C. H. Spurgeon and the KJV

[Mexdeaf]

The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction.

Modern scholarship loves the twisting of words, and wrangling of Bible text to suit their own opinion. There has never been a problem with the KJV, only the inability to understand the common language used in the text. In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.

But higher education lacks the ability to understand anything below their level of expertise, and found the word of God in error. I think the error should be recognized where it truly lies, in modern textual criticism.

Please pray tell direct us to a copy of the original text of the KJV 1611. And don't forget to include the footnotes!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction.

Was the 1611 or 1769 rendering of 1 John 5v12 in error?

 

[Samuel Owen]

I don't see any error in 1 John 5:12, if there is one, it is only in the failure of some to understand it. If that simple verse poses a problem, I would hate to see what modern scholars would do with the rest.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I don't see any error in 1 John 5:12, if there is one, it is only in the failure of some to understand it. If that simple verse poses a problem, I would hate to see what modern scholars would do with the rest.

Did you look at the difference between 1611 and 1769? If so, which is correct and which is in error. If you like I can post the difference for you.

 

[EdSutton]

Also, using old math, five out of 500 has never constituted a "vast majority."

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif] [/FONT]

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif]

Ed
[/FONT]

 

[Samuel Owen]

I see no difference, except that which I said, the terrible spelling of 1611, which the 1769 corrected.

 

[EdSutton]

For the lack of something better to do for the next 10 minutes, I decided to respond to this post of Samuel Owen. I will do so only with the use of different colored print, by using red to denote erroneous statements; blue for opinion only; statements that are partially, but not entirely accurate in orange; and green for when the post is entirely accurate and factual.

The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than (sic) needed correction.

Modern scholarship loves the twisting of words, and wrangling of Bible text to suit their own opinion. There has never been a problem with the KJV, only the inability to understand the common language used in the text. In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.

But higher education lacks the ability to understand anything below their level of expertise, (Let me briefly "cut in" here to offer this, about this last sentence. Now, continuing with the regularly scheduled 'rant.') and found the word of God in error. I think the error should be recognized where it truly lies, in modern textual criticism.

Unfortunately, I do not find a single clause, in context, in this post that warrants any use of "green."

And I have used editions of the King James the great majority of my Christian life, including the exclusive use of one particular copy for more than 27 years, no less.

Ed

 

[Mexdeaf]

For the lack of something better to do for the next 10 minutes, I decided to respond to this post of Samuel Owen. I will do so only with the use of different colored print, by using red to denote erroneous statements; blue for opinion only; statements that are partially, but not entirely accurate in orange; and green for when the post is entirely accurate and factual.Unfortunately, I do not find a single clause, in context, in this post that warrants any use of "green."

And I have used editions of the King James the great majority of my Christian life, including the exclusive use of one particular copy for more than 27 years, no less.

Ed

You might have been better off raying: for him for 10 minutes.








(just kidding!):laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

Quoted by Samuel Owen:
"The original text of the KJV 1611, has never been modified, or corrected. There were correcting of misspelled words, and grammatical errors only! in 1629, 1638, and the last in 1769. The editors never found mistakes in the translation, than needed correction."

Quoted by C4K:
"Was the 1611 or 1769 rendering of 1 John 5v12 in error?"

Quoted by Samuel Owen:
"I don't see any error in 1 John 5:12, if there is one, it is only in the failure of some to understand it. If that simple verse poses a problem, I would hate to see what modern scholars would do with the rest."

Quoted by C4K:
"Did you look at the difference between 1611 and 1769? If so, which is correct and which is in error. If you like I can post the difference for you."

Quoted by Samuel Owen:
"I see no difference, except that which I said, the terrible spelling of 1611, which the 1769 corrected."

Quoted by Language Cop:
"It is rather apparent to me that I should offer to provide lessons in reading comprehension of the English language!"

Quoted by EdSutton:
Right you are, L.C.! Either that, or still yet another individual is claiming to have read something, while he or she could not be bothered to actually take the time to read!

Samuel Owen, have you ever actually read what you are claiming to have read, here? Is this a question of comprehension, or is the question one of honesty??

