1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJV-only myths about the 1769

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Logos1560, Jul 9, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 1 of 9
  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,604
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Holders of a KJV-only view make various incorrect and false claims about the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

    Are these claims about the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV true or false:

    The 1762/1769 editions only updated the spelling.

    The 1769 text was "free from any man-made error."
    or The 1769 edition is perfect.

    No edition of the KJV after 1769 is a true edition.

    Present KJV editions are every word 100% exactly the same as the 1769 edition in text.
     
    #1 Logos1560, Jul 9, 2005
  2. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about the LIES peddled by the holders of Alexandrianism?

    You know:
    "No doctrines affected"(Look @ what the Alexandrian forgeries did to 1 Timothy 3:16 for instance!)

    Etc,etc......


    Are you saying that WE should accept the OBVIOUS skulduggery concocted by Gnostics and philosophers from Alexandria,Egypt?

    Are you saying that we should count the two as EQUAL!?

    I never said that!
    I maintain that nothing should be trusted after the theory(which means GUESSWORK;look it up)of necromancers W&H..


    Alexandrianism=GUESSWORK!
     
    #2 Anti-Alexandrian, Jul 9, 2005
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,604
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I maintain that nothing should be trusted after the theory(which means GUESSWORK;look it up)of W&H..

    </font>[/QUOTE]Does that mean that you would trust any edition of the KJV printed in 1841 or 1843 but
    you would not trust an edition of the KJV that had any editing changes after the 1900's? Are you sure that none of the editions of the KJV on your desk have any changes made after 1900?
     
    #3 Logos1560, Jul 9, 2005
  4. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A_A, you have yet to prove the first thing about your "Antioch" superstition.
     
    #4 robycop3, Jul 10, 2005
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,604
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Any good examination of the actual evidence shows that KJV-only advocates make false claims or false statements about the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. If the KJV-only view is supposedly based on truth, why are these false statements not removed from it or not corrected?
     
    #5 Logos1560, Jul 15, 2005
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Anti-Alexandrian: //Look @ what the Alexandrian forgeries
    did to 1 Timothy 3:16 for instance!//

    PLease show the Greek variations in 1 Timothy 3:16. Thank you.

    Here is the true Written Word of God, in English:

    2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)

    {v}All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching,
    rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
    so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.[/b]

    The NIV is God's true written Word for
    the 20st century (1901-2000)
    not God's true written Word for the 18th
    century (1701-1800) as with the KJV1769
    or God's true written Word for the 17th century
    (1601-1700) as with the KJV1611.
     
    #6 Ed Edwards, Jul 15, 2005
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love the myth at the KJV1769 is about
    400 years old. My arithemetic says
    2005-1769 is 236 years old. The KJV1769
    is only 236 years old, how can it have
    been the Christian Standard Bible for
    400 years?
     
    #7 Ed Edwards, Jul 15, 2005
  8. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,604
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The 1762/1769 editions made other changes to the text besides just updating the spelling.

    The 1769 text was not free from all man-made error since the 1769 edition was said to have at least 116 errors (made either by the printers or editor).

    Since no KJV edition that is printed today is 100% every word exactly the same in text as the 1769 edition, it should be clear that KJV editions
    after 1769 must be acceptable. F. H. A. Scrivener pointed out that some errata in Blayney's 1769 edition "held their ground until they were corrected before 1845 under the direction of Bishop Thomas Turton" (AUTHORIZED EDITION, p. 33, footnote 2).

    Present KJV editions are not every word 100% exactly the same as the 1769 edition in text.
     
    #8 Logos1560, Jul 24, 2005
  9. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    MV onlyists always said, "No doctrines affected" because they are wrong. The Bible teaches that doctrines are our God the Father's - John 7:16.
     
    #9 Askjo, Jul 24, 2005
  10. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    The passage concerning Antioch talks about the ***Christians*** in THAT city. (Acts 11:26)
     
    #10 Askjo, Jul 24, 2005
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The passage concerning Antioch talks about the ***Christians*** in THAT city. (Acts 11:26) </font>[/QUOTE]I notice that since the Bible never
    mentions Christians in the American Midwest,
    not even in the prophetic books. Therefore i must
    conclude by the same logic you are using,
    Brother Askjo, that you are NOT and cannot
    ever be a 'Christian'. Please note my logic
    by absurdity: i make an assumption (that Bible
    listing as a Christian is the only way you
    can be a Christian in that area) and progress
    logical to an absurd conclusion. The
    absurd shows the assumption to be false.
    The Bible listing the existence of Christians
    on a particular place is NOT the only way that
    a person can be a Christian in that place.

    Logic falls off the back of the fool
    like water off a duck :(
     
    #11 Ed Edwards, Jul 24, 2005
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,604
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some KJV-only books or books recommended by KJV-only advocates have made similar statements.

    Philip Mauro wrote: "The sume of all the variant readings taken together does not give ground for the slightest doubt as to any of the fundamental points of faith and doctrine. In other words, the very worst Text that could be constructed from the aboundant materials available would not disturb any of the great truths of the Christian faith" (David Otis Fuller, TRUE OR FALSE, p. 62).

    Dean Burgon wrote: "Let it be also candidly admitted that even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth" (REVISION REVISED, p. 232).

