KJV vs KJV

From 1611 until this day, there have been many many editions of the KJV printed, and the fact is that they are not all every word the same. In our day, there are at least seven or more varying KJV editions in print. I have a reprint of the 1611 edition, a copy of three KJV editions printed in the late 1700's, a copy of a reprint of the first American 1782 KJV edition, a copy of many KJV editions printed in the 1800's, and a copy of several present-day KJV editions.

What is the accepted standard and authority for evaluating KJV editions to determine which is the correct or perfect edition, to determine whether an edition has intentional alterations introduced by an editor or unintentional alterations introduced by printers, etc.? What is the standard and authority for saying that a later change was the justified correction of an earlier printing error or was instead the introduction of a new error whether made by a printer or editor?

Should all KJV editions from 1611 until today without any exclusions be accepted as the final authority? Does the final authority change from year to year depending on which edition of the KJV is used?

I can give some example differences or should the standard or authority for evaluating the varying KJV editions be agreed upon first?

an "edition" is not the same as a retranslation.

Since this has been stated over and over again in the BV forums, I really don't see the need for yet another thread on KJVOism.

I agree bapmom--just another "platform" to attack KJVO

The KJVO lie needs to be attacked and stomped out of the Christian faith.

KJVOism ignores facts.

Just pick up a 1611 KJV and apply KJVOism to it. You will discover that the 1611 KJV destroys the KJVO lie.

The problem is KJVOist pardon the KJV for the same thing they attack other bibles for doing.

The 1611 vs. current KJV's proves how KJVOism rest upon shifting sands of double standards and all out lies.

Every one of these facts will be met by the KJVO with complaints. They will not address it.

I have learned not to care. They can swim in their false doctrine all they like. However, for those younger people they try to indoctrinate who come here for research, I will expose them and their false doctrines for what they are.

This thread is another case of double standard by the KJVO, and they will not address it.

They want to attack the uneducated. Legalism loves easy targets.

Notice how the KJVO loves anti-intellectualism, shows hostility towards other denominations, and constant refusal to answer any questions.

That way, they keep the uneducated just that way, and make easy slaves.

We may be KJVO, but God is on our side!

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
We may be KJVO, but God is on our side!

Click to expand...

We may be KJVO, but God is on our side!

Click to expand...

Can we have one, just one, verse from God's inerrant Word that states that God is KJVO? Our final authority is not the subjective rantings of those who put forth their man-made doctrines, but our final authority is the Word of God. So, please as you make this statement show me in the KJV if you please where God state's He has only one legitamate translation of His infallible Word. If you can't you have said God has spoken when he did not speak. Jeremiah called those who do that--false prophets.

Bro Tony

Tony, show me in the MV's where God states He has more than one legitimate translation of His infallible Word. If you can't you have said God has spoken when he did not speak. Jeremiah called those who do that--false prophets.

Round and round SFIC. I am not the one stating an absolute here you are. You have claimed that God agrees with KJVOism. Where and when did He do that? You have made the claim, now back it up with the Word or quit spreading extra-biblical false doctrine, unless you want to be branded a false prophet.

Bro Tony

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mark 5:41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

Mark 15:22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

John 1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

John 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

Act 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
We may be KJVO, but God is on our side!

Click to expand...

and what about those who lived and died before the KJV 1611 came into being ?
who is on their side...the devil ?
Or what about those who lived and died before the KJVO doctrine was formulated, who is on their side .... Satan ?
Reminds me of the false doctrine that the use of tobacco is sin.
Before the Surgeon General came up with the warning that tobacco use may cause cancer, there were church members who puffed it up and out at the church yard....yeah, even some deacons...
looks like they're fryin' in hell now, eh ?

Guys, PLEASE.....stop confusing SFiC with facts and plain reason!!!

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
We may be KJVO, but God is on our side!

Click to expand...

SCRIPTURE, please?

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Tony, show me in the MV's where God states He has more than one legitimate translation of His infallible Word. If you can't you have said God has spoken when he did not speak. Jeremiah called those who do that--false prophets.

Click to expand...