FTR, there is no "terrible spelling" in the 1611 for I Jn. 5:12! The spelling is correct, as these English words were spelled in 1611, and there are no 'typos' in the verse, either.

Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. (I Jn. 5:12 - KJV, 1611 reproduction, as found at StudyLight.org)

Calling C4K!!

You're on!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

You might have been better off raying: for him for 10 minutes.

(just kidding!):laugh:

Why are you kidding? It is probably true! :tear:

Ed

 

[Samuel Owen]

Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. 1611
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1769

Ok the difference here is the omission of God in 12b. This does not constitute a retranslation, but a simple edit. Actually if you read the adjoining versus, you don’t need the word God here, it is more than assumed who is being talked about.
And who is to say it was not a type set error, discovered in 1769. Remember printing was in its infancy in 1611. This was easily a fault of the printer, more than the translators. I imagine you will find this, in the first edit of 1629.
Correction of printing errors does not constitute a retranslation, as the MV’s do. But some people pick their teeth, after drinking water too.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Actually if you read the adjoining versus,{sic} you don’t need the word God here, it is more than assumed who is being talked about...

You know, he's right! In fact, it seems that the whole book is about God. Why repeat it so often? Now with Samuel Owen's permission, we can just eliminate all those superfluous words (like "God") from the Bible.

 

[Samuel Owen]

I am really glad you said that. Since all the MV's leave out the word God, and Holy Spirit, in many more versus than this one instance; in the original 1611 KJV.

So yes! you have my permission to read all the modern versions, you want. :laugh:

 

[stilllearning]

Hello again franklinmonroe

You quoted me.....

“Now this logical holds water, when it comes “man’s writings”:
But when it comes to God’s writings, it doesn’t apply.
(Because God will protect His writings!)”

And then you said.......

“Copying a document is not the same as the original "writing" of inspired literature.”

Now this, is the main question isn’t it.
(1) God promise to preserve His word:
(2) But allowed the original autographs to wear out:
(3) Therefore, the accurate copies made of them, are inspired.

For hundreds of years, this is what all kinds of Bible believing Christians believed(except for the crack pots):
And then BB Warfield, took it upon himself to declare that this is no longer the case.
--------------------------------------------------
Next you said.....

“There are no verses that explicitly state God will preserve the written Scriptures in a book on Earth throughout all periods of history.”

Well read your Bible......

Isaiah 40:8
“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

Matthew 5:18
“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Matthew 24:35
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

1 Peter 1:25
“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

Psalms 12:6-7
V.6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
V.7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Deuteronomy 17:18-19
V.18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites:
V.19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:

Deuteronomy 4:2
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

--------------------------------------------------
Then you quoted me.........

“Now some might ask; (If God protects His writings, how can even one “bad copy” of God’s Word even exist?)
-This is an interesting question.-“

Then you said.......

“You shouldn't allow yourself to delay answering this "interesting" question.”

Well, okey.......

1 Kings 22:21-23
V.21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
V.22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
V.23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

If you insist on believing a lie, than God will accommodate you.
--------------------------------------------------
Then you said.......

“There is not just one "bad copy" but rather every manuscript (of any considerable length) exhibits some defect.”

Well let me respond, with the first line, from the quotation, that you listed in your response #66........

“If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility?

I praise the Lord, that I believe the Bible.

 

[EdSutton]

A question:

I wonder if the Baptist Board has ever considered selling 'pap' as well as advertising space?

I suggest the BB could make a rather tidy income, in doing so, at least on this forum.

Ed

 

[rbell]

Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. 1611
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1769

Ok the difference here is the omission of God in 12b. This does not constitute a retranslation, but a simple edit. Actually if you read the adjoining versus, you don’t need the word God here, it is more than assumed who is being talked about.

Hmmm...I thought that things that were different were not the same...

But, keep in mind...if an MV did this, it would be accused of "taking God out of the Bible."

Word picture for you:

standard standard

:thumbs:

 

[Samuel Owen]

clarifying a verse is not exactly changing it, at least it replaced what was probably a typeset error as I said above.

