64 errors in the Cambridge edition of the King James translation of the Bible

jw: However, the KJV is not perfect, nor could any translation be, given the nature of translation, not to mention the nature of man.

And of course that is not what Bentley was claiming.

However, the KJVO contingent continually harps on the issue that the MSS in Timothy's hands were "not the originals" (and for them, that is ok, since it eliminates the usual conservative appeals to the no longer extant "autographs").

But then, by a total leap of illogic, they then argue that the same type of non-autograph copies *in Greek* "cannot be trusted" from any point after the time of Timothy -- not until their being fixed in a 16th century TR printed form and then "corrected" by finally being "Englished" in the KJV of the 17th century.

In contrast, Bentley's point carries the whole matter consistently, and what he says regarding the Greek can then be applied with reference to any English translation that faithfully reproduces such underlying Greek.

 

Zigavich:

I disagree. In most cases that would be true (I'm assuming we are talking about his position that no doctrine would be won or lost looking at any Greek mss as a whole), but not all. There are translations, like the NWT that were translated with a theological axe to grind and grossly misinterpret scripture to promote false doctrines.

 

jw: There are translations, like the NWT that were translated with a theological axe to grind and grossly misinterpret scripture to promote false doctrines.

Which is precisely why Bentley said it was good to have more anchors than one, "that by a joint and mutual help all the faults may be mended." What he said in relation to Greek MSS -- even as he noted, "the worst by design" -- still applies when taken in conjunction with the remaining part of his comment (which cannot be neglected!) regarding comparison of various MSS (and by extension translations) to come more precisely to the truth.

The regular consultation of good translations in comparison to the bad will still drive out the bad and leave only the good as the dominant consensus.

But as for using the NWT -- I would use nothing else when witnessing to a so-called Jehovah's Witness. It's the only translation they are trained to respect 100%.

 

Zigarooney,

I'd probably go along with that. Still, there is nothing like, nor could there ever be, the Greek/Hebrew mss's themselves. Regardless of how good the translation may be, you will still lose (or possibly change) meaning and nuance when translating anything from one language to another, even with the multitude of translations.

 

I find it utterly amuzing how those who feel they are some kind of authority in these matters and have done an intense study to report such "facts" can be so COMPLETELY WRONG!!!

The Cambridge Bible was printed in 1762 for those who want to know the truth.

 

You are correct Salamander! I was wondering if anyone would step in and state the obvious.

1762 - Cambridge
1769 - Oxford

 

But Doctrinally, the King James Bible is still correct, while modern versions allude the reader into thinking they are completely the Word of God.

Many are the works of men to tear down the KJB, but only to their own demise, yet to the applause of mere men.

Many versions, only one perfection.

 

And which one would that be?
1611?
Cambridge 1762?
Oxford 1769?

Some other one?

 

roby: I remember reading in one of Burgon's books that he said essentially the same thing. Anyone remember where in what book?

Burgon quotes with approval portions of these remarks of Bentley in his _Traditional Text_ (p. 26), and also in his _Treatise on the Pastoral Office_ (p. 69n).

Elsewhere Burgon in his own words summarizes Bentley's view as pointing to the Traditional Text as found in the "aggregate consentient testimony" (= consensus text) found among *all* witnesses of *all* types from *all* regions in *all* eras (specifically making appeal on more than one occasion to Vincent of Lerin's "rule of faith" in this regard: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus receptum est).

That this "consensus text" happens to accord with the Byzantine text as opposed to that found in other competing texttypes is part and parcel of Burgon's theory.

 

jw: Still, there is nothing like, nor could there ever be, the Greek/Hebrew mss's themselves.

And I would say nothing different. The Second London Confession (Baptist) 1677 and Philadelphia Confession (Baptist) specifically stated along with the Westminster Confession 1646 (Presbyterian) that "The Old Testament in Hebrew ... and the New Testament in Greek ... are therefore authentic; so as in *all* controversies of religion the church is *finally* to appeal to them."

-- and yet some people want to place "final authority" [Grady] in a *translation* when our own Baptist forefathers totally rejected that notion....

 

Which is in line with my orginal post in this thread. The Fundamentals did not support any Bible translation as a perfect, but appealed to the orginal languages, and supported only the orginal autographs as inerrant.
Our Baptist forefathers would have rejected KJVO'ism, as would our fundamentalist forefathers.

 

At the time of the Westminster Confession, the Church of England, the Baptists, and the Congregationalists all had ample opportunity to subscribe to KJVO doctrine and DID NOT do so.

 

At the time of the Westminster Confession, the Church of England, the Baptists, and the Congregationalists all had ample opportunity to subscribe to KJVO doctrine and DID NOT do so. </font>[/QUOTE]Uhm.. yeah, and how does that differ from what I said?

 

At the time of the Westminster Confession, the Church of England, the Baptists, and the Congregationalists all had ample opportunity to subscribe to KJVO doctrine and DID NOT do so. </font>[/QUOTE]Uhm.. yeah, and how does that differ from what I said? </font>[/QUOTE]It was simply to reiterate *your point* that ALL English speaking Christians (excepting Roman Catholics) subscribed to the Greek and Hebrew scriptures as the final authority and not the KJV.

 

Not necessarily. While some modern translations have been doctored to reflect the heresies of the people producing the translation, such as the NWT, for the most part all main stream modern versions maintain the body of doctrine intact. Even though one reading may be missing or altered, that doctrine is still sufficiently outlined in other passages that, overall, the doctrine is intact in the modern version.

And many are the works of men to tear down the modern versions, but only to their own demise, yet to the applause of mere men.

God's word is perfect, lacking nothing necessary to the whole. And that perfection is evident in virtually every modern version, as well as the older versions.

There are perfectly valid reasons to prefer the Byzantine textform and the versions translated from that textform. And, among those versions, there are perfectly valid reasons for someone to prefer the KJV over the other versions. But there is no valid reason to demean other versions as Satanic, nor to demean those who prefer them as "apostate" or "Alexandrian cultists." There is no reason for separation or animosity in either direction regarding this issue. </font>[/QUOTE]Without going into a volume of facts to discuss, by your estimation, you leave the door open for satan to slander any version of the Bible by introduction of false doctrine as a premise to try and make any point in that regard.

Yes, C4K, the KJB has many editions to correct typographical errors and mis-spellings, but word for word, you cannot find a more doctrinally perfect Bible.

That should answer both arguements, but.....

and much to the demise of mere men.

 

And I have never referred to Bible preferences to judge a man's character in that regard, but if I were to deduce and come to some sort of impression of your closing statements, i would have asserted that you defamated mine.

 

At the time of the Westminster Confession, the Church of England, the Baptists, and the Congregationalists all had ample opportunity to subscribe to KJVO doctrine and DID NOT do so. </font>[/QUOTE]Uhm.. yeah, and how does that differ from what I said? </font>[/QUOTE]It was simply to reiterate *your point* that ALL English speaking Christians (excepting Roman Catholics) subscribed to the Greek and Hebrew scriptures as the final authority and not the KJV. </font>[/QUOTE]But then Theodore, you are faced with the arguement between the rabbi's, much to the division of the Jews since before Christ.

 

Don't forget the Ultra-KJVO who also slander "counterfeit" King James Bibles:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html

HankD