Just compare, in the KJV, Isaiah 42:7 & 61:1-3 with what JESUS READ ALOUD in Luke 4:16-21. The differences are too great to be explained away by language differences, especially in the light that Aramaic was a commonly-used language in that place/time, and we know JESUS used Aramaic. This language is a lot like Hebrew; in fact, Hebrew may have sprung from Aramaic 'way back in the day.

Do ya believe JESUS was reading aloud from a bogus version?

Dr. Cassidy has offered a reasonable explanation for why many translations of NT quotes of OT passages don't match the actual translation of the Ben Chayyim text, used for the KJV's OT.

This aside, it again comes down to who has the BURDEN OF PROOF. Since the KJVOers have introduced a doctrine about Scripture, the ball's in THEIR court to sustain their doctrine with EVIDENCE.

Again, we KNOW there's no Scripture from the KJV supporting the KJVO doctrine. How, then, do you justify believing it?

During the day I wrote several replies to
temporary topics. The quotes were around
the board somewhere today:

------------------------------------
punctuation changes

Laying my KJV1611 Edition next to my KJV1769
edition I find lots of punctuation changes.
Were the punctuation inspired in the KJV1611?
If so, then why were the changed in 1769?

Do the perfect KJV1611 Edition changes
make the KJV1769 edition 'perfecter'?

The original Greek doesn't have punctuation.
Does that make the KJV1611 Edition puncutation
an inspired add-in by the KJV 1611 Translators.
Or did they just borrow the punctuation from
the eight earlier English Translations.


What is the difference?

Bapmom: //an "edition" is not the same as a retranslation.//

So, what is the difference.

IMHO the KJV1611 Edition is a retranslation.
IMHO the KJV1769 Edition is an edition.

I use the term 'KJV1611 Edition' to distinguish
from other Editions, even though it is, strictly
speaking, a retranslation.


Free to be a Fundamentalist

What it means to NOT be KJVO:
IT means I'm free to believe the fundamentals of Christianity:

%%%

not the neo-fundamentals of legalism:

1. KJVO - anti-bible
2. anti-education
3. anti-alien (non-neo-fundamentalist, non-male)
4. anti-success
5. anti-Christ

Here are some statements made by neo-fundamentalists
(i.e. NON-Fundies):

1. Jesus is the Bible: the King Jesus Bible (KJB).
2. I'm yust an ol' cuntry boy saved by Grase.
--- Momma's don't let your boys grow up to be Cemetary students.
3. Stand on yo' woman!
4. He's done got over 100 people goin' to his church,
he done musa' made a deal wid the devil!
5. Seperate ye now from all sinners!

Free to post in a dynamic, fuss-free Forum

From another thread: //But I still stand on the fact that it seems that
those who advocate the MV's, rather than try to debate
in a civilized manner, seem to get into a hateful
mud slinging match against the person's character.
It may be best that forums such as this not even exist
for things like this will always break out.//

I notice you don't even respond to my posts
because you don't have any arguments against what
I say. Sorry, but you will NOT be allowed to kill this
Forum. I've done way to much work here documenting they way
people believe here.

Here is what I believe:
ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN, not just one book in the KJVs series
of Bibles, ALL SCRIPTURE.

I believe this fourm could be used to study various translations
verse by verse so that we all might grow beyond ONE VERSION
of ONE SERIES of Bibles in our knowledge of the Lord and
and improve our serve of him.

BTW, I am continually offended by those marauders who
pile all MVs into one homonegous pile and damn them all.
My last two MVs was translated mostly from the TR = Textus
Receptus, Received TextS - yes, there is more than
one source text received by the KJV1611 Edition Translators.
They documented their TEXTUAL CRITICISM decisions in the
translator footnotes of the KJV1611 Edition.


Schisims of the 19th century used the KJV1769 Edition

Sister on another thread:
//The Jehovah's Witnesses have their New World Bible,
and my daughter and I stood at the door the other day
and fought the same battle we are fighting here.//

I note from it's foundation in the 1870s until the 1970s
(100 Years) when the NEw World Bible was first
published, that the Jehovah's Witnesses exclusively used
the King James Version (KJV), 1769 Edition.
All the errors of the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses
is supported from the KJV1769 Edition. That KJV1769 Edition
is the same edition of the KJVs that is named most frequently
as being THE KJB.