I really don't see, how it was really missed by the translators of 1611. I know some really corrupted versions were printed in the 1670's, due to typeset errors. I forget where this was done exactly, but that to was corrected.

As for the MV's, removing the name of God, that is one of the biggest complaints. Also the name of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus in numerous versus, throughout the text.

I own about 90% of all the translations that are available, and have pointed out this fault many times. But I also say if you can't understand it, read something you can, the differences can be worked out later. But it takes a pretty big illiterate, to not be able to read the KJV. It only takes about an eight grade education.

Oh!, I forgot surveys state, that 90% of the high-school graduates can only read to a 6th grade level.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Samuel Owen

You said.......

“In 1611 they lacked the criticism of modern Bible critics, and just translated the Bible as it was written. In the phrases, and wording of the time.”

I like the way you put that.

 

[EdSutton]

Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. 1611
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 1769

Ok the difference here is the omission of God in 12b.

Oh! You mean you actually finally read the verse?? Amazing!

This does not constitute a retranslation, but a simple edit.

I assume you were there to note this?? "A simple edit" is actually highly unlikely, here. What is the far more likely, is that this was actually imported directly from either the D-R, which reads "He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life.", or was perhaps even taken from the TR-1598 edition as edited by Dr. John Calvin's brilliant and able successor, Dr. Theodore Beza (pronounced as "Bāz") who was not above occasionally 'editing' the text, to 'improve' the 'meter' or even because something appeared to "make sense" and "sounded" better.?

By comparison, here are some earlier translations of the English Scriptures (plus the Vulgate and TR-1550) which did not seem to have any "edit" questions, here. (You might remember that the Geneva, Bishop's, et. al., were there 'side-by-side' with the KJV, 1611 for the so-called, self-styled 'scholars' to compare with, which incidentally, the very title page of the KJV says was done.)

qui habet Filium habet vitam qui non habet Filium Dei vitam non habet (VUL - 425)

ο εχων τον υιον εχει την ζωην ο μη εχων τον υιον του θεου την ζωην ουκ εχει (TR1550)

He that hath the sone of God, hath also lijf; he that hath not the sone of God, hath not lijf. (WYC - Purvey edition - 1395) (Note: I placed the first occurrence of "of God" in bold red, to indicate my own displeasure where this version "adds" these two words in translating, which have no apparent textual support, from the Vulgate, from whence the WYC is translated, but is done apparently for the purpose of "improving the meter". However, the second occurrence, in bold black, is germane to the rest of the versions I cited for the verse.- Ed)

He that hath the sonne hath lyfe: and he that hath not the sonne of god hath not lyfe. (TYN - 1526)

He that hath the sonne of God, hath life: He that hath not the sonne of God, hath not life. (MCB - 1535)

He that hath the sonne, hath lyfe: and he that hath not the sonne of God, hath not lyfe. (BIS - 1568)

He that hath that Sonne, hath yt life: and he that hath not yt Sonne of God, hath not that life. (GEN - 1587)

He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life. (D/R - 1582 - Challoner rev. - 1764, modern spelling)

Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life. (KJV- 1611)

He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son, hath not life. (KJV -1611, modern spelling)

he that receives the son, is intitled to life; and he that does not receive the son of God, has no title to life. (MNT - 1729)

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (WES - 1755)

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (KJV- Blaney, 1769?)

Most of the older versions plus the Mace and Wesley versions "got it right!"

Uh- did you happen to notice exactly which other English version, which predates the KJV, reads almost identically as the KJV-1611? Horrors!! Could it possibly be the official Bible of the Roman Catholic church, the D/R?? Could this possibly be because a couple of the KJV translators eihter had previously worked on the D/R, in some manner, even if only proof-reading, or were very close co-workers of those who actually did translate the D/R?? Naw! Surely not! [Unfortunately, this 'smilie' is the best (or worst)I can do, here.]

Actually if you read the adjoining versus, you don’t need the word God here, it is more than assumed who is being talked about.

