He physically took over the "writers" and made them write/speak whatever He wanted them to. Thus, even if the LXX existed in its current form at that time (which it didn't), then so what? They weren't looking at it because they weren't the ones writing, they were a mere pen in the hands of the Almighty God.

However, when one considers the promises of God (which everyone seems to completely avoid addressing), it becomes clear God never promised the perservation of a Greek OT—quite the opposite. He promised a perfect preservation of a Hebrew/Aramaic OT, Matthew 5:18, Romans 3:1-2.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

The New Testament OT original quotations would be inerrant.

No offense, but do you have anything to say but to repeat yourself? You're not making any argument or even attempting to interact with what I have put forward. I shall heed the Scriptures.

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." (Proverbs 26:4)

 

[Salty]

This thread will be closed no sooner than 0700 GMT / 3 AM EDT (Tue)

 

[37818]

No offense, but do you have anything to say but to repeat yourself? You're not making any argument or even attempting to interact with what I have put forward. I shall heed the Scriptures.

Well, how do you recognize the Holy Scriptures?

 

[MrW]

Are the Hebrew and Greek texts in authority over that translation, as in any differences between them, the Greek Hebrew texts correct the Kjv?

What bible passage supports idea of a perfect translation?

Were the 1611 Translators inspired by the Holy Spirit in their translation process?

Why not have and use the Apocrypha, as the first Kjv had them along side the scriptures?

The King James came from the Masoretic Text, as I recall, so of course the KJB should align with those.

God promised to preserve His Word.

I believe the 1611 Translators were led of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures were already inspired.

No Christian churches ever accepted the Apocrypha, and there are conflicts there with Scripture.