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

[jw]

Originally posted by David J:
KJVOism is liberalism because:

1. It claims that only the KJV is the correct bible for the English speaking people with NO SCRIPTURE to support this claim.
2. It puts words in God’s mouth by making a claim that God never made.
3. KJVOism is pushed forth as a doctrine. There is no scripture to justify this stand therefore KJVOism is based upon a tradition created by man. Many liberal doctrines are born from the traditions of man and KJVOism is a good example.
4. Many KJVOist willing overlook fellow KJVOist deceptions, distortions, and all out lies. Han’s uplifting of Riplinger is a good example.
5. Just because one is a social conservative doe not exclude one from being a theological liberal.
6. KJVOism requires that one sets aside well documented historical facts and accept a doctrines based on a few verses taken out of context.
7. KJVOist are unwilling to tell me why the 1611 KJV was corrected without using many double standards. A conservative does not dwell in double standards and blind-eye tactics.

8. KJVO is historically contrary to Fundamentalism. The Fundamentals taught that the Scriptures were inspired in the orginal autographs, NOT in translations.

5. Let it be stated further in this definitional connection, that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record — the autographs or parchments of Moses, David, Daniel, Matthew, Paul or Peter, as the case may be, and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.

-THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE — DEFINITION, EXTENT AND PROOF BY JAMES M. GRAY, D. D.

And in another part of the same chapter,

As we are not contending for an inerrant translation, does not the burden of proof rest with the objector? But some of these “discrepancies” are easily explained. They do not exist between statements of the Bible and facts of science, but between erroneous interpretations of the Bible and immature conclusions of science.

But hey, why if they actually read the stuff that defined their movement they might learn something. They would think all their heros were liberals if they knew the truth

Anyone interested can read the The Fundamentals online, including the parts I copied, at:
[link]http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fundcont.htm[/link]

 

[TCassidy]

It is absolutely idiotic to refer to KJVOism as being either Liberalism or Modernism. Both of those theological positions have very well defined definitions and KJVOism, as wrong as it is, does not even come close to meeting those theological positions.

It is a very poor argument that must abandon the accepted, theological meaning of a word or movement inorder to use that word against somebody with whom we disagree for the sole purpose of branding that person with the negative associations commonly attributed to that word.

 

[jw]

TC,

I thought it tongue in cheek. KJVO's often call non-KJVO's "liberals" simply based on their use of another version. I thought it amusing to turn their own logic back around on them to call them "liberals".

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Well what's good for the goose....therefore Riplinger and Ruckman will continue to get a pass from us as long as peoploe like David J can say the kind of stupid, sub-moronic things they do, and no one objects, except the ones who have been slandered.

There you have it. Hansola has finally admitted that Rippy and Rucky get a free pass on their lies since we are supposedly doing it. The truth has finally come out, and Hansola cannot be considered a source of objective truth. He feels that there is a double standard, and instead of taking the high road and doing what is right, he has admitted he will do what he knows is wrong for the sake of revenge. SINCE YOU GUYS DO IT, SO WILL I!

Truth is, I didnt see anyone insult you, nor did I see what problem you and pappy have with Craigs post. What rules did his post break? What insults were made? (Unless you call showing errors in the KJV an insult, which would be convient, so you would have an excuse not to fail miserably in defending them)

Your standards were simply used against you, and when they are, you get so mad. Your standards are to be used only when you say so, and if those standards are used against you or the KJVO belief, then you and your cohorts pitch a fit.

As long as you keep crying foul you know you wont be forced to answer these irrefutable questions. Which is what you have done constantly. I must admit, you are very good at it. Practice makes perfect, I guess.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

KJVOism is liberalism because:

Although I'm not KJBO,I cannot help but feel the Alexandrian view as liberal...Most I've ever interacted with claim the Egyptian Bibles and MSS--regardless of the overwhelming evedence of tampering by Gnostics and Philosophers--are Holy Scripture 100%....And without even a half a verse to support the Egyptian counterfeits to be found..

1. It claims that only the KJV is the correct bible for the English speaking people with NO SCRIPTURE to support this claim.

Where is the "SCRIPTURE to support" the Scriptures being hid in the sands of Egypt?

2. It puts words in God’s mouth by making a claim that God never made.

Where in Scripture does God say we had to go to Egypt in order to have the "whole council of God”?