    Kirk DiVietro, a KJV-only author whose book was published by D. A. Waite's Bible for Today, wrote: "The effect of the variants is not to contradict any doctrine of the Bible" (ANYTHING BUT THE KJB: AN ANSWER TO KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY BY JAMES R. WHITE, p. 12).
     
    #12 Logos1560, Jul 24, 2005
  13. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some KJV-only books or books recommended by KJV-only advocates have made similar statements.

    Philip Mauro wrote: "The sume of all the variant readings taken together does not give ground for the slightest doubt as to any of the fundamental points of faith and doctrine. In other words, the very worst Text that could be constructed from the aboundant materials available would not disturb any of the great truths of the Christian faith" (David Otis Fuller, TRUE OR FALSE, p. 62).

    Dean Burgon wrote: "Let it be also candidly admitted that even where (in our judgment) the Revisionists have erred, they have never had the misfortune seriously to obscure a single feature of Divine Truth" (REVISION REVISED, p. 232).

    Kirk DiVietro, a KJV-only author whose book was published by D. A. Waite's Bible for Today, wrote: "The effect of the variants is not to contradict any doctrine of the Bible" (ANYTHING BUT THE KJB: AN ANSWER TO KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY BY JAMES R. WHITE, p. 12).     </font>[/QUOTE]D. A. Waite wrote, "Theology is affected in the Bible versions in two possible ways: 1. Either the paraphrase found in the versions causes doctrinal changes, or 2. The basic text of Greek is in error." (Defending the King James Bible, page 133)

    Dr. Jack Moorman wrote, "The repeated argument that 'not one doctrine' is affected by current controversy between the Authorized Version and Modern Versions, is of course, completely wide of the mark." (Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version - A CLOSER LOOK!, page 1)
     
    #13 Askjo, Jul 25, 2005
  14. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dr. Waite either can't count very well, or he DELIBERATELY overlooked many of the differences between the AV 1611 & today's KJV editions. Logos 1560, right here on this forum, has proven Waite's count to be well short of actuality.

    Dr. Moorman has written one of the most ridiculous excuses for the KJV's "Easter" in Acts 12:4 that I've ever seen. His points have been soundly trounced on this very forum.
    http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/moorman-easter.html

    Moreover, this article appears on one of the most scum-filled sites that claims to be "Christian" I've ever seen .

    Can you really trust anything they say?
     
    #14 robycop3, Jul 25, 2005
  15. Johnv

    Johnv New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since the Alexandrian texts predate the source texts of the KJV, then the only conclusion that a KJVOist can make is that the KJV sourse texts have changed doctrine, not the other way around. If the KJV assertion is "the later, the better", then they must categorically abandon the KJV1769 in favor of the 1901 edition.
     
    #15 Johnv, Jul 25, 2005
  16. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,396
    Likes Received:
    672
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Askjo: MV onlyists always said, "No doctrines affected" because they are wrong. The Bible teaches that doctrines are our God the Father's - John 7:16.

    Then, by your words, you've just proven KJVO false.
     
    #16 robycop3, Jul 29, 2005
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,604
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The present Oxford KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible is not every word the same in text as the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

    The 1769 Oxford KJV had "the LORD" at several
    verses where the present Oxford edition has "the Lord." A couple examples are Psalm 2:4 and Nehemiah 1:11.

    Here are some other renderings said to be in the 1769 Oxford that are not in today's Oxford:

    Judges 11:7
    children of Gilead (1769)
    elders of Gilead (present Oxford)

    Judges 19:29
    coast (1769)
    coasts (present Oxford)

    1 Samuel 2:13
    priest's custom (1769)
    priests' custom (present Oxford)

    Job 41:6
    thy companions (1769)
    the companions (present Oxford)

    Psalm 18:47
    unto me (1769)
    under me (present Oxford)

    Ps. 60:4
    feared (1769)
    fear (present Oxford)

    Ps. 78:66
    part (1769)
    parts (present Oxford)

    Ps. 107:16
    gates of iron (1769)
    bars of iron (present Oxford)

    Rom. 11:23
    not in unbelief (1769)
    not still in unbelief (present Oxford)

    2 Cor. 12:2
    about (1769)
    above (present Oxford)

    1 John 1:4
    our joy (1769)
    your joy (present Oxford)
     
    #17 Logos1560, Sep 5, 2005
  18. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    6,604
    Likes Received:
    464
    Faith:
    Baptist
    KJV-only posters continue to ignore the facts that show that their view makes false claims about the 1769 KJV edition and other KJV editions.

    I recently obtained a copy of a KJV edition printed in Cambridge in 1817, and it again confirms the evidence that refutes KJV-only myths about the text of the 1769 and the text of the present-day Oxford KJV.
     
    #18 Logos1560, Sep 21, 2005
  19. Phillip

    Phillip <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    This is interesting....when were these revisions made?
     
    #19 Phillip, Sep 21, 2005
  20. HanSola2000

    HanSola2000 Guest

    These gnat straining threads remind me of Ruckman's response "Which edition? Any edition stupid".
     
    #20 HanSola2000, Sep 21, 2005
Page 1 of 9
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...