stilllearning said:
I am no judge. I don’t determine anyone’s guilt about anything.
And I don’t know you, nor your doctrinal stands.
.........................................................................................
Well, the KJV that I have always supported, is the 1769 edition.
(There were 3 editions after 1611, that corrected spelling errors & typo’s etc.)
The KJV is a work of human beings, therefore it’s very first addition, had some problems.
But by 1769, they were corrected(240 years ago).
I am not C4K, but I am going to offer something in this open debate forum, nonetheless.
stilllearning, I have previously offered that I very seriously doubt that virtually any on the BB have ever held in their hands any
1611 edition of the KJV, and most (and I would very strongly suspect you be included, among this crowd) have never so much as even seen one, in person. I certainly have not, and if one has not seen one in "Gothic typeset", I absolutely know this to be true.
I did have the rare privilege, a few years ago (and my bride and I missed regular mid-week services, in order to attend this unique presentation) to see a traveling Bible exhibit, which featured, among other things, two pages visible from a
1612 edition, in Roman typeface, that was opened in a locked and sealed, climate-controlled unit, visible through glass, at about five feet away (with security present), along with some manuscript sheets, both OT and NT, in the Hebrew and Greek, also in hermetically sealed glass containers. Accompanying this was a reproduction, hand operated wooden printing press, weighing about four tons, and moveable type, where they reproduced for visitors a page of the Bible text of the
1612 edition. As it took about 3 minutes to print two pages, (and an hour or more for the ink to sufficiently 'dry' without smearing, so we visitors could have a sheet) and the press would only print two pages at a time, this was a slow process, indeed. The sheet we picked up had been printed about three hours before we received it, if my memory serves. And as the type had to be manually inserted into the press, and the type was changed from time to time, as different pages were printed, on different days, even this allowed for the possibility of 'printer error', as well. (Incidentally, the 'type-setter' does not see the letters of the type, but a 'mirror-image', as he or she inserts the type, in order to print.)
That was for information, for any interested.
Now, I am going just a bit further. I seriously doubt you have ever even seen a 1769 edition, as well. (You did claim to support this, correct?) (I never have, I know. In fact, I seriously doubt I have ever even come close, in this.) Does the Bible edition you are claiming to support contain the Apocrypha? Is it in your copy? If it does not, guess what? It is not a 1611 Edition; it's not a 1612 edition; it's not even a 1769 edition. Is it printed in the United States? If yes, it is not a 1769.
Let me mention three added things.
First, is the axiom that
"Two things that are different cannot possibly be the same."
Although it would seem that one should not ever have to repeat this, apparently that is not the case.
Second is the famous quote of an outstanding scholar of a century ago, Dean John W. Burgon, when he says (regarding the TR, at that)
" 'Very nearly — not quite:' for, in not a few particulars, the 'Textus Receptus' does call for Revision, certainly; although Revision on entirely different principles from those which are found to have prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber." (John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised; Pg. 107)
In fact, Dr. Burgon listed ~ 150 examples for Matthew, alone, with the overwhelming majority being adopted by Hodges and Farstad, as well.
Third happens to be two quotes of Dr. D. A. Waite of Collingswood, N.J. that mentions Burgon, Hodges and Farstad, almost in the same breath (What is it that surely must have been affecting the Collingswood water supply, for so many years??), where he made this remark after Hodges and Farstad (Greek NT, Majority text) had noted where the consensus of the MT differed from the TR in <1800 instances, with 1000 of the instances affecting translation.
"In fact, the 'Majority Text' is a veritable BLASPHEMY against the methods advocated by Burgon!"(Not true - Ed)
"I mean I don't care WHAT they've [Hodges & Farstad] done or HOW they've ARRIVED at what they've done! I don't wanna change! I just don't wanna MOVE, see. We're gonna stay right where we are, REGARDLESS of how they've done it. Now they've done it wrong. That's what we wanna bring up — a few odds and ends as to HOW they've done wrong — BUT EVEN IF THEY DID IT RIGHT, I'm not gonna part with this." (D.A. Waite, Why I Reject The'Majority' Text p. 12; emphasis his - underlining mine - Ed)
Incidentally, Morgan and Peirpont ('Greek NT, Byzantine/Majority textform') have made essentially the same observation as did Hodges and Farstad.
I don't care that apparently you, along with Dr. Waite don't want to change, for that part doesn't bother me, in the least. However, it does bother me when someone attempts to impose this preference on the facts or other individuals, or when facts, and/or others, including myself
are misrepresented. That is a completely different "kettle of fish" and I'm not at all partial to fish, in the first place!
Especially those fish best described as
"Too Long, No Sea"!
Ed