All the big schisims of the 19th Century (1801-1900)
used the one book: KJV1769:

Reorganized Church Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS);
Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, Mormons;
Church of Christ, Scientist;
Adventists;
Jehovah's Witnesses;
United Pentecolstal Church.

The variation in theology was in understanding
of the words of the KJV1769 Edition,
NOT in different versions.


dispelling the MV myth

Anti-MV rant given elsewhere:
//My proof that KJVO is not a myth.

lessee. Church and worship was more solid before all other versions.

Rock and Roll was not allowed in the churches that preached unswervingly the KJV.

Sensual Dance was not permitted in churches before MV's

Clothing was more modest before the breakdown
of the faith by bringing in MV's.//

1. The person who wrote this has no apparent idea
of how to 'prove' something.

2. I note that until about 1964-65 mankind did NOT
have the capability of destroying all life on earth.
Today in 2006 mankind has at least 4 ways to
destroy all life on earth

3. The whole Pentacostal movement was built
around (and is probably still centered in)
the KJV1769 Edition. Personally I can't tell a bit
of difference between CCM = contempary Christian Music
and R&R.

4. What does 'solid' mean in this context?
"Church and worship was more solid before all other versions"


KJV translators practiced Textual Criticism

Elsewhere it is said said that:

Dr. Thomas Strouse wrote:
// ... The picking and choosing of Bible texts
is not Textual Criticism. Textual Criticism is a sophisticated
system based on elaborate and evolutionary
schemes following human logic to determine the possible
origin of variants. [xliv] The so-called science
of Textual Criticism is only needed when one believes
that God has not accomplished His promise to preserve
the inspired original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Word
of the autographa. ... //

Tee Hee. Strouse has to use words like that.
For anybody who reads the KJV1611 Edtion reprints that
now sell for about $25 each, who reads it with understanding
knows that the translators who made the KJV1611 Edition
used TEXTUAL CRITICISM. The translator footnotes show
that these translators picked and chose from multiple sources
the source they felt the most likely to be the RIGHT source.

Matthew 24:3 (The Latin Vulgate)
sedente autem eo super montem Oliveti accesserunt ad eum discipuli
secreto dicentes dic nobis quando haec erunt et quod signum adventus
tui et consummationis saeculi


Matthew 24:3 (HCSB= Holman Christian Standard Bible)

While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached
Him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen?
And what is the sign of Your coming
and of the end of the age?

Mat 24:3 (Geneva Edition):
And as he sate vpon the mount of Oliues,
his disciples came vnto him apart,
saying, Tell vs when these things shall be,
and what signe shalbe of thy comming,
and of the ende of the world.

Mat 24:3 (KJV1611 Edtion):
And as he sate vpon the mount of Oliues,
the Disciples came vnto him priuately,
saying, Tell vs, when shall these things be?
And what shall be the signe of thy coming,
and of the end of the world?

Back of the $1 bill NOVUS ORDO SECLORIUM

Consider the slogan: NOVUS ORDO SECLORIUM: usually translated 'new order for the ages"

NOVUS - Latin word from which we get 'new'

ORDO - Latin word from which we get 'order'

SECLORIUM - latin word from which we get 'secular' (not religions, but
of the world) also means "age".

So Novus Ordo Seclorium can indeed mean 'new order for the ages"

But Novus Ordo Seclorium and also mean: 'new order for the world' or 'new world order'.

Here is the results of an old poll held on this BB.

Here are the BB results of a nearby poll:
Critical Texts?
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/2759.html


Poll Results: Critical Texts? (31 votes.)
Critical Texts?
Choose 1
Just Critical Texts! 6% (2)

Use Many Texts! 52% (16)

Use just the TR! 23% (7)

Use the Byzantine Text! 19% (6)

Just as the Translators of the KJV used all available
Bible sources AND DOCUMENTED THE VARIATIONS, so it is
the feeling of a majority of people at the BB
that modern translations should do the same thing.

Originally posted by David J:
KJVOism ignores facts.

Click to expand...

KJVOism = Faith in an ascriptural doctrine.

Because people take it by faith, facts that prove it wrong (no matter how obvious) are not even considered or are immediately dismissed. Because it is ascriptural, there's no scripture to prove it or disprove it (Biblically). Impervious to fact, independent of scripture. In other words, the perfect false belief.