3. KJVOism is pushed forth as a doctrine. There is no scripture to justify this stand therefore KJVOism is based upon a tradition created by man. Many liberal doctrines are born from the traditions of man and KJVOism is a good example.

The use of the Egyptian forgeries is a Roman tradition!

Doubt?

Do a study into Church history and how we got our English Bible.

4. Many KJVOist willing overlook fellow KJVOist deceptions, distortions, and all out lies. Han’s uplifting of Riplinger is a good example.

Maybe..But there IS many a good Bible believing authors out there that will tell the truth..

5. Just because one is a social conservative doe not exclude one from being a theological liberal.

You mean like the Gnostic and Philosophers that preped the Egyptian forgeries?? Gotcha!!!

6. KJVOism requires that one sets aside well documented historical facts and accept a doctrines based on a few verses taken out of context.

The grinding sound you are hearing is the reformers rolling in their graves!!

Put aside your pre-conceived notions and DO a study into Church history.

7. KJVOist are unwilling to tell me why the 1611 KJV was corrected without using many double standards. A conservative does not dwell in double standards and blind-eye tactics

You complain about the updating of typos,orthography,and printers errors of the 1611 and yet turn a "blind-eye" to what's been going on since 1881!!
Why do you dwell in that double standard?
Why did they replace the Bible of the English reformation with "bibles" from Egyptian/Jesuit mss of the dark-ages?

Posted by jw:

8. The Fundamentals taught that the Scriptures were inspired in the orginal autographs,

Where in Scripture does it teach that ONLY the originals were inspired??

Sombody should have told Timothy that Paul was wrong!!(II Timothy 3:15,16).

NOT in translations.

Well I guess all of the OT quotes in the book of Hebrews--for instance--weren't inspired..I mean,they were "originaly" penned in Hebrew,then penned in Greek..That's a translation in my book..

 

[jw]

Where in Scripture does it teach that ONLY the originals were inspired??

Sombody should have told Timothy that Paul was wrong!!(II Timothy 3:15,16).

Oi vey! How about the verse you referenced for starters. If the copy is different than the orginal, it is not the same (yeah, rocket science I know). If the orginal is inspired, then the distorted copy is not. Paul was not saying, "All scripture, no matter how good or bad the copy of it is, is inspired".

Well I guess all of the OT quotes in the book of Hebrews--for instance--weren't inspired..I mean,they were "originaly" penned in Hebrew,then penned in Greek..That's a translation in my book..

No, the book of Hebrews is Scripture and therefore inspired, regardless of what source it quotes from.

As for David's comments, he can answer for those. But I do want to add that the Alexandrian text had nothing to do with his post. Nor did your response to my addition have anything to do with the fact that KJVO'ism

stands contrary to historic fundamentalism. If you want to attack fundamentalism, have fun; my point was simply that KJVO'ism is not fundamentalism, but is contrary to it.

 

[HanSola2000]

Amen Cass, tell it like it is. The 8 reasons given to support David J's slander is to be met with an immediate and worthy response. Here is the worthy response: Horse Raddish!

DD:
=================
There you have it. Hansola has finally admitted that Rippy and Rucky get a free pass on their lies since we are supposedly doing it. The truth has finally come out, and Hansola cannot be considered a source of objective truth. He feels that there is a double standard, and instead of taking the high road and doing what is right, he has admitted he will do what he knows is wrong for the sake of revenge. SINCE YOU GUYS DO IT, SO WILL I!
===================

Lets turn the tables on this self-righteous hypocrisy shall we? OH, so YOU ADMIT that all who agree with you get a pass then do you??? I see! But if I give my side a "pass" or threaten to, then the "truth has finally come out!" What melodramatic nonsense. You are practicing hypocrsaiy DD. Don't point the finger until you clean up your own act and the act of those on your side who spread slander and PA-LENTY of myths, distortions and lies. THe lies the MV crowd has told are legion. Take the speck out of your onw eye first, then come back to me with your bull-horned announcements.

 

[HanSola2000]

And by the way, Cass and Craig were having a pretty good slugfest, so answer the bell for the next round!

 

[David J]

It's not idiotic to call KJVOism liberalism and modernism.

It is modernism because it is a new belief and doctrine that is not Orthodox.