You actually claim to be able to decide what needs to be in the text of the Scripture?? Unbelievable!! And after this statement, then you actually have the unmitigated gall to speak disparagingly of the efforts of scholars, with whom you do not agree, simply because they do not "rubber stamp" your own preferred Bible version???? IMO, this is really :tear:

And who is to say it was not a type set error, discovered in 1769. Remember printing was in its infancy in 1611. This was easily a fault of the printer, more than the translators. I imagine you will find this, in the first edit of 1629.

This is "cut from whole cloth" which is the best I can offer to these sentences! No, this was not any accidental "type set error" that was found in 1629, at all, but rather a deliberate choice of wording. There were already several different printings (with accompanying proof-reading and corrections) made by then. The first 'major' lesser revision was done in 1629.

I believe, if you actually do the research (as opposed to blithely, merely taking another's word to be true), that you will find that this wording was kept in the KJV, until the revisions of the friendly competitors Drs. Thomas Paris of Cambridge [(1762) - How is it that you are not familiar with the Cambridge revision of Paris of 1762?] and Dr. Benjamin Blaney (Oxford - 1769) both of which were done under the auspices and at the direction of the Anglican Church and the English Crown, and both of whom, with an attack of conscience, insisted on restoring these words they both knew to properly be in the Greek texts. But yet you would posit that no one could see the difference when it was right in front of their face, for 150 years?? With all respect, this requires straining credulity beyond the 'breaking point,', here.

Correction of printing errors does not constitute a retranslation,

Agreed! And I have never said otherwise.

as the MV’s do.

This is only partly true, at best, at least for most of the 'standard' versions. The same thing can be said for the KJV, as well. The KJV is simultaneously a new translation and a revision of extant translations. (Read the intro to the KJV, and the story of the charge given to the KJV translators, by the authorizers during the Hampton Conference.) There is a very large influence from Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, et al., still present in such versions as the GEN, KJV, YLT, DARBY, ASV, RSV, MLB, NIV, NASB, NKJV, and HCSB to name several. The YLT is from precisely the same textual lineage as the KJV. The NKJV is from the same textual lineage, as well. There are multiple updated versions done recently which utilize the same Greek and Hebrew texts as does the KJV, as far as anyone can tell (The actual original texts, manuscripts and notes of the work of the KJV Conference were apparently lost in the Great London Fire of 1666.), including such as the KJII, KJ21, KJIII, LitV, and so on.

But some people pick their teeth, after drinking water too.

Which has absolutely zero to do with any question at hand!

Ed

 

[Rippon]

I really don't see, how it was really missed by the translators of 1611. I know some really corrupted versions were printed in the 1670's, due to typeset errors. I forget where this was done exactly, but that to {sic}was corrected.

"Really corrupted versions"?!

Guys like Franklin,Logos and others could shed more light on the errors in this post of yours.But I'll give some brief comments.

Bible versions are not known as "corrupted";that term refers to certain parts of some manuscripts.

Yeah,there were typeset mistakes in some English Bibles of several hundred years ago.But that has nothing to do with "corrupted texts".

As for the MV's, removing the name of God, that is one of the biggest complaints. Also the name of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus in numerous versus,{sic} throughout the text.

Were there removals or were they corrections?Some scribes expanded some phrases to sound better,to harmonize with other passages or if they thought that the passage was too short and abrupt.

This was asked by others -- but how do you respond to the fact that modern versions have 'God', 'Christ Jesus', and 'Holy Spirit' when the KJV left them out in a number of places?

I own about 90% of all the translations that are available, and have pointed out this fault many times.

Perhaps you don't read your modern versions too well.

But it takes a pretty big illiterate, to not be able to read the KJV. It only takes about an eight {sic}grade education.

Maybe you'd like to rephrase."However,only over-sized illiterates are not able to read the KJV.":laugh:

I think it's generally acknowledged that a KJV reader would have to have a 12th grade education.

But it's one thing to be able to read the KJV and quite another to understand what is being read.That's why having some quality modern versions on-hand is suggested.

Oh!, I forgot surveys state, that 90% of the high-school graduates can only read to a 6th grade level.

Perhaps you'd like to reword that :"Oh,I forgot to say that 90% of high-school graduates are able to read at a 6th grade level."