It is liberalism because it is based upon tradition without scripture to support it. It is pushed forth as the gospel truth and those pushing this myth refuse to reseach and/or accept the facts.

How many KJVO leaders engauge in lies, deceptions, and distortions that have been proven false? How many a KJVOist will not stand up for what is right even when the 1611KJV is against the KJVO myth?

So no it's not idiotic to call a false doctrine what it is. It's simply following the Word and calling a spade a spade. Sorry if the truth offends but the truth stands the test of scripture and KJVOism fails the test.

Now Han where did I slander?

I said KJVOism is liberalism and modernism.

Was I an idiot for leaving KJVOism after 7 years? I simply followed the advice of the KJV translators and followed the Bible when I reproved and rebuked this false belief.

 

[David J]

By the way I simply applied KJVO tactic against KJVOism. It seems to be a bitter pill for KJVOists to swallow.

Yet again more proof of KJVO double standards.

 

[HanSola2000]

Hogwash!

=====================
It is modernism because it is a new belief and doctrine that is not Orthodox.
=======================

Double Hogwash! Thats what the Judaizers said about that "new" sect!

I don't take pills.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

By that reasoning:

The NIV doesnt corrupt the word of God.

HOGWASH! Thats what they said about the KJV too!

 

[HanSola2000]

Triple Hogwash!

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by David J:
It is modernism because it is a new belief and doctrine that is not Orthodox.

Which has nothing to do with Modernism. Modernism is a clearly defined movement within Christendom and it has nothing at all to do with new belief and doctrine that is not orthodox.

It is liberalism because it is based upon tradition without scripture to support it.

Which has nothing to do with theological liberalism, which is a clearly defined movement within Christendom.

So no it's not idiotic to call a false doctrine what it is.

Nobody said it was idiotic to call the false doctrine of KJVOism what it is. What is idiotic is to call it something is ISN'T!

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Was my post in error?

Did the people of the time claim the same things against the KJV?

Yes or No?

 

[HanSola2000]

quadruple hogwash!

 

[DesiderioDomini]

I see you are afraid of simple answers.

Better yet, you are scared to death that you may not be able to defend your position, so you avoid questions that dont support you. That really shows you have confidence in the truth of KJVO position.

If you truely believed it, then you would answer questions no matter what because you would know that the truth would not be discredited simply because of a few objections.

As it is, you refuse to answer, and you prove that you have no bible at all.

If you had a bible, then you would read in Peter where you are commanded to give an answer for this hope that you have.

As it is, it appears you have no hope because of your actions.

If you would answer simple questions directed at you, then we in turn would answer your questions.

As it is, you refuse to do so, and show your lack of faith in your position.

I dont think that any MVers here suffer from the same problem. Only time i see them refuse to answer a question is when you have repeatedly refused to answer theirs. Even the most patient person grows tired of such antics.

I think ill start a thread of unanswered questions. Perhaps you will finally answer them.

 

[Ziggy]

jw: Paul was not saying, "All scripture, no matter how good or bad the copy of it is, is inspired".

I’m not sure that Paul made any distinction in this regard, but that instead, he considered the copies (antigrapha) in Timothy's hands to be of equal authority with the (non-extant) “originals” (autographa), even if they differed in part.

In this, Paul would likely have agreed with Bentley, who was quoted some time back on this board and should be read again in the present context:

"The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. 'Tis competently exact indeed in the worst MS. now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings ... But even put them into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same.

“...Another MS. to join with the first would give more authority, as well as security .... A third, therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable, that by a joint and mutual help all the faults may be mended .... 'Tis a good providence and a great blessing, that so many manuscripts of the New Testament are still amongst us; some procured from Egypt, others from Asia [Minor], others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate that there could be no collusion, no altering nor interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of them .... Where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them made by skliful and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author."

Richard Bentley, Remarks upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking, in a Letter to F.H., D.D., by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis (London, 1713).

 

[robycop3]

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

 

[jw]

Zigster:

I don't really have any problem with any of that. Yes, copies do have a form of inspiration, and even all translations (derived or something like that), yet not perfect. The KJV is no more inspired than the NIV, or any other translation. However, the KJV is not perfect, nor could any translation be, given the nature of translation, not to mention the nature